Atheist Uses POPULAR Straw Man Arguments Then Learns Valuable Lesson | DEBATE

In this video, Paul Copan (@Paul_Copan ) explains the problems with Atheistic explanations of Morality & why Atheist attacks on Christian morality are inherently self-refuting.
FULL DEBATE HERE: • FULL DEBATE: Is Belief...
MY DOCUMENTARY FILM: vimeo.com/ondemand/miningforgod
INSTAGRAM: / the_daily_dose_of_wisdom
FACEBOOK: / dailydoseofwisdomofficial
TIKTOK: / the_daily_dose_of_wisdom

[@TheGreatestVoice1958]

Steven: “the Bible says women are 2nd class citizens!” Also Steven: “I don’t know what a woman is”

[@deshon3523]

😂

[@Mrguy-ds9lr]

😂😢

[@jeremiclement5723]

​@@Mrguy-ds9lr Yeah I have a laugh/cry reaction to this too.

[@XYisnotXX]

The trans movement is an atheist movement indeed! No truth exists.

[@mrhyde7600]

Hmmm....can you provide the TIMESTAMP where Steven SAID THAT?

[@john-xp4em]

"if evolutionary naturalism is accepted, human morality cannot be described as absolute and objective because moral statements cannot be right or wrong" - C.S LEWIS

[@nitsujism]

C.S.Lewis was wrong. He should have stuck to children's books. He was a terrible philosopher.

[@hayseanward]

@@nitsujismi dont think you have any clue or ground to stand on whether he wrong or right. The atheist/material/reductionist position with morality is an argument with no foundation. You have little to appeal to and your justifications are laughable.

[@XenGosuto]

If morality is related to evolution, wouldn't that admit that past morality is less righteous than the present but future morality with be more righteous than the present? Meaning our morality is not righteous enough now.

[@ZachFish-]

⁠​⁠@@nitsujism Reading his books, he was fairly knowledgeable, but I don’t think atheists would agree with you saying “wrong”.

[@MrEkzotic]

Do you agree with that position? That quote is an argument supporting moral relativism.

[@TheMOV13]

Presumably then, if he loses sleep over meat eating, he must be deeply troubled by abortion.

[@PotatoPirate123]

Why?

[@SAMBUT]

@miserableman9088 abortion is cruel and painful when the limbs are being torn off the living little human being

[@jasonroberts9788]

Get ready for the mental gymnastics team 😂😂😂

[@imspiker3645]

​@@miserableman9088 Dehumanizing babies inside their mother's womb doesn't make it more acceptable. Also why exactly an absence of pain makes the killing of innocents more acceptable ? Personally, I'm not troubled by meat because that's how the animal kingdom was made, we live in ecosystems where predators exist and it turns out meat is good for us.

[@WhatsTheTakeaway]

​@miserableman9088 My farm, my choice. No farm no opinion. Thats how it goes....right?

[@danielscalera6057]

The atheist starts of assuming that the current state of society is the best moral standard...

[@mrhyde7600]

What's the timestamp where he said that?

[@danielscalera6057]

@@mrhyde7600 gays women and slaves

[@DM-dk7js]

That’s not what I think as an atheist, tho we can disagree amongst each other.

[@nitsujism]

It's a lot better now than it was in biblical times.

[@danielscalera6057]

@@DM-dk7js The atheist in the video....

[@kelly4187]

"Christianity had a monopoly and we had slavery being kept..." dude! A papal bull was passed in the 14th century outlawing slavery in ALL Christian countries. The problem was that people ignored it! You don't judge an entire system by people that aren't even following the system!

[@downshift4503]

It only took them 14 centuries then to pass a law.

[@NathanNiederer]

@@downshift4503 but that still doesn’t take away from who God is but more a reminder on who we are because of sin. So someone that follows God has to be perfect and create a perfect reality? Impossible only 1 person in history was able to do that and that was Jesus Christ

[@sauliruottu5871]

@@downshift4503 One could say that at least they passed the law. How did other cultures and nations do compared to it? your comment just shows your bias towards christianity, nothing else.

[@downshift4503]

@@sauliruottu5871 Remember the claim is that God is supposedly at the centre of your religion and yet he does nothing for century after century but watch people suffer. He can create billions of galaxies and billions of planets, but he can't tell a bunch of african apes not to enslave each other. Before you say "free will", he was perfectly ok with having people executed for collecting sticks on the sabbath.

[@downshift4503]

@@NathanNiederer You are describing a weak God that doesn't care about people.

[@richybambam1995]

Am I crazy or did he say his personal morality comes from "feeling bad"? If so the obvious question is what does that mean for people that don't feel bad?

[@Barri-rj9vt]

I had some lamb last night, and I didn't feel bad. In fact, I felt good. But now I'm feeling bad, that he felt bad for thinking about eating meat. He does not know what he's missing. I feel so sorry for him 😔

[@sidwhiting665]

That is precisely what he said, and precisely why his claims are so flawed. I'm sure Hitler, Stalin, and Mao didn't feel bad about all the people they killed, which is why they kept on doing it. Steven would have to agree that they were not morally wrong, except by his subjective standard, and I doubt that would be enough for him to gather the courage to fight such monsters.

[@kaptaink1959]

I don’t feel bad eating meat because I understand that God placed some animals on earth for humans to eat. Does he feel bad that cats eat mice? Wolves eat deer!

[@SuperMrAndersen]

​@@kaptaink1959 Cats cannot cook french fries, that's what vegetarians mean

[@thewalruswasjason101]

@@SuperMrAndersentell the Inuit to not eat the marine animals they do. Tell them to go to the grocery store and pickup some veggies😂

[@joshpetermann]

Yikes. Grounding morality in “feeling bad” is an incredibly slippery slope.

[@downshift4503]

Morality is grounded in how you feel about things. Your feelings inform you of your innate tendencies.

[@bigga5406]

My thoughts exactly. The atheist said he "feels bad" for eating meat....it keeps him up at night. Sooo, his subconsciousness makes him feel that way for the "greater good" basically...cool. Now, I just pray that the likes of Mao, Hitler, and Stalin "felt bad" for being responsible for the unjust murder of millions and millions of people. Oh wait, they didn't "feel bad". That subjective moral compass really can bite humanity in the arse.

[@mrhyde7600]

And apparently so is thinking you're competent at interpreting the word of god. You guys don't have a great tract record with that.

[@joshpetermann]

@@downshift4503 Your feelings and innate tendencies may influence how you choose to act, but they cannot lay any claim to what is right/wrong.

[@igorlopes7589]

​@@downshift4503The whole point of morality is *restraining* your feelings and bad innate tendencies. We all live in a fallen world and have a fallen nature, even atheists accept that, so we can’t trust our feelings, no. True morality is discovered by reason and imposed into our animal passions

[@definitelynotsarcasm]

Atheist: *borrows moral standard from theism* Theist: "Where does that standard come from in your world view? You seem to be taking it for granted or borrowing it from my worldview" Atheist again: *borrows moral standard to attack theism and suggest that it is inferior to atheism*

[@bradleysmith9431]

Yep, they steal from God, then spit in his face.

[@user-by3ks9bp5d]

All morals come from man’s mind, not the baby-foreskin munching storm demon.

[@spacemoose4726]

Atheists use a God they don't believe in as a moral standard?

[@MrEkzotic]

Right?

[@nitsujism]

Except he's not doing that and you're misrepresenting his position.

[@thefunkslamdunk9224]

I love how God is both condemned for being an all seeing divine dictator and at the same time condemned for NOT being a divine dictator and letting us use us our free will to learn more about the morally order in our own time rather than just enforce morality on us.

[@Farmingdaneo]

That's just playing in the Christian's court. It also points out that God rarely takes action, but when he does, it is the worst possible response. It is usually some fancy way of killing or harming people as a solution.

[@ToHellWithDawkins]

Does God have free will? Does he ever do wrong? No. Conclusion: he could have created a universe where humans have free will, but always do the right thing. Instead he chose not to. He chose to create us imperfectly. He chose to create us as such, with full knowledge we would break the rules and be cast from the garden of Eden. He stacked the deck against us.

[@abehambino]

@@ToHellWithDawkinsof course he could’ve. So you should ask the question, why?

[@thefunkslamdunk9224]

​@@ToHellWithDawkins This has nothing to do with the point I was making but ok, I'll take up your non sequitur. God to Christians is the God of love. The reason He created everything is so He had something to love and be loved back in turn. But for that love to mean anything it must be made by a being with free will. So God purposefully made us with the ability to reject him so that when we instead chose him, it means something. This is why there is evil in the world and why God permits it. No amount of anger at God for creating us with the free will to go against Him will change the fact that it is still US who chose to go against Him.

[@imspiker3645]

​@@ToHellWithDawkins How could you have free will if you can't decide not to do the right thing though ? The root of the issue is that we'd like to do whatever we want without any negative consequences and certainly without any accountability. God tells you that your sin condemns you and answering 'but He shouldn't have to condemn me' doesn't put the blame on Him in fact it only highlight that you'd like to sin but not deal with the consequences. However, He provided a way for us to be saved in Jesus, so clearly He hasn't set up humans for failure instead He thought of a mean of redemption because in His Mercy He prefered that we learn from the experience of sin, that we realize that there is nothing good in it and turn back to Him and His perfect love.

[@WhatsTheTakeaway]

Dude gets upset about people eating a rabbit but is totally cool with 60 million dead babies since RvW. I don't buy it at all.

[@sattaurnikki]

Exactly!

[@lifewasgiventous1614]

And then calls that morality.

[@DM-dk7js]

Did he get upset? Or was it an example of subjective morality? Well, eating rabbits requires killing them, which ought be immoral be we do it anyways. Morality is subjective. Regarding abortion, yup once again morality is subjective.

[@AbOveandBeOnd1]

What reasons do Christians have to be upset about abortion? After all, aren't aborted babies just getting a free pass to heaven?

[@nickjones5435]

With reference to your post about roe v wade Are you a Christian that's against killing innocent babies?

[@chadasonmcgraw8097]

I like this mediator. She asked hard questions to both sides. Very well done.

[@raphaelfeneje486]

The Atheist tries to ground morality in empathy. That's flawed. Empathy doesn't tell you how to act. Empathy only makes you feel a certain way. It provides two options, to act or not to act. If I see someone who is starving, I can understand how they feel, however it's not imposed on me to help. I can choose to help or not. That's free will, and it's absent from naturalism!

[@Papa-dopoulos]

This is exactly it. You trace back their reasoning and every time, they literally have no choice to stop at a “just-so-ism.” Empathy is not a prescription; it does not have a mind or a will to actually tell you “you should be empathetic.” It is as concerned with your empathy as onion rings lol

[@materialismisforfools]

How do they even account for empathy?

[@definitelynotsarcasm]

personally I feel better when I maximize utility and resources for myself at the expense of others.. Time to go be a good atheist :)

[@bradadams-broyd4763]

Yeah bruv I see it.

[@raphaelfeneje486]

@@Papa-dopoulos Exactly!

[@davidberry9226]

He said, "No omnibenevolent entity could pivot like this..." Well how does he know that? How does an atheist justify that comment? How would he know? Against what standard is he measuring the character of an omnibenevolent God? That very statement alone reveals the fact that even atheists have to borrow from God in order to make sense of life.

[@matthewnovak7351]

Well, if we believe God is eternal and unchanging, the same today as yesterday and forever, then he wouldn’t ever pivot at all. The good thing is that Eden in Genesis is a picture of God’s ideal world, and Eve is no second class citizen. Turning women into chattel is something humans did in rebellion to God.

[@downshift4503]

If God pivots then its not objective, it's subjective, it depends on Gods mood.

[@Thelast1leftNOW]

Come on, they hate the God they don't believe in, and only they have the attributes of what God can and can't be. Completely rational and logical

[@davegaskell7680]

@@Thelast1leftNOW Do you think it's possible to hate something that you don't believe actually exists?

[@Thelast1leftNOW]

@@davegaskell7680 the idea of it? Absolutely! Obsessing over it? Absolutely not! Especially when the arguments are usually disagreeance, and not disbelief

[@chadasonmcgraw8097]

His (the athiest) opening statement was absolutely disingenuous. The points that were made were framed with falsehoods. The framing needs to be changed here.

[@Stafus]

no bonobo chimp has ever been known to kill another bonobo chimp (thou shalt not murder) while the more common chimpanzee regularly kill their own kind. does the bonobo get their "morality" from God ?

[@atheistangel007]

For example...?

[@Stafus]

@@atheistangel007 he has no examples, he's just throwing out jabs hoping to look like he's putting up a fight.

[@user-yo3li7tk7b]

The athiest cannot change the narrative ; while contending there is no God, he blames Him for failures.

[@atheistangel007]

@user-yo3li7tk7b An atheist is not claiming there is "no God", an atheist claims they are not convinced any god exists, and it would not be logical to blame something that we have no good reason to believe exists. The "blame" comes from the hypothetical in assuming for the sake of argument that YOUR chosen god does exist, and that if it indeed does, it is apathetic to a great many issues, so what "good" is it?

[@inukithesavage828]

Us changing our UNDERSTANDING is not the same as the MORALITY changing. And "moral progress" is often moral corruption.

[@IchNachtLiebe]

I see it daily on a small scale. Whole communities believe something is good because everyone has come to accept it. The Athiest made one good point but in the opposite direction of how I should be applied (paraphrased), "if there is an omnipotent God then what was acceptable yesterday wouldn't flip to be acceptable today. An omnipotent being wouldn't flip their virtues like that " True. But it isn't that these things are now acceptable and God approves of them. It is quite the opposite. Many things were wrong that are still wrong and our culture has set morality aside.

[@Feraeond]

Yes, taking credit for the good in history on massively generalized terms while shifting blame for the bad is self-defeating. It is not an objective assessment to suggest that atheists of the Enlightenment are credited with the civil advances of that time while ignoring the similarly prescient timeline of the Reformation which made the Bible widely available to the masses not in power to read for themselves for the first time ever without the corrupt traditions and interpretations wrought by Roman Catholicism. Of the few correlatives which exist, one of the most obvious is the American Revolution and what it produced with its foundation on Biblical principles compared to the French Revolution and what it produced with its egalitarian/anti-religion principles. One resulted in the first unilateral banning of slavery in any governance in the world's history and the other was an imitation attempt that ended in the invention of the guillotine and a swift resurgence of totalitarian rule after anarchy descended into chaos. Atheism's attempt to make a pale imitation of theism while discarding the theism part of it remains of a similar model and aftereffect every time to this day.

[@mrhyde7600]

So you admit to subjective morality!

[@odious5317]

@@mrhyde7600 How on earth did you come to that conclusion from his statement??

[@davegaskell7680]

So the biblical guidance on taking slaves and keeping them is still morally right today? You would feel it's morally OK for someone to possess you as a slave as long as they kept you within the guidelines set out in the bible.

[@tomosjackson4760]

Its worth noting that slavery was diminished the the point of expulsion in the late Roman Empire, the pagan barbarians invaded and slavery took off again, they converted and slavery died down amongst Christians, though it was retained in relation to non-Christians until it was abolished by other Christians (British Empire leading the charge) using Christian values (not Enlightenment values). On another note, I'd say don't be afraid to confirm Christian morality and condemn modern morality. If an atheist says that Christianity tells wives to obey their husbands, say that "yes, it does. This in no way devalues a woman as less than a man, like a soldier is no less valuable as a human than his commander, but for the social command structure to work, one must take a subordinate place to the other."

[@deguilhemcorinne418]

You forgot the part where slavery and breeding of slaves, was defended by Christians owners and politicians (US mainly) even after other Christians along with non Christians defended abolition. If this is not an example of how morality is subjective in Christianity, tell me why. Same with the racial segregation question that plagued Christians countries until recently, with a divide among Christians to find it morally acceptable or not.

[@grunt9950]

Christian countries : the United States. Funny how you broaden the scope when it's specific to a single country. Christianity doesn't promote but condemn slavery, meanwhile supposedly "Christian" countries like the United States exploited the faith for their gains. After leaving the church should I remind you, Americans are neither Catholic nor Orthodox. Meanwhile slavery and exploitation of other human beings was done perfected under secular regimes such as the Third Reich or Stallinism. Both coincidentally anti-clerical

[@tomosjackson4760]

@@deguilhemcorinne418 For part one it is easy. The desires of those who wished to enslave and unnaturally breed their slaves is contrary to Christian values. So far from their being those who were one type of Christian with their beliefs and another type of Christian with theirs, what you instead have are those who are living according to the principles of Christian doctrine, and those who are not. To condemn Christianity as a whole because people who are Christian act in unChristian ways is like condemning science as a study because some scientists who don't properly apply the scientific method, cause terrible things. As for racial segregation, there are two principles at war there. The first to do unto others as you would have them do to you, and then the protection of your own people from danger. Some Christians embraced one as primary, others the latter, until it was realized that the latter was greatly exaggerated and so, as you pointed out, its ditched and replaced entirely by the former. Remember not to base your judgement on what we know now, but rather on what people thought at the time.

[@deguilhemcorinne418]

@@tomosjackson4760 I agree that history and socio-politic evolution have a great influence on religion practice and understanding and at reverse, that evolution of religious ideas have a great influence on the historical and social construct. Or at least, is part of it. The fact is that there is and - throughtout history - was no unity about the moral outcomes and other understandings of Christian faith, which is perfectly understandable from a down-to-earth point of view, and requires no condemnation, other than condemning those who want to force their beliefs on you (valid for any religion).

[@tomosjackson4760]

@@deguilhemcorinne418 If you are referring to heresy, I'm not sure that counts. An incorrect interpretation of the Christian teachings cannot be used to show that Christianity is inconsistent, in just the same way as incorrect use of the scientific method cannot be used to say that science is inconsistent. If you are referring to growth of understanding in Christianity then that is no reason not to proselytize the religion amongst others. And if by "forcing your religion on others" you mean forced conversions then that is also condemned, but if you are simply referring to wishing to live as a Christian in a Christian society then I would argue that this version of "force" is applied by any society that has laws full stop.

[@Olivier1]

I'm starting to think that time, randomness and the avoidance of reality are the main workhorse of atheism. Maybe it would be beneficial to delve deeper into these issues.. Thanks for the nice content.

[@highstrangeness1824]

I agree. They base reality upon their theories. Our theories need to be proven or disproven by observing reality.

[@nitsujism]

No, the workhorse of atheism is the lack of evidence for Theism.

[@winnumber101]

Scientific anti-realism should have a louder position in the overall plausibility structure of scientific knowledge... but it's mostly untold in order to improperly given naturalistic knowledge unobjectionable epistemic authority in claims about reality scientific anti-realism would indicate that certain things that we can't observe well, like electrons, deserve more speculation and can't be proven to exist by empirical data, so we should treat such findings as competing theories. Naturalism is not to be assumed as a prior in the same way as moral knowledge, logic, math, etc., it's not chiefly self-evident in way that supernaturalism is completely unwarranted. Randomness / unguided development isn't a better, epistemically more authoritative answer

[@Feraeond]

Yes, which is why most of atheism is fine with someone believing in whatever religion they want, so long as it accepts the claims of a universe/earth that is billions of years old. The world having accepted that divergent claim is all that allows for their other divergent claims to hold any water.

[@friisteching3433]

​@@Feraeondnah atheist don't care if you believe the universe is 8 days old. The problem is when your actions are justified by this belief and that it has a negative effect on the atheist. If you keep your beliefs to yourself, atheist doesn't care.

[@ecoded3033]

Whenever people try to argue about alleged evils done within the confines of Christianity, my immediate response is why do men blame God for their own evil? If we changed these things, is it God changing his mind or is it us recognizing our own evil nature and that we’re wrong?

[@downshift4503]

1 Samuel 15:3

[@ecoded3033]

@@downshift4503 1 Samuel 15:2 Genesis 6:4-11 Numbers 13:26-32 better luck next time

[@ingela_injeela]

Sadly and ashamedly, so much has been done "in the name of Jesus" that God never told us to do. Not all 'Christians' are true, born again, followers of Christ. Thus, we should not blame Jesus for things done, contrary to His commands.

[@elvancor]

If man wages war in the name of God, the atheist doesn't blame God, since he doesn't think God is real. He blames the religion that inspired or justificated the war.

[@Atarius]

@@elvancor Hate to break it to you, but most if not all wars are economically based. People, religious or non will use rationalization to find a moral justification. So we have the following: 1. Blame God or Religion 2. Secular crimes are ignored 3. Don't say anything bad about the bankers.

[@kennethanderson8770]

Everytime I hear Steven talk I just get frustrated will how little he knows both of Christianity, history, and atheism. Why he has an audience is beyond me!

[@user-cs1hp7nr9h]

That’s what I find surprising too. Seems like a smart chap, but seems wholly disinterested in actually understanding the claims of those he’s attempting to dispute. It’s the blistering incuriosity that’s so jarring.

[@sidwhiting665]

It's getting more common for people to watch 2 or 3 TikTok videos and consider that sufficient to inform themselves. Those are the people who follow someone who has had a cursory introduction to Christianity and don't like particularly parts because they either 1)Misunderstand them or 2) Don't like them because it grinds against particular sin(s) they cherish and have no desire to stop committing.

[@mrhyde7600]

He's not lacking knowledge about xianity - he just doesn't share your interpretation.

[@Thelast1leftNOW]

Yes he's the quintessential vehemently against things he knows nothing about.

[@ToHellWithDawkins]

​@@sidwhiting665- So you don't object to the parts of the Bible where god condones owning people as slaves? You think owning people as property is moral?

[@johnthetenor]

If the choice is between God and a part time dungeon master with a mullet I choose God

[@DM-dk7js]

I’ll choose the guy with the mullet. He’s probably less petty, doesn’t have ego issues.

[@holdingonforlife1]

@@DM-dk7js Yes he does. He thinks he is his own law. That's pretty arrogant.

[@DM-dk7js]

@@holdingonforlife1there’s only one law. And it’s the law man creates.

[@georgedoyle2487]

“Part time Dungeon master with a mullet” That really made me laugh!! God forgive me!! Two atheist scientists, that is two fatalists/epistemological nihilists who subscribed to evolutionary psychology were making their way back to camp through the plains of the savannah in Southern Africa after getting separated from their guide. The two men both had MULLETS but decided to jog quickly back to camp to avoid being attacked by any large carnivores but followed the wrong trail and got lost!! Eventually they stopped under the shade of a tree and removed their sports trainers to enjoy the shade and cool grass on their bare-feet. Suddenly, they both noticed a rather large lioness crouched in the long grass stalking them from 100 metres away. They turned and walked slowly in the opposite direction in their bare feet, the lioness slowly followed them. They increased their pace, the lioness moved quicker as well. They both suddenly started to jog, the lioness matches their jogging pace. 
One of the atheistic scientists suddenly decides to stop, quickly crouches down, and starts to put his trainers back on as fast as possible!! The other scientist exclaims smugly… “What on Earth are you doing? You’re a scientist surely you know that WE can’t out-run a hungry lioness and they can actually climb trees!!” The scientist now with his trainers tightly fastened grimly replies…. 
“what’s this “WE” business? I don’t need to out-run a hungry lioness, I just need to out-run YOU to the next tree and your MULLET weighs more than mine!! The scientist in his bare sore feet in disgust exclaims…. “I thought that you were some kind of “MORAL” subjectivist and vegan? The scientist now with his trainers tightly fastened with a grim smile exclaims… “MORAL” and “VEGANISM” I believe in “survival of the fittestism” your ultimately nothing more substantive than an HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APE and a spineless, annoying one with a MULLET at that!!!” And he sets off at high speed!! The atheist screams after the “MORAL” subjectivist as the lion quickly catches up, “Oh my God help me!!” Suddenly the light becomes more vivid and everything is still. The voice of a divine messenger speaks from the Savannah plain, “So now you need the absolute, now you need that of which nothing greater can be conceived’s help?” The divine messenger asks the atheist.. “What do you want? I’m busy cleaning up Cr…p literally everywhere, this is a FALLEN WORLD!!” The atheist surprised by the language responds……. “You’re so powerful can’t you spare a few seconds and kill that ferocious lioness for me? I’ll do anything and its about to tear me limb from limb!!” The heavenly messenger heaved an enormous numinous sigh and a deep sadness appeared on the messengers face…….. “No I can’t kill that beautiful LIONESS and I thought that you were a “MORAL” subjectivist? What do you take me for Lucifer? The absolute don’t do unfair deals it’s a free lunch!!” The atheist replied in desperation…. “Can’t you at least ask to make that Lioness a MORAL OBJECTIVIST? The divine messenger replies….. “You denied the existence of the absolute, universal, OBJECTIVE ground of truth, beauty, love and goodness your entire life and pretended that his ancient messengers were just backwards thinking, science denying, Bronze Age goat herders and that you were held to ransom with the old “fear, fire and Hell nonsense!!”? “And now you’re begging me to ask if it’s OK to either kill or frighten the Hell out of this poor lioness who has three starving lion cubs on the run from hyenas?” The atheist a little surprised by the messengers language replies…. “Oh!! Sorry, good point! Well, couldn’t you at least ask him to make the lioness a good Christian?” “I’ll do my best,” said the messenger. “But I’m really treading on dodgy territory asking that we interfere with the future and metaphysics and the whole FREEWILL thing and the delicate fabric of time and space and the character of the absolute etc!!”. In a moment the light changes back and the voice fades away. The lioness suddenly miraculously kneels down in front of the “MORAL” subjectivist/atheist, bows her head solemnly, and says, “Thank you, Lord, for what I am about to receive.” The End… 😎❤️

[@theboombody]

@@DM-dk7js But if man creates it, we don't know which man does. "The majority" isn't correct, and isn't even clearly defined.

[@joshcornell8510]

“Everyone decides their own morality.” Becomes morally indignant when someone acts in accordance with their own morality.

[@trumpbellend6717]

Can we use *ANY* "God" as the basis for this "objective" moral standard you speak of or just the SPECIFIC SUBJECTIVE invisible being *YOU* determined to be the "correct" one out of the many thousands man has preposed.? 🙄 🤔 If its the latter then in actuality its *YOU* and YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION that is determining morality dear. if its the former, then asserting objectivity to any moral claim based upon a "God" becomes a completely vacuous useless concept 👍 The claim that theistic morality is somehow "objective" is ridiculous. Theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄🤔

[@linusloth4145]

@@trumpbellend6717 Has there been moral progress to this day in your view?

[@trumpbellend6717]

​​@@linusloth4145 I think so, we no longer think it acceptable to *"Buy your slaves from the heathen nations that surround you"* Nor that *"if you beat your male or female slave with a rod and they do not die for a day or two"* *"There shall be NO PUNISHMENT for they are your PROPERTY and your money"* I would say that is a step in the right direction wouldn't you ? 😜 Modern societies think that the gathering of sticks on a sabath is not nor ever was immoral and worthy of stoning to death. The same applies also to our unruly rebellious children who disobey their parents ( sounds like most teenagers to me ) . Thankfully a judge today recognizes a girl who has been raped and did not scream is actually a VICTIM and not deserving of death as the bible dictates. Again I would discribe humanity as better off in a meaningful way by disregarding these filthy hurtful religious dictates, do you disagree?? 🙄🤔

[@trumpbellend6717]

​​@@linusloth4145 "Hello Mcfly" 🤭

[@fredsik]

He says everyone decides their own morality, that doesn't mean that one is not allowed to critique that morality.

[@Nosferatu9981]

“Professing themselves to be wise, they become fools”

[@justinrobinson9482]

“Evil is a departure from how things OUGHT to be. But with naturalism there is no way things OUGHT to be” Super good quote that he said that helped me understand the topic

[@arcticpangolin3090]

Except that’s there also no OUGHT from theism either. Naturalists and those who reject naturalism have the same issue of determining and/or justifying an objective ought.

[@trumpbellend6717]

. "Right and wrong" are words that are relative to the actualization of a desired goal or outcome, absent said goal, the terms right and wrong become meaningless. My "goal" is the actualization of a healthy flourishing coperative society based upon our common desires with respect to wellbeing and the values it incorporates, empathy, respect, equality, altruism, reciprocity. That is why one "ought" to treat another's as you would like to be treated, One "ought not steal if you wish to live in a society were property is not stolen. One "OUGHT" not murder if they want to live in a society were people are not murdered. This is our "reference point" or standard. One "should" or "ought" do something if Its conducive with the actualisation of a situation that conforms with one's goals and values. These "values" themselves are subjective by definition however it is entirely possible to make Objective declarations or decisions 'Within a pre-agreed framework of subjective values'. Values are socially approved desires that are internalised through the process of conditioning, learning or socialisation and that become subjective preferences, standards and aspirations a shared idea about how something is ranked in terms of desirability, worth or goodness *What is your "goal" and why 'OUGHT' one do what your subjective God desires* ?? 🙄🤔

[@justinrobinson9482]

@@trumpbellend6717 If that’s true, why do we fight so hard against societies norms such as slavery in America or civil rights in America. The best explanation for that is true objective morality. (Your definition doesn’t work because it’s dependent on a changing societies viewpoint not making it true objectivity). We know that chattel slavery is wrong even if not everyone agrees. So we fight for what is objectively right.

[@justinrobinson9482]

@@arcticpangolin3090 Theists don’t merely argue that there are oughts in only a theistic worldview. OUGHTS are everyone’s reality already. You know and I know that people OUGHT to behave a certain way regardless of societal norms. Even if our society believed in torturing babies for fun was good thing, you would think they OUGHT not to do that. Naturalism has no explanation for what is our current reality. For things everybody knows.

[@hineraable]

​​@@justinrobinson9482He already answered your question. He said "we ought to treat others like we would like to be treated". It's mutually beneficial. I don't think you should bring up slavery at all when the Bible actively supports it. Modern day Christians simply changed their moral beliefs from what it was In the past. Biblical and religious morality isn't objective nor unchanging. Even if it were true that morality can only come from God and be objective, then you also need to explain how come that only means your God and not any of the other ones from other religions. If you don't believe me about the positive manner in which slavery is talked about in tbe Bible, you should check out Dan Mcclellan's channel, he's a Bible scholar and has a couple of videos on slavery in the Bible. And please don't bring up the verse about the Bible condemning kidnapping, it was a different crime and overall certain rules and protections didn't apply to non-israelites. Religious morality is dependent on social changes as much as any other type of morality.

[@joshua2707]

I think this is a really good discussion to have. Christians shouldn’t shy away from difficult conversations and instead talk about them frankly and openly. I did, however, raise an eyebrow and the mention of the Euthyphro dilemma by Steven: I thought this was solved in philosophy already. It’s a false dilemma, meaning we’re _not_ limited to the two disclosed options. God’s commands are neither arbitrary nor external to His nature; they instead reflect His perfectly good character. Therefore what is morally good is neither independent nor arbitrarily determined by God.

[@definitelynotsarcasm]

Correct, and Paul mentions this also, it would be like asking "is a meter a meter because the meter stick says so or because the meter exists outside the meter stick?"

[@bradadams-broyd4763]

Almost there

[@armandolopez2274]

Perfectly good character? You mean the being who created a place of internal hellfire? The one who commands genocide of people? The one who is a promoter of slavery? Good grief

[@HSTOgaming]

Joshua, why don't you have your own content? I would definitely sub if you were giving the same insight I see you give in the comment section.

[@wet-read]

It still sounds like one of the horns, just said in a different way.

[@SpaceCadet4Jesus]

The Euthyphro Argument or Divine Command Theory comes from Plato’s dialogue in which Socrates asks: Is something is right because God commands it, or does God command it because it is right? The ethical implications of this argument suggest that the relationship between morality and religion might not be as clear-cut as previously thought. What makes this question so effective is that if the interlocutor accepts either part of it he is often logically forced into conclusions that may conflict with other beliefs he has, therefore creating a logical dilemma for him. Unlike the description of morality of being a decision, it seems to me that the commands of God are not arbitrary or capricious because as a source they emanate, not from a decision, but from God's character which character never changes. The origin of morality is in the heart of God and intrinsically proceeds from God, not as a well thought out idea or decision but as a quality of his being. It is beyond God to issue commands outside of his character and subsequently any commands to his creation will reflect that character consistency and thereby be moral. Therefore God cannot give a moral command, recind and supplant it with a diametrically opposing command. This is not a failure of God but a limitation of the argument. Secondly, there is no morality or truth outside of God of which he must follow or decide to use. Again, morality emanates from his being and all his decisions and actions agree with his character. Therefore, both options of the Divine Command theory are invalid.

[@GrahameChristianGould]

Exactly. It's a false dilemma. And you have identified another alternative that is the reality. God's commands are not arbitrary, nor are they sourced from a goodness separate from God. God IS the source of goodness. His commands are an expression of His character/nature.

[@haggismcbaggis9485]

God's commands sometimes do seem arbitrary such as when he commanded Ezekiel to bake cakes with human poo, but then settled for cow poo instead because Ezekiel protested.

[@jeremybridges6015]

It possibly seems arbitrary until one supposes that God knew Ezekiel would protest and thus incited said behavior for His particular purpose. (I don’t suppose to purport the Will of God, I’m just hypothesizing)

[@haggismcbaggis9485]

@@jeremybridges6015 I am not sure what the purpose of that episode is either.

[@GrahameChristianGould]

@@jeremybridges6015 incited or allowed?

[@daniellong7926]

I do try to be fair to athiests and understand their point of view but do they have to be so smug. 😕

[@hydraph4843]

Idk he seemed very polite and cordial. Such as finishing with thanking everyone and looking forward to the conversation

[@We.are.all.human.]

After years of Roman myths and Lutheran protestant bibles, an atheist enjoys seeing these religious people squirm. Also an atheist will pick up one small part of information and that becomes the entire proof against. All atheist want God to be true, we just looked in the book and religion for God. God and Jesus is true, just not from Roman myth or any book. - an ex atheist that found God and Jesus, just like Jesus asked.

[@hydraph4843]

@@We.are.all.human. I am an agnostic, and raised atheist, and I have never enjoyed seeing religious people 'squirm'. I actually have my respect for many Christians. We don't just pick up one part of information. There are countless topics atheists have spoken about, covering many different aspects of the Bible, religion etc

[@We.are.all.human.]

@@hydraph4843 then you are a different person than an atheist. If what you say is true, you have a Christian heart. For me and all the atheist I know, we believe all religions are myths. I was very wrong to believe Christianity is a religion. I still know religion is man made myth. I found respect for humanity and Jesus in my heart. The Roman and Lutheran religions turned me to atheism over 30 years ago. I just found Jesus this year at 44.

[@hydraph4843]

@@We.are.all.human. Either way I don't think the God of the Bible as depicted in the Bible is true

[@t2127jd]

So, as I see it, he has a problem with the church, not the Bible or God... Most of what he condemns is mainly Catholic/Protestant beliefs and not from the Scripture itself...

[@spencerd8504]

He is wrong on pope allowing the same sex marriage. Pope just said priests could bless same sex couples as individuals...that's not blessing their union which is a sin but blessing the individuals. Catholic church teachings didn't change....it's the same old teaching taught again.

[@DoubleOhSilver]

The Catholic Church compiled and canonized the Bible and precedes it. All Catholic beliefs are in the Bible and vice versa.

[@definitelynotsarcasm]

not even that, he has a problem with the fact no human is perfect which is a claim central to all branches of Christianity with Christ being the exception

[@muppetonmeds]

Religion gives God a bad name. Even in Jesus day, there were two religions that had the Bible and Jesus saw they were all about the money and kicked their tables over. Not only that he said they were hypocrites and the blind leading the blind and to top it off he told those so-called Holy men that they were of their father the devil.

[@mikhailyaremkiv]

Typical internet atheist

[@allenbrininstool7558]

I often wonder what an atheist does when he dies and comes face to face with Jesus

[@ninja3687]

Ask Howard Storm. Jesus pulled him out of Hell. He quit his lucrative professorship and became a pastor.

[@museofire]

​@ninja3687 Yet that's not biblically true. Hebrews says " It is appointed once for a man to die, and then the judgement." A person, biblically, does not go straight to hell, upon death (see Revelation).

[@MrEkzotic]

​@@museofire That doesn't mean God can't make exceptions.

[@museofire]

@@MrEkzotic He could, but it goes against his word. Why make an exception for one, when millions could have the same choice, if God so wanted it?

[@downshift4503]

I guess people who believe in Lord Shiva think the same about Christians.

[@moose9906]

The Euthyphro dilemma has been recognized as a logical fallacy for 2400 years. Even Plato, who introduced it, treated it with the distain it deserves. What is staggering to me is that anyone gives Steven the time of day. He doesn't understand the arguments or intentionally misrepresents them by building strawmen to knock down. This guy is not serious thinker and should be ignored. He lives in the realm of logical fallacy and misrepresentation and in the dozens of videos, in which he has appeared and I have seen, I have yet to see him make a single coherent argument for atheism or against theism. What he engages in is the rhetoric or a sophist. Furthermore, grounding your moral values in how you feel is not a standard, its an opinion. You may think treating people nice is good but a guy could walk up and stab you because he thinks that is good and the naturalist has no authoritative basis to say that there is any moral difference between the two.

[@georgedoyle2487]

Exactly!!

[@mastershake4641]

to be fair the euthyphro dilemma is actually a valuable tool against islam. Because it shows their god cant be trusted.

[@philippafootsociety]

Happy to see our event sparking discussion!👍

[@jdizle1178]

“If you pay attention, when you are seeking something, you will move towards your goal. More importantly, however, you will acquire the information that allows your goal itself to transform. A totalitarian never asks, “What if my current ambition is in error?” He treats it, instead, as the Absolute. It becomes his God, for all intents and purposes. It constitutes his or her highest value. It regulates his or her emotions and motivational states, and determines his/her thoughts. All people serve their ambition. In that matter, there are no atheists. There are only people who know, and don’t know, what God they serve.”

[@quinnthompson]

So so so many misunderstandings by Steven. He represented Christianity so incredibly poorly it's wild he was on that panel.

[@Mark-zo1hs]

Objective morality isn't subjective to time, it's called objective because it stays true always. The bigger problem is when people hail a subjective opinion as an objective opinion not realizing that it's subjective.

[@SuperMrAndersen]

Objective morality is just an idea and nobody proved it's existence

[@Mark-zo1hs]

@@SuperMrAndersen Is that an objective statement? 🤔 Or is it just your opinion?

[@SuperMrAndersen]

@@Mark-zo1hs It's the definition of objective morality

[@jtapia0]

Do you have evidence that an "objective morality" exists? Who and how determines the objectivity?

[@shelleyscloud3651]

How do you know someone is a vegetarian? Don’t worry, they’ll soon tell you. Q.E.D

[@thatwifeofhis7815]

same with atheist, and parent of a trans identified child. Except I usually notice people will announce their veganhood even sooner than vegetarians tend to.

[@midimusicforever]

Just that you'll have guys like Tommy Tallarico claiming to be vegan, but... Nope.

[@LaihonAleksi]

Excellent video! I really like how you take a broader view from the debate and direct the focus to the core of the question about morality. Also, I like how you put a great emphasis on the politeness of the discussion and how we should really listen to what the other is saying and to the points made. We need this kind of diplomacy in our debates and discussions!

[@MyMy-tv7fd]

CS Lewis, in his very short book, 'The Abolition of Man', described how universal morality works and gave extensive examples from ancient civilisations in the appendix. Unfortunately, this book is too difficult for 95% of the modern populace, so another simpler version is required for less able atheists like this one.

[@wavemaker2077]

Are you an atheist? If yes, why?

[@peterhughes8699]

The CS Lewis book is too difficult for 99% of Christians. But he's also plain wrong. Here's the reality of God's objective morality. It's not anywhere as complex as CS Lewis tries to fool people with kzbin.info/www/bejne/aqHHiqB_rN2Miqc

[@LGpi314]

CS Lewis is a dumbdumb without any evidence. LMAO.

[@Agaporis12]

This atheist is adorable. It's a like you put a beard on a shih tzu and named it Socrates. The Euthyphro Dilemma? Seriously? Christianity retained slavery and relegated women to second class status? It's like he's reading Bertrand Russel aloud. It's delightful, hearing such old nonsense out of such a young face. All you need to do is go visit Japan and you'll see the enlightenment has done nothing for their sexism. Atheism and Marxism do nothing to stop slavery or sexism in China. Muslims in the middle ages thought Christian men were cucks and slaved who worshipped and served their wives. And yet we are to believe they were just like Muslims with regards to women. Early modern visitors from Japan and China made the same observation that women seemed to be the dominant sex in the west. It was like living in upside down land to them, though some thought it charming. It was the catholic church that began the suppression of slavery saying no Christian could be slave to another. True they faltered in the age of discovery but for the first thousand years you really cant say anything but that Christianity was a force for abolition. This is nonsense, but I love his hair and beard and that silly accent. I want more cute atheists like thing. They're easy to listen to and look at.

[@mysotiras21]

LOL!!! Great post!

[@Feraeond]

It is almost like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens inspired an accent to be adopted by the general culture of intellectual atheists in much the same way as gay men in the last thirty years collectively took on a kind of valley girl persona as their chief orientation signal.

[@tomasrocha6139]

"Muslims in the middle ages thought Christian men were cucks and slaved who worshipped and served their wives (...) Early modern visitors from Japan and China made the same observation that women seemed to be the dominant sex in the west" Citation needed.

[@mysotiras21]

@@Feraeond , I haven't noticed many gay men taking on female persona recently. That is something I associate with drag queens, not gay men in general. You are right about the Dawkins/Hitchens "official" atheist accent, however.

[@Feraeond]

@mysotiras21 You probably don't live in the SF Bay area then. Haha The most recent example I personally overheard was a certain hair stylist in SF last week when I was at the same salon with my friend and her son getting his hair cut. But yes, drag queens take it to another level of blatant for sure.

[@VindensSaga]

For someone who calls his channel rationality rules, being rational is not his strongest suit.

[@mrhyde7600]

Then perhaps you could provide some EXAMPLES of that accusation. I'm curious.

[@anthonyoer4778]

​@@mrhyde7600...alphabet mafia...

[@shanahendricks9831]

​@@mrhyde7600 self importance rules

[@mrhyde7600]

@@shanahendricks9831 Was that an example, or just random words?

[@shanahendricks9831]

@@mrhyde7600 an example lol 🤣

[@johndoh795]

"The Law never made anyone good." Dude confuses the rules and laws we set for ourselves and the unchanging Law that accuses us.

[@Feraeond]

Romans 7:4-6 [4] Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. [5] For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. [6] But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code. Hebrews 7:18-19 [18] For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness [19] (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God. Galatians 3:11-14 [11] Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” [12] But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” [13] Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us-for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”-[14] so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith. (Perhaps this is the emphasis Dude was referring to.)

[@user-sv5oi5ci6k]

The law is based on the 10 commandments, again stealing from Christians.

[@SuperMrAndersen]

I think he means low about slavery and killing gays in bible etc

[@johndoh795]

@@SuperMrAndersen I think you don't understand what I wrote.

[@SuperMrAndersen]

@@johndoh795 Ok, maybe

[@SilverioFamilyforChrist]

I do not understand why the Atheist speaks of second class of citizenry of women. It seems his personal interpretation of what women rights are is confused with the characterization of women in the religious structure of the church, for example. He is essentally using an unsubstantiated, personal standard of women's citizenry (rather a human's relativistic standard) to make a false equivalence. We need to understand first what exactly does he mean by a statement such women being second class in Christianity.

[@downshift4503]

Go and read the epistles and instructions to women.

[@DM-dk7js]

Are woman not excluded from the same roles as men?

[@Feraeond]

From all the conversations I have had with people presenting this criticism, it comes down to a lust for power. If one is a follower rather than a leader, they are inherently being regarded with second-class value. Since scripture articulated the husband's and father's leadership in marriage, therefore the wife or daughter is second-class. Nevermind references establishing equal value like in Galatians. Equality of value means equality of authority in the modern doctrines it seems. Galatians 3:25-28 [25] But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, [26] for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. [27] For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. [28] There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

[@SilverioFamilyforChrist]

@Feraeond thank you. I was alluding to this issue. It seems to be more of an issue of people assuming certain roles mean one is superior to another. An example in modernity would be the consideration that the role of homemaker is looked down upon by virtue of some false power dynamic. People pushing these types of views tend to errorneously assign more value and worth to the role of breadwinning while devaluing homemaking (roles that are and have been meant to be complimentary). Just because a person is a follower doesn't make one a second-class citizen. By that metric, most of society would be second-class. I appreciate the answer. You perfectly articulated the issue with this criticism. His other points have similarly flawed premises.

[@SilverioFamilyforChrist]

@downshift4503 My family recently got finished reading the New Testament chapter by chapter verse by verse. There is nothing there about "second-class" citizenry. Perhaps you have a skewed understanding of "second-class"?

[@gregeckert1660]

This was so good maaaannnn 😭 Aye if y'all haven't checked out George Jankos podcast with Cliffe it came out like a day ago, seriously made me bawl my eyes out and brought me to my knees, I swear I've been skeptic for so long and it feels like just in this last couple weeks I've been seeking and finding, and I still cannot I can NOT thank you enough. but there was something about George's wifes testimony about a experience she had recently seriously hit my heart so so deeply. I seriously have an extremely hard time with believing Testimony's and seriously wish that wasn't the case but it is hahaha. But she started talking about how she finally understood what it meant, that sacrifice he made on the cross I just burst into tears. You guys through the holy spirit, are saving lives including mine and I cannot again thank you enough, im terrfied, Im very close to the edge but the spirit is so real and I dont feel as if I have much time left, thank you for helping me. And thank you God for loving me enough to give me a chance.

[@georgedoyle2487]

❤️🙏

[@thomasrudi9709]

I appreciate the polite behaviour of both debaters. This is how a debate/conversation like this should be.

[@user-lf3ny3xq7y]

I hate to break it to you, but when fields are being made to plant crops, animals are killed in the process, to get them out of the land, and they are killed as well, to protect the crops from being eaten by them, and the fact that, in soil, meat products, like shrimp, for example, are mixed into it, because it actually helps the crops grow better, so just because you don't eat meat, doesn't mean that animals haven't died, in the process, of getting you the very things you consume.

[@cyrus3316]

Morality is easy .. the foundation of it is well being.. you cant chop my head off because I'll die so we cant hurt each other or we'll go extinct... No religion needed .

[@SAMBUT]

the final part of this was brilliant - it's not because it's present in a book - God has installed morality into us as being created into his image - an interesting question might be where we see elements of morality in animals...

[@nitsujism]

You'll find empathy and (moral) rules in social animals. Chimps, guerillas, whales, dolphins, dogs etc.

[@moosechuckle]

Next time I’m growing my garden, I’m gonna find myself an atheist. I hear they’re the best at building stawman and I need one to keep the birds away.

[@Pyr0Ben]

They're often full of crap, so they probably make good fertilizer :D

[@GodSoLoved.Yeshua]

🤭

[@mrhyde7600]

Hi. I'm an atheist. Wanna expose my strawmen?

[@ToHellWithDawkins]

What straw men does he build?

[@moosechuckle]

@@mrhyde7600 no, I want you to make me one. But not yet. I’m not quite ready. I gotta finish overhauling my kitchen, then I’ll need one… maybe a week or so.

[@jeff55555]

Good work mate, thanks.

[@chadasonmcgraw8097]

This athiest is assuming a created God by suggesting that good exists outside of God. That simply isn't possible since the claim is that God is good. Goodness can't exist outside of, or apart from, God.

[@downshift4503]

No that's just a word game. The claim is that God exists. It doesn't necessarily follow that a God is good. I don't call what happened in 1 Samuel 15:3 to be good.

[@Paul_Copan]

Thanks once again, Brandon! Glad you could draw on this debate and offer your own commentary and insights. Keep up the good work!

[@kiwidubz]

@@LilySage-mf7uf pride is a deadly sin... also nobody is trying to portray slavery & genocide as good, that's a misinterpreted doctrine that atheists like to cling on to

[@dannyjaye]

"I'll give you an example: I don't eat meat..." Suddenly everything makes sense....

[@metaspacecrownedbytime4579]

So, according to Atheism, morality comes from rocks.

[@downshift4503]

Not at all. Morality arises from your own tendencies.

[@jamescarter5041]

@@downshift4503 What do you mean?

[@AndrewLane-pm2ro]

More like, rocks and water. 😅😂

[@believer431]

They're quick to say nonsense like "morality is subjective", but start crying when someone says homosexuality is a sin

[@atheistangel007]

No we don't, we just think that sin is a ridiculous concept and that Christians that harp on that are hypocrites and cherry pickers.

[@bguman]

Yeah your belief it is ridiculous. Unfortunately for you, guess you’ll find out some day. We’re flawed beings, we all make mistakes and at some point in time slip up, but that does not disprove the concept/reality of a creator vs something coming from nothing.

[@atheistangel007]

​@@bguman "Yeah your belief it is ridiculous." Because it's demonstrably so. "Unfortunately for you, guess you’ll find out some day" Not "unfortunately", I already know now. "We’re flawed beings, we all make mistakes and at some point in time slip up" Name something that isn't? "but that does not disprove the concept/reality of a creator" No, the fact that there is no good reason to believe anything has ever been "created", and the lack of evidence for any "creator" kinda does. "vs something coming from nothing." No one in their right mind claims that...theists do though. But again, we have no good reason to believe that there has ever been "nothing", so please do not try to misrepresent our position on this.

[@HahaDamn]

Morality is not subjective, it is historically contingent

[@atheistangel007]

@@HahaDamn How do you figure? And if this is the case, then how did we come up with the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights"?

[@indyjones1970]

I love your work Sir. Godspeed

[@Petticca]

Lifelong atheist stopping by to say hello, and offer opinions, as one is wont to do. I’ve been reading through the comments and I am quite fascinated by so many of the responses that I have read, as there is a disconnect between what I understand as moral and morality, and what is actually being focused on by commentators in regards to that. To me it is a troubling issue that a number of people seem to believe that morality/morals are inaccessible, or irrelevant to an atheist, and they scoff at the concept that ‘feeling bad’ about committing an action is something an atheist factors into moral evaluation. Really, it’s troubling to me. There are obviously several points being contested, but the one I am most interested in, is what someone thinks morality actually _is_ in reality. It’s a given I do not hold that there are objective (as in some intrinsic universal property of reality) moral standards, or deity deigned absolutes to abide by, and yet I will claim that _I_ hold certain actions to be moral, or not, and while asking Where do you… By what standard do…. Or other questions makes sense to a Christian, to me they not only are beside the point, but seem to miss it entirely. Unless someone feels that morals and the concept of morality are entirely divorced from social interaction, I think those questions can be put aside to discuss what we think regarding morals in our everyday lives. I don’t think that most Christians think about moral concepts as entirely divorced from social and emotional elements of humanity. So this is where the disconnect seems to come in, from my perspective. I do not know anyone who doesn’t have their _own_ value system regarding what they hold to be morally acceptable, as is evidenced in conversations where moral or ethical dilemmas are discussed, or in disagreements about how justified or acceptable we consider some action to be, in light of context. There are myriad issues that everyone forms opinions of ethical or moral stances about, that are very complex social issues; we could have very differing opinions about homelessness, the prison system, healthcare, education, animal welfare, children’s rights. And all of the things we agree about, or not, _will_ come down to our own value system and way of reasoning towards an ideal we hold. Guaranteed. None of those things will be according to an objective _anything_ though we might have similar values and goals about quality of life that we are using as our standard to evaluate. And so, I again, have to wonder what exactly is a moral, what is moral in your day to day life, that is somehow unobtainable, or unjustifiable, or unreasonable or whatever objection you have, to an atheist?

[@boltrooktwo]

Moral judgements are based on value and purpose, there is no atheistic grounding intellectually for value and purpose if everything was built by random acts of matter and energy. People live but inevitably die, materialistically dying and having memory annihilated returns every person’s value back to zero at some point, fulfilling no ultimate purpose or value. Naturalism promotes conquering, lying, and cheating to get ahead and assert superiority, especially if you can get away with it. There is no atheistic materialistic grounding for the way things ought to be.

[@wet-read]

IMO, the bottom line is that they are uncomfortable with the thought of taking full responsibility for their actions. Which is often understandable, no matter what you believe in or don't believe in. It's why existentialism is liberating and troubling at the same time.

[@wet-read]

Christians also do bizarre things like denounce morals as "mere" opinions if there is no God. Since when have opinions been unimportant? Individually, they are often not much, but get enough of them together and you have a set of laws, rules, and customs. They can also change or go away over time. Or reappear.

[@mitchwatson6787]

There are so many presuppositions in your thought process it's scary. No wonder atheism exists only in the affluent West.

[@downshift4503]

@@mitchwatson6787 That's not true. People have been discovered living in primitive conditions that had no concept of God.

[@jasonroberts9788]

Was anyone else not surprised the dude with the douchehawk hairdo the one playing the arrogant atheist? Just me? 😅

[@frankyanish4833]

In regards to that Pope Francis thing: no, he didn’t.

[@hongotedesco8931]

Typical debate. The atheist was spot on, and the best the religionist could come up with was "well, objective morality coming from god is the simplest explanation". Yeah it is, but simple doesn't make it *true*. And what's with the op: "thinking is not part of the material world". Of course it is! Ditto for consciousness, etc, etc. Everything is part of the material world (or universe). I do have to quibble with the atheist bringing up the euthyphro dilemma. We have zero evidence for god, so before we start talking about "what god commands", let's first establish god. So I thought that was just unnecessary.

[@littlesmithcrew7990]

Excellent clarification, my guy.

[@gsp3428]

The euthyphro dilemna has been solved along time ago, God is the good, and all moral duties and obligation come from God who is goodness himself.

[@grantbartley483]

well stated

[@chrisazure1624]

That is an interesting Mohawk/Mullet combo.

[@hyperfox4494]

Well said at end : )

[@thattrickydude]

Well explained, great video

[@r.m.9188]

My man really just responded to the euthyphro dilemma by saying "nuh uh, it doesn't have to be either of those because God is goodness," thereby not addressing the question of what gives morality it's nature. Dude straight up did a backflip of point avoidance.

[@carlpeterson8182]

He did not really go into the other side of the dilemma much in the clip. What he seems to be saying though is that morality is not something apart from God nor is it arbitrary. That is a false dilemma. Morality comes from God’s nature. Thus who Gox is that is unchanging and eternally has been and will be is the grounds for morality. Since morality is based upon Hod’s nature and not his commands per se then morality is not arbitrary. It has to be one way. But it also not apart from or a judgment of God from without.

[@r.m.9188]

@@carlpeterson8182 ok, but the phrase "___ is God's nature" is grammatical nonsense. Morality is a concept, that's like saying "the nature of my chair is math." Saying morality is God's nature seems to always just be a way to try to wriggle out of saying God is what morality is based off of to avoid answering hard questions that it raises.

[@blueberrysunday9407]

​@@r.m.9188it's not a deflection. Divine simplicity has been the standard theology of God's nature before the cool British atheist was in diapers.

[@r.m.9188]

@@blueberrysunday9407 yes, it has been logically incomprehensible for a while I know. I just would have assumed people would stop saying it when people started pointing out that fact

[@blueberrysunday9407]

@@r.m.9188 it's not logically incomprehensible. Think about the alternative a little and you'll realise how divine simplicity is the best explanation.

[@caseyshaw8453]

Another clickbait title. Where was the gotcha moment?

[@LGpi314]

There is none. This channel is cowardly and dishonest as many religious people people are for their religions.

[@unclerhombus]

His hair cut just screams: “I’m an atheist and tell this to absolutely everyone I encounter.”

[@sordidknifeparty]

Saying that everyone agrees that Consciousness is outside of the natural world is absolutely begging the question

[@thirdmonkeyent]

God saying something is good or will isn't might equals right.. He is the uncaused cause and the principium of the universe and He is a perfect being with perfect nature.

[@deviouskris3012]

Theists use their own subjective morality. Since it is based on a subjective reading and personal interpretation of the text.

[@LGpi314]

@@markreed2563 Prove freewill exists. Demonstrate it. You are lying.

[@downshift4503]

@@markreed2563 Being able to think doesn't demonstrate you have free will. It's just an emergent property or process happening inside your brain. No different than saying because I am able to sweat, therefore I have free will (though Prince Andrew would argue otherwise)

[@downshift4503]

@@markreed2563 I agree we didn't design ourselves. We are able to take decisions. We have a level of awareness. Decision making is a process of taking inputs (awareness) into a processor (brain), doing calculations based on functions (experience, understanding, instincts) and producing an output. This occurs in animals with sensors and brains. It even occurs in very simple animals. Do all animals have free will? A chess machine will take decisions depending on your move. Does it have free will? A washing machine can take decisions based on what point it is during the washing cycle. Does it have free will?

[@downshift4503]

@@markreed2563 The washing machine is aware of what time it is during its cycle, what the temperature of the water is, sometimes what the weight of the load is etc. That's how it is able to take decisions. Don't take "awareness" as the need to have a mind. Very simple animals such as certain shellfish have light sensors on their shells and are able to detect light and move towards or away from a source.... but I doubt very much they have minds.

[@downshift4503]

@@markreed2563 emotions are the result of chemical signals that your brain generates. We can alter your brain chemistry and you will experience emotions. You aren't in control of them, you just experience them. Animals have them too.

[@laquan3661]

Great commentary

[@clean_boost117]

Praise God and thank you for your hard work delivering this content

[@walterdaems57]

On KZbin you can find a gazillion clips of animals behaving morally towards their own kind, different animals and us humans. Do I gather they all come together on Sunday in some underground cave to attend to bible study?

[@KyrieEleison7]

This man’s hair says it all… Lord have mercy on us all..

[@nickjones5435]

What does his hair say?

[@LGpi314]

If you can't refute facts then you start attacking the person. Nice. Typical theist's approach.

[@downshift4503]

I'm unconvinced by your "argument from hairstyle"

[@KyrieEleison7]

😂

[@KyrieEleison7]

Seems as though none of you can take a joke. 🥲 plus his hair comes off a little bit liberal pagan. 🤣

[@willievanstraaten1960]

Damn Steven you are so brilliant and it all comes from sober honesty. You nailed the facts.

[@ploppysonofploppy6066]

The "metre bar" comment describes how theists are wrong to tie their religion to morality. No one decided "this is a metre". A metre was calculated as one 10 millionth of the distance between the north pole and the equator. The bar was made to the best calculation of that length. It always existed. Similarly, it makes far more sense that morality existed, and when gods were made up, that existing quality was ascribed to them.

[@jkm9332]

This atheist might just be the smuggest man alive.

[@Version135]

Alive being the key word there. Nobody is smug before God. It's not worth it Atheists!

[@georgedoyle2487]

“Smuggest man alive” Exactly!! It’s CRINGE atheism in full effect!! And smuggest MULLET ALIVE in full effect!! Nevertheless, according to the literary genius and forefather of psychology Fyodor Dostoyevsky…. “Even those who have renounced Christianity and attack it, in their inmost being still follow the Christian ideal, for hitherto neither their subtlety nor the ardour of their hearts has been able to create a higher ideal of man and of virtue than the ideal given by Christ of old” (Dostoyevsky). “There is in the world only one figure of absolute beauty: Christ. That infinitely lovely figure is, as a matter of course, an infinite marvel.” (Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Letter to niece Sofia Alexandrovna) (Time magazine ) is one of the most authoritative and informative guides to what is happening in politics, business, health and science. In a cover story (Time magazine) pointed out that Robert Coles was “the most influential living psychiatrist in the U.S.” that day!! According to the award winning psychiatrist Robert Coles… “All writings on ethics over the last 2000 years are simply footnotes to the sermon on the mount” (Robert Coles, psychiatrist, award winning author and professor emeritus at Harvard University.) In contrast fatalism and epistemological nihilism, that is atheism is comparable to a fish in a deep vast ocean bursting with life looking EVERYWHERE for evidence of water and life. A poet once pointed out that [Paraphrased]: “You are not just an ultimately meaningless droplet in the ocean, you are the whole of the ocean in the form of droplet!!” All the best and keep safe ❤️

[@whatwecalllife7034]

That would be Mike Winger

[@TMoElement115]

Simply another angry-at-God atheist. Without the Lord’s direct intervention, atheists will never be convinced. Watch “Astrophysicist Ross’s how the universe is designed by God, “The Reason for Evil”.

[@PotatoPirate123]

It's a shame that the Lord has been so averse to showing himself since the advent of photography, video and social media yet was showing up all over the place when no one could prove otherwise

[@nikorn24]

To be honest, it's the total lack of evidence for the existence of god that leaves them unconvinced.

[@PotatoPirate123]

@@nikorn24 they will state that there is plenty of 'evidence' but all that evidence is either biblical or derived from the account of staunch believers. Whenever anybody finds god it seems to be when they're desperate and open to believing anything that gives them some hope.

[@nikorn24]

@@PotatoPirate123 Yep, I've been asking for that evidence for years. No sign of it yet

[@PotatoPirate123]

@@nikorn24 I can tell you the answer - you have to submit to Jesus, have faith, believe what the Bible tells you as it is God's word. And that's basically the answer you will always get, because there isn't any evidence

[@avishevin1976]

It is clear by examining changes in culture that _all_ people treat morality as subjective. It changes with the times and the place. What is moral in the US may be considered immoral in Saudi Arabia. What is moral in 2024 may have been considered immoral in 1924. Morality changes by the accretion of individual changes in the population. Each person has their own morals, and as particular morals gain popularity, they become the new norm for that culture.

[@woodruffmd]

What comes to mind is the standard. By what standard are you measuring morality? The example of the metre was brought up. There is a standard for what a meter is. There used to be a unit of measure called the cubit. The standard length of a cubit was from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger. If three people built something using the meter unit of measure, all three structures would be the same size. If they used the cubit unit, all three would be different. Same unit, different, or no, standard.

[@keithwilson6060]

His haircut is a moral atrocity.

[@KageJW]

Human morality emerges from a complex interplay of innate traits, cultural influences, and evolutionary processes. It's literally just that simple. Some of us then use a framework based in reality to determine wrong from right, while others invoke magic.

[@elvancor]

A lone drop of water in a desert. Have an upvote, Sir.

[@AlSwearengen4]

Epic mullet! 🤘

[@Regaw]

Where do you get your hats? I love them!

[@bryonpotter558]

This video is meant to show the atheist being bested in this debate?? That’s a laughable misrepresentation. The exact opposite

[@LGpi314]

This channel has been engaged in dishonesty for a long time. I thought that lying is a sin but I guess if yu do it for a god then not so much. LMAO

[@MarkH-cu9zi]

So again... where was the "lesson" and where was the "strawman"... You have a large following Brendan and I imagine you're an honest person whenever the topic isn't your religion. Do better.

[@georgedoyle2487]

“Do better” How patronising!! CRINGE atheism in full effect!! Sorry but “DO BETTER” according to who? Or what absolute, universal, objective standard of measure exactly? “DO BETTER” according to the standard of an overgrown amoeba with illusions of grandeur? Or “DO BETTER” according to nothing more substantive than the delusions of AN ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APE who shares half their DNA with bananas right? Your world view, your absurdity, your ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APE, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!! There’s still a tiny glimmer of hope though because perhaps Brenden ought to “DO BETTER ” according to the “NOTHING”? That is “DO BETTER” according to the standard of nothing more substantive than [DETERMINED BRAIN FIZZ] creating the illusion of stable patterns and regularities? That is nothing more substantive than the science project of vinegar and baking soda accidentally bubbling over right? Sorry but the fact is that under a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism your very ironic absolute truth claims about doing “BETTER” are nothing more substantive than the delusions of a determined machine, that is nothing more substantive than the delusions of a chemical and biological robot - right? That is nothing more substantive than the blind, mindless, ultimately meaningless accidental arrangement of POND SLIME evolved to an allegedly “HIGHER” order - right? Your world view, your absurdity, your “BETTER”, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!! Sorry but everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have a right to find it totally ridiculous, totally fatalistic, totally nihilistic, and totally and utterly self refuting!! Sorry but you need to “DO BETTER” Prove me “WRONG”? I’ll wait!! CHECKMATE NIHILIST!!

[@TaxEvasi0n]

Of course it's reasonable. The hard evidence we have today amongst all the clues to offer us explanations as to how and why we are here, are in favour of the Bible. I was actually astonished how clear it is.

[@downshift4503]

really? what is your favourite "hard evidence"

[@TaxEvasi0n]

@@downshift4503 Global flood. Sitings of dinosaurs in the last 2000+ years. The data surrounding the kick off of Christianity. All the archeological finds that support people and places in the Bible as far back as Abraham. Intelligent design and irreducible complexity in life. Contrast this with the failures of evolution to produce a different engineered animal (beyond just species differentiation), and origin of life researchers coming to the hard conclusion that organic spontaneous life originating on earth is deemed impossible with the physics of this universe. The only plausible explanation is an intelligent designer. We can see in our daily lives, all known intelligence comes from a mind. Statistically speaking, it's implausible to say the intelligence of our bodies arose blindly. Micro evolution is of course true, life is very plastic. However the changeability behind these evolutionary processes are extremely limited in power and function. To contrast it with origin of life, the first important step to a secular naturalists world view, it is not a reasonable belief to have, nor is it rational. The only acceptable answer given the data we do have, is God. With aliens coming in a very far behind 2nd place because there's no evidence that sophisticated alien life exists, it is but assumed based off of philosophical interpretation. We have the data of the Bible, which corroborates with the data we have with the world.

[@jango_bmx11]

If an automotive engineer says, “it’s good to change your oil every 5,000 miles” that doesn’t make him a vehicular dictator. He’s just telling you how the design works. It also doesn’t mean that changing your oil at 5,000 miles is good outside of the engineer, because without him there is no car to begin with. When God tells us what is good, it is because he created it that way. That’s not the same as commanding obedience, and it does not mean that “good” is independent of God.

[@trumpbellend6717]

// "When God tells us what is good" // Sorry dear WHICH "God" ?? Is your "opinion" with regards the "right" God subjective or objective?? Can we ground morality in "any" God or just the particular one YOU determined is the "right" one out of the many thousands man has invented ?? If your answer is the latter then in actuality its *YOU* and YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION that is determining morality dear. if your answer is the former, then asserting objectivity to any moral claim based upon a "God" becomes a completely vacuous useless concept 👍 The claim that theistic morality is somehow "objective" is ridiculous. Theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄🤔

[@skeptic_al]

“Objective Morality” is an oxymoron.

[@raphaelfeneje486]

But you act as though there's one 🥱

[@trumpbellend6717]

​@@raphaelfeneje486 Morality is subjective, we set the rules HOWEVER that does NOT mean we cannot set objective rules about morality. Let me give you a couple of analogies perhaps then you will understand........ Our metric reference standards for weights, distance ( kilometers, meters, centimetres ect ) was originaly a man made concept, arbitrarily concieved with no divine dictate involved. Yet once it becomes accepted and a pre- agreed consensus reached it functions perfectly. A "meter" is not some vague "about this big" concept that varies dependant on culture or God. We can OBJECTIVELY measure things "from within our pre-agreed metric reference framework" 😜 In the game of chess there are no OBJECTIVE RULES laid down by a god. They were arbitrarily concieved man made, however once we all come to an agreement about which rules we want to implement and adhere to it then becomes posible to objectively declare a move as illegal "from within the framework of agreed upon rules" ( a Bishop can only move diagonally ect ) That does not mean therefore that outside of the framework ( rules ) that its objectively impossible to move a Bishop straight forward 😁 Precisely the same applies to our moral reference standard, it too requires only an agreed upon reference standard in order to function. Can you think of a better standard to aspire and adhere to than one based upon human well-being, empathy, equality and respect ??? 🤔

[@raphaelfeneje486]

@@trumpbellend6717 "Morality is subjective, we set the rules but that doesn't mean we can't set objective rules about morality." That's all I have to see. You've already contradicted yourself. There's no point reading further. Consensus can also agree that what one society deems immoral is moral to them. You have no authority to force your morality upon them. From your own logic, Adolph Hitler, Stalin, Mao actions were all valid. They came to a consensus as well. You've exposed yourself to not even understand basic stuff. Have a good one ✌️

[@trumpbellend6717]

@@raphaelfeneje486 // "that all I have to see" // Run along dear, your inability to address the remainder of the comment more than adequately demonstrates both your dishonesty and the fragility of your position for all to see 🤫

[@trumpbellend6717]

@@raphaelfeneje486 Attrocities and wars are caried out for a variety of reasons, power , greed, race, politics, religion, or even love if the Troy narrative was correct. However I struggle to recall of the last "holy" war caused by atheism 🙄🤔 You attempted to conflate the acts of individuals with them being "atheists" please demonstrate the truth of this ?? Both Stalin & Moa Zedong were males with black hair do we then get to ascribe black hair as indicative of sadistic killers .?? Why was it not their individual greed, politics or sociopathic tendencies or even the colour of their eyes that explains their actions ? How did you conclude it was atheism that was responsible ?? If I were to claim that the systematic abuse of children caried out by priests that was covered up and enabled by the church moving them from congregation to congregation, was the direct result of those men being Christians or wearing the robes of a priest and not the actions of sick individuals would I be correct ?? Or would that merely be me attempting to erroneously conflate them so as to discredit their theological beliefs as you just attempted to do with regards to atheism ??? 🤔🤔🤔

[@Majorpain12345]

In theism God is an axiom In Naturalism subjective well being is the axiom. (Ex. Moral Landscape Sam Harris) They both have “objective morality” toward their axiom. And let me just add a comment to the end of his statement at the end do video. Changing vocabulary used doesn’t change the moral relativism theism has. Saying it permeates over cultures and time is the same damn thing as moral relativism . It goes against your objective morality established in the Old Testament. I don’t even see how this is an argument. Very contradicting and it’s annoying that he always does that.

[@LGpi314]

"In theism God is an axiom " Prove it. “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ― Christopher Hitchens There is no evidence of angels, satan or gods. Do better next time. What else do you have?

[@LGpi314]

@@markreed2563 You would not know what axiom is if it hit you in your head. LMAO

[@Majorpain12345]

@@LGpi314 I am on your side of the podium. I think you missed my point on the topic of discussion. God being an axiom is not good for Thiesm.

[@Majorpain12345]

@@markreed2563 as far as morality goes I would say secular humanism does have an axiom which is human well being.

[@trumpbellend6717]

​​@@Majorpain12345 Very true, our actions have real consequences but without the pre - agreed desired goal / outcome of wellbeing we can NOT make a determination of what we *"SHOULD"* or *"OUGHT"* do or not do we can NOT differentiate between human intentions, decisions, and actions that are appropriate from those inappropriate If i hit someone they feel pain... means nothing without first agreeing "we don't want people to feel pain" only then can we say "I OUGHT not hit people" The claim that theistic morality is somehow "objective" is ridiculous. Theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄🤔

[@davidmycota]

A little bit of this discussion reminds me of the pushback that William Craig has been getting by other theists in his defense of the killing of the Canaanites. Where here, the person is stating that God has said that he cannot make any demands that were intrinsically evil yet they get into the discussion of children being slaughtered as well.

[@MessianicJewJitsu]

I never thought this "look" would come back. Stephen with the cool kid comb over aka blending in the receding hair line as a mowhawk. I enjoyed it while I could too.

[@ericwantsbbd]

The Christian wants to suggest non-moral situations are from God. He’s not addressing moral situations but calling it moral anyway. Obeying parents isn’t moral, for example. When the atheist shows fluid morality the Christian just doesn’t address it. Then quotes the Bible as a proof. It’s absurd and can be dismissed as absurd .

[@BearsEatBeetz]

God allows evil because humans (Adam and Eve) told God they dont need Him. So God is allowing us to show we DO need Him. Every human government is failing…. Because man is not meant to rule over man. Now we await Gods Government, His Kingdom to come on Earth as it is in heaven.

[@velkyn1]

wow, nice ot see how christians lie about what's in their bible. Curiuous how adam and eve never tell this god it doesn't need it, and this god lies to them.

[@hydraph4843]

Did they tell him they didn't need him? Really? Or, was it a case that they didn't know what good and evil were so even though they knew it was wrong to disobey God, they didn't know how God was actually good in the first place and worthy of listening to. Idk about you, but I would be very happy if my child asked me questions like I how I know I'm right, because then I could tell them and help guide them. Also, throughout most of history people have tried to govern themselves with religious laws and morality. These have also had issues. It doesn't make a country better being more religious

[@BearsEatBeetz]

@@hydraph4843 they listened to the devil that told them they can be like God, knowing good and bad. If they ate from the tree. Meaning they can choose for themselves whats right and wrong therefore they didnt need God.

[@BearsEatBeetz]

@@hydraph4843 Satan told Eve, you can be like God… their very eyes will be opened…. Knowing good and bad. Genesis 3:5 which explains why the world is the way it is and why God allows suffering.

[@BearsEatBeetz]

@@hydraph4843 when you pray for God’s kingdom to come “ the model prayer” you are praying for God’s kingdom to come back to earth. You should read it.

[@Barbutt]

“…but how can Religion be true to God if our moral standards keep shifting??!” ‘Um, dude…. Look at the state of human society, where’s the improvement?’ Sad.

[@trumpbellend6717]

Well we no longer think it acceptable to *"Buy your slaves from the heathen nations that surround you"* Nor that *"if you beat your male or female slave with a rod and they do not die for a day or two"* *"There shall be NO PUNISHMENT for they are your PROPERTY and your money"* I would say that is a step in the right direction wouldn't you ? 😜 Modern societies think that the gathering of sticks on a sabbath is not nor ever was immoral and worthy of stoning to death. The same applies also to our unruly rebellious children who disobey their parents ( sounds like most teenagers to me ) . Thankfully a judge today recognizes a girl who has been "graped" and did not scream loud enough is actually a VICTIM and not deserving of death as the bible dictates. Again I would discribe humanity as better off in a meaningful way by disregarding these filthy hurtful religious dictates, do you disagree?? 🙄🤔

[@josephcauthen9448]

The Christian's argument is all over the place. Is he saying that different human cultures DO NOT develop independent moralities in the beginning? That's absurd.

[@marksnow7569]

Intriguingly, what modern philosophers think of as the Euthyphro Dilemma is not actually the Dilemma from Plato's _Euthyphro._ That was not about moral good, but about piety. Under that formulation, the question "Is roasting perfect lambs loved by God because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by God?" is an example of the Dilemma.

[@trysis260]

So what about women's second class citizenship expressed in countless bible books as the model of goodness, morality that clashes with modern day values. That and others don't relly get addressed by Paul.

[@LGpi314]

theists cherry-pick things from bible. They quote what they like and ignore what they don't like.

[@mastershake4641]

Jesus tells us to love our wives as he loved the church. Jesus loved the church by sacrificing his life for it. So we are to sacrifice our lives to take care of our wives. How is that a second class citizen?

[@LGpi314]

@mastershake4641 jesus dis not say anything. Jesus is myth your people come up with. Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool. Mark Twain

[@LGpi314]

@@mastershake4641 your bible says otherwise and does claim women to be 2nd class.

[@downshift4503]

@@mastershake4641 you can't decide what to love, love is an emotion. Your wife does not have to submit to you. This is not the ancient world.

[@MarkH-cu9zi]

Brandon again - 'Steven's accusation itself implies an objective moral standard". No. This is the Frank Turek dodge. When you point out the many moral problems with the religion...the problem is dodged and a serious of assertions are made about god and objective morality that are never supported. Dodge ...make assertions... don't support them... hope no one notices. "so in this way his argument is self refuting" - No, you just don't understand morality.

[@LGpi314]

It is Brandon's cowardness showing. He would not debate Steven one-on-one. Brandon is like a jackal behind someone else.

[@georgedoyle2487]

“The Frank Turek Dodge” SMOKESCREEN!! This is hilarious and is comedy gold!! The only thing “DODGING” a “rational” hair cut here is “RATIONALITY RULES” MULLET!! At least be a consistent strictly reductive materialist, atheist or philosophical naturalist, that is at least be a consistent fatalist and epistemological nihilist because according to the greatest atheist thinkers who ever lived with possibly the highest IQs… Logic is an illusion (Nietzsche) “Truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions.” - (Nietzsche, Reference from: On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense). “Should I kill myself?” is the essential philosophical question.” (Albert Camus). Merry chap but at least he’s “logically” consistent with his atheism!! “Suppose we want truth: why not rather untruth? and uncertainty? even ignorance?” - (Nietzsche). “You can not get an (ought) out of an (is)” - (David Hume) “Storytellers continue their narratives late into the night to forestall death and to delay the inevitable moment when everyone must fall silent.” (Foucault). Life is an “horror” and “truth” is “illusory”. (Nietzsche) Imagine telling all of these little stories to someone as a Christmas bed time story!! And you mock our beliefs!! And a very cheerful group of people I bet they were a blast at Christenings, birthday parties, and especially at golden wedding anniversaries and especially at funerals!! Cheerful group of people but at least they are intellectually honest and “logically” consistent with their atheism!! Sorry but atheism or existentialism as you guys presuppose is basically just its own religion, stealing from the belief in the fundamental nature of [MIND/FREEWILL/CONSCIOUSNESS/THE ACTUAL/THE ONE/MONOTHEISM]!! I actually respect the nihilism and absurdism of Nietzsche and Camus etc. I respect fatalism and epistemological nihilism. The claim that ultimately there is absolutely NOTHING OF SIGNIFICANCE beyond the immediate. Logic is an illusion. Truth is an “ILLUSION” as it’s all ultimately purposeless and ultimately meaningless word games. I respect that!! It's intellectually HONEST atheism!! And it is “logically” consistent with this strictly reductive, causally closed, atheistic, nihilistic fan fiction!! Sorry but everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have a right to find it totally ridiculous, totally fatalistic, totally nihilistic and totally and utterly self refuting!! Prove me “WRONG”? I’ll wait!!

[@ArchibaldRoon]

👏you’ve done a good job here representing Stephen’s side, unlike in other videos. Keep this up please. I personally agree with Stephen because I’m an Atheist, but I can totally see your side in this case. 👍

[@FuddlyDud]

I’m trying to understand atheists better, so could i ask you a few questions? :)

[@LGpi314]

​@@FuddlyDudgo. And we will ask.

[@FuddlyDud]

@@LGpi314 "go. And we will ask." Uhhh, well, to clarify, are you an atheist? And, if you are able, can you tell me a bit of what that means to you? :)

[@LGpi314]

@@FuddlyDud Yes, I'm an atheist. "if you are able, can you tell me a bit of what that means to you? " You will ask questions and I will ask questions? 🤷🤷‍♂🤷‍♀

[@ArchibaldRoon]

@@FuddlyDud I’m an Atheist. I grew up with Christianity. When I was 11-12 I was very sceptical that miracles ever took place. It just didn’t make sense to me. So I never took the bible literally. In high school I decided it was very unlikely there was a God. Especially the one described in the bible. At university studying Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, God was never mentioned. Everything just seems to work just fine without God. Learning how we evolved and how much evidence there is to support it, confirmed the bible should not be taken literally. I have listened to many, many apologist. I’ve never been presented with a good argument or any evidence for Christianity to be true. I have encountered a lot of evidence supporting it is false. I do believe we can learn a lot from the bible. Being an atheist means I believe a secular society where politics and religion are separated is best for humanity. Religion does not play a role in my life which feels quite liberating. I envy my religious friends sometimes when they talk about their church and what activities they get involved in. I also think they have a way better support network than I do whenever there is a crisis. I just can’t get past the fact their faith is based on what I consider imaginary things and untrue things. My Christian friends who are 100% committed, have to ignore actual scientific facts, to allow themselves to believe. I’m incapable of fooling myself that way now I’m a bit older. Hope this helps. Happy to answer more questions.

[@Saiyan585]

The blessing was for the individuals in said couples. The church can not and never will bless the 'union' of those couples.

[@paulfromcanada5267]

I believe anyone who professes to be an atheist should be taxed an extra 20% and that money given to local churches. 😇 might not like it but you can’t say it’s wrong. That’s just your opinion.

[@nonnn6884]

Yes I can say it's wrong, Why get more money from people that have an worldview that is different, even against the objective reality? Let them believe what they want and if they tell us that we are wrong and they're right, let's prove that is objectively, the opposite. And If they don't want to change, then let's tell them to never call us wrong anymore because we are right. Why discriminate someone that doesn't want to believe the truth when we are called to consider everyone equal even though some are inferior due to their belief.

[@paulfromcanada5267]

@@nonnn6884who says we’re supposed to treat everyone equally? Where do you get that idea from? Pay the tax!😇

[@museofire]

​@paulfromcanada5267 Certainly not from the Bible. It doesn't condemn the ownership of other people, and women were pretty much an afterthought unless it was describing some sinful thing one (several) of them did.

[@paulfromcanada5267]

@@museofireyup ok. 1 Slaves under Mosaic Law were different from the harshly treated slaves of other societies, more like servants or bondservants. 2 The Bible doesn’t give an endorsement of slave traders but the opposite (1 Timothy 1:10). A slave/bondservant was acquired when a person voluntarily entered into it when he needed to pay off his debts. 3 The Bible recognizes that slavery is a reality in this sin-cursed world and doesn’t ignore it, but instead gives regulations for good treatment by both masters and servants and reveals they are equal under Christ. 4 Israelites could sell themselves as a slave/bondservant to have their debts covered, make a wage, have housing and be set free after six years. Foreigners could sell themselves as a slave/bondservant as well. 5 Biblical Christians led the fight to abolish slavery. Darwinian evolution can easily be used to suggest that some “races” are more evolved than others. Biblical Christianity cannot be used that way-unless it is twisted by people who have deliberately misunderstood what the Bible actually teaches. Recall Darwin’s prediction of non-white “races”: At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian [aborigine] and the gorilla

[@sidwhiting665]

@@museofire False on both accounts. Chattel slavery condemned with a penalty of death "Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession." - Exodus 21:16 Appeal for release of a former pagan slave owned "Perhaps the reason [your slave] was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever- no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. Philemon 15-16 How a husband is required to treat his wife "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church- for we are members of his body." - Ephesians 5:25-30