Can Morality Be Reduced To The Survival Of Communities?

Check my answer to the view that it is not necessary to speak in terms of morality but in terms of the survival of the communities.

[@bradenrogers3317]

Seemed to be an honest kid. I think there was a bit of a misunderstanding. I believe he’s searching for the truth

[@aero6833]

Thats nativity im sensing right here

[@TheRealAdam1012]

Agreed, search and you will find. I’m curious where is at in his journey. It took me a long time to understand and grasp the gospel. It’s a wonderful thing when it all clicks. It gives you confidence

[@jeffyboy9657]

right. some kids come looking for gotcha questions some come looking for answers

[@praze2god37]

Wish Frank would’ve spent a few more minutes on this guy to say “listen, I don’t think you’re quite hearing me. You seem to be concerned with how well a particular community survives, but why does it matter wether or not it survives? Why is it a good thing that anything survives? In a purposeless universe derived from a purposeless (and also impossible) beginning, why should anything survive? Why should you care that anything survives?”

[@khatack]

It matters because that community is going to pass on its values for future communities, much alike to organisms and genes. Cultural evolution is very real, and it enforces a certain set of moral principles. I really don't understand why more Christians aren't jumping glee when they realize that evolution enforces moral law, and that moral law is suspiciously similar to the one described in the Bible. When a society becomes too corrupted and evil, it will die just as surely as if killed by God. If you think that evolution favors immorality, then you either do not understand morality or you do not understand evolution. Just like God, evolution judges entire bloodlines and entire societies, not just individuals. Why should anyone survive? No idea, but those who do not survive cease to exist so what exists is that which survives, there is nothing else.

[@praze2god37]

khatack I hear what you’re saying and that’s a very reasonable response. I have some questions about that though I’d like to ask. Is there some place apart from a limited comment section I could talk to you about this? Maybe a Facebook or email or something?

[@khatack]

@@praze2god37 Afraid not, and sorry for the long response time, I was away for a couple of days, but you can ask your questions here, and I'll be glad to answer.

[@clemensschonmalwasthatistd3254]

@@khatack the question is: Why is it bad for me to not kill, rape and steel if it makes me more happy than living with the moral standarts I'm hearing of?

[@khatack]

@@clemensschonmalwasthatistd3254 Sounds to me like you haven't had much experience with the real world. The answer to that question cannot be found in words, you have to learn it. Either that or your question is not an honest one.

[@thetruthchannel349]

that poor kid in the audience is just trying to survive that conversation LoL

[@sneijder023]

Ekekekkeke

[@dawn7612]

Good job explaining, Frank. 🙏

[@southernfilipino]

The audience member argues "But I think that they shouldn't fight each other for the reason that it ends up hurting both communities. So in the end it would actually be harmful for our survival as a species." I would've said to him that when 2 communities fight without a moral compass, they are not thinking about the survival of the other state. At that moment they are thinking, "we need to do this to survive. The other community is hindering our survival." You can't walk up to the 2 warring factions and say "hey, you'll survive better if you work together, trust me, evolution says so." Their response will be "evolution also says survival of the fittest, and supply and demand. If we kill the other community because we are stronger, we will have their stuff and there will be less people to feed. Besides, what do you know? You are only another human." And there in lies the issue. Without God, there is no objective morality to base our decisions for the greater good. Without God, we say what the greater good is and who do we decide is right? A vote? Humans are flawed and imperfect, so you want to be flawed and imperfect together? No thank you.

[@josiahcruz9678]

Jeffrey Sabordo Amen

[@jasonhendricks4562]

I like this comment, but who is to say that there aren't multiple objective truths toward a "good" future? Sam Harris gives a brilliant speech on this in a TED talk, I think it's worth checking out.

[@OmegasMusic]

Really the two factions fighting would be good according to evolution too. Because the winning faction is the stronger one, and they'd be the ones multiply.

[@southernfilipino]

Omega Music, Evolution for the sake of evolution should not be a standard for moral good. So the men of the winning faction get to multiply with the women of the losing faction because they killed their husbands? And there's no consent because the strong need to multiply for evolution to build on itself. Otherwise what would have been the point of killing the weak husbands and letting the strong women survive if they won't be willing to multiply? Evolution states what happened, not what should happen. That was the point of this video.

[@deaankoekemoer5471]

Jeffrey Sabordo just because you don't like the idea doesn't mean that you claim, without a shred of evidence, is credible.

[@Jacen777]

Behold. The atheistic perspective. "I asked myself, who were these "others"? Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more to you than a hog's life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as "moral" or "good" and others as "immoral" or "bad"? In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited self.” - Ted Bundy

[@KJBTRUTH]

I pray the young man will be saved. At least he was open to reading the book.

[@WallsClips]

"I think my wording is suggesting something I'm not meaning to suggest." The purpose of speech is to communicate truth. If you're having trouble accurately communicating your ideas through speech, it's a sign that you haven't tested your ideas through conversation. That is why we have conversations, to test whether or not our ideas can be articulated in a way that makes sense. Ideas founded in truth can always be communicated through speech. If your ideas cannot be communicated through speech, it's a sign that they are not founded in truth.

[@LivingLikeLu]

I’m not quite sure how much I agree with that last sentence, however I think you make an excellent point and bring up a wonderful perspective.

[@andylee4245]

What would you say to someone who has trouble articulating their ideas through verbal speech, but has complete ease in articulating their ideas through writing? I find that I have much trouble articulating verbally, and the idea often gets misunderstood. So I go home, and write down what I was really meaning. Then when the person I was talking to reads it, they understand it right away.

[@muhammadwasapedophile2251]

Maybe this guy should take a better look at the Islamic world. They've survived for 1400 years committing the most immoral acts against people, and even continue to this day, and they've survived just fine. We have to have a moral standard to guide us with our morality.

[@todbeard8118]

LOL. I bet you get a warm welcome when you comment on Muslim videos with that username.

[@jessebryant9233]

Did you choose that moniker to antagonize Muslims? If so, is that the moral high ground? [wink]

[@mojmejl3790]

Truth hurts I know.

[@muhammadwasapedophile2251]

Jesse Bryant yes i did! Muslims, in general, don't live by the same morals as we do. They tend to respond to things differently than us, mostly. Am i being immoral by defending, or speaking the truth?

[@slimshead8100]

Jesse Bryant maybe not, but it is truth. Lol. Mohammed was a sick, twisted individual.

[@TrailToughTrailers]

Frank, thank you for having patience with this guy AND allowing him the chance to re-explain himself. So many times people cut each other off with an attitude before one has all the "proper" words spoken and clarified.

[@captanblue]

People just don't understand that we can't use survival as the source of morality since that assumes what is supposed to survive.

[@captanblue]

Zain844 that's exactly my point too. Who is supposed to survive here? Which human has more rights to survive? What makes us more worthy of survival than roaches? Etc.

[@BigIdeaSeeker]

You are far to narrowly focused. In general and in times of peace and prosperity (and even in certain times such difficulty), it brhooves is to be supportive of the group, even at the expense of self. Under extreme circumstances a more social Darwinian outlook, as you seem to suggest, may be more effective. Turkey and other apologists lack a sense of such nuance in their perspectives. Their appeal to extremes helps their narrow POV.

[@captanblue]

BigIdeaSeeker The issue is not what types of behaviors helps a community to thrive. It's what behaviors a community *should* have in the first place. People who don't believe in objective morality have no where to go to answer that because there's no standard that says that communities should thrive anyway.

[@heavierthanlight7173]

Zain844 sam harris made a good statement on that!

[@jessebryant9233]

Just to toss another wrench in the works: Atheist Ayn Rand said that acts of altruism were the greatest evil...

[@sneijder023]

Jesus may be coming soon. Those who dont want Jesus, so be it. I've shared and tried. Most people hate the idea of God.

[@oreally8605]

Morality comes from God. You can't escape that atheist.

[@1godonlyone119]

Without God, there could be no objective morality.

[@bigsimpin5722]

Can someone answer this question which is sort of related? What if morality is simply some deep-down ingrained understanding of what bests propagates the species, being idealized as a God? And to continue, what if the reason certain forms of altruism seem appropriate when seen through the lens of morality, is because our deep-down ingrained understanding of what bests propagates the species is simply aware that it won't be a net gain in the long term?

[@joseandres7075]

I get your point and I think it's a really good one, but I also think that the problem with propagation of the species as the highest moral achievement or goal is that inside that premise, things like avoiding and punishing rape, setting an age of consent, respecting mutual agreement and attraction between procreators, having children under direct care of their parents and not the State, all those things are not necessary IF propagation and survival of the species was the end goal. Under that premise, someone can say "If I rape and kill my neighbour, who cares? Her family cries and suffers for her loss? Boo-hoo, grow up. The species won't dissappear, the world will continue on it's own, so as long as there are enough people to steal from, rape, kill, it really doesn't matter!" You see my point? Now you could argue that other species have altruistic behaviors to ensure their survival, which is very true, but we have to ask ourselves, what purpose do they have to do that instead of just instinct? They are programmed to do it naturally and so are we, but we also have the ability to question such ingrained altruistic necessities beyond biology and override them. When you scold your dog and he looks ashamed, he really isn't, he's afraid you might hurt him but he's not thinking if what he did was good or bad and why, same with altruistic behavior. Even under a macro-evolution materialistic perspective, one has to ask: What purpose did the first bacteria had to multiply itself and propagate the species? What purpose had the innanimate chemicals to form DNA and create a being capable of reproduction and have the necessity to propagate? Why even bother?

[@delidamanik258]

People think that life is all about living today.

[@brooklynvlogs9396]

I think their was a miscommunication here. Frank is arguing for Objective Morality while the Guy believes Morality is subjective, or rather Morality doesn't even exist just that Evolution imbedded a set of principles into us in order to help us better survive and we as human beings assigned a name to those principles called Morality. The Problem with that is Rape then becomes okay so long as no one dies in the process, Rape happens in the animal kingdom and even the animals themselves are against it. So if Evolution imbedded a set of principles into life forms in order to help them survive better through the spreading of one's DNA, why then would Animals and Human beings have a negative reacting to it as if something unatural was taking place. Consent would not be a factor in survival.

[@lmjoshea5915]

The poor fella is grasping at straws, that was a great way to finish the conversation, he was respected and he gracefully walked away, I might add, with his tail between his legs!

[@TJ-kk5zf]

you're talking about Turek, right?

[@fewblack1572]

J SD maybe but I don't know y your name keeps coming to mind

[@TJ-kk5zf]

@@fewblack1572 mighty Christian thing to say

[@lkt20169]

This argument never makes sense to me no matter who brings it up or how it’s argued because they always seem ignore the individuality of people. Yes, as a whole people working together will help them all survive and prosper, but there are individuals out there who don’t give a crap about their communities and only care for themselves, thus they will do whatever they want to insure their own survival regardless of who it hurts. And if that type of person gains a lot of power you end up with scenarios such as Stalin. I feel like this is an argument made by those who believe people are inherently good rather than evil, which is just not true.

[@thetruthchannel349]

survival is how evolution occurs? Anyone notice how with Darwinistic Apologetics ambassadors evolution just becomes what it needs to be at the moment? Ive never seen an alleged scientific or biological 'mechanism' take on as many chameleon-like characteristics as evolution. It literally becomes whatever the person attempting to defend it needs it to become at the moment.

[@BestAnimeFreak]

Darwinistic apologetics xD That would be a great one, if you would not be dead serious about it ...

[@KangX92]

If we can't agree the definition of morality we really can't get anywhere in the morality debate. If morality means "what people ought to do." Then of course there need a standard outside people (god) to justify morality. If morality means what people ought to do IN ORDER TO ensure survival /well being. Then you don't need a god to establish objective moral rules. It's as simple as that.

[@JGeMcL]

Lastlife but “ought to do in order to ensure survival / well being” of whom? That is what Frank was trying to get at. Survival of me and my genes? Then rape and murder makes sense just as it does in nature, a pride of lions for example. Survival of my community or race? Than enlarging my own community if even at expense of another makes sense, hence Nazism, slavery, and apartheid. Survival of the human race as a species? Obviously not an inherent human trait, with violence, greed, selfishness and pride rampant in all communities , so does this even apply? So then what is defining what we “ought to do?” Every person on the wrong side of morality did what they thought they “ought to do”. Think of the US Confederates, and what they were fighting for. Why were they morally wrong when they were fighting for their survival and well being?

[@KangX92]

JGeMcL I am just pointing out when some people talk about morality that's what they have in mind. In the atheistic world view they conceptualise morality not as some objective standard set by objective moral law giver, but as rules and principles emerge out of the evolutionary process and social landscape . They(moral rules) changes over time and adpates the environment. From a practical perspective even there are no objective moral rules. The rules that benefit society in the long run will emerge as victors over time. Yes, in the grand scheme there are ultimately no difference between one living a honest life and one that kills and steals if naturalism is true . But in practice it doesn't matter. The honest way of living will just emerge as social norms through evolution. And therefore atheists say honest is moral.

[@KangX92]

JGeMcL the morality debate simply doesnt bare any practical use IMO. Yes if there is no standard outside human whether slavery is moral is ultimately a matter of opinion. But however at this time in human history slavery are just outdated and getting outcompeted in the market place of different social norms. I am not favouring atheist or theist in this issue. They both right in some aspects .

[@JGeMcL]

I will agree with you that the morality debate doesn't have much practical use. I believe apologetics itself doesn't serve much purpose unless the person you are talking to is searching for God. I feel people like Frank Turek debating atheists is a fruitless endeavor. Frank is there more for the people who are really curious about God, and to help support those being harassed by atheists. The morality debate keeps coming up though as atheists claim that the Christian God is immoral and therefore cannot exist as described, so yeah... can't get away from it.

[@KangX92]

JGeMcL well ,when I say the debate has little practical use I meant whether there is a god and morality is objective have little practical impact in the real world. The debate itself tho can be used as a tool to reach SOME people for apologetics so in that sense the apologetic aren't wasting time . For SOME people the strong sense of moral right and wrong could lead them to believe there has to be a standard outside man. While for others(naturalists) they will dismiss it and approach morality in a other way .

[@theodoreturner5567]

While I was taking a course on comparative religions, i read a book on Hinduism. The author suggested that we open to the moral values of Hinduism , specifically the caste system, since it created a stable society for thousands of years.

[@randypoe618]

Wonderful system for the upper caste but terrible for the lower castes. Very poor moral system.

[@tonya1802]

He can't help but use those words because he is an image bearer of God.

[@mikaelium192]

awesome frank

[@geraldcliver1496]

Evil is sourced in Satan, just as good is sourced in God, according to Jesus in John 8:42-47.

[@memowilliam9889]

Gerald Cliver Evil is only the privation of something good. It is not the equal opposite of good. If good did not exist then evil could not exist. Yes. Satan is the father of all lies but a lie is only the perversion of something good, ie truth. If truth did not exist then a lie could not either. It has nothing to pervert.

[@danielblair4413]

I don't consider God to be a being that is 100% good I consider God to be a being that is 100% righteous. Good can be used in wrong ways, so God can't be a being that is 100% good, but he can be a being that is 100% righteous. God created both good and evil it states that in the following verse... Isaiah 45:7 (KJV): “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” You can't reconcile the above scripture unless you come to realize that good and evil can be used in right and wrong ways and God uses both the right way.

[@grantbartley483]

The questioner has quite a good atheist angle: you should care to do right or wrong because you care about the state of your society, which can all be accounted for in evolutionary terms. Fine. But if you don't feel that, there is no moral impulse to behave that way, and who's to say scummy behaviour won't help you survive? I think Frank is trying to argue against the relativism implied by the atheist position from the meaning of moral language (wjhat 'ought' and 'morally obliged' implies, for instance): If you're using the word moral, this implies a duty over and beyond what is practical or relative to your feelings. That also is a good angle, but he hasn't communicated it to his interlocutor, I think. But so what, anyway? Christianity isn't about morality. Except perhaps God displaying his, and Christians dis[playing it too, when they can. That again is an entirely different issue.

[@GodlessGubment]

Leviticus 21:16-23 ESV And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to Aaron, saying, None of your offspring throughout their generations who has a blemish may approach to offer the bread of his God. For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, a man blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face or a limb too long, or a man who has an injured foot or an injured hand, or a hunchback or a dwarf or a man with a defect in his sight or an itching disease or scabs or crushed testicles.

[@ikawpipa]

1:16 "... What is good is ... actions,, that care for other people"? What if I care a lot for Emma Watson and she doesn't give a Sh#$ about me? Is Emma Watson immoral and a bad person?

[@sionsebastian2501]

If survival is the ultimate goal, why need Love???? just eat, have sex, work and die. Why Love.??? What is the need of love if it is just for survival. If survival is the goal why non consent sex is termed as rape?

[@walterdaems57]

In essence yes. However the cradle of our modern conception of morality lies in Greece long before the birth of Jesus. Now, all religions are equally ridiculous but Christianity is the complete antipode of morality and it’s popularity can be largely explained because it appeals to the cowardice aspect of human nature. Instead of acting against injustices in the here and now Christianity relies on a celestial bully to even the score in due time. A neighborhood child is being abused by her stepdad. ‘Shouldn’t we report that to the authorities?’ ‘Nah, god has undoubtedly a very special plan for that little girl’. ‘Yes, but what about him?’ ‘Don’t worry, he will be judged by god almighty in due time and in the meantime we will pray for her’. And that’s exactly why Christianity is so popular. Instead of pope’s, priests or believers addressing the real roots of poverty they prefer to distribute clothes and soup. So, Christians don’t feel the obligation to fight against inequality and at the same time they can feel good about themselves, now isn’t that a convenient belief system? Furthermore, what kind of morality is their to expect from a religion that needs a heaven as carrot on a stick to convince people to be good and a deterrent like hell to keep them on the right path?

[@helpmaboabb]

How does he explain peaceful group development like the Pueblo Indians who never heard about the European god? They would never have successfully built their community if they had fallen on each other in barbaric fashion.

[@houstonsam6163]

I think Turek might have done better to point out that communities in the past have frequently persecuted dissident individuals or minorities for the good of the community. By the standard "community survival is defined as 'the good'" those persecutions would be considered moral, but no one accepts that conclusion.

[@davidplummer2619]

Okay, kid, you keep talking about survival as if it is axiomatic that it is the ultimate good, the greatest accomplishment in the universe, to be kept up at all costs. But why? In a godless universe where death trumps everything, why is survival better than non-survival? What yardstick do you use to determine that? What gives the brief futile candle of human life value other than us just wanting it to be so?

[@dannylinc6247]

I would ask what's the difference between our country's founders intention and basis for their truth and hope? How does it compare to countries that we consider failed and failing? What do we now have to do to keep ours from failing ? I think these are currently the questions we need. These unproven theories are taking us off course, I think. The ones students seem to be being taught to use as basis for thought. They're causing our bad decisions and major blunders.

[@TrailToughTrailers]

I'm thinking of the Book Peace Child by Don Richardson

[@alittax]

4:04 Frank himself said that Stalin only cared for his henchmen, which means even Stalin cared for some part of his community: 3:28.

[@GSpotter63]

I personally don't think the moral argument for God's existence is very strong.... But then nether is the argument that if man can make up their own morals that God and his morals don't exist... One simply doesn't restrict the existence of the other.

[@workbywes]

I kinda feel for the guy! I love frank but I don't think he understood what the guy was asking nor did he respond appropriately.

[@jessebryant9233]

Why don't you clear it up for us then?

[@workbywes]

The guy was asking whether or not a community can establish it's own set of morals based upon the aim of securing the well being of said community. Frank has responded to questions surrounding this perspective on morality before which is why I do not believe he responded appropriately.

[@jessebryant9233]

What would be the appropriate response then? Also, absolutely NOBODY is saying that any group can't make up their own rules and pretend that they are objective or that the powerful can't impose them on the minority. However, that would not be objective morality. In other words, if it isn't objective, then it is subjective. And it can only be objective if there is a transcendent authority behind it. So of course people can make up fake rules predicated upon irrational ideas, arbitrary notions, and fallacious reasoning, that equates to little more than subjective opinions. That's kind of a no-brainer, right?

[@workbywes]

Jesse Bryant Hey man I am a believer! I follow Jesus and I want to assume you do too. I understand your points but I think this guy went away not being feed what he truly needed! That’s all.

[@jessebryant9233]

Oh, I understand that you are a believer. I'm just trying to figure out what you're driving at. So, what would have been the appropriate response? What did this guy need? How was it mishandled? For future reference, the answer could be beneficial to both of us.

[@NB-no7lh]

This kid reasons that the community would fare better if one didn’t kill another and take his stuff, but evolutionism isn’t a respecter of communities. The theory of evolutionism is all about concurrent individual subsistence, not communal subsistence.

[@savannah138]

I usually like his videos but this one kind of bothered me. I don't feel like he was giving the kid a chance to fully make his point weather its right or not he seems to be seeking and getting closure on the full question coukd have helped. Another thing I don't think he was asking in a moral sense I think he meant societies each having a,code to live by which yes could be considered moral but are not for moral reasons there implemented for strategic survival methods that would with out intention be deemed moral by an outsider . having this survival code /law /values what ever you want to call it implemented would possibly be instinctual due kind of like animals in packs having a type of respect or knowing not to kill eachother because there a pack and survive best as that ..not because of morals even if an outsider looks and says hey those animals get along ,are loyal to eachother take care of eachother dont kill eachother etc they must have morals..thats not the reason why or the intentions because I dont think animals have a moral code that I know of at least . I don't agree with this point of view but I believe this is the type of reality the kid was getting at ..or could be wrong and this makes no sense .. Just my take on it

[@mackdmara]

That was funny. He gets up, knowing, Frank is talking about religion & ethics, then at the end states he is not really talking about, 'good' in a moral sense. That was classic. The more subtile thing he did was jump between group & individual survival. They are tied, but either way, this guy did not follow it. It was good for the individual until he was met with Stalin, then it was the group surviving. Still, his individual DNA was important to pass, but adultery, rape, & acting immoral gives a greater possibility for that. He returned to saying the group is why, but many people still do that today & prosper. So, why again is morality derived from evolution? I hope he learned something there & will openly question the belief he was attempting to explain. God Bless him, & good stuff.

[@mackdmara]

Bootney Lee True

[@deaankoekemoer5471]

Perhaps because the topic at that point was two nations at war and the primary point was survival? This is really not that difficult. Follow the conversation.

[@mackdmara]

Lomzy The point was morality, which the questioner said comes from society & evolution. Which he backed off of at the end. During the talk, he flips to the individual doing things for personal survival & then group & back & forth. O.K., Great! How does that pertain to morals being from this? The questioner finds, it did not in the end (or he could not articulate it). Which type of survival made this morality possible & shaped it? If you followed it, what did I miss? He considered it from both sides, but they conflicted. Not the speaker, the questioner from the audience. He could not consistently keep to his viewpoint or explain it. Maybe he is a bad public speaker, but how do you get an aught from a is? We act in accord sometimes, but that is with effort, not by nature. I do not see how war factors in, but let me know. You may have picked up something I missed.

[@deaankoekemoer5471]

He never backed out of it. The conversation took a turn and he went along with it. There were several parts to the conversation(which Frank basically tricked the boy into following) and not just one part which got contradicted or some such thing. If you can't see the way Frank "wins" arguments then it's testament to the blind following wolves :/ There's honestly no hope for our species. EDIT: I do think that the only reason that the boy went into that mode of seeming contradiction was specifically because of Frank. After a few other videos and having spread Frank's name as the only theist with good arguments, I think I was mistaken. Frank is a con-man and trickster. He wins arguments because he interrupts and twists people's words then argues on his own version of what they said which in turn makes the opponent try to explain it differently and Frank then does the same thing and the opponent gets lost. I hope that makes sense. Have a good day mackdmara.

[@arnoldh2275]

Frank was destroying all of his positions so he had to hop around to find new ones on the go

[@datboi42]

Behold: The question atheist’s can never answer

[@midlander4]

Punctuation classes are available.

[@datboi42]

@@midlander4 you’re really mad at me huh? Why are you going through multiple Christian videos and commenting at me under each one? Is this what you weirdos do in your free time?

[@ecrivezmoi2007]

What's that book? Please add it in the discription!

[@captain16crush46]

"I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" and "Stealing from God" by Frank Turek

[@1godonlyone119]

Without God, it would make no objective difference whether you or I survive or not.

[@JordanLofgren434]

Why is surviving the moral thing to do? What if the moral thing to do is for communities to not survive?

[@charliefrostcharlie]

I want that book. Which book is it?

[@varunjohnson9570]

Frank did you read Proverbs. Wisdom is a woman, God created her.

[@dataman6744]

Not Russia, Soviet Union. Stalin was in fact Georgian

[@nathanbennett8400]

I think the guy was just really pushing for "we don't need God for morality, and I don't need a reason for that", which doesn't make any sense. I'm glad that moral laws are not man made, because man would change them to fit his or her need. Some people believe that morality doesn't change, but that's only because they have a limited view on current times. In ths past, it was ok to kill people they thought were witches. Are they right? They were "protecting" their community, their community eventually fell. Everything will fall, but God will beyond everything, and He will Never fall.

[@somedutchguy7582]

"In ths past, it was ok to kill people they thought were witches." Exodus 22:18

[@cmvamerica9011]

Frank, if Islam were true would you believe it?

[@willettej7988]

Survival of the fittest has nothing to do with community.

[@felipemello1151]

I am christian and I agree with CS Lewis about a morality coming from God. However, the speaker's answer was terrible. The boy had a good argument: Could it be that our human brains were selected in a way that, societies where individuals have a certain type of moral inclination have a higher chance of survival? The answer is yes. Why? Because moral laws that come from God are good. And they are good because they work. Genes define personality, alcohol addiction, aggressiveness, so why not morality? Now I understand that this is a complex conversation, but I think that the speaker was way too harsh and affirmative.

[@mosesking2923]

Except a basic knowledge of human history would disprove that theory in a heartbeat. Plenty of indigenous tribes have existed where is was "moral" to kill a child with a birth defect or rape women in war. We have lived in a Christian society for 1000+ years so we just assume that certain morals have always been universal.

[@robertsacco5096]

God this is my pastor.

[@JamminStuff]

First good questioner, actually intelligent & not ignorantly attacking christianity based on imported outrage. First time I've been somewhere in the middle between Franks answer & the questioners point. I think morality can be derived from the social norms evolved to better help communities survive & thrive, thus why rape is bad, you have to treat other people well, etc etc, it all helps & adds to the collective spirit of the community, and the better the standard of life for a given community/culture/nation, the stronger there collective spirit, the harder they will fight, and the more likely they are too survive, even in pre-neolithic human history, I believe that is where this originated as if a certain tribe or communities standard of moral behaviour was too be horrible to one another, that would affect collective goodwill & spirit & thus hurt the tribes survival long term. Having said that, they still draw on Gods landscape for the laws of morality. To arrive at these innate immutable laws which govern our code of conduct towards each other & make for good communities, you need an overarching creator who endows us with inalienable rights, and I believe the 'moral' way for a community to thrive and survive is based on & draws from Gods plane of existence as there is a concrete way to maximum human endeavour & ability to thrive, which is what we are hopefully moving towards, and I beleive this standard & maximally 'good' way of being is there regardless of humanities actions and cannot be twisted into other ways no matter what the times social & sociological forces are, any more than a triangle can have 4 sides.

[@JamminStuff]

Or, more accurately, I think morality could have evolved as a tribal structure ensuring stability & survival, where I think god comes into it is he created the laws of logic in this universe that ensure this that the best way in which a tribe can survive is one where the least unecesarry suffering occurs, aka, he made it so the most moral tribe has the strongest inward structure & thus the strongest outward pressure.

[@whitemat76]

if morality is rooted is culture, it’s not really objective, which means we cannot condemn child sacrifice, rape. etc. We have a moral standard which is transcendent.

[@WiseGuy508]

Well put.

[@grantbartley483]

Love the anti-Platonic argument!

[@gareginasatryan1579]

I think there's a confusion of terms here. What evolutionists claim as "morality" is really behavior that's beneficial to survival. So in their sense, animals have morality too, even plants. That's why racists claim that whites have the best morality/culture, because Europe has far surpassed the third world in advancement. The issue is that what they think is moral is more along the lines of Hitler, not Judeo-Christian morality. In their view, ruthlessness and intelligence is the way forward for mankind. If anything they think that compassion is what's holding Europe back. What why race realists like to repeat that national socialism (and European paganism) is APPLIED BIOLOGY. Pagans actually understand how the world works instead of the softhearted attitudes of Christians.

[@Paulthored]

Around 1:02 to around 1:16 Basically, either your saying that Justice is something supernatural but mindless, & volition-less... Or it has to be embodied by a mind capable of following true justice in fullness of that definition. Otherwise it's just a meaningless societal self deception, which doesn't really exist or matter, but we pretend that it does. ( _Which would basically mean that the Nuremburg Trials weren't actually about justice. Along with every other court ever in existence._ )

[@blanktrigger8863]

The real problem with this idea is that survival simply isn't synonymous with morality. Human beings survived just fine for years without morality, it's simply an animalistic level of life. Everything about morality goes beyond that level - goes beyond survival, or the "what happens" that Turek describes. Therefore evolutionary biology is insufficient. It isn't what morality is about, but is instead one of the co-equal components of The Result of getting morality actually is right.

[@warrenking7965]

Honestly this was the best atheist explanation for the moral problem I’ve heard, especially compared to Hitchens who just ignores the problem entirely. The question still kind of stands, that like okay so we’ve evolved to have these morals so that we look out for ourselves and the group... and there are animals who look out for the group like ants or bees.... but then you’re still kind of left with well, who cares? Why should I personally care if the group survives even if the dna itself cares? And why should dna itself care could be another question? Like why does the universe bother with all this something when there could be nothing? The atheist arguments are lacking in the why department.

[@allanrobis777]

Some kid does'nt get it..more research then..

[@darthbane2669]

He believes in evolution thats all you need to know.

[@BestCrazyShow]

Sometimes is better for a comunity to destroy another in terms of survival. In that case destroying weak comunities will be a good moral standard, along with slaving them as other good moral action. The concept of having a wealthy humankind does not take place without a absolute moral ruler that affirms common wealthy as good. On the other hand, a survival worldview can't affirm common wealthy because there's no reason for it in survival terms.

[@philipeafroboy1]

Interesting that he begin by saying he had a moral question, but after Frank went through the arguments of why evolution isn't a great basis for morality he changed to saying "when I say 'better' I don't mean in a moral sense but in a sense where a society increases its chances of survival". So it seems he actually concedes evolution is not a good basis for morality, and he altered his standpoint to a utilitarian one.

[@gergabendi]

We are not saying survival is good. We are saying that those, who did not strive to survive, died off in the evolutionary process.

[@gloryboundkev]

Time is a measurement of change. God does not change. Before anything was created there was no change.

[@armandvista]

The Survival of Communities is not identical with Moral Goodness. First, what do you appeal to when claiming that Survival of Communities is a morally Good thing. Second, Survival of Communities can also not be Morally Good (if we presuppose that there is a standard independent of survival). For example, people have evolutionary grounds to be Nazis. From an evolutionary perspective, we have genes in which promote such action as excluding and eliminating genetic out-groups in order to maintain and grow land and resources for genetic in-groups. Thirdly, there are more than one communities. What may be conducive to survival for one community might be contradictory to what is conducive to survival for another community. Are they both somehow Morally Good? Lastly, there is no grounds to identify Moral Goodness with Survival of Communities. It doesn't even make sense, there is a leap of logic here that is unwarranted.

[@kostasz7z]

Dont use logic with Leftists (atheists included) . You will confuse them.

[@knightd00b]

But also we are still left with Good being a preference. Just Gods preference. So when he wipes the entire world out, we have to say that was "good".

[@LivingLikeLu]

I see what you’re saying here! I would first say that God wiped out the world to punish the evil that was in it, since all there was at that time was evil. I believe punishing evil is good (and would assume you would agree here); so in the example you are referencing, God’s actions were just and good. Now the thing about God’s preference leads us to wonder “why Him over us?” Well I would say that God’s preference is the CORRECT preference. We look at ourselves and other humans, and sure we all have varying levels of good and bad actions/decisions/thoughts...but at the end of the day we make mistakes and have misinterpretations. The point here is that God’s preference is worthy of obeying, worthy of following, considering how God is deemed as a “perfect and holy” creator. That would set Him apart from us...so the final question to consider would be “why wouldn’t His preference be the preference to follow?”

[@knightd00b]

@@LivingLikeLu Babies, small children and animals would not be evil though. Also there are curves in societies where it doesn't benefit to be "good" as in 3rd world nations whereas in a good country the honor system works to the benefit of the group.

[@LivingLikeLu]

@@knightd00b what you said about babies and small children and animals is your opinion however. I don’t agree with you...but many would. At the end of the day is doesn’t matter what you or I or millions of other people think. In the final analysis, my point is that we have no equal standard of good. Everything you said can be something with which I can agree or disagree. Who are you to tell me what you said is right/wrong and vice versa me to you? We can talk all day about things like this, but at the end of the day, my point is it does not matter, because we are not the ones who ultimately decide.

[@Constellation3232]

I thought privation theory was disproven

[@jessebryant9233]

Would it not be fair to point out that pragmatism ≠ morality? There terms are not synonyms. Those who seek to explain 'morality' without God or some transcendent standard, aren't they really just speaking pragmatically? _If I _*_prefer_*_ to survive (or take over the world), what kinds of actions might be _*_good_*_ for me?_

[@disrupt94]

" Would it not be fair to point out that pragmatism ≠ morality? " Morality is just a system of how we ough to treat eachother. Pragmatism is one such system.

[@bobpolo2964]

ludvig - ought?

[@jessebryant9233]

*LUDVIG:* Bob got ya there! You scoffers are constantly stepping in it (assuming what you deny) and then insisting that the stink in the room isn't coming from you! Also, you seem to have missed the point: pragmatism ≠ morality. Please, stop using words improperly - especially after your error has already been pointed out to you.

[@jessebryant9233]

Careful Bob! I believe I'm the only one to use the term 'error' on this thread...

[@deaankoekemoer5471]

Jesse Bryant another one that tries to conflate morality and survival(and what i remember from our last back and forth, i'm not surprised that you can't think) . it's not that one prefers tobe "good" for one's own sake alone. this comes back to empathy and what will be better for both me and other people. the archaic nonsense is strong here.

[@vicity4585]

It surprises people that Stalin survive till old age. Did Stalin survive well though ? Yeah he did till 74 with a fist

[@darthbane2669]

Man that kid really should have just gave up and sat down.

[@lilyblair4113]

He's not letting that kid get a single word in

[@vishalkurien1982]

Help :- Which book was Frank Turek reffering to, at the last?

[@sherlockhomeless7138]

Probably the one about stealing from God. 'Stealing from God. Why atheists need God to make their case'.

[@Foxygrandpa2131]

I respect that Frank has slides for everything but I think in this format he’d be better off leaving then behind. The slides seem to restrict his ability to give a thoughtful and personal response to each person, or at least gives that impression.

[@selderane]

He's said he basically gets asked the same 20 questions over and over, which makes sense. But when he sometimes gets a question that is close to one of those 20, but not quite, he seems to try to shoehorn it into his boxed slide presentation. It may not be intentional but I think he's bending the question into his assumption about what the questioner is "really" asking.

[@johnrichards6080]

The person in the audience made some great points, which remain unanswered. Turek seemed confused between biological evolution and the development of a society with morals that ensure the survival of a community (and the best chance of passing on its DNA). It seems to occur like this: 1. killing, for example, is forbidden because it decreases the chance of a community's survival 2. killing eventually becomes a moral belief, i.e. 'killing is wrong'. It is now independent from the reason for the moral's creation , 3. a community (say the Jewish tribes that established the laws) then says that the this moral belief comes from God and he'll punish you if you disobey him. Here we have authority moving from people to a god. This means that God is the third stage in establishing a moral code. Not first. Morals don't originate from a supernatural source. The fact that we consider it okay, even heroic, to kill during war further indicates that morals come from the need to survive as a community.

[@bassmanjr100]

Frank is not confused believe me. I've seen enough of his videos to know that. He probably didn't do his best to explain the issue here in this short segment. The Moral Argument is well known. The deficiencies of explaining morality under atheistic world view is also well known. I would suggest you check out William Lane Craig's Moral Argument video if you have interest. It is a short 5 minute video.

[@jackprescott9652]

Is heroic to kill in self defense, there`s nothing mysterious about that, Talk to any war veteran, they will tell you that they kill to stay alive, not fot their country, and they almos all the time are praying to God for their life.

[@Bojanglesz89]

This is first video I disagree with. Morality is strongly linked to biology, because a-moral societies would indeed not thrive as well moral societies. Man is a social animal as are most mammals and all these animals show forms of morality! Check out Jordan Peterson and his discussion about rough and tumble between rats!

[@steve5123456789]

Also to add Societies with open relationships are also the most violent. He used a lot of fallacies.

[@bassmanjr100]

Check out William Lane Craig's video on the Moral Argument. Reasonable faith site. It is 5 minutes long and explains the issue way better than this video.

[@JacobSanders-zc7sq]

What book do you recommend to someone who says they would be a Christian if it were true? I have been working on and witnessing to my brother for years and he still hasn't come around, however, he did say if it were true he would believe and follow it.

[@slimshead8100]

Jacob Sanders Norm Geisler and Frank Turek’s book, ‘I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist’, is a wonderful book for that. They don’t use scripture one single time, because it’s pointless to use scripture when trying to reach someone who has no faith in scripture. They use the cosmological and moral arguments, along with several other arguments. Also, ‘legislating morality”, is another great book by them.

[@jessebryant9233]

*JACOB,* hope you don't mind if I weigh in and offer a few suggestions just from personal experience... 1.) Me, the Professor, Fuzzy, and the Meaning of Life, by David Pensgard 2.) More Than a Carpenter, by Josh McDowell 3.) Mere Christianity, by C. S. Lewis The first begins by asking the most basic questions and deals with logic and reason. Written like a comic book, it takes all of about 2 hours to read - but significantly more time to process. (You should be able to find a PDF copy online.) The second, well, if you aren't already familiar, just peruse the TOC and you'll get the picture. It's a topic book addressing many key areas that folks often have questions about. The third is significantly heavier and takes far more commitment, but for the serious seeker, should answer a lot of questions, clear up common misunderstandings, and provide much fodder for contemplation. Hope that perhaps you find some of the above useful!

[@disrupt94]

" I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist’, is a wonderful book for that." Apart from being incorrect right away (the title is self-contradictory), the book does not prove christianity to be true. Neither Geisler nor Turek have any credentials within cosmology or physics, their philosophy is nowhere near as airtight as you they would like it to be, and the moral argument ends up being lacking.

[@ianconnelly1692]

Ludvig Burman what about the undeniable evidence in that book that what the new testament writers recorded about jesus was real

[@disrupt94]

that's very deniable "evidence". There was no way for you to prove that these superstitous peolple were simply not under a missapprehension.

[@renlamomtsopoe]

What is the name of the book frank?

[@moa3821]

he finds these slides are different

[@riancordoni4587]

i've watched a lot of videos about morality and stuff but here is the question : why it has to exist morality? I understand that without god there is no morality but that's not prooves why it has to exist

[@gtabraham3454]

Morality is simply what is right and wrong to do. If morality doesn't exist, the world would be complete Randomness with everybody opposing their own will upon others just for the sake of doing so. You could rape any woman, kill any man, or torture any child just for the sake of there being no morality. No right or wrong moral compass. That is why there has to be one.

[@LivingLikeLu]

Morality exists within us! That’s why... you see it everywhere. Sure there are outliers/exceptions, But you (I assume) and I both KNOW there is something inherently wrong with killing or raping a human. The question then becomes why? Why do we feel this inside of us? Why do we feel guilt when we do things sometimes? Sure, that can be arbitrary and subject to individuals. But the rape/murder thought is shared by a majority of all peoples from all tribes for millennium...this is not a new “standard” created by the bourgeoisie...it is something that has been inherent within humans from the dawn of time. So the question becomes from where did this moral compass come?

[@johnrichards6080]

What Ben says is absolutely correct. Morals are morals because they enable the survival and evolution of societies. Morals make sense. No god is required. Great the way Ben politely repeats his assertion when Frank tries to change it.

[@mosesking2923]

Then why not kill the disabled and elderly to purify the gene pool? Why not legalize rape and infanticide which are both equally "natural." Why not allow people to kill each other so the stronger survive and the weak die off? Your failed natural theory is filled with plenty of holes. Even if nature programs thoughts into us, that alone is not morality.

[@randypoe618]

Evolution has given us todays morals, anarchy in many places. Survival of the fittest is the morality of evolution.

[@johnrichards6080]

@@randypoe618 Some people create calm, well-ordered societies, other people create chaotic, corrupt societies. Evolution by natural selection is irrelevant. It doesn't create morals. We do.

[@dariusnoname12]

Just some addition. Survival for the fittest is not only fighting for life. We in some ways abide that law in today world. We go to school to get education, so we could be better than other, to get better life, which overall increases chance of survival.

[@darthbane2669]

Born again Christians dont care about having more material things than each other though. we dont seek to destroy the other for our own personal gain, in fact it is more appealing that we help each other, we rather suffer so that the other may become stronger if it means sacrifice then thats what we do. Perfectly? Nope but more so than any other so called religion. We are willing to be persecuted because Jesus Christ told us you are doing the right thing if you are being persecuted for having faith in Jesus Christ your God.

[@dariusnoname12]

@@darthbane2669 "Christians don't care about having more material things than each other though" >>Same is with everyone. What I said is that you have to compete no matter what(I did not meant that as if people want to destory others, which is not true). Same is with theists, not everyone can become priests or popes. "Christians don't care about having more material things than each other though" >>Non-theists also care more about each other than material things(I am good example :D).

[@dariusnoname12]

@Robert Dunn "Survival of the fittest in this case would suggest the fat man would lose the race of his life against that lion while the other escapes." >>That is true. "However, I would say that that is bogus because I think the true survival of the fittest would be the one whose will is the strongest and if the fat man's will was stronger to survive, then I would bed that he would not be some lions dinner that day." >>Well, in survival of the fittest is not only about physical strenght or agility, it is also about emotional state or other skills. It is basically who is better suited for this environment. For example, fit man would more likely survive lion encounter than a not fit man, leader would more likely to survive in a wild than simple ordinary person. And this concept can be applied to our current lives, cause people with more resources(skills, connections, looks) are more likely to get good job, than those that do not have that(skills, connections, looks). Which means that better looking, skillful person would more likely to survive and thrive in our current environment than person that doesn't have any of those skills(no job would mean no house, no good food, etc.)

[@Demonizer5134]

I thought this guy made a much better argument than Turek. His point was that "morality" can be nothing more than what evolution describes as best fit to survive. Frank is the one proclaiming that it is something more than that, and therefore Frank bears the burden of showing why that is so. I'm really glad that I can listen to these discussions with an open mind because based on what I heard in this exchange Frank's argument came across as weak and superficial, and this questioner helped me to open my eyes and see morality on a much deeper, philosophical level.

[@silenthero2795]

"His point was that "morality" can be nothing more than what evolution describes as best fit to survive." That's entirely false. Animals have no moral quandaries and yet they survive so far just fine. They kill, rape, and steal all the time but it's morally bad if we do it to each other? They may even outlive us humans as we are too busy fighting each other who is right. If morality is to be summed up as a trait for survival, then that would mean it can be morally justified if I killed you for my own personal survival and for the good of society. After all, I'm just doing it to survive and for the betterment of mankind. Nothing personal. If anything else, our own morality hinders our survival and progress as we could just wipe out all those with crippling disabilities, the elderly, the undesirables like criminals and psychopaths, anyone who would not and could not contribute doesn't deserve to live. Survival of the fittest so in that world, morality is actually more of a disadvantage than a tool for survival. Is that a much better argument for you?

[@Demonizer5134]

@@silenthero2795 Altruistic behavior aids us in our survival. The things we consider to be morally good are embedded into us and it's all part of our evolutionary development.

[@silenthero2795]

​@@Demonizer5134 Who is this "us" you speak off? You or my community? It's not like we're ants that share a hive mind, and even then, ants don't give a damn about other ant colonies so why even be altruistic to others if you can help your own immediate community even at the expense of others you won't even see or hear in your lifetime? Where's your proof that morals are embedded into us by evolution? Just because you said so? Again, morality actually hinders our own evolution as we're too afraid to get rid of our own undesirables: the handicapped, the elderly, the useless criminal scum of society. We shouldn't waste time and resources on these people who will never contribute to mankind so better get rid of them ASAP. Even your own argument is against you if you think evolution has any say in this.

[@Demonizer5134]

@@silenthero2795 No, that is completely wrong. The moral actions we take as a society help us to survive. By showing compassion towards undesirables we set a standard by which our entire society is more compassionate and all live better lives because of it. Again, the point was very well made by the gentleman asking the question. I would suggest you watch the video again because he clearly made a great point. How do you not see it?

[@silenthero2795]

​@@Demonizer5134 Oh, I watched it again and again and all I can see is that morality can also be a hindrance to one's survival contrary to popular belief. You don't NEED to be compassionate to succeed, only those people who will help you in return. I've seen so many kindhearted people being taken advantage of time and again and have seen people succeed by doing the most underhanded and scrupulous means to obtain it. You only see the benefits of morality but couldn't see its dark side. I'll agree with you if it only resulted in positives but reality begs to differ and I know you know this all too well. You will most likely get what you want if you always compromise with your morality than you abiding in it. If your reasoning is for the betterment of society then if morality is inconvenient at the time then you will gladly toss it out for the better option. You have no moral foundation to fall upon except for your own subjective opinion so don't complain if you're suddenly on the bad end of a deal. It's for the greater good after all so suck it up. Life isn't fair so tough luck.

[@boxingfit]

What was the book he gave... Please guy..Glod bless

[@benjasamu6694]

boxingfit The book is titled ‘I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist ‘ by Dr. Frank Tureg

[@boxingfit]

@@benjasamu6694 Thank you my friend

[@kjstars]

@@benjasamu6694 Turek

[@drumrnva]

Yep, folks, you heard right. Turek actually asked "why is it better to survive?". 😕

[@angelfigueroa6538]

Yeah, he probably knows an answer, he is just asking this person "why is it better" to understand if he is deriving survival from a moral standard.

[@drumrnva]

@@angelfigueroa6538 I doubt that preference for survival has, or needs, any moral justification. Living things generally want to keep living.

[@angelfigueroa6538]

@@drumrnva- You are right, but then that leads to the question, "Why do we have that will to live?". Our will to live, will ultimately point to our purpose in life, and does not go to explain why we have morals.

[@drumrnva]

@@angelfigueroa6538 I agree. I don't think the drive to survive involves some kind of moral evaluation. The reason we have morals is that learning to get along with others means more of us have the kind of life we want. Respecting others' rights is still the best way to have one's own rights respected in turn.

[@angelfigueroa6538]

@@drumrnva- Well by saying we have rights and we have to respect them, you are implying we already have a moral standard above people of which communities follow (generally).

[@davidbourne8267]

Or...or.. maybe even though morality is subjective...to then ask..why be good is a silly question.... Maybe we're just being what we evolved to be in order to survive... Whatever that is we call moral and good. I have yet to hear an argument for objective morality. I only hear Arguments for why subjective morality would be the worst.

[@onestepaway3232]

Nice young man seeking and asking questions. He will find God if he stay on this path. Shalom

[@lynxknows7911]

Atheists/Fools i have a question. Where does the will to survive come from? Why do we want to survive when we are tasked with the burden of pain and wanting to feel satisfaction all the time.

[@scl97]

LynxKnows No need to call them fools! Christians don't like being ridiculed so don't ridicule them.

[@lynxknows7911]

Sarah-Christina Larose the bible literally refers to atheists as spiritual fools.

[@scl97]

LynxKnows Yes I know but it's not a way to approach someone. You might wanna spend some time talking to them before you say something like that.

[@darthbane2669]

@@scl97 Talking too them is a waste of time especially when they already say they refuse to accept any evidence or reason behind it, no matter how well put. Even Jesus said to leave them be, let the just be just, the willfully ignorant be ignorant because they already chose that path to the maximum, if they are not willing to debate it reasonably then it's a waste of time. I know I did not quote Jesus word for word but it's the same thing.

[@robertlewis9132]

The young man was right, and it his point also aludes to why we created god in the first place.

[@praze2god37]

I couldn’t manage to hear a claim from the young man. All I heard was a question and a hypothetical. So if I missed it, can you tell me what it was exactly he was claiming? And if you would kindly explain to me how he was right about the claim?

[@dee1238808]

@@praze2god37 He claims our source of morality comes from a subjective sense that we all ought to be good and care for one another as civilized human beings as that promotes the longevity of humans, which in turn leads us to reproduce offspring with those same values. With everyone unanimously agreeing to this we make up a sense of 'objective' right and wrong. To the point where some contribute the nature of the right or good (as it has a positive impact on society) to a higher power.

[@praze2god37]

@@dee1238808 Thanks for the clarification. I have to ask a question in response to that theory, though: Where does this "subjective sense" come from? You have begged the question. The variable that orbits this question is not IF we have moral intuitions, but rather where they come from. You mentioned "good" and "positive impact on society." How do those values comport with a (presumably) materialistic worldview?

[@bassmanjr100]

@@dee1238808 I would suggest that you listen to more of Frank and also listen to William Lane Craig. Look for the Moral Argument for God. Craig has a great 5 minute video. I do not think you understand the issue at all at this point. The question isn't how we know morality. The interesting question is can you be good without God? Does good exist without God?

[@SheikhN-bible-syndrome]

"If christianity were true would you believe it" famous words he uses to q the bouncer that hes done talking to a person so that he ends the conversation with the dominant position

[@uke7084]

Well it is his seminar, so Frank is dominant from the beginning. There are other questions lined up for him to attend to and in the end of the day this man is a believer in the resurrected Christ who wants to share the good news to as many people as possible so they can live in the fullness of life.

[@SheikhN-bible-syndrome]

@@uke7084 fullness of life? Religion is not the fullness of life it is bondage.

[@uke7084]

@@SheikhN-bible-syndrome Having come from religion myself I would agree with you. Religion says "Be perfect" Jesus says, "Be loved". Religion demands, Jesus forgives. Religion is really just a bunch of hypocrites gathered around acting like they have everything figured out while judging the mistakes of others. Jesus had this to say about the most esteemed religious figures of the Jewish community, "a brood of vipers". The whole reason Jesus came to Earth, lived a sinless life as fully man and fully God, sacrificed himself for the payment of the world's sin and rose again on the third day to prove his divinity and victory was to SAVE everyone from the bondage of religion. Through Christs finished work, through God's grace and by my faith I have been given fullness of life. Not because I follow a bunch of rules of some religion, but because of the grace of God.

[@SheikhN-bible-syndrome]

@@uke7084 do you want to uphold the truth ? Or uphold your beliefs and feelings? Because not many people truly want the truth because it involves you uprooting everything you held as truth and admitting to your self that you are wrong it's hard to do you will feel like death would be better and it permanently changes your personality. And no you haven't truly done this yet at best maybe let go of some uncomfortable religious beliefs but not reborn. Its very rare especially in the west with are mindset. You cant have your cake and eat it too jesus is a figure constructed from religion for religion so you cant take the mascot and then hate on the team .if you fallow jesus then you are in the religion only you appear to be on the passive side of that team

[@uke7084]

@@SheikhN-bible-syndromeI disagree with your interpretation of Christ. He is not a mascot for a system of laws and ceremonies. He is the savior of the world, come to give us the fullness of life despite our inability to adhere to laws perfectly. If you believe Jesus is a figure constructed from religion for religion, are you telling me you believe Jesus never existed? Which part of the man Jesus do you believe existed and which part do you believe is fabricated? Also, truth inspires belief and feelings, I cannot see how each would be exclusive from the other, though I do see how feelings can blind one to the truth. Feelings and beliefs are not opposed to truth, they simply do not prove truth. I have one more question for you, if you don't mind, if Christianity were proven to be true, would you be a Christian?

[@petrrtep7657]

"Why is killing another person a bad thing?" Believer: because God says it is a bad thing.. Why does God say it is a bad thing? I don't know, He just does.. Non believer: because the species would fall in chaos and go extinct.. Why is that a bad thing? I don't know, it just is..

[@johnelliott5859]

But morality does change. Thank goodness. Otherwise we would still have slavery and women as property. Oughts are agreed to by a society. Even if they take them from some sacred book, the society still must agree to them. Again, if this were not true we would still have slavery and would not have marriage equality in many countries. Morality is dictated by the society, not a moral divine authority. We do not require a divine being to tell us what is good. We soon learn that what is good for us is good for others is good for us. Since we have evolved as a social species, we understand to be part of the group we must treat other group members well. Evolution does explain the golden rule and morality. Those who cooperated in groups were more likely to survive and pass on their genes. This can also be explained materially by the activity of neurotransmitters like oxytocin that respond positively to social behaviours. There are reasonable arguments for morality being an evolutionary development. Frank's claims that there must be a moral law giver are just that claims generated by his christian beliefs in fallen, depraved man incapable of morality without his god.

[@trotsky88]

This kid was smarter than Turek. And Turek was all loaded up with memorized talking points and a slide to show. this kid was thinking on his feet and questioning, thinking and learning. Turek was talking as if he already knew everything, every question had a ready-made answer. Turek is a hack!

[@jamesbarnum3592]

Here Frank has to dive back and forth from the Nazis to attacking this man’s word usage to keep his worldview in play. It is heart breaking to see theists attack reality itself to hold onto their worldviews.

[@dlewisa]

There are no oughts, at least none that we don't come up with. Morality is a complex blend of individual wants, desires, and needs that is balanced with societal or group wants, desires, and needs. You need no god to explain that individuals and groups can come with codes to live by.

[@cmvamerica9011]

Animals other than humans act cooperatively and show caring for others.

[@DaniielPineda]

Wrong. Evolution does dictate our morals.

[@danydaher3918]

Good atheist, good argument

[@matthewvelazquez2013]

"Evil only exists as a privation of a good thing..." Hey, that sounds familiar. Sounds like Question 49 of the Summa Theologiae written by St. Thomas Aquinas. St. Thomas Aquinas? Uh-huh. That's right - a Catholic. Dr. Turek is teaching the kids whole truth, Catholic truth. Come on back Home to Holy Mother Church, Dr. Turek. You're already teaching the kids Catholic truth, whole truth. You're already conforming the kids To the image of Christ by way of Catholic truth. Please rejoin The Church, Dr. Turek. If Catholic Truth is good enough for your brothers and sisters who stand at the microphone, then it's should good enough for you too. Right? Come on back home, Frank. There's plenty of room for you.

[@darthbane2669]

No he isn't.