Debating Secular Morality | Shane-AZ | The Atheist Experience 795

The Atheist Experience 795 for January 6, 2013 with Matt Dillahunty and Tracie Harris.
Call the show on Sundays 4:30-6:00pm CDT: 1-512-686-0279
► Don't like commercials? Become a patron for ad-free content & more: / theatheistexperience
► Podcast versions of the show may be found at:
www.spreaker.c...
► Join our discord:
tinyurl.com/Th...
► Subscribe to the ACA monthly newsletter here to get an advance copy delivered to your inbox every month, as well as access to the Thinking Allowed archive:
aca.activehost...
► The most up to date Atheist Experience videos can be found by visiting
atheist-experie...
-------
WHAT IS THE ATHEIST EXPERIENCE?
The Atheist Experience is a weekly call-in television show in Austin, Texas geared at a non-atheist audience. The Atheist Experience is produced by the Atheist Community of Austin.
The Atheist Community of Austin is organized as a nonprofit educational corporation to develop and support the atheist community, to provide opportunities for socializing and friendship, to promote secular viewpoints, to encourage positive atheist culture, to defend the first amendment principle of state-church separation, to oppose discrimination against atheists and to work with other organizations in pursuit of common goals.
We define atheism as the lack of belief in gods. This definition also encompasses what most people call agnosticism.
VISIT THE ACA'S OFFICIAL WEB SITES
www.atheist-com... (The Atheist Community of Austin)
www.atheist-exp... (The Atheist Experience TV Show)
► More shows and video clips can be found in the archive:
www.atheist-exp...
► DVDs of the Atheist Experience can be purchased via:
www.atheist-com...
NOTES
TheAtheistExperience is the official channel of The Atheist Experience. "The Atheist Experience" is a trademark of the ACA.
The views and opinions expressed by hosts, guests, or callers are their own and not necessarily representative of the Atheist Community of Austin.
Opening Theme:
Shelley Segal "Saved" www.shelleysega...
Limited use license by Shelley Segal
Copyright © 2011 Shelley Segal
Copyright © 1997 Atheist Community of Austin. All rights reserved.

[@smackfanxion]

"You portray that little girl as innocent-" OMFG EVERY TIME!!!

[@reverseaimbot2509]

@@smackfanxion most moral Christian moment

[@richdandanell2911]

Shane is displaying an enormous amount of dishonesty and irrationality .

[@patar3323]

He was extremely agitated, he probably felt embarrassed for a lot of what he said the moment he put the phone down

[@kamion53]

He probably though his ideas were so brilliant they did not need argumentation.

[@kamion53]

@Timothah Molone🦕YAHWEH calls the atheist a FOOL!🦕 He did? When was this? Was he on Fox or on CNN? Did he have a Twitter account now? After 6000 years he finely found more efficient ways of communication then musky old scrolls?

[@patar3323]

@Timothah Molone That would be gnostic atheism

[@richdandanell2911]

@Timothah Molone No .... You are completely wrong , Atheism is not accepting the claims people make that any god exists . Because the people making the claims haven't met their burden of proof . That's all atheism is , it's a position on one claim and that's it , it's not saying there are no gods . If someone can actually show a god is real with some verifiable testable evidence or if a god actually shows up then I myself would accept it . Atheism has no tenets dogmas commandments and has no prays or worship . And does not make moral proclamations nor is it a world view . It's very dishonest of theists like you to try and add all the baggage that religion come with . On to a single position on a single claim . Just so you can build a false narrative about atheism so you can demonize it . Instead of being so dishonest on behalf of the god you think exists . You should actually present evidence that would verify your particular god is real . And if you god happens to be real it seem petty immature and cruel of it to call the people who expect real evidence before they accept a claim as true "fools" . And rewards the gullible for accepting claims on crappy non testable pseudo evidence that does prove the truth of the claim . And that no reasonable person would accept for any other claim . Your god has no more evidence for itself then any other god that's ever been proposed .

[@letusdebatenow]

The classics are some of my favorites. Good to see them still being cut and uploaded.

[@adrianmargean3402]

Yeah, that was before people really knew about them and it was a relatively knew thing for people to be openly atheist on any kind of platform. It was a different time, made for better content for sure.

[@Lupinemancer87]

Throughout the entire call, the caller was just trying to find a "Cotcha" moment, and when his points were debunked he desperately tried finding some other point, hoping it'd work. That's so sad, but that is religion.

[@holdmybeers]

Did you hear at the end about whether or not it was ok to rape a child? And the fella responds: “First of all you’re assuming the little girl is innocent....” Wow. That guy sucks

[@Lupinemancer87]

@@holdmybeers I did, and it was disgusting.

[@Miss-Placed.1]

They often do this

[@ephramwalton]

Actually god doesn't say when you are done "I am going to punish you." He says "I will punish you if you don't love and accept me."

[@shanewilson7994]

yup, its not about making things right, its all about being a sycophant

[@theaviationist.5719]

He says. Go ahead and rape that little child, then if you accept me as your lord and saviour I will let you off the off for the rape. And I will send that rape victim to hell if they grow up with a messed up personality born out of the rape trauma you subjected them to. A lot of these rape victim’s lives are completely destroyed and end up as drug or substance addicts for the rest of their lives. They turn to these drugs and alcohol to mask the pain, end up as prostitutes, shoplifters, involved in petty crimes in order to finance their drug habits etc. And those are the things that the god of the bible / Christians find to be immoral. That rape victim with such a messed up life is destined for Hell fire if she / he does not repent or accept jesus as their saviour. That rapist that accepts jesus on their death bed will get to live for eternity in heaven while the rape victim burns in hell for eternity for not accepting jesus. Hey, Christian morality. 🤦‍♂️👍

[@Juuk-D]

My brain rotted from this, morality has absolute nothing to do with religion

[@timsmith530]

Who cares if atheists are moral

[@Lt.BunnyGirl]

Except religions often seem to link morality to their beliefs.

[@MartinD9999]

That ending was a cherry on top of it. He got destroyed.

[@Julian0101]

One of the best calls on the history of the show.

[@c.guydubois8270]

@@ookeekthelibrarian poor lad...

[@basaksezgin5519]

I think I just cannot unhear the part wear he thinks any child who got r*p* deserved it. That is just pure evil and a sick way of thinking.😔

[@sverkeren]

yes... but consistent with christian core doctrine: original sin.

[@mazs1123]

all he sees is evil everywhere and in everyone

[@shanewilson7994]

it showed just how screwed up his entire moral system is.

[@ianalan4367]

@sverkaren - Hello! Just for clarification ‘original sin’ is not a unanimous vote doctrine. Some believe in ancestral sin which is simulate but theologically different. In neither view point (original sin or ancestral sin) does it suggest that anyone getting raped deserves it. That is a horrid distortion of Christian doctrine. Peace to you and yours!

[@sverkeren]

@@ianalan4367 Is eternal torture in hell also a horrid distortion of christian doctrine?

[@billbrock8547]

Humans live in groups, and like all social animals we've evolved a system of cooperation that makes group living possible. We call our system morality.

[@brucebaker810]

Or, if we're more honest, moralities. Certain groups presume just one. Their arbitrary subset of a book one.

[@laidback6154]

Couldn’t have said it better myself

[@laidback6154]

@Timothah Molone atheism is not a belief system, atheists are defined by what they don’t believe. They don’t believe in a god for the same reasons we don’t believe in the tooth fairy or the Easter bunny. If there was good reason to believe in a god, atheism would cease to exist, its that simple. A person with a skeptical mind is not a fool, a person who believes in something as miraculous as an invisible man with magical powers is the fool.

[@bloozee]

@Timothah Molone who was that atheist? Do we know the person?

[@norcodaev]

@Timothah Molone And I call your supposed gawd an immoral tyrant!

[@moragslothe6449]

1:30 this little tidbit is incredibly revealing, showing religious people, especially those engaged in "apologetics", specifically search out arguments that they think already aligns with their beliefs. They believe they're "open minded" by searching out lots of information, but constantly filtering it through mental obstacles that presumes a conclusion.

[@shanewilson7994]

This is my favorite call. And I love Tracy's responses so much.

[@victorvelie3980]

wow, that guy was saying we don't have a foundation for morality and turned around saying that children deserve to be abused. some people just don't get it

[@stevewhite6861]

If a theist was to read their book honestly they would have to agree the fact that it isn't moral, it is anything but, obviously they won't do that because it would destroy their belief and they're not allowed to question that immoral book.

[@timsmith530]

How does an atheist know what morals are?

[@timsmith530]

@Dewyu Nohmi You can't understand that?

[@c.guydubois8270]

@@timsmith530 hey Tim, the same way other social species do plus some additional human nuance.

[@margaretbarrett6087]

So true; anyone who can read the bible (which should be renamed “God’s Guide to Genocide “) and not recoil in horror and revulsion at the gratuitously cruel atrocities committed or commanded by the barbaric, bloodthirsty deity therein, has suspended all pity, empathy and compassion.

[@c.guydubois8270]

@@margaretbarrett6087 when contemplating that deity I wish my deity slaying ability was enabled in spacetime...

[@whylie1555]

He got owned on every point. Hilarious, embarrassing and entertaining.

[@kamion53]

I wonder how these callers prepare themselves, most time within five minutes they show an utter lack of preparation, start waffling and get irritated.

[@whylie1555]

@James Hodson fair enough. What’s the best way

[@Socomhunter]

@James Hodson if we were to do that people would remain dumb & barely any advancements would've been made. Debating is necessary for development. It's insanely rare (i'd say even near impossible) to have all people agree on a specific thing when discussing ideas or methods. This could be applied to scientific discoveries aswell. Not everyone agrees on the current established science (there are still religious "scientists" that insist that the earth is 6000 years old) It's with debating & providing arguments & counterarguments (with proof) that makes it so we as a species progress & discover new things. Just ignoring people who are wrong basically eliminates the process of being fact-checked (as some research has been altered after being proved wrong and due to that they end up with a better more accurate result) but you're also eliminating possible help from the other person who is trying to disprove you & may end up actually solving the issue or maybe contribute & reinforce your position if they come to the same results as you. Just yelling insults at someone is something you do when you don't want to waste time on someone who's not gonna get it anyway but if you start off with thinking that then you're being the actual idiot.

[@Socomhunter]

@James Hodson Either your attention span is insanely small or you don't know what you're saying. You claimed you should just ignore people who are wrong like the caller in this video & even call them idiots. which is the most idiotic think you can actually do. And it's not a strawman when it's based on actual facts. A world where discussion was unheard of would've left us in the middle ages. Trying to win someone over by argument has been demostrated through history to be the only correct solution to end up in a better & more advanced world. Just ignoring them & calling them names is what the people with a lack of brains do.

[@Socomhunter]

@James Hodson You're more clever than me huh? Well try using the correct "your" to begin with. it's "your problem" not "you're problem". You say I come off as a kid/teenager yet you automatically go to insults like "idiot" & "shoot yourself in the face". Quite frankly out of the two of us you're clearly the one who has the intellect of a child. Not to mention that you're trying to evade the argument by mere insults (which don't affect me as I figure you're a teenager yourself, located in America that most likely failed his English classes). You're not more clever than anyone I'm afraid. I'm afraid you're the person they refer to when they talk about "idiot americans". Also this isn't whatsapp, you can reply in one comment instead of having to spread your stupidity in multiple comments as if that's going to make you look smarter.

[@KirkTeetzel]

I forgot how much I miss watching her debate

[@bobsmith6370]

Yeah man, she was the best. Ugh... silly drama.

[@shiny460]

I've always liked her ability to cut straight to the heart of bullshit arguments without getting bogged down in the philosophizing.

[@TradeRoboticscom]

@@shiny460 I have to 100% agree, she's just superb!

[@LeggAbuse]

@@bobsmith6370 why did she leave in the first place?

[@davidjimenez7556]

I sure wish she'd come back! In my opinion, she was the only other host on the same debating level as Matt.

[@skywalkertv1718]

Best duo ever, don't you think?

[@Gary4DLC]

That end part is one of the most twisted things I've ever heard in my life. Sickening.

[@frankkelly05]

How did he decide drugs are immoral when they aren't mentioned in the bible?

[@spybird5870]

"well you see, something something unrelated verse, jebus says stupid shit about another unrelated thing and that's why. I love coffeine by the way, yummy"

[@timo4463]

and raping children isnt

[@lcceo22]

“You’re not used to people saying the exact same thing in a slightly different way!”😵‍💫😵‍💫😵‍💫😵‍💫

[@brettbcomedy]

Shane had a breakthrough and his brain wouldn’t allow it.

[@vizzini2510]

Just like most theists, Shane continually tries to paraphrase what the hosts say, and he gets it wrong every single time.

[@shannontaylor1849]

There's a lot of value to be found in the dialogue here; one of my favorites.

[@moragslothe6449]

13:00 "come on man, the second amendment, saying whatever you want..." Spoken like a true libertarian lol

[@lukesmithasada]

LIbertarianism is absolutely the stupidest political philosophy on Planet Earth, bar none.

[@grantm6514]

He's not wrong though, with a gun in your hand you can kinda say whatever you want...

[@diogeneslamp8004]

@@lukesmithasada It’s the only logically consistent one. Doesn’t make it any less stupid.

[@bonnieboyz]

1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment … whatever!

[@KingstonHans]

This is the best AE-Clip ever. I love it, dosen't matter how often i see it.

[@brucebaker810]

12:50 Shane. First ammendment is the "free to say whatever you want" one. The second ammendment is the "freedom to only ever refer to the fun half of this sentence" one.

[@emdivine]

which, for clarity, is the *second* half of the sentence. heck, it's not even half, more like a third or fourth.

[@jcc2725]

One of my favorite episodes!! You used one of my favorite arguments of all… the difference between discipline/obedience and morality. It has been amazing to me how religious people don’t see the immorality that is obeying leaving out his/hers humanity. It blows my mind… but it kind of explains the reason why most religions are and were able to commit the worst horrible things One can imagine. 🤷‍♂️belief 🤷‍♂️ what to do?!

[@LightHawkAlchemist]

Wonder what Shane thinks about this debate after all these years

[@ApocryphalDude]

Shane doesn't think

[@sfprivateer]

Probably still looking for a raped girl, just so he can go and tell her "you're evil, you deserved that !"

[@drgonzo4329]

Sir Isaac Newton invented calculus to explain his hypothesis of Newtonio physics. If you want to explain reality you don't just say a nebulous thing that was written by anonymous author 2000+ years ago and interpret it to mean atoms. The thing that gets me is the ignorant arrogance of the caller.

[@jarodstrain8905]

Holy hell. He actually blame the child. Damn.

[@steev.homohumanism]

Listen to Shane defeat any chance he ever had a moral high ground in his final sentence.

[@darkstar4494]

no. his position on child rape doesn’t invalidate any moral high ground he may have had earlier in the call. (he didn’t have any, but that’s not the point. he could have had some valid points and they would still be valid)

[@TheGodpharma]

@Jeffrey Boser: As I mentioned in response to your last identical comment, which you deleted (presumably to remove my responses), Matt does not say that wellbeing can be determined objectively. He says that once a subjective definition of wellbeing is agreed (life is preferable to death, having a roof over your head is preferable to being homeless, etc etc.), then objective evaluations can be made of actions with respect to that. If we agree that being homeless is detrimental to your wellbeing then it is objectively the case that if I bulldoze your house this negatively affects your wellbeing. Why is this so difficult for you?

[@darkstar4494]

Close, but it’s not the definition of well being that is agreed upon. it’s the decision to define morality as well being and maximize it. after that, everything else follows objectively (doesn’t have to be agreed upon because it’s already clear). life is preferable to death follows naturally, given that we have agreed to support well being. the only subjective part is deciding what to maximize. that’s the idea.

[@EchonYT]

That last comment he made was insane. Wow.

[@sweethands4328]

Premise #1 (destroyed) premise #2 (...not going well) ....SMH

[@philmcgee4591]

A primatologist would say there is rudimentary morality in other primates. This suggests that we had elementary morality when we were homo erectus. If so, morality comes to us naturally.

[@TheWuschi]

I miss the times of giving a caller enough time to demask themselves as wrong, confused and even evil instead of hanging up on them after some sentences with (well-earned) cusswords. It had so much more value for the audience beyond having some gotcha-fun.

[@diogeneslamp8004]

Oh, I don’t know. By 36:33 the caller is pretty much cooked.

[@Wh40kFinatic]

Because Matt and the hosts are tired of the same old barren, treaded ground that gets nowhere.

[@vizzini2510]

At 25:58, did this guy mumble "I don't believe in rock and roll?" I can prove that rock and roll exists.

[@simongregg1364]

If the biblical god is the author and arbiter of morality, why did he have to change his own morality to conform to human norms?

[@petermirtitsch1235]

With the gotcha question regarding killing someone to get a donation to charity, surely the most moral thing to do would be to GIVE THE DONATION without strings?

[@darkstar4494]

of course. that’s not the point though. he was posing a moral dilemma. and he thought he was demonstrating a problem with matt’s position. but he wasn’t. dilemmas do exist.

[@LF-pe9ok]

He doesn’t know the difference between amoral and immoral.

[@darkstar4494]

he knows, he just mistook one for the other because he wasn’t listening carefully. big difference.

[@kirklarson4536]

Wow, it was 2003 and she was talking about drinking Chlorox. Very prescient.

[@brucewilliams4152]

Is canibalism.correct, generally no, however if your plane crashes on the top of the andes mountain and their is nothing to eat, and the there are dead bodies. Survival is intimately better than death, therefore, in that situation cannibalism is acceptable morally speaking. Tests and qualifications for every thing..

[@owenwilliams105]

Can anyone watch this without cringing at Shane's final comment?

[@Speednote10]

If cringing means 'lose all hope for humanity if religion keeps being a thing' then yes.

[@owenwilliams105]

@@Speednote10 His last comment is all you need to determine that Christianity is a disgusting fake hope.

[@tommydevine9993]

I think this conversation pretty succinctly summarizes the "objective morality" that Shane was referencing with the whole blaming children for being sexually abused thing... /s

[@stevenread5473]

Any action can be defined as moral if you appeal to a God.

[@evidencebased1]

One of the best episodes of axp of all time.

[@ryanspangler4569]

It’s actually Phoenix

[@brucebaker810]

Yet he went down in flames. And didn't rise from the ashes.

[@LF-pe9ok]

In childhood development children of the age of the average third grader start to really care about fairness.

[@jaymorgan8013]

Shane realising his argument doesn't work.

[@garygood6804]

Shane's flawed logic was exposed, then becomes obtuse

[@kevind6723]

There’s that good ol Christian love. One ten seconds he goes from don’t you get mad when you hear about child rape to why should god stop child rape because the little girl is evil. Religion has these people so twisted up that can’t see how fundamentally sick their views are.

[@pattystephens8129]

“There ain’t nothing in this world, good or bad, that thinkin’ don’t make it so.” -Mark Twain

[@drhexagonapus]

This guy doesn't enjoy rock music? That basically invalidates any argument he has. There's certainly music I don't care for, but I would never make a blanket statement that I don't like a huge genre like rock.

[@DarkAlkaiser]

Humans naturally have morals, but so do most mammals

[@shanewilson7994]

Yup, moral systems are extremely beneficial to the survival of social animals.

[@danielthalion]

I always found it strange , human beings are the only species to murder it's own offspring in the mothers womb.. and argue the rights to do this... something ain't right with us..

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

Those were really interesting shows. Unfortunately I can not say the same things for more recent shows.

[@diogeneslamp8004]

It’s like flat Earth: no one has come up with anything new after _Zetetic Astronomy._ All we get are the same tired arguments.

[@sergeyfox2298]

When Shane says "comes naturally", he means typically. We have capacities to infer morally correct conclusions. And this inferential ability leads him to see humans come to morally correct conclusions typically, even if not frequently.

[@Acteaon]

He doesn’t get it! AT ALL! For 45mins he’s not gotten it. W😮W!

[@patar3323]

Such a great clip

[@Devious_Dave]

Where's Shane now, I wonder? I hope he changed for the better.

[@FatalCroissant]

For me this is the best call they ever received. Not because it's a good conversation, it's so one-sided. But the entertainment value!

[@willoweable]

Did this man just argue that if a child is a bad kid then they can be r*p*d and its fine?

[@ExcelsiorUnltd]

Good ole Sloppy Thinking Shane.

[@petermirtitsch1235]

If we can be moral without gods, how does this prove god, if there can be no morality without gods?

[@LeggAbuse]

can somone please tell me why she stopped coming on? I've looked for an explanation but couldnt find any

[@MrCheminee]

I miss the old Matt, patiently actually thinking with the caller and looking for ways to talk to him in his own language, nowadays it's just waiting for trigger words and then shout some standard argument against the argument he thinks the caller is making.

[@jafco9]

What does it mean to say "morality comes from evolution"?

[@bobwilson3980]

Robert Redford make a movie about this, “inappropriate proposal”

[@rawrmosh2196]

This is sad how this guy does what god would tell him and yet I think he’s afraid of him like he just was but idk about him now but he would think like this and also my family as well and still think that god is an all loving being but gets mad if you give up the religion and that’s just fucked it’s fucked how people like these extremists like my family think like this

[@FinneousPJ1]

Typo - Pheonix

[@totalspoof8344]

That's my woman's favorite saying,we can't rely on our own understanding. But we are reaching that conclusion with our own understanding. That makes NO sense at ALL.

[@Antenociti]

wow, i watched that really wondering where it was going ... and almost gave up before the end.. but. boy oh boy, what an ending. And who knew that Ellen Ripley was so darn good at arguing!

[@gordonlynn8300]

This guy has been peddling the same nonsense for many years , what a dolt. He's still doing it to this day , just ban him .

[@topcat2069]

All this "what if"- ism gives me a headache

[@CityBoiATX]

🥨🥨🥨 they talk themselves into pretzels 😂😂😂😂

[@JeffreyBoser]

How is 'comes to moral conclusions naturally" any different from being able to recognize consequences of actions?

[@Zoogleas]

I'm under three minutes in and I noticed they misspelled Phoenix on the screen LOL. How long did it take others to notice this?

[@sonosolo4528]

This might have been tracie's best moment. Fierce.

[@rranswerman]

If honesty was outlawed only outlaws would be honest.

[@jonii8800]

Love to have an escape with these brilliant people❤️ much love from Norway❤️

[@twzrrprz]

Seems like their “god” would send more effective messengers with more effective arguments.

[@Gaston-Melchiori]

Why does this look like it was recorded in the 90s?. This is not a bad thing, just curious.

[@timo4463]

they were founded by only donations and back then good quipement was hella expensive now its wqay cheaper

[@godless1014]

I've heard Matt say several times that - as a general principle - life is preferable to death. This bugs me. First, I think we ought to make a dinstinction between the act of dying (which I hear is quite unpleasant) and the state of non-existence. I think it would be more precise to say existence is preferable to non-existence. But in this I am not convinced. While it is true that you can only experience well-being by being alive in the first place, but you only ever experience pain and suffering in the same sense. If you were instead to say "experiencing suffering and well-being is generally preferable to not experiencing suffering and well-being" then I am a bit skeptical. Generally speaking, I think living things suffer far, far more than they experience joy and happiness. The world isn't tuned for our happiness and we therefore have to squeeze whatever joy we can out of it. The natural state of the world IS suffering, degeneration, and death. It might therefore be true that non-existence is preferable to existence.

[@bizambo100]

You have to accept that premise in order to move on to any other discussion. If you prefer death then you simply die and there’s nothing more to talks about.

[@davidbelway6076]

morality is a thought process based on a set of ideas, with the detours of emotion popping up along the way. Serial killers can have awesome family values. A priest can harbor sexual attraction to children. The basic survival instincts of all animals guides their moral judgement. A predator wolf doesn't feel remorse for killing a baby deer. A human might though and at the same time eat veal or lamb. Driving a gas guzzler is immoral if you ask me. So by that thought, building gas guzzlers is immoral. Greed is immoral but where do you draw the line without denying the human right to life success. I don't see any immaculate guidance being offered up to help us get it right. The instincts we have come from our distant past. Pact animals look after one another. It's called survival of the fittest.

[@danielthalion]

I Am better than god (if god is the god of bible or religons)

[@johnstfleur3987]

EXIST.

[@Gaston-Melchiori]

45:10 what did he say? I cannot understand him there. It must have been awful...

[@timo4463]

he said that girl deserved it bc shes full of sin in his words: "you protray this little girl as someone who is innocent"

[@stevenswitzer5154]

Yeah. Morals are either natural or learned. It cant be both

[@NottherealLucifer]

Incorrect, it can be both. Morality could very well be naturally formed and then be steered by learning more throughout your life. Morality, in this case, would be both natural and learned.

[@jtrush]

Make sure you watch all the way to the end. Boom.

[@harvey9290]

Poor lad

[@sergeyfox2298]

It could be the case that God can define morality, but that all-morally-knowing God that defined morality can logically be derived from the Good that defines morality. Basically, humans, God's creations can subject themselves to God, the morally all knowing God, a God who defines morality of his particular flavor, yet this particular morality just happens to be identical to the morality that the Good defines. Logically, that is reasonable to believe in. However, this morality that God constructs because he is All knowing doesn't mean that morality was defined only by Him. The Good is the source of morality, and this all morally knowing God happens to construct particular contingent morality that is identical to the Good. He happens to be bad ass, because the Good that designer of morality has a person (god) that constructed a morality that conforms to the Good defined morality. Pretty amazing God.

[@klaindunn]

Is Matt a TooL fan?

[@harriemeijers9826]

Pretending to know what is the best for everyone is in my opinion the worst thing you can do. Not even your god knew what is the best for everyone. Or when he did, he made an immoral society where not everyone acts moral. Trying to use this argument for a god is also not moral. Just try to make the world a better place without pressing your thoughts and believes to other people.

[@sergeyfox2298]

For theists, you have two sets of existing objects: natural existing objects and supernatural existing objects. Existence is the superset, supernatural set and natural set are subsets. They see existing objects and believe that these objects possess properties that make them either supernatural or natural. What if there exists a set of objects that are mixed? Unless, supernatural necessarily precludes naturality from the supernatural, and supernaturality from the natural. Proof by contradiction: Moreover: How do theists define natural? This caller seems to define "natural" as such that the origin of any object P (morality being the case) comes from the Earth. So you have things that come earth, from human animals, from nonhuman animals. Human and nonhuman animals come from the earth, so whatever comes from human and nonhuman animals, necessarily comes from the earth. This means all things that come from Human and nonhuman animals are natural. To add.. Anything that comes from God is supernatural. Because the universe comes from God, earth comes from universe, and human and nonhuman animals come from earth, any object D comes from human and nonhuman animals, then everything comes from God, and therefore everything is supernatural. We have a contradiction. All things coming from humans are natural and all things that come from humans are supernatural. If morality that comes from human and nonhuman animals is natural because morality comes from Earth, and if morality comes from human and nonhuman animals, which comes from Earth, which comes from universe, which comes from God, then morality is supernatural, then.. we have a contradiction. If supernatural and natural are contradictory natures, then morality is a contradictory object. Can this object exists, assuming objects cannot exist if contradiction exists? no. Can the natural and supernatural exist? If they contradict each other, then no.

[@thatafrolatinamom529]

44:53 Mic drop! That’s it, folks. What kind of immoral thug sits back and watches that shit and then claim to punish the bad but takes his sweet fucking time and think we’re going to worship it?! Smh

[@TheCountBlackula1978]

Nice try buddy

[@pavld335]

lol this is hilarious

[@sergeyfox2298]

If the supernatural and natural contradict each other, objects that contradict each other cannot coexist, and God is a supernatural being and I am a natural being, then either god exists or I exists. Using exclusive form of disjunction, "God exists or I exist" can't be a true statement.

[@johnstfleur3987]

RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS= 1/2.

[@dkyoungson151]

Gotta love the simplistic black and white thinking so prevalent among theists.

[@FamRutz]

Wow...

[@sergeyfox2298]

Does supernaturalism and naturalism contradict each other metaphysically? Earlier thinkers saw they didn't, because the supernatural was just a heightened natural state more real and superior to the natural. To them, The natural comes from the supernatural. But doesn't that mean the natural is just an inferior modality of supernatural? Technically, nature is just the lower states of supernatural being. In modern parlance, the natural is more or less existing within the framework of some more real and less real modalities as well, but the present metaphysical inquiry appears to require that higher forms of being and lesser forms of being be subject to rational and empirical detectibility. Given the classical hierarchy of being to be true, the higher and lower forms of being will be detected by logical, mathematical, physical, chemical, psychological, biological, sociological, geological, archeological, etc methods of inquiry. Do gods and goddesses exist within the neoclassical metaphysical framework of hierarchical being? If gods and goddesses do not and will never be able to satisfy logical AND empirical detectibility, then gods and goddesses are mythological.