Is God Moral?

Buy my book here! store.bookbaby.com/book/ratio...
Planet Peterson Store! planetpeterson.myshopify.com/
DISCORD (fixed link) / discord
Check out my podcast rss.com/podcasts/planetpeterson/ or open.spotify.com/show/66AQMFf...
Support me on Patreon / planetpeterson
Support me on Venmo: account.venmo.com/u/Eric-Pete...
Be sure to follow me on social media!
Instagram: / planetpeterson
TikTok: @planet_peterson

[@lemmyhead8578]

"Wouldn't you just worship the dictator?" No, I wouldn't worship a dictator.

[@ianchisholm5756]

This guy seems to have a very odd idea of morality - worshipping whoever threatens to hurt you.

[@MireVale]

He wants to be punished cause he’s been a bad boy 🥵

[@CeezGeez]

religion is basically a group of stockholm syndrome sufferers

[@kaidiirty6100]

Cosmic Stockholm syndrome go crazy

[@uncleanunicorn4571]

​@@kaidiirty6100 I could worship the god of the bible the same way a kidnapped victim might identify with her captors in order to survive.

[@uncleanunicorn4571]

​@@kaidiirty6100 I could worship the God of the Bible in the same way. A kidnap victim might identify with her captors in order to survive. I think anyone could. Worship is not required to seek truth.

[@830toAwesome]

This is what happens when you talk to a person who has never actually evaluated what they think.

[@micahbinns2740]

100%, usually unless i'm joking, I am very careful with my wording and when I have a thought I will think to myself how accurate is that statement. Is this 100% accurate is it mostly accurate etc or which in ways is this statement i'm making wrong. If more ppl thought this way, we wouldn't have so many bad arguments and biases going on.

[@lubrew5862]

The dude had talking points. Obvious he hasn’t thought them through but was able to speak them. It is typical with most apologists on the internet.

[@lateefah800]

No, not no! Low key my favorite line.

[@cookiescraftscats]

Starting with a faulty definition of “atheism” is always a winning strategy.

[@SabracadabrO]

It’s not faulty,some do call themselves agnostic atheists

[@ThorsDecree]

​@@SabracadabrOyou don't see a problem with a definition of atheism that has a burden of proof? Specifically, _agnostic_ atheism with a burden of proof? If atheism has a burden of proof, then what is the proposition that constitutes atheism? If it's that no gods exist, we've had labels for that for ages. "Hard atheism" is a good one because it's generally not used to describe anything else, unlike any other label this guy threw around. He's trying to make a distinction between atheism and agnostic atheism but I have never met a single non-insane person who was convinced that there is sufficient evidence to conclude positively that no god of any sort exists. I'd argue you can be a gnostic atheist with regard to specific god claims, like if the gods definition is internally incoherent or logically contradictory then we know as well as we can know anything that _that_ god isn't real. But in general, any atheist is necessarily an agnostic atheist. Nobody has access to sufficient information to eliminate the logical possibility of a god, so general gnosticism with regard to that is a red flag. We know people use those labels, this guy was just using one of those labels. The problem is he and those people are both using the label in a non-normative way that is substantively different from the definition of atheism used by the vast majority of atheists and philosophers. The word "atheism" literally means "without theism." It does not entail believing that there are no gods. All it entails is not believing that there are gods. Anything beyond that requires additional or modified labels, as "atheist" alone tells you nothing about any beliefs beyond the lack of theism.

[@SabracadabrO]

@@ThorsDecree Steve Appell fan right?,it’s YOUR claim that I’m claiming Gods pee pee etc..,I just out-debate perverted you,folded-you-like-a-cheap-lawn-chair.

[@SabracadabrO]

@@ThorsDecree Folded,like a cheap lawn chair 🪑

[@ThorsDecree]

@@SabracadabrO Error: invalid argument or missing expected argument (subject) in line 1. Terminating grammar execution. What's the subject? You just gave me a predicate. A sentence requires both to be coherent. I can't parse a sentence fragment.

[@darrendelaney8161]

theistic adherence precludes morality not grounds it. adherence to dogma is not "morality".

[@gallaxrpg]

I finally understand how dictatorships and wars are so common on earth. Religion conditions these people to allow it

[@inplfw]

Religion conditions them to prefer it

[@GunnerHeatFire]

I can understand why you said ew, now.

[@hailsagan8886]

I ask Christians if it was moral for jesus to drown all the babies during the flood. Some of their answers perplexed me

[@louseveryann2181]

Evil babies.....

[@lesterclarke83]

I think it is it political necessary for the U.S . provide military aid to Ukraine to prevent culture genocide and the serious threat for European security . Ukraine was promised protection if give they give nuclear missiles ( The Budapest accords). U.S. and it's allies. And they fail to protected Ukraine. I do completely agree with you about the Iraq war , that is U.S crime of the first order. As for the fanatical christian , he lack critical thinking skills, and want simple minded answers to complex questions.

[@Farce13]

To be honest, Europe is really bad for European security. Germany shut down all of their gas wells and nuclear reactor and dropped their entire power grid into the lap of a Russian gas company. The European Union is the single most corrupt organization in the entirety of Europe. Systems of parliament are rife with corruption and nepotism. Europe has a lot more problems than just the war in Ukraine. And I wish the US didn't need to send so much foreign aid but that's a whole can of worms

[@vulcaestus]

There is a one ended stick, when its still attached to a tree.

[@celiand2618]

Atheists needs a description of a deity to be gnostic about it. Azatoth is a good example of a deity that could exist. The moment that Lovecraftian horror wakes up, the universe disappear as the universe is the result of Azatoth sleeping and not being conscious the universe exists.

[@Jo-JoandTaffy]

...and that is the beauty of Azathoth. As the Blind Idiot God, Azathoth requires no worship. When Azathoth is encircled by his flopping horde of mindless and amorphous dancers he is lulled by the thin monotonous piping of a demonic flute in nameless paws.

[@celiand2618]

Ftaghn (but whispered, we DON T WANT that guy to stop doing basically nothing).

[@ThorsDecree]

​@@celiand2618ia, ia, Azathoth ftaghn!

[@corringhamdepot4434]

Seems pretty obvious to me that God makes bad things happen because suffering people are more likely to be religious. Always annoys me when Apologists lump together bad things happening naturally, with the "evil" things people do. When they want to avoid explaining the "Acts of God" killing millions of innocent people.

[@alexanderkoutsouris8794]

When people argue for the necessity of evil, I always wonder how they would respond to the following reasoning: Would you agree that some people have a higher propensity for violence and other have a lower propensity for violence? If yes, tgen why didn't god make all mankind to have a lower tendency for violence?

[@scottmoore7588]

Crazy that Christians don’t realize “be with me or die” is the same thing the villain in a Disney movie said, not the hero.

[@odinson6348]

The age old philosophic conundrum: Is something moral because God says so, or does God say so because it's already moral?

[@ottomaddoxx5360]

It's Euthyphro's Dilemma. The problem for modern theists is it just makes god's moral commands arbitrary, because for the omni god, they could literally be anything else. "Euthyphro’s dilemma challenges this position by questioning whether this means that what is morally correct is merely an arbitrary choice by God, or whether or not these things have greater, eternal truth."

[@chriswing7466]

The guest, when confronted with the concept that God doesn't have the limitations that we do, he *still* goes on about God giving his creations free will (to choose to be good or evil). Well, how about God doesn't create evil and then people can't choose to be evil? I can't choose to fly, because God (in this scenario) didn't give me the ability to. I can't choose to magically transport myself into another dimension, or choose to do something that doesn't exist in this reality. So, it's a dumb question, when the creatot arbitrarily makes those 'choices' feasible in the first place.

[@andrewkeith4332]

Ive never seen a man get so destroyed in a debate. Lmao man defeated himself with his own words at every turn. 😂

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented. My position is that *_I currently have no good reason to acknowledge the reality of any god._* And here is why I currently hold to such a position. Below are 10 facts I must consider when evaluating the claim made by certain theists that a particular god exists in reality. To be clear, these are not premises for any argument which _concludes_ there to be no gods. These are simply facts I must take into account when evaluating the verity of such a claim. If any of the following facts were to be contravened at a later time by evidence, experience, or sound argument, I would THEN have good reason to acknowledge such a reality. 1. I personally have never observed a god. 2. I have never encountered any person who has claimed to have observed a god. 3. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity. 4. I have never encountered any _valid_ logical argument, which also introduced demonstrably true premises that lead deductively to an inevitable conclusion that a god(s) exists in reality. 5. Of the many logical syllogisms I have examined arguing for the reality of a god(s), I have found all to contain a formal or informal logical fallacy or a premise that can not be demonstrated to be true. 6. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon. 7. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._ 8. I have never experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event. 9. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed has *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity. 10. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have encountered have either been refuted to my satisfaction or do not present as _falsifiable._ ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the reality of any particular god. I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgment until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._* I welcome any cordial response. Peace.

[@AlexPBenton]

Same

[@jme92685]

7:34 Eric, that’s such a powerful point. How do you think of things like that right on the spot? I immediately knew where you were going with that, but I wouldn’t have thought to say that.

[@kotomirdragonslaw2804]

21:39 "you're trying to put God into like a human form" ....this is literally what your entire religion is all about

[@DorianSwain]

he saying you have to have evil to even have the chance to be good. The real question is, why did God create evil? There was a time when there was no snake in the garden where Lucifer wasn’t a fallen angel and everything was good, why did he end that?

[@TwoForFlinchin1]

It's kind of crazy how you can't tell the difference between genuine theism and trolling.

[@ThorsDecree]

I'd argue that genuine theism is often categorically indistinguishable from trolling, even to the theist _doing_ the unconscious trolling. It's just that the troll doesn't know they're a troll in that case.

[@madara211000]

The Christian God is the creator of all things. Therefore, he can't murder. What? How did he get from A to C?

[@gowdsake7103]

By that logic its ok for parents to kill their children

[@archangelarielle262]

Apologists say that God had to become Jesus, and Jesus had to be sacrificed, because somebody had to, right? A crime was committed against God, those are the rules. But why? Didn't God make those arbitrary rules? Why not spin in a circle 5x in a row, rather than demand blood sacrifice, suspiciously parochial as any primitive/ barbaric tribe of the time. It seems as though God is finagling a loophole in rules that he could just change or could have made differently in the first place. God is bested by anyone able to forgive without incentive, or coercion. This defeats any "teleological" argument" as there's no stance independent, non-circular, objective reason why Yahweh "ought" create anything, any specific way. He's not concerned about matter, physics, energy, or laws of logic. Unknowingly, a proponent of naturalism. Secondly, there is no sacrifice. He died for 1 days and 2 nights (not 3 days), and went back to being God for eternity. God sacrificed himself, to himself, to appease himself of the wrath he felt toward everyone else and save us from himself. He's "perfect", so it makes no sense from going from a "state" (something timeless/ spaceless, is equivalent to not existing anywhere, ever) of perfection, to changing, exhibiting unsatisfaction. Not to mention, something perfect, cannot create something corruptible. He's omnipotent, so no transgression can harm him in any way, thus, any punishment is unjust. Worst of all, he knows exactly what it would take to convince everyone of his existence and to worship him, without violating their "free will" (not coherent itself), and does not. Did you incidentally draw the wrong card, from a hat of mixed cards? You're being punished for eternity. Also, there's no non-falsifiable way to know that you aren't the one being deceived.

[@baianojogano7607]

So many words just to end in a special pleading fallacy

[@deadweaselsteve3262]

Giving human beings knees that bend was evolution's greatest mistake.

[@heiyuall]

Lennox is a joke. He steals other people’s lazy apologetic one liners while leaning on the science he’s selling out for silver.

[@andrewkeith4332]

Best intro ever 😂

[@RTR_87]

No ability to do evil = we are robots is by far one of the dumbest arguments ever. We don’t have the ability to fly or breathe under water, does that make us robots?

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

There is _but one_ claim that the position of atheism addresses. And that is the claim asserted by _certain_ theists that some particular god exists in reality. Like all claims to truth, this claim breaks down on three dichotomous axes: *_truth_* of the claim (true, false); *_acknowledgement_* as to the truth of the claim (acknowledge, fail to acknowledge); and *_sufficiency of knowledge_* as to ascertain the truth of such claim (sufficient, insufficient). It is the the position we take on these dichotomies that establishes our identity in regard to atheism and agnosticism. The first dichotomous axis addresses the truth _position._ Like any claim to truth, the 'theistic' claim is either true or _not_ true (false). There is no other possible option as is dictated by the laws of logic (Identity, Non Contradiction, and Excluded Middle). The second dichotomous axis addresses the acknowledgement _position._ The recipient evaluating the claim either acknowledges the claim as to be true (theism), or fails to acknowledge the claim to be true (atheism). Again, there is no other available option. The third dichotomous axis addresses the _sufficiency of knowledge_ as to the claim _position._ Either the recipient evaluating the claim has sufficient knowledge or information as to ascertain the truth of such claim (gnostism), or does _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information concerning the claim (agnosticism). The default 'acknowledgement' position on the claim that "a particular god(s) exists" is _atheism_ for this is the position the recipient begins with _prior_ to hearing the theistic claim for the first time. It would be impractical to acknowledge the truth of a claim _before_ hearing it for the first time. The default position addressing 'sufficiency of knowledge or information' is _agnosticism_ for this is the position the recipient begins with _prior_ to hearing the claim. One can not claim to have sufficient knowledge or information concerning any given claim _until_ he or she hears the claim for the first time. This presents four populations of recipients evaluating the claim that "a particular god(s) exists." The 'gnostic theist' claims to have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their position from atheism (default) to theism by acknowledging the truth of the claim. Often this population claims to acquire "sufficient knowledge" from revelation from (or personal relationship with) the deity mentioned in the claim. The 'gnostic atheist' claims to have sufficient knowledge or information to justify remaining in the position of atheism (default) by _rejecting to acknowledge_ the claim. This population is sometimes referred to as 'strong atheists'. This population may or may not make the additional claim "god(s) don't exist." If so, like the theists in the original claim, those that make such a claim now encumber a burden of proof to substantiate such claim with evidence. The 'agnostic theist' claims to _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their position from atheism (default) by does so _anyways_ by acknowledging the truth of the claim _through_ 'faith'. And last, the 'agnostic atheist' claims to _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their initial position of atheism so they _continue to suspend acknowleging the truth of the claim until sufficent evidence is presented._ Of the four populations, only the 'gnostic theists' and the 'agnostic atheists' are *_justified_* in their final positions. The former is justified in changing their position to theism by 'revelation'. The latter is justified in suspending such acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced, and therefore remain atheist. This is how I can demonstrate that I am indeed an atheist - an _agnostic_ atheist.

[@FenrirTheDog1]

Dog is real. 🐕 woof.

[@ThorsDecree]

Aww, cute puppy

[@Bunny99s]

I would say large portions of math are invented. However the essence of math is discovered. However it's difficult to put the finger on concrete things because those fundamental concepts are extremely abstract and have no direct relationship with the physical world. We made this connection. Most people when they think of numbers think about either countable things or the symbols we write down to represent that number. However those are all just associations or inventions we made. The actual concept of a number is way more abstract. We also think in number systems and certain mathematical discoveries only apply to certain number systems. However for example prime numbers transcends our number systems and apply to all of them. Actual hard mathematical facts are quite rare I would say. Rare and not really tangible.

[@danielessex2162]

Atheism does not have a burden of proof because it makes no claims. It only rejects a claim agnosticism says that there is not enough knowledge to make a claim to agnostic atheist is to acknowledge there is zero evidence to make a claim and you reject a god claim that has no evidence. Alls it does is add in the caveat that you acknowledge that knowledge is limited and no one can make the claim because there is no way to show it.

[@AnthonyPierce-jw2jb]

(0:50) My question is, why is the god claim the only claim people pretend you need to provide evidence against it, when there has been no evidence for it?

[@mitzzzu_tigerjones444]

The question is not, “is God moral?”… …The question should be, “does God make sense?” Is it actually possible to have a perfect thing? No🗿… thi, th, the answer is always no. Perfection is a nonexistent concept. We don’t need to prove the morality of some thing that’s impossible to exist in the first place. ☁️🌋

[@Reiikz]

guy be making good arguments and I get the urge to mock the other person but come on, is it necessary I feel bad for the guy being mocked.

[@pixelimperfect7569]

Um, Actually is a great show and I won't have you slander it good sir!

[@leviphelan5913]

im not sure how this works exactly but do at least still get the same revenue from premium views after your ad revenue was cut?

[@ThorsDecree]

He should get a fixed cut per Premium view with or without ads running on the channel afaik, as long as his channel remains monetized.

[@BatManokov]

Ya because worship and belif are two different things while this guest thinks they are one and the same. You can believe God exists but not worthy of worship.

[@CeezGeez]

an act is moral only when Spanky endorses or does it

[@danielessex2162]

You can only have good if you ha e evil to compare it to. So saying tou can not have both side by side is illogical According to the mythology god created god and evil light and dark at the same time. Do you think there is a wall that separates light from dark? Can men who do good not exist at the same time on the same street as men who do evil? Special pleading all the way with this one.

[@studiooriginals]

Peterson is against Ukraine aid? I'm surprised, hadn't heard that before

[@FlemmingEgerup]

@Planet Peterson how can you be right about so many things and not supporting the US giving aid to Ukraine ?? Or did I get that wrong ?

[@tremas3329]

I disagree with Peterson on some things, even though I do agree with him on a larger number of things. As is sometimes applied to discussions of the bible: Something/Someone can say 9 true things, but it doesnt mean the 10th thing is also true. You can be right on a lot of subjects and have other subjects you are wrong on. You can even have wrong conclusions based on good reasons. I am unclear on what his exact position on Ukraine aid is or why he came to the position he has, so i cant comment directly on it. Ukraine aid is a topic for debate all on its own because it is complicated and for a variety of reasons that US is (and in my option should be) providing aid. One of those reasons is what someone else pointed out here, that the US made a promise of defensive aid when/if needed in return for their de-nuclearization (Funny enough, Russia also promised Ukraine the same thing and have violated that by being the reason they need assistance with defense). Ukraine held up their end of the bargain, and so should we. Also in my opinion, many politicians have not made a good case for why the aid is necessary and right, partly because no one reason is going to convince everyone and they have defaulted in large part to just trying for wide appeal that is a bit ham fisted. And a lot of people are passive about information and wont look into why we should/shouldnt do many things themselves and just trust certain people to tell them what they should believe on it.

[@FlemmingEgerup]

​@@tremas3329 You got some fair points and I agree about the 10th thing not necessary being true. And I also don't 100% agree with everything Peterson says, his reasoning or they way he articulates them. However I do agree with his views on a vast majority of subjects, which is why I was very surprised by his stance on this particular topic. But you're right, you and I don't know his reasons for this but, and I am far from an expert on the matter, I have watched hundreds of hours of debates about this, so I have probably heard all the arguments for and against and in my opinion ALL the arguments against is based on faulty reason, logic and morals (and in many cases misinformation). Peterson is fundamentally a very morally decent person, that seems to ground his beliefs in reason and evidence (again just my opinion), hence my suprise. I guess I mostly agree with your opinion in the last part, which is why I don't think it's neccesary a wise idea to turn to politicians for arguments for political decisions, experts are usually a better source to determine if someone should agree with said decisions. I'm glad we seem to be on the same page about support and providing aid for Ukraine, even if it's not for the exact same reasons. I appriciate your opinion and input, thanks.

[@tremas3329]

@@FlemmingEgerup Well said, and just to clarify, my reasoning for Ukraine aid isnt solely based on what i said about the previous agreements between the US and Ukraine, but that is the most direct line of argument I will typically use to speak to someone on the subject as its the clearest cost/benefit argument for the US as a whole. There are a whole host of other reasons i would bet we agree on that would follow, thats just the most pragmatic reasoning for it in my opinion. Its akin to a mutual defense treaty. We want to keep our word in those cases because we want others to keep their word with us. If we dont follow through when its needed, others are less inclined to come to our aid when needed because we have been proven untrustworthy in that regard.

[@Grimtheorist]

No.

[@danielessex2162]

God stopping some evil is a subjective opinion? He is the one claiming god is moral. Then saying to stop even a handfull of immoral acts is moral is a subjective opinion Morality itself is subjective.

[@Nipponing]

Why didn't you correct him when he said an atheist has a burden of proof? Don't want US to help Ukraine? WTH? Can't say murder now? WTH?

[@uncleanunicorn4571]

Good question. I could worship the God of the Bible the same way one might Identify with terrorists who have abducted you in order to survive. Worship is in no way a requirement of being a truth seeker.

[@mtchl4563]

How bout those mavs

[@user-vm3dd4yd2l]

they’re going to Lose😂

[@BatManokov]

Let's go Celtics!!!

[@vegvegv]

Oh and stop muting, that's also stooping low.

[@inutamer3658]

Math is invented. All it is is a language to describe logical relationships. Languages are invented. Try looking at constructions like the cantor set and saying it is not an invention

[@harveybernstein9203]

Dictator of the Universe? He sounds awesome! Hile Yahweh!

[@vegvegv]

Stop using ad hominem attacks, be better than them.

[@SabracadabrO]

Ya got me all wrong bae,I ain’t sayin anythin but I just Hate God & get Hot 4 Sinnin,Cuz…Satan is way cool 😎 🤘🏻

[@straunwagner6322]

Of all the people you have spoken with, this is surely one of the dumbest.

[@ivanpetrov5255]

"IS THE EARTH BANGING?" - I think she was worse.

[@gowdsake7103]

Thats a very low bar

[@SabracadabrO]

Pedantic Peterson the Poe

[@danielessex2162]

This dude does not even know wtf he is talking about when it comes to Islam.... the miracles of Muhammed are in the Quran. Shahira law is not a book of miracles and stories it is the guidelines of morality for Muslims. Like the Constitution. Unless his ignorant self meant the Haddith. Yet even that is just books supposedly written by Muhammed to fully explain the Quran.

[@russellmyers934]

It's like his teeny tiny brain just shorts out when you present his contradictions.

[@ibelieveingaming3562]

God doesn't exist. This is a trick question.

[@richardstevenwalz4968]

Your god doesn't even exist, so it can't even BE moral!!

[@DorianSwain]

he saying you have to have evil to even have the chance to be good. The real question is, why did God create evil? There was a time when there was no snake in the garden where Lucifer wasn’t a fallen angel and everything was good, why did he end that?