Morality Challenge for Christians

CHRISTIANS, I have a challenge for you to help prove objective God-based morality... What is an example of something in the yellow portion that you think most non-believers would agree with instinctively (presumably because it is both objectively true, and written on our hearts)?
Please leave your thoughts in the comments, or join the discussion on the original twitter thread... / 1192558318792790016
Holiday Fundraiser - PLEASE DONATE
www.paypal.com...
Major Moral Argument Mistakes (Frank Turek)
• Major Moral Argument M...
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/p...
www.buymeacoff...
teespring.com/...
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord

[@ProphetofZod]

This may be the best, most clear and concise way I’ve seen this issue explained.

[@ShannonQ]

Hands off he's mine 😡

[@goaheadmakemyday7126]

I love you both

[@ProphetofZod]

Shannon Q Okay, you’re right. His video sucked ass.

[@stephentaylor6726]

@@ProphetofZod and thus began the great atheist war of 2019. It would be years and uncounted millions of dead before the Victor would emerge from the smoke, carrying the unconscious body of Paul as their prize.

[@pauljimerson8218]

Careful, after all the fool hath said us his heart there us no Zod

[@A.Tag90]

Being anti-slavery is entirely blue. Apologist just steal from secular morality. There are countless other examples too.

[@BigTuk]

To be fair. Slavery is also entirely blue. Depending on how wide on casts their social conscience . Its perfectly okay to use slavery to maximize the well being for you, your, family, and your nation, because well someone's gonna be on top.. might as well be your team. The interesting thing is the bible also condones slavery.

[@greedow]

@@BigTuk that option doesn't maximize well being. That increases it for some and decreases it for others. The option that maximizes well being for most people is being anti-slavery

[@takoja507]

@@BigTuk entirely blue? How? if bible condones slavery and even gives you instruction who to slave and how etc. You have lost it. No where in bible it says, do not own other as people are property, no where. So anti-slavery is entirely blue but slavery is not.

[@darken3150]

@@BigTuk Also slavery is not good for the slave master or the slave. I don't think you understand well being as its used.

[@mihaitha]

@@BigTuk Not really. Maximizing well being for you at the cost of reducing well being for the slaves you own doesn't maximize well being, it just shifts it from others onto yourself. What you're saying is akin to claiming that theft maximizes income.

[@DBCisco]

The religious do not get their morals from "God" they get their morals from their (subjective) interpretation of a book.

[@graveseeker]

Which was written by men and which expresses subjective, man made morals and while noting that there are some HORRID moral values therein.

[@briannewton3535]

@Ad Lockhorst Indeed. I saw this reply from a Christian apologist when I highlighted the beating of SLAVES in the bible. It is NOT at all ok to beat them, the Bible says "smite them with the rod." That means correct (smite) them with discipline (the rod). You have to know what those words meant back then, they do not mean it is ok to beat someone. The bible dos NOT condone beating your debt servants. What was comical, they couldn't even acknowledge they were slaves, and somehow changed 'slave' to 'debt servant'. Apologists... making excuses for a shitty old book.

[@ddrse]

As if the Bible or the character God couldn't have been born of someone's imagination.

[@DBCisco]

@@ddrse It's Maaagic. lol

[@toppcatt5113]

wrong. God gave us that book, evil men hate it.

[@LogicAndReason2025]

Apologetics: "Oh! What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive." "I distrust those people who know so well what god wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." --- Susan B. Anthony

[@notwhatiwasraised2b]

What could be more narcissistic than claiming to know things about god(s)?

[@scienceexplains302]

Yes, but that’s not always true. When some people leave the faith, then often feel liberated to stop calling good acts (e.g. certain forms of love) wrong. They start being fine with homosexuality, women’s equality, etc

R Wm yeah they just have to be better than the deity of their religion.

[@agimasoschandir]

You forgot attribution for the first quote -- Sir Walter Scott

[@LogicAndReason2025]

@@agimasoschandir - Fascinating. I was under the impression it was Shakespeare. Thanks

[@kenninast]

"Morality does not exist because of religion, but despite religion". the late Etienne Vermeersch, PhD and professor in moral philosophy.

[@Paulogia]

Good one.

[@stylis666]

@Martian Engineer Not no, but yes and your problem is hardly a problem because many denominations of many religions teach the doctrine that good actions are needed. We just hear about the moral hypocrites more because those can make the news. Religion is also not a guideline for achieving morality. Christian and Muslim doctrine needs to be warped to unrecognizable proportions to fit the already existing morality of the believer, except for the fundamentalists of course. You know, those fine people who let their doctrine guide their morals to push anti-LGBT laws and suicide bomb and decapitate people. Those are the ones who are guided by their religion. All other religious people are moral despite their doctrine and religion.

[@EverettVinzant]

Martian Engineer Actually... The Atheism of Stalin, Mao Zedong, and any other leader you present is irrelevant. Why? One word. Corollary. How many people have ever been killed “in the name of” Atheism? How many countries have/had a state religion? How many of the laws that were carried out were because of the understanding of the demands of the religion? How many people have been killed “in the name of (insert religion).” One word... Causal. “Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

[@the-trustees]

The "righteous" would have you believe that not only are morals objectively created by a sadist, buy even more insane that for ALL the time humans existed before the ten commandments in their idiot book, that our species somehow survived NOT knowing that it is "wrong" to kill, lie, steal etc. I've always held that this oversight by them destroys the entire argument about ANY non-tangible having been created by anything other than us.

[@jwmmitch]

@Martian Engineer nice! For the record I don't think the antiquated term "retard" is in any way related to people on the autism spectrum. (Maybe socially retarded.... #bygones) Im really intrigued by a "atheist new testament follower" and how religion doesn't require a god. I think on some level i comprehended this before. It's part of what pushes my button about religion in how it's used to control the masses. And when evil is controlling it that's bad (like with Hitler) Please share more. Also, I think the notion of tolerance is part problem in society. In that it is inherently judgmental

[@CteCrassus]

I feel like Christians don't realize how dangerous a proposition "God writes morality in people's heart" is to make, because it makes the Bible not only redundant, but detrimental. After all, if the morality in my heart was written by God, and the Bible was written by men, then when the two come into conflict the morality in my heart would *ALWAYS* take precedence because it is a primary source. At that point what the Bible says about the matter is utterly irrelevant.

[@stevewebber707]

Well said. And one of the better examples of how flawed the bible is.

[@pansepot1490]

Juan Carlos Gonzalez, the men who wrote the Bible were inspired by god and their direct inspiration trumps your imperfect reading of your heart. Or something like that. Apologists always come up with an excuse for anything you throw at them.

[@CteCrassus]

@@pansepot1490 You just have to wonder what kind of moron would write such important stuff in the core of your being when He's gonna create you functionally illiterate.

[@shriggs55]

@@pansepot1490 The men who wrote the Bible were inspired by because they said they were inspired by God! Get it? Mighty convenient if you ask me!

[@bdf2718]

Ooooooh! Nice one.

[@ShannonQ]

NOOOOOOO I'VE BEEN DEFEATED 😭

[@MirandolinaAmaldin]

Sometimes it happens to the best of us 😉

[@vandy3427]

Hi

[@ShannonQ]

@@vandy3427 hi

[@brigidscaldron]

Buahahahahahahaha

[@archapmangcmg]

As foretold in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

[@kellypearsall7490]

Thank you so much for this video. Things you said helped me understand why the “Incest and genocide park” banner in ark protest video caused my deconversion. I now understand that it showed me that some things god condones in the Bible are clearly immoral and people without god can find a better moral standard. 😀👍

[@brigidscaldron]

Kelly Pearsall Welcome out, dear!

[@shriggs55]

Congrats! Did you know that there is an actual law in the old test.that says a raped women must marry her rapist-for life?! Imagine the horror! Another law says that if a priest's daughter is caught in immorality she must be burned alive! Last I checked,that form of "moral" capital-punishment is unacceptable in 99.9% of today's CIVILization and society,made up of mostly non-Christians.

[@bdf2718]

@@shriggs55 Many of us aren't too happy with the idea of slavery, either.

[@bdf2718]

Welcome to reality and morality.

[@shriggs55]

Getting "good morals"or an objective morality from Yahweh,god of the Hebrews and Christians,is like getting merit badges from Stalin or Vlad the Impaler.

[@crazyprayingmantis5596]

A friend of ours has ALS, I asked my wife (who is a Christian) Do you think God can cure ALS? She said "yes" I said "why hasn't he?" She said "I don't know" I said "is god good and loving?" She said "yes" I said "if I could cure ALS but just decided not to, would you say that I was good and loving? She said "no" I said "so why do you call God good and loving? She said "I don't know" It seems that if you exist in a non physical, non detectable form you get special treatment if you're an asshole

[@TheBastius]

Whenever something good happens in the life of believers, then this is supposed to testify to the goodness of God. But as soon as something bad happens, then 'the Lord works in mysterious ways'. As Sam Harris said in the debate with Billy Lame Fail: It's like playing tennis without a net.

[@mollywatch]

@@TheBastius" ... works in mysterious ways." Indeed. Mysteriously identical to random chance.

[@TheBastius]

@@mollywatch Exactly! But if one tries to tell this to believers, they come up with ridiculous excuses instead of admitting the obvious.

[@dragonhealer7588]

But isn't it curious the unchanging God wasn't so shy in the old days? (Old testament, Tanakh) I liked the part where he cheated at wrestling!

[@joecoolioness6399]

Not to mention, why did god create ALS or any other disease, in the first place? Should I give my daughter cancer just so I can then make her beg for me to cure it? That is so fucked up.

[@thebatmanover9000]

How can they argue why Christian morals are better than the morals of other relegions without appealing to some secular standard?

[@HugSeal42]

3:00 That psychopath bubble should really intersect with the bible morality bubble :)

[@stylis666]

The bible bubble probably fits entirely in the psychopath bubble. If you ask the reason for why something is moral, a religious person can never answer that it benefits mankind or humans because that's simply not a goal. Both the old and new testament claim that all of your actions need to be in service of god. There is only one type of personality that you need to give incentives to be kind to others: sociopaths. The rest of us learn that being a dick to people is very often not beneficial and could be done to us as well, so out of the love for ourselves and others we learn to try and only be dicks to people when we'd hope that someone would do the same to us in the reversed situation, like when we claim to know things we don't or can't know and make an ass of ourselves, or when we argue to, inhibit people's, happiness, rights, freedoms and safety based on complete bullshit. Even most christians do. Paul's challenge is a good one to hopefully at least make some religious people realize that they treat themselves and others as if they're hopeless sociopaths who need to be held by their hands, while needing to twist scripture to make it seem as moral as they are. And some of them possibly are, but they need treatment, not a socially accepted lie to hide behind at the cost of the future of billions.

[@bdf2718]

Almost a complete overlap.

[@dekuboidonut4552]

In order for that to make sense the bible would not have to have any passages concerning morality because being a psychopath is basically not regarding or having morals wich is alot different than having bad morals.

[@robertdullnig3625]

If morality is written on our hearts, why would psychopaths even exist?

[@BluePhoenix_]

Maybe god wrote their morality with his left hand.

[@alanw505]

I like this definition for morality: The act or intention of reducing or eliminating unnecessary suffering while promoting health & well being.

[@Paulogia]

You're asserting your goal where others who are practicing what they consider morality have a different goal. This isn't much different than asserting a god.

[@alanw505]

@@Paulogia I still stand by this definition. I realize norms and ideas of moral behavior ebb and flow overtime.

[@Diviance]

@@Paulogia Well, to be fair, don't you kind of have to assert a goal/purpose to get to where morality becomes "objective" rather than subjective?

[@alanw505]

If you're accusing me of having a bias then I'm guilty as charged. Along with everyone else in the world.

[@alanw505]

I gotta admit the end of that comment "This isn't much different than asserting a god" stung a little. Ha! Helping people along the road of life by reducing or eliminating their unnecessary suffering while encouraging their health and well being is a far cry from promoting the Biblical God...or any god.

[@AccidentalNinja]

I attended a class during my undergraduate which asked whether it was possible to create a system of laws for a community without using religion. We pretty much looked up the definitions of all the words in the question & determined that we could create laws based on what would protect & foster community, based on the definition.

[@Paulogia]

Excellent thought experiment.

[@AccidentalNinja]

@Acceleration Quanta Survival of the group is the reason.

[@AccidentalNinja]

@Acceleration Quanta Those that do concern themselves with the survival of the group are more likely to have someone to mate with, & more eyes around to spot predators & food.

[@stefanowohsdioghasdhisdg4806]

@accelerationquanta5816 Okay but if Bob the spearmaker dies suddenly nobody can make spears and everyone suffers. And if Alice the food gatherer dies, nobody can gather food. If Dave the guy who knows how to make fire dies, suddenly no fire.

[@gerardtrigo380]

This appears to be a different way of voicing Hitchen's challenge to Christians, to find any moral thing that cannot be determined from purely secular reasoning and values.

[@Paulogia]

The Christians won't listen if you say that name.

[@graveseeker]

@@Paulogia lol

[@gerardtrigo380]

@Pioneering in Prophecy First off using the Bible as evidence is equivalent to using the Iliad or theogony for evidence, Laws and prohibitions against murder, lying, stealing, and numerous other actions that are detrimental predate the Ten Commandments by centuries. No society can survive that does not condemn such behaviors. No God needed.

[@williambarnes5023]

Morality challenge for Christians: Name something that you think is evil, that would still be evil when God does it.

[@bdf2718]

Their answer will be that nothing god does can be evil. By definition. Problem with that is, they have to abandon the concept of absolute morality to say it.

[@benroberts2222]

The other way out is to pick something they claim god never did, like lie, or define murder carefully so that god never does/did that. Still a good comment.

[@williambarnes5023]

It doesn't matter if they think god never did it, that wasn't the question. The question is what would stay evil IF god did it. I'll get the verse where he does it later.

[@warptens5652]

@@williambarnes5023 they will say that god doing something evil is a logical contradiction because god is the nature of good like a married bachelor

[@graveseeker]

@@warptens5652 He is also the nature of evil and pain and loss and immorality. How can an evil god be a loving god?

[@simongiles9749]

I've noticed that apologists who argue that God is required for morality can never seem to decide if they're trying to argue for Divine Command Theory (If you do what God tells you/written in the Bible, it's moral) or the Neo-Platonic concept (God is the Ideal of Good and thus serves as a signpost for deciding what is "right" or "wrong"). They seem to kinda sorta do both depending on what their argument is trying to demonstrate. Trouble is DCT was pretty much debunked (by fellow Christians) as soon as Anselm proposed it, whilst the Augustinian/Thomist Neo-Platonic ideal is impossible to reconcile with the triple-omni Biblical God, since for God to the Ideal of Good, there is either therefore an Ideal of Evil, creating an equal for God, or "Evil" is merely where God is not (the shadow to God's light), thereby again limiting the power of a supposedly omnipresent God.

[@Ansatz66]

The difference between Divine Command Theory and the Neo-Platonic concept is a bit subtle. Either way it has us looking to God as the standard for distinguishing right from wrong. Perhaps technically it's the difference between doing as God says versus doing as God does. The Divine Command Theorists is not committed to affirming the morality of flooding the world and killing everyone, because that was merely God's action and God never commanded us to do that. In contrast, the Neo-Platonic concept would seem to require that everything God does must always be the perfect good.

[@RickReasonnz]

Basically the Euthyphro problem, yes?

[@Vessekx]

In either case, the existence of the Holocaust completely rules out ‘God’ as representing any sort of moral standard anyone should strive to replicate. Omnipotent. Omniscient. Omnipresent. Allows millions of people to be starved, abused, tortured, and slaughtered. That doesn’t sound like behavior a moral person would allow to occur, so there are only three possibilities for failing to stop it: 1) You lacked the power to do so. God is supposed to be omnipotent, so that possibility is eliminated. 2) You lacked the knowledge that it was occurring. God is supposed to be omniscient, so that possibility is eliminated. 3) You weren’t there while it was happening to be able to prevent it. God is supposed to be omnipresent, so that possibility is eliminated. Furthermore, since God is supposed to be omniscient, he would have known it was happening, and where, so his failure to be present must have been a conscious choice. Finally, since God is supposed to be omnipotent, he had the power to prevent it even if he wasn’t present, so his failure to stop it must have been a conscious choice. Essentially, the fact that the Holocaust (among so many other horrific campaigns of depraved violence on other peoples) *occurred* is proof that either: 1) the ‘God’ of the Bible does not exist, or 2) the ‘God’ of the Bible is a malicious and evil being. (However, since the ‘God’ of the Bible is supposed to be perfectly beneficent, if this option is true, then so is option 1.)

[@simongiles9749]

@@Vessekx On the other hand, the Holocaust is entirely in keeping with the behaviour of the God of the Bible, who is quote happy to use Egyptians, Assyrians, and Babylonians to enslave and overthrow His chosen people in order to "teach them a lesson". Which once again is incompatible with the whole triple-omni thing. And free will, if you think about it.

[@Vessekx]

Simon Giles, true. The ‘God’ of the Bible does seem to be a big fan of genocide.

[@Mostlyharmless1985]

The greatest irony is that selfish morality is usually the most pure form of morality to begin with. I’m nice because it means you will be nice to me. That’s all the reason I need to be nice. I’m completely baffled that theists don’t ever mention this reciprocal notion of morality.

[@owlbme]

💚 *quality content* 💚

[@__Andrew]

God forbid (literally) we actually think about what is a good action compared to a bad action.

[@ryeclansen7371]

When I was a small boy there was a lady in our neighborhood who died in childbirth leaving several older children. I overheard my mom talking about how terrible a death that was. she died in excrutiating pain and in despair knowing that she would leave her children. How horrible! Did God somehow set a moral standard when he cursed Eve and her descendants? Any moral parent (or God ) would have protected his innocent daughter from being hoodwinked by a snake and certainly not cursed all generation of women.

[@WhtetstoneFlunky]

I've always thought that positive traits that are said to be "written in our hearts by God" (such as aiding members of one's group) are actually traits instilled in members of the human species by evolution. Since that is my tentative view, it would be necessary for the theist to provide evidence that his view is actually correct.

[@Paulogia]

Well, if you want to sum up my video better than I do, sure. :)

[@WhtetstoneFlunky]

I could have just said "I agree with you", couldn't I?

[@Paulogia]

@@WhtetstoneFlunky Any time you want to be a better version of me, I support that.

[@grahvis]

When I hear statements like 'written in our hearts by God', I visualise them coming from a scammer trying to sell me a bridge. They are purely words designed to deal with objections before an objection is raised, much of the Bible is written for that purpose.

[@WhtetstoneFlunky]

@Acceleration Quanta Right. It doesn't necessarily mean it is good. But the general reason there is evolution is that it makes a species more adapt at surviving.

[@aaronbrown8377]

"Can Human beings construct an objective moral standard independent of God?" I believe they cannot. Even theists cannot create such a standard, that's why there are hundreds of denominations of Christianity. No one can create an objective standard to morallity because morallity is dependent on context, personal values, and a slew of other factors that may change over time. If the standards placed forth by Catholicism contradict those of Presbyterianism then the standards of at least one are not objective. It's probably not possible to create objective morality but it most certainly wouldn't be possible if it's tailored for a specific theology.

[@Steelmage99]

It can also be argued, that an objective moral standard isn't actually desirable.

[@aaronbrown8377]

@@Steelmage99 True, it probably wouldn't be very nuanced.

[@fredworthmn]

To me your key point is "factors that may change over time." Xian literalists are locked into stone age morality which does not acknowledge where we as a human race are today. We no longer accept slavery, women as second class citizens, and an artificial sexual orientation. Even the Jews have updated books on this subject! I like your second point also where even Xian sects can not agree on morality with other Xian sects. Birth control, what day to worship, birthdays, snake handling, speaking in tongues. I am sure there are more examples.

[@knarf_on_a_bike]

Turek is so pompous. We "stole" our morals from god? Which ones? Slavery? Genocide? Keeping our women as property? Wearing mixed fabrics?

[@averygibson]

I have never found slavery or keeping women as property in the bible, mind pointing out where? You'll have to point out specific events on genocide in the bible, as they can very easily be explained, but when you group it together, it is a little difficult. Also, wearing mixed fabrics was a mosaic law, not a moral law. Two different things.

[@knarf_on_a_bike]

@@averygibson Yeah cool. Women as property: Exodus 21:7 (selling daughters), Exodus 21:8 (selling wives). Slaves: Exodus 21:2 (Hebrew slaves), Leviticus 25:44 (gentile slaves). Exodus 21:20-21. 26-27 (how to beat slaves). And yes, slavery is condoned in the New Testament as well: Ephesians 6:5-8, Timothy 6:1-2. As for genocide, I won't even get into God ordering the Israelites to massacre entire cities and tribes (except the women, who you can keep as concubines), I'd say the Flood, which wiped out all humanity except Noah and his immediate family counts as genocide. As for mixed fabrics, I just mentioned it because it's such an incredibly stupid law. Whether it's Mosaic or not. . .

[@Wix_Mitwirth]

Ask the Mideonites (sp?) if the bible is all about maximizing wellbeing.

[@clemstevenson]

Claiming that moral codes come from god, whilst knowing that there is no evidence to substantiate a claim that such moral codes come from god, is immoral.

[@shriggs55]

Yes.And claiming that atheist got(stole) their morals from your particular god or have no solid moral code at all-even if that were true-doesn't mean that morality came from your god by some kind of defaught.Morality gap theory?

[@clemstevenson]

@@shriggs55 The proponents of many different religions assert that their religion is the truth, irrespective of the fact that there is no supporting evidence for any of their claims. These Christians cannot honestly assert that the moral codes of the bible are anything other than man-made.

[@shriggs55]

@@clemstevenson Yup! Good point!

[@clemstevenson]

@@shriggs55 Leaders of all religions will insist that the leaders of different religions are dishonest, on the basis of a common lack of supporting evidence. These people are, by default, in no position to talk about moral codes.

[@GinEric84]

Why?

[@markhackett2302]

Can you create a moral standard WITH a god?

[@WolforNuva]

Sure you can. Just not an objective one (since God is a subject and it's his opinions that would make what's right and wrong) and unless that God's ethics happen to conveniently line up with the society you live in, you're probably in for some jail time if you value those over the laws of society.

[@markhackett2302]

@@WolforNuva Not really. What about "God said so" makes it moral? Worse, taking the fact that most christians insist god is THEIR god and wrote THEIR bible, when you try and make a morality, any morality, good or bad, it just doesn't arise from the bible, does it.

[@WolforNuva]

@@markhackett2302 The question was whether you could make a moral standard with a god. What is stopping someone from making God their standard? You ask what about "God said so" makes it moral? The individual. There is no objective part to morality that makes it so a God's word can't be the standard used.

[@markhackett2302]

@@WolforNuva I said that "God says so" is not a morality. As evidenced by there is no morality in the bible, what a god is claiming as morality. The claim "you can kill, you cannot kill" is not a morality. There is no morality, you have to cut up the bible to get one from the bible, therefore proving that there is no morality in the bible.

[@dorianarbos]

@@markhackett2302 Remember the definition of morality that was proposed, and that we're supposed to be using here: "evaluation of how well an action will achieve some desired goal or outcome".Please notice, that definition does not require any of us to personally share that particular desire as long as somebody else does. Since, for a believer, pleasing God is indeed a desired goal or outcome, then "God says so" is definitely a valid standard to measure actions towards that goal, and therefore classifies as moral standard under the definition of morality we're using. Just not an objective one, since its goals won't be universally agreed upon, and not very good as a standard either since it has pretty bad internal consistency, but an existing one nonetheless, which is what WolforNuva is saying.

[@darrylelam256]

The world according to WLC - We all KNOW goodness, righteousness and justice yet some how we all KNOW very different things about them.... (Logic, clear not his strong point)

[@markcaesar4443]

Venn Diagrams, HELP, I'm back in school. Great vid, Paul, a good challenge.

[@adm0iii]

I find Bible morality to be clearly objective. I object to stoning my child if he disrespects me, to slavery, and to genocide.

[@TheUltrahypnotoad]

I think the word you're looking for is objectionable.

[@adm0iii]

I object!

[@garnerdurant9850]

Fun extra thought how does the Bible deal with the trolley test?

[@losttribe3001]

Derp. I’m too stupid to figure out morals for myself and need a God to tell me. Derp.

[@dekuboidonut4552]

So you suggest guessing them with subjective reasoning instead?

[@aheartonfire7191]

You missed the point of Jesus then.

[@ATLbench]

A Lost One only an idiot thinks he has nothing to learn

[@istvansipos9940]

@@aheartonfire7191 the more people miss junior's points (and the points of other cult leaders), the better. f.e. junior and all his family "values". disgusting.

[@fredworthmn]

Children and those born with a low IQ can not figure out morality on their own. It is easier for a parent or caregiver to say "god said so" than to say "I said so!"

[@hundejahre]

WTF is Righteousness? I mean seriously, what do Christians claim it means, and how is it in anyway useful to me as an atheist?

[@notwhatiwasraised2b]

I would suggest they mean 'the right thing' as revealed to them by god(s) through a personal interpretation of scripture (if they've ever bothered to read it) or personal revelation (i.e. they 'just Know').

[@mabatch3769]

It’s one of those concepts that religion intentionally keeps vague so everyone can have their own interpretation of righteousness while not being wrong. Same with the concept of God as well. Ask 100 people what God likes and doesn’t like and you’ll get 100 different answers.

[@hundejahre]

@@notwhatiwasraised2b Right, so something that has ZERO meaning or use to an atheist, despite the guy in the video claiming we steal the concept from them.

[@notwhatiwasraised2b]

@@hundejahre I might argue that 'righteousness' from a secular perspective might be defined as the demonstrably better or best thing to do given the foreseeable consequences for self and others.

[@princestevenii.772]

Treating LGBTIQ+ equally is blue.

[@ericsbuds]

Great video. Thanks, Paul!

[@jmaniak1]

I like how apologists use double standards to meet their needs. God is possible in all probable worlds but morality without a god isn’t.

[@roqsteady5290]

"God is possible in all probable worlds" Not sure what that means. We are probably in a world without a god, but if god doesn't exist then it is not possible that he does.

[@flowernose420]

Paulogia, thank you for your content. I'm an atheist married to a Christian. His religious feelings get hurt easily but I think he could handle your videos. (Mr Atheist and Aron Ra make him especially uncomfortable, for example.)

[@fullywoke80]

Paul is a good choice and I would also maybe suggest Viced Rhino. 43Alley is a good channel too but he has been inactive for 2 years.

[@chikkipop]

*"Mr Atheist and Aron Ra make him especially uncomfortable"* Tell him it's *good* to be made uncomfortable! If we're not open to the idea that challenges to our beliefs are the best way to test them, we're not really interested in what's most likely true. What's really interesting is that if comfort is what he is seeking (in terms of whether or not he is holding the view most likely to be the case), atheism is actually more comfortable than any other view, because once truly understood there are no good arguments which would make us doubt we were taking the best position.

[@notwhatiwasraised2b]

@@chikkipop "...atheism is actually more comfortable than any other view..." I can see how settling into divine certainty could be more 'comfortable'. “Education: the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty.” ― Mark Twain

[@chikkipop]

@@notwhatiwasraised2b I was making a distinction between embracing a belief *because it is more comforting* and accepting it because there is no cognitive dissonance. If you start with the need to be made "comfortable" existentially, you aren't looking for what is most likely the case. Believers have the dissonance, whereas doubters don't.

[@notwhatiwasraised2b]

@@chikkipop "because once truly understood there are no good arguments which would make us doubt we were taking the best position." I don't believe god(s) do, or even could, exist but I have constant doubts about pretty much everything (gods, science, medicine, psychology, education, politics, etc). I can easily imagine it being much more comfortable settling on a god and not thinking about anymore - i.e. no cognitive dissonance. From what I gather, most believers don't much care what's 'most likely the case' since they already Know what is the case.

[@eightfootmanchild]

Even granting that Yahweh exists, that he has a moral code that we are meant to follow, and that this morality is somehow (I assume magically) objective, we still have no means of gleaning what it is. A moral philosophy with no epistemology to speak of, is worthless. We are left to our own devices whether Yahweh exists or not. He is utterly irrelevant.

[@BigJGTR]

I love when religious people claim to know what atheists can and can not do. Where do I get my morals from? How about a sense of justice, doing the right thing, ethics and traditions, and of course philosophy.

[@notwhatiwasraised2b]

"Where do I get my morals from? How about a sense of justice, doing the right thing, ethics and traditions, and of course philosophy." Religious people would argue that you acquire your 'sense of justice' and 'the right thing' from a divine source.

[@BigJGTR]

Greg Pearcey of course, and I tell them that humans existed long before the Abrahamic god did, and so if anyone is stealing our morals and virtues it’s religion. Religion allows them to disregard dealing with moral dilemmas, making their morals arbitrary to what what ever god they worship, or in truth what ever claims to moral objectives are in their scriptures. They should show respect for those of us who came before us and have paid that knowledge and wisdom of moral dilemmas forward altruistically I might add, but they don’t because their belief of a higher being doesn’t allow them to even consider the thought that we are the moral makers not some absent phantom.

[@notwhatiwasraised2b]

@@BigJGTR "I tell them that humans existed long before the Abrahamic god did, and so if anyone is stealing our morals and virtues it’s religion." The response might be that the Abrahamic god sent Abraham, Moses, Jesus and/or Mohammad to clarify his moral expectations, as were confused by all before them. And their god is not arbitrary given that they 'objectively' Know it to be true (somehow).

[@craigcorson3036]

I've always got mine from a little shop in the village. Wide selection, affordable prices.

[@Mariomario-gt4oy]

@@notwhatiwasraised2b lol so a god the perfect being waited about 300,000 years to send his moral code ( which includes slavery genocide and kiddie diddling) and this is supposed to be a rational argument?

[@ralphediger1856]

Don’t wear different types of fabric. Don’t tattoo your body. Sunday is THE day of rest. Couldn’t really think of any that were important in today’s world, but there you go. How didI do? But more importantly, maybe God just needs to update his rule book for modern times.

[@michaelbyrnee9584]

For me, morality comes down to this: "Is it better to act morally because of the fear of going to a hell, or because acting morally is simply the right thing to do?

[@averygibson]

As a Christian, I can say definitely the latter

[@jacksonpercy8044]

Being moral selfishly versus being moral for the sake of others. Hmm, that first one doesn't sound very moral at all.

[@michaelbyrnee9584]

@@tototome7046 Nobody in their right mind needs any kind of religion to know right from wrong. You might ask this question: how many wars have been fought, how many lives have been taken, in the name of god?

[@michaelbyrnee9584]

@@tototome7046 quoting from the world's leading comic book of fiction.

[@michaelbyrnee9584]

@@tototome7046 god is a fucking joke. Not a single one of the 3,000-odd gods invented by human is genuine. You can believe in your god all you want, but please provide a single scrap of proof that such a "thing" exists. And please don't point to the bible or any of those delusional texts as they are barely capable of serving as toilet paper. There is no god. god is bullshit.

[@DeconvertedMan]

Sure. We made chess. We all agree to how to play chess. We made morals & ethics and thus could agree to how to play that game. I think we have been trying to figure out how to play chess (morals/ethics) for awhile, some assert they have the rule book already.

[@goldenalt3166]

Paulagia video? The current video can wait. Gotta watch now.

[@JoeHinkle11]

I was catching up on Kyle Kulinski and still switched over

[@Paulogia]

"The current video can wait"... sounds like a title I should use.

[@owengameing6182]

Yeah, as soon as the green background of his avatar pops up in my notifications, I also basically "drop everything" for that sweet, sweet Paulogia essay. This video was well worth the dishes and plates I dropped on my floor, to run to the nearest computer.

[@Paulogia]

@@owengameing6182 Now there's a review I can use in promotional material!

[@Ottawa411]

Most Christians I encounter don't seem to value morality much at all, unless they are judging other's behavior. It's always " to enter the kingdom of heaven you must accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior". All moral behavior seems to fall by the wayside. Belief is all that matters, actions count for naught.

[@sussekind9717]

I hope this leads to some productive conversation. I am very intrested in some of the theistic examples. I hope we can keep it civil.

[@seandobson6692]

Every time I hear someone saying, "Without God, there is no morality. There is nothing to stop you from raping and murdering (and whatever else they can think of to demonize. That was almost a pun, but I saved us all from that fate)." I think to myself, if their religion is the only thing stopping them from violating and torturing people, then please, please don't let them become atheists. At that point, I think that they would fit neatly into the psychopath circle.

[@raywingfield]

wow, one of my favorite discussions! My approach to the question of OMV is very different. Lets assume there is a Theist God and it is the source of all moral values. Ok awesome. Now what are they? oops, back to relative values we go. God or no God we still as ignorant humans have to work it out for ourselves!?!?!?!?!?! good luck

[@stephentaylor6726]

Nah, the Bible does all the thinking for you. So first of all you're gonna want to burn your clothes, no more mixed fabrics for you. Also no shellfish, no work on Sundays and...oh you know how to celebrate the feast of weeks right??? I don't becauae I'm not an uneducated Nomad from that time and place but it seemed pretty important...good news though, it's okay to rape virgins as long as you can afford to buy them from their fathers afterwards and getting the money will be easy because owning slaves is okay.

[@stylis666]

@@stephentaylor6726 You're misinterpreting! The guy talking in church does the thinking for you. They have the correct interpretation because, eh... shit, I'm supposed to parrot some logical fallacy I learned in church... Ah, well... I guess I'm going to hell for taking the easy way and making up my own damn mind.

[@jwmmitch]

Wow there's nothing here, and only a modicum on the Twitter. One person posited that there is only a blue(or green) because we've grown up in a yellow society. It made me think "then there would be no yellow, only green" and there's TONS of yellow, just not yellow that feels written on my heart

[@philiphied]

Love my AIG and Ham shirt!!

[@Paulogia]

Yay! Have you tweeted me a picture?

[@hu3rcgtx]

This is insulting. I got my first moral compass from my parents, who were catholic. I was not afraid of god, but them. Religions adopted morality from man, not god.

[@manusiabumi7673]

Morality can never be objective regardless whether god exists or not

[@Gothead420]

Exactly!

[@tomcheria8126]

God = Absolute Goodness. For Christians God = JESUS(Absolute Goodness). Life of Jesus is the absolute moral compass for Christian and it is objective.

[@Gothead420]

@@tomcheria8126 How can opinions be objective?

[@manusiabumi7673]

@@tomcheria8126 even if god exists and morality comes from god it would still be just god's opinion, so no, it's not objective at all

[@manusiabumi7673]

@Eden Pay personally i DISAGREE with murder, rape, torture, etc. (not just when it's done to me, but in general), but i wouldn't say those are objectively wrong

[@stupidmonkey__]

If God has written his moral laws on our hearts, explain Hitler. If these imprinted laws, put there by God himself, can be so easily overridden, whats the point.

[@GinEric84]

You have to listen to what your interlocutors say, the answer you will get it if you could not ignore the law then it would be a violation of free will. I understand this because I listen when people speak.

[@stupidmonkey__]

@@GinEric84 What does God care about free will. If he knows all, which includes the future, then all actions are predetermined. In that case free will is an illusion.

[@warptens5652]

but but... free will!

[@ryeclansen7371]

After Moses received the ten commandments, he came down the mountain, saw the golden calf, then smashed the tablets. Then he got together a mob with swords and they went through the camp slaughtering men women and children. Doesn't sound very moral to me. Was that somehow keeping the commandments?

[@kevindavis5966]

I'll take the morality system that excludes slavery, misogyny, homophobia, and scapegoating, thanks.

[@broddr]

Kevin Davis -- you left out the morality system that excludes disease as the result of being cursed by god, its prophets, or its priests.

[@dragonhealer7588]

Oh, and don't forget being created broken.

[@ATLbench]

Kevin Davis you scoff at Christian morality and yet our entire society and founding documents like the bill of rights specifically recognize Our Creator as the ultimate giver of rights. You atheists make me sick because by your standard the government is god. Otherwise who gives you your rights? The only rational morality is one that assumes that people are created with value and that value comes from God. If not then you are no different than a domesticated animal.

[@dragonhealer7588]

@@ATLbench Our founding fathers were very careful to use the word "creator", that could be any God of any faith, or not God for faiths that creation was not a God. You should read the writings of our founding fathers at the time. It will give you a better picture of the scocial experiment they strove to craft.

[@ATLbench]

Dragonhealer thanks for the tip. You’re right I should read the other writings. What other faiths that don’t have a “creator god” would imply that humans are special?

[@arthurmorgan149]

This is an interesting concept but fails to address the larger point Christian Apologists make. It is not simply you have no basis for morality without God. Thats part of it. Their point is you have no basis for morality in a worldview that states you the result of random processes in the universe.

[@jackbarman7063]

It’s kind of funny because I’m a philosophy student, and when I study ethics, god almost never comes up. Much of the prominent ethical theory that has been written and is taught has nothing to do with the existence of a god or what that god says.

[@spazatistically]

@Paulogia i really appreciate your personal respect, method, humor, and intelligence in your videos... I don’t have twitter so haven’t read the responses on there but I have one question and 3 initial responses to your question: 1) your “maximize well being” and thence explanation from David Wood and IP’s video seems to just be a purely consequentialism viewpoint of ethics, would you agree? 2) would most atheists agree that lying, stealing, and adultery (specifically cheating on a spouse) is wrong? These are all clearly in the Bible just from the 10 commandments... but yet I can think of many scenarios where one would do all these things in a way to maximize well being. A) lying to a friend who looks fat or did something wrong in order to let them feel better B) stealing from a rich and perhaps cruel company and distributing those funds to the masses who need it. C) a woman in an abusive, loveless marriage runs away with a good yet lonely man. In just 3 scenarios i would say from a consequentialist viewpoint that more moral goodness came out of those decisions, yet the Bible just clearly stages they’re wrong and that’s that. In my worldview of God having this moral standard, it is not up to us to exact justice, cheat our way to happiness etc, because I wouldn’t want to assert myself over God’s standards. We place these poor decisions and evils in God’s hands to ultimately deal with, while also trying to do good and stay “righteous” in our own sense.

[@mrapistevist]

This will set some of them off, I'm sure: we're moral because we evolved that way. It's emergent

[@mikewade1604]

The Christian argument also a very condenseding argument to boot. It pretends that basic morality isn't common sense, and someone can't figure it out.

[@gregcampwriter]

I suspect they'll say that the yellow circle has opposition to marriage equality. And that's a key reason that I reside in the blue circle.

[@Paulogia]

But would marriage inequality ring true to the consciences of a significant portion of non-believers?

[@gregcampwriter]

@@Paulogia No, it wouldn't, but then, I doubt that anything that believers would claim as unique would be accepted as moral by us.

[@edwardlupin7917]

If I was making a challenge to examine the idea of biblical morality, I think I would create a survey containing a list of actions that are considered immoral, probably a fairly extensive one. Then I would have participants tell me their opinions on each thing and explain briefly why they think so. Bible citation would be acceptable, even encouraged, but stating a feeling of god's morality in their heart would be acceptable too. I would take those answers and see how similar or different they were from each other. How the interpretation of the biblically inspired instances differed in interpretation and how well they adhered to the in-context passage. I would also compare the 'feeling of god's morality' claims and see how much overlap there was. I think it would be more than enough to prove whether 'god's morality' can indeed be considered objective. This does suit a somewhat different purpose to Paulogia's challenge, since it doesn't address the evolution of morality in nature, but I do think it would be of value to demonstrate potential flaws in the idea of objective morality itself.

[@bengreen171]

non- survival jeans are shunned by preppers because they don't have any cool pockets for keeping matches and knives in, and they aren't waterproof.

[@sekara9866]

It never fails to surprise me how insular american theists can be. It takes a special kind of person to completely ignore all the other belief systems that created moral codes before their saviour was even born. It's almost cute.

[@alanw505]

There is no moral instruction in the Bible. Well, unless following orders under coercion to avoid eternal torment now means morality.

[@broddr]

And that slaves should obey their masters, just as Christians obey their god. Ephesians 6:5, Colossians 3:22, 1 Peter 2:18, etc.

[@dragonhealer7588]

I think it is inferred from God's laws. Anyone else?

[@Mariomario-gt4oy]

Ita easy, just as them if god was wrong to endorse slavery. Now start the excuses and bending over backwards lol

[@joecoolioness6399]

If you can even get them to agree that owning people is immoral.

[@Lou13Cyf3r]

...........oh Frank Turek. Please stop with your charlatan ways.

[@costaliberta5969]

wtf the comments here are unbelievable, most constructive, congrats everybody

[@fred_derf]

Morality is determined by: - Empathy - Desire for Society - Enlightened Self-Interest No god required.

[@SoukenIDK]

@Shameless Papist question then becomes which one and why? Also only for us humans of for animals as well?

[@michaelrch]

Shameless Papist No, all of that came from evolution. That's why animals have aspects of them as well. Indeed, these characteristics can be bred into animals. No god required.

[@michaelrch]

Shameless Papist Morality is a set of principles that drives behaviour towards certain common shared goals. Animals absolutely do have this. You have no idea what an animal is thinking and how sophisticated that might be. I am guessing you have never watched chimps and Orang-Utans interact with each other and people over long periods. They absolutely do show clear principles of empathy, fairness and shared goal seeking. The fact that we have a more sophisticated morality is exactly what you would expect given we have much more cognitive capabilities than any other animal. Chimps cant communicate verbally as well as we do. Does that mean that speech is an objective fact of the universe imbued in us by a god? You might assert that but you would have zero evidence. Same goes for morality. Religion has taught you that good and evil are facts of the universe that exist outside of human society and culture. But that is a baseless assertion and it's deeply misleading and unhelpful to understand human behaviour, society and morality in that way. Morality is much better understood as the rules to the system of social interaction that we have created though millions of years of evolution plus more recent innovations in culture, through reasoned analysis of how to reach our common goals of avoiding needless suffering and maximising our wellbeing, all in an inherently social context. This accords with what we see in reality - this is what's actually going on.

[@GuitarDog_atx]

@Shameless Papist There were moral rules long before your god ever existed.

[@ATLbench]

Haha! Unless your morality isn’t the same as someone else’s 😂

[@NieroshaiTheSable]

Thoughts aren't made *of* materials, but they are made *by* materials.

[@gaellafond6367]

I can think of many things in the yellow section: “You shall not take the name of the Lord in vain.” (Ex. 20:7) “You shall have no other gods before me” (Ex. 20:3) “You shall not make for yourself a graven image” (Ex. 20:4) Everything in the yellow section is pointless since it doesn't maximise well being. It serves no purpose. They are rules just for the sake of reinforcing your beliefs and prevent you for looking into other beliefs.

[@broddr]

Gael Lafond -- you left out the Tenth Commandment (of the set that was claimed to be placed into the Ark of the Covenant): Do not braise a baby goat in its mother's milk. Even as a child I wondered how that recipe could possibly be a moral instruction, and how it qualified as a Commandment.

[@davef6256]

@@broddr because, however moral/immoral you find killing a calf, it is extra twisted and perverse to kill it in the milk its dead mother provided to preserve its life. I'm not saying that it answers Paulogia's challenge (I don't believe it does at all. Cruelty for the sake of irony or deliciousness is reprehensible, and diminishes everyone involved...reducing the moral and mental wellness of all.) I am just answering your implicit question.

[@broddr]

Dave F -- it's not killing the baby goat in its mother's milk, it's _cooking_ it in the milk. No cruelty involved, other than the same cruelty done today in killing baby cows for veal or lambs (baby sheep) for Easter Sunday dinner. The Tenth Commandment is just a recipe, a forbidden recipe. And, of course eating any part of a pig is an abomination to the Biblical god. But no commandment forbidding or even criticizing slavery. Apparently the Biblical god was more morally concerned about kitchen rules than slavery.

[@peri5966]

Where's your Adam's apple?

[@peri5966]

@@broddr where's your Adam's apple?

[@pyrodante]

But... what if what God wrote on our hart is "You should maximize wellbeing while minimizing pain" Ahah checkmate! (love your stuff btw)

[@Hypogean7]

Vanitas vanitatum, et omnia vanitas.

[@axer3515]

If the morals you are referring to are the morals the Bible teaches, then I will pass.

[@dekuboidonut4552]

So you suggest guessing them with subjective reasoning instead?

[@axer3515]

@@dekuboidonut4552 I suggest a "live and let live"approach. I was a biologist when I was a Christian,and I am still a biologist as an atheist. To each their own.

[@ATLbench]

axer351 Lol tell that to the nazis.

[@graveseeker]

@@dekuboidonut4552 Over those of the Bible? Any day.

[@jacksontaylor3220]

Here is an interesting thought that I have often posed to Christians who claim that morality comes from God: Do you think that absolutely every moral claim in the bible should still be followed today? Typical Answer: Of course not, there are many examples in the bible of dated morals that should no longer be adopted. By what standard do you evaluate which claims in the bible are dated and which are still moral? Why is it that we cannot simply decide our morals based on that standard rather than using it to slice out portions of the bible that fit our standard? Another interesting question may be: Were those dated claims moral at the time they were written? Typical Answer: Yes, they were once right but are now dated. If moral values have changed with time then we know that those biblical morals are not objective. Is it then safe to assume that the others are likely also not objective and will probably change with time as well? I'd be interested to hear what any of the Christians out there think about these questions.

[@dekuboidonut4552]

Well I'm no theologian but here I go: I believe that most if not all of they old testament was merely instructions to keep the people pure on their way to the promised land and that they where ultimately nullified by the death of Jesus. And the reason we shouldn't pick and chose out of the bible is because there's no surefire way of knowing what exactly God wants from us in terms of behavior, that's why it's best played safe in new testament law. Like I said earlier the reason the previous passages don't seem like the most morally clean route by today's standards was because God wanted instructions to make sure his people behaved and stayed spiritually clean, but those rules are no longer needed so why change them instead of simply reworking the rules expected for modern times. I hope this helps and if there's any further questions you have please feel free to ask I enjoyed answering them

[@jacksontaylor3220]

@@dekuboidonut4552 Okay so how would you classify the New Testament morality that we now know is wrong. (ex: The New Testament is anti-gay and anti-woman we know that these are wrong; The New Testament also continues to discuss slavery in verses such as Ephesians 6:5-9; Colossians 3:22-4:1; and I Peter 2:18-25 without condemning it which we, of course, know it should be condemned) These moral claims of the New Testament are clearly seen by atheists and theists as wrong. Therefore, we obviously have a moral standard by which we judge the bible. My question is simply why don't we use that same moral standard to guide our own lives (simply cutting out the bible as a middle man).

[@averygibson]

"Do you think that absolutely every moral claim in the bible should still be followed today?" No, there are laws in the OT we no longer need to follow (the Levitical law as one example). It is not that they are outdated, nor that the law has changed. It hasn't changed, they've been fulfilled. "By what standard do you evaluate which claims in the bible are dated and which are still moral?" The standard that is Jesus. "Why is it that we cannot simply decide our morals based on that standard rather than using it to slice out portions of the bible that fit our standard?" Feel free to, in fact, you should. Not sure what portions of the bible are being sliced. Were those dated claims moral at the time they were written? They weren't dated claims. That was the law God gave Jews to abide by while awaiting the messiah, who fulfilled the law, so they no longer needed to die/suffer for their own sins since Jesus did. Anything deemed moral by God is moral by default of him having the authority to judge good from evil by virtue of being morally excellent. "If moral values have changed with time then we know that those biblical morals are not objective. Is it then safe to assume that the others are likely also not objective and will probably change with time as well" We have no reason to believe the moral law will change, because it never has. Even if God did change the moral law, that wouldn't make is subjective, seeing has He is the standard.

[@Silentsouls]

For morality to come from a god, there first must be a god. And for that to happen it must first even be possible for a god to exist. And so far we only have found a possibillity in our fantasy.

[@dragonhealer7588]

Surely it may be possible, but how would anyone propose to test for the supernatural, which buy definition, does not exist in reality?

[@Silentsouls]

​@@dragonhealer7588 Ig god has anything to do with reality, there must be a way to interact with the real world as well. The claim that god created the universe should be enough evidence for that. So god cannot only be super natural. that is just a way of trying to hide god in the most impossible spot. So it cannot be impossible to test god. In fact we tried many times, when following the claims of the religious.but it never ever has been something else but natural. Trying to proof the supernatural is just a red herring.

[@dragonhealer7588]

@@Silentsouls Too true. So that unchanging God, has changed over time.....

[@Silentsouls]

@@dragonhealer7588 Defnitly, where he did not like the tower of babel, because we could reach god, to now completely ignoring the hight of airplanes.

[@yannickgullentops6857]

Because its impossible to proof a god doesn't exist, it is possible a god exists. Now if you would argue against a specific depiction of a god then you would have a point. BTW the god doesn't have to exist anymore and still could be the source of morality.

[@pdoylemi]

One point I wish you had addressed, even though not directly related to your challenge - Turek's assertion that goodness and righteousness are extant things that exist independently from human thought. It is a question begging fallacy when one's argument is that those things exist because of god.

[@Paulogia]

Indeed. For another day, for sure.

[@sykes1024]

I would imagine that once you include "long time scales" and grant their premise that heaven exists, many christians would claim that the blue and yellow circles completely overlap because in the grand scheme of things the only thing that matters for well-being is whether or not some one gets into heaven; and thus the only way to maximize well-being is to maximize the number of people who get into heaven. This seemed to be the take that people like Mother Teresa hold, who thought poverty and suffering were gifts as they would lead people to god.

[@DigitalGnosis]

Haven't listened to audio yet but are we talking about maximising well-being in terms of rule utilitarianism, act utilitarianism, qualitative hedonism or quantitative hedonism... I think you make an interesting point just wondering for my thought experiments..

[@Paulogia]

I deliberately left all that un-muddied, because I don't think it affects which things are yellow, so it doesn't directly affect the challenge. Am I mistaken on that?

[@DigitalGnosis]

@@Paulogia I don't think it's important for the point you're trying to make (Frank Turek is wrong), and I get you're using consequentialism as a hypothetical moral system. In terms of what im interested in, figuring out what morality is, then yeah it is important - probably not for the purpose of your video though! I just rambled for 40 mins about it kzbin.info/www/bejne/j326iItnf5V5jbM

[@Paulogia]

@@DigitalGnosis Interesting ramblings, but yeah... different topics. As long as you agree Frank Turek is wrong, I'm good.

[@stevewebber707]

While I'm not a Christian, it does seem like an interesting question. I've thought a bit, and had some glimmerings of ideas but the hangup I keep running into is looking for well established objective morality in the bible. One of my first ideas was about rape, as it has some objective moral characteristics, but the bible doesn't seem to clearly have a stance on it's morality. And also it's already in the blue/green portion. This led to thinking a bit deeper on the question itself. It seems to require some objective Christian morality "written on our hearts" that non-Christians are somehow suppressing that morality yet acknowledging it as some level. This seems so unlikely that it's hard to think of any good possibilities. Perhaps it's more of a Socratic question than one with any good answers? Well, at least it gave me something to think about for a bit.

[@davedallafior8218]

Paul is one of the kindest, honest, and talented people I know. Better yet, I consider him a friend. Rather than trying to figure out where morality comes from, afford me what the Supreme Court said about pornography, (paraphrasing): “I can’t put my finger on it, but I know what it is when I see it.”

[@Paulogia]

You're a good man.

[@davedallafior8218]

Paulogia Don’t get cocky. 😂

[@Masterblader158]

If they hate others supposedly stealing their morals for their own use I wonder how they would feel over the Bible's use of previous cultures (/ heavily inspirated) tales to tell moral tales, and considering how most religious tales are either moral or attempting to explain the unknown also likely copying the moral too like how so many flood myths in the area the story of the Great Flood was written go with that it was to punish human "sin", a vague word used vaguely, and how the Bible's retelling of that story was just a modification of an older version. Really the stealing of previous myths stories for your own purposes tend to tell me just how much those religions want to jump on a cultural bandwagon, even if that cultural bandwagon is stealing from Gilgamesh's vault, for their own purposes. Also the very claim of something like an Objective Morality (which most relgious texts kinda go against with how context matters sometimes or how certain people are above the law in a way that supports them and those close to them due to special previ...I mean a special relationship) really needs stronger proof than a written text that claims to have gained it from a objective source, and even claiming that certain moral values came from that text only would require showing any culture with that moral value had a link to the text so a civilisation a ocean away that also agrees killing others within the civilisation is bad so proof that its more a view that seems connected to our evolution over anything else, so anything that applies somewhat univerally can be explained that it was written to fit those ideas rather than the reverse. These kind of claims need really good proof beyond that people can agree with certain morals it either actually says or is interpreted to say since that can be easily explained.

[@chrispitchforth621]

If morals where objective and set by a god then they would be unchanging. Well, morals seem to change. Strange that.

[@nathanjora7627]

Chris Pitchforth not really, since what applies to objective physical reality could apply to objective moral reality, and our moral standards would evolve simply because we either get a better grasp of it, or because we develop different superstitions about it, just like our views of reality revolves as science progressed and as new superstitions appeared and spread. What is really strange is that morality is objective, that an eternal omnipotent omniscient and otherwise perfect and benevolent entity exists, but our morals change. That’s weird. I mean, best case scenario : all of this is true, and humans’ lives and behaviors aren’t concerned by that god’s morality. « Worst » case scenario ... well, he doesn’t exist.

[@shriggs55]

Many Christians will tell you,that all the terrible things that God did in old testament times was how God operated back then under the " old covenant"-and then the meek and gentle Jesus came along and revealed another(better?)side of god under the "new covenant"-dealing with a different group of people("Christians").I've told some of them recently that God indeed does not change according to his own words-and that,Jesus said he was the exact image of Yahweh-his father.Haven't got a decent response yet.

[@joecoolioness6399]

@@shriggs55 I wonder where all the people's souls went before jebus visited. Or where are all the souls who died in the jungle having never heard of jebus.

[@shriggs55]

@@joecoolioness6399 They don't have souls to begin with.It's interesting that nowhere in the old testament do you find any solid evidence that they believed in an afterlife,whether you are talking about,heaven,hell,limbo,or purgatory.They also say nothing about Satan,at least not in the form that Christianity presents him.All this seems to have been invented by Jesus and his followers-including the existence of "souls".Seems like all this was created by superstitious and ignorant people,based on fear and wishful thinking and used by "rulers"to wield power over the people.Much of it seems to have been borrowed from Hellenistic/Greek influence-and maybe Zoroastrian,also.

[@Forest_Fifer]

There is no "biblical morality" though, well not a consistent one at any rate.

[@Forest_Fifer]

@Pioneering in Prophecy argument from "for the Bible tells me so". Sorry but you don't get to use your conslusion as evidence.

[@tussk.]

My morality says that everybody should be treated equally, regardless of gender, race, sexuality and religion. I cannot find a single passage in the bible that says these same things. In fact, it clearly states the exact opposite of what I believe, often to the extent of demanding the immediate murder of people of different race, sexuality etc. If I took my morality from the bible then I would be an advocate of slavery, incest, genocide, fratricide, infanticide, torture, collective punishment and human sacrifice. If you take your morality from the bible and do not advocate these things, it is an explicit admission that your morality is superior and does not require god, as well as an admission that the book is deeply flawed and that you only believe the bits that arent troublesome.

[@warptens5652]

galates 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus you can interpret that to be what you're looking for

[@tussk.]

@@warptens5652 or I could interpret as 'When we die, we are all the same. Until then, tough shit'

[@CharlesHuckelbery]

Well done. Thanks for sharing your video with us. We appreciate your kind efforts.

[@1970Phoenix]

Frank Turek always sounds (and looks) so angry. I guess the meek won't inherit the earth after all.

[@ttthttpd]

"What is morality, or ethics? It is a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions-the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life. Ethics, as a science, deals with discovering and defining such a code." "You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island-it is on a desert island that he would need it most. Let him try to claim, when there are no victims to pay for it, that a rock is a house, that sand is clothing, that food will drop into his mouth without cause or effort, that he will collect a harvest tomorrow by devouring his stock seed today-and reality will wipe him out, as he deserves; reality will show him that life is a value to be bought and that thinking is the only coin noble enough to buy it." -- Ayn Rand

[@joecoolioness6399]

and that code is based on where you live. It is not immoral to own a slave in a place where it is not illegal.

[@ttthttpd]

@@joecoolioness6399 "The right of a nation to determine its own form of government does not include the right to establish a slave society (that is, to legalize the enslavement of some men by others). There is no such thing as “the right to enslave.” A nation can do it, just as a man can become a criminal-but neither can do it by right" -- "Foreward", We The Living, Ayn Rand

[@mariochartouni]

I wonder what keeps Turek from stoning homosexuals (Lev. 20:13) or people who work during the Sabbath (Exodus 35:1-2, Numbers 15).

[@WolforNuva]

Because those are the _Old Testament,_ and rules from the old testament don't apply anymore... Except the ones that are convenient.

[@mariochartouni]

@@WolforNuva I love how christians ignore Matthew 5:17-18 and Luke 16:17 in which Jesus himself says that the OT law must stay...

[@joecoolioness6399]

@@WolforNuva right? and besides, what, did god fuck up the first copy? The new testament is just an attempt to nice it up a bit, because the leaders of the cult realized how seriously awful the old testament was. not that the new one is any better, just less gory.

[@ShyyGaladriel]

Always love it when you make these.

[@boxcardboard5594]

Watched this one year late. Very interested to find more about the response and if any productive discussion developed.

[@byebry]

I think this is a fantastic challenge. I really, really would like to see some replies. Sadly it seems many people haven't understood the challenge. Or maybe they didn't bother to listen to it.

[@fwdbias9099]

Its interesting how hard the religious organizations are advertising on youtube for anyone clicking on these atheist videos....at least they are for me.

[@unknowndane4754]

I checked out the Twitter, it's clear that people disagree but it seems to be a decent enough dialogue rather than just people throwing mud

[@Paulogia]

That doesn't sound like twitter.

[@thetruthchannel349]

"Published on Nov 18, 2019 CHRISTIANS, I have a challenge for you to help prove objective God-based morality" *THEN LETS SET THAT MODERATED DEBATE UP PROPHET of ZOD/PAULOGIA (PROPHET OF ZOD PITCH-SHIFTED DOWN)*

[@henrypadilla7973]

This reminds me, powerfully, of the Hitchen's Challenge. kzbin.info/www/bejne/aoXRcmaYbbKbepI

[@XDRONIN]

@Paulogia, I applaud your idea of a challenge for Christians, however; I don't think I can agree with the definition of Morality you chose for this challenge, it seems too vague. I think that could be a bit of a hurdle for Christians to accept as well.

[@Paulogia]

What do you suggest?

[@XDRONIN]

​@@Paulogia Well, so you don't get accused of cherry-picking and/or cheating you could use a definition Christians apologists use themselves, or you could use a more common definition found on dictionaries online or on Wiki.

[@Paulogia]

@@XDRONIN This is pretty much in line with philosophical definitions... and I'm attempting to get Christians to re-evaluate their morals, not affirm their incorrect perceptions. In any case, if they want to challenge me on the definition, I'll let them do it rather than speculating for them.

[@XDRONIN]

@@Paulogia ok, it was just a suggestion.

[@puck8166]

I almost brought this up in a discussion I had with a Christian today. But I didn’t feel I could adequately present the challenge so I left it out. Next time!!

[@byebry]

Prepare yourself... I've been chatting with a few people about this for days, that simply do not understand. All they've tried to do is poke holes in my moral framework, unsuccessfully but while claiming victory nonetheless. And none have addressed the challenge or will talk about their own moral frameworks at all. It's been... disappointing. A couple other theists did simply agree that well-being IS the standard given to us by god, and that there is only one, green circle - and then they went on to say that well-being can't be achieved if you're "sinning" - you know, gay things and whatnot. So that didn't go anywhere either.

[@FGuilt]

Mr turek is not very strict. He, like most of these apologists tries to make Christianity reasonable. It is not. The beginning of wisdom is the fear of god, things are moral BECAUSE god said it, if god said it, it is therefore moral. Etc. Actual Christianity is UN reasonable. It doesn't compromise. In modern apologetics, they don't realize how watered down they are making Christianity. They make it very easy to dismiss. This is good imo. They are so far into the corner that there's no where else to go. All they have left to argue is the magical source of morality. EVERY thing in life disagrees with them about their source material and they look more and more like morons the longer they talk.

[@kr00m]

Yellow is where manifest destiny resides.

[@tieferforschen]

You do not get the point apologist and philosophers are making. It is not about creating a secular moral system. We have dozens of them. It is about their application to reality on a large scale and over long time periods. Let's take the example of "maximizing well being". Fine, but in order to establish this moral system, people should see behaving moral as their most important target in life. If they don't see it that way, they only will behave moral, when it is not in conflict with their other goals, that are more important to them. Morality in their mind is not objective and if they as an individual do not benefit more from behaving moral as from behaving immoral, you loose all incentives for moral behavior. Atheists then often say: "Maybe Christians need a God to behave moral, I can do that on my own." But this argument ist flawed. First, following this logic, they should never want to convert Christians, because they would start behaving immoral afterwards. And secondly: If that were true, that would mean, that atheists behave irrational. If you have goals in life that are harder to archive, because of you behaving moral, although you could get away with immoral behavior, than you are acting irrational. Because behaving immoral is just an arbritary chosen standard. It is just matter bumping into each other in a different way. You have to look at it from the perspective of an individual. An individual does not benefit from the well being of a future generation in a different country, so why on atheism would it be ever rational to behave accordingly to that.

[@eccentriastes6273]

I'm not a Christian but a good answer to this might be incest, or to make it stronger, adult sibling incest with contraception or between people who can't produce a child. It's condemned by the bible, most nonbelievers instinctively feel it's immoral, but it's hard to explain how it hurts anyone's well-being. Anyway, re: objective morality. Christians should remember that if their morality is based on a God that doesn't actually exist, *they* would be the ones lacking an objective moral standard. Instead, what they think is a God-given morality would just be culturally constructed. And looking at the actual state of Christianity, that seems pretty plausible, doesn't it? :^)