Objective Morality vs. Christianity [William Lane Craig]

I don't think that arguing against objective morality, or arguing FOR it but towards a naturalistic source, are the only options. Take a look at what happens when we (even hypothetically) concede that it has a theistic basis! It certainly doesn't do Christianity any favors.
(Read on...)
---------------
website and blog: www.nonstampcol...
twitter: / nonstampnsc
BUY ME A COFFEE: www.buymeacoff....
PATREON: / nonstampcollector
-----------------
Why couldn't an objective morality simply make sense? Why does looking at morality through the lens of Christianity make such LITTLE sense? Well, it's obvious why - Christianity and its god is nonsense. There could be no clearer sign that Christianity is a man-made bunch of bollocks, than to look at its claims on objective morality. All these special pleadings about context and new vs old covenants are the dying gasps of a belief system that before long won't have anyone even TRYING to make it make sense. You'd be better off trying to argue that Joseph Fritzl is the greatest father that the world has ever known (within a certain context).
Look elsewhere for an objective moral law giver, other than Christianity, for the god that you are convinced must exist. It can't hurt - and the bible has caused enough problems on this planet, with its contradictory and wicked claims and commands. Don't support, or give cover, to those who want us to base our modern societies around that absurd mess of a book. Be honest with yourself, and reject it, as people do who take a real, open, honest look at what it says. It isn't divine, it is appallingly man-made. Man-made as in MALE-made, too, quite obviously.
The graphics in this are taken from around the web, I don't claim copyright on any of them and this video is not being used by me to collect any revenue, and is being posted under a Creative Commons license.
---------------
website and blog: www.nonstampcol...
twitter: / nonstampnsc
-----------------

[@lorsayden2403]

Lesson to be learned: you can kill, stone, torture or enslave people, and if christians come by and tells you "hey! that is immoral!", you can simply just reply "you are taking this whole situation out of context, and you will not be able to understand the context anyway", then it will be okay.

[@miksceihners50]

Genius! Why didn't the police use this last year when the BLM movement sparked up because of such actions by policemen

[@0EEVV0]

@@miksceihners50 yeah if only we knew the context...like him robbing a pregnant woman at gunpoint and overdosing on fentanyl... You are right

[@abner8982]

@@free_siobhan this only proves that there's no objective moral.

[@free_siobhan]

@@0EEVV0 lmao dude what are you even saying. he wasn’t killed because he “robbed a pregnant woman at gunpoint”, he had already spent time in jail for that more than a decade prior. and while, yes, the toxicology report found that he had fentanyl in his system, it also found that that wasn’t the cause of his death. asphyxiation was.

[@0EEVV0]

@@free_siobhan thank u for replying w a whole paragraph to a troll comment

[@rorybeyer4489]

If morality changes on a whim, then it's not objective.

[@BlGGESTBROTHER]

I've tried to explain to several Christians how the Old vs. New Covenant dichotomy is an admission that their morality is subjective but they never seem to understand.

[@BeyondTheFlames]

@@BlGGESTBROTHER please explain

[@BlGGESTBROTHER]

@@BeyondTheFlames Well, think about it for a second. When people talk about the Old vs. New dichotomy; what to they mean? They mean that at one point in time morality meant keeping the Mosaic law and participating in ritual blood sacrifice for the atonement of sins; known as the "Old Covenant" (Which is a misnomer because there are four separate covenants that are described in the Old Testament: The Noahakian, Abrahamic, Mosaic\Isrealie, and the Davidic covenants). They also mean that Jesus's death on the cross marked the start of a New Covenant. No longer did morality mean keeping the Mosaic laws or participating in blood sacrifice. Morality simply became having faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus as an atonement for sins. Christians believe they are no longer to follow the Mosaic Laws; and in fact the majority believe that it is immoral to do so. This entails that what is moral and necessary for the atonement of sins is fluid and changes over time. It is the very definition of a subjective morality. Also, what's to say that there won't be a "Newer Covenant"? If someone believes that God can change his moral dictates to man on a whim,and that he has done so in the past, then what is to stop him from doing so in the future?

[@JamesRichardWiley]

If morality is a matter of context who decides the context?

[@BlGGESTBROTHER]

@@JamesRichardWiley Why are you avoiding my question? If you are deriving your morality from the Bible and/or Christianity then your morality is subjective.

[@pauldaniel4028]

This whole video is basically a model of my trip from being a christian to being an atheist. I was raised to be a christian. I started with the assumption that god's morality is perfect and his commands must reflect that, and the inconsistencies eventually drove me to a kind of madness which I could only escape by honestly weighing the evidence. Eventually, something had to give, and luckily that ended up being my religion.

[@FKAAYA]

It's what led me out of Islam, I was indoctrinated into believing Allah was perfect yet he allowed sex slavery in his divine book (4:24)

[@VaughnMalecki]

Amen! 😂 I found myself being a cold deist.

[@KidaMilo89]

@@FKAAYA Also his lust for punishing all "infidels".

[@MnyFrNthng]

@@FKAAYA Same here. Sex slavery and many many others.

[@deboralangford-belcik2466]

You're lucky. For some people, it's their mind that gives.

[@stanfrymann8454]

Craig said that when god drown all the children in the flood, he was "conferring an inestimable good" on them. Can you get much more depraved than calling drowning children "an inestimable good"?

[@rembrandt972ify]

@Carl Williams "John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." The only crime for which anyone will pay is to not believe the lying priests.

[@Johnboy33545]

@Carl Williams: That's called cherry picking and speculative interpretation.. Until the 1860s the Bible was indeed used in support of slavery. Supporting slavery is an ugly look. "OT slavery was not race based forced servitude." That's a lie. Race is irrelevant. You aren't very good at apologetics. You spewed all this religious drivel but didn't address Mr. Frymann's comment. I'm going low now. You're just another theist with his head up his butt. You're an arrogant fool/idiot/moron if you opinionate that atheists believe in your deity. Fuck him and his alleged family.

[@peteralleyman1945]

@Carl Williams Carly, Carly, Carly. Lying for christ. I understand, but still it doesn't make you look good. "Your slaves are to come from the people around you". Look up the text in your good book yourself please. Jahweh ordered racism, no different from what happened some 200 years ago with black people in god's own country. They were enslaved for life. Period. Even in the new testament slaves were ordered to obey their owners, even the cruel ones. Look for the text in your good book yourself, don't be lazy. Not a single word against slave owners to stop this cruelty in your entire mythology book. No where. You are a liar or just to lazy to read what your good book actually says. Not uncommon for christians.

[@peteralleyman1945]

@Carl Williams Don't make a fool of yourself. According to your good book slaves could be beaten without a problem as long as they didn't die within 48 hours. Mutually beneficial, my ass. Don't keep on lying, Carly. Or better: read your damn good book. Do I really need to show you where it's written in your mythology scriptures? Slaves could be beaten or, if they were female, raped to the owner's wishes. Do you need a reference for that, Carly? Read the damn story of Abe, raping his wife's slave to get offspring. Or is that christian marriage: one man and any number of women he likes? Don't talk like a fool and stop lying, Carl. It's in your damn commandments.

[@siegfriedk.6276]

Was fighting the Nazis good, you hypocrite? You fail immediately after you've declared yourself god and make yourself to be the judge.

[@eddenz1356]

It blows my mind how Christians ascribe loving nurturing qualities to the biblical god. I just don't get it.

[@riveratrackrunner]

simple, They havent read their bible.

[@rileywebb4178]

I find apologist Christians who ignore all the bad stuff and just say "well I personally think God is loving" and find contortions to prove that the Bible is full of love worse than the people who just say they 100% agree with everything - including the hateful things against women LGBT people, and all humans. At least if you believe in a God and believe that that god wrote the Bible, follow the instructions! There's no point doing intellectual contortions to think a god exists, but commiting even more to explain the evil things in the Bible makes even less sense. Just find a freaking self-help motivation book and stop pretending the Bible is all sunshine and rainbows.

[@johnny.V03]

Muslims do the same with Allah who’s just as bad as Yahweh

[@jacencade4019]

they don't read the book and talk like they follow all of it when told they are bigot at the god hates gay march they are attending.

[@Jadinandrews]

I have come to realize that Christians invent a god for themselves that probably would be worthy of worship if it existed, it's clearly not based on the Bible, but they cherry pick scriptures and formulate a god that is only good and only loving and truly cares for them etc. I actually don't really have a problem with this, I mean it isn't ideal but it's better than them taking the old testament barbarism literally. What I mean is, a christian would say god is good, god is love, god is faithful, merciful etc. Now forgetting the rest of the bible for a moment, these values are probably worth putting on a pedestal in any society, goodness, love, faithfulness, mercy etc. We just need to drop 'god' and arbitrary laws regarding what people do with their genitals etc.

[@Koocel]

"Theism provides a sound foundation for objective moral values" Is that so? I don't remember Thor saying much about morals.

[@BlueSun_]

Roni N He defended strength and bravery in the defense of one’s people and way of life, and a meticulous adherence to standards of honor and manliness.

[@BlueSun_]

If you exclude the fact that if you don't die in glorious combat you go to Hel (one L). Although this Hel is more like the Greek underworld, dark and rather boring not the fire and brimstone and eternal torture one. Still I would say Hel is better than the Christian Heaven where all you do is praise YHVH for all eternity and talk about how awesome he is. The Norse Hel gives you more freedom than the Christian heaven.

[@rafetizer]

Thor's hammer did the talking for him.

[@hannajung7512]

Joaov2 do not forget Baldur holds court in Hel. So Hel cannot be so bad after all. And yeah, Hel is just the realm of the dead, somewhat called and boring, a bit like big waiting hall. 100 times better then this twisted idea of eternal groveling, while being cheerfull that others burn for eternity.

[@hannajung7512]

Roni N sure he is better then Abraham: Thor never raped a woman, never would have allowed any one man, god or giant to lay hand on his wife (or any woman under his protection), never cheated on his wife and never ever would have cast out one of his children, like Abraham did.

[@Kelnor277]

How do I, as an atheist, determine my morality? Same way a theist does, by making it up. We just don’t lie and said god told us

[@BluePhoenix_]

Play chess with morality, after you have a goal, there are objectively better and worse moves. Even if you sometimes only realize it afterwards.

[@amypieterse4127]

There is a phrase that I grew up with that blinded one from god's messed up nature. It goes like this: "God is good all the time, all the time god is good." Also, usually one person will say the first half and if there is a group of people/one person, they always say the second half. Only after I came to the realisation that I no longer believed in God did I realise how cult-like it must seem from the outside.

[@goodday2u927]

Absolutely. I grew up in a church that thinks everybody else is going to hell and burning forever. But they quote what u said all the time. Also, if u have ANY instruments in church, a piano, or anything u are going to hell. I believe in a Creator. But not that one. I don't know exactly who. That sucks, but WAY better than worshipping yahweh. Anyways, yes it is cult like for sure.

[@user-oq8ut7ys2n]

Church of Christ?

[@steelman1506]

Atheistic Agenda? Wait a minute.. .did we elect a leader guys? I didn't know we had organization

[@free_siobhan]

Yeah and apparently we’re also a religion.

[@justsam7919]

@@free_siobhan some people call it "Scientism"

[@paintedwolf6563]

white sam79 s c i e n t o l o g y

[@mandarinablue8438]

@@paintedwolf6563 not the same thing. Scientism would be different because Scientology is indeed a religion. An insane one but still...

[@mandarinablue8438]

No. We don't have a leader. Should we ? We also need to build some ugh churches? And a religious symbol and some some stuff to pray at...oh boy there's gonna be a lot of work.

[@paudius]

I watched every video of this channel since the start, it helped me answer many questions as a christian. Now an atheist. Coming back years later, and still one of the best damn videos on the internet. I will download and preserve these videos. They are so very precious.

[@wrathofainz]

💯

[@LocalInnocentHereticJoe]

"God is loving, generous, faithful, kind" grandfather Nurgle, the lord of all, the lord of decay, is the same too

[@thegrouchization]

In fairness, Nurgle is at least consistent in that he loves all life. It just so happens that he considers bacteria, viruses and the like to also be life, and they vastly outnumber us.

[@dannyflo5373]

Gawd is so loving that he orders genocide, endorses slavery, allows for thought crime, and has accepted animal and human sacrifice. So loving. Makes me feel warm inside.

[@ellasmith6554]

Christians believe in the Judeo-chrsitiasn God not because they like these rules but because of the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. If you want christians to give up chrisitiaitniy then please do come up with a good argument against the existence of Jesus, his death or resurrection. The laws are barabaric but does that mean Jesus did not exist? Does it mean his followers didn't claim to have seen him? I don't know what this has to do with christianity because you are not actually destroying christianity( just Judaism) but just talking about a bunch of ancient laws. As long as Jesus did all of these things, YHWH WOULD STILL BE REAL AND SO WILL HEAVEN AND POSSIBLY HELL. Christians could easily say some of the laws or commands may not have been given by God and the Israelited just added it to the commands given by God since Jesus forgave prostitutes and was against stoning. kzbin.info/www/bejne/d2HMdYGCrdKKjK8

[@jfish032]

And yet God loves you 😊♥️

[@applicableapple3991]

@@ellasmith6554 you say the proof for resurrection as if there is actual reliable evidence for his resurrection and miracles. Yes there probably was a guy called Jesus, and I don't find it too hard to believe that he could have developed a cult following, but still there is no reliable proof for his resurrection, miracles, etc. And even if the were proof for his resurrection and miracles, that wouldn't prove that he was the son of God, maybe he was just a wildly lucky guy.

[@gimmekromer1151]

@@ellasmith6554 The pharaos considered themselves gods,does that make them gods?

[@mariod1547]

Craig and his ilk are a part of the reason i am an agnostic leaning atheist today.

[@rubyjanefacurib1196]

KZbin's algorithm doin' their magic. I actually like this because I am a non-theistic person living in the Philippines wherein our parents do simply force us all to be religious. As a non-theistic, though I don't condemn the existence of God, I also do not believe in God; I like the idea of having a God, believing you are never alone that brings more hope to some people BUT I don't think that the "God" as what the bible describes is to be worshipped because of alot of things. I am not very open to people in sharing ny thoughts that I "don't" believe in "God" 'cause my parents would most probably disown me and I'm scared but mannn this gave me confidence that I'm not alone and I have found alot of knowledge from your videos. Thank you so much. Maybe one day, I will finally break free from this religion and I'm going to thank you for that...one day...I hope one day

[@zer-op2gq]

I hope as well for you =). If being an open non believer could do you harm please don't. Be safe my friend. I'll stand proudly as a godless heathen as I'm safe to do so. We're here for you though; a worldwide love from secular humanity growing stronger with your contribution

[@rumardominicbrandares2255]

Same here. Ingats lagi.

[@TheIronicRaven]

I've always seen it as an Atheist's basis for morality is based on empathy and understanding, but a theist's is based on devotion, tradition, and faith. Same can be said for any followers of tyrants

[@orringould7367]

My morality comes from empathy. Which a natural emotion in humans and other social mammals

[@buddyltd]

All Christians need to see this. It's so true.

[@mhmeekk3003]

buddyltd fallacies aren't an argument kid, go home

[@buddyltd]

MHM EEKK Fightin' talk. But pointing out fallacies discredit an argument, and making valid points (like this video does) are good arguments.

[@mhmeekk3003]

buddyltd A fallacy is not a good argument. A fallacy is a logical failure. This video is fallacious

[@buddyltd]

MHM EEKK Did you refuse to read my post, or are you unable?

[@mhmeekk3003]

buddyltd I read your post, it is not useful. The video is fallacious.

[@RedVelvet_EdgeMuffin]

Christians:“Have you found Jesus?” Me: No, where is that son of a bitch? I’ve got some words for him!

[@tedgrant2]

The best policy is to agree with Craig and accept that the creator exists. If we argue with him, he will feel inspired to carry on preaching. His objective is not to convert people, but to sell books. In this context he has succeeded.

[@IronCharioteer]

This video should end any argument for an objective more law giver of the bible. The only argument against this is to close your eyes, put your hands over your ears, and repeat, "LALALA,I can't hear you, LALALA"

[@atheistal4598]

Iron chariots in Judges 1? Read 2 Kings 3, it's even worse!

[@Hirnlego999]

God's loving nature.. diseases, hell, thought-crime, natural disasters, the amount of prayers unanswered etc.. how does Craig have a career in anything?

[@steggyweggy]

By being dishonest as possible. He claims his arguments are wholly convincing but when Christians ask him why he believes it isn’t any of his arguments. It’s his “feeling of the Holy Spirit.” He’s full of BS and he either is extremely ignorant or he knows it

[@proculusjulius7035]

@@steggyweggy most likely the latter.

[@Luckyou03]

I never get why what follows from accepting a god as the moral source, directly points to chritianity like... ok even if christianity is the one religion that "knows" the one god whom is the source of all moral laws, which out of the 10,000 denominations is the one that interprets the bible the right way? Pure nonsense

[@mtalk828]

*Christianity declares God's love ❤ for us in human terms.* ☝🏽

[@anemu3819]

Your point is valid, but the number used is inaccurate. It is around 40,000

[@mtalk828]

@@anemu3819 - 👉🏽 *Christianity and morality are intwined. You can't separate them, Emu. And the number of denominations doesn't mean a thing. It could be 400,000,000 ... My point is, the Church of Jesus consist of PEOPLE, not concrete slabs and buildings* ☝🏽 *It's your relationship with God through Jesus that counts, Emu. You are saved by Grace (of the cross) through faith, and His Spirit empowers you to a virtuous life and beyond* ❤ 👀 Regards

[@anemu3819]

@@mtalk828 what about all the immoral acts that were commited by people that believed in god?

[@mtalk828]

@@anemu3819 - my dear, the Church is not perfect, and Satan is still creating divisions and doing works to draw people from your Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. 👀☝🏽

[@chadhansen5057]

This needs to be shown to all humanity

[@NonStampCollector]

Your comment made me curious, and I had another look at this video. Well. Hmmm. I quite managed to stitch together an argument there, five years ago, didn't I? I'm surprised. I've got to remember I've answered all of these objections previously. I keep getting pulled into comment wars typing less-strong arguments that this! Thx

[@chadhansen5057]

NonStampCollector your videos are absolutely brilliant and bring up great points I'll use in debating religious people you have some of the best atheist videos on KZbin

[@helihobbit]

which is more likely, that yahweh is true and real. or that bloodthirsty greedy self serving barbarians made up a heap of self justifying contradictory absolute shite? next.

[@noahhenderson3164]

2:22-3:22 I love how he's literally just talking about and explaining the judo-christian view of their monotheistic god and religion. But he won't let his atheist opponent use Christianity to fight back. Wow almost like there's a double standard and they're afraid of their own shitty book being used against them lol

[@krantz7]

Yeah, that was the first thing that struck me. If this is a generic theist position, it should apply equally to Zeus as to Yahweh. So where’s he getting the idea that Zeus is kind and faithful from?

[@romanhoax9014]

You just can't argue with this. PERFECTION

[@JamesRichardWiley]

Craig Tomes: An Eternal Cosmos has a creator A god that commits genocide against unborn babies is a moral guide. A person that is not convinced by god claims has an agenda. Disagreeing with Bill leads to eternal torture.

[@lcvamp242]

I just about cried. You articulated exactly why my brain turns to mush when it listens to WLC.

[@gnosticAgnosticYT]

I can't help but wonder if the people who give this video a thumbs down actually PREFER having an "objective" moral excuse for committing various atrocities. It's sickening really.

[@shawnstatzer5857]

Greetings, NonStampCollector. I am certainly no atheist, however, after twenty-five years as a devout Protestant into Christian apologetics, I left (over a year ago). I appreciate much of what you have expressed via creative dialogues. I must say, you do bring into light, in an entertaining way, what is smoldering under their bushel.

[@davidham1330]

@@wesbyEric I became an atheist several years after leaving Christianity

[@cathyvickers9063]

Wonderful! Thank you! Listening to this video took me back to the intellectual collision I had with the devoutly Catholics woman who taught the Philosophy of Ethics course (at Xavier University in Cincinnati, Ohio in the 80's) using her husband's textbook. I took it because Philosophy of Ethics is a required course for all students; &, being philosophy, I naturally expected it be like the other 2 required courses: Intro & Metaphysics, & utterly DEVOID of theology! It was so bad-- a devout Catholic using a Catholic-slant textbook to teach philosophy-- that I ended up AUDITING the same course the next year, taught by someone else, using less-theological textbooks, just to be sure I'd gotten the IMPORTANT content, in the midst of fighting with Mrs Blair the whole semester! She'd structured her class assuming her students would be Christian, but XU admits everybody, & I'm a Universalist. Unitarian-Universalism is a religion that teaches no one religion has the whole Truth, & that God gave us minds so we'd THINK; & that it's up to each of us to learn as much as we can, & form the beliefs that make personal sense to US. UUs encompass the entire spectrum from quasi-Biblical theism all the way to atheism. I was raised Universalist by parents who'd strayed from Christian faiths. I took the learn/think/evolve beliefs teaching seriously, & my personal faith has been in a state of continual evolution since 6th grade. By the time I was in college, I was challenging the popular culture notion that God loves us. My argument was: as imperfect, finite beings equipped with imperfect, finite minds & perceptions, how can we PRESUME to know God's true nature? How can we properly comprehend what's so much larger & more perfect than us? It's a similar argument to one put forth in the video, but, lacking detailed knowledge of God's contradictory behavior in the Bible, I'd arrived at it thru pure philosophy, which was indistinguishable in my mind, at that point in my life, from my theology. Confronted with Mrs Blair's religious slant, I entered into a semester-long debate with her, writing theological rebuttals in the proper philosophical format taught in Intro, which she'd return the next class with written point by point "corrections" on the back. Naturally, I then furthered my Universalist-driven argument correcting her corrections; which she then returned, having corrected my corrections of her corrections of my NON-Christian theological perspective of her presented material! That debate, plus the fact I dutifully regurgitated her lessons at test time, earned me an A for the course! On her last set of corrections, she added that I'd obviously taken a certain course. I smiled, because she still didn't get it! Being raised a Universalist is not the same thing as taking a course! What was I reacting to...? This video hit it on the head!

[@bendelgado3]

That was very well explained and easily digestible (for those of us mouth breathers that can't read a sentence without falling asleep) Kudos to you Sir, keep it up!

[@heavymeddle28]

Idk if it was Sam Harris saying in a debate "if you used the bible as a moral guide in any civilised country today you'd be arrested" I'm not a biblical scholar but from what I know he's right. May have been Dan Barker or Daniel Dennet?!. But one of the heavyweights 😊

[@Lenci_the_Nugget]

This video may as well be titled "Why the Context Argument Ain't Worth Squat".

[@lambda2143]

How KZbin fathomed that putting a pro-Christian ad before this video was demographically relevant is beyond me

[@berryforce6017]

The classic parental double standard "Do as I say, not as I do."

[@Paulilyful]

Hey, NonStampCollector. I've watched and loved every one of your vids. Absolutely well done, mate. Have you a fb? :)

[@NonStampCollector]

+Paul Fraszczynski Thanks man. Nup, no FB. Twitter is @nonstampNSC

[@Paulilyful]

+NonStampCollector Aw, damn. I would create a Twitter account just to follow you. You've done everyone a great service. Be it by educating the unsure, convincing the skeptics, and offering doubt to those who need it. Thank you.:) -Paul of Chicago 🙌🏽 lol

[@mamamheus7751]

Just remember that Christians talk about their martyrs who were burned to death (by the Romans - eg Nero and his "human candles"; by other Christians of different sects) and mauled to death in the Roman games. These vile actions are rightly called inhumane etc. But they are accepted in the Bible when God orders it. Nero and other emperors called themselves gods...

[@TheTopStriker]

Romans did not burn christians because there were none during the time of supposed Jesus. Not even after hundreds of years later. Romans did however persecute messianic jews for causing troubles throughout the Roman Empire. Christians and their religion as we know it today, are nothing but a result of Constantines invention and further evolution and mixing of some abrahamic/pagan ideas.

[@Fly-the-Light]

After Jesus his followers took major steps away from Judaism into its own thing. Although Christianity still evolved from that point it was very much separate; I agree with the absorption of pagan ideas changing Christianity further, but before Constantine the Christians existed and were heavily persecuted. Along with that during Constantine’s reign a lot of change came to Christianity, but it wasn’t his messing with it, it was the Christians who didn’t have to worry about being burnt trying to standardise Christianity.

[@gyldandillget4813]

@@TheTopStriker this is absolutely unhistorical. Look at any history book about the Roman rule, multiple Romans have testimony about persecuting Christians.

[@claudbase]

It mesmerizes me to see how religious people cling to the idea that objective morality can only come from some old book that they personally consider to be the one and only one containing the true words of God. Unless I am mistaken, there is no objective consensus as to which religious text is the right one. Therefore, as long as the right text cannot be objectively identified, the theistic morality is just as objective as the individual preference for a specific religion/sacred book is...

[@defenestratefalsehoods]

Let's look at 2 Samuel 11&12 david became king, get a soldier's wife pregnant, had him sent to the front fighting line and left to be killed. For taking the man's wife and having him killed God's punishment was to kill the baby while david walk away free. Such a moral punishment from a living God

[@dementare]

This is one of my *PRIME* "Go to lines" with the "god is loving and merciful" types... "Oh he is huh? Well, go read this part of the bible, and then tell me how you square that circle... Of course, I have *YET* to meet any Theist that actually already knew that part of the bible.

[@defenestratefalsehoods]

@@dementare they dont read their own book. The bast way to reject christianity is to read the bible. Definitely stay away from deuteronomy 28 where god threatens you is you dont obey him. And also the book of leviticus. Lev 26:27“And if in spite of this you do not obey me but act with hostility toward me, 28I will act with furious hostility toward you; I will also discipline you seven times for your sins. 29You will eat the flesh of your sons; you will eat the flesh of your daughters....

[@Barzins1]

I love your logic. It's flawless.

[@northernbrother1258]

your devastating rebuttal to Craig here is exactly what I wished Harris had done

[@Tyrantlizardking105]

I'm sure he would have if Craig wasn't consistently objecting to Harris reading scripture as "off-topic"

[@proculusjulius7035]

Harris did try though. He's a right sight better than the charlatan.

[@JamesRichardWiley]

It takes time to understand how Bill leads his listeners away from the infinite regressions, circular arguments, and logical fallacies, he presents with great sincerity and flair but once you spot them, he has no influence over you.

[@northernbrother1258]

@@JamesRichardWiley Yeah, he's a sophist of the first order!

[@KalifUmestoKalifa]

Man this was awesome! I am going to listen it again right now, the whole parts of it were just brilliant bits of logic, wordsmithing and Bible knowledge. I'm sooo subscribing to you.

[@thomaslong8401]

What I’ve heard from christians over the years regarding the murderous god of the Old Testament: “Since god is the giver of life, then he can take it away”. So they’re good with it.

[@defenestratefalsehoods]

Just like what God did with Job to win a bet with the devil.

[@jbaccanalia]

Oh dear, you've opened Pandora's box. I used to be a benevolent atheist. Now I'm going to hunt them critters down.

[@stevemorris270]

I'm an athiest. There are no objective moral standards, man must struggle to create a moral code-- man, including the religious, have been very bad at this. It is difficult.

[@MrCmon113]

+Steve Morris Huh? When you create that "moral code" it will be objective, will it not?

[@notmyrealnameify]

+Taxtro We already have a moral code, it's called the law. The most important laws are agreed upon by like 99% of the people (freedom of speech, do not kill, do not rape, etc). But this morale is just made by people, in time we could change our opinion (death penalty yes/no). The idea that moral is made by the opinion of humans makes it subjective. Christians believe that god is pure good and the standard for objective never changing morality. Of course this is not the case....

[@GReid-ol5gk]

+Steve Morris Disagree. I'd say the golden rule is pretty universal and objectively understood as the foundation of our moral standards. We get our morals from a rational consideration of others, and we use this to function with each other in society. The laws that we create basically stem from the foundation of the golden rule. Murder is bad, why? Because we know that taking a life is morally repugnant and most people wouldn't want their lives taken by someone else. Rape is bad, why? Because we know that forcing ourselves onto other people, sexually, is morally repugnant and most people wouldn't want that to happen to themselves. It really isn't as complex as people make it out to be. Those societies that rationalize immoral behavior have a bad system of morals. We can objectively say that, because if we were to flip the script on them, most of them would object to that type of treatment being targeted at them, regardless of whether they're acting under the influence of religion or not. Sure there will be the zealots who'll go through anything for their God, but I'm speaking in general. Feel free to chime in. I'm always open for discussion ad discourse so that I may be more enlightened on other views and positions regarding morality.

[@FRD357]

We, as a social species have evolved a basic morality. Knowing not to kill members of your clan is extremely important for a social species, and therefore it was evolved.

[@jacencade4019]

morality is in fact subjective. watch ill get you to support murder right now. support our troops or you are ungrateful and hate your country.

[@intronaut8582]

"Objective morality" makes as much sense as light without wavelength. Objective: of no bias, personal feeling, or influence; outside self and mind. ex: the speed of light in a vacuum. Subjective: of bias, perception, and feeling; inside self and mind. ex: how interesting a topic is. Even if there is a god and that god dictates to you their personal morality, that morality is subject to that god. For morality to be objective, it would need to exist outside the self, to be demonstrable and observable regardless of feeling and person. But morality is what one thinks of an action, what one considers ought be done or ought not be done. Objective morality is impossible. You can no more have objective morality than you can colour without light.

[@cathyvickers9063]

+Intronaut Minor quibble: I have no trouble closing my eyes in a darkened room and "seeing" (imagining) colors, specifically red, green, beigeish-yellow, & white. I know it's not what you meant, but there is color without light.

[@datdamnmegabusta5604]

Perfectly well-spoken. Thank you for this point!

[@intronaut8582]

Cathy Vickers You only know those colours because you've seen light. It is literally impossible to have colour without light, because colour is a property of light itself.

[@cathyvickers9063]

+Intronaut I admitted my quibble didn't refer to what you meant. I know full well where color comes from. My objection was that you made a definitive statement that I knew was false; if you'd worded it differently, making it clear you meant the spectrum of light, I wouldn't have had that reaction.

[@intronaut8582]

Cathy Vickers My statement stands; you cannot have colour without light. The colours you imagine *are* light. Closing your eyes does not change that. Colour *is* light and light *is* colour.

[@aa-th2vj]

NonStampCollector, I recently converted from the religion (or cult, if you will) of Jehovah's Witnesses I had been apart of since I was born. It wasn't one particular thing that opened my eyes, it was more of a culmination of me always being afraid of the god I worshipped (whether it be something bad I did or might do or just was aware of the fact that my god has so many restrictions over me), which, as a result, made me skeptic of his existence, even as a child. Therefore when I started browsing the "satanic, evil, materialistic, worldly" Internet, the time it took me to walk away from "The Truth" was pretty fucking quick. This was about 1-2 years ago I started on the path out. I'm 18, still live with my Jehovah's Witness family but I sense signs that they could listen to reason and possibly abandon this cult. They don't attend The Meetings (church) barely at all much anymore and are mostly living what the congregation would call a "worldly life" yet still hang strong that Jehovah god is real and that I'm an atheist apostate who is under the influence of Satan and when I question their god their response is that I just can't understand him and that I question things too much. So my question to you is, which of your videos do you think would be best to show one of them and then start the chain link? If my belief is true that they will listen to reason, I think that one of your videos could plant the seed of doubt. I really liked the Quiz Show because it's hilarious and encourages the viewer that abandoning Yahweh (or Jehovah) can be beneficial and that not believing in the Bible doesn't mean there is no meaning to life. I feel that I would only have one shot so please give me your best recommendation. I want this badly because it kills me inside knowing that my 1 and 7 year old nieces may be blinded their entire lives by this "society" or "organization" if they are forever under the influence of their parents (my sisters). I know that there are some atheists who cringe at the fact of another atheist being a hypocrite and trying to convert a Christian much like they would an atheist, but I feel I'm justified because their position abandons logic and reasoning and encourages contradictions and incomprehensibleness. Besides a video recommendation, I would love for you (or anyone) to inflict some knowledge to me on how I should go about doing this. Coming up to one of them and using a method like "hey, watch this video! It will expose the Bible and Jehovah's Witnesses!" will probably fail. Thank you for reading.

[@sirsimplexton3151]

First Last I came from a similar background, but Baptist rather than Jehovah's Witness, and around the same age as you. My family continues to be devout to this day. I ended up leaving them and living and working in another country (Japan) for quite some time. There was no way to convince my mother or father, for example, to abandon their faith. They threatened to disown me so I simply left to pursue my further education and my own life. It was very frightening yet liberating at the same time. They came around to accepting me again after some time. It broke their heart that I got married without their consent, but hey, they disowned me and my wife is an atheist as well.

[@sirsimplexton3151]

First Last As for trying to convince people, psychology suggests that direct confrontation is bad and can push people away from you. Another thing is that atheism is a hard selling point because it's the rejection of beliefs. It negates world views but it doesn't offer an alternative on its own, so theists tend to see it as hollow and empty because on its own, it is. So I think it's better not to focus on "atheism is right" so much as, say, "reason is right". The best part of "materialistic" evidence is that you don't have to believe me to get the same results I did. "Immaterialistic" evidence can support any belief. Demanding data, sound evidence, and an impartial process is how we converge to methods of obtaining truth that don't vary from person to person, culture to culture, religion to religion. And converging to truth naturally means converging on notions of what is fair and just, since truth is the foundation of these concepts.

[@Jadinandrews]

The next time someone tells me that I have no objective standard keeping me from doing what I like I will tell them yeah but that's ok for the time and culture of my people and in the right context etc.

[@JamesRichardWiley]

Bill has no problem assuming an eternal god but can't cope with an eternal Cosmos. He preaches about a loving, compassionate god, while denying the stupidity and brutality described by god in his own book. When it comes to his religious belief Bill focuses on faith since he cannot prove his god is real.

[@JeremyGunterJeremyGreywolf]

William Craig did narrow it down to just christianity vs atheism, but in the end it is just another speech of apologetics that can literally be applied to any and all religions. jews can say this, muslims can say this, any religion with a written text can say this! the whole debate is nothing but the proverbial fallacy of "one way or another and nothing else" and it really is pointless if you narrow it down to just christianity.

[@TessaBain]

Looking at a woman with lust on ones heart... Damn guess I've been bound for hell since my first day of Kindergarten.

[@edwinmuchiri480]

watching in 2019 sept and still loving it..

[@luukderuijter1332]

Good one, if context bares any weight in the matter, then it's not objective

[@applicableapple3991]

1:22 that was Craig pleading the fifth

[@badabingbadaboom7519]

I didn’t know David lee Roth was a theist and debated Sam Harris

[@oliviadestandau4243]

Your work is amazing! I appreciate your Herculean efforts to spread logic and enlightenment. Be sure that I 'share' these videos as widely as I can... Thanks.

[@matthewvandeventer3632]

I like how it was explained to me that morality is like health. A person can call things healthy or unhealthy without an "objectively" healthy state. One person's healthy is not the same as another, but just because one person is different that does not mean their unhealthy, but a person can be "objectively" unhealthy and be called out for it.

[@godrapesus]

NO kidding on that (8:00 to 9:00) time stamp ( or is it nontimestamp?) ;) I could go with a creator other than the bible for the very reason of god's evil acts and enability to follow his own moral code. Again the god of the bible shows his character in his actions NOT his words. I saw this as a child and condemned myself because I did not see what "everyone" else saw. I thought I was the problem and hated myself, belittled myself and self punished myself in many ways. I thought that I was wrong in so many things because "everyone" else said I was wrong, without proofs or reason they said it. I finally realized that it was not my inabilities to understand, but theist's inability to ask questions. I found through reading many different books on many subjects that theists are like abused children going to the ultimate abuser. In abusive house holds the father, like god, can never be questioned for the wrath of the "Father" would befall them. Mother would be silent and the child would be forever punished for trifling transgressions. The son would either become a "super star" without fatherly acceptance/honor or would slip into a depression of despair and self hatred. God is by far NOT moral, loving, caring, ethical, forgiving, all powerful, omnipresent and all knowing. The bible proves that, his own testimony proves that he IS a coward, liar, hypocrite, rapist, murderer, evil and not a really nice being. The bible proves that god needs a shit load of drugs and a hell of a lot of therapy in anger management before he is released from the mental ward.

[@NonStampCollector]

You missed the point of the video by 180 degrees. I wasn't trying to assert a case that objective morals exist. You also take issue with the apparent contradiction of an atheist calling themselves an objectivist. OK, you may be completely correct about that. But the point of the video was just how TERRIBLY inconsistent and self-contradictory the Christian view of objective morality is. I'd say that no atheistic view could ever be anywhere near as problematic, if I were asserting one.

[@ralphmunn6689]

Let me simplify this "All objective morality comes from holy books (YOUR Bible)" stuff: There is not, never was and CAN NEVER BE any sort of "morality" derived from a book which says that if you behave in certain ways, you will be rewarded in Paradise forever; But if you behave in OTHER ways, you will be tortured unimaginably for ALL OF ETERNITY. This is NOT "morality." It's boot-licking, butt-kissing, groveling subservience, and it's ENTIRELY self-serving, regardless of whether your actions are good or not! 🙏

[@truthtrumpsdumbness638]

I don't know how I missed (or just can't remember that I'd seen) this most important and intelligent (and crackingly entertaining) presentation on your page - but I recommend it as the antidote and irrefutable rebuttal to any theist (and particularly Christian or Muslim) claim, regarding the source of "objective" morality being any holy book, which advocates murder, violence and slavery, in ANY context. Great work

[@thereprehensible435]

Got an atheist on the subject of subjective and objective morality a few weeks back.. After legit saying "those moral laws were for the Isrealites" I pointed out that if those moral standards aren't applied the same when time or place changes, then it is not objective. I added that if god changed his standards, that too would not be objective. It furthermore implies god either planned for morality to be subject to change... Or that god had changed his mind. - Sadly, the dude I was talking to couldn't understand why a moral law being being diffrent in one time or region meant it couldn't possibly be objective. Such was his idiocy and cognitive dissonance.

[@SNORKYMEDIA]

bit like slavery being ok then but not now?

[@pop5678eye]

Objectively moral, altruistic behavior is not exclusive to humans. Chimps, gorillas, dolphins all show complex social structures where individuals look out for the well beings of others in their families, packs, and in the case of dolphins, dogs, even across species. It doesn't even take higher brain function for this behavior either. Families and large packs exist downwards as well. Many of the fish who have tiny brains still live in 'schools' for protection, even though many of them will still be eaten. An individual ant has basically no brain function in the sense that humans even think of 'brain,' and most individual ants can't reproduce themselves. Yet the ants have a complex society where the individual performs actions that are beneficial to their colony, but not to them individually, in other words, altruistic actions... NONE of these animals can read the Bible. So the Bible has no explanation for their altruistic behavior. Instead this is evidence that altruistic behavior actually has evolutionary origins. And the mechanism of natural selection is much more consistent with altruistic behavior than the Bible. Those species survived and thrived where individuals looked out for others of their own species. This is not to say there aren't individualistic species that can thrive. They have their role in the ecological system as well.

[@anathamon]

I love how the advertisement in the middle of this video was about the new testament 🤣

[@darrenneeds3550]

i just watched this video. i must say i was tpalking to my kids dad and came to the same conclusion. there is a god but the scriptures that is being tought is just bs. i have kids i want to teach them about god but there has been no love in him. as i also told my kids dad i am by no means a atheist. im looking with my mind and heart to find me and the god that should have my worship. i grew up as a JW i never fit in that group. hell i even told my uncle once the reason why religion is so prevalent is because it feeds on pain. for example one of my family members child got sick the first thing the JWs in my fam tried to do was tell the childs parents that if he dies the only way to see him again was for them to be JWs themselves. but they dont say anything about the" new lights" that they now believe there is now a chance they may see the child again. but how is it possible if we are all going to die anyway? the good thing is the child is alive and well all i can do is pray to the real god and goddess will help everyone know the real really soon.

[@MrCmon113]

Theistic morality is the most gross moral relativism imaginable. Since it defines everything a certain individual does or says as good. The only objective morality is based on sound principles instead of authority.

[@jaraxlebaenre5754]

Taxtro sound principles are devised by men, men who have perspectives, hence this is not objective

[@tedgrant2]

You've overlooked one important fact about morality. If the god of the Hebrews commands his chosen people to commit genocide, it's good. He is always good because he invented goodness. It's only logical.

[@flyingv7161]

Didn't He invent also the Evil?

[@tedgrant2]

@@flyingv7161 If he did, then evil is good.

[@flyingv7161]

@@tedgrant2 Evil is good for the goodness of good

[@helihobbit]

they NEVER admit that!

[@goodday2u927]

Perfectly said. That's where I'm at. I believe in a Creator. Not sure who? But no longer believe in that hellish yahweh. Pisses me off how long i did. Ugh.

[@lilfarfar]

A good portion of Scripture is about how we are to live our lives. In fact, Paul wrote that all of it was to train in righteousness, which is how the Bible says we are to live. 2 Tim. 3:16. Read through Proverbs and you'll see what I'm talking about. The power in my argument is not (at least fully) in the threat of hell, though many focus on that. One of the things that convinced me in college was the practicality and truth in Scriptures about life now, though the books are 2000+years old.

[@Metal00m]

When I had a discussion on this topic with an evangelical friend of mine, he simply said to ignore the old testament and that its all about Jesus and the new testament. I really didn't know what to say to that.

[@NonStampCollector]

Ask him about whom Jesus is referring to when He says "I and the Father are one." Also ask him exactly who sent His only begotten son, and for what reason? Also ask him at whose right hand Jesus now sits.

[@Metal00m]

If I were still in close contact I would! Thanks for the sound answer though, will use it if the issue ever comes up again.

[@alphacentauri6333]

He's asking you to ignore the moral standard of the Old Testament in favor of a new standard. It's a form of replacement theology, where a new religion is created from an existing one. You might ask your friend why the Old Testament should be ignored in favor of a New Testament where the hero of the story (Jesus) didn't meet the requirements for a valid king messiah, contradicted some of the laws laid down in the Old Testament, and gave false prophecy about his return. The law of the Bible God is supposed to reflect his moral standards, while the New Testament claims that faith in a human sacrifice makes most of that law outdated and not binding. Ironically, the sacrifice of Jesus was illegal according to the law as given by the Bible God. There is also nothing in the Old Testament that says a king messiah would come once, be killed, rise from the dead in three days, and require a second coming thousands of years later to do what he failed to do the first time. Nor is there anything about a new covenant where laws get replaced by faith in a human sacrifice.

[@Shake69ification]

Tell your friend, as was stated in this video, that Jesus said that not one bit of the old law was to be ignored.

[@jadanbachmen8500]

Jesus kills two people, it doesn't outright say it, but during his journey he kills two criminals.

[@BobLeach_DarkWolf]

I wish I had found this channel sooner. Great, great content.

[@mulistenerer]

I am explicitly quoting your premise... which said that there her life "could and would be filled with rape, beatings and torture..." So if you're the being with enough foresight to know that AND you can take away any life, then take the life of the perpetrators not the victim. It's just absolutely crazy when you can sit there and try to justify "reasoning" which would punish the victim!

[@tarp-grommet]

LWC says god is loving, generous, and kind but there is scant evidence of that. God's "divine commandments" are also pretty lame. Anyone can write a better list of 10 commandments. The golden rule is not even on there but should be number one. Moreover, the first four commandments basically involve thought crimes and are totally useless in teaching morality.

[@AtamMardes]

"The best cure for Christianity is reading the Bible." Mark Twain

[@ryanlambe6948]

Actually reading the bible instead of what is told to me in church made me an atheist

[@siegfriedk.6276]

Reading the bible turned me from an atheist to a Christian. You're not the judge, but the judged upon. You're sitting on a illusory throne, declaring yourself god, judging your creator by an undefined moral standard corrupted by your boastful pride. The tragedies of the last 100 years alone should make it very clear that a morality governed by men deconstructs itself completely. Tragedy X simply becomes a matter of societal consensus arrived at by indoctrination. And if previous indoctrination is the basis for any morality, why should the christians then not do it? "As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel?'" - Ezekiel 33:11 God loves you, but you're not on the right path. I know you're on the wrong path, because atheism, if taken to its logical conclusion, has no right or wrong. In that case, we're all simply on two "paths", one not better than the other and your whole religious zealotry becomes a paradox. The creator (haha, prove it!) behind this video is a cash grabber feigning rationality only as long as it suits him. Humanity is so fallen. Why are you looking for truth in the corruptible, changeable doctrines of men? "The best cure for Christianity is reading the Bible." - Mark Twain was a freemason, of course he hates Jesus Christ. "Cure" implies disease and I don't see any basis to assume that christianity is a disease. And what's health? Atheism? Should we be atheists? According to whom? Your morality? Is your morality the right morality (as opposed to e.g. Hitler's)? According to whom? Your whole stance then becomes circular, but you have no authority to justify an infinite regress towards yourself.

[@siegfriedk.6276]

@Mister Guy Look at you with your insults, and your attempts at manufacturing a "smart vs. stupid" pseudo-consensus by ridiculing my position. Your corrupt nature and dishonest rhetoric shows how impossible it is for one such as you to enter heaven. And yet, there is forgiveness even for you, if you would just go to your knees and pray. It is very hard to take you seriously, when I take you seriously: What's wrong about lying? What's wrong with being on the wrong path? What's wrong with believing in fairy tales? You don't even take yourself seriously. "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me"

[@steggyweggy]

Siegfried K. All objective facts are independent of an agents whims, thoughts, or cares. Values are an agents whims thoughts and cares. Therefore objective values is a contradiction. Contradictions do not exist. Therefore objective values including objective moral values do not exist. There is no such thing as objective morality. All morality is inherently subjective.

[@siegfriedk.6276]

​@@steggyweggy "Values are an agents whims thoughts and cares." - You can't just say that. If you control for conflicts of interest (wants & desires), you find perfect objectivity in human values and morals. Let me explain some of the minor realizations that led me to the Lord Jesus Christ. Observation: The human spectrum is very broad. There is never real consensus, opinions and values fluctuate greatly with time and circumstance. Your explanation: Values are subjective. The Bible's explanation: Values are objective (God-given). Human beings are capable of identifying good and bad until conflicts of interest arise. The human condition is that we are selfish sinners and must crucify the flesh with its lusts and desires and be born again through Jesus. As I said above, I have so much trouble taking your explanation seriously, because it is so self-defeating. If values are totally subjective I do not see a reason for any human strive or debate. If you have two values that are not identical, you need to be able to weigh them in order to arrive at a conclusion that "things ought to be one way rather than another". If your own scale is subjective by what method did you/ the universe first come by it? How does one arrive at the conclusion that things should be one way as opposed to another - full stop? What is the point of having any values? Why - excluding my religious experience and focusing only on logic - you will never be able to convince me of atheism is this: If As soon as I adopt your position, I see no reason to believe it is true any longer and thus I fall back to what I believed earlier: God created the heavens and the earth. Atheism is so hollow. Come, brother. Jesus loves you.

[@carsonbarlow348]

I absolutely loved this video. While I believe the swear words were well placed and meaningful, it will unfortunately turn off the people I wish the most to share it with. They will get distracted, or offended. Well, that's their problem, not yours. Thanks again for taking the time to make this.

[@directorkid3131]

What's disgusting, is that if you DID convince a Christian that Yahweh is okay with slavery, they wouldn't realize he's a monster, or that he doesn't even exist. Instead, they would just say "well, if this book written 2000 years ago says slavery is okay, then that means it's okay!"

[@gagaplex]

Curious how Craig wants to only talk about a generic theistic god yet calls it a "he/him", kind of like he's talking about his Christian god in reality.

[@aletheia2064]

Sorry I have to correct you at 11 min mark. It is Iron age bullshit.

[@GA-nw3kz]

Well you sir, have earned my subscription.

[@karanshah7309]

I just love the way you present stuff. It is brilliant. And what I think about people is that they are using their own logic and reason and choose from what is good from the book. They read from a book having all the bad and good stuff and then using their logic and say that the good thing said in the book was from God. They use THEIR logic, not word of God, who says many worst things.

[@santicraft8]

The sign at 11:07 reminds me of Luis Buñuel's "The Milky Way." Great movie.

[@AngryBilleh]

Sometimes I don't think religious people reads the book carefully

[@dementare]

Most don't read the book. Hell, there was a time when a guy translated the bible into a language the people could *ACTUALLY* read.... guess what, the Church... *KILLED HIM* for doing that.... so.. yeah...

[@MrTheSwoop]

I've watched this 10 times and I still love it! What a great video!

[@drock515]

More people need to see these videos. I don't understand how Christians can just go on ignoring this information.

[@northside8341]

Nailed it! This video will now be used as reference for when this question gets brought up by Theists.

[@3dge--runner]

thank you for this. now, to read some delusional ad hominem christian comments because there is no argument against this.

[@Stayler17]

God has a doubled standard. He asks people to do all these thing because its moral but then does the same things himself or worse.

[@MaybeCrosstheCountry]

1---Personally, I think morality is a core component of our perception that developed as a result of of overlapping evolutionary traits. Sort of a three way reconciling of critical thought, emotion, and sensory perception. Being able to analyze that does not uproot it from my perception though. Think of a mountain. Although a mountain is a vaguely defined object, you can look at a mountain and identify it. Where does the mountain end or begin? It

[@bigdomkook]

I always liked to say, just because you like the answer, the idea of an objective standard that points toward human well-being, doesnt mean its true. It is most likely entirely subjective, and thats fine.

[@hotshot64]

Ahahaha I love this stuff. I'm agnostic and tend to make fun of Atheists and religious types alike, but you cite your damned sources, and I respect that.

[@rachelhoughton2200]

Brilliant! Absolutely engaging!

[@AllinOne-ne7zn]

Hi hottie

[@ossi5013]

One of the reasons Christianity as a religion has survived so long is that it adapts. For example, when people believed the earth was flat Christians said the bible was proof of this and to say otherwise was heresy. When science irrevocably proved otherwise, Christians said the bible always had proof of this. In time, if science is able to prove evolution beyond doubt, Christians will find proof in the bible of it. The religion will survive because of that vagueness.

[@tomp1732]

Dude you rock - I love your videos. This one in particular I could see leaving most, *nay all*, Christians without a leg to stand on - I don't have a whole lot of time to read through the comments but I would be surprised to find anyone who would be willing to step up and argue with you on this point! If they do the are either crazy, or willfully ignorant.. Once again, love our videos, you rock, and thank you for being who you are!

[@notlad900]

Man if Jesus had just made up a different god that would have dodged the argument that god is a horrific monster with a split personality

[@spruce117]

Good point! If Jesus went away from the Jewish religion and invented his own God, everything would be different!

[@tiewkiat]

A very well made video.

[@stevenlucas9948]

I realized there is another contradiction, and honestly I love finding them because it’s evidence that a “truly infallible and inerrant book, that is God breathed word of God” has a contradiction not only to show error in this said “inerrant” book, yet also a contradiction to Gods character. The part in the video where there is a picture of Jesus is sitting and it displays the verses Matthew 5:18-19 RSV it’s basically stating in my eyes that the laws which God bestowed upon humanity that orders the Israelites to kill those who break the commandments are to be killed is inconsistent with the supposed implication about not only God being love. Compare this set of verses with Old Testament laws and what is commanded when it comes to those laws being broken with God being Love(Jesus implies that he’s God in the flesh) and the commands that Jesus gave to “Love your neighbor as yourself” and to “Love your enemies” it’s contradictory to Him being love as well as the commands he ordered that we love. If Christians can’t see this I’d like to verify, OT killing was ordered when people were found to be guilty of the 10 commandments, Jesus stated the commands to love neighbors and enemies, however in Matthew 5:18-19 it is said in the end “but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven”. (Here it’s about Old Testament laws not New Testament commands) Apparently a person would be called great for taking the life of another human being in the name of God(love) and you can’t fit loving them as yourself or loving your enemies.. it would be a crossroads. Depending on the level of objective morality or even a genuinely empathetic morality, some Christians would kill, some would show love, some would do mental contortions and backflips and won’t know what to do. This verse I would say is the median between the law of death and a law of love.. quite confusing isn’t it? Murder is objectively morally wrong. And for me it’s also empathetically incorrect. I used to be a Christian, back then I wouldn’t argue on this one, because I don’t kill.. yet it would lead me to something I had before I became religious, which is having a mind that thinks critically and rationally. Christianity made my mind narrow and I was within delusion thinking the Bible was totally true and correct.. it caused so many issues that I will not mention.. let’s just say Christianity even if it’s just the book and beliefs themselves can slowly kill a man. Question things people, try to think critically I can honestly say that I lived in fear from hell, and after a while I hated the aspect of biblical paradise as well. I didn’t feel it was correct to go on loving and doing good deeds just because God commanded it(there was threat behind not doing it, and consequence of an unhappy life without bearing fruit) and because I would be rewarded for doing something that I consider genuine and humane. Which for me is to love and do good things no strings attached without doing it for reward.. notice that even Paul “encourages” believers to do good for the reward.. it’s a self righteous encouragement in a book that’s supposed to help believers grow in righteousness.

[@-Zer0Dark-]

Infallible simply means that you are unable to be corrupted. "Omnipotent", on the other hand, means that you can do all things. That's why I specified "perfect" and "omnipotent" seperately. If they were one and the same, I would have just said "perfect". Do try to pay attention.

[@GeorgeLocke]

Sometimes killing a person is murder, and sometimes it's self defense. The _only way_ to draw that distinction is by examining the context around the event. Any sensible standard of morality must distinguish between murder and self-defense, including the objective ones, so _objective standards of morality must take context into account_ (at least the sensible ones). I don't think NSC's whole argument stands or falls apart on this one point, but he seems to say that once you consider context you've thrown out the whole notion of objectivity, repeating it several times. He's mistaken. The more salient point he makes is that if we can use "God's objective standard" to justify actions in the Bible as good when we we would regard those actions as horrific in any context besides the Bible, then that "standard" is worse than useless. By this standard, actions that would be considered atrocities in one circumstance become righteous merely because God says so. I don't see how this standard is necessarily subjective (except perhaps from God's perspective), but apparently you can justify anything with it, and that makes it a real danger to society.

[@NonStampCollector]

What if you change your words a bit. "Sometimes killing a person by throwning rocks at them until they die from the injuries is murder, and sometimes it's self defense." And why would a god need to defend itself? And why won't they come out, these people who defend this theistic objective-morality world view, and say that perhaps gay marriage is OK in some contexts, eg now. It's all cherry-picking, that's why.

[@GeorgeLocke]

NonStampCollector I don't understand what you're trying to say (and I'm sorry for the novel here). Maybe you're saying that picking and choosing which commands in the Bible we should follow now, and which were only valid "in context" is a necessarily subjective process. I agree that Christians do "pick and choose," but I don't see that this is a necessarily subjective process. These Christians hold on to what they see as moral in the Bible while insulating the immoral stuff, but the standard they use to make such distinctions is their ordinary ethical standard. In order to show that making these distinctions is subjective, you have to show that the standard they're using is subjective. Now, whatever standard they're using, it can't be the Bible, but who's to say if it's objective or not? Is the "insulation" essentially subjective? I don't see how, though it's definitely BS. My post above was responding to a different claim, namely that invoking context invalidates any claim to objectivity. I think that claim is more clearly untenable, even when context is invoked to excuse stoning women for adultery. Watching the video, I certainly got the impression that this was the argument you were making: 9:47 "Objective or contextual? Don't you see that the instant you invoke context your claim that there is an objective moral standard is destroyed?" I do not see this at all. Invoking context is/can be consistent with objectivity. If the only relevant context is "God says so," that's still objective under divine command ethics. God could decide that stoning was moral in a particular instance for some unknown reason, and if God's will were moral by definition, then that instance of stoning would be objectively moral. The problem isn't that this conclusion is inconsistent with objectivity; the problem is the conclusion is abominable. But maybe you didn't mean that invoking context necessarily destroys objectivity. It must be possible to invoke context in an essentially subjective manner, and maybe you meant that Christians are doing just that. Well, if that is what you're saying, I don't see the subjectivity.

[@pyrobryan]

George Locke "God could decide that _________ was moral in a particular instance for some unknown reason, and if God's will were moral by definition, then that instance of __________ would be objectively moral." Fill in the blanks. You said "stoning". I say "raping a child". Can you ever, in the darkest recesses of your mind imagine any instance where raping a child could possibly be considered morally good? Let's say that one night you awake to find what you become absolutely convinced, with absolutely no doubt, is God appearing to you, and he commands you to kill your entire family. Do you do it? If you answer "yes" to either question, I fear you and I fear for the safety of those around you.

[@pyrobryan]

George Locke by the way, I don't mean to say that I think you do support those statements, it was just an example.

[@GeorgeLocke]

pyrobryan The sentence after the one you're quoting answers your questions. I'm surprised that you could've read what I wrote (describing theistic positions as "BS", "abominable", "danger to the public") and had any doubt about how I would answer.

[@StratMatt777]

Objective morality is called empathy. That's why Jesus said, "Do unto others as you'd have them do to you". You don't need a religion to understand that. - de-converted Christian

[@flyingv7161]

Abrahimic religion negates your under-standing of anything but under-standing the religious precepts, it's essentially obscurity, suspect and terror.

[@StratMatt777]

@@flyingv7161 What part of "- de-converted Christian" do you not understand? Your zeal for condemning religious people has blinded you from the obvious fact that I have rejected religion, due to learning that my childhood/pre-school programming that says that "The Bible is the inerrant word of God" is a big lie.

[@flyingv7161]

@@StratMatt777 De-conversion from christianity doesnt equal to reject any religion. When someone finds out that christianity is a fraud, doesnt mean he must become an atheist. So I'm not condemning religious people in general.

[@StratMatt777]

@@flyingv7161 Correct. God created us (not the old testament God- possibly Enlil and Enki, the aliens from the Sumerian Tablets of Gilgamesh using DNA splicing), Jesus existed, and the gospels are a mimesis of Homer's Odyssey and Illiad (as is undeniably demonstrated in "The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark" by Dennis MacDonald). Perhaps the only part of the "Bible" that may be true are the sayings of Jesus found in Matthew and Luke that came from a lost source (called "Q") and, perhaps, all the gnostic books that the Catholic Church burned and excluded from their Bible and were discovered in the Nag Hamadi desert caves in 1945. It's quite a mystery.

[@thegrouchization]

The golden rule kinda falls apart when you remember that masochists are a thing. Likewise, not everyone has a properly developed sense of empathy.

[@MaybeCrosstheCountry]

4---The problem with the Judeo-Christian perspective on morality is not that it's imperfect, so I must be right. It's that it doesn't contribute earnestly to the conversation at all. Even if I'm wrong, I'm willing to try and reason this out. The God-fearing theist can boast that kind of open-mindedness. That's what this video is about. It's not at all claiming that because Biblical morals are corrupt the atheist's viewpoint is spot on. It's just saying that where other people are

[@plasmaballin]

So, according to WLC, morality comes from God's commandments, and the reason God's commandments are good is because God's nature is good. But how does he determine that God's nature is good? He can either appeal to a separate standard of morality (which he seems to do when he sats that God's nature is good because it has certain qualities), or he can say that God's nature is good because it fits with God's moral standard, which makes a circular argument.