What Frank Turek Says Atheists Get Wrong About Morality

[@erdi950]

What a piece of work Frank T is. Here is a student who is genuinely trying to be a part of Frank's tribe and Frank is mashing him into the dirt of this venue's floor with the heel of his boot. I'm glad I'm not a Frank T Christian.

[@kingbidenmypres]

Im sorry but did you see the way frank was standing and trying not to smile in his little too tight shirt trying to flex... ridiculous...poor frank he's just a little guy...but yeah the whole time I'm thinking kid get the fuxk outta here you should be smoking weed and trying to get laid instead of lining up to get played by lilfrankie

[@joeleniola9140]

That is what he does

[@chriscortez2036]

It annoys me to no end when people like this claim you have to join their particular sect of their particular religion to have “morality”, and if you do happen to be a good person without them, you’re just “stealing” their morals. Like seriously? How arrogant do you have to be to claim that your particular group has a monopoly on basic human decency? Especially when morals are defined by culture and cultures change over time. In the US alone, slavery, sexism, segregation, and abuse of indigenous peoples were all considered acceptable and even MORAL, with many religious institutions excusing or justifying it. But thankfully people learned from their ancestors mistakes and were willing to challenge their own biases through reason, empathy, and understanding.

[@ProphetofZod]

Yep! That's pretty much it. But I guess it undermines a lot of religious assumptions when you think about what morality is and how we refine our understanding of it.

[@goldenageofdinosaurs7192]

Not only did they excuse and/or justify it, they fought pretty much ANY cultural (we can probably throw ecological in there as well) change for the better, every step of the way & many of them continue to do so today.

[@chriscortez2036]

@@ProphetofZod Additionally, one thing I’ve noticed is that, ironically, believing that you’re inherently morally superior to others just because you’re part of a specific culture or group can make you extremely narcissistic and cruel. It can get to the point where you believe that you can never be wrong, that the universe revolves around you, that anyone who disagrees with your group is an “enemy”, and you struggle to empathize with people of different beliefs because you think they’re “evil”, “just want to sin”, “used by Satan” and “lying to themselves”. Like you said in video yourself, just saying that you get morality from “god” is not satisfying because the very nature and morals of “god” themselves are heavily debated and widely inconsistent even among other Christians. Not to mention that many other cultures have examples of kindness and fairness too.

[@busylivingnotdying]

I think they confuse OBEDIENCE with MORALITY.

[@chriscortez2036]

@@busylivingnotdying They confuse OBEDIENCE with RESPONSIBILITY and PERSONAL GROWTH. Obedience isn’t really a virtue, it is entirely dependent on who you’re being obedient towards (Being obedient to “God” doesn’t really mean anything since the nature & morals of God are heavily debated and inconsistent even among other Christians) and following a black-and-white dogma in a complicated world just doesn’t work. Flexibility, empathy, critical thinking, communication and learning from the past should be more important.

[@AS-tr5cg]

As a fan of many channels similar to PoZ's, I have to say his approach to the discussion is my favorite. The fact that, while he doesn't necessarily agree with the involvement people have in religion, he understands that it is important to many people. He wishes people luck in their personal journey, and tries to be a friend who supports them, so long as they are coming to the conclusion on their own vulition and truthfully. That they have gone through the reading, given the ideas time to manifest and mull them over before planting their flag on that hill. PoZ is how preachers and pastors should behave. A gentle guiding hand that is happy to share knowledge and point you in a direction when lost, but isn't going to force you into anything, and will ask challenging questions that may even destabilize their own positions for the sake of helping someone else on their journey. I had a friend named brother Joshua (benadictine monk) and he's the reason I left the church ultimately, because while talking about the bible once, he just looked at me and asked "have you ever considered the thought that maybe God might not be what we think God to be?" and, being raised roman catholic all my life, I was stunned. But he gave me some books, on both sides of the discussion (mainly Aquinas and Hitchens, but many more reviewing other religions and religious texts), and we spent two days over two years meeting up for coffee and dinner, talking it through. Eventually I just looked at him and asked if we could still be friends if I didn't believe in God, and this chad of man just said "there are monks who haven't believe in decades. But they believe in the work they do. If God hasn't smote them, I don't see what reason they would have to smite you." After that, Joshua was called to Europe to continue his monastic studies, but since then I have maintained that same approach that he did: help people find their own path. Regardless of what that is. And love them regardless of their outcome. Or as a friend once told me "Everyone is just a busicuit trying to make it in a gravy world. Be kind."

[@MathIguess]

One of the things that started me on a path away from Christianity about 8 years ago is that I met an atheist that was clearly a good person. I genuinely believed that all good people are Christians and that it's impossible to be good without Christianity. This is something I was taught by the in-group vs out-group, cult style Christianity I was raised in. I believed I should avoid atheists because they are wicked and that I shouldn't talk to them unless I'm trying to convert them. I'm glad I met that person when I did, and that I learned to open my mind and question my beliefs and the reasons for them.

[@mwperk02]

Their own bullshit works against them sometimes it would seem.

[@halthammerzeit]

Going to church makes you christian, like standing in garage makes you a car. Most good people I know are atheists.

[@MathIguess]

@@halthammerzeit I didn't go to church very often at that time, it was mostly my school and my parents that taught me what to believe dogmatically Most people I know are Christians, so it follows that most good people I know are Christians, but now I know that being a good person and being a Christian are independent properties (edited to correct my incorrect use of the words "mutually exclusive" instead of the word "independent")

[@TBOTSS]

@@MathIguess ' I know that being a good person and being a Christian are mutually exclusive properties' So being a Christian makes you a bad person?

[@MathIguess]

@@TBOTSS honestly, no, I think I meant that they're independent properties and typed the wrong thing. Mutually exclusive would mean that a person must be one or the other, but not both, which isn't what I meant Sorry about that. I'll edit my comment, it was an honest mistake. Thank you for pointing it out.

[@grapeshot]

And here we go again with somebody claiming in order for you to be moral you have to be a part of their particular branch of the Christian religion / cult. So happy I got off the religious plantation. Absolutely no regrets and I've never been happier and I've never looked back.

[@pollypockets508]

What's crazy is that so many famous preachers and apologists are awful human beings.

[@cindychristman8708]

@@pollypockets508 Ravi Zacharias, Kenneth Copeland, Jesse Duplantis, Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, J. Warner Wallace, Lee Strobel, Gary Habermas, Tim & Lydia McGrew, Hugh Ross, and Frank Turek...imagine spending ETERNITY with these people.

[@blastodermis]

Yeah... Now imagine sending all them together to a deserted island to participate in a hunger-games-style competition.

[@FakingANerve]

@@cindychristman8708 * *laughs in ex-Catholic* *

[@lyricedge4957]

@@blastodermis shaddup and take my money!!! VIP ticket to that show!!

[@Boris99999]

The “we didn’t explain ourselves clearly, Jack” is the most telling phrase that describes the whole Frank’s view point - he is a part of a community, he and his community is never wrong, it’s just that you didn’t get their message! Also nice one Frank! By saying “What is wrong with inflicting pain on others? You get the feeling of joy out of it…” you’ve shown what a piece of guano you really are! This is how psychopaths think! And believing in god never stopped people like that from committing crimes. So I really hope Frank doesn’t think that way in reality…

[@Nocturnalux]

This is very easy to answer, too: the person who is being hurt is not feeling any joy out of it but is suffering, therefore, we should not inflict pain on them. This is basic stuff very small children can comprehend.

[@LukeSumIpsePatremTe]

He does. Most christian apologist do.

[@LukeSumIpsePatremTe]

@@Nocturnalux Assuming we care about that. Most apologist don't, so good luck trying to teach empathy to a moral monster.

[@Nocturnalux]

@@LukeSumIpsePatremTe You don't need any empathy, at all. Even if he enjoys hurting others, I bet he wouldn't like being hurt himself and what is to stop *me* from hurting him if I enjoy it?

[@kongvinter33]

I have inflicted pain on people. Every single time it made me sick to my stomach. relax people Im talking about teenagers getting into fist fights, which happens when you are a stupid kid full of testosterone

[@EdwardHowton]

Turek Apologetics 101: How To Force Your Victims To Submit By Publicly Badgering And Humiliating Them For Questioning You. If anyone sitting there listening to Frank left the room thinking he was a good person, they're a complete loss to and drain on humanity.

[@VaughanMcCue]

The people who remain and think frank turkey has lost his grip on morality are the smart ones. Liars like turkey are atheism's best marketing tool.

[@LadyOfTheEdits]

You're one of the reasons i left Christianity. Been an athiest for a few years now

[@ProphetofZod]

Wow, that's so crazy to hear! I'm glad I helped. :)

[@BenjaminEaster-b8b]

God in Ezekiel 18:19-20: The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father. God in Micah 1:14-16: I shall sell your prodigies, not excluding your juveniles, into slavery as retribution for your iniquities. 19 Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. 20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. Make thee bald, and poll thee for thy delicate children; enlarge thy baldness as the eagle; for they are gone into captivity from thee. BTW, both of these verses are courtesy of the treasured KJV. No KJV loyalist or their generalized ilk may lament the version which yours truly hath selected. The view that the good book is free of antipodean, diametric passages hath been thoroughly beatenith out of mine mind.

[@BenjaminEaster-b8b]

​@@ProphetofZodGod in Ezekiel 18:19-20: The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father. God in Micah 1:14-16: I shall sell your prodigies, not excluding your juveniles, into slavery as retribution for your iniquities. 19 Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. 20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. Make thee bald, and poll thee for thy delicate children; enlarge thy baldness as the eagle; for they are gone into captivity from thee. BTW, both of these verses are courtesy of the treasured KJV. No KJV loyalist or their generalized ilk may lament the version which yours truly hath selected. The view that the good book is free of antipodean, diametric passages hath been thoroughly beatenith out of mine mind.

[@LadyOfTheEdits]

@@BenjaminEaster-b8b ❤️

[@LadyOfTheEdits]

@@ProphetofZod ❤️

[@RikardPeterson]

My morality is mostly the same now as when I was a Christian. Not that surprising, since I'm still the same person, with the same upbringing, living in the same country... There is one notable thing that changed as soon as I realised that the god I used to believe in isn't real: There is no reason to think that homosexuality is wrong. Even as a believer, I didn't find any of those arguments anything but silly, and the only reason to hold that view was that that's what God said in the bible. (Only those Christians that didn't take the bible seriously would accept LGBT people, obviously, and they were obviously horribly misled.) So that changed pretty much at once for me. But as a Swedish fundamentalist Christian, I had many views that were strongly connected to my faith that are the opposite of what many American Christians believe. I was (and am) a pacifist. (Historically, Evangelicals were sent to prison in Sweden for refusing to enter the military.) Definitely against the death penalty. And so on. Weird that my place of birth and the culture where I grew up seems to have had a bigger impact on my morality than my religion, right? (And I definitely was a fundamentalist.)

[@cy-one]

*"Weird that my place of birth and the culture where I grew up seems to have had a bigger impact on my morality than my religion, right?"* Nope, because cultural influence trumps religious influence. As you noted yourself, a fundamental Christian in Sweden isn't the same as a fundamental Christian in America. Whereas I'm pretty confident that the opinion of Swedes about, for example, the death penalty is more or less shared.

[@VyperByteX]

In as much as Christianity, IE the bible say anything at all about homosexuality. It takes them interpreting several other parts of the bible referring to sexuality in general and lumping it in with those acts to come to the conclusions about homosexuality that they have. There is actually very little in the bible that addresses homosexuality directly. The little there is isn't favorable, but it's not a topic that came up very often for some reason, and so to get their arguments in order they attach it to things in the bible that say nothing directly about the subject. Ya know, if the all knowing god knew this was going to be such an issue later one has to wonder why it's not talked about more. Or ya know we could make the more logical observation and just see this as another example that shows us the bible was written by people, and people from that time were not that concerned with homosexuality, so it doesn't come up as often.

[@BenjaminEaster-b8b]

God in Ezekiel 18:19-20: The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father. God in Micah 1:14-16: I shall sell your prodigies, not excluding your juveniles, into slavery as retribution for your iniquities. 19 Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. 20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. Make thee bald, and poll thee for thy delicate children; enlarge thy baldness as the eagle; for they are gone into captivity from thee. BTW, both of these verses are courtesy of the treasured KJV. No KJV loyalist or their generalized ilk may lament the version which yours truly hath selected. The view that the good book is free of antipodean, diametric passages hath been thoroughly beatenith out of mine mind.

[@dradenyyg4805]

I think it’s very interesting that Jack felt the need to keep reiterating that he agrees with everything Turek says. I think it’s a pretty clear example of a subliminal reaction on his part from having seen how Frank treats people who don’t agree with everything he says, atheist or not, and trying to keep himself from being belittled the way Frank always does to people he disagrees with. The way Frank reacted to this was noticeably softer than other people who ask tough questions, but it was still very rude and dismissive. I think that helps illustrate that it’s less about the beliefs specifically, and instead that Turek demands authoritarian control and non-questioning subservience.

[@Ironsuaba]

Fundamentalist religion is authoritarian in nature, so that's, unfortunately, to be expected

[@REAVER117]

Agreed, Frank immediately begins to talk down with "fancy term" technobabble when even vaguely threatened.

[@TheTruthKiwi]

Yup, totally agree Draden. Frank would make a great used car salesman.

[@wheat3226]

Yep, Frank is not kind to questioners he doesn't really like.

[@somersetcace1]

Christian apologists having the nerve to evoke epistemology. Christian epistemology "God!" Well, gee, that's explains it! 🤣

[@DJHastingsFeverPitch]

Alvin Plantinga has entered the chat

[@somersetcace1]

@@DJHastingsFeverPitch Who's really William Lane Craig 2.0

[@coruscanta]

I’m concerned that Frank dodged the question so completely that even most of us here seem to have forgotten what was actually being asked, too. Or at least become distracted if not forgotten. Jack was saying that pain and suffering do seem to be able to serve as at least some sort of foundation or reference point from which we can then build a definition of “well being” off of. Frank proceeded to hear that Jack said “well being” in the first few words of his question time, listen to nothing else, and respond instead to Sam’s use of “well being” as a foundation, when Jack was only referencing it as a way to transition into the point about pain and suffering as a possible baseline/foundation.

[@fred_derf]

Frank is always careful not to drift too far off-script. Even if he has to answer a different question than the question asked.

[@jon66097]

Yeah, exactly, he completely disregarded the first thing the guy said "We can imagine the most painful world and everyone could objectively agree what would be better than that."

[@kerianhalcon3557]

If you can dodge a wrench you can dodge a question!

[@SilverSixpence888]

Frank Turek is a Proper Apologist.

[@papasanjay7525]

Recently got back into atheist KZbin after a year long religious phase. Keep up the good work zod

[@lfl5982]

I really have a hard time watching human beings confuse obedience with morality, blindly following rules under the threat of eternal punishment or the promise of a reward is not morality. morality is a careful consideration of a situation and understanding your choices and the effect they may have on other people and making sure that if you were the one on the receiving end of these consequences that you would happily accept them.

[@TheTruthKiwi]

You are not the only one my friend.

[@flipping_for_funds]

U don’t understand Christianity at all. Christians are being “good” people to keep from going to hell. They are thankful for what God has done for them and they submit to Him and want to please Him. Christians still screw up and do things that God does not agree with.

[@lfl5982]

@@flipping_for_funds well you can be good, so you don't go to hell, that's obedience not morality. doing something to make an imaginary being happy, a being you can't demonstrate is real, is also not morality. morality comes from having a deep and intimate understanding of how your actions will impact other sentient beings and understanding how you would feel if you were on the receiving end of those said actions. A dog not pissing on the carpet because it doesn't want to get punished is not being a moral agent and a dog doing something to please you is also not being moral

[@flipping_for_funds]

@@lfl5982 I see u didn’t read “and comprehend” what I said at all. I’ll move on to someone who will actually try to listen.

[@lfl5982]

@@flipping_for_funds If you feel I didn't understand what you said then feel free to clarify. why is it every time I speak with a theist they must insult, and judge rather than just have an honest conversation, also there is the very real possibility that you didn't do a very good job at making your point. Let me ask you this, is it possible that you could be wrong in your position? is that a possibility?

[@apolloknights007]

Ethics is different than morality. And we should be ethical and that requires no God.

[@brandbird]

A buddhist take on this, a simple guide to living a good life: "Help others when you can, and when you can't, avoid doing more harm".

[@flipping_for_funds]

Who says that is the definition of a good person? Why should anyone be “good” to others? Why is hurting someone worse than helping someone? I know why but what’s are u basing it on? Who or what says what’s right or wrong?

[@filipe.sm31]

​​@@flipping_for_funds"I don't want people to harm me or my loved ones, so I don't harm other people." It could be argued from a utilitarian perspective

[@flipping_for_funds]

@@filipe.sm31 but does that make it “right” or “good”? That’s the question here. Is that moral? Who says?

[@blacky_Ninja]

That guy is an absolute asshole for constantly interrupting and talking over Jack over and over again. He was really respectfully questioning the argument and got not even a speck of respect back for it. Poor Jack. 😥

[@melanieahrens6739]

I suspect Jack will be ruminating over this moment for a long time.

[@campakilla1]

Maybe Jack will realise Frank never actually answered his question and that could help him in the long term 🤔

[@mastone3609]

I'm often disgusted by different Christian's morals. Weird how I am just borrowing from them...

[@Szadek23]

Same with "God has written his morals on our heart". So, then why am I so disgusted by his morals?

[@Fade2GrayOG]

Don't stop questioning, Jack.

[@deusexlacuna]

I think the Binding of Issac demonstrates that, even in a theistic worldview, some morality must exist outside of a god. Frank has been asked that question before, and wriggled out of it

[@wrathofainz]

I thought of that computer game before I remembered the biblical bit.

[@jollyandwaylo]

If one accepts Frank Turek's claim of morality, how does that help people decide what is moral? Since there are no answers coming directly from his god, it leaves those people with no understanding. Of course, one could claim that the Bible has the answers but the god in that book is obviously immoral. I've never understood this line of apologetics since they can't ask god any questions. At least starting with lack of pain or goodwill gives a base to start building from.

[@ProphetofZod]

Yeah, as I've said before, a godless universe would look exactly like our universe. So whether or not God exists, we're functionally acting as if he didn't.

[@JohnSmith-fz1ih]

The general view I hear is that God has written his moral message on our heart, so Christians believe they do have access to His morality. Functionally this means Christians will do one of two things: 1) Whatever they feel is moral they tell themselves it is moral because it’s come from God. This is extremely dangerous because whatever horrible things a person might think, they become convinced they are correct. Unquestionably correct. 2) They think through situations evaluating the consequences to come to a moral decision. This is the same thing all people do. Christians just tell themselves they are consulting a message written on their heart to find the answer, instead of using human traits of empathy, an understanding of consequences etc.

[@Kevin_Williamson]

The whole "We need God to have basis for morality" argument falls flat in my view. Atheists as a whole have different bases for their personal, moral codes. But, then again, so do Christian in actual practise. An atheist can say their basis is the well-being of others. A Christian can say their morality is based on God's "objective" moral standard. OK. What moral standard is that, exactly? That it's totally cool to wipe out entire groups of people because you were supposedly promised some land? Genocide is totes fine? Even if that means the killing of pregnant women and those innocent unborn people I keep hearing Christians drone on and on about being so special and must be protected? Inducing a miscarriage is fine if a man just has some feeling his wife may have cheated on him? Death sentences for anyone who has the "wrong" belief in someone else's eyes? Rape is cool if the woman doesn't cry out loud enough and the rapist forks over a bride price for the damaged goods? Slavery (the "this is property" type) is allowed as long as they come from foreign lands? I really have to question things like this as part of a useful or productive moral standard on which to base my paradigm and actions. I'd feel safer with the atheist's view on morality any day.

[@bernierasmusson9257]

Well said.

[@margaretbarrett6087]

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

[@michaelreindel6975]

Turek’s “arguments” [?] make we wonder if, historically, religion wasn’t invented simply to keep sociopaths in line… 🤦🏼‍♂️

[@destinystrapper]

I once read in school a text called "religion, a helpful invention" which is exactly about what you just said

[@Nelsathis]

I do think it was helpful in dire times like when the burbonic plague happened. If you look into poetry from times like the baroque epoch you see this weird two-sided medal where people seem to have been caught being desperate for the future, while trying to live their life, while looking to god to at least have hope for what happens after their death. So i do think it was a helpful coping mechanic. on the other hand religion was in the way of science which led to the problems they had in the first place.

[@PhoenixtheII]

Well, since people with ASPD, tend to care only for their own life. Threatening them with eternal torture, surely will work to keep them in line.

[@SonOfTheDawn515]

I think you're onto something. There is a dude on the internet who attempted to murder his step father with a hammer because he felt like it and attributes his changing to Christianity in prison to being the only leash he has to keep him from carrying out his sociopathic tendencies. I can't remember his name but he's been a guest on Apostate Prophet's videos a few times (and one of the reasons I quit watching AP).

[@Simon.the.Likeable]

@@SonOfTheDawn515 David Wood. By not watching Rivdan's channel you're also missing Ali Dawah's death threats and his "We're proud of that."

[@llongone2]

I remember this Frank Turek guy getting completely owned by Christoper Hitchens in a debate.

[@IheartDogs55]

In talking directly to Jack, you eloquently spoke to every Christian who also might be considering this issue, who might see this video. Nicely done.

[@fujin27]

That last bit about how the journey of being honest about questions will make you stronger even if you come back to the faith is pretty powerful. I think I’ll use that too if someone came to me with questions about their faith.

[@PurpleRhymesWithOrange]

Very well done. "God is not the end goal of morality" is something that thesists need to realize.

[@FoxyRaccoon84]

The piano arrangement of the closing theme was especially well done. Bravo.

[@danieldomen2057]

If frank is who Frank pretends to be, then yes, if Frank saw his next-door neighbor beating the next-door neighbors child, Frank would commend him for being a godly man.

[@VaughanMcCue]

If the kid was a slave, it would be ok by frank. Leave the eyes and teeth in situ.

[@hegyak]

Loving V. Virginia. Proof of that Christian "Love" We hear so often about.

[@bolt7]

So glad you included non-human animals. They so often get left out of the picture, leaving an easy hole to poke.

[@trybunt]

I love that piano version of your theme music at the end. I like to imagine that someone composed it just for you, because they enjoy your content, and when they sent it in you were touched by the gesture, having realised that your content is reaching people. Considering how wrong I was when I guessed your appearance, it's unlikely my imagination is accurate, but it's still nice to imagine

[@AndyCampbellMusic]

Morality and ethics are an inevitable consequence of evolutionary empathy. Versions of it, in varying levels of complexity, are displayed by many species...

[@ericnox2069]

Keep up the good work and pushing back on the darkness of all of this.

[@TheRealShrike]

Prophet of Zod, you do a fantastic job, probably the best I've seen, at addressing the question of whether morality is objective and whether it "comes from god." Your clear communication and analysis of the issue has been immensely helpful to me. Thank you.

[@taylorlibby7642]

Many thanks to The Prophet for continuing to review and reply to absolute kak like this.

[@2msystems740]

Ya nee, absoluut strond.

[@taylorlibby7642]

@@2msystems740 Everyone gets to use the language they want. ; )

[@danielt5547]

Another South African Atheist? WhoooHooo i'm not alone. Well that if you're not dutch?

[@2msystems740]

@@taylorlibby7642 For sure.

[@2msystems740]

@@danielt5547 Far from it, many just toil with how we express ourselves in overwhelmingly cultist societies. Any language will do, I am limited to a couple only though.

[@pRODIGAL_sKEPTIC]

Woww that piano is beautiful! Hell yeah I hope a fan hooked you up w that! The melody has always been an absolute BOP 😎

[@matityahubermanfalk3127]

As a religious Jew, who is constantly questioning his own beliefs, I'd have to say I particularly appreciate your conclusion. Neither theism not atheism is inherently more moral, but introspection generally leads to a better understanding of one's moral compass. Also, I'm the first to admit that there are commandments in the Bible that are morally heinous by today's standards. The difference between Judaism and the specific form of Christianity you comment on, is that Judaism doesn't try to excuse them, but to grow past them. To use morality in interpreting the Bible, rather than use the Bible in interpreting morality.

[@evanrodarte4290]

I am always surprised at the fact that "Empathy" is so rarely brought up in this discussion. Empathy let's me see things from other people's point of view, and guess as to what they might be feeling. I don't want others to suffer because I understand what suffering can feel like. The "why?" question is, I feel, very revealing. Frank seems to need a reward to not be a psychopath. This scares me.

[@clemstevenson]

I've seen some pretty weird stuff in my time, but I've never seen any evidence for this god entity (whatever that might be). I consider it irrational to live by faith, as that involves fallacious reasoning. You need evidence, before you can make any informed choices. Indeed, a quick Google search brought up this rather appropriate example of fallacious reasoning: 'God must exist, because a godless society would be lawless and dangerous.'

[@calvinsimpson1301]

Which obviously is also demonstrably false. Higher rates of atheism tend to have *lower* crime rates. Whether it's causation or not, it's clear godless people are not in fact less moral

[@drewharrison6433]

Where is the causal link there? How does godlessness lead to lawlessness? I realize that they think there is one but, I can't see it.

[@drlegendre]

Drew, The argument goes like this: Since in the atheists view, human life has no inherent purpose or goodness, we have no reason to not mistreat people in any way we see fit.

[@drewharrison6433]

@@drlegendre Why does purpose have to be inherent? This argument completely ignores that most people have empathy. It also ignores self interest. I still can't see the actual connection. It's just willfully ignoring certain facts.

[@morzemus1805]

@@drewharrison6433 It's not an argument built for reason. I remember reading about a survey a few years ago, where people in different countries were polled how much they trust each other based on religious status. In all but two countries (NZ and Finland), people had negative bias against atheists, thinking they aren't as moral as other people.

[@thetexasliberal283]

I wonder how many of his views come from supporters and how many come from people there for the meme. Frank turek is one of the reasons I became an atheist (along with PoZ of course). Hitchens demolished him so bad in a debate it made me question everything.

[@terryparenteau1200]

Lol Hitchens wiped his ass with Tureks bible.Come back in 5 years and Turek will be saying the same fucking garbage.These people most often dont change

[@DarthTingleBinks]

His question about the abuser is strangely confusing. Like, first off, if he was being physically harmed by someone, I would assume he wouldn't enjoy that, and he clearly would disregard the state of enjoyment the abuser has, which contradicts his whole question. But at the same time, he's making a terrible insinuation of Atheists and apparently thinks that they do take the enjoyment of the abuser into account. But we don't. I know that physical abuse is not okay because I, along with most other people INCLUDING the abuser themself, do not enjoy being physically harmed. Not to mention the LITERAL health risks that physical harm causes; health risks that are consistent in all sentient life, not just humans. Seriously, if we cared about the opinions of the abuser, or I guess a masochist (because they enjoy getting hurt?), then we wouldn't have laws against abuse. His question is almost as stupid as switching the scenario to rape. "Is rape wrong if the rapist enjoys raping someone?" = "Is physical abuse wrong if the abuser enjoys abusing someone?" The answer to both is yes, and Frank agrees. So why the fuck is he even asking the question? Wait, no, let me guess. Frank cares little about portraying Atheists accurately and would rather paint an image so vile that nobody would ever think of Atheists as something other than the image he has painted. What he's doing is worse than strawmanning. He's just flat out lying.

[@tach5884]

Some theists might be confused about the subject because they worship an imaginary abuser.

[@DarthTingleBinks]

@@tach5884 Just because there is no sufficient reason to believe in God, doesn't mean you can or should call him imaginary, and as an Atheist, I personally think that by being condescending toward Christians does little to further the conversation.

[@SonOfTheDawn515]

@@DarthTingleBinks Gods are imaginary until evidence shows otherwise. They exist only in the minds of people as far as anyone can verify.

[@DarthTingleBinks]

@@SonOfTheDawn515 I don't think you understand the definition of imaginary then. For instance, if two countries warred against each other, and the victor of said war then erased any trace of the loser, aside from the knowledge in the minds of people that the country existed, thus causing the country's existence to be a claim some people have without real evidence, it does not make that country imaginary. Sure, I went through the difficult process of making an unlikely situation come to a point in which belief in that country mirrors the current level of belief in religion, or specifically a God, but that doesn't change the fact that the crafted situation, and its conclusion, are correct. I'm in no way applying that Atheists and Theists at one point had a war, that the Atheists won and then destroyed every piece of evidence proving the different religions to be true, thus causing the only "evidence" to believe in the religions and their Gods be their own internal knowledge and/or written down words, but that doesn’t have to be the case for any God to not be imaginary. In fact, your argument in the favor of Gods being imaginary until proven otherwise is eerily similar to the idea that people are guilty until proven otherwise. At least if you define the Gods as being guilty of beinf imaginary. You can twist the wording and the meanings all you want to change it, such as the Gods are guilty of existing until proven otherwise, but that also doesn't work. Instead, Gods, and religions in extent, fill the neutral spot that scientific hypotheses fill. They are neither true nor false until proven one way or the other. That's exactly why we have hypotheses to test for in the first place. Side Note: I also believe the idea that people are innocent until proven otherwise is just as flawed and incorrect as the opposite idea. It is much smarter (and more ideal), if their level of innocence is neutral until proven to be positive or negative.

[@brianbarber5401]

You’re forgetting a key thing about Turak - he’s fundamentally dishonest.

[@darwinskeeper421]

This may sound unimportant, but I really loved the piano music at the end of your video. Thank you to the musician who composed their variation of the Prophet of Zod theme, and thank you to the Prophet himself for including it in the video. May Zod bless you all.

[@heethanthen706]

Jack shall make a great atheist rhetorician one day

[@Leith_Crowther]

Atheistical*

[@mattjohnston2]

The argument becomes much easier to understand when you realize that morals are simply manners with a different name.

[@SpyderQueen1988]

All the "what about if they enjoy it" argument shows is that Frank Turek doesn't understand consent. Edit: grammar

[@alasdairwhyte6616]

I like that - base-line for morallity zero pain; if you get pleasure from inflicting pain then it is wrong because you are increasing pain

[@user-hp6pj4sy3k]

Prophet of Zod has the most calming & soothing voice of all atheist KZbinrs.

[@KenEnCuenca]

Good job PoZ! I appreciate your ability to clarify the actual issue through the fog of apologetical word play.

[@Fishiest]

I've always said that there is no purpouse/meaning to life as an athiest, however i noticed that when i say that i generally use those words differently than most people when i say that, i mean that there is no single purpose that everyone has. like- not everyone wants to teach, not everyone wants to (hyperspecific example) get better at speedrunning Undertale, ect.

[@horner3738]

Your opening is great! I enjoy it every time I hear it, & I have heard it a lot.

[@incredulouspasta3304]

To sum up: if I need a deeper foundation for morality than "I value people's well-being", then Frank needs a deeper foundation than "God values people's well-being". Either way, it's a subjective foundation. Changing the subject doesn't make it non-subjective, or add any "ontological" weight, whatever that's supposed to mean.

[@ProphetofZod]

Yep. If morality is objective with God, whatever that means to you, then it's objective without God. If it's subjective without God, whatever that means to you, then it's subjective with God.

[@incredulouspasta3304]

@@ProphetofZod Thanks for your videos! They've helped me work through a lot of experiences as a former Christian.

[@incredulouspasta3304]

@LeoB It's interesting to me how apologists appeal to moral intuitions when trying to establish that objective morality exists, but completely abandon or condemn it when those intuitions conflict with their specific theology.

[@francesconicoletti2547]

@@ProphetofZod I suspect what many apologists actually mean by objective is not so much “ embedded in the laws of the universe “ as “issued from the top of the hierarchy “. People’s judgments are subjective because they are too low in the hierarchy. It’s the might and power of God that creates the “ objective “ morality. Pretty much why hell exists to demonstrate the power.

[@incredulouspasta3304]

@@francesconicoletti2547 If this is the case, ask them if "might makes right", or if in the absence of God, the most powerful government would make morality.

[@anthonymonge7815]

This has got to be the best ending I have seen in a long time.

[@gerardgauthier4876]

Morality, freedom, rights... Are the doorways to anywhere.

[@bengreen171]

apologists like Turek consistently fail the empathy test - ie to realise that in any moral interaction there is you, and the person you're dealing with. It never seems to occur to Turek that murdering someone does nothing for their own wellbeing. It's an inherently selfish approach to morality. Which I find quite ironic.

[@DrakiniteOfficial]

I love the piano theme! I'd love to see it on more vids!

[@JamesRichardWiley]

I already know what is moral. I don't need Frank Turek to explain it to me. A 73 year old atheist.

[@povertyprepper8826]

i have a job, friends, a kitten, projects, goals and hobbies. i have plenty of purpose, what more can a deity offer in that regard?

[@budd2nd]

Oh but you’re missing the vital component to be coming a theist. Credulity & gullibility you don’t seem to have much of that! Lol 🤣

[@satanistnextdoor4199]

Love your work. The end theme music on this one is my favorite version yet.

[@wickedguppy3715]

I've never been religious. Frank just confirms (over and over) why I never will be religious.

[@TheAndrebonner]

Boop boop title sequence is awesome 👌

[@thomasfplm]

I like the piano version on the ending music.

[@gatorboymike]

The Christian believes that, because he himself is a violent psychopath, so is everyone else, and because he derives pleasure from harming other people, so does everyone else.

[@JM-us3fr]

I think your comment starting at 7:34 is worth emphasizing. As a *practical* matter, we don't need reasons beyond wanting human flourishing to *behave* morally, even if we might want a better grounding for philosophic reasons. The point is if Turek truly believes that we agree that human flourishing is a good thing, then we wouldn't see such disagreements between Christian and secular communities on a variety of moral, social, or political issues. Thus, I don't think Turek actually does think human flourishing is a good thing; I think he (along with many evangelical Christians) believe *Christian* flourishing and the punishment of "sinners" are good things. Human flourishing in general is only 'good' insofar that they are potential Christians, and insofar that it displays god's greatness (so as to create more Christians)

[@ProphetofZod]

It seems to me they do think it's good, but they convolute their thinking with these explanations about divine grounding. This leads them to wander blindly and imprecisely toward whatever good conclusions they reach - which gives them allowances to let biases sneak into who they're moral toward and why.

[@JM-us3fr]

@@ProphetofZod So it's not so much about being mistaken about their own beliefs, but more like pursuing them ineffectively? I could see that, and that is probably a more generous way of looking at it.

[@gnattress]

It's an important point you make at the start to "remember the audience"

[@mrcombustiblelemon2902]

The problem of "but masochists would be able to hurt others!" is even worse for christians, for two reasons: 1) a masochist would presumably enjoy hell, which means he gets a "free sins for life" card (and not the correct "free sins for life" card that christians get, because he doesn't have to be part of the cult to get it) 2) he is doing unto others as he would have them do unto him, so there's no sin there at all.

[@mrcombustiblelemon2902]

@Wolf-dog Cat-dog sadists enjoy other people's suffering, masochists enjoy their own. So yes.

[@stevey822]

This makes me sad because I was a bit like Jack in highschool when I was a believer. I was as genuine a believer as could be, but I was more open to the opposing arguments and I would often play Devil's advocate with my teachers and spiritual leaders. Frank's clear discomfort and annoyance with Jack's more open minded approach shows just how fragile his arguments are, and Frank's response reminds me of that of my high school Bible teacher. "Don't analyze it, Stephen", he told me once. Being bullied in to taking things at face value is the hallmark of a charlatan.

[@TheRealShrike]

"shows just how fragile his arguments are" Don't forget how fragile his ego is as well. Frank T is obviously driven by ego, not some well-intentioned interpretation of the gospel.

[@Mangaka-ml6xo]

@@TheRealShrike I wonder if he always were how he is now or if it's something that came with his popularity.

[@MrSalem70ca]

Would you rather associate with a person that is being held back from say harming a person due to a belief in god and going to heaven vs an atheist who simple believes it is wrong to harm someone. Frank had always been disingenuous and I feel I have finally determine that his little show is driven by money vs actually believing in a god.

[@MagereHein]

6:06 I think Turek's 'we' isn't the royal we, but the pedantic we, which means the same, but is used by philosophers and scientists. 'We' can have many meanings besides 'I': - Singular you , the nurses' and police officers' we: "We're going to take a shower", "Where are we going?" - Plural you , the preachers' and waiters' we: "we're all sinners", "what will we be ordering?" - They, the journalists' we: "We better change this policy"

[@DarkFlamesDarkness]

The conversation on morality was over when the guy said he liked to hurt people. Just dump it on an unmarked island somewhere & never think about it again. You can even question if the guy is really a christain cos if you like seeing others in pain choosing the career of an apologist would be more satisfying than an emergency room nurse. You'll see people in mental pain before you talk to them, then you can talk to them to increase their mental pain, & if they ever realized you were lying the whole time you'll get to see even more mental pain. Less related but would you rather be around the guy who doesn't hurt you b2cause he think something else will punish or reward him eternally for it or the guy who just feels uncomfortable with hurting people cos he thought about it & decided he didnt like it?

[@REAVER117]

It's impossible to compare the impact of two courses of action without an 'objective being'? Uh... okay Frank.

[@franklindcottrell]

Treating a young person like this is how you lose them.

[@flowingafterglow629]

Yeah, but why is suffering bad? Well, it's pretty much by definition. If it wasn't bad, it wouldn't be suffering.

[@carlpeterson8182]

No. We kill animals and other living things in order to eat. Other animas do also but it is not evil. Even if we kill humanely, it is still suffering. Suffering does not automatically mean that the action is evil.

[@flowingafterglow629]

@@carlpeterson8182 I didn't say "evil" I sad "bad" Suffering is bad for the person that suffers....by definition. If it's not bad for them, it's not suffering. That's why we can say things like, "The person died but did not suffer." When you say that someone suffered, you are saying they experienced something bad. By definition. So why must suffering be a bad thing? Because if it's not bad, it's not suffering.

[@carlpeterson8182]

@@flowingafterglow629 Okay it i not evil but bad. But what do you mean by bad? Does bad equal immoral at all? If not then is the well being of man not always the standard of morality in your view?

[@flowingafterglow629]

@@carlpeterson8182 Who said anything about immoral? You are just babbling randomly. The theist questions "why is suffering necessarily bad?" The answer is, because if it wasn't bad, it wouldn't be suffering. Arguing that there is a net good to offset the bad due to suffering does not change the fact that suffering is bad.

[@carlpeterson8182]

@@flowingafterglow629 The whole Christian video and response is about morality. You are not that dense. Bad was referring to immoral or bad or not good. Evil. Why play games?

[@munirone]

OMG this was so frustrating. I don't know how you do it!

[@rondaherriott]

I hope someone who knows that person, sees this video and sends it to him

[@robertadsett5273]

“I’m on your side” that he feels he needs to say that is a trifle disturbing and illuminating

[@lnsflare1]

I don't like being hurt. I don't like people that would hurt me, and would react in an intensely negative fashion against someone that does so. Basic human sympathy leads me to believe that other people also don't enjoy being hurt and don't like the people that hurt them and would also react in an intensely negative fashion against someone that hurts them. Basic human empathy makes me feel bad when other people feel bad, especially when I'm the cause of it, and I don't want to be like the people that would hurt me in general and I especially don't want people to do to me what I would do to them if they had deliberately hurt me. Therefore, I won't deliberately hurt other people under most circumstances and will try and arrange a social contract where other people won't deliberately hurt me under most circumstances, either, including setting up non-emotional consequences to further disincentivize deliberately hurting one another. Bingo bongo, morals and ethics, as well as a basic legal system, all without needing a God to tell us what to do.

[@bradypustridactylus488]

I am been so obfuscated and confused by people telling me that two concepts that are obviously synonymous (when I use them in parallel sentences, the two sentences mean the same thing) are not synonyms, but in fact, one is contingent on the other, and there must be an explanation for that contingency. I feel like a puppy chasing its own tail.

[@mizaelmendez3843]

That was a spooky ending…😳😳

[@ChosenOne41]

I feel like I can define morality pretty easily without god. For instance, I don't enjoy being punched in the face, because of this I don't think other people enjoy it either, therefore it is immoral to go around randomly punching people in the face. We all have feelings and emotions, and we have a sense of which ones are positive and negative. We know how we would like to be treated, and we just simply have to treat others with this in mind. I guess my morality is based on empathy instead of god.

[@TheCount991]

I would say that there is more to it than the golden rule, but it is a good place to at least start at. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" doesn't always work out. There are things I like that some other people don't, and vice-versa, so I think "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them" is better, but still incomplete. There is also the issue of when something that isn't good for you is still beneficial overall. Trying to phase out fossil fuel use is going to suck for a lot of people, but that doesn't mean that the eventual benefits of avoiding making climate change worse than it has to be don't outweigh the costs.

[@ChosenOne41]

@@TheCount991 With the thing about how people like different things, generally we know what most people like and when we are different. Like if someone loves overly spicy food they should be aware that not everyone is like that and if they were to have guests over to not over spice all the food. Also, with the fossil fuel thing, that is short term good vs long term good. It's like how I wouldn't eat 100 cookies in one sitting because even thought they taste good, I know I'll get sick.

[@cy-one]

Morality, to me, just means an evaluation of the consequences of an action that affect other people. A moral framework is a list of preferred outcomes as well as the ones we seek to avoid. Like bringing joy and avoiding harm. To be moral means to apply that moral framework.

[@wolf1066]

Your intro totally rules over many on KZbin.

[@cherryknight6911]

Your intro is objectively better.

[@ziploc2000]

Why is there a security guard/policeman in the back of the room? Do people regularly try to beat up Turek at these events?

[@DanDan-eh7ul]

Given how utterly infuriating, demeaning, rude, and dismissive he can be, I wouldn't put it past someone

[@WukongTheMonkeyKing]

Likely to remove protestors or anyone who Frank doesn't like. Or because some venues require security for any event.

[@Nocturnalux]

When it comes to wellbeing and religion, it truly depends on the religious tradition in question. For example, Catholicism is very often overtly opposed to wellbeing in any way we can recognize the word. Suffering is emulated, pain is something to be sought and a life spent in untold horror is to be preferred. Ultimately, "wellbeing" may apply here if one considers its "spiritual" angle but what is proposed is very often entirely opposed to anything we would recognize as "wellbeing".

[@allenanderson4911]

When my grandfather fought against Hitler, he was directly disobeying Jesus: Mathew 5:39 "Resist not an evil man..."

[@drewharrison6433]

Anyone who says "God would never command such a thing." has obviously never read the old testament...

[@margaretbarrett6087]

So true - the bible should be renamed “God’s Guide to Genocide “

[@cy-one]

@@margaretbarrett6087 God's Guide to gloriously gratifying and generous Genocide? :D

[@margaretbarrett6087]

@@cy-one 👍

[@rainbowkrampus]

A basis for morality is dead simple. We are a social species. Without social engagement we suffer cognitive and cardiovascular decline and eventually die, one way or another. As the existence of society is a necessary condition for the continuation and well being of individuals. And since individuals typically value their continuation and well being. A system governing equality and fairness, with the goal of apportioning the means to achieve continuation and well being within the limitations of the natural world, was all but inevitable. We have morality because we have society and because we are society and because we need society. It's that simple. No gods required. Gods might not even factor into our morality were they even real, given that to my knowledge they don't actually interact with society.

[@DC_Prox]

"on" our world view, "on" atheism, this phrasing is something I've noticed recently, and I'm pretty sure it's intentional, the idea is to make it sound like atheism is a drug. You're not just being logical, you're "on something"

[@goldenageofdinosaurs7192]

My personal favorite is speedballs. I take a good amount of critical thought, then mix it with some logic & mainline that shit. What an enlightening rush!

[@incredulouspasta3304]

No, it's just normal language in philosophy. It's shorthand for "on the assumption that proposition X is true..."

[@Simon.the.Likeable]

And Frank Turek is the tip-top bestest philosophemer of them all.

[@jaclo3112]

@@incredulouspasta3304 except Turek has demonstrated that he is incapable of formulating a logical thought and argues theology not philosophy.

[@incredulouspasta3304]

@@jaclo3112 Okay, but my point is that the terminology isn't the issue.

[@awakeningtovacuity8372]

Turek kind of resorted to bullying when he got backed into a corner.

[@hamanime]

10:55 I don't think Turek focuses on the one inflicting pain, but the one receiving it. There are people who "enjoy" being humiliated or pain being afflicted to them. So no harm is done here. The key word in those cases of course is consent.

[@billmelaterplease]

Started the video. Now, let’s see how long I last trying to listen to Frank without smashing my head against the wall.

[@billmelaterplease]

I made it to the end! Kudos Zod!

[@Kualinar]

An important thing about morality is that it predates all religions. Even several animals demonstrate that they have some sens of morality. Wolves, bears, dauphins, belugas, lions and hyenas have been observed in the wild to show moral behaviour. Then, religions came along, appropriated morality and twisted and perverted it to suit their narratives, to support their dogmas.

[@Noughtbutashadow]

That’s just ironic

[@ProphetofZod]

The ironing is delicious.

[@tedferkin]

Talk about projecting from Frank Turek. I would like to ask an apologist, "What is your god's purpose for us and the Universe"

[@c.guydubois8270]

Praise the pertinent algorithm..

[@katarinatibai8396]

I love that word : Scharlatan. It's 100% the right one for this Frank guy. It's the same word in the German language 👍👍👍

[@Stinky97000]

I'd like to hear what Jack has to say about that interaction

[@bodan1196]

What _is_ the purpose of life? According to the theist; life is a selection process. An immigration process for heavenly citizenship. The manner in which you present yourself, and how well you follow the given rules, determines if you may pledge alligence. The manner in which you judge and punish others for not being able to follow the rules, lets you advance in the process, and gives you extra credit. To me; life's only purpose it to continue. The manner in which we _want_ life to continue, lends us the rules. The manner in which we cherry pick and disregard these rules, and when, suggests how moral we might be. Morals are in my world view, a constructed tool of measurement, to help guide us towards cooperation. Morals are therefore to be considered. Despite being artificial. In the theistic world view, I see morals to be superfluous, without meaning or value. Except... they do come in handy for that extra credit.

[@lancearmstrong7864]

Good that I am not Christian

[@seanjones2456]

Frank Turdek is really, really good at being wrong! He could teach a MasterClass!