Atheist Uses POPULAR Straw Man Arguments Then Learns Valuable Lesson | DEBATE 

😂

😂😢

​@@Mrguy-ds9lr Yeah I have a laugh/cry reaction to this too.

The trans movement is an atheist movement indeed! No truth exists.

Hmmm....can you provide the TIMESTAMP where Steven SAID THAT?

C.S.Lewis was wrong. He should have stuck to children's books. He was a terrible philosopher.

@@nitsujismi dont think you have any clue or ground to stand on whether he wrong or right. The atheist/material/reductionist position with morality is an argument with no foundation. You have little to appeal to and your justifications are laughable.

If morality is related to evolution, wouldn't that admit that past morality is less righteous than the present but future morality with be more righteous than the present? Meaning our morality is not righteous enough now.

⁠​⁠@@nitsujism Reading his books, he was fairly knowledgeable, but I don’t think atheists would agree with you saying “wrong”.

Do you agree with that position? That quote is an argument supporting moral relativism.

Why?

@miserableman9088 abortion is cruel and painful when the limbs are being torn off the living little human being

Get ready for the mental gymnastics team 😂😂😂

​@@miserableman9088 Dehumanizing babies inside their mother's womb doesn't make it more acceptable. Also why exactly an absence of pain makes the killing of innocents more acceptable ? Personally, I'm not troubled by meat because that's how the animal kingdom was made, we live in ecosystems where predators exist and it turns out meat is good for us.

​@miserableman9088 My farm, my choice. No farm no opinion. Thats how it goes....right?

I had some lamb last night, and I didn't feel bad. In fact, I felt good. But now I'm feeling bad, that he felt bad for thinking about eating meat. He does not know what he's missing. I feel so sorry for him 😔

That is precisely what he said, and precisely why his claims are so flawed. I'm sure Hitler, Stalin, and Mao didn't feel bad about all the people they killed, which is why they kept on doing it. Steven would have to agree that they were not morally wrong, except by his subjective standard, and I doubt that would be enough for him to gather the courage to fight such monsters.

I don’t feel bad eating meat because I understand that God placed some animals on earth for humans to eat. Does he feel bad that cats eat mice? Wolves eat deer!

​@@kaptaink1959 Cats cannot cook french fries, that's what vegetarians mean

@@SuperMrAndersentell the Inuit to not eat the marine animals they do. Tell them to go to the grocery store and pickup some veggies😂

What's the timestamp where he said that?

@@mrhyde7600 gays women and slaves

That’s not what I think as an atheist, tho we can disagree amongst each other.

It's a lot better now than it was in biblical times.

@@DM-dk7js The atheist in the video....

It only took them 14 centuries then to pass a law.

@@downshift4503 but that still doesn’t take away from who God is but more a reminder on who we are because of sin. So someone that follows God has to be perfect and create a perfect reality? Impossible only 1 person in history was able to do that and that was Jesus Christ

@@downshift4503 One could say that at least they passed the law. How did other cultures and nations do compared to it? your comment just shows your bias towards christianity, nothing else.

@@sauliruottu5871 Remember the claim is that God is supposedly at the centre of your religion and yet he does nothing for century after century but watch people suffer. He can create billions of galaxies and billions of planets, but he can't tell a bunch of african apes not to enslave each other. Before you say "free will", he was perfectly ok with having people executed for collecting sticks on the sabbath.

@@NathanNiederer You are describing a weak God that doesn't care about people.

Morality is grounded in how you feel about things. Your feelings inform you of your innate tendencies.

My thoughts exactly. The atheist said he "feels bad" for eating meat....it keeps him up at night. Sooo, his subconsciousness makes him feel that way for the "greater good" basically...cool. Now, I just pray that the likes of Mao, Hitler, and Stalin "felt bad" for being responsible for the unjust murder of millions and millions of people. Oh wait, they didn't "feel bad". That subjective moral compass really can bite humanity in the arse.

And apparently so is thinking you're competent at interpreting the word of god. You guys don't have a great tract record with that.

@@downshift4503 Your feelings and innate tendencies may influence how you choose to act, but they cannot lay any claim to what is right/wrong.

​@@downshift4503The whole point of morality is *restraining* your feelings and bad innate tendencies. We all live in a fallen world and have a fallen nature, even atheists accept that, so we can’t trust our feelings, no. True morality is discovered by reason and imposed into our animal passions

That's just playing in the Christian's court. It also points out that God rarely takes action, but when he does, it is the worst possible response. It is usually some fancy way of killing or harming people as a solution.

Does God have free will? Does he ever do wrong? No. Conclusion: he could have created a universe where humans have free will, but always do the right thing. Instead he chose not to. He chose to create us imperfectly. He chose to create us as such, with full knowledge we would break the rules and be cast from the garden of Eden. He stacked the deck against us.

@@ToHellWithDawkinsof course he could’ve. So you should ask the question, why?

​@@ToHellWithDawkins This has nothing to do with the point I was making but ok, I'll take up your non sequitur. God to Christians is the God of love. The reason He created everything is so He had something to love and be loved back in turn. But for that love to mean anything it must be made by a being with free will. So God purposefully made us with the ability to reject him so that when we instead chose him, it means something. This is why there is evil in the world and why God permits it. No amount of anger at God for creating us with the free will to go against Him will change the fact that it is still US who chose to go against Him.

​@@ToHellWithDawkins How could you have free will if you can't decide not to do the right thing though ? The root of the issue is that we'd like to do whatever we want without any negative consequences and certainly without any accountability. God tells you that your sin condemns you and answering 'but He shouldn't have to condemn me' doesn't put the blame on Him in fact it only highlight that you'd like to sin but not deal with the consequences. However, He provided a way for us to be saved in Jesus, so clearly He hasn't set up humans for failure instead He thought of a mean of redemption because in His Mercy He prefered that we learn from the experience of sin, that we realize that there is nothing good in it and turn back to Him and His perfect love.

Yep, they steal from God, then spit in his face.

All morals come from man’s mind, not the baby-foreskin munching storm demon.

Atheists use a God they don't believe in as a moral standard?

Right?

Except he's not doing that and you're misrepresenting his position.

Exactly!

And then calls that morality.

Did he get upset? Or was it an example of subjective morality? Well, eating rabbits requires killing them, which ought be immoral be we do it anyways. Morality is subjective. Regarding abortion, yup once again morality is subjective.

What reasons do Christians have to be upset about abortion? After all, aren't aborted babies just getting a free pass to heaven?

With reference to your post about roe v wade Are you a Christian that's against killing innocent babies?

This is exactly it. You trace back their reasoning and every time, they literally have no choice to stop at a “just-so-ism.” Empathy is not a prescription; it does not have a mind or a will to actually tell you “you should be empathetic.” It is as concerned with your empathy as onion rings lol

How do they even account for empathy?

personally I feel better when I maximize utility and resources for myself at the expense of others.. Time to go be a good atheist :)

Yeah bruv I see it.

@@Papa-dopoulos Exactly!

Well, if we believe God is eternal and unchanging, the same today as yesterday and forever, then he wouldn’t ever pivot at all. The good thing is that Eden in Genesis is a picture of God’s ideal world, and Eve is no second class citizen. Turning women into chattel is something humans did in rebellion to God.

If God pivots then its not objective, it's subjective, it depends on Gods mood.

Come on, they hate the God they don't believe in, and only they have the attributes of what God can and can't be. Completely rational and logical

@@Thelast1leftNOW Do you think it's possible to hate something that you don't believe actually exists?

@@davegaskell7680 the idea of it? Absolutely! Obsessing over it? Absolutely not! Especially when the arguments are usually disagreeance, and not disbelief

I agree. They base reality upon their theories. Our theories need to be proven or disproven by observing reality.

No, the workhorse of atheism is the lack of evidence for Theism.

Scientific anti-realism should have a louder position in the overall plausibility structure of scientific knowledge... but it's mostly untold in order to improperly given naturalistic knowledge unobjectionable epistemic authority in claims about reality scientific anti-realism would indicate that certain things that we can't observe well, like electrons, deserve more speculation and can't be proven to exist by empirical data, so we should treat such findings as competing theories. Naturalism is not to be assumed as a prior in the same way as moral knowledge, logic, math, etc., it's not chiefly self-evident in way that supernaturalism is completely unwarranted. Randomness / unguided development isn't a better, epistemically more authoritative answer

Yes, which is why most of atheism is fine with someone believing in whatever religion they want, so long as it accepts the claims of a universe/earth that is billions of years old. The world having accepted that divergent claim is all that allows for their other divergent claims to hold any water.

​@@Feraeondnah atheist don't care if you believe the universe is 8 days old. The problem is when your actions are justified by this belief and that it has a negative effect on the atheist. If you keep your beliefs to yourself, atheist doesn't care.

no bonobo chimp has ever been known to kill another bonobo chimp (thou shalt not murder) while the more common chimpanzee regularly kill their own kind. does the bonobo get their "morality" from God ?

For example...?

@@atheistangel007 he has no examples, he's just throwing out jabs hoping to look like he's putting up a fight.

The athiest cannot change the narrative ; while contending there is no God, he blames Him for failures.

@user-yo3li7tk7b An atheist is not claiming there is "no God", an atheist claims they are not convinced any god exists, and it would not be logical to blame something that we have no good reason to believe exists. The "blame" comes from the hypothetical in assuming for the sake of argument that YOUR chosen god does exist, and that if it indeed does, it is apathetic to a great many issues, so what "good" is it?

You forgot the part where slavery and breeding of slaves, was defended by Christians owners and politicians (US mainly) even after other Christians along with non Christians defended abolition. If this is not an example of how morality is subjective in Christianity, tell me why. Same with the racial segregation question that plagued Christians countries until recently, with a divide among Christians to find it morally acceptable or not.

Christian countries : the United States. Funny how you broaden the scope when it's specific to a single country. Christianity doesn't promote but condemn slavery, meanwhile supposedly "Christian" countries like the United States exploited the faith for their gains. After leaving the church should I remind you, Americans are neither Catholic nor Orthodox. Meanwhile slavery and exploitation of other human beings was done perfected under secular regimes such as the Third Reich or Stallinism. Both coincidentally anti-clerical

@@deguilhemcorinne418 For part one it is easy. The desires of those who wished to enslave and unnaturally breed their slaves is contrary to Christian values. So far from their being those who were one type of Christian with their beliefs and another type of Christian with theirs, what you instead have are those who are living according to the principles of Christian doctrine, and those who are not. To condemn Christianity as a whole because people who are Christian act in unChristian ways is like condemning science as a study because some scientists who don't properly apply the scientific method, cause terrible things. As for racial segregation, there are two principles at war there. The first to do unto others as you would have them do to you, and then the protection of your own people from danger. Some Christians embraced one as primary, others the latter, until it was realized that the latter was greatly exaggerated and so, as you pointed out, its ditched and replaced entirely by the former. Remember not to base your judgement on what we know now, but rather on what people thought at the time.

@@tomosjackson4760 I agree that history and socio-politic evolution have a great influence on religion practice and understanding and at reverse, that evolution of religious ideas have a great influence on the historical and social construct. Or at least, is part of it. The fact is that there is and - throughtout history - was no unity about the moral outcomes and other understandings of Christian faith, which is perfectly understandable from a down-to-earth point of view, and requires no condemnation, other than condemning those who want to force their beliefs on you (valid for any religion).

@@deguilhemcorinne418 If you are referring to heresy, I'm not sure that counts. An incorrect interpretation of the Christian teachings cannot be used to show that Christianity is inconsistent, in just the same way as incorrect use of the scientific method cannot be used to say that science is inconsistent. If you are referring to growth of understanding in Christianity then that is no reason not to proselytize the religion amongst others. And if by "forcing your religion on others" you mean forced conversions then that is also condemned, but if you are simply referring to wishing to live as a Christian in a Christian society then I would argue that this version of "force" is applied by any society that has laws full stop.

1 Samuel 15:3

@@downshift4503 1 Samuel 15:2 Genesis 6:4-11 Numbers 13:26-32 better luck next time

Sadly and ashamedly, so much has been done "in the name of Jesus" that God never told us to do. Not all 'Christians' are true, born again, followers of Christ. Thus, we should not blame Jesus for things done, contrary to His commands.

If man wages war in the name of God, the atheist doesn't blame God, since he doesn't think God is real. He blames the religion that inspired or justificated the war.

@@elvancor Hate to break it to you, but most if not all wars are economically based. People, religious or non will use rationalization to find a moral justification. So we have the following: 1. Blame God or Religion 2. Secular crimes are ignored 3. Don't say anything bad about the bankers.

I see it daily on a small scale. Whole communities believe something is good because everyone has come to accept it. The Athiest made one good point but in the opposite direction of how I should be applied (paraphrased), "if there is an omnipotent God then what was acceptable yesterday wouldn't flip to be acceptable today. An omnipotent being wouldn't flip their virtues like that " True. But it isn't that these things are now acceptable and God approves of them. It is quite the opposite. Many things were wrong that are still wrong and our culture has set morality aside.

Yes, taking credit for the good in history on massively generalized terms while shifting blame for the bad is self-defeating. It is not an objective assessment to suggest that atheists of the Enlightenment are credited with the civil advances of that time while ignoring the similarly prescient timeline of the Reformation which made the Bible widely available to the masses not in power to read for themselves for the first time ever without the corrupt traditions and interpretations wrought by Roman Catholicism. Of the few correlatives which exist, one of the most obvious is the American Revolution and what it produced with its foundation on Biblical principles compared to the French Revolution and what it produced with its egalitarian/anti-religion principles. One resulted in the first unilateral banning of slavery in any governance in the world's history and the other was an imitation attempt that ended in the invention of the guillotine and a swift resurgence of totalitarian rule after anarchy descended into chaos. Atheism's attempt to make a pale imitation of theism while discarding the theism part of it remains of a similar model and aftereffect every time to this day.

So you admit to subjective morality!

@@mrhyde7600 How on earth did you come to that conclusion from his statement??

So the biblical guidance on taking slaves and keeping them is still morally right today? You would feel it's morally OK for someone to possess you as a slave as long as they kept you within the guidelines set out in the bible.

That’s what I find surprising too. Seems like a smart chap, but seems wholly disinterested in actually understanding the claims of those he’s attempting to dispute. It’s the blistering incuriosity that’s so jarring.

It's getting more common for people to watch 2 or 3 TikTok videos and consider that sufficient to inform themselves. Those are the people who follow someone who has had a cursory introduction to Christianity and don't like particularly parts because they either 1)Misunderstand them or 2) Don't like them because it grinds against particular sin(s) they cherish and have no desire to stop committing.

He's not lacking knowledge about xianity - he just doesn't share your interpretation.

Yes he's the quintessential vehemently against things he knows nothing about.

​@@sidwhiting665- So you don't object to the parts of the Bible where god condones owning people as slaves? You think owning people as property is moral?

Correct, and Paul mentions this also, it would be like asking "is a meter a meter because the meter stick says so or because the meter exists outside the meter stick?"

Almost there

Perfectly good character? You mean the being who created a place of internal hellfire? The one who commands genocide of people? The one who is a promoter of slavery? Good grief

Joshua, why don't you have your own content? I would definitely sub if you were giving the same insight I see you give in the comment section.

It still sounds like one of the horns, just said in a different way.

I’ll choose the guy with the mullet. He’s probably less petty, doesn’t have ego issues.

@@DM-dk7js Yes he does. He thinks he is his own law. That's pretty arrogant.

@@holdingonforlife1there’s only one law. And it’s the law man creates.

“Part time Dungeon master with a mullet” That really made me laugh!! God forgive me!! Two atheist scientists, that is two fatalists/epistemological nihilists who subscribed to evolutionary psychology were making their way back to camp through the plains of the savannah in Southern Africa after getting separated from their guide. The two men both had MULLETS but decided to jog quickly back to camp to avoid being attacked by any large carnivores but followed the wrong trail and got lost!! Eventually they stopped under the shade of a tree and removed their sports trainers to enjoy the shade and cool grass on their bare-feet. Suddenly, they both noticed a rather large lioness crouched in the long grass stalking them from 100 metres away. They turned and walked slowly in the opposite direction in their bare feet, the lioness slowly followed them. They increased their pace, the lioness moved quicker as well. They both suddenly started to jog, the lioness matches their jogging pace. 
One of the atheistic scientists suddenly decides to stop, quickly crouches down, and starts to put his trainers back on as fast as possible!! The other scientist exclaims smugly… “What on Earth are you doing? You’re a scientist surely you know that WE can’t out-run a hungry lioness and they can actually climb trees!!” The scientist now with his trainers tightly fastened grimly replies…. 
“what’s this “WE” business? I don’t need to out-run a hungry lioness, I just need to out-run YOU to the next tree and your MULLET weighs more than mine!! The scientist in his bare sore feet in disgust exclaims…. “I thought that you were some kind of “MORAL” subjectivist and vegan? The scientist now with his trainers tightly fastened with a grim smile exclaims… “MORAL” and “VEGANISM” I believe in “survival of the fittestism” your ultimately nothing more substantive than an HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APE and a spineless, annoying one with a MULLET at that!!!” And he sets off at high speed!! The atheist screams after the “MORAL” subjectivist as the lion quickly catches up, “Oh my God help me!!” Suddenly the light becomes more vivid and everything is still. The voice of a divine messenger speaks from the Savannah plain, “So now you need the absolute, now you need that of which nothing greater can be conceived’s help?” The divine messenger asks the atheist.. “What do you want? I’m busy cleaning up Cr…p literally everywhere, this is a FALLEN WORLD!!” The atheist surprised by the language responds……. “You’re so powerful can’t you spare a few seconds and kill that ferocious lioness for me? I’ll do anything and its about to tear me limb from limb!!” The heavenly messenger heaved an enormous numinous sigh and a deep sadness appeared on the messengers face…….. “No I can’t kill that beautiful LIONESS and I thought that you were a “MORAL” subjectivist? What do you take me for Lucifer? The absolute don’t do unfair deals it’s a free lunch!!” The atheist replied in desperation…. “Can’t you at least ask to make that Lioness a MORAL OBJECTIVIST? The divine messenger replies….. “You denied the existence of the absolute, universal, OBJECTIVE ground of truth, beauty, love and goodness your entire life and pretended that his ancient messengers were just backwards thinking, science denying, Bronze Age goat herders and that you were held to ransom with the old “fear, fire and Hell nonsense!!”? “And now you’re begging me to ask if it’s OK to either kill or frighten the Hell out of this poor lioness who has three starving lion cubs on the run from hyenas?” The atheist a little surprised by the messengers language replies…. “Oh!! Sorry, good point! Well, couldn’t you at least ask him to make the lioness a good Christian?” “I’ll do my best,” said the messenger. “But I’m really treading on dodgy territory asking that we interfere with the future and metaphysics and the whole FREEWILL thing and the delicate fabric of time and space and the character of the absolute etc!!”. In a moment the light changes back and the voice fades away. The lioness suddenly miraculously kneels down in front of the “MORAL” subjectivist/atheist, bows her head solemnly, and says, “Thank you, Lord, for what I am about to receive.” The End… 😎❤️

@@DM-dk7js But if man creates it, we don't know which man does. "The majority" isn't correct, and isn't even clearly defined.

Exactly. It's a false dilemma. And you have identified another alternative that is the reality. God's commands are not arbitrary, nor are they sourced from a goodness separate from God. God IS the source of goodness. His commands are an expression of His character/nature.

God's commands sometimes do seem arbitrary such as when he commanded Ezekiel to bake cakes with human poo, but then settled for cow poo instead because Ezekiel protested.

It possibly seems arbitrary until one supposes that God knew Ezekiel would protest and thus incited said behavior for His particular purpose. (I don’t suppose to purport the Will of God, I’m just hypothesizing)

@@jeremybridges6015 I am not sure what the purpose of that episode is either.

@@jeremybridges6015 incited or allowed?

Can we use *ANY* "God" as the basis for this "objective" moral standard you speak of or just the SPECIFIC SUBJECTIVE invisible being *YOU* determined to be the "correct" one out of the many thousands man has preposed.? 🙄 🤔 If its the latter then in actuality its *YOU* and YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION that is determining morality dear. if its the former, then asserting objectivity to any moral claim based upon a "God" becomes a completely vacuous useless concept 👍 The claim that theistic morality is somehow "objective" is ridiculous. Theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄🤔

@@trumpbellend6717 Has there been moral progress to this day in your view?

​​@@linusloth4145 I think so, we no longer think it acceptable to *"Buy your slaves from the heathen nations that surround you"* Nor that *"if you beat your male or female slave with a rod and they do not die for a day or two"* *"There shall be NO PUNISHMENT for they are your PROPERTY and your money"* I would say that is a step in the right direction wouldn't you ? 😜 Modern societies think that the gathering of sticks on a sabath is not nor ever was immoral and worthy of stoning to death. The same applies also to our unruly rebellious children who disobey their parents ( sounds like most teenagers to me ) . Thankfully a judge today recognizes a girl who has been raped and did not scream is actually a VICTIM and not deserving of death as the bible dictates. Again I would discribe humanity as better off in a meaningful way by disregarding these filthy hurtful religious dictates, do you disagree?? 🙄🤔

​​@@linusloth4145 "Hello Mcfly" 🤭

He says everyone decides their own morality, that doesn't mean that one is not allowed to critique that morality.

LOL!!! Great post!

It is almost like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens inspired an accent to be adopted by the general culture of intellectual atheists in much the same way as gay men in the last thirty years collectively took on a kind of valley girl persona as their chief orientation signal.

"Muslims in the middle ages thought Christian men were cucks and slaved who worshipped and served their wives (...) Early modern visitors from Japan and China made the same observation that women seemed to be the dominant sex in the west" Citation needed.

@@Feraeond , I haven't noticed many gay men taking on female persona recently. That is something I associate with drag queens, not gay men in general. You are right about the Dawkins/Hitchens "official" atheist accent, however.

@mysotiras21 You probably don't live in the SF Bay area then. Haha The most recent example I personally overheard was a certain hair stylist in SF last week when I was at the same salon with my friend and her son getting his hair cut. But yes, drag queens take it to another level of blatant for sure.

He is wrong on pope allowing the same sex marriage. Pope just said priests could bless same sex couples as individuals...that's not blessing their union which is a sin but blessing the individuals. Catholic church teachings didn't change....it's the same old teaching taught again.

The Catholic Church compiled and canonized the Bible and precedes it. All Catholic beliefs are in the Bible and vice versa.

not even that, he has a problem with the fact no human is perfect which is a claim central to all branches of Christianity with Christ being the exception

Religion gives God a bad name. Even in Jesus day, there were two religions that had the Bible and Jesus saw they were all about the money and kicked their tables over. Not only that he said they were hypocrites and the blind leading the blind and to top it off he told those so-called Holy men that they were of their father the devil.

Typical internet atheist

Idk he seemed very polite and cordial. Such as finishing with thanking everyone and looking forward to the conversation

After years of Roman myths and Lutheran protestant bibles, an atheist enjoys seeing these religious people squirm. Also an atheist will pick up one small part of information and that becomes the entire proof against. All atheist want God to be true, we just looked in the book and religion for God. God and Jesus is true, just not from Roman myth or any book. - an ex atheist that found God and Jesus, just like Jesus asked.

@@We.are.all.human. I am an agnostic, and raised atheist, and I have never enjoyed seeing religious people 'squirm'. I actually have my respect for many Christians. We don't just pick up one part of information. There are countless topics atheists have spoken about, covering many different aspects of the Bible, religion etc

@@hydraph4843 then you are a different person than an atheist. If what you say is true, you have a Christian heart. For me and all the atheist I know, we believe all religions are myths. I was very wrong to believe Christianity is a religion. I still know religion is man made myth. I found respect for humanity and Jesus in my heart. The Roman and Lutheran religions turned me to atheism over 30 years ago. I just found Jesus this year at 44.

@@We.are.all.human. Either way I don't think the God of the Bible as depicted in the Bible is true

Except that’s there also no OUGHT from theism either. Naturalists and those who reject naturalism have the same issue of determining and/or justifying an objective ought.

. "Right and wrong" are words that are relative to the actualization of a desired goal or outcome, absent said goal, the terms right and wrong become meaningless. My "goal" is the actualization of a healthy flourishing coperative society based upon our common desires with respect to wellbeing and the values it incorporates, empathy, respect, equality, altruism, reciprocity. That is why one "ought" to treat another's as you would like to be treated, One "ought not steal if you wish to live in a society were property is not stolen. One "OUGHT" not murder if they want to live in a society were people are not murdered. This is our "reference point" or standard. One "should" or "ought" do something if Its conducive with the actualisation of a situation that conforms with one's goals and values. These "values" themselves are subjective by definition however it is entirely possible to make Objective declarations or decisions 'Within a pre-agreed framework of subjective values'. Values are socially approved desires that are internalised through the process of conditioning, learning or socialisation and that become subjective preferences, standards and aspirations a shared idea about how something is ranked in terms of desirability, worth or goodness *What is your "goal" and why 'OUGHT' one do what your subjective God desires* ?? 🙄🤔

@@trumpbellend6717 If that’s true, why do we fight so hard against societies norms such as slavery in America or civil rights in America. The best explanation for that is true objective morality. (Your definition doesn’t work because it’s dependent on a changing societies viewpoint not making it true objectivity). We know that chattel slavery is wrong even if not everyone agrees. So we fight for what is objectively right.

@@arcticpangolin3090 Theists don’t merely argue that there are oughts in only a theistic worldview. OUGHTS are everyone’s reality already. You know and I know that people OUGHT to behave a certain way regardless of societal norms. Even if our society believed in torturing babies for fun was good thing, you would think they OUGHT not to do that. Naturalism has no explanation for what is our current reality. For things everybody knows.

​​@@justinrobinson9482He already answered your question. He said "we ought to treat others like we would like to be treated". It's mutually beneficial. I don't think you should bring up slavery at all when the Bible actively supports it. Modern day Christians simply changed their moral beliefs from what it was In the past. Biblical and religious morality isn't objective nor unchanging. Even if it were true that morality can only come from God and be objective, then you also need to explain how come that only means your God and not any of the other ones from other religions. If you don't believe me about the positive manner in which slavery is talked about in tbe Bible, you should check out Dan Mcclellan's channel, he's a Bible scholar and has a couple of videos on slavery in the Bible. And please don't bring up the verse about the Bible condemning kidnapping, it was a different crime and overall certain rules and protections didn't apply to non-israelites. Religious morality is dependent on social changes as much as any other type of morality.

Ask Howard Storm. Jesus pulled him out of Hell. He quit his lucrative professorship and became a pastor.

​@ninja3687 Yet that's not biblically true. Hebrews says " It is appointed once for a man to die, and then the judgement." A person, biblically, does not go straight to hell, upon death (see Revelation).

​@@museofire That doesn't mean God can't make exceptions.

@@MrEkzotic He could, but it goes against his word. Why make an exception for one, when millions could have the same choice, if God so wanted it?

I guess people who believe in Lord Shiva think the same about Christians.

Exactly!!

to be fair the euthyphro dilemma is actually a valuable tool against islam. Because it shows their god cant be trusted.

Then perhaps you could provide some EXAMPLES of that accusation. I'm curious.

​@@mrhyde7600...alphabet mafia...

​@@mrhyde7600 self importance rules

@@shanahendricks9831 Was that an example, or just random words?

@@mrhyde7600 an example lol 🤣

Objective morality is just an idea and nobody proved it's existence

@@SuperMrAndersen Is that an objective statement? 🤔 Or is it just your opinion?

@@Mark-zo1hs It's the definition of objective morality

Do you have evidence that an "objective morality" exists? Who and how determines the objectivity?

same with atheist, and parent of a trans identified child. Except I usually notice people will announce their veganhood even sooner than vegetarians tend to.

Just that you'll have guys like Tommy Tallarico claiming to be vegan, but... Nope.

Romans 7:4-6 [4] Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. [5] For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. [6] But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code. Hebrews 7:18-19 [18] For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness [19] (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God. Galatians 3:11-14 [11] Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” [12] But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” [13] Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us-for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”-[14] so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith. (Perhaps this is the emphasis Dude was referring to.)

The law is based on the 10 commandments, again stealing from Christians.

I think he means low about slavery and killing gays in bible etc

@@SuperMrAndersen I think you don't understand what I wrote.

@@johndoh795 Ok, maybe

Are you an atheist? If yes, why?

The CS Lewis book is too difficult for 99% of Christians. But he's also plain wrong. Here's the reality of God's objective morality. It's not anywhere as complex as CS Lewis tries to fool people with ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-4pdYmIwxYTE.html

CS Lewis is a dumbdumb without any evidence. LMAO.

Go and read the epistles and instructions to women.

Are woman not excluded from the same roles as men?

From all the conversations I have had with people presenting this criticism, it comes down to a lust for power. If one is a follower rather than a leader, they are inherently being regarded with second-class value. Since scripture articulated the husband's and father's leadership in marriage, therefore the wife or daughter is second-class. Nevermind references establishing equal value like in Galatians. Equality of value means equality of authority in the modern doctrines it seems. Galatians 3:25-28 [25] But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, [26] for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. [27] For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. [28] There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

@Feraeond thank you. I was alluding to this issue. It seems to be more of an issue of people assuming certain roles mean one is superior to another. An example in modernity would be the consideration that the role of homemaker is looked down upon by virtue of some false power dynamic. People pushing these types of views tend to errorneously assign more value and worth to the role of breadwinning while devaluing homemaking (roles that are and have been meant to be complimentary). Just because a person is a follower doesn't make one a second-class citizen. By that metric, most of society would be second-class. I appreciate the answer. You perfectly articulated the issue with this criticism. His other points have similarly flawed premises.

@downshift4503 My family recently got finished reading the New Testament chapter by chapter verse by verse. There is nothing there about "second-class" citizenry. Perhaps you have a skewed understanding of "second-class"?

❤️🙏

You'll find empathy and (moral) rules in social animals. Chimps, guerillas, whales, dolphins, dogs etc.

No that's just a word game. The claim is that God exists. It doesn't necessarily follow that a God is good. I don't call what happened in 1 Samuel 15:3 to be good.

Moral judgements are based on value and purpose, there is no atheistic grounding intellectually for value and purpose if everything was built by random acts of matter and energy. People live but inevitably die, materialistically dying and having memory annihilated returns every person’s value back to zero at some point, fulfilling no ultimate purpose or value. Naturalism promotes conquering, lying, and cheating to get ahead and assert superiority, especially if you can get away with it. There is no atheistic materialistic grounding for the way things ought to be.

IMO, the bottom line is that they are uncomfortable with the thought of taking full responsibility for their actions. Which is often understandable, no matter what you believe in or don't believe in. It's why existentialism is liberating and troubling at the same time.

Christians also do bizarre things like denounce morals as "mere" opinions if there is no God. Since when have opinions been unimportant? Individually, they are often not much, but get enough of them together and you have a set of laws, rules, and customs. They can also change or go away over time. Or reappear.

There are so many presuppositions in your thought process it's scary. No wonder atheism exists only in the affluent West.

@@mitchwatson6787 That's not true. People have been discovered living in primitive conditions that had no concept of God.

No we don't, we just think that sin is a ridiculous concept and that Christians that harp on that are hypocrites and cherry pickers.

Yeah your belief it is ridiculous. Unfortunately for you, guess you’ll find out some day. We’re flawed beings, we all make mistakes and at some point in time slip up, but that does not disprove the concept/reality of a creator vs something coming from nothing.

​@@bguman "Yeah your belief it is ridiculous." Because it's demonstrably so. "Unfortunately for you, guess you’ll find out some day" Not "unfortunately", I already know now. "We’re flawed beings, we all make mistakes and at some point in time slip up" Name something that isn't? "but that does not disprove the concept/reality of a creator" No, the fact that there is no good reason to believe anything has ever been "created", and the lack of evidence for any "creator" kinda does. "vs something coming from nothing." No one in their right mind claims that...theists do though. But again, we have no good reason to believe that there has ever been "nothing", so please do not try to misrepresent our position on this.

Morality is not subjective, it is historically contingent

@@HahaDamn How do you figure? And if this is the case, then how did we come up with the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights"?

@@LilySage-mf7uf pride is a deadly sin... also nobody is trying to portray slavery & genocide as good, that's a misinterpreted doctrine that atheists like to cling on to

They're often full of crap, so they probably make good fertilizer :D

🤭

Hi. I'm an atheist. Wanna expose my strawmen?

What straw men does he build?

@@mrhyde7600 no, I want you to make me one. But not yet. I’m not quite ready. I gotta finish overhauling my kitchen, then I’ll need one… maybe a week or so.

Not at all. Morality arises from your own tendencies.

@@downshift4503 What do you mean?

More like, rocks and water. 😅😂

There is none. This channel is cowardly and dishonest as many religious people people are for their religions.

@@24t44yn Prove freewill exists. Demonstrate it. You are lying.

@@24t44yn Being able to think doesn't demonstrate you have free will. It's just an emergent property or process happening inside your brain. No different than saying because I am able to sweat, therefore I have free will (though Prince Andrew would argue otherwise)

@@24t44yn I agree we didn't design ourselves. We are able to take decisions. We have a level of awareness. Decision making is a process of taking inputs (awareness) into a processor (brain), doing calculations based on functions (experience, understanding, instincts) and producing an output. This occurs in animals with sensors and brains. It even occurs in very simple animals. Do all animals have free will? A chess machine will take decisions depending on your move. Does it have free will? A washing machine can take decisions based on what point it is during the washing cycle. Does it have free will?

@@24t44yn The washing machine is aware of what time it is during its cycle, what the temperature of the water is, sometimes what the weight of the load is etc. That's how it is able to take decisions. Don't take "awareness" as the need to have a mind. Very simple animals such as certain shellfish have light sensors on their shells and are able to detect light and move towards or away from a source.... but I doubt very much they have minds.

@@24t44yn emotions are the result of chemical signals that your brain generates. We can alter your brain chemistry and you will experience emotions. You aren't in control of them, you just experience them. Animals have them too.

well stated

It's a shame that the Lord has been so averse to showing himself since the advent of photography, video and social media yet was showing up all over the place when no one could prove otherwise

To be honest, it's the total lack of evidence for the existence of god that leaves them unconvinced.

@@nikorn24 they will state that there is plenty of 'evidence' but all that evidence is either biblical or derived from the account of staunch believers. Whenever anybody finds god it seems to be when they're desperate and open to believing anything that gives them some hope.

@@PotatoPirate123 Yep, I've been asking for that evidence for years. No sign of it yet

@@nikorn24 I can tell you the answer - you have to submit to Jesus, have faith, believe what the Bible tells you as it is God's word. And that's basically the answer you will always get, because there isn't any evidence

This channel has been engaged in dishonesty for a long time. I thought that lying is a sin but I guess if yu do it for a god then not so much. LMAO

Alive being the key word there. Nobody is smug before God. It's not worth it Atheists!

“Smuggest man alive” Exactly!! It’s CRINGE atheism in full effect!! And smuggest MULLET ALIVE in full effect!! Nevertheless, according to the literary genius and forefather of psychology Fyodor Dostoyevsky…. “Even those who have renounced Christianity and attack it, in their inmost being still follow the Christian ideal, for hitherto neither their subtlety nor the ardour of their hearts has been able to create a higher ideal of man and of virtue than the ideal given by Christ of old” (Dostoyevsky). “There is in the world only one figure of absolute beauty: Christ. That infinitely lovely figure is, as a matter of course, an infinite marvel.” (Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Letter to niece Sofia Alexandrovna) (Time magazine ) is one of the most authoritative and informative guides to what is happening in politics, business, health and science. In a cover story (Time magazine) pointed out that Robert Coles was “the most influential living psychiatrist in the U.S.” that day!! According to the award winning psychiatrist Robert Coles… “All writings on ethics over the last 2000 years are simply footnotes to the sermon on the mount” (Robert Coles, psychiatrist, award winning author and professor emeritus at Harvard University.) In contrast fatalism and epistemological nihilism, that is atheism is comparable to a fish in a deep vast ocean bursting with life looking EVERYWHERE for evidence of water and life. A poet once pointed out that [Paraphrased]: “You are not just an ultimately meaningless droplet in the ocean, you are the whole of the ocean in the form of droplet!!” All the best and keep safe ❤️

That would be Mike Winger

What does his hair say?

If you can't refute facts then you start attacking the person. Nice. Typical theist's approach.

I'm unconvinced by your "argument from hairstyle"

😂

Seems as though none of you can take a joke. 🥲 plus his hair comes off a little bit liberal pagan. 🤣

“Do better” How patronising!! CRINGE atheism in full effect!! Sorry but “DO BETTER” according to who? Or what absolute, universal, objective standard of measure exactly? “DO BETTER” according to the standard of an overgrown amoeba with illusions of grandeur? Or “DO BETTER” according to nothing more substantive than the delusions of AN ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APE who shares half their DNA with bananas right? Your world view, your absurdity, your ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APE, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!! There’s still a tiny glimmer of hope though because perhaps Brenden ought to “DO BETTER ” according to the “NOTHING”? That is “DO BETTER” according to the standard of nothing more substantive than [DETERMINED BRAIN FIZZ] creating the illusion of stable patterns and regularities? That is nothing more substantive than the science project of vinegar and baking soda accidentally bubbling over right? Sorry but the fact is that under a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism your very ironic absolute truth claims about doing “BETTER” are nothing more substantive than the delusions of a determined machine, that is nothing more substantive than the delusions of a chemical and biological robot - right? That is nothing more substantive than the blind, mindless, ultimately meaningless accidental arrangement of POND SLIME evolved to an allegedly “HIGHER” order - right? Your world view, your absurdity, your “BETTER”, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!! Sorry but everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have a right to find it totally ridiculous, totally fatalistic, totally nihilistic, and totally and utterly self refuting!! Sorry but you need to “DO BETTER” Prove me “WRONG”? I’ll wait!! CHECKMATE NIHILIST!!

Where did sentient empathy, compassion and love come from? And what animal demonstrates the sentient consciousness of humans? Like do animals know they are animals of their own species kind? and we humans are sentient creative beings?

@@multihull40 Most animals are sentient. All sentient means is the ability to feel or perceive things. So for example anything that can touch, taste, see, hear or smell something in it's environment and react to that stimulus would be considered sentient. To answer your second question is more a question about intelligence than sentence. Some intelligent animals absolutely know that humans are smart creative being because they will seek out humans for help solving problems that they can't. For example, I've seen numerous examples of orca whales actively seeking out humans to ask for their help saving their friend's life. One of the times the orca would not leave boat and kept pestering it until the boat followed them to see what they wanted. The orca led the boat to a place where another orca was tangled up and stuck underwater and would have drowned if it's friend didn't seek out help from humans. The humans cut it free and the orca even brought the people a stingray after to thank them in his own way. The orcas in those cases obviously know that the humans have better problem solving skills and better knowledge/capabilities to help. They weren't seeking help from dolphins or other orcas. They knew the humans could help them solve a problem they could not. Animals are more similar to humans than most people give them credit for. Some have deep feelings and emotions that are very similar to our own.

​@@marksmith2003 Same as dogs though. People interpret their behaviour as human like sentient consciousness, like empathy compassion love and hate or revengefulness vindictive malicious behaviour to satisfy human type emotions of greed or selfishness. Your other comments were all speculation based on a premise that is actually not scientifically proven, like microbe to man evolution isn't a proven fact, it's a hypothetical proposition merely assumed from facts. The premise needs to be factual otherwise everything that follows is pure speculation. Design in nature is not a premise, neither is design requires a designer is not a premise.

@@multihull40 "Where did sentient empathy, compassion and love come from?" "empathy, and compassion" are human emotions triggered by chemical and electrical reactions in your brain. Love is similar. "what animal demonstrates the sentient consciousness of humans?" Dolphins for example. "Like do animals know they are animals of their own species kind?" Yes, some of them recognize their own species. "we humans are sentient creative beings?" So is apes.. "No one can change their ape ancestry, but some can conceal it better than others" - Christopher Hitchens

@@multihull40 "Same as dogs though." Depends on the breed. I fill like you are trying to say something but nothing really comes out. "Your other comments were all speculation based on a premise that is actually not scientifically proven, like microbe to man evolution isn't a proven fact, it's a hypothetical proposition merely assumed from facts." What does it mean? "microbe to man evolution isn't a proven fact" Yeah it is. Do you know how science works?

I’m trying to understand atheists better, so could i ask you a few questions? :)

​@@FuddlyDudgo. And we will ask.

@@LGpi314 "go. And we will ask." Uhhh, well, to clarify, are you an atheist? And, if you are able, can you tell me a bit of what that means to you? :)

@@FuddlyDud Yes, I'm an atheist. "if you are able, can you tell me a bit of what that means to you? " You will ask questions and I will ask questions? 🤷🤷‍♂🤷‍♀

@@FuddlyDud I’m an Atheist. I grew up with Christianity. When I was 11-12 I was very sceptical that miracles ever took place. It just didn’t make sense to me. So I never took the bible literally. In high school I decided it was very unlikely there was a God. Especially the one described in the bible. At university studying Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, God was never mentioned. Everything just seems to work just fine without God. Learning how we evolved and how much evidence there is to support it, confirmed the bible should not be taken literally. I have listened to many, many apologist. I’ve never been presented with a good argument or any evidence for Christianity to be true. I have encountered a lot of evidence supporting it is false. I do believe we can learn a lot from the bible. Being an atheist means I believe a secular society where politics and religion are separated is best for humanity. Religion does not play a role in my life which feels quite liberating. I envy my religious friends sometimes when they talk about their church and what activities they get involved in. I also think they have a way better support network than I do whenever there is a crisis. I just can’t get past the fact their faith is based on what I consider imaginary things and untrue things. My Christian friends who are 100% committed, have to ignore actual scientific facts, to allow themselves to believe. I’m incapable of fooling myself that way now I’m a bit older. Hope this helps. Happy to answer more questions.

theists cherry-pick things from bible. They quote what they like and ignore what they don't like.

Jesus tells us to love our wives as he loved the church. Jesus loved the church by sacrificing his life for it. So we are to sacrifice our lives to take care of our wives. How is that a second class citizen?

@mastershake4641 jesus dis not say anything. Jesus is myth your people come up with. Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool. Mark Twain

@@mastershake4641 your bible says otherwise and does claim women to be 2nd class.

@@mastershake4641 you can't decide what to love, love is an emotion. Your wife does not have to submit to you. This is not the ancient world.

"In theism God is an axiom " Prove it. “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ― Christopher Hitchens There is no evidence of angels, satan or gods. Do better next time. What else do you have?

@@24t44yn You would not know what axiom is if it hit you in your head. LMAO

@@LGpi314 I am on your side of the podium. I think you missed my point on the topic of discussion. God being an axiom is not good for Thiesm.

@@24t44yn as far as morality goes I would say secular humanism does have an axiom which is human well being.

​​@@Majorpain12345 Very true, our actions have real consequences but without the pre - agreed desired goal / outcome of wellbeing we can NOT make a determination of what we *"SHOULD"* or *"OUGHT"* do or not do we can NOT differentiate between human intentions, decisions, and actions that are appropriate from those inappropriate If i hit someone they feel pain... means nothing without first agreeing "we don't want people to feel pain" only then can we say "I OUGHT not hit people" The claim that theistic morality is somehow "objective" is ridiculous. Theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄🤔

But you act as though there's one 🥱

​@@raphaelfeneje486 Morality is subjective, we set the rules HOWEVER that does NOT mean we cannot set objective rules about morality. Let me give you a couple of analogies perhaps then you will understand........ Our metric reference standards for weights, distance ( kilometers, meters, centimetres ect ) was originaly a man made concept, arbitrarily concieved with no divine dictate involved. Yet once it becomes accepted and a pre- agreed consensus reached it functions perfectly. A "meter" is not some vague "about this big" concept that varies dependant on culture or God. We can OBJECTIVELY measure things "from within our pre-agreed metric reference framework" 😜 In the game of chess there are no OBJECTIVE RULES laid down by a god. They were arbitrarily concieved man made, however once we all come to an agreement about which rules we want to implement and adhere to it then becomes posible to objectively declare a move as illegal "from within the framework of agreed upon rules" ( a Bishop can only move diagonally ect ) That does not mean therefore that outside of the framework ( rules ) that its objectively impossible to move a Bishop straight forward 😁 Precisely the same applies to our moral reference standard, it too requires only an agreed upon reference standard in order to function. Can you think of a better standard to aspire and adhere to than one based upon human well-being, empathy, equality and respect ??? 🤔

@@trumpbellend6717 "Morality is subjective, we set the rules but that doesn't mean we can't set objective rules about morality." That's all I have to see. You've already contradicted yourself. There's no point reading further. Consensus can also agree that what one society deems immoral is moral to them. You have no authority to force your morality upon them. From your own logic, Adolph Hitler, Stalin, Mao actions were all valid. They came to a consensus as well. You've exposed yourself to not even understand basic stuff. Have a good one ✌️

@@raphaelfeneje486 // "that all I have to see" // Run along dear, your inability to address the remainder of the comment more than adequately demonstrates both your dishonesty and the fragility of your position for all to see 🤫

@@raphaelfeneje486 Attrocities and wars are caried out for a variety of reasons, power , greed, race, politics, religion, or even love if the Troy narrative was correct. However I struggle to recall of the last "holy" war caused by atheism 🙄🤔 You attempted to conflate the acts of individuals with them being "atheists" please demonstrate the truth of this ?? Both Stalin & Moa Zedong were males with black hair do we then get to ascribe black hair as indicative of sadistic killers .?? Why was it not their individual greed, politics or sociopathic tendencies or even the colour of their eyes that explains their actions ? How did you conclude it was atheism that was responsible ?? If I were to claim that the systematic abuse of children caried out by priests that was covered up and enabled by the church moving them from congregation to congregation, was the direct result of those men being Christians or wearing the robes of a priest and not the actions of sick individuals would I be correct ?? Or would that merely be me attempting to erroneously conflate them so as to discredit their theological beliefs as you just attempted to do with regards to atheism ??? 🤔🤔🤔

wow, nice ot see how christians lie about what's in their bible. Curiuous how adam and eve never tell this god it doesn't need it, and this god lies to them.

Did they tell him they didn't need him? Really? Or, was it a case that they didn't know what good and evil were so even though they knew it was wrong to disobey God, they didn't know how God was actually good in the first place and worthy of listening to. Idk about you, but I would be very happy if my child asked me questions like I how I know I'm right, because then I could tell them and help guide them. Also, throughout most of history people have tried to govern themselves with religious laws and morality. These have also had issues. It doesn't make a country better being more religious

@@hydraph4843 they listened to the devil that told them they can be like God, knowing good and bad. If they ate from the tree. Meaning they can choose for themselves whats right and wrong therefore they didnt need God.

@@hydraph4843 Satan told Eve, you can be like God… their very eyes will be opened…. Knowing good and bad. Genesis 3:5 which explains why the world is the way it is and why God allows suffering.

@@hydraph4843 when you pray for God’s kingdom to come “ the model prayer” you are praying for God’s kingdom to come back to earth. You should read it.

You cannot determine your feelings. It's not down to preference. You discover how you feel. The people you mentioned, its true, psychopaths exist.... that's why we lock them up. Read 1 Samuel 15:3 for similar behaviour from another psychopath.

Yes I can say it's wrong, Why get more money from people that have an worldview that is different, even against the objective reality? Let them believe what they want and if they tell us that we are wrong and they're right, let's prove that is objectively, the opposite. And If they don't want to change, then let's tell them to never call us wrong anymore because we are right. Why discriminate someone that doesn't want to believe the truth when we are called to consider everyone equal even though some are inferior due to their belief.

@@nonnn6884who says we’re supposed to treat everyone equally? Where do you get that idea from? Pay the tax!😇

​@paulfromcanada5267 Certainly not from the Bible. It doesn't condemn the ownership of other people, and women were pretty much an afterthought unless it was describing some sinful thing one (several) of them did.

@@museofireyup ok. 1 Slaves under Mosaic Law were different from the harshly treated slaves of other societies, more like servants or bondservants. 2 The Bible doesn’t give an endorsement of slave traders but the opposite (1 Timothy 1:10). A slave/bondservant was acquired when a person voluntarily entered into it when he needed to pay off his debts. 3 The Bible recognizes that slavery is a reality in this sin-cursed world and doesn’t ignore it, but instead gives regulations for good treatment by both masters and servants and reveals they are equal under Christ. 4 Israelites could sell themselves as a slave/bondservant to have their debts covered, make a wage, have housing and be set free after six years. Foreigners could sell themselves as a slave/bondservant as well. 5 Biblical Christians led the fight to abolish slavery. Darwinian evolution can easily be used to suggest that some “races” are more evolved than others. Biblical Christianity cannot be used that way-unless it is twisted by people who have deliberately misunderstood what the Bible actually teaches. Recall Darwin’s prediction of non-white “races”: At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian [aborigine] and the gorilla

@@museofire False on both accounts. Chattel slavery condemned with a penalty of death "Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession." - Exodus 21:16 Appeal for release of a former pagan slave owned "Perhaps the reason [your slave] was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever- no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. Philemon 15-16 How a husband is required to treat his wife "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church- for we are members of his body." - Ephesians 5:25-30

A lone drop of water in a desert. Have an upvote, Sir.