My Morality Challenge Fail (InspiringPhilosophy / David Wood Counter-Response) 

Well...not necessarily. I suppose one can make the argument that just because there is an instinct doesn't mean that a person can't act against the instinct or disregard it.

And the thing is: everyone is against torturing children, but a lot of things are considered torture for some but not all.... This exemple didn't work

Exactly well said.

@@benoitlabrecque4513 Murdering children?

Aaron Brown Doesn’t work either since your worldview can lead you to consider that some things are murdering children (ie: unrightful killing of a human being of child age), whereas other people would disagree on either the « unrightful » part, or the « children » part, if not both. Just ask christian/Islamist apologists when it comes to god or god’s prophets killing children, and just ask pro-life about pro-choice.

Rainbow Farts he is waaaaaaaaaay too patient and generous. A far better man than I

All the best psycho killers appear calm and generous. That's so you don't get suspicious until they fire up the chainsaw.

@@bdf2718 One thing is that in the video there is a potencial murderer for sure

@@Marques2000 He's also proof that evolution doesn't wire everyone with the same morality, just most of us. Such exceptions are explained by Evolutionarily Stable Strategies.

Yes, and it's the same for others like Prophet of Zod, Rationality Rules, Genetically Modified Skeptic, etc.

How it's so? Some atheist logic -Atheist are moral. -What is "moral" for an atheist? -Maximising "well being". -What is "well being" and why maximising it is good. -We better not say. It will do more harm than good.

Nazgrel That is strawman in and of itself. This just shows you do not actually understand the argument presented by atheists. Maximizing well being is moral because that is how we define moral. It is true by definition. Even intuitively, this is true; theists simply deny it to themselves because they are unable to accept the notion that morality is an invention by social species and that it does not exist independently of those species. Theists rely too much on the evolutionarily built-in intuition to not violate their morals, so much so that they fail to realize that those morals are no different than a subjective claim that the species simply happened to agree upon on a biological level. I cannot tell if you are ignorant, or a dishonest troll, but regardless, you misrepresented the argument that atheists make rather than trying to clarify, so your comment is pretty pathetic. I would not be surprised if, despite me explaining the argument, you failed to understand it, let alone be convinced be it. After all, if it were this simple, theism would not exist.

@@angelmendez-rivera351 No. Actually from an other point of view humans are doing more harm than good to the earth and nature. Why it would be immoral to exterminate the humankind? One day the sun will turn in to a red giant and destroy the earth either ways. Historicaly and evolutionaly speaking pre religion good/bad is less/more pain. Post religion this is related to man-made moral codes. As i said. An atheist can not define either the "well being" or "morality". And i am not even religious. But unlike the most other atheists i am not delusional.

​@@angelmendez-rivera351 And better watch the video because that Paulogia answerd on a definition of "well being" and "morality".

@@xNazgrel "Athiests cannot define either 'wellbeing' or 'morality" "Paulogia answered on a definition of' wellbeing' and 'morality'" A few things to note. 1) You were given definitions by Angel. The fact that you disagree with those definitions does not change the fact that he did, in fact, define them. 2) Did you just miss the contradiction between these two statements entirely? 3) You are aware that not all Athiests believe the same things regarding either wellbeing or morality, right? The fact that Paul gave his own definitions doesn't change Angel's, yours or my own definitions of those words

It sure looks that way. Evolutionary theory can explain the presence of psychopaths in a population with Evolutionarily Stable Strategies. ESS theory has a mathematical model showing how it all works.

He is a christian. His excuse for that is Satan and now God has saved and changed him.

@@DaveCM God hasn't changed him. He's still a psychopath. He admits he's never felt remorse and doesn't really comprehend what it is. Morality is still not written on his heart.

@@bdf2718 In David's defence, he's just too stupid to realize that causality is a thing. He went to jail multiple times and it never occurred to him that that might not be in his own best interest. So he assumes he needs something better than logic. He's wrong and he doesn't, but he's simply too stupid to learn anything useful at all. And his arrogance that is stopping him from admitting that and that's also his only drive to learn anything, which is perfecting the art of conning people, is possibly just a symptom of his disorder. A symptom he could learn to control if he got help instead of hiding in fantasy land, but hey, you can't really blame him if billions of people endorse and support the choice to take up religion instead of getting treated. This includes everyone who says it's okay to believe whatever as long as you don't hurt anyone. David is being held back from improving himself in a meaningful way. That's a direct result of people accepting religion.

@@stylis666 In David's case, I think that religion may be the only effective way of controlling his disorder (not curing it, just preventing him from harming others). As a psychopath, he *enjoys* harming others. Unlike a sociopath, he knows he's harming other people like himself but thinks that their feelings are far less important than his own. To an extent, psychopathy is an exaggerated form of what most of us have. We have hierarchies of importance: we care about those we love more than mere friends; we care more about friends than acquaintances; we care more about acquaintances than strangers. Those differences are usually small, so we care about people we have never met after they suffer a natural disaster. For David there's just him and everyone else, and he doesn't care about everyone else. So if he can make himself feel good by making others suffer, he does it. Why wouldn't he? He admits he's never felt remorse. A rational argument about reciprocity, etc. might change his behaviour, but probably not. Fear of punIshment in this life doesn't seem to do it, probably because many psychopaths think they're far more intelligent than others so will never be caught. Fear of eternal torture by big brother in the sky seems to be what it takes.

I loved that discussion!

quick post a link!

I remember that too. Maybe that should be Paulogia's next challenge.

@Trolltician Get some fresh air. Read a book. It will do you some good. Honest.

@Trolltician Ah! It's you again. I thought you crawled back into your cave. Please, continue to talk so that the Theistic argument looks less and less rational ;-)

@Terence Clark Traduku esperanten, mi petas.

Jes, traduku Esperanten! :-)

@Trolltician Glass houses dude.

@Trolltician And you have the right name Troll

@Trolltician The only thing that makes me sad is that we still have morons like you in this world ;-)

@Trolltician Try harder than that. You won't make a very good troll with such lame comebacks.

@Trolltician Pathetic trolls like you, all the same...

NDHFilms good thing for atheism nothing matters, neither you, your thoughts, your emotions, nothing because the universe never gave you this and doesn’t care about (matter) humans any more than any other matter(rocks,asteroids,planets) you’re just a meaningless glob with no free will, you’re a domino falling in a series, just an effect from a cause

@@japexican007 a person gives themselves meaning. I would like to see evidence that we are more important than any other random thing in the universe. By definition the christian god doesn't allow for free will.

@@japexican007 uhm mate you described nihilism. What's that gotta do with atheism? Actually you just fused atheism with nihilism because you don't understand how an atheist could live without god? That's the case I see the most so I'm asking.

Eric Larson what does you giving yourself meaning have to do with ultimate meaning, are you confused with one and the other?

freeshavo cado what does atheism have to do with free will, morality,truth, logic? a universe didn’t give you these things because a universe doesn’t care about humans any more than it cares about rocks

Actually, I would go as far as to argue that premises 3 and 4 are contradictory in light of the conclusion. Premise 3 highlights that there are disagreements about morals, while 4 basically repeats 1, that is that morals are rational. If we assume 3 to be true, then 4 cannot be true, since that would mean that the source isn't rational for everyone. If 4 is true, then 3 has to be false, as a rational source of morals wouldn't create a scenario where people can really disagree over it. Alternatively, we have to change the conclusion. If the conclusion said "Anyone who doesn't believe in God in the way I believe in God is irrational", then all the premises can be true without contradiction. But it stops lacking the punch it originally had.

I think this guy should define morality first. Because the problem he himself points out in no. 3 is that people have different moralities. If different people have different moralities how can you conclude morality comes from one single source? Take killing for instance. One can say killing is always immoral Killing in self defense is morally justified Killing murderers is morally justified Killing homosexuals is morally justified Which one of those four options and their combinations is the moral position inspired by god? Why are there so many possible moral positions to begin with if it’s god the single source of morality? Again: what’s the morality they are talking about in the moral argument?

Profession? Stand up Philosopher. Oh, a bullshit artist. - Mel Brooks

@@OzixiThrill I would argue that the real problem with this argument is that it assumes its conclusion in premise 4. Premise 4 does not follow from 1, 2, and 3. The assertion that the source must be rational doesn't follow from the previous premises, merely that the source is not humanity. Physics is also a rational enterprise, facts of physics exist, and people disagree strongly about what those facts are (and disagreed even more strongly in the past). However, it doesn't follow that the "source" of physics is a rational agent. So the argument assumes its conclusion. That's why the missing premise "Any rational enterprise must have a rational source of truth" isn't there, because it's a little too clear that that premise is "God exists." It's the same problem all moral arguments have. For example, I could say "If people believe in God, God exists. People believe in God. God exists." That has exactly the same validity as "If morals are real, God exists. Morals are real. God exists." They all boil down to: "If I assert that God exists, God exists. I assert that God exists. God exists."

@@pansepot1490 I agree that different people may have different internal moralities but your example of how Christian biblical morality is inconsistent is a bad/weak one. The moral rule is that "murder" is always immoral, at least in the biblical sources I checked. "Killing" homosexuals isn't "murder", at least I haven't seen a translation/interpretation of the Christian bible that says you can/should "murder" homosexuals, they all say "kill", which is a different word than "murder". I think the bible allows people to "kill" sinners but not "murder" the faithful. Different words imply different meanings and the above sentences are then not inconsistent.

Could you show me some documents and evidence where the Bible was changed? And that multible times?

@@downofdead12 Many versions of the bible actually has notes in the margins where they mention where it is believed that passages has been altered or where there is copyng errors.

@@aleph6707 Can you give an example where the sense or message is changed at all? I know, all the copies are 99% identical, whilst the 1% are different spelled names or things in that kind.

@@downofdead12 , sure -- go talk to any Rabbi of the Orthodox, Conservative, or Reform denominations of Judaism. They'll be glad to discuss in detail how the Bible has been translated, mistranslated, retranslated, correlated, and edited multiple times and ways. They'll also be glad to explain why Jews don't necessarily take the Bible literally.

DawnofLife all we have are copies of copies of copies. We have no original copies of the gospels or other books in the Bible. The early copies have many differences from later copies. Since we do not have originals, we have no way to know what they actually say. Not to mention that books have been taken out and new ones added. A bible from a 1000 years ago is much different than a bible today. Which Christian is right?

Viced Rhino talked about this very point in his latest response to Kent Hovind. It's funny how little apologists are willing to put work into their responses.

They most likely do this as an unconscious ad homenim against Paul and others with clever channel names.

Conservatives do this a lot to try and discredit someone in a passive aggressive way. It's really childish and transparent.

It seems that people who lack self awareness often display false humility yet their inferences of disgust and superiority leak out with subtle statements like that. I think this is the reason Paul has captured the attention of WLC and others, because they, like Roger Rabbit listening to 'Cut and a Shave' in hiding are compelled to interject with their loathing of true humility from a none believer. It seems a persistent dichotomy when apologists must hold a superior position and humility equally, yet primal urges to claim the higher position often wins out.

Having had conversations with creationists, this is something that seems to happen all the time. Twisting your name, either "accidentally" or purposefully happens almost every time at some point in any longer 'debate'.

That's religion for ya. It's the easy way out of actually having to do something you can be proud of and to be consistent if you like that feeling to be sustainable. Arguably, you have to be consistent in maintaining your fairy tale to keep it up as well, but it's just not sustainable to maintain a placebo with nothing but logical fallacies. Eventually someone will find a reason to not close their eyes to reality and wonder about why they believe what they believe. Many people have and more people will.

Setekh What do you have to be proud of?

Completely false

@@thomasb4467 An outstanding character that I get commended and thanked for. Let me read you the app I got from a friend just 5 minutes ago: "Thank you. Nice [wink with heart]" That's from a friend I rarely speak to and see about twice a year. I sent her a phone recording of a song I am practicing to sing and play on the guitar. That was her reaction. Just before New Years I heard this song and wanted to impress her and her friend, knowing how much she likes that kind of song and I was surprised I could sing it as easily as I did. Of course with just a couple of days practice and having to learn the melody, lyrics and guitar music, it didn't go as well as I hoped, so when it did during my practice I figured she would like to have that as a memory of the writer, Chris Cornell and the wonderful and musical New Years we had, knowing she is fucking proud of me for having grown so much personally and she thinks it's awesome that my singing reflects that. So yeah, I got some stuff to be proud of. What have you been up to lately?

Ioan Beuka Completely true, you mean.

Because God said we do!

We NEED a god? Interesting... Do they perchance also provide evidence which one actually works in giving THEIR followers anything like solid unwavering morals? So many religious people are amongst the worst human beings ever alive and yet get away with an excuse and a prayer so god can "forgive"...

Well, IP has a deductive argument... So it is not a "because", but a logical inference. Even if the argument has a problem, it is a rational exercise.

"..because morality has to be absolute!" "Why does it have to be absolute?" "It would be worthless without absolutes!!" "...what?? That's nonsense, of course morals don't need to be absolute in order to exist" "NOOO, you need a god!!! You need MY god!!!!!!!" "Why?" "BECAUSE I SAY SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

@@youtubecom5478 You need evidence to deduce from. IP lacks that.

Oh, that's an excessively common display of passive aggressive cowardice seen at the beginning of pretty much *every* one of these videos. Like, "I no b boffered to lurn ur name becuz LULZ."

I think it's a negging tactic, trying to act like the subject is so beneath them as to be unworthy to even remember..

Obviously Paulogia doesn't know how to pronounce Paulogia. Only Christians know how to pronounce it.

i have a hankering for this super god now, can we start a new super religion, super christianity with a super jesus who is constantly being killed in unpleasant ways, but is resurrected for each new episode? please, please!!

@@HarryNicNicholas so Kenny is super jesus? :D

No doubt. That is what happened to me when I started thinking things over.

Or actually realize that both atheism and religion are illogical and become a deist.

SlavicEmperor ok Francis.

Joy Bradford It’s a strawman to compare God to Santa Claus. It shows how unserious or ignorant you are about Christianity.

@Joy Bradford It is not hard to prove existence of deist God, even a five year old could understand it. It's clear that universe is orderical and shaped by interraction of other wordly force, an absence of chaos within cosmos is a complete proof of functionality put in motion by an intelligent mind. If you found an accurate, nice and working watch you would immediately prescribe that work to a good watchmaker, but when you are a part of the watch itself you won't really be aware about what made your surroundings function properly, you would deny possibility of your universe being crafted by anything outside limitations of your reality. In the watch, numbers are affected by movement of cursor, everything outside watch is not, including it's creator. Order means intelligence, and that intelligence gave algorithms for subatomic particles, atoms and molecules to form elements, later elements formed RNA, RNA formed life forms...And the cycle of biological enhancement goes on. If there was no existent intelligence, do you think chaotic collision of matter could form self replicating, self conscious and complex organisms? If you think it could you are being anti-scientific, since chaos always ends up in chaos and every chaotic occurance has no functioning product.

xDD that is a nice joke by my intuition

@@greyback4718 is that your ontological or epistemological intuition? ;)

Was wondering what you were talking about, and then I noticed Paul is just shy of 40k. Damn! Dude deserves so many more.

@@RickReasonnz you're not wrong.

That value has aged a bit... Should be double by now to still be effective. ^^

Kenneth hewett id argue the Aristotelian idea if cause and effect proves a god. Of course it is a deistic understanding of god, but a god nonetheless

A problem with that is that I know of no claims that I would respect that could either prove or disprove the existence of a God, barring potentially disproving a God with very specific and strong characteristics with examples of inherent contradictions. That may be why there's more focus on things like logical consistency. The claims of Christians vary drastically from each other, and the more extreme claims require strong assertions that are more vulnerable to logical challenge. The less extreme claims don't bother me as much because the people making those types of claims are less likely to behave in ways I find objectionable. I take less issue with a God existing than I do in a claim to know what a God says about how we should live our lives based upon an ambiguous religious book. I did not stop calling myself a Christian because God couldn't exist. I stopped because the stories and commands didn't make reasonable sense to me.

Kenneth hewett I kind of disagree. The moral argument for God could possibly work if everyone on the planet had the exact same thing “written on our hearts” and everyone always agreed on the same preferred outcome of any moral dilemma (even if they chose to do something else). And if psychopaths didn’t exist. And if kids did not have to be taught right from wrong. God seemingly could have made objective morality so obvious and powerful that we would be justified in attributing it to a supernatural cause. (And importantly, he could have done it without violating our free will)

@ItsThatGuy1989 Cause and effect do not prove anything, assuming that this is even a sensible way to think given what we know about physics and the fact that no such technical term exists in the lexicon of physics. Physics looks at patterns. Consider the numbers 39, 40 & 41. The number 40 Is not caused by 39, anymore than 40 causes 41. It is also worth considering the first law of thermodynamics, a direct implication of which is that energy cannot be created or destroyed, means that energy does not require a creator by axiomatic definition. In other words, energy exists necessarily. Furthermore, we know that there can never be a state of absolute zero, which is to say energy is never quiescent, as characterised by quantum mechanics. Indeed, many of the most robustly evidenced laws in all of physics. have such eternality embedded in them, such that to remove them, would render them with zero explanatory or predictive capability. And of course this is also to fail to understand that proofs only exit in the domain of mathematics. Furthermore, we know there are mathematical proofs that the universe can spontaneously self create, for no reason. As a theist, you must surely understand the simplicity of your position and at the very least, you need to be tear down these objections before even considering erecting your own case, which is essentially nothing more than stating the noun god, which itself has no explanatory or predictive power or capability as nouns don’t explain anything. But let's assume the principle of charity. Even if it were the case that a cause was required, that fact does not allow you to conclude god. That's what is called a non sequitur in logic, which is ironic given that you thought that you were giving a logical proof.

@@ItsThatGuy1989 umm no. Also you didn't argue you anything, you just make bald assertion

Yes! And now we know why Mike is a christian also. Am pretty sure that he needs someone more powerful above him to threaten him to keep him in check.

So ontology is sticking god in things? That's rude

They've taken the tried and true apologistic approach of attacking the question when they can't answer it without contradicting their Christian worldview.

@@kevindavis5966 Isn't that worldview usually self contradicting... like presuming the necessity of "Free Will" but also axiomatically put against it a threat of eternal damnation which basically excludes any truly free will.

The funny thing is the apologetic actually makes morality _less_ knowable, not more. If goodness is based on consistency with a standard, evaluating the standard is impossible because any standard will grade out as perfect when compared to itself. This leaves us incapable of telling whether the standard is actually good or just a false positive. Since we can't know whether the standard itself is good, we can't know if what it says is good is really good. It would be funny that people take this nonsense seriously if it weren't so sad.

How's your job comi- oh... wait (kidding)

Wrong. They used intuition of normative ethics as evidence for moral realism, a meta ethical view. That's very different from coming up with some norm that can summarize all other norms and claim that's a competing view to moral realism. At best he came up with an idea that answers the question "what is moral?" which is not the same as answering the question "what is morality?"

@@chipan9191 I dismiss your assertions as baseless.

@@angelmendez-rivera351 I pointed out how they are dissimilar. On what basis do you assert they are still similar?

@@chipan9191 Your claim that they are dissimilar is baseless. So, I dismissed it as such. Insisting is not baseless is not going to change my mind.

@Dan Ryan , You can go further back in time and point how animals, social animals specifically, take care of the others in the [group]. For the survival of the [group] this attentive care is required. The treatment and tender care given to the young of the [group] is also required. Compare that to the comments of this video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-8JprHUz35wM.html Humans, some of them, lost the ability to give the young of others treatment and tender care. Any arguments about how the care of others, including children, benefit them is largely ignored. What is "moral"? That's largely subjective... outside of the core "do no harm to others" and "teach and guard children". For some, even that is subjective: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-5miNERB1Pe0.html

@Dan Ryan You are right. A good example of this is Deuteronomy 20: 10-18 where it says and i quote: “If you approach a city to fight against it, you should also announce to it terms of peace. If it gives a peaceful answer to you and opens up to you, all the people found there will become yours for forced labor, and they will serve you.But if it refuses to make peace with you and instead goes to war with you, you should besiege it, and Jehovah your God will certainly give it into your hand, and you must strike down every male in it with the sword. However, the women, the children, the livestock, and everything that is in the city, all its spoil, you may plunder for yourself, and you will eat the spoil of your enemies, which Jehovah your God has given to you. “That is what you will do to all the cities very far away from you that are not of the cities of these nearby nations. But in the cities of these peoples, which Jehovah your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not allow any breathing thing to live. Instead, you should devote them completely to destruction, the Hitʹtites, the Amʹor·ites, the Caʹnaan·ites, the Perʹiz·zites, the Hiʹvites, and the Jebʹu·sites, just as Jehovah your God has commanded you; so that they may not teach you to follow all their detestable practices that they have done for their gods, causing you to sin against Jehovah your God.

Strictly speaking, only popes and bishops can pontificate. Because only popes and bishops have the title of ""pontiff."

@@theoratoroftheapocalypse5392 shut the fuck up

Gonna add #4: people see that doing certain things leads to negative consequences for themselves or loved ones.

Suppose anybody can be a philosopher,but does one of them not have a degree in philosophy? that would make a difference,but not to his religious claims

You're thinking of presuppositionists

*You're thinking of presuppositionists* No, all "theistic philosophy" works around the immovable belief that god is real. Presups just have a particular approach to their contortions.

@@Oswlek have you heard the kalam or the moral argument? They both start with the word "if"

@@richybambam1995 Not sure what you point is. Simply saying "if" or "maybe" doesn't mean you aren't rationalizing to maintain the core belief. I'd argue that those arguments actually _are_ the rationalization, at least now that we understand why they are fallacious and carry no weight.

Thank you!

shhh that will ruin the apologists. :D

But but but "God wills it because HE is good" (William Lane Craig has a heart attack) 😂

@@JCW7100 Allow me to refute William Lane Craig´s attempt to solve the Euthyphro Dilemma. First of all, why exactly is God´s nature objectively good? If God´s nature is good because God says so or because God perceives his nature as good, then that´s just God´s subjective opinion that his nature is good and of course if God´s nature happened to be very different and God happened to like murder,hate and theft, that means God could simply perceive those things as good because they were part of his nature and therefore declare murder,hate and theft as objectively good. Some theists try to argue that God´s nature could never be different, however they are wrong because the idea of God having a radically different nature than the one he supposedly has is a perfectly logically coherent idea, unlike the idea of a squared circle. If on the other hand, God´s nature is good because compassion, love, altruism, kindness and other attributes that are typically said to characterize God´s nature are intrinsically good, then it follows that what is objectively good is good independently of God´s existence or non-existence and independently of God´s nature. What Dr. Craig is suggesting is a subjective moral code since any moral code that is based on the subjective preference ature\personality of a SUBJECT is SUBJECTive by definition. In this case, the subject is God. By the way, our preferences are an intrinsic part of our personalities, and our personalities are intrinsically part of our nature, therefore to say that God´s personal preferences determine what is good ight is the same as saying that God´s nature determines what is good ight. Craig also ignores other facets of God´s personality that we see in the Bible, such as jealousy and a tendency for punishing innocent people (Exoddus 20:5; Exoddus 34:14), destructive anger (Psalm 64; Isaiah 30:30; Psalm 2:12; Isaiah 13:9; Psalm 7:11; Exoddus 15:3; Deuteronomy 32: 41 and 42 and many others) or mercilessness (Deuteronomy 7:16; Deuteronomy 7:2). Moreover, by Craig´s own logic, if Islam happens to be true and Allah is the one true God, it should therefore follow that slaughtering anyone who isn´t a muslim, throw gays off buildings, be polygamous, stone adulterers to death or cut off the hands of thieves is morally correct\morally good because Allah says so in the Holy Quran and because that´s consistent with Allah´s nature. If the Aztec Gods were real, then sacrificing people in honour of the Gods would be morally good\morally correct because that would be consistent with their nature. If the Hindu Gods are real, then discriminating against people of lower chastes is morally good\morally correct because that´s consistent with their nature. But Craig hasn´t adressed any of these major problems so far. I WONDER WHY! The second problem with William Lane Craig´s reasoning is the fact that anyone´s nature can be used as the standard of goodness. Even Hitler´s nature can be used as the standard of goodness. Anyone on this planet can claim that his\her nature is the standard of goodness. That´s very easy to do. What is not so easy is to prove that your nature really is objectively good and that it´s not just your subjective opinion that your nature is good. In the Bible, God never does that. On top of that, it´s important to recognize that the nature of a subject is inherently part of the subject and therefore a moral code that is based on the nature of a subject is still subjective. Lastly, Craig´s assertion that God is the standard of goodness is nothing more than theological malarkey since no dictionary i ever read defined the word “good” as “whatever God´s nature happens to be”. This is just a word game that is aimed at exonerating God from any responsability, so that no matter what God says or does, he never get´s seen as evil. To say that God can´t do what is evil because it would go against his nature is no different than saying that God is good because God is God. It´s a meaningless tautology. If there´s nothing that God could ever say or do that would convince the theist that God is evil or unjust, then there´s no reason why we as non-believers should not conclude that the statement that God is the standard of goodness and justice is completely meaningless, arbitrary and biased.

@@luisalmeida8275 I'm a terrible reader, so it's entirely possible that you mentioned it and I glanced over it, but I'm wondering how Billy concluded that god is in fact good; by what standard he measured that.

@@luisalmeida8275 Yep. Exactly right.

Why is it that the Christians reviewing them always *claim* they don't know how to say it.... It's quite clear, isn't it? It's planting a subconscious marker about how insignificant the channel must be. It is a) insincere and b) reflects very poorly on the reviewers for not doing their due diligence.

@@oscargr_ Yeah that's pretty much what I was thinking.

@@adamandracheloconnor2920 I know. There seem to be more people in the comments that make the same point.

It's because Paul is so reasonable in his videos he has to get his jabs in wherever he can.

If you are about to spend 90 minutes discussing someone else’s video, it would be common courtesy to learn how to say their name correctly. It was a passive/aggressive diss

@Sage of Synergism An important factor in determining reliability is the relationship of the source and its information. For example, a person who directly observed an event is a primary source, a secondary source would be based on primary sources, tertiary sources are based on secondary sources etc. The lower the number the more reliable the source. Your experiences and what other people tell you is mostly primary sources, with some secondary sources. The new testament is almost entirely secondary, with no primary sources and a few tertiary sources, while the the books of moses is on its 15th source in the most generous scenerio, and thats only if you get your info from the bible itself and not someone else's interpretation. That is probably the simplest, least contraversial, and most universal way to judge it. Other criteria would be: relevance, including how up to date it is; self consistency; Consistency with reality, aka are the things said possible; and more. Personal experiences is always more reliable than the bible by these criteria, (and the most reliable thing in almost all instances.) and other people will generally be more reliable.

@Sage of Synergism **shoots sage in the face** I'm allergic. Oh, darn, now I risk jail and people knowing I killed someone, ruining my reputation, etc. etc. Fuck yes, we get our morality from our experience. So do you, but we don't fucking lie about it.

@Sage of Synergism "The scripture" stems from Israelite culture between approximately First and Second Temple periods including at least four different ideologies as to the nature of God and the requirements of "righteous" living, influenced by Egyptian, Assyrian, Canaanite, Babylonian and Hellenic cultures. It's really *not* something divorced from "culture" in any reasonable or meaningful sense.

This reminds me of Shelley Segal's "Eve": ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-7ShrPlNItmw.html ("The bible tells me..." is a core lyric.)

@Sage of Synergism a book that postulates a flat Earth and people ascending into the skies or sticks turning into snakes or talking snakes and donkeys, or other countless nonsense..

I agree completely!

R Wm What is God supposed to do?

I guess that means that torturing for fun is accepted by christian god.

@@thomasb4467 An all-loving, all-powerful god would create a world where children can't get raped, even with "free will". A caring, powerful god would interfere and provide instant punishment for everyone to know about. Almost any good person would interfere, even if there were risk to their own health. But this supposed god has no risk to itself by interfering, but still does nothing. So most people have higher morals than this god.

@@sasilik Yes, all kinds of "evil" are accepted, if there is such a god.

or because god is super evil, doesn't care or perhaps doesn't exist.

I agree. Leave the questioning to the professionals. Let us common folk delve into the actual values we ought to set. Normative is for normies, meta is for ethics professors and graduates with a PH D in it. Leave that argument to them and let us normies figure out, without using our damned flawed amygdalas and our actual rational prefrontal cortex, what we ought to do. But before all of that, we need to focus solely on pollution because all of these arguments are pointless if we are all dead in a couple hundred years. :P

@@SparklySarah 👆this! Yes!!!! Honestly I am so proud to say, i my family, and my friends, have all realized we have been so wrong about pollution and climate change. I have shown everyone I can of the risk we are running continuing on this way. We also live in a rural area where you hunt and grow your own food. I can't believe the amount of waste we used to throw out. It's crazy to think about the amount of plastic we put out there. The Pacific trash island is where we should start. Ive seen that thing. Its MASSIVE!!!

Morals are both rational and irrational, because the moral response involves many different parts of the brain that evolved at different times. Current theory differentiates between rapid-response "gut feeling" or deontological, and more rational considered, or utilitarian response. Or as I like to think of it, Kirk vs Spock.

@@simongiles9749 yes, morals are grey in the middle, with definitive extremes on both sides (say, Kirk and Spock). But in any case you can usually argue both sides. Theres usually either a mental illness or some background that explains said morals. I just cant reconcile the claims made that morals are predisposed upon us. I hope that makes sense, unless I misunderstood your comment?

premise one is that morality is a 'rational enterprise'. that does not mean that the resulting morality is necessarily rational. it is rational to meet the demands of some need but the ways in which we try to do that may vary greatly in rationality.

Thanks for the kinds words, Chris.

"Perception is reality" at its finest.

Greg Camp yep.

Yeah, he doesn't have morals.

I took Communion at a Canadian Church and loved it! - Poutine and Molson! Instead of a Mitre, their Pope wears a tuque. At the end of prayer, instead of, “amen”, they say, “I’m sorry.” Those Canadians sure know how to worship!

@@InigoMontoya- You mean, you went to Timmie"s? Awesome!

Welcome, Johannes!

the ASPCA has been in existence since 1866. Recency bias.

@@scambammer6102 You missed my point that until recently, if you beat an animal to death, all you would get is a fine at most. It is only in the last decade or so that one could get serious jail time for animal abuse.

Mark L Ultima 6?

Adam Monty Python’s Meaning of Life, at least for the first part. 🤪

@@markl8679 :) Got the first part, the latter part looked like dialogue from a game, but the actual quote I was thinking of was "Huzzah! I am Zoltan, king of the gypsies!" :)

Mockery is the only way to save face when an atheist is given an argument that he cannot rationally defeat. Philosophers use logic, children use name calling an mockery. Is there an atheist here who is a better representative for the intellectuals in the atheist community? Or is this the best you can do?

If theists used logic there wouldn’t be any.

I read a phrase recently, it went something like "The problem of lies is not that we will believe them, but that we will no longer recognize truth". To get people believing by the feelies an indefensible position, all you got to do is to say with confidence a bunch of stuff that sounds convincing, even if nothing of it is true or even consistent.

*Apologists do have a thing for making HUUGE responses to small, concise questions* To be fair, atheists can too... but only because apologists' "short, concise" questions are so often full of errors and misrepresentation.

@Trolltician Athetards 😂😂😂. It reminds me of flat-earthers who call the rest "globetards". It's almost like people can't defend a ridiculous position without "us vs them" thinking and ad hominem fallacies.

@Trolltician Well, it's not my priority to be educated with a troll, but, if you want logic, I will give you some. Think about every argument for the existence of God, and ask yourself, "Which assumptions and/or logical fallacies are there?" you'll be surprised.

@Trolltician Ontology is the perfect place to start questioning your assumptions 🤔

Pretty good

I would personally side with Paul's way of saying it, as it would "keep the door open", so to speak, for Christians that don't believe that their morals come from their own individual selves. Saying it the way you suggested it can make some of the more devout Christians feel pressured, potentially attacked. That can create an atmosphere where they feel like the discussion is not had in good faith, resulting in a potentially lengthy discussion that ultimately goes nowhere. First impressions, sadly, matter a lot, so keeping it as nice as possible is probably preferable.

Any updates? (Or should i ask, February of which year?)

Thank you for the kind words, Dominic.

After the assault on his father, Wood was diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder (sociopathy) and was sentenced to ten years in prison for malicious wounding.

Thank you

How do you figure? Citation for your claim is required that I am terrified of anything let alone the implication of my intelligence being questioned for not blindly continuing to believe something that dosen't comport with reality, history, or physics.

Again you've made assumptions. You putting a question mark on the statement dosen't change the fact that you are using that to infer assertions that you have not based in fact. Your accusation is kind of hypocritical in light of the lack of supporting facts. The language you are choosing is designed to smuggle in assertions without supporting evidence. If I've gotten your argument wrong, please point out where I have missed the mark.

@Trolltician Mistaking your opinion for fact. Cute.

This is a big issue with Christians...they argue that the "atheist perspective of morality" necessarily leads to the destruction of the human race in order to preserve the other lifeforms on this planet. What is wrong with your brain that you can't conclude that human beings just cease detrimental practices first and foremost before you advocate for our demise?!? That's like telling the Christian to stop torturing a puppy a d his reply is something along the lines of, "the only way I can think to stop torturing this puppy is to kill myself" Is this really the advanced reasoning that God has written on their hearts?!?

Get well, bro

"some logical sleight of hand" Welcome to the body of work of "Insipid Philo-Sophistry", the christian conman pretending to be a deep thinker rationally analysing philosophical aspects of belief while simply turning his feelings into factual statements by said sleight of hand.

@@Ugly_German_Truths Yeah, it also seemed to miss the point that I got originally from the proposal. Because I had heard often enough things like "this country is founded on Christian Morality". But as I grew older and studied history, I could never agree with that. Most often as examples often cited of Christian Morality was things like "Don't kill, don't steal". Things that had predated Christianity and its writings, and were nigh universal across human cultures. Suggesting not a religious basis and knowledge of god defined morality so much as a required need. Of course you can flip it around into "Well they all developed that because it was a fundamental truth defined by the divine" I suppose. But for me the explanation doesn't match up. Instead I think of something like Thomas Hobbes. The social contract as the basis of society. Where one gives up the unlimited freedom of anarchy for mutual protection and safety which always fit pretty well into what I think of as morality. It's a code that allows us to move forward in mutual safety and respect as it were. To move our awareness of our actions and consequences beyond just the immediate and personal. It makes sense to me in that ultimately in the cold calculus of immediate survival say, punching someone in the face and stealing their food is a choice that benefits me. It's however a long term better choice that I don't live in a society where people can and do just go around punching people in the face for their lunch. The fact that people still do that (even if it's just in the schoolyard bully give me your cash as it were sense) and mugging suggests it's not some absolute truth. And that they can internally justify why it's okay for them to do it, and believe in that justification, means it's not some unconscious intuition everyone has. I dunno, probably rambling. Just additional thoughts.

Thank you for the kind words, Uffe.

Pail is also my hero.

Thanks, John.