I wanted to take a moment to thank all you secular-loving Patreons and other supporters of the channel. Your willingness to part with your hard-earned cash has enabled us to continue making "morally evil" content, and for that, we are eternally grateful. But seriously, we can't do this without you. If you are also interested in joining our Patreon, where you'll get to see the unfinished and undoubtedly worse versions of our videos (I know, what a sale), please click the link here: www.patreon.com/rationalityrules It's like paying to help me edit in exchange for the ability to vote on upcoming content, receive high-quality AI art with more fingers than necessary, plus more :)
Jungian psychology emphasizes the importance of the "shadow" as an essential aspect of an individual's psyche that can lead to destructive behaviors if not integrated and acknowledged in a healthy way. The shadow refers to the unconscious and repressed aspects of one's personality that are often deemed unacceptable or negative by society or the individual themselves. These unacknowledged aspects can lead to destructive tendencies, such as violence stemming from offense about a belief or value, making fast judgments about others without knowing the full story, and avoidance of important questions. For example, the Charlie Hebdo shooting in 2015 can be attributed to an unacknowledged shadow in the perpetrators. The gunmen were offended by the satirical cartoons published by the magazine and acted out violently in response. The intensity of their reaction suggests that they may have repressed their own doubts and insecurities about their beliefs and values, and were unable to handle the perceived threat to their identity. Similarly, making fast judgments about others without knowing the full story can stem from an unacknowledged shadow. For instance, wrongful imprisonment can occur when someone is accused of a crime based on circumstantial evidence, rather than a thorough investigation of the facts. This is often due to biases and assumptions about the person's character or background, which can be influenced by an individual's unconscious prejudices and repressed emotions. Lastly, avoidance of important questions can also result from an unacknowledged shadow. In a famous interview with Jordan Peterson, he avoided answering the question about the existence of God. This avoidance can be attributed to the discomfort and anxiety that arise when one confronts the unknown and potentially contradictory aspects of their belief system. By avoiding this confrontation, individuals may fail to fully explore their beliefs and understand the true nature of their values. To address these destructive behaviors, it is important to recognize and integrate the shadow through self-awareness and mindfulness practices. Engaging in constructive dialogue and empathy building can also help individuals recognize their biases and assumptions about others, leading to more thoughtful and informed judgments. Furthermore, practicing critical thinking skills to question one's own beliefs and assumptions can help individuals confront the uncomfortable and unknown aspects of their psyche. In conclusion, the shadow in Jungian psychology is an essential aspect of an individual's psyche that can lead to destructive tendencies if not acknowledged and integrated in a healthy way. Violence stemming from offense about a belief or value, making fast judgments about others without knowing the full story, and avoidance of important questions are all examples of destructive behaviors that can stem from an unacknowledged shadow. By recognizing and integrating the shadow, individuals can move towards a more compassionate and peaceful world.
At the age of 8, I sat at our table eating dinner. I was offended by my 6 year old sister's practice of peeling the thin transparent shell off the peas before eating them. I tried to convince her, and when she refused to bend to my perspective, I tattled to our parents. She was forced to eat the whole peas. She was greatly distressed as her father made her eat the rest of her peas whole. I sat there in guilt, realizing that my sensibilities were not hers, and that I should have just let her peel her peas in peace, and that just because something felt right to me, didn't make it right for others, and her well being was more important than how she ate her peas. I never needed a god to tell me when my actions caused someone pain and suffering. While we all cause others suffering without even realizing it sometimes, and sometimes the options are between different sufferings, we can all look to our actions with the perspective of causing the most benefit to the most people, including ourselves, while causing the least harm to everyone, including ourselves.
@@realistic_delinquent Considering the very small 0.5 mm thick shell, they were a very small resource. We lived in a two room house with dirt floors and no hot or cold water or electricity in rural Colorado in the early 1970’s. Privilege, or the lack thereof, wasn’t a concept or a concern to us at the time.
But right here, you are describing a morality focused on reducing suffering. There are plenty of plausible other moral positions. For example, one position is that homosexuality should be punished by throwing the offender from the top of a tall building. The "Live and let live" ethos expressed here would seem to say that they should be allowed to practice their morality in peace, without anyone else imposing different moral standards on them. The issue is that allowing that does very badly by the "Reducing suffering" standard you started with.
Pretty much. Anyone who says "If there was no god who said killing is wrong then it wouldn't be wrong" is really just saying "If I could get away with killing people I would do it, sadly I believe that big brother is always watching me and I wouldn't get away with it, therefore I won't do it".
I’m a religious person and I wouldn’t commit any crime or do something bad regardless of eternal damnation or not but I agree people who use that argument is stupid
@@gusleybighusley6062 The Hebrew term kareth ("cutting off" Hebrew: כָּרֵת, [kaˈret]), or extirpation, is a form of punishment for sin, mentioned in the Tanakh. According to the Mishnah, kareth is the punishment for 36 sins (including homosexuality).
When I read Bible stories as a kid I thought it was just another type of mythology. I also read Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Norse, Japanese, and Hawaiian myths. Then when I was about 8 years old my parents (who are both atheists) realized I didn't understand that church wasn't a book club that my friends went to. They had to sit me down and explain that millions of people think the Bible is true. They spent about 2 hours trying to explain modern religion to me. I ended up saying something like, "So, religion is myths that people still believe in and myth is religion that people don't still believe in." They were like, "Basically, yeah." I said, "That's stupid."
I genuinely didnt realize that there were people who actually believed that the Bible (or any other holy book for that matter) was more than a book of fables until I was in my 20s. The idea just seemed so utterly insane and nonsensical that it didnt cross my mind until I really started watching debunking content.
that's exactly what a normal person with common sense would understand from it, I have been atheist since I have memory maybe around 2-4 years old with a catholic mother and atheist father, I never understood how people can make a thing about religion, it's just ridiculous. It an insult to human life and to human ancestors to still have people making up excuses and arguments to defend mythology as if it were a fact, when it's all about "feelings", funny how some religious say "facts don't care about your feelings", yet they are the ones who want their feelings become facts to adjust to their reality making them feel special and owned by a slavemaster, CREEPY WAY OF THINKING to be honest
@@union1st That is also exactly how left-wingers think. They just have different religion. But to ask them to give a reasoning behind their beliefs and you'll get the REEEEEEEEE MUH FEEELEES.
@@union1st I'm middle-left on the politcal spectrum, but I'm fairly sure this is just human behaviour. How one would judge the outcome of these biases is another thing, but finding facts to fit a narrative/bias/gut feeling is human behaviour. Jonathan Haidt is an interesting author in that regard, but I'm sure there's plenty of other work on it as well.
That's always been my objections. Christians love to hold up the Bible and the Ten Commandments as the pinnacles of morality. Except anyone who actually reads it would know that God is very very fickle when it comes to morality. Killing is bad! Now here is an assload of caveats that justify killing. Stealing is bad!...Here are more caveats. The list goes on. The Bible is filled with stories where killing, stealing, slavery, and even rape are all perfectly fine things as long as God said so. Almost as if it's a book written by people who wanted to enforce submission to authority, but didn't want to be restricted by morality...
@@Rawnblade13 Where in the Bible ,just once,is rape ok? Youre delutional You may say Europa before christianity.Yes that was no problem The possible reason why the conquest of Canaan was so brutal,may be supported by archeology.In the pagan sanctuars of Baal they have founded bones of sacrificies babies,many of them slided in half.Among other weird things like zoophillie,pederastry etc. That was the ancient Canaan. The modern World is trying hard to resore that.
Its ironic you claim to be the rationale your morality is built on Christianity and your in too deep to realise it lol . The world without that code is chaotic and terrible the pre-Christian world was a good example, with human sacrifice was rampant. The west now is morally falling apart and it doesn't take a genius to see that you can be an "atheist" and see that. I wonder why? because people have abandoned the foundation it's like putting your house on water instead of the solid foundation and expecting stability lol .
I’m kinda nervous that Prager straight up is saying “the only thing keeping me from going on a horrifying crime spree, is the idea of a big Sky Daddy telling me not to” That’s chilling
Or if one day he has a dream where the skydaddy tells him if he murders people he would get into heave?Or boy,with a feeble worldview like that we are gonna have a massive problem
That's really common Christian dogma, and for most people it's crap, even if they believe it. Anyway, Prager is clearly Lawful Evil. Personal crime sprees are for the Chaotic Evil ones.
That's the definition of a psychopath. Lacking all empathy, only playing along because it minimizes annoyances or maximises usefullness. "I don't care if I kill other people or not, but god promised me that I go to heaven if I don't so I guess I won't because I want that reward (or prevent that punishment of going to hell)" is a picture book thought process of a psychopath.
The ego of Dennis Prager is stunning. I remember Christopher Hitchens described Dennis as kind of dopey. That's all I think about when I hear the voice of Dennis.
I'm getting more and more convinced that the most horrible thing about finance based capitalism is that it puts so many dipshits to positions of great power... While constantly telling them that they are brilliant.
That's exactly what I've always said. The reason religion has gotten less oppressive than in ancient times isn't because they had access to some internal enlightenment, but that more secular, progressive forces dragged them into modernity kicking and screaming.
I'm really not sure there 🤔 For example, catholicism has gotten less oppressive for some aspects of oppressions but clearly not for all and not for the majority of aspects
@@thomasmiremont7072 How did you miss the point while simultaneously making the point in your comment? You know, before replying to a comment, people need to actually read the comment, understand what the comment is trying to say, and then try to understand if they are just saying something you already believe in with a different language.
I would say that is true but not the entire picture. There were other influences for the progression of religion. Including vested interests. I believe religion is just as oppressive as ever. It is limited in that the sword is stilled. But its wickedness is just as harmful as ever.
"If there is any kind of supreme being, I told myself, it is up to all of us to become his moral superior." Terry Pratchett, Unseen Academicals (Discworld, #37; Rincewind, #8)
@@timexyemerald6290 there are no other gods and he is perfect you can not create a God then he would not be God only one supreme being who has a Son Christ the savior of humanity
SPOT ON. That is what is wanted, and on that day, humanity will be worthy. But the way things are now, well humanity will be wiped out long before you reach that level as a collective.
"If God didn't say it's bad, then it's not bad" Whelp God didn't say anything about pooping in your mailbox, Dennis, so I guess I'm headed to Taco Bell then right to your mailbox.
God *did* say that murder is correct in some cases however, as long as the child or woman were disobedient. Or when he thought the entire world (apart from those specific people) were heretics... including childeren and unborns... really loving God this one...
It is eternally hilarious that the definition they want for "objective" is "subject to the arbitrary whims of a specific subject." Much like how the proof they want of evolution would disprove evolution.
if we grant that capital letter god is a subject and he indeed has arbitrary whims. The first part is debatable, you can simply include the word "human" in the definition of subjective and you're done. The latter is in contradiction to omnipotence. You can't try and disprove something by ignoring one of its fundamental qualities. If someone or something is all knowing and eternal, then by definition, they have already thought of the best possible choices, values and actions and therefore their opinions would never change, thus they would have no whims or change of heart. Thus it would be as if anything decided upon by this being - including morality - was objective.
@@thomasmann4536 Though, one would need prove that said being has those traits, even if one could prove their basic existence. The book itself does a good job disproving at least one of the trio of attributed omniattributes in every given story.
I agree entirely and I don’t see enough people making this point. Most moral arguments devolve into side issues about what it would mean for morality to be objective, what a non-God-based objective morality could look like etc. all while missing the point that the supposedly objective morality of God is the dictionary definition of subjective. The only difference is that the subject isn’t a human. And this is before acknowledging: a) That this supposedly objective morality is contradictory and b) it sometimes doesn’t apply (eg murder is bad, except for all the times God commanded it) and c) everyone that claims morality is objective and it comes from God all have totally different ideas about what that morality actually is.
@@thomasmann4536 That does not logically follow. Knowing the best possible choices and acting by them are completely different things. We all know sweets and sugar aren't good for us and eat them anyway. The bible clearly shows that god either doesn't know the best course of action or doesn't act by it quite often. Letting Satan kill all of Hiobs family and friends and taking all his posessions wasn't the best course of action, but god let it happen because he was proud and wanted to prove his superiority to satan on an arbitrary whim. Other such stories can be found all throughout the bible. God very, very clearly has arbitrary whims in the bible. And just knowing the best possible choice and values does not make you objective either. And of course you can simply redefine subjective to mean "Only humans" and then suddenly god is by definition not subjective anymor. But by that logic you can just redefine 1+1 to equal 3 and suddenly it's by definition not 2 anymore. But that's not how things work. Just playing petty wordgames isn't going to prove anything.
@@robinbeers6689 The scary part is that Prager would murder if his god commands, which is actually the case for Edomites in the Torah. What's even scarier is that many Rabbis consider America (and the West in general) to be the descendants of Edom...
@@robinbeers6689 it is a morality of ultimate submission. "Loving God" is defined in the Bible as keeping the commandments and just enduring whatever God throws at you. It is the morality of a "good slave".
@@robinbeers6689It's the same with people who advocate for hitting children to establish "respect." It doesn't establish respect, it established fear and doesn't instill any reasoning as to *why* an action is wrong other than you'll get beat for doing it.
Would you rather be "loved" by your neighbor because an invisible sky person _told_ them they must love you or else their intangible self (soul) is doomed to eternal damnation, or, be loved by your neighbor because they _choose_ to love you? Also, I _LOVE_ the Euthyphro Dilemma.
Fundamentally people choose everything, even in the bible, Adam ignored God. Do you not murder because your parents told you? Were you born with perfect knowledge of good and evil? Do you not choose what you want? If you did it, then you chose it, there’s rewards and social pressure for every action you take, the reward isn’t always good yet we the good acts done still hold water regardless of why they were done. If God tells you to love your neighbor as you love yourself, it’s like a parent teaching their children how to see the world. We can let the void of meaningless atheism guide us to nothing since meaning is a made up social construct for human survival or we can let a God guide us into goodness, compassion, charity and all these other values that are getting hallowed from society thanks to your secular worldview being so prominent. If your idea is so great why are the results so bad? Suicide, divorce, mental health, baby killing, isolation has all gotten worse in modern times. Church means community and it’s not good for people to be alone and not apart of something, if atheism has anything to say about it then it’s just for random chemicals to shoot in our brain for survival sake and thats depressing just to hear. The smartest people ever were agnostic or religious along with the greatest people. Now we have transgenderism becoming prevalent, we’re so stupid without god we somehow argue there’s more than men and women by saying it’s a social construct. Every single word is a social construct. Atheism only accomplished making everyone feel no accountability because everything means nothing and now we’re getting dumber for it.
@@yoichiswiftshot902 ...Dude. It's called a paragraph. I'd be more offended by your blatant strawman about Atheists if I didn't have to sink eyebrow-deep in unbroken proselytizing bullshit just to get to you being a liar.
@@yoichiswiftshot902😲😳 seek help. please for the love of all goodness in this world, seek help. that is the most insane word vomit I've seen in a really long time. you are a dangerous person.
@@yoichiswiftshot902 First of all, atheism and secularism don’t cause suicide or depression, and they definitely aren’t trying to get rid of goodness and compassion. Also, just because you need God to give you meaning and a purpose in life doesn’t mean that atheists don’t have either. Many atheists find their own purpose and live happy, fulfilled lives without the need for a God to tell them that everything will be alright. Secondly, that kind of transphobia is exactly what the video was talking about. Throughout history, theists have been dragged into modernity by secularism kicking and screaming, just for the next generation to believe that their religion is what did it. You stopped stoning people because of secularism, and I bet you’ll get over LGBT people because of it, too. Thirdly, your reply doesn’t raise any point against the comment it’s under or the video. The original comment said that they would rather their neighbor actually like them over their neighbor just pretending to like them to appease God. The difference is that in the second scenario, their neighbor is putting on an act and their entire relationship is nothing but a lie, which is unsettling. Wouldn’t you rather have an honest relationship with someone rather than one that’s only afloat because they believe that they have to keep up the act?
@@yoichiswiftshot902 It always amazes me how people can be so adamant about their logically incoherent delusions. While I disagree with almost everything you said here, I'll leave you with this: Ideas like secularism and atheism are, in fact, independent from all this 'stupid' stuff you don't agree with and correlation does NOT equal causation. It's absurd to say all of today's 'problems' are caused by a decline in religion.
My local newspaper runs a weekly Prager column. Your videos help me prepare letters to the editor bc someone needs to put forth the idea that we shouldn't run our country by ancient religious text. First I made sure to elaborate on the complete incompatibility of the US constitutional 1st amendment and the Bible's first commandment. In the US we can have as many gods as we want. Or no God. The US cannot be a theocracy unless the constitution is changed. Speaking against theocracy is patriotic 😊
Yep. It's clear that a sizeable portion of Christians in the US have a belief system that is incompatible with US citizenship. Perhaps that's why they say "I'm a Christian first, and then an American".
the country was built upon Christian values and the founding fathers were Christian, the first amendment gives you the freedom to religion that doesn't mean the country isn't based on religious values the constitution is god given rights what do you mean incompatible. 🤣
@@falconeshield There were puritans in the us before it was a country, and why would they talk about God given rights if they wanted the U.S to have no God.
Comedy, yes. Infuriating, frustrating, agonizing comedy, given the source material. The sort of comedy that makes me want my invisible floating dragon in my garage that breathes cold fire would inexplicably burn me to a crisp...somehow. Prager would find a way to make breathing immoral if not done in the name of his god.
@@whigmin5436 hmm , is it a garage sized dragon wearing the garage like a hat ? or one that fits in the garage ? but true for the reaction , in my case it makes my blood vein pulse as i see some loathsome analogues of his fallacious arguments with the 'secret' talk points of the local religious parties... and makes me tempted to ask the clever ones daughter if she not could open the gates to the underworld and loan me a few legions of draughrs warriors to send someone early to be chewed on by her dragon neighbour nidhoog whose off houers jobb is to devouer rapists & murders spirits , to wich i count prager considering what the dogma he promotes is used to excuse on a daily basis in various parts of gaia.
@@whigmin5436 Exactly. I'd say it's not even enough. If Dennis just speaks one sentence, I pause and come down here to hide. It takes me hours to finish watching one of these videos. The frustration is agonizing and infuriating. And it's effective and only partially effective in videos like these, even if just because of the difference in reach. That in itself is frustrating, that people rather be fooled than be told how they're being fooled. Ah, well, at least people are telling people how they're fooled. If only one listens and starts learning to think critically, it's more than worth it.
Absolutely brilliant video. Let's hope Dennis learns from this. I do think he likely lacks the intellectual chops to actually understand his fallacious reasoning though. Keep up the good work.
@@pwhitaker569 The author and capitalism critic Upton Sinclair described it best, when he said: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
Christians I have met want to make the Bible the moral standard for the whole world. Yet in my experience they tend to use the Bible as a way to approve their own, personal views of the world. This has stood out to me so much that I came to conclusion years ago that everyone is following their own religion; even those who profess Christianity as their objective standard.
Everything falls apart when you read other religions. Either they're all interpretations of the same god (no one needs to be 'right' just that an eternal being exist beyond our sight in space) or it's all bs to give the impression that we're immortal until our first real brush with death. We're lucky if we come back consciously randomly after death.
This is exactly right, and it explains why Christianity is currently (though not for long) most popular religion in the world. Christianity is such an ill-defined, ambiguous-or-incoherent mess of a belief system, that it is very malleable, and thus, very easy to reinterpret in a way that agrees with your already pre-existing intuitions and conceptions of the world. It can easily adapt to any culture, and most mindsets. Other religions are a lot more rigid with what exactly defines their belief system, so they are not as malleable, and so, not as easy for people to adopt as a way of justifying their pre-existing intuitions and conceptions. Virtually no Christian is actually willing, or capable, of aligning their beliefs in accordance to the actual history of how Christianity evolved from Judaism. Christianity functions as nothing more than a tool for confirmation bias.
It's come to my attention due to current events that Prager is exhibiting classic narcissistic behaviour. I also believe it could be a factor in many self righteous characters. God's messenger , can't be wrong. It's always the others.
@Gandalf TheWise Because the god they are referring to (the abrahamic god) is a disgusting violent mass murderous megalomaniacal, textbook example of an authoritarian figure who is the antithesis of humanity and everything it means to be human. One only needs to read the abrahamic “holy” texts to realize which character is the truly evil character in those awful books of ancient bloodlust fairy tales and bloodlust rituals. Such disgusting ideas deserve absolutely no respect, full stop.
@Gandalf TheWise I agree with your stance as a religious person myself, and this idea is actually part of Biblical teachings. (But “Christians” who don’t read their Bible wouldn’t know this because they lack critical thinking) Not going to lie, saying atheists are morally and intellectually superior is shortsighted, as plenty of people do not believe in the existence of a higher power are as stupid as they are immoral. Stupidity and immortality is found within every broad group such as this. Being atheist is neither a result nor a consequence of morality or intellectual skill.
I would argue the opposite--that Stephen's work dismantling all of Prager's BS is necessary due to just how accessible PragerU's content is. That said, I will agree that a Low Fruit segment would be amazing.
One addition to your excellent commentary. Many Christians fought to preserve slavery in the USA also. In fact, southern preachers often used the Bible (correctly) to "prove" that slavery was moral.
And tens of thousands of union soldiers fought to end slavery because they believed god would guide them well. Metaphysics is a messy form of philosophy. There are no answers. Only more questions.
That is just bullshit from western godless and souless obsessed with something they for western godless and souless modern idiots... becareful idiot becase of we believers in right we will become Nothing as you think you will be once death, but if we are right and God exist, when your heart will stop you will be in Big troubels... good luck woth that poor Godnier. So think about next time to coment and be a western godless idiot.... Anyway ypu godless and souless idiot wants just follow your own desores but they change all the time, and which spirtiuality have a westerm godless amd souless idiot? Even my Dog have more spiritual then you... what a miserable live you must have, without God. Disgusting.....
Hold on now, they justify the dismissal of the slavery verse with “love thy neighbour” but but it explicitly says the slaves are to be treated as property. Last I checked, most people define neighbour as a person, not object
The bible also says to "Not kill". But then also goes on to specifically tell which people you are to conquer and which of their children to take as slaves (girls who aren't of age and haven't laid with a man) and which to kill (basically everyone else). So yeah, double standards are kind of the bibles thing.
@@EskChan19 The bible also says god is loving, yet the god depicted requires and encourages relying only on thinking errors and fallacies to excuse beliefs and actions, which is extremely abusive and deadly. No, Hitler, it's not loving. I just explained how your actions and the genocide you kick started are equally justifiable as loving an actual neighbour if you base your beliefs on faith, which you did, demanded, and encourage. What? No, not unless he is of the same sex as I. Besides, I gave him a bottle of his favourite drink, not fellatio. Jesus, man. Get a grip. What's with this fixation on dicks? Get help. Wat? You never have inner monologues with dead authoritarians? Theists do it all the time. So anyway, hypocrisy isn't a bug, it's a feature of faith - it's necessary and therefor inevitable. If your god is to be loving with his abusive nature and characteristics, it requires you to rationalize, thus be a hypocrite because of the contradictory nature of the things you need to rationalize as being good while those are and you are being abusive.
It never says that in the bible because slavery as a concept now didn't even exist back when the bible was written lol. It did mention indentured servitude (this was what the word 'slave' meant back then), which isn't good, but isn't anywhere near as bad as what we call "slavery". Also the bible never said it agreed with it. Feel free to get a quote to prove me wrong though
Well, to be fair, you have to look at the scandinavian countries where secularism is rampant. The worst countries in the world, horrors of chaos and anarchy compared to the highly religious nations of asia, africa and latin america! 😢 (And just to be overly clear, yes, I am sarcastic)
It does frighten me how so many Christian's apparently are only morally good, because their god commands them too. We seemed to have had an incident yesterday, where possibly someone has lost their faith and got angry with their previous congregation. If moral teachings are only ingrained in some because the fear of eternal torture, rather than being taught morale rational reasoning, then I hope they keep their faith, or we'll end up with a whole host of mass killings.
I'm curious how many Christians you have spoken to to come to the conclusion that the fear of Torment is their main motivation for being morally good? And, could you share the video link or article that informed you that that young lady was a Believer and then lost her faith?
I think it´s a good thing that there´s no objective morale. We as as society decide what´s moral and what´s not. This involves us as individiual parts of the society and thus makes each of us responsible to hold up these moral values (as in a democracy). This gives moral values worth because the people we can observe create it´s worth and not some invisible friend whose opinions are only intepreted and decided by a view (hierarchic religions). Obviously this is a very idealistic and optimistic view...
The bible itself does not claim that morals are solely dictated by God. This is a misunderstanding of the text by Christians. Christians are people and thus make grave errors all of the time in understanding things. One of the universal themes in the bible is that we should be considering outcomes and trying to make the best decisions with the info we have. Even in the old testament this is the case. You view is actually in alignment with the text to a certain point, with one exception. You are making a moral argument, ad populum. More people believing something doesnt make it right and I'm sure you would not be happy in many places outside of the west, particularly Islamic nations but also atheistic ones like russia. There are hard rules in the old testament ,sure. But there are instances where the right thing isnt so clear. When confronted over the disciples picking food because they were starving on the sabbath, he say" if a lamb falls in a pit on the sabbath, wouldst not thou pick it up out of the pit." He also says in a sermon " you will know if someone is good by their fruit, good trees give forth good fruit, bad trees bad fruit etc.."
Also, just because our understanding of morals cannot be truly objective, that does not mean that we cannot understand universal truths about morality. Slavery is wrong, murder is wrong etc. Its the same situation with science. Just because we dont understand it all, it doesnt mean we can understand none. Further, if there werent an objective reality, we would understand NOTHING. Because it would change based on someone's perception. It does not, in fact, do that.
Suffering is bad is a idea most morality starts from, even God based morality because you want to ovoid hell. Society is wrong on morality when it causes un nessisary suffering
"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” The command of a moral and loving god. Dennis Prager's god.
Dennis Prager's god is a fool who injected warmongering into a religious text? You do realize that we live in one of the most peaceful times of all time...right? The past was tribal af, violent af and constantly struggling to survive even past the age of 30. Or trying to die gloriosly before that. First world.problems are still problems...yet they usually pale in comparison to the past.
Don't forget that other one where they were to spare the youngest girls not touched by men, to take as their wives. No wonder they think so much about pizzagate...
and since God's wishes and commands can only be understood through those (people) who claim to be God's chosen messengers, those self proclaimed messengers gain ultimate authority. A behavior/practice/priority is deemed good or evil, a the discretion of the messenger.
@@reasonablespeculation3893 sure, power nearly always plays a part in these developments. but I think it was the desire for some objective bases for human morality (laws to govern societies that were growing in size) that had us create a monotheistic god.
@@haydenwalton2766 or people wanted the power to control society and made up a dude who controls where you go when you die so that they can be in power and say whatever they want to control said society
One of the questions I keep seeing in Quora (and yes, I answer them) is "How can someone have any morality without God". The answer is simple. Altruism. Even animals have altruism. It means support for your species. Has this NEVER been considered? Yeah, but not by the 'moral' leaders of the scamistry.
@@Terrorbrot Yes, but how many people truly have a decent understanding of the basics of the biological theory of evolution? I would say... not many at all.
Well stated, Bro. I'm content that my atheistic morality is based on empathy and humility, and would further posit that there is NO morality in behaving a certain way to gain infinite reward, or avoiding behaving another way so that one isn't tortured unspeakably for all eternity. 🙏
@@archie8767 "Empathetic to what end" Human survival and prosperity, Next. "humility relative to what" Relative to that which humans as a group feel vs. the individual, it's not that hard. Assuming you're an American I'd figure the concept of "democratic consensus" would be obvious to you. I'm getting the impression you spend a lot of wildly unnecessary time thinking about the "Grand Cosmic Objective Meaning" of your actions and morals. I'd suggest getting over that, life doesn't need to be as complicated as you're making it and "Not being an ass" is not that hard.
Thanks. First time the question of 'why then did humans invent religion' has been answered for me. It helped organize us, manage us as groups. Sadly, like everything else we do, the flaws started to show as we evolved. I think it still serves a good purpose as a personal pursuit, no different than anything else we do to unwind, relax, cope with stress etc. I used to pray on the job when faced with a brain busting tech problem. It calmed, centered and made me think more clearly - literal brain chemistry change no different than another person might get from meditation, or a walk. But public policy? Especially despite scientific evidence to the contrary of whatever archaic scripture some lawmaker is quoting??? HELL No
@@angelmendez-rivera351 Sure, never implied it was. I said the _effect_ on the individual is basically the same. Like a different route to the same destination, ie calm. Another person might go punch a heavy bag till their arms quit 🤷♂️
@@outermarker5801 The point I am trying to make is that taking a meditation technique, and imprudently slapping the label "prayer" on it, does not mean you are somehow practicing a religion, nor does it mean that what a Christian actually calls prayer has any clear benefits at all. Anything "good" that can potentially be achieved by religion, is more consistently achieved by other things, and without the baggage. I think it is deceptive to put Christian prayer and meditation in the same basket.
@@angelmendez-rivera351 _"...and imprudently slapping the label "prayer" on it"..._ Who did that? So far only you have. I'm starting to feel like Hitchens trying to make a dogmatic christian understand that atheism isn't a belief to be proven. Again, I did NOT say that meditation is prayer, or even a form of it. I said FOR THE CHRISTIAN it does the same thing to THEIR _brain._ I don't know about you, but I WAS a christian, I KNOW what that mental perspective is like, baggage and all. I'd encourage you to be like Hitchens, calm down and actually analyze why religion, for all it's bullcrap, is so persistently captivating to the human mind. It is literally brain chemistry, specifically dopamine. Objective observation of the phenomenon rather than 'impudent' dismissal will make you a better educated atheist. Because right now you remind me of some christians - so dogmatic you can't understand what's being said to you over the din of your own negative opinion and contempt.
@@outermarker5801 *Again, I did NOT say that meditation is prayer, or even a form of it.* I understand this. I _never_ said that you said that. *I said FOR THE CHRISTIAN it does the same thing to THEIR brain.* One of the effects prayer has is certainly similar, but this alone is not sufficient to justify treating prayer and meditation as comparable in this context. *I don't know about you, but I WAS a Christian,...* I was one as well. I never said anything that should invalidate your experience of prayer. *I'd encourage you to be like Hitchens, calm down,...* I hate to say it, but I am pretty calm. I am not convinced that you are calm at all, though. You are using CAPS LOCK every five words, and you compared me to a dogmatic Christian. These are not actions a calm person does in the beginning of a conversation, solely from a disagreement. Honestly, you seem like a person filled with anger. *...and actually analyze why religion, for all it's bullcrap, is so persistently captivating to the human mind.* I have. This was one of the many things I researched when I studied in college. I am probably more qualified to speak on the topic that you are, and frankly, I would be so bold as to say, more qualified than Hitchens. I never denied that religion is persistently captivating to the human mind, and my point was never about addressing this. *It is literally brain chemistry, specifically dopamine.* It is far more complicated than brain chemistry. Brain chemistry definitely plays a role, but it is not as major as you would claim to be. *Objective observation of the phenomenon rather 'impudent' dismissal will make you a better educated atheist.* (A) The only thing I have dismissed here is the grossly inaccurate comparison between prayer and meditation. (B) I want to hear nothing about "objective observation" from someone who has conducted no observations of their own on the subject matter. (C) Given your clear incompetence in holding a civil conversation, you are certainly not qualified to make any worthwhile judgments on how well-educated an atheist (or anyone else, for that matter) is. *Because right now, you remind me of some Christians - so dogmatic, you can't understand what's being said to you over the din of your own negative opinion and contempt.* This is just projection on your part. I understood your argument just fine the first time. You are the one who misunderstood my response to you. You are also the only one here being negative. You decided to proceed with this discussion by insulting me, despite my replies to you being polite. I will end my comment with an insult of my own, pointing out how this all demonstrates that you are definitely not smart enough to understand that this approach you are taking is completely counterproductive: you will not succeed at convincing anyone of your point of view, and if anything, you will only succeed in turning them away. Alas, if there is anyone here who is like dogmatic Christian, that would be you. I am going to mute you, because there is no point in me bothering to try to have a conversation with someone so irrationally angry, that they are unable to hold a conversation.
Dennis also basically admits that the only reason he doesn't go on a murderous raiding spree is that he thinks his god is watching him and he wouldn't go to heaven if he did. That's honestly pretty scary.
The manipulative sarcasm makes it sweet. There's no hatred like religious love. Vengeance is the word. And it's an abusive word and a toxic one to encourage yet we are to revel in the idea that people will "get what they deserve". Which, by the way, also implies deserving punishment for arbitrary things and that also makes all faith based religions that have any kind of punishment in the hereafter gaslighting by definition. And they all do that, so they're all mentally and emotionally abusive. And they're all following the narcissism for dummies textbook, so abuse is kind of expected. It's just that it's so normalized that people don't even agree that it's abusive and narcissistic. Just as it's not considered delusional if your delusion is religion or any other shared delusion that is encouraged and normalized by society. At least with a medical diagnosis of delusions it's useful to make the distinction, but to refrain from calling abuse abuse because it's normal, that's harmful and stupid and we're all guilty of it.
Catholics believe an omnipotent deity created the first humans from dust & bone, but when He wanted a kid He had to inseminate a young Jewish girl in ancient Palestine, and the Son remained anonymous for 32 years despite being God in the flesh, correct?
Protestant here (albeit of the progressive variant that Prager's audience would likely view as heretical at best), and I agree with this comment. Looking forward to the next video!
How? If I watch Christian content, I feel like I'm watching some propagandistic bull crap. How can you like this? Do you make fun of it? Like the people who watch flat-earther content? You 'love it', but still think it's stupid?
@@krembryle no I actually think it's smart. I may not agree with most of what he said but I think he is a brilliant and funny guy and makes some really compelling arguments.
I would be very disappointed if my favourite substance in the universe would not appreciate not living as a serf under feudal Lord Prager. There are so many negatives in that sentence I confused myself with that one, but I think I got it right, but just in case: I'm happy that you prefer freedom over the alternatives :D
Human empathy can account for just as much morality as belief in a devine law giver. The example they often go for is torturing a child. It immediately invokes a strong empathic response. It disgusts us. Seeing someone save the life of a drowning child also invokes empathy. We feel uplifted and grateful. We have these feelings of good and evil and also the ability to discuss ideas, to consider ways to form better societies and learn from our mistakes. Accepting theistic ideas of morality dogmatically is to refuse to learn from all the progress and mistakes that we have made.
It's also easily explainable by nature and evolution. The "Goal" in evolution is self-preservation as a species. Many different animals have evolved different approaches. Humans happen to have evolved the social approach, strength in numbers, like many other mammals. As sheep and goats form herds and wolves form packs, we form tribes. Because humans aren't particularly strong or fast. If a hungry bear finds a lonely human, the human dies, end of story. If a hungry bear finds a full tribe of 20 humans, the bear dies. So staying in a group is evolutionary beneficial. But obviously that can only work if elements that endanger the group are eliminated. Someone murdering their own packmembers is dangerous to the pack, so he is killed or thrown out (which means he's left on his own and easy prey to said bear, so most likely he still dies). Same goes for stealing, if you steal other peoples food then sure, you have more food, but that also means other people can steal your food, and then you won't have any food. So just agreeing not to steal food is to everyone's benefit (unless your tribe doesn't have enough food but then you're kinda screwed anyway). And since humans, like many mammals, have very strong maternal instincts and protecting their young as the future of their species is also a huge priority, anyone torturing a child would necesarrily be seen as evil, because not only is he sabotaging the tribe (by attacking one of their members), but he's also endagering the young, that's two of the "worst cases" for any tribe, and as such it would always be seen as morally appaling. Because quite frankly, torturing and killing your children is an evolutionary dead end.
the problem with rationality in general, or rather with people who are rationalists is that because we know so much, we know that we dont know much and thus cant be as arrogant as people who dont know enough to not know that they dont know much
Reading the Old Testament as a child horrified me. His entire love of war, blood and jealousy and power trips churned my stomach. My own morals as a child said the stories about God were morally corrupt.
If your dogma tells you to be okay with homosexuals and that your god will fuck them up for loving the wrong person in the wrong way, hypocrisy is the norm, not the exception.
@@preferredpronoun3689 >>One does not even have to understand disorder, surely to want to stay away from what is not functional? "" But what if a behavior you have is not functional but you cant see it? How would you even know then? >>Just a reaction no?"" But what if that reaction is often wrong? If I can ask you a question and predict the answer you will have pop in your head and predict its going to be a wrong answer, would you give me some of your time to try and show you something?
Look many narcissistic and pyschopathic people gravitate towards religion especially in higher positions of moral authority as there's alot of people who can be controlled through belief systems. With that said I do agree to using a moral code as a guide to be a decent individual is incredibly important! ❤
Very underrated comment. Thank you for mentioning that. I feel like it's never stated enough, or to often for that matter. Also, I would like to add that your moral code must be based in somehting objectively verifiable we can agree is an important and valid basis, like well being of people. If a basis is not important I can base it on my claims alone and make your death and suffering a mandatory sacrifice for good crops and fat cow asses, or on a god that may or may not want you dead for loving the wrong person in a wrong way.
You can have a 'moral code' without being religious. Almost all irreligious people have a 'moral code,' and those who do not are typically called "psychopaths" or "antisocial." A 'moral code' is something different than a religion.
F*CK it's hard to be smart. People are constantly distorting and twisting reality just so you have to piece it together to PROVE that you understand and have solid arguments. It makes me wonder how AWARE are these people of their behavior? Are they doing it on purpose? Do they know we KNOW they are doing it but they're still doing it because they know how hard it is to publicly argue against it (brandolini's law; gish gallop)? Seriously, I'm about 30 now and I've been asking these questions since I was less than 18. It has been plagueing my mind and I still think, honestly, that some people are closer to zombies than what I am personally, with my curiosity and respect towards the TRUTH (shared sentiment among philosophically oriented people). This problem is highlighted by the GUILT of thinking about other humans as lesser intellectually, despite the fact that they consistently demonstrate an inability to consider evidence, reason, LOGIC, in their assessments of what is true. Their indifference towards pitfalls in reasoning and argumentation only further strengthen the differentiation between them and those who truly care about truth, to the point that "truthtellers" turn into doctor House and start fucking with these idiots for the shitty arguments they make, as it is apparent to the person who is arguing against them that all they have to do to grow and learn is to GOOGLE A FEW FUCKING ARGUMENTS AND THEY'D BE DONE FOR LIFE! No, these people are 50, 60, 70 years old and despite all the time they've had, they've refused to acknowledge intuitive arguments (and thus realities) that govern how humans formulate beliefs, and how they twist their perception and reality in order to accommodate that reality into their worldview. It's pathetic. Humans are pathetic. We are not smart, we're fucking idiots.
It really can get tiring watching respected skeptics and debaters constantly give their opponents the benefit of the doubt, entertaining their ridiculous arguments, and treating them as confused, mistaken, or misinformed good actors, when we, they, and their opponents know damn well that they're just spewing bullshit.
Their position is inherently dishonest because they do not start from a neutral position of examining the evidence or lack thereof, or even the plausibility or lack thereof, but instead start with their desired conclusion that magical sky daddy will let them live forever, and fabricate whatever arguments or evidence necessary to justify that.
@@geekehUK Some people are just ignorant and there isn't malicious intent behind their actions. It doesn't make it better or more excusable, but that's the reason. Not a lot of people value adaptability and open-mindedness. People are more willing to believe whatever aligns with their inner world, and EVERYONE is like this. No exceptions to that. You just have to have enough self awareness to understand and grow. Changing your beliefs is a much harder thing than staying exactly the same. The same is as a comfortable state to be in.
I used to believe in God, and for me it was a very embarrassing thing to realize that my religion wasn't real. All of these people saying that you're foolish for still believing, so many logical arguments trying to debunk a big part of how you view the world. I wasn't extremely religious but accepting that was hard because it basically reconextualized everything in my life. Looking back, I'm thinking "how did I ever believe that it was real". But it made complete sense that I thought that way lol. I was raised my whole life to think that way. My grandmother is a kind woman and it felt like spitting on her for me to think her religion is a scam. To be honest, people just want the world to be some simple place and have a clear guide on what and what not to do. Thinking for yourself and forming beliefs on your own is scary. For me it's STILL intimidating. What if I don't believe in the "Right" thing? At least I'll have decided that for myself instead of blindly following after something or someone else.
Love the closing statements! I would love to hear your beliefs on "objective" morality, as I believe this to be a large part of theists stance on morality. Personally I believe morality to be merely subjective. This does not make morality any less important, but places morality on the individual. What I see as moral and what Prager sees as moral are objectively dissimilar, however many points we would agree. Is it that these things we agree on a objective morals or simply that our subjective morals align on certain moral points? Would love to know your thought on it. Keep up the great work!
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." -Susan B. Anthony There's most certainly not an "objective" morality. Even less so from a theist's stand point. The most heinous crap can be justified when you can claim "God" told you to.
AFAIK, his stance on morality is that objective morality exists in so far that anything is objectively moraly just if it aims to minimize suffering, promote happiness, or both, and something is morally unjust if it causes unnecessary suffering, needlessly minimizes happiness or again, does both. I do believe he has said so in multiple videos. Of course those are very vague and general statements but anything that is supposed to be a universally applicable rule would logically require to be general enough to be able to be applied in any situation.
@@EskChan19 not everyone agrees that objective mortality is based on minimizing suffering and promoting happiness, though. Capitalism in fact is based on the premise that it is individual responsibility for one's own suffering and happiness and it is a moral failing rather than a societal failing if they can't. That is subjective, not objective.
@Randy19 Fairly new to this channel... That said, thanks for the summarization of his past statements on this subject. However, none of this speaks to the objectivity of morals. I agree that most people agree on most moral bindings. That merely means a mass subjective moral. Just wonder his beliefs on their objective nature, as I believe their is no sound proof of such.
Mate, you don't have to go back to Medieval period to get an example of the morality of stealing to feed your family. This was literally widespread across Ireland from 1845 to 1850 when the imposed stable food of the Irish, potatoes, failed and despite the island producing more than enough grain, wheat, barley etc, millions starved or fleed to foreign shores. In fact one of our (I'm Irish) most treasured folk songs, the Fields of Athenry, is about this very scenario, a young man stealing government corn to feed his family being sent on a prison ship to Australia as punishment. You'll hear it at any soccer game where the Irish are playing, it's a fan favourite!
More to the point, if: - morality is whatever God says it is - God can and will change his mind to fit the circumstances - I have a personal relationship with God via which he informs my moral reasoning (presumably so that it better aligns with his current views) ...then basically anything I do is moral ? Feels a bit like cheating.
Point 1) Yes, the Creator establishes what is fitting in creation through the Divine Image. A vacuum is good insofar as it cleans. Because that's why we created it. Point 2) No. God is existence, hence, I AM. He therefore is simultaneously present and in perfect possession of being. He therefore simultaneously manifests and exhausts Himself as part of one act as He simply is. Point 3) Absolutely not. Personal inspirations are liable to error and may not be from God. Again, there is no "current view." The conscience is only accurate if it comports itself to Truth Space-time is a physical constant with a beginning and end. God is not constituted by his creation and therefore doesn't change.
@@archie8767 Well, then Prager is wrong and so are his claims about morality. Also, in that case morality cannot possibly have been established by God, as it is constantly changing. Just like vacuums.
"Objective morality" is an oxymoron. Morality and ethics are purely relational concepts, and cannot be objective. Any type of assigned objectivity will just be a statistical sigma of outcomes. The ethics field is extremely similar to economics (basically, not a hard science due to human variability). We just don't have an ethics equivalent of "money" with which to create an "invisible hand" system like capitalism.
The whole thing went off the rails the moment they took the Bible as a guideline for life and society. It is a collection of histories as perceived by later generations, fables, poetry, and entertaining stories. It's interesting to read it like that if you're a history and/or cultural nerd. However, it is like putting Shakespeare's plays and poetry, ancient Greek mythology, and some almanac together, giving the whole thing a fancy name and elevating it to sacred status. It makes for a good business model if you're into grifting but becomes a disaster if applied seriously as something to lead your life by or run a society with, as history shows.
Notice how Frank Turek infatickly points to himself, with both index fingers, when he says God is the standard, " seems he's defending the power and authority he derives for peddling God as a profitable product.
As an ex-Christian and a storyteller myself, I'm super interested in uncovering the horror of these kinds of beliefs... maybe I'll make that horror movie for you one day! :P
Watch the Doctor Who episode World War Three about a family if aliens who want to destroy the earth. The Slithheen are a family of Raxacoricofallapatorians, aliens from the planet Raxacoricofallapatorius. They can fit themselves into human skin suits. They need the skin of larger individuals to accommodate their bulky bodies. Dennis’s skin would be ideal.
Big Bad Mama sort of does that with Kent Hovind. Maybe we should ask her to take a look at Dennis. I would very much love a horror movie with clips of Dennis being the honest hypocrite that he is.
"Lord Prager has been too busy fighting off libtard snowflakes campaigning to raise the age of consent to 12..." I was pouring coffee when I reached this point. You made me spill it. 😁
It just hit me that you referencing the "horns" of the Euthyphro dilemma means there's a nonzero chance you're familiar with Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Have you ever thought about doing a video on the relationship between Quality (as presented by Pirsig) and more mainstream religious views? He hardly ever gets referenced and if I was going to get such a video from the RU-vidrs I watch (Including Alex O'Conner, Prophet of Zod, etc) you'd be the guy to present that in an unbiased way.
That is just bullshit from western godless and souless obsessed with something they for western godless and souless modern idiots... becareful idiot becase of we believers in right we will become Nothing as you think you will be once death, but if we are right and God exist, when your heart will stop you will be in Big troubels... good luck woth that poor Godnier. So think about next time to coment and be a western godless idiot.... Anyway ypu godless and souless idiot wants just follow your own desores but they change all the time, and which spirtiuality have a westerm godless amd souless idiot? Even my Dog have more spiritual then you... what a miserable live you must have, without God. Disgusting...
1:46 For once, I agree with Prager, at least in part. "There is no objective moral truth." It doesn't matter if there is a god or not. Morality is relative. It always has been and always will be.
I love the mental gymnastics you have identified. The justification used to justify their own beliefs are amusing to listen to, however, the actions that happen from their beliefs can be so destructive. As a single mum when my son was young, I enjoyed all the religious people who would come visiting, I had an "adult" to talk to. I have read the bible, and many other religious texts, and have a pretty good memory. As they tried to "convert me", I would ask these sorts of questions and eventually, I didn't get religious people knocking on my door. The best group was the Mormons. I read the Book of Mormon in a week, and when they came back, I asked a lot of questions. Never saw a Mormon again.
Dennis : You gota have morals. Like religion! Me : "‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me." Dennis : No, no, not like that ...
Even if Prager was right, and the nonexistence of any god means that nothing is objectively right or wrong, that would be perfectly fine with me. Our ways of determining right and wrong don't really need to be objective on a universal scale
6:25 Yes, he literally said: "Without god telling us it's wrong, it's not wrong." So it's about god's opinion of what is wrong. if it's not god's opinion then it's beyond god's abilities which is impossible because god is supposedly omnipotent.
Rape is right, as long as you marry the victim. Murder is right, in a lot of cases, including the stoning of children in minor cases, as well as stoning women in other minor cases (some of these cases include speaking) Genicide is good if the effected people are bad; even children who has done nothing. Even unborns who haven't yet to sin. With God, we're allowed to rape, kill and murder countries, as long as we still belive in God, we're allowed into heaven. How is this "objective morality"?
In the eyes of the religious only. Greed of the elites and their wannabees lack of empathy cruelty to out-groups and basic lack of humanism always causes collapse.
Even if we assume there is no objective morality, there are still social consequences to going around causing whatever mayhem you please! what stops me from raping and killing is that I have no inclination to do it in the first place. What stops me from various other bad behaviours is my conscience telling me I should not hurt people, in combination with knowing that there would be social consequences including but not limited to; straining social relationships, losing privileges, not getting what I want, difficulty finding employment, and being punished by law
Pretty much. "If god didn't say killing is wrong then it wouldn't be wrong" basically translates to "If I could get away with killing people I'd do it, but sadly big brother is always watching me so I wouldn't get away with it"
No. It means that if everything was made without a purpose or rules and just by happenstance abstract ideas such as morality have no basis for legitimacy.
@@badart3204 Which is a strawman. Only the apologists claim it was all happenstance and without rules. If there were no rules, science would be pointless.
I think you’re making a mistake, perhaps knowingly, thinking that DP doesn’t understand/know all of your points. The fact is, and I’m convinced of this, that he doesn’t care in the slightest about all of your arguments, just like Jordan P or all the others right wing zealots. They’re just really happy with all the money and recognition they’re getting, so much so they sometimes, at times, even believe what they say
Oh, man! That line in the very beginning where he says 'lying and stealing aren't wrong unless God says it is', that's quite the conundrum he just made for himself regarding slavery! Ouch!
Haven't watched through yet, but the 1st argument falls apart because we can't assume that that which is legally accepted is morally acceptable. We can have immoral laws.
The “lawful” interpretation was a misstep. The “without victim’s consent or concern for victim’s preference” component should be the basis for the argument.
I think that part of the issue with your married bachelor point is that something being unlawful doesn't make it inherrently immoral. I live in the UK, where weed is very illigal. It's not something I am interested in at all but I live in a part of the country where smoking weed wouldn't be considered "wrong" by most people even though it is unlawful. In principle murder could be a crime but not be immoral.
The "married bachelor" point is not about legality or morality. It's definitional. It's not possible to be both married and a bachelor at the same time.
@@Paradoxarn. Depends on which source you use. If you think morality comes from god, murder is wrong because god says so. If you think morality exists independently of the existence (or not) of any god, murder is inherently wrong. To us atheists, Murder can be both immoral and illegal. Legal regulations flow from moral imperative.
@@robinbeers6689 Either way, it is not an analytical truth that murder is wrong. Instead the explanation for why murder is wrong must go beyond the definition of the word.
The biggest reason people do not commit immoral actions is based on outcome I'd say. If you commit murder, it is going to be very hard to interact with your local society.
Morality is the optimal organizing of a society. Optimal doesn't necessarily mean it's perfect or even possible to be perfect but that suffering is minimized and happiness is maximized.
But the specifics of that depend on many factors, such as resource spread but also just the general zeitgeist of the time. You usally can't do both so usually you have to decide which of the two to focus on, minimizing suffering or maximizing happiness. Slavery, for example, could be seen as moraly just in a society based on maximizing happiness, making the majority as happy as possible, even to the detriment of a few people. A society build on minimizing suffering would forbid slavery, but might allow human sacrifices. If you have enough resources to sustain 99 people, then if the 100th is born, what to do? keep them and cause 100 people to suffer because noone gets enough? Or cast someone out who will likely just suffer for a while alone in the woods until they get mauled by a hungry bear? Or just sacrifice them in a quick, as painless as possible way and thus, allow 99 people to continue with enough ressources and preventing the 1 from suffering needlessly as well? As the importance we place on minimizing suffering and maximizing happiness shifts, and as ressources become more widely available, it is only natural that morality would change as well. We are now technologically advanced enough and have enough resources that we can achive a reasonable level of both, and as such our morality adapted to despise many of the means our ancestors had to go to in order to achive just one of them.
I disagree with less suffering and happiness being the standard, but the happiness moreso. Ideally you want people to be engaged, skilled, curious, aware of their situation but content and accepting the system as a way to ensure harmony and human potential. A society focused on just maximizing happiness could end up considering it moral to drug up its populace and give them all VR headsets connected to AI that makes perfect worlds.
@@krunkle5136 The problem with your counterargument is that it fails to account for the distinction between someone mistakenly thinking that an action maximizes happiness, and an action actually maximizing happiness. You are right that, if a society believes it maximizes happiness to drug everyone and have them wear VR throughout the rest of their lives, then they will probably try to make it happen (and then fail). However, this does not constitute an objection to the definition given, since in this case, society would simply be wrong in its belief that such actions maximize happiness. You know, it is entirely possible for _everyone_ in society to be wrong about a given thing.
I actually think that tackling religious transfobia and homofobia through the "love your neighbor" approach is not too far away. And I think it should be encouraged.
I think all religious ideas are baseless and should therefor be discouraged. Everyone, including theists base their morals on and judges actions by weighing actions against their effects. THAT and acknowledging that should be encouraged. Encouraging baseless ideas as a basis for actions outside of humour, romance/poetry and (other) arts, and (other) entertainment is abusive because it sets you up to accept fallacies and thinking errors as valid reasons and evidence. This makes people (more) vulnerable to abuse instead of helping them to protect them against abuse. Furthermore, you're implying that it's a good thing to favour one interpretation of a text over another based on nothing but wishful thinking. You have nothing to back it up with and it can just as easily be dismissed by anyone with the same lack of evidence and reason to back it up with. What the hell do you think makes your interpretation more correct than any other? What if I say that I think the neighbour refers to Jewish Israelis only and everyone else is a legal slave and glorious divine victim of the next holy blessed genocide. At least I have biblical text to back it up with. You have nothing. How are you going to solve that problem?
@@stylis666 You are raising some important concerns. My thinking is that people should be free to have their own beliefs. However, the state should not be influenced by those, but shall instead be based on general principles of humanism and rule of law over which 99% of people should be able to agree. The religious ideas of the middle ages have been very much moderated in modern times with advancement of science in general, but mostly physics and medicine. I would prefer to have a healthy democratic discourse between religious ideas and secular ideas. Like the one in the discussions of Peterson and Harris. Everyone will then be able to decide on their own. I would not go into the realm of "discouraging religious ideas" as a state policy. It was tried by the Bolsheviks. It turned out very bad.
@@konstantinlozev2272 _"You are raising some important concerns."_ Thank you. I appreciate the acknowledgement of importance. _"My thinking is that people should be free to have their own beliefs."_ This is where most discussions about ethics fail before they even have a chance to start. You and many other people state it at the beginning as if it's the most important thing, but it is completely irrelevant. Your thoughts are free and unless you have some way to alter them that is how it just is -- no one can change that. And water is wet. No one cares and it's not relevant to anything. But let's say that you're free to believe that murder is okay, does that make any difference in how we treat you and a murder if you commit one? ANY difference? No, because your beliefs are completely irrelevant and they always were and they always will be until you have a way to alter them. So, then why do people, you included, pose it as a needed statement, implying that criticism should be toned down or not be uttered at all? Because that is what that remark does: shut down the conversation and any and all criticism. Maybe you think that with that statement you caught all force and/or indoctrination, but you didn't. If the government decides today that as of now everyone who isn't a Spukaist shall be killed, you didn't stop that or even speak out against it. You're still free to believe otherwise and pretend or die. You aren't even able to choose to believe anything. No one is. So here's the deal: you are free to think anything because you just are and it's completely redundant to mention it and all words and all other actions are open to criticism. If you have a problem with that, you're free to fuck off, or you could try and criticize it, but I think you'll find that I offered a great deal. _"I would prefer to have a healthy democratic discourse between religious ideas and secular ideas. Like the one in the discussions of Peterson and Harris."_ Except religious ideas are by definition not healthy because it requires and encourages fallacious reasoning and glorifies it and it discourages criticism and Harris and Peterson aren't exactly the best advocates for critical thinking either. Peterson being the worst of them by relying on fallacies only himself and being generally toxic and wrong about everything because he does nothing but project his flaws on other people while pretending he gets those assertions of his from observation of others and from research and his experience as a psychologist and teacher. _"Everyone will then be able to decide on their own."_ You would be if you were able to distinguish between fallacious and non fallacious arguments and evidence, but evidently you're not, so you're already only able to decide which nonsense you find most plausible sounding and that will never be a reliable way to come to correct conclusions. You might as well just use a magic 8-ball. _ I would not go into the realm of "discouraging religious ideas" as a state policy."_ And no one suggests that, but I had a feeling you'd assume that I did because of your ridiculous start of saying that you want everyone to be free to believe whatever. You mentioned freedom several times and when it comes to encouraging and discouraging your mind automatically jumps to law enforcement. Did anywhere in your thought process pop up a thought that you might be encouraging and discouraging things and people and animals all the time by the way you respond to your environment? Did you not open and close a tap in your life? Did you ever respond to a suggestion? Do you not think that depending on how you respond you encourage or discourage someone to or from making that suggestion or any suggestion? So again, this is irrelevant to the conversation and to be honest I see no value in continuing it with you. Your narrow minded and warped views on what freedom and encouragement is just bores me to tears and I have more fun irrelevant bullshit to waste my time on. Bye and the best of luck with your reliance on fallacies and hormones to come to conclusions.
That is just bullshit from western godless and souless obsessed with something they for western godless and souless modern idiots... becareful idiot becase of we believers in right we will become Nothing as you think you will be once death, but if we are right and God exist, when your heart will stop you will be in Big troubels... good luck woth that poor Godnier. So think about next time to coment and be a western godless idiot.... Anyway ypu godless and souless idiot wants just follow your own desores but they change all the time, and which spirtiuality have a westerm godless amd souless idiot? Even my Dog have more spiritual then you... what a miserable live you must have, without God. Disgusting!
Great vid Steve! I appreciate the hard work you put into this series, which is many orders of magnitude more than Prager puts into his "Master's" program. It's always easier to sow intolerance, fear, and misinformation than it is to clean up the mess and share real knowledge.
That is just bullshit from western godless and souless obsessed with something they for western godless and souless modern idiots... becareful idiot becase of we believers in right we will become Nothing as you think you will be once death, but if we are right and God exist, when your heart will stop you will be in Big troubels... good luck woth that poor Godnier. So think about next time to coment and be a western godless idiot.... Anyway ypu godless and souless idiot wants just follow your own desores but they change all the time, and which spirtiuality have a westerm godless amd souless idiot? Even my Dog have more spiritual then you... what a miserable live you must have, without God. Disgusting...
Actually, the twisting of morals into pretzels that people will actually follow is _very_ hard work, especially when it is so clear the vast majority of the ruling class and their minions (such as Dennis Prager) do not believe a word of what they are saying (except for maybe the authority part).
As expected, the comments are filled with people quoting scripture out of context or not understanding what they've read. But nevertheless, why are atheists always debating christians. Why not any other religion? Why not Satanism?
Every reaction has an equal and opposite reaction. When truth is shown in the face of ignorance or denial, it prompts an equally combative response. The ego is a powerful tool the devil uses to confuse the masses. Repent and turn to Christ
Something truly hilarious: One of the ads that just popped up on this video was for the daily wire 😂 I'm dying right now...I let the whole ad play just for the satisfaction of making RU-vid's algorithm waste some of their money.
If you talk to god, you can do whatever he tells you. In fact you should do what he tells you. Namely the voice inside your head. Brilliant and convenient at the same time!
Schizophrenia and psychopathy enabled on a grand scale and called righteous belief.At least these days we know the difference between hearing voices and lying to manipulate others to commit atrocities?.
You do not have to believe in a God (or a plagiarized manipulative book) to feel that murder and stealing is wrong. You do not need religion to be a moral and ethical person. Simply think of how you wish to be treated or how you wish not to be treated and treat others equally to that belief. No made up or imagined deities required.
