To those saying that this is a view that is unfamiliar to most atheistic circles and, therefore, a strawman - it's important to note some of the most influential philosophers in modern history have advanced it including David Hume, Thomas Hobbes, Ludwig Feuerbach, Karl Marx, and contemporary philosophers like Daniel Dennett. Marx has been cited by many as possibly the most influential philosopher of the late modern period.

My particular kind of atheism is the kind where people like you make me happy to be an atheist.

2:07 the Bible doesn’t condemn slavery. It explicitly gives instructions on how to procure slaves, and how to treat them. Just because there’s a couple stories within the book where slaves get freed, doesn’t negate the fact that instructions are laid out on how to get slaves. There’s no Commandment that says “Thou shalt not own other people”

Brian, do YOU want to be a slave? Are you married? Would you want your spouse to be a slave? Do you have children? Would you want your children to be slaves? How hard is it to conclude that slavery is wrong if you would not want yourself or anyone you care about to be enslaved?

"Some athiests say the bible is morally inferior for *not going far enough* to condemn slaver." This man has never read the freaking bible.

The moral argument: "But if a genocidal invisible wizard doesn't tell me that slavery is OK, how will I know that slavery is OK?"

This video pretty much amounts to a christian moving the goal posts for 12 minutes and 18 seconds so as to avoid admitting his question has been answered.

'...and I hear many an atheist accuse the Bible of being morally inferior for not going far enough in its condemnation of slavery' It is dishonest to imply that the Bible does condemn slavery - God uses it to punish the Jews, orders them to make slaves of surrounding cities who surrender to them, and gives instructions as to how they may buy and own slaves. Slaves are commanded to obey their masters in Ephesians, Colossians and 1st Peter.

I have yet to meet an honest religious apologist. This video didn't change that.

“If you’re going to define something logically then you cannot include the thing that you’re trying to define in your definition” Literally every Christian quotes the bible when trying to prove it is true

Atheism is a viewpoint on a single issue - a lack of belief in a god or gods. Therefore, there are no varieties of atheism (although there are some people who define the word to mean something else so you could argue loosely this is a variety). Some atheists are materialists, others are not. A view on this subject is a separate issue from atheism.

"“‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." -Leviticus 25:44-46 Not only does the bible not condemn slavery, it explicitly allows it.

Yes, the suffering of someone who died in a war, even if they were later honored for a heroic effort, is a bad thing. That's like inferring that a child suffering and dying a horrible death from a disease is a good if it raised awareness and lead to a cure. The suffering was still a bad thing!

I’m an atheist and I can answer the question “is slavery wrong?” My answer is “YES! Slavery is wrong!” I want you to answer the question as well. Can you even do that without a bunch of caveats?

I wanted to comment on this video when it came out but I was at work. So better late than never. Brian proposes that he asks some random atheist if slavery is wrong. The atheist in his scenario naturally responds that yes, of course, slavery is wrong. That should be the end of the discussion. But Brian suggests that he will then ask his interlocutor to define the word, “wrong.” If I’m the random atheist in this scenario, I will simply respond, “You brought it up. What do you think “wrong” means?” Brian is attempting to make an argument about the esoteric meaning of words that otherwise have perfectly accepted meanings. What is “right or wrong” in the context of which those words are used? Wrong, as in incorrect? Right, as opposed to left? Brian knows full well what “wrong” means. His entire scenario is nothing short of playing, “Let’s troll the atheist. Here’s how.” Brian then proceeds to gaslight his audience with the claim that slavery “virtually disappeared in Christendom in the Middle Ages…” Balderdash! Brian conveniently ignores the feudal labor system where the poorest of the poor worked the land owned by the Lords and Barons. Just because it was called something different doesn’t mean it wasn’t for all practical purposes, slavery. Next up in Brian’s gaslighting essay, is the idea that slavery enjoyed a resurgence in the Age of Enlightenment; that somehow science and humanism allowed for the scientific assignment of class status, and that that somehow justified a renewed slave trade. Again, Balderdash! The Age of Enlightenment also began the Industrial Revolution. The rise in industrialization begat the rise of capitalism. Capitalism thrives on exploiting the labor pool. The textile mills in the Northern States depended on cheap cotton from the South. If the folks picking cotton are treated as farm equipment, that’s cheaper than paying the workers. Since the invention of the printing press and the rise in Protestantism put Bibles in the hands of wealthy landowners, it is no wonder that slavery experienced a perceived resurgence during the industrial age. And so, Brian, let me ask you this. Is it “wrong” to ignore red traffic lights and just barrel freely through intersections without a care in the world? How do you define “wrong?”

This man is literally saying "If I didn't believe in God, I would believe in Scientific Racism." Every single argument in this video is a certified banger.

Not only does the Bible not condemn slavery, it actually _condones_ it, and the fact that slave owners have justified their practice with the Bible in hand should really give you pause.

In most cases, when an atheist states words to the effect that "only that which may be materially observed or empirically measured is real" with reference to theist claims, they are making reference to claims of the supernatural such as the existence of God, angels, demons, etc. Some atheists will go further to assert that theist, and even non-theist, claims of moral realism are similarly false, erroneous or otherwise unreal; in other words, some atheists are moral anti-realists -- those who do not share the moral realist view that moral statements reflect objective (mind-independent) facts about the world (universe/reality) rather than subjective (mind-dependent) opinions about how the world (universe) or state of affairs ought to be. Is slavery wrong? Yes. Slavery is morally wrong in that the vast majority of society deem it to be so and morality -- the social mores of modern society generally condemn it. Yes, slavery is morally wrong to those who hold to a standard of right and wrong based on empathy or following from the veil of ignorance, or rooted in egalitarian principles. For those who hold that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and the standard of morality, slavery is not morally wrong. The Bible neither universally condemns slavery nor prohibits it; rather, it allows for and makes provisions for how slavery ought to be practiced. If one holds that the Bible is the inviolate moral truth, then one cannot hold that slavery is wrong.

"Is slavery wrong?" Yes. Damn, that was an easy question.

Morals are based on empathy, simple as that... for example, "I would not want to be a slave, therefore I would not enslave anyone.' If you have empathy, you will understand this way of thinking. If not, then you're probably religious and need to be told what's bad and what's good.

I’m not quite sure that the examples of suffering like chemotherapy, surgery or exercise fit slavery. Because those are supposed to provoke a greater benefit for the individual that suffers them, while the kind of suffering that slavery provokes doesn’t lead to a further benefit for the slaves themselves.

Is being a slave good? Would you want to be a slave Is happy birthday a bad song? Just because something isn't objective doesn't mean there isnt a pattern or concensus

There's a lot to address here, but you didn't actually argue for God's existence at any point. I think this jumbled mess is best classified as the informal fallacy of "appeal to consequences."

Also suffering out of heroism, like self-denial or dying for a cause, which might be praised anywhere, is not suitable for suffering out of slavery, because in those cases the sacrifice is voluntary, while slavery is not.

The argument in this video is actually one that is more harmful to theists. The premise that is proven, which I agree with, is simply that morals have no objective backing and are subjective. This however agrees with the (logical) atheist position that we construct our morals. The position claiming objectivity in morals is the theist one. By this logic, the argument that we can't objectively say slavery is wrong only hurts the religious claims that it is objectively wrong. Whether you want to admit it or not, theist moral systems were also constructed by people and for that reason fail to be any more compelling than atheist ones. For this argument to benefit the theist position, you would first have to prove the objectivity of theist morals by proving this existence of these morals beyond the physical. The only issue for you then is that we live in a solely physical world so good luck. The only reason the argument seems to work is because it is begging the question by assuming such things like the soul or objective rights exist.

Another fallacy of this is that being able to rationally support what you think or do is meaningful or important. The absurdity is the amount of language gymnastics being spewed here. We all do our best (except psychopaths) to be good people and we all fail. Having a verbally defined set or morals that you can logically support is meaningless except if you’re trying to control what others do. Then you can say you’re justified in doing that because god is on your side.

*Next video:* questions that pagans can't answer

Moral Argument - begs the question as to whether morality is in fact ultimately authoritative, and whether morals actually exist or have meaning independently of us or whether, as many believe, there are alternative explanations for the existence of morals. In reality, it is neither necessary to follow a religion in order to be moral, nor is a religious person necessarily a moral one. Certainly, there appears to be no good reason to suppose that the absence of religion predisposes a person to be “bad”. Furthermore, atheism is quite compatible with philosophies like humanism which does have a system of ethics and purpose. For theists who argue that atheists have no motivation to be moral, the atheist could answer that virtue is its own reward and that, as Aristotle believed, being good and living virtuously is the only way to a fulfilled, self-actualized life. God and religion do not need to come into the equation at all. The idea that morality flows from religion received a major set-back in the public perception with the 9/11 attacks in 2001, when nineteen Al-Qaeda suicide hijackers occasioned the deaths of almost 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, secure in their expectation of a special place in paradise, complete with the use of 72 virgins, as a reward for their martyrdom. In fact, according to the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism, 224 of 300 suicide terror attacks between 1980 and 2003 involved Islamist groups or terrorist acts in Muslim-majority lands. Similarly, the incidence of pedophilia and child molestation among Catholic priests has been well documented in recent years, and more evidence comes to light with each passing year, suggesting that even the devoutly religious are far from immune from immoral behavior (as well as bringing into question the wisdom of the Catholic doctrine of celibacy). Studies by the biologist Marc Hauser, involving a series of hypothetical moral choices, have shown that there is no statistically significant difference in the moral judgements made by atheists and religious believers, nor by members of the Kuna, a small Central American tribe with little or no contact with Westerners and no formal religion. There may in fact be good Darwinian reasons for altruism, generosity and “moral” behavior, which have applied throughout history and prehistory, for instance, the favoring of genetic kin, the giving of favors in anticipation of reciprocation or payback, and the social benefit of acquiring a reputation for generosity or kindness (as in the potlatch custom of North American native groups). Even if circumstances have changed in the modern world, such hard-wired urges likely persist, in much the same way as the sexual urge persists even when the Darwinian pressure to procreate is not the primary motive. Moral codes clearly do change over time. For example, the practice of women working outside the home in Western societies has changed over time from being considered immoral to moral as changes have occurred in how women are valued as well as in what women themselves value in their lives. In the same way, the torture and burning of possible witches in 17th Century Europe can be seen as either a supreme act of morality or as the product of evil incarnate, depending on one's perspective. It is also clear that moral behavior is highly malleable, and subject to psychological, social and cultural pressures. The well-known “shock” experiments of Stanley Milgram and the “Stanford Country Jail” experiments of Philip Zimbardo in the 1960s were graphic illustrations of this malleability, especially where the subject is just an intermediate link in a chain of evil actions and under social pressure to demonstrate obedience to authority. It should be remembered that these experiments were conducted in the wake of the Adolf Eichmann Nazi Holocaust trials, in which the phase “the banality of evil” was first coined. Secular Morality: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/h6eBebyY3qulc30.html

Feline is a term in Phylogenetics. Its a describing word of the Family Felidae. This can include house cats but also can include lions, tigers, and cheetahs. So using feline is more than ok to use in a definition. So the definition you used whist bad is correct. It is a feline creature that humans have inordenate affection for. Because this would not be true or larger cats and wild cats. I mean if you mess that up... cant wait to see the rest of the video.

Let’s start off with a quick definition of wrong which fits this context: that which causes or promotes undue or gratuitous suffering. Now all we have to ask is “does slavery cause undue or gratuitous suffering?*” I myself would say yes and thus I would it is wrong. But on what basis does the Christian justify this conclusion? Because their supposedly holy text not only doesn’t go far enough to condemn slavery, it doesn’t explicitly condemn slavery whatsoever. However it does explicitly condone it. Thus the Christian has to ignore or misrepresent their scripture in order to reach a conclusion that slavery is morally wrong. I also want to point out a case of disingenuous framing. Because you start out but trying to narrow your field to empiricists only to ask a moral question. You see empiricism tends to apply to truth claims about how things are but moral questions don’t tend to fall into this category. Moral questions are based upon subjective value judgments and don’t fall under the same category as empirically justified truth. This kind of framing is highly disingenuous as it seems you’re trying to narrow the field in order to set yourself up for an easy victory rather than engage in legitimate discussion. *And no, suffering isn’t synonymous with evil. Suffering is an experience. Suffering is something you go through. Suffering is synonymous with pain and unpleasantness but not evil or bad. For example the sentence “that is a bad/evil action,” cannot be substituted with “that is a suffering action.” The later doesn’t really make sense grammatically but even if we assume it did these sentences do not have the same meaning. It is also kind of funny that after accusing these terms of being synonymous yourself you immediately then admit they aren’t. Are you trying to have your cake and eat it too? I think you are. And your examples following this are an excellent point…against your claim. Because let’s take exercise or certain medicines. They may cause suffering but they are not bad. In fact many “suffer” through a gruelling workout and would describe that experience as good. This is why most presentations of problems of suffering actually use adjectives like “gratuitous or grotesque” to describe the kind of suffering being referred to.

You either seriously do not understand how definitions work, or you are really bad at getting your point across, or possibly both. I'm leaning towards both. A definition is, by definition, synonymous with the word it describes. It's also not "circular reasoning." The description _has to_ be equivalent to the word it describes, or it's not a definition.

So, I'm an atheist who believes in objective moral values. I define morality as 'a system of rules that promote well-being and minimize suffering'. Something is 'wrong' when it conflicts with that objective. To think those definitions are inadequate or circular is because sometimes suffering is ultimately beneficial is to have a shallow understanding of the consequences of our actions. Yes, sometimes pain and sacrifice is necessary to bring about a greater good. That's not a contradiction. So yes, slavery is wrong, because it unnecessarily inflicts suffering. Objectively.

Hi Brian, At 9:59 you made a statement "Slavery was disappearing from the Christendom but saw a resurgence after the advent of secularist movements" Could you provide evidence for that statement.

Viced Rhino absolutely demolished this video, it was a pleasure to watch.

Viced Rhino answered everything you said in this video, and showed how wrong your definitions and views are.

Morality is not doing to others what you do not want them to do to you. I don't see how this isn't logical?

I would say morals are just a set of rules humans have based upon themselves, partly due to biology and empathy as it makes cooperation easier and partly due to cultural evolution as communities started to impose rules to make living together easier. Those rules have evolved over the years into different things but eventually have come together as morals that we live by and by those same rules we define what is wrong and what is right. I believe slavery is wrong because it infringes on human rights and puts some humans below others. But the morals I hold which shape my belief with have been implanted in me mostly by society, and like most people, my belief might very well be different had I lived in another society at another time.

If the question is "Is slavery wrong?" then the answers are: Christian: No. Secular Humanist: Yes. Next question?

The meaning of Synonym is one of two or MORE words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses. So all definition are by definition synonyms. Which apparently means we can't define anything according to this guy.

So, just so we are clear, despite not being around due to christianity in the Middle Ages, the trans-atlantic slave trade was started by portugal, a very christian country ,at the time, and allies with Spain, the most powerful catholic country

Tmm just wiped the floor with good old holdsworth

I'm an atheist and I think I can comfortably say "slavery ought not exist". By that I just mean it would be a better world if slavery did not exist. And by "better world" I mean a preferable world with less suffering and more well-being. And that's measurable by asking people about their well-being. I don't really see what the problem is... Theists, all else equal, which is preferable: a world with less suffering or one with more suffering? And why?

I think a large part of your issue is in seeing a morality as a noun instead of a verb; it's something we do, not something that, physically, exists. You also seem to have a very 'individual' sense of what morality is, which I'd say is a limited framing since morality is, necessarily, a group-activity. What is moral is what we agree to protect. What is immoral is what we agree to remove. The _"agree"_ is the important part; morality is a mutual pact of protection. Most people agree to systems, which can best explain what we agree to, by applying the scientific method to them; to test the outcomes against our reactions and to create iterative models of best-fit. That's why we create concepts 'Freedom of Expression' instead of fiddling with individual cases all of the time. Slavery is wrong for multiple reasons: because we don't want ourselves enslaved, because it's upsetting, but most importantly; because it forces us to choose between larger axioms or itself. We can't hold concepts like free-speech, free-expression, free-association, freedom-of-movement, property rights, etc. and slavery at the same time (for as long as we hold to the principle of non-contradiction). That is too large a philosophical cost for most people to agree to slavery. So, it becomes wrong.

Atheism isn't a worldview, it is just the lack of inclusion of one thing from one's worldview. But the kind of person you described mostly fits me as I am a humanist and philosophical naturalist. Humans evolved traits involved behavioral traits to protect one's family and community. This is a survival trait for humans and this promoting overall human well-being is balanced by promoting personal well-being. It is therefore natural for us to base morality on human well-being. Slavery objectively diminishes human well-being and is thereby immoral.

"Why is slavery wrong?" As you stated, first we must define what we mean by wrong. I would argue that we define what is "wrong" as an action imposed on a person by a nothing person that does undue harm to that person. Telling someone to exercise and making them "suffer" through pain is not a harm as it is something that will help them further down the line. Punching a stranger in the face over a disagreement is a harm as it is something forced upon them that causes them pain and injury whether it be physically, emotionally, or financial. Even if some benefit might come out of it at some point down the line, the negative consequences outweigh those benefits and were the intended goal of the person inflicting the harm. Also, that harm is meant to benefit the person applying the harm despite the lack of consent from the person experiencing the negative effects. Putting a person who is found guilty of a violent crime into prison is not a harm, as they themselves have caused undue harm to others, and therefore forfeited their ability to consent to participating in a society governed by rules that forbid violent crimes. I think you get the point. At a certain level, we have to agree on basic ideas or you just continue down a spiral of constant definitions. We as human beings have evolved to be cultural and tribal beings, achieving our greatest works due to cooperation and teamwork. We may disagree on what those works are or what they should achieve in the end, but it's very easy to see that a larger population putting its efforts towards achieving something will succeed over a smaller group, all other things being equal. Slavery, by our previous definition of "right and wrong" is wrong. It brings undue harm to others without their consent, even if it benefits the slave owner. The slave owner's goal is not to benefit the slave, but themselves at the expense of the slave. This goes against the evolved ideas of cooperation and teamwork. It is a parasitic relationship, not a cooperative one. We can then see how slavery is "wrong" even by evolutionary standards. "Morality is a standard of truth. What ought to be or what not ought to be." If this is your definition of morality, then the Bible is a very poor place to gain your morality. According to Christian doctrine, the Bible is the word (or inspired word) of an all powerful, all knowing God, who himself says that he is never changing (Hebrews 13:8, Malachi 3:6). What God sees as right or wrong, should never change unless you are saying that what ought to be, or what not ought to be is subject to change throughout time. If that is the case, then God's truth would be subject to change. Perhaps you should answer the question yourself. Is slavery right or wrong. God does not condemn it in the Bible. Why was it ok before and not ok now? Has God's truth changed? Is revenge right or wrong? God orders the Israelites to take an eye-for-an-eye. But the sermon on the mount tells us to turn the other cheek, specifically against a violent person. Has God's truth changed? Simply saying that "different times different rules" can't be applied to a "standard of truth, what ought to be or what not ought to be." By your own definition, if something ought not to be, it should always be the case that it not ought to be. What is harmful now should have been harmful then and vice versa. This idea of slavery dying off in Christendom is either poor research or just outright lying. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. It is true that we see a decrease in slavery during the rise of Christianity in Europe. Part of that can be attributed to people like St. Patrick and Bathilde Queen of the Franks having been enslaved at one point and fighting against slavery once they came to prominence. But it does not mean that slavery did not exist in medieval Europe before the Renaissance. It's difficult to judge exact numbers, as the Roman word for slave (servus) was later applied to a certain class of unfree people known as serfs, you know the thing that medieval Europe's entire economy and political system was built upon. What did change was the idea of Christian slaves being sold to non-Christians. That was prohibited by the church. As a result Christian slavers moved their focus to selling non-Christian slaves to other non-Christian slaves. We have records of cities that built massive trading routes based on slavery, Venice being the most prominent. From Venice we see a large population of Slavs and Eastern Europeans non-Christians being transported through different European countries and to places like North Africa and the Middle East. Eunuchs were so valuable in the slave trade that Venice even began to see a rise in Castration Houses to meet the demand. As for your idea that secular logic dictates that the strong should dominate the weak and that before the human soul was the only thing used to measure a person's worth, I would argue this heavily. The Catholic Church obviously did not think so at the time, when they deemed that the general populous was not worthy of reading and studying God's word themselves, sealing off that kind of ability behind Latin sermons, claiming that the only way to get to heaven was by having a priest accept your confession. The very idea of a priest, of a papal system, is built on the idea that some human beings are of greater spiritual value than others. But ignoring that, the entire class system of medieval Europe was built on the idea that one person's blood was better than another's. Royalty, anyone? Kings were literally said to be appointed by god, the bloodline blessed to carry on that divine rule. Why were nobles ransomed in wars but not peasants?

Universally speaking, the value of slavery or any other humanistically derived concept, idea, or language is considered null. The reason is because it depends on the perspective to which you ask the question towards which may or may not change the answer. Morals in any category are subject to differences of opinion. There are congruences of shared values of morals, which is what is generally agreed upon depending on the individual/group perspective.

My problem is that there's no evidence for God in my daily life, nothing tells me God is real much less Jesus and Christianity being true outside of a book sitting on my bookshelf. I don't see evidence for supernatural things being real, prayers being answered. Jesus doesn't speak to me or anyone else, many of the miracles seen in the Bible never happen today. The world isn't how it was in the Bible and things don't line up. I want to believe in God but I don't know how.

I thought the "questions for atheists" meme was dead years ago. But sure, I'm in that category and I'll answer. "Yes, slavery is wrong by our modern society." If you were hoping I'd leave out the "by our modern society" bit, sorry. You can't have a right or a wrong without a standard. Sometimes when Christians are asking me "is good/bad (or right/wrong)" they already have an expected standard in their mind. If your question was meant to be "Is slavery wrong (by the standards of the God described in the bible)?" then I guess your answer is "Depends on circumstances." You really can't have a right or a wrong without a standard. If you think you can, that's nonsensical. Just like having a "bad shovel". Bad FOR WHAT? Presumably digging. When you ask "Is slavery wrong?" the assumption is you are talking about current standards. You said "morality is a standard", which is entirely nonsensical. Morality is something that NEEDS DEFINED BY A STANDARD. Morality is not a constant, absolute thing. That's why humans don't univresally agree upon what is right or wrong.

Is slavery wrong? Not objectively, as there is no objective morality. A person's morality is that which they think is right or wrong. Some people try to justify their morality by saying that morality is whatever is the most beneficial to the most people, while others justify their morality by cherry-picking ancient "holy" books and claiming that whatever is said in them is by definition moral. But so long as you cannot provide any evidence that objective morality exists, there is no reason to assume that morality is anything but a person's feelings. That said, i am of the opinion that owning another person is always wrong in every situation and that anyone who feels otherwise is a piece of garbage who should be locked up

I believe an action is immoral if it is likely to cause others to experience greater suffering. Not just suffering. Greater suffering. A dentist may cause a degree of suffering in a patient, but the patient is presumably likely to suffer less overall.

2:12 Bible not going far enough in its condemnations of slavery? The bible is pro slavery. Tells you who you can enslave, tells you how you can treat them etc etc.

This is the same question as “where do atheists get their morals from”, and the answer is the same too….it’s a social construct.. and that is also the reason why the bible doesn’t state slavery is wrong.. because 2 thousand years ago you wouldn’t have found people who would say slavery is wrong. 2 thousand yrs ago they didn’t see slavery as wrong.

@01:52 Q: "Is slavery wrong?" A: "Yes." That seemed easy. Next insurmountable question?

Why should an atheists, even one by that very narrow definition not be capable to answer this question? I mean eve if someone would answer that it is not wrong, that would be an answer still. Slavery is wrong, just as much as racism is wrong, it is arbitrarily assigning less value to certain people without. In that sense it is especially appropriate for the kind of atheist you talk about to think it is wrong, since slavery and racism are not based upon any real properties of those people, but is just as imaginary as your deity. That is why racism and slavery are usually committed by religious people who think they are better than others. And well, that also means you have no leg to stand on regarding that question, since your deity failed to declare slavery wrong, so how do you know that it is wrong?

Atheist morality: "The act of (X) is immoral." Period. No exceptions or conditions. No waivers, caveats, provisos or exemptions i.e. _absolutely_ immoral. Xian morality: "The act of (X) is immoral, unless that act is commanded or committed by God. Then that's a different situation." For (X) you can insert any act, no matter how much pain, suffering, misery and grief it causes. Welcome to Xian situational ethics.

I am an atheist of the type he described, and slavery is wrong morally, because you wouldn’t want to be a slave, and morals dictate that unless you want something done to you, you shouldn’t do it to someone else without cause, in this case an extreme cause, which I define as again that moral imbalance. More specifically, I define the degree of moral imbalance in a negative sense as the how hard it is to undo a morally wrong action. To combat the responses I already see coming, I understand slavery is easy to undo, you just free the person, but I would measure the the moral degree of wrongness of slavery in relation to what the slave is forced to do. I won’t hammer out the specifics because this is a KZfaq comment lol, but I think this is a strong answer with no inconsistencies. Please leave a comment if I’m wrong and there are inconsistencies though.

It's so adorable that people like this think that they've come up with something so profound that atheists 'can't answer' when it's easily answerable. What's even funnier is that they assume that even if we can't answer, it proves god.

I think empathy is a perfectly good explanation for morality, isnt it? "Do unto others" is a pretty self-evident golden rule that leads to people behaving decently towards each other by default. Wouldnt it have been obvious from very early on that antisocial behaviour got you cast out of the group?

There's a big historical error in this video. Renaissance humanists were virtually all devout Christians who believed in immortal souls. So were most, but not all, Enlightenment thinkers.

"wrong" means undesirable outcome. If somebody was a slave, one would find it rather uncomfortable. Slaveowners could've achieve better economical results with motivated workers

The person in the video is complaining that we define words using synonyms. That's what a definition is. If you ask what a cat is and you get the answer its feline-type animal, it's perfectly ok to ask what a feline is. I think you are trying to have a gotcha moment with Atheists while not really wanting to hear the answers to your questions. You want them to not be able to answer your question, allthewhile getting flustered when they answer your question.

Only looking through the comments to see how many people respond positively to the is slavery wrong question. he defended it, for an uncomfortable amount of time.

One's views on morality has little to do with one's belief (or non belief) in religion. Just because subscribers to the Abrahamic faiths rely on divine revelation (which is incoherent by asking the simple question: are the moral rulings in scripture moral because God said so or because they are inherently moral, if the former then objective moral values don't exist, if the latter then morality supercedes god) It's like asking a frog what it's views on ice cream are. Your question (no matter how stupid) should be directed to moral objectivists not athiest.

So just to be clear, are you addressing (1) atheists who say things we cannot measure _do not exist,_ or the broader category that say it's unreasonable to believe in such things?

I am Catholic and I am disappointed when Christians claim morality comes from religion or the Bible. Chimps have ways of acting in their groups that keep order and foster the best chance each individual survives by what is best for the group of individuals. We could call this chimp morality. Wolves have cooperation in their pack. Honey bees don't have religion but work together. This cooperation among animals is more complex as you get to more complex or intelligent species. At some point cooperation becomes morality. It is not unique to humans. Now, I would argue it still comes from God, but though the laws of nature.

4:30 what if you instead defined morality by the net suffering caused? I think that would be a fairly accurate definition. Or atheists could say that there is no objective morality, which also does not lead to any logical contradictions.

If morality can't exist without religion then it can't exist with religion.

1. An entire field of study is dedicated to 'Semantic Network Theory' and 'Foundationalism.' 2. Implying that the 'social contract' is about 'what is right is wrong' is a straw man (mutual benefit and rational self-interest are distinct from what is right and wrong) 3. The law is not a 'series of documented statements about what is right and wrong'. Some laws are/were immoral. 4. Morality exists outside of legal systems. Legal systems merely codify things that may or may not be moral (see point 3). 5. We have empirically tested and measured the basis for morality in neuroscience, anthropology and psychology. 6. The idea that 'slavery virtually disappeared in Christendom in the Middle Ages' is laughable. Pope Gregory: "Slaves should be told ...[not] to despise their masters and recognise they are only slaves." 7. There are Bibles written specifically for slaves. This occurred post-enlightenment. 8. 'Greater than the whole universe' is axiomatically wrong. If God exists, he exists in the universe. I suppose you mean 'outside of space-time'?

This gentlemen sounds very intelligent when he speaks but I have listened to this about 6 times and I have no idea what his point is. He makes me think of a cross between William Lane Craig and Jordan Peterson. Is he claiming that humans only have morals because they have a soul? What about a soul would cause morality? Is the claim that only humans who believe that all humans have a soul are capable of having morals? I'm pretty sure the slave owners back in the colonel south were majority Christian and believed in the soul. Do nonhuman animals have a soul because some seem to have a basic understanding of right and wrong and seem to have empathy towards one another. I know my dogs know when they have done something wrong. No one has ever demonstrated a soul. Before you could make the claim that morals come from having a soul (or whatever his point is???) wouldn't he need to demonstrate that souls exist?

Yeah, so, "Is slavery wrong" is not a question of theism or atheism. It's a question of strawmanning via argument.

What do you think if evolutionary psychology. Can you respond to some of the claims of Andrew c Dutton

INCREDIBLY dishonest to imply that the Bible condemns slavery when it is explicitly in favor. Morality is subjective. Back when the Old Testament was written, the authors would have said that slavery is NOT wrong, in and of itself. About 200 years ago, we here in America had a rather heated debate over whether slavery was wrong or not. And nowadays, it's generally agreed upon that it is. I believe slavery is wrong, but objectively speaking, this question has no answer. And speaking of 200 years ago: back before slavery was abolished in America? It's main practitioners were Christians. Turns out, you can justify morally reprehensible acts by appealing to divine authority.

4:10 Morality is what prevents suffering that decreases human well being.

I stopped listening after: "The bible doesn't go far enough in condemning slavery" Are you kidding me? The bible is 100% fine with slavery! It tells where to get them, how to treat them and how much to beat them, and that slaves should obey their masters.

If you want to build a society where everyone gets a sporting chance at the pursuit of happiness, you ought not have slaves. A moral "ought" can be measured against an overarching goal, god or no god.

Quite the bait and switch there when you define morality. You just spent half the video attacking the standard of atheists and when came your turn instead of talking about what is your standard you switch to defining morality. As if we had any disagreement with that. We define morality the same way you do. It's also important to point out that nothing you said about our standard, true or not, is solved by your god. Even if I was to grant you that he exist, the only reason his standard would be "better" is because might make right. Finally, you might want to recheck that info about slavery and secularism. There is not even correlation between the two, much less causation. If anything it's the opposite.

Can Catholics answer why they should be believed when some of their most revered Church fathers advocated coercion, torture and murder of accused heretics?

So slavery became a thing again because of science and secularism, which somehow removed the belief or acknowledgement of a soul? He did not demonstrate how they influenced or caused slavery...at all. Slave owners were secular? Really? All of them? Most of them? And how would one demonstrate that? This presentation lacked explanation and evidence. If one cannot explain it in ten minutes then one shouldn't try to do it...which is exactly what took place here.

I like how he poses these questions of "Can you define 'this' and your response is going to be 'this' and that is a circular argument." No, I would not use any of those responses to define bees or cats, but I'm not going to here as those were purely hypotheticals and don't matter to the overall discussion. I do agree with the statement, though I will slightly alter the wording, that 'Nothing should be believed as fact if it cannot be imperically proven' so I guess I am being 'called out' and I am going to respond with my views of the subject. When defining what is 'wrong' I would first off like to be a bit more specific and say we are talking about what is 'morally wrong'. As simply something being 'wrong' can also refer to for example being 'factually wrong', which is something else entirely. When talking about what is 'morally wrong', I would probably lean close to the argument you presented. In my own words, what is morally right is 'That which causes the least amount of suffering, and elevates the most amount of well being, for as many people as possible.' There may be holes in that, I don't know, I haven't thought too deeply on this stuff for a while, if you find holes I agree with I am happy to adjust to account for it. Your argument that I've simply replaced suffering with 'what is bad' and that there are plenty of examples where suffering is good, as it leads to good results. I do not see this as conflicting at all. People who suffer and die in wars as you used as an example, suffered so that the country they defended didn't get taken over or continuously get attacked by a hostile forign power, who would inflict a much greater amount of suffering, by either being oppressive, taking away the people's culture and/or freedoms for generations. They suffered now, and greatly so, so that others won't have to suffer more for generations to come, which is noble and worth recognizing and honoring. Your argument for exercise is simmilarly flawed, as you suffer in the moment of doing your exercise so that your body will be more physically fit and last longer in the long term. Giving you a longer and healthier life where you suffer less from back and joint issues as you get older while also elevating your well being be making you capable to do more physically demanding tasks easier. Now finally, when it comes to slavery, yes it is obviously morally reprehensible to allow slavery, we are talking about owning another person as property. Anyone with a basic amount of empathy and ability to put themselves in someone elses position can see that being owned as property with no freedom is a terrible situation to be in for anyone, even if we, for the sake of argument, were to treat slaves well, give them proper food clothing and shelter, it is still a terrible fate to not be able to persue your own goals in life and be forced to work to please others for no compensation other than the basic necessities to sustain their lives. Once again, 'That which causes the least amount of suffering, and elevates the most amount of well being, for as many people as possible.' a slavery system would cause a great amount of suffering for a great amount of people only to elevate the well being for a comparatively small group of people. It doesn't take much intelligence to realize that lifting a burden (In this case, keeping society running) causes much less stress on the individual if an entire group tries to lift it together rather than making a few do it alone, spreading the burden on a great amount of people causes less suffering overall, therefor slavery is 'morally wrong' Note that I am not arguing from emotions or feelings here, which I also very easily could. If you wanted to imperically prove this, you could 'hypothetically' take a sample group of slaves and slave owners, with the slaves being set to work and the owners watch and compare them to a group of workers of a number equal to the slaves + the slave owners, doing the exact same tasks all together and measure the stress on their bodies, observe health conditions after a number of years of labour or apply the standards of human rights groups like amnesty international and the likes or whatever other measurement you would prefer, to see which group has the most suffering and have the best standards of living, and there you have your answer. Though we don't even need test groups as we have the data from many years ago when slaves were part of sociey in the western world, or if you want more recent data, there are still coutries in today's world that practice slavery, go there and take the data you want. Hope this was somewhat comprehensible.

Stop trying to use logic. You don't really have the hang of it.

Five bucks says RR catches a whiff of this. . . 🙄

Atheism is a misnomer. Most "isms" are belief systems, whereas atheism lacks a specific belief system - theism. We can't refute atheism because atheism makes no positive claims aside from "I don't believe you" to claims made by the theists.

7:12 - The LOGIC of Atheist Morality - I don't screw my neighbor over because I don't know whenever I am going to need help. I don't screw my customer over because then I won't have any. etc, etc, etc........

CS Lewis made some arguments that seem to me very relevant to this issue. 'Religion Without Dogma?' (1946) and 'Vivisection' (1947) are two essays worth reading. Both can be found in an excellent compilation of CS Lewis essays titled 'Compelling Reason'. EDIT: The essay on vivisection is not really relevant, but does, with its line of reasoning, pose questions that atheists would need to consider.

This should be titled "A question Brian won't answer" god says slavery is fine! If you want the truth, don't just take some KZfaqrs word for it. read the book.

Saying something is "wrong" is an appeal to a system (written or unwritten) of "dos" and "do nots". Law, rules, codes, creeds, norms, etc.. Morality is a code of social and cultural norms. The statement "Slavery is wrong" makes perfect sense in an appeal to morality. "Slavery is wrong" also makes perfect sense in an appeal to law. "Slavery is wrong" also makes perfect sense in an appeal to individual preference. However, to say "slavery is objectively wrong" is to say it is a "do not" independent of a grounding structure. Which is nonsensical. Feel free to contact me if you need any further clarification.

Even if I were to concede that I have no justification to oppose slavery, at least I can. The Bible explicitly endorses owning other humans as property for life that you can pass down to your children as inherited property and beat with impunity so long as your human property doesn't die within a day or two. As an atheist, I have no issues saying that's grossly immoral and that if a God does exist (it doesn't), I can tell that wicked monster to piss off. As a theist, on the other hand, you have no choice but to defend slavery and make excuses for it because the Bible advocates for it.

When believers can establish that they actually have an objective moral authority that exists, I'll take this question seriously. In reality, all you need is belief in an objective moral authority to get the exact same results.

Slavery is wrong, full stop. None of these games you're playing does anything but demonstrate that you have no actual way to defend the fact that your own faith condones the practice if we interpret it literally. And the fact that you're insisting on these stupid word games tells me you recognize the issue, but can't admit that your position may be flawed and are instead trying desperately to find some way out.

It is interesting that we are presented with a theist who points at atheists, claiming that 'people' say "not all atheists believe that" Then suggest that a 10 minute video would not allow you "to address every variation of atheism that exists". You select a particular type of atheist. which you could instead simply call an 'ontological naturalist', rather than calling them a specific type of atheist. You could then simply talk about 'ontological naturalism' rather than a specific type of atheism. When we see the vast array of beliefs among theists, ten minutes may just scratch the surface when naming the different gods and religions that praise these gods, once done, we need to go through each religion and name the, sects, denominations of each. That alone would take ten minutes. Addressing what each believes would take longer. What I find interesting is that you suggest that atheists would be defensive. I loved listening to your idiocy when you suggested that someone replying to "what is a honey bee?", then suggesting that the answer of "a bee *like* creature that makes honey" equates to a "bee is a bee". Mankind can make honey. MeliBio utilizes patented technology and microbial fermentation to create real honey from plants and natural ingredients, therefore taking bees out of the equation. This could be honey "bee like" as "creatures", of mankind can make honey. One can say that a *'bee like creature'* that is able to make honey would be a human in this case. This answer is irrelevant though, as what we need to address is your fallacious claim that the answer would be "a bee is a bee" Which it most definitely it is not, as something that is merely "bee like" cannot actually be "a bee". You truly are clueless. I love listening to the stupidity of Christians who make KZfaq videos.

Is it rational to pin morality to a make-believe entity? I don’t think so. Also, many think that human’s sense of morality is an evolutionary trait and therefore it’s pragmatic whether or not it can be rationalized. Theists say that morality is objective and comes from god but can’t explain that morality because if you look at what god says and does in the Bible, most people would not consider god moral or any human who behaved like god to be moral.

Yes. But atheists (who want empirical proofs) will never concede that “wrong” means what it actually means. So, having been part of those conversations, I don’t know where this can go to bear any fruits.

Exodus 21:20-21 New International Version 20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. So saith the lord.

The Bible doesn't just "not go far enough" in condemnation of slavery. Parts of the OT positively accept it is being absolutely acceptable, as long as the slaves are not of our tribe of course. Of course by no means all theists accept the Bible, so it would be unfair to brand all theists with being soft on slavery. Just those who regard the Bible as being the "word of God".

1. Just as not all athiests believe the same, also not all theists believe the same. 2. Slavery was and still is a pre-technological/cheap labor for low price products form of economic advancement. It's wrong when we do it to people, but when we do it to animals nobody cares. That's because it's easier to see your self in another person's place than an animals. That is what we call empathy, but it does not extend past your species identification. 3. The right and wrong duality is one that differs from person to person, group to group just as any other belief. Most people do share many similarities on these beliefs of right and wrong but there are exceptions. These exceptions are dependent on the life experiences you grew up with, or were indoctrinated to believe. 4. Describing something such as a cat or a bee is much more detailed than using synonyms. An accurate description would include accurate anatomical descriptions, habits, diet, habitats (native and non-native), diet, it's role in an ecosystem, strengths, weaknesses and etc. Giving a name to something is a quick way to identify all these attributes without having to recall every detail. 4. Religion made suffering synonymous with evil, and the well being synonymous with good. In reality it's all about perspective, what's evil for the fly is good for the spider. 5. You are correct a little suffering, such as exercise or surgery is beneficial for the greater good. 6. Regarding law and morality. Morality is doing what is right no matter what you are told, religion is doing what you are told, no matter what is right. 7. Legal systems are always being updated as a society's moral values evolve with that society, and when that society fights to uphold their new found values. 8. Morality has more meaning for an athiest than a thiest. An athiest does good for this one life we've been given and not because of a reward promised in a false afterlife. 9. In nature we get what we get, not what we want. As my mom used to say, "wish in one hand, and s**t in the other, see which one fills up first". Of course I now see that wishing, wanting and praying are all one in the same. 10. Going to call bs on your slavery being built on the secular era, first of all your bible and 10 commandments are a rip off of Egyptian theology. The Egyptians were widely known for using slaves. 11. Slavery still exists. The modern slave feeds, clothes and houses themselves. They then turn to religion to cope with it. The system was designed this way for production of the most effective slave. None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe themselves to be free. 12. Of course we're all different, look around at the natural world. The world you claim your god created. The law of nature is survival of the fittest. Yes there are humans that have no compassion and will dominate others, but that doesn't stop people from saying, "I've had enough". People can dominate or subserviate if they choose to. That is the difference between slavery and consent. 13. There is no proof of a soul. Imagine if you will that we are all different. (We are) our brains are like circuits in a computer, a small change and it functions differently. No two brains are alike, so we think differently. The veins, neurons, tissue density, varying supplies of nutrients. Don't get me started on external factors such as conditioning and environment. We know energy can not be created or destroyed, only transferred. When we die the energy leaves out bodies as heat, very minute amounts of light, the remaining energy trapped in the physical form of our body gets released into nature to be recycled and used again. Fuel for the coming generations, over and over again, so long as there is life to use it.

At 00:20 you say that atheists say that they believe in different things. They do believe in different things, which is why it is helpful to ask them what they believe.. What you fail to understand is that atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god. Except for that, we may believe anything else. [ I have hearing issues and it is difficult for me to hear you speak while the background music is playing.] At 00:53 you mention that you don't have the ability, in a short video, to address all the things that an atheist may believe. You don't need to. Simply provide the evidence that convinces them that a god exists. There are several specific obstacles that prevent people from being convinced that a god exists. Find out what they are and address them. Thanks for assuring me that I shouldn't be offended by words you might use that may not apply to me. I feel the same about you. I do need evidence that demonstrates that a god exists, but I make no claim about the supernatural existence of a god, which could exist. But the problem is that if you propose a god whose characteristics cannot be manifested in the natural world, how is that distinguishable from a thing that doesn't exist? How would I know? 1:50 "The question is:slavery wrong." I can answer that. The Bible says it's ok. God even tells the Hebrews where to purchase their slaves, i.e. from the neighboring non Hebrew towns, or from the non Hebrews who live amongst them.Those slaves belong to them and can be handed down as an inheritance to their children. And they can beat them as long as they don't die in "a day or two" because they are their property. It also says that they can sell their daughters, who will never be required to be freed from their owner. Humanists, on the other hand, Christian or Atheist, would say "No". because it does not improve human well being or lessen pain and suffering. That was easy. Brian, let's be honest. Not only does the Bible not go "far enough in condemning slavery", it does not condemn slavery at all. There is no commandment against it. In the New Testament does Jesus prohibit it? I don't remember that part and I've read the Bible a few times. By definition, Humanists care about the well being of their fellow humans. How is promoting well being "Illogical"? Evolutionarily it would have been advantageous to a social animal. We can look at similar social animals and see that there is a proto-moral structure. The ones that didn't have that structure did not survive or were not "social", as we clearly are. I do ask Christians on occasion, how they justify that their god gave directions about where to buy slaves and how poorly they could treat them, but that is because I am curious, not inconsistent. I'm not the one who accepts the Bible as true and I've never been in favor of slavery. At 2:40 you say that I have to account for why slavery is wrong. I do not believe in objective morality so I don't believe that slavery was pronounced "morally wrong" by a god. It never was. I say that Humanists believe that it is wrong because it does not promote human well being and increases pain and suffering. Being against slavery is a human construct that not all humans embrace even today, as we all know of rampant human trafficking including children. I suppose you think that your reason for being against slavery is that your god says so. But he didn't. It is interesting that Hindus think it is immoral to eat beef. Neither you nor I care about that, but should we? Should we care what a god we don't believe in says about not eating beef? Atheists and non Christians are perfectly capable of setting up moral and social standards for themselves, including not owning people as property, even though it is not a commandment. Your analogies do not apply to my comment so I'll skip then. I explained that acting in ways that increase human well being and decrease suffering happened to confer a survival advantage evolutionarily, in social creatures. Well being and pain and suffering are not always mutually exclusive. You are old enough to know that. It is dishonest to suggest that people do not understand that the two are rarely separate. Long term well being may include pain and suffering, which is consistent with life. [Please stop running till you vomit. Run sensibly or don't. Your choice.] I want to point out that you did not define morality or right or wrong. Why don't you do that. [You never did get around to it.] You seem to have gone off the rails. You are asking, "What is the law?" Do you really not know? OK. We have laws based on what is perceived by a society as the rules they want their society to follow. In theocracies they are based on their holy books in general. Laws change as our understanding changes. Gay people can get married now. In the US they are based on previous precedent or "Stare decisis". Our laws arise from many sources [countries, times, specific situations that arise, including the golden rule which predated the Bible]. Now we understand that men, women, children, people of all ethnic groups and social status, are equal, which they did not understand in biblical times, which is why the stories in the Bible are so male centered. Did you know that around the year 1000 vows of chastity began to be required for Holy Orders? Isn't it interesting how your god's laws change? Then when Protestantism caught on it changed back. . . they [Protestants ]could marry. You may not be able to wrap your head around how people who evolved as social creatures are able to judge what they prefer as their social contract, but I can. The ones who couldn't do that did not survive. The countries who have humane social contracts, laws, and systems do much better in general than the ones that base their laws on draconian gods or "might makes right", two systems that do not promote human well being or minimize pain and suffering. If you are claiming that there is a moral system that resides outside of humans you have to demonstrate that is true, and you haven't. Unsubstantiated claims are not evidence. And thank you for claiming that my view is absurd. [sarcasm] Please demonstrate that your claim is true, that a "Moral Law Giver" exists [especially as your god sanctioned slavery, which you claim we "ought not have".] I can absolutely say what I believe is right or wrong, just as you can. I say if two gay people wish to wed, that's good that they have the right to do so. It promotes their well being [even if being married has its trials]. What say you, and what do you base it on? I can account for my morality. The existence of humans accounts for it, as the survival of every other social animal does. Humans exist, as do great apes, wolves and countless other social species. A priority of promoting well being amongst humans provides an evolutionary survival advantage. Since you provide no evidence to support that absolute or objective morality exists. Unsupported claims can be dismissed.. I am unaware that "Science" has said anything about slavery. The Bible tells you how to do it, though. Go to Bali and see what you can purchase, as there's no commandment against buying little children. Apparently your god doesn't care one way or the other. It is compassionate humans who take steps to eradicate slavery and human trafficking. At 9:44 you say there is no physical evidence to support our capacity to make moral judgements, however you have offered NO evidence that the supernatural or metaphysical realm exists. And we can't forget that the Bible supports and tells us how to purchase slaves, where to get them, and how badly we can treat them. You have to provide evidence that slavery was nearly nonexistent in the middle ages then rose because of the rise of secularism. Correlation does not equal causation. Are you unaware of the feudal system, the time when the people were tied to the land and practices such as Prima nocta existed. It was the semi-historical legal right of a monarch [or feudal lord] to have sex with any female subject, particularly on her wedding night. Why was this allowed? They owned the people. Here are some quotes "1000 Slavery is a normal practice in England’s rural, agricultural economy, as destitute workers place themselves and their families in a form of debt bondage to landowners. 1380 In the aftermath of the Black Plague, Europe’s slave trade thrives in response to a labor shortage. Slaves pour in from all over the continent, the Middle East, and North Africa." [c. Slavery in History] Do you think it is possible that the slave trade expanded to the New World around the 1500's because the New World was discovered at the beginning of the 1500's? You have not established that people have "souls". You have made a large number of unsupported claims. Did you actually suggest that the idea that some people deserved to dominate other people began with humanism? I know of no time when there were no battles or wars regarding who should own or dominate whom. Why do you think castles were built. They were defenses against what? . . . Maybe, the people who wanted to dominate them? If you would just demonstrate that a god exists, there would be no more atheists. I advise not asking about moral questions, which you cannot be honest about.

Hello, Brian! I would like to hear your insights on the sexualization of friendships and the reduction of love into a mere sexual or romantic feeling. Thanks a lot.

I mean, by the same logic, I also can't explain why nazism is wrong because that would also end up in a circular reasoning fallacy. I don't really see how I could explain why anything is wrong. So... what does that imply exactly?

The Bible NEVER condemns slavery. Why lie if your position is true?

So in summary, word games: therefore God. Gotta say, that's not exactly an original approach.