No but you have enough time to be a f-wit, that's good for you as you really are one.

@Zed Kenny Too right we don't! Good call. No more religious crap!

It doesn’t take faith to be an atheist. Who why are you saying so?

@@therick363 quite right mate, stay strong against this nonsense 💪💪

Where you vomit lots of lies about atheists. The only skill you have is being a grifter.

I know who makes them, hes a good guy

@@jcha3407 He really is the "thumbnail king" and needs more recognition!

I thought it was Ben Stiller

The thumbnail has two right hands though xD

@@SoDamnMetal That's why he's the king of thumbs 🤣

It's not a religious argument. It's an argument that proves that atheists have no grounding for objective morality. To them, all morals have to be subjective.

Ok. That was funny and true🤣🤣🤣

Checkmate atheists! lol

Indeed. Ontology has to do with what category of existence something is in. Is it a physical substance? A concept? Something else? Frank's mistake is in assuming beforehand that morality is _ontologically_ a universal prescription. He therefore rejects any concept of morality that doesn't fit into this category. But... how does he know that morality is in that category? How does he know that Sam Harris doesn't have the correct ontology of morality? How did he "discover" this?

I agree, but I don't feel like Mr. Turek defends theistic ontology at all. Mere theism isn't enough to answer the ontological questions that Mr. Turek asks (for example, under theism, why would human flourishing be valued more than dolphin flourishing?) You have to add a theistic system of morality on top of theism, and those systems usually come with problems of their own.

I just want to add real quick on the side that your YT names are awesome... ok bye

@@TheChristianPinoyLayman **Tips hat**

@@incredulouspasta3304 Exactly! Just like people who don’t like being murdered make the mistake of presupposing that murder is bad! How could they know it’s bad? Who’s to say it’s even a moral question at all?

Why would anyone believe in god, an omniscient god can't have freewill.

What does someone having freewill have to do with whether or not they exist?

An all knowing God can have free will. To suggest otherwise seems to presuppose he is subject to his knowledge, perhaps that he could not choose NOT to know something. The God of the Bible demonstrates he has this ability, within the Holy Trinity for example, only the Father knows the day and hour of the return. To suggest he must know all things, because he is God-- imo makes him a prisoner of his attributes instead of the master. He can restrain himself, and did so with the incarnation as Jesus on Earth. Furthermore, if I can restrain my abilities such as when I wrestle with my nephews so as to not hurt them-- certainly God can and has done the same at his discretion. He doesn't need to or is forced to use 100% of himself. I never understand why people insist an all powerful God must exert all of his effort. (Insert meme about shaggy using 10% of his power)

@@ip7101 I would say free will doesn't make any sense on a timeless god. Free will is about decisions you choose to make. Your concept of god is timeless, all what he does he just does, there is no choice but just action. Remember: Timeless, not just inmortal. The problem however shifts: If god is all knowing that means that he could be able to see what he will do. Inorder to have that ability all actions and choices in the past and FUTURE need to be determined, otherwise the future is uncertain and god is therefore not all knowing. It doesn't matter if he use his ability or not, this doesn't makes the problem magicly dissapear. That follows into a paradox. There can't be a all-knowing being and free will side by side. Either one of them can be true.

@@hanshammerhand9854 knowledge doesn't equal causation. I believe that's modal fallacy. In house debates between calvinists, molinists, provisionists and the like talk about it all the time. To know is not to cause. I certainly know I am going to eat an apple, and when I am not. I know I can want to eat an apple, but that doesn't mean I will. I know Turek believes in a timeless God, but I don't believe it follows that something outside of time must be bound to behave as if it is determined to as if it were in time, being controlled by something outside of itself. And the Bible is pregnant with if then else statements. Clearly demonstrating an ability for God to decide what he will do. He even provides counter factual knowledge, for example to King David when he inquires about what could happen should he do x (stay) nstead of y (flee).

However, religion has ruled by authority and oppression, not by moral superiority. Dissidents often ended up dying.

Religion has never ruled, men have ruled, Kings have ruled and we live by their laws

That's not a good rebuttal. Both religous and non religious systems have oppressed and created suffering throughout history. The question is whether or not it was the members acting on their own, or if they were "following" what was prescribed to them. You won't find the Bible telling Christian that it is ok to murder. Yet, many professed Christian's have murdered people. This shows the person either isn't a Christian, or they like everyone else are flawed. The flaw is sin, and it affects everyone. Christianity recognizes this, and it is at the core of the religion. It is the reason Jesus's sacrifice on behalf of the whole world is needed. So to say Christian did x means christianity is not true does not follow. More like, does Chrsitianity teach x? Is x in line with Christianity?

Y'know I find it funny these replies. First, they were saying that religion ruled over society, now they're saying the opposite.

@@itsJPhere That is a fact,

No, he got frustrated and wanted to cut the conversation and actually switched topics at the end from morality to purpose. In NLP they call this sleight of mouth.

He didn't answer the question, he didn't allow the kid to ask the question. Once again it is frankie controlling the conversation so he doesn't have to expose the quicksand foundation of his statements. God doesn't provide morality, there is no god. And morality is different the world over, just as the jews of 500 bce had far different morality than we do.

Frank completely dodged the point, and he's doing his underlings no favors in that

How can anyone just believe and it’s done? Crazy

You cannot explain immaterial realities such as logic, mathematics, morality, etc. with an atheistic world view. It’s either God exists or he doesn’t when using the law of the excluded middle (a principle of Logic). Without immaterial realities we’d lose fundamental characteristics of the universe because there’d be no free will. We’d be a result of chemical reactions and nothing more. But that’s not the case because we are reasoning when we have this debate.

I don't know but they were vegetarians. Animals in the garden were, too. So were on the Noah's Ark. So more likely we'll be vegetarians in Heaven. No BBQ, but maybe tofubergers on the barbie. I was told there's no marriage in Heaven so no sex in Heaven or no new born baby. I'm not sure if we'll be all naked but there's no sexual desire so there won't be any problems. There'll probably be no need for burqas or head scarfs for Muslims in Heaven either. But if we're clothed who makes them? Nobody needs to work in Heaven. And what do we eat in Heaven? We'll eat from the trees? Are there any stores? But if stores who stuck the shelves? Restaurants? Who wants to work waiting tables though? Houses? But who builds them? There's no lack of anything ... but what does that mean? God created anything, everything we need or desire? How about music? Do we still play music? Sing songs? Adele? Meaning there're concerts? Who manages it? Ok, he created buildings and stages but who plays for her? Who set up the stages and manages audios, lights and stuff? How does it work? How about sports? Do we still able to play sports? There's no lack of anything, right? Baseball? Football? Basketball? The Olympics? NASCAR? Any car racings? Does any body wins or loses? Or there'll be no desire for all of those? How does it work?

Did god created immaterial souls in physical bodies for Adam and Eve before the fall or after they sinned. If before then god forenew the outcome, thus he is at fault. This whole story doesn't make any sense.

I believe the difference is before the fall they were not ashamed so their n___dness probably wasn't a big deal to them and probably didn't notice they were, after the fall they hid and made clothes and maybe became ashamed now noticing they were n___d. So maybe ashamed vs not ashamed?

Yes, because they're impressed that he can say big words as if they're relevant to the conversation when its just fluff for his lack of understanding and intellectual cowardice.

What do you fail to understand about the point given Sam's atheistic materialism the flourishing of dophins would be just as arbitrarily justified.

@@autisticphaglosophy7128 Well the theory of evolution actually explains why that happens quite simply without any arbitrary explanation. We just happen to be the smartest land animal. And it's not just because of "accident" it's because our species developed the necessary gene pool and adaptations to our environment to have that happen. Not arbitrary whatsoever

@@CheesyChez421 The absolute state of you people no wonder you complain about "big words" since you don't understand basic moral philosophy. Do you understand that how we come to know morality has absolutely nothing to do with the ontological status of morality? How many times must this be regurgiated to you ignant atheists read a book at least by secular academic philosophers who focus on meta ethics or one of the many reviews by well known atheist philopshers who btfo the moral landscape; check out my k playlist there's one there.

@@autisticphaglosophy7128 The idea that you would even attempt to defend such idiocy is almost incomprehensible.

Who is the Legislator exactly? Allah? Krishna? Maybe one of the polytheistic ancient gods? There are so many gods throughout humanity and millions people believed their version of god was the real one and the ultimate legislator.

@@Ben-0 possibly the worst attempt at rebutting the moral argument

@@Ben-0 search at the channel they have an explanation why Jesus is the truth

The Jewish god is a moral monster but his son seems to be a more pleasant chap.

@@Ben-0 there being so many gods to choose from doesn't follow that there is no god. You would at the very least conclude that there is a god, but which one is another question

Those are interesting points but they keep "Stealing from God". By being subject to a painful experience and thus deciding it is "bad" and not something to seek, I am reasoning, exercising my will. Reasoning cannot be grounded on materialism. Or we have will or we are slaves to chemical reactions in our brains. But addressing your point directly, pain is disconfortable, not bad. Minimizing pain and maximizing joy are still flawed basis for morality because they are subjective experiences, yes shared by all, but it is not something universally and innately true. As long as it remains a personal "choice", it has no solid ground to stand on. A rapist while trying to maximize his/hers joy will cause pain to the victims. Killiing someone in a painless manner doesnt absolve the act. If we try to define this "morality" as maximizing your joy while not causing pain to others, it sounds very much like "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". But still, without an objective morality it would only just be an advice, nor good nor bad.

@@philschumacker If you're going to be flexible with definitions, I suggest you change your definition about morality being a matter of "Good" and "Bad" and switch it to "Comfort and Discomfort". What Christians like Frank love to do, which is what you have done here and I can tell you look up to Frank, is what is referred to as "REFRAMING" in NLP. Sam has made a frame for morality and pointed out that it is about pain and stepping away to anything that is "Other" than pain, and you have reframed it to mean that Humans want to "MAXIMIZE JOY" but no one talked about maximizing joy. It's about empathy. To address your example of the rapist, a rapist as you may or may not know, is a person who has no capacity to empathize with anyone. The rapist is concerned with fulfilling a biological impulse. To the rapist what he is doing is "GOOD" but for the victim it is "BAD" how do we know this? Because the victim suffers pain. As the old phrase goes, "Normal is an illusion, what is normal for the spider is chaos to the fly." P.S. we are slaves to chemicals in our brains, especially those who are attached to the idea that they are their body. That's a different conversation I am not interested in having here.

@@LeonardoTorresMusic in this regard, yes, Turek is much more versed in phylosophy then me, but i also feel he makes good points. I can same the same about you and Harris. But lets work with the raw quote from Harris you used as to avoid "reframing". Empathy is not its logical conclusion or summary. It can also be seen as "reframing". Even if we accept it, empathy is still subjective. Still requires reasoning, conscious decision making. Pain and its many degrees of intensity are also subjective and experienced by each person differently. One can conclude that "No harm (pain), no foul" is morally acceptable under this standard. So if you are able to do something "bad" without others finding out (cause them pain), it is ok. Effectively it wont be "bad" because the person is unconscious of the action and may never find out, like stealing 100 bucks from Zuckenberg or raping a coma pacient. Pain can be at most a guideline, not a foundation for a universal morality, even a subjective one.

@@philschumacker You are reframing again. If you steal 100 bucks you can still run that same process internally and ask yourself how you would feel if someone stole 100 bucks from you, with or without you knowing. You wouldn't like it would you? or how would you feel if someone raped you while you were in a coma? Before you can take this conversation and apply it to external action, (stealing, killing, raping, etc) I am asking that you take an internal look at the thought behind that action. The simple fact that one says, "No harm, no foul" is already seeing that there could be harm in what is does, just because the person finds out or not doesn't mean that there is no harm being done. We aren't just acting out impulsively, there is impulsive behavior but there is always a moment of contemplation before the execution of that thought. Stealing is stealing, it isn't dependent on the other person knowing about the stealing. If Zuckerburg never finds out about the theft does that mean it wasn't theft? If the coma patient never finds out about the rape, does that mean it wasn't rape?

@@LeonardoTorresMusicwhat I am trying to do is to reach a practical, objective standard to ground this concept of morality. To do so I have to frame it in a way (as incorrect as they may be) and test it to reach a possible outcome of said morality. So, we are back to the Golden Rule "Therefore whatever you desire for men to do to you, you shall also do to them; for this is the law and the prophets." Great advice for a Theist who believes everyone actions and intentions will be judged, but for someone who doesn't believe in this, who has no free will, who came from the naturalistic concept of survival of the fittest, why should he care? You are giving advice to "better" live in community (reduce chance of conflict), not a ground for morality itself. It remains subjective. Nature isnt imposing this, on the contrary, it reinforces selfishness, why would he care? Pain is only "discomfortable" because some electric impulses in you say so. Empathy (me caring about you feeling pain) doesnt derive from me trying to avoid feeling pain myself. Nature uses pain to warn us something is "not right" with our health, its a survival mechanism. We are wired to reflexively avoid pain. What I have to worry about is the pain you can inflict me, why should I care about the pain I can inflict you? Pain can be universally disliked but it is not an objective standard to ground morality in nor it is effective to dissuade someone who thinks it can mitigate/prevent/protect itself from it.

This doesn't seem true. I've had lots of times in my life when I've grown without experiencing pain (like when I'm learning a new topic that I'm interested in, or get better at a sport that I enjoy playing).

God is inflicting pain on others. If he is all knowing and all powerfull he is responsible for ALL the bad and ALL the good! So women suffering from sex trafficing are suffering for a really good reason, you just can not understand yet.

The fact that some pain can be used motivationally, or as a tool to prevent more of it doesn't negate the point at all. If we have a scale and on one end is endless pain without a silver lining, and we can agree that's bad, the discussion is over.

@@reality1958 we don't have any evidence of Adam or Eve, we only have stories about them. We evolved, and along our whole evolutionary timeline, our predecessors have had pain nearly the whole time, to avoid injury or being eaten. If you commit yourself to think Adam and Eve were in a garden with a talking snake and a hankering for apples, you've got other questions to concern yourself with, like did they have bellybuttons?

If pain benefits us we call it good if not bad 😁

that's just your opinion

But being a moral person necessitates that this person also has a moral standard. Yet everyone, in their own mind, has their own moral standard (Moral Relativity). And because of how relative morality is to those who don't see the standard of a Divine God, every man sees good in their own way, whilst considers another bad. Relativity doesn't create ease of morality. It creates confusion and difficulty, because it has no standard.

@@JohnDoe-wt9ek Well I have a standard. I can only speak for me. And Im not at all religious.

There are a real psychopaths born who has no empathy towards others at all. They experience only two feelings, either they has no care about you or they hate you. They would not hesitate to commit a homicide or torture you if they would think they can get away from it.

why empathy? thats means include only people born with empathy, many others born without ability to feel empathy

@@nickgagnon3626 Well, based on your argument, Hitler also has his own standard. Why is he wrong? Again, this is not a religious argument.

So not much of a fan, huh?

@@FalconOfStorms @Seraph O. Storms as Dr William Lane Craig says " life without God is absurd". I was there for some time and its a chasm of meaningless vanities of vanities!! For Athiests to consider all the evidence and still defy a creator is because they love their sin, and/or they hate Him (for what ever reason). Dr Turek will have amazing rewards in eternity for honoring and serving God with his life in this fallen world. Dr Turek is leading lost souls from this dark chasm of eternal Damnation to Jesus who is the light of this world and the only way to eternal life. I'm more than an ardent admirer of Dr Turek, I was lost but now I'm found like thousands of others due to Dr Turek's dedication and works for the Kingdom of God. I'm eternally grateful to him and his colleagues. 😁❤👍

You think cowboys are hot? 😉

No, he’s probably a Patriots fan.

I'm sorry but do you not realise that according to the biblical naratives it was GOD that created *EVIL* in the first place. ? 👇👇👇👇 Isaiah 45:7 7 *"I form the light, and create darkness I make peace, and create EVIL I the Lord do all these THINGS"*

@@trumpbellend6717 after the garden of Eden, God allowed for there to be the polarity. Therefore humans were no longer without free-will and have the choice whether or not to do evil things or to be of God.

@@loddyda lol tel me dear, just how would one make moral choices without being able to differentiate right from wrong ?? Without knowledge of right and wrong every moral "choice becomes meaningless, choice *A* no more valid than the diametrically opposed choice *B* And yet ...... dispite Gods foreknowledge of this he still decided to deny Adam and Eve this knowledge and to punish not only them for gaining this knowledge but also their descendants ?? 🤪 how utterly absurd and immoral!! People who do not know right and wrong are called "SOCIOPATHS" and "Psychopaths" we lock such people up in concrete boxes or execute them. Yet this is how your "God" wanted mankind to be and you think him a perfect moral reference standard 😂😅🤣🤣🤣🤣

@@loddyda Is heaven not supposed to be a place of perfection ?? a place where there is NO EVIL and sin is not possible !! So tell me dear is there no " freewill" in heaven ?? You see it is entirely possible for an all powerful all knowing "God" to create a state of affairs where there is no EVIL. If you think heaven has no "freewill" then clearly freewill is not important for us in a perfect environment. So which is it cupcake, does heaven have evil ? or does it have no freewill?

@@loddyda lol what utter piffle, what has freewill or "choice" got to do with BONE CANCER that causes untold suffering and death to millions of innocent children and their families. ? Just what "purpose" does it serve ? Did God not have a "choice" to create a world without bone cancer? How about the multitude of other Diseases, Tsunamis, Viruses, birth defects, Earthquakes, Floods, Famines, ect ect. ?? I think Epicurus put it much better than I ever could........ _"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able_ ? _Then he is not omnipotent_ _Is he able, but not willing_ ? _Then he is malevolent_ _Is he both able and willing_ ? _Then whence cometh evil_ ? _Is he neither able nor willing_ ? _Then why call him God"_ ? Epicurus

yes. It shows very clear how empty Franks arguments really are.

We are not monkeys and "Well being" is a moral claim. Where are you getting that standard without there being a God?

Glad to know, you, strive for the well being of dictators, and murderous thugs. Your fellow humanity. You think they care about any of your well being rules?

@@eltonron1558 So, I say that it is natural to seek for our well-being and the well-being of our kin, and you get from that, clearly, not out of the deep hole on your lower back, that I meant the well-being of dictators and murderous thugs? Wow! So, how hard was getting your arm to go that deep, exactly? I'm assuming that at least you enjoyed it. Also, well-being rules? It's not a rule or law that I or someone else prescribe, it is literally one of the most natural things for all animals to do. You seek your well-being when you go to work to earn a salary in order to be able to provide for yourself (and/or your family), not at all that much different than when Lions go hunting or when a herd of Elephants travels thousands of miles searching for water, we all want to live and we want to live well as we possibly can.

@@XDRONIN Your seeking of well being, is not natural. It is learned. The natural, which is atheist, seeks well being by making sure you don't get his stash. Making sure you don't invade his space, because there is no God, and the other guy, doesn't care about your ethics. The best rules for well being, come from a non human source. The rules for well being from humanity is broken all the time, i.e. human nature. The natural, doesn't give a pitootie, about the rules for well being from God. The humans, have taken the best of God, like copycats are want to do, and boast they came from humanity.

@@eltonron1558 I'm sorry, I didn't understand most of what you wrote, is English your first language? It is very incomprehensible, what stash? Also, if something is regularly found within nature then, it is natural, that's what natural means.

People literally have rape fetishes What if you're a rapist that likes being raped. 🤷‍♂️

And who do u think started these virtues

@@DivineVirtue777 they were discovered as we became civilized and learned more.

@@fnfn9229 you should talk to a counsellor if you want to get involved in harmful things. A rapist will end up in prison for a long time. And someone who wants to get raped will end up dead when he or she meets the wrong person who fantasizes about raping and murdering someone.

@@rogerkreil3314 the 10 commandments came before its discovery

Right because why does pain make people feel bad? And why does good make us feel good? Where did this inherent distinction come from when we process good and evil? It had to have come from an outside source beyond humanity

Christianity, or indeed any religion, provides no more objective a basis for morality than secularism. In fact a religious-based moral code must of necessity be more subjective.

@@joshuakohlmann9731 Please prove the fact that morality which is arrived by Christianity to be subjective.

@@Seeker7257 At first glance it may appear objective. But your choice of religion - the nature of the god you believe in - defines and constrains your moral code. What does God think of the ethics of extra-marital sex? Divorce? Abortion? Eating meat? Alcohol? Drugs? It all depends on which god you follow. Even Christians can't agree on certain moral issues between them.

@@joshuakohlmann9731 But the Bible is true in its own dictation in that which is right, and wrong. Christians not agreeing is not relevant to the Bible. It stands for itself irrespective of anyones opinion. Because it is indeed the word of GOD.

Old vs New Testament. The morality of the Bible is subjectively based on which time period you lived in.

Accountable for what?

@@himynameisjohnwumsh7631 for our actions.

@@occamsrouter is that a fact or your opinion?

Why is infinite punishment never moral?

"We are accountable to each other." Why? Says who?

Then that is why society will constantly plunge itself into darkness if there isn’t a objective moral standard that can be universal

You said we avoid pain. Who is “we”!

@@himynameisjohnwumsh7631 i was refering to homo sapiens, but i guess this extend to any animal. They all want to survive & reproduce. Pain is just a physical information to prevent death.

@@taillecrew not everyone wants to avoid pain

@@himynameisjohnwumsh7631 in my first comment i put a note on people liking pain.

😂 We all use the moral in our hearts that where givem by evolution. no god needed.

That’s because u don’t truly believe in him

Have you ever tried reading the four gospels to know who God is?

Talking to God is literally talking to yourself, just a waste of time

God does communicate indeed. Through His Word: the Bible! :)

@@aleesah5861 indeed. the bible communicates the rules for selling your daughter into slavery, how to force abortion with bitter water, that god allowed a righteous man horrendous suffering just to try to prove a point to satan, that god condones genocide that even includes infants several times, that an omnipotent god had to wipe out an entire planet because his perfect plan was and apparently remains flawed...

Atonement for what?

Were you a Christian or did you think you were a Christian?

if you have read the bible, can you tell a book that might be valuable to read for a fellow atheist?

@@alspezial2747 I would recommend _The Fountainhead_ by Ayn Rand.

@@himynameisjohnwumsh7631 I was an evangelical Christian for 8 years.

@@theoskeptomai2535 i meant a book included in the bible

Goodness me! That was a bit of an overreaction, wasn't it?

3:30

bruh... Im the jack from the video... if you dont ask questions you dont learn.. You're just silly

Yeah! We better not ask questions! God might get angry at us for using our brains and torture us for eternity!

how do we know that these people u consider to be morally right in the absence of God, because there have been tons of people that hurt others; but are considered to be good

@@DivineVirtue777 I cannot speak for anyone but myself. I have no gods. I know right from wrong, good from bad, what classifies as evil. I am a contradiction to the claim. The fact that I exist proves the claim false.

@@ZenWithKen how do u know that u are a good person at the absence of God

@@DivineVirtue777 How do you know I'm not? What should we, the human race, use to determine what good is? Do we appeal to a god? If so, what makes that god the reference point for good? What if I don't believe this god exists? You would first need to demonstrate this god exists and then demonstrate that it's morality was the best to follow. How would we go about ratifying disagreements with this god over what is moral? What if I didn't want to go out and slaughter the next village? What if I didn't want to own slaves? What if drowning the entire world seems like a bad thing to do to me? How do we go about resolving these issues? Do we just sell our humanity to the ideology, or de we as humans, try and find a way to get along using well being as a bases and go from there? I at least know other humans exists. I have no reason to believe a god exists. Should I wait another 60 years for any kind of a sign, or should I rely on what I've experienced in the reality in which I live for those 60 years? You see Maximo, it's not as simple as pointing at a god and saying follow that. Life is way more complicates than saying how do we know what is good. Religions don't own goodness. Gods don't own goodness. The human race owns goodness and it's up to everyone to be the best they can be despite our differences. If a Hitler should come along, then we need to band together and stop him, because we all know god won't.

@@ZenWithKen u didn’t answer the question

I promise it was not my nickname but this is funny

@@jacksezer9434 That’s what you get for being an athiest

I have never sinned.

Same here. I'm not a sinner. Sin is just a negative spin on a bad decision or something another human sees as not right in his or her mind. Just like politicians use certain terms to brand something they see as a bad idea....like the gop calling the Affordable care act Obamacare. Sin is just a branded word to control people, like flesh/body. When you hear flesh, you think negative. When you think body, you don't have a negative thought about it. We make decisions and we learn from the mistakes that we make. Some of us learn from the mistakes that we make. We are not sinners. We are humans, learning from our mistakes, adapting to new surroundings and evolving to make ourselves better.

@@aaronmonroe7932 Where do you get your morality from? As your personal preference might differ to someone else's opinion. And youve clearly been created with design in mind. I don't believe stealing or rape or murder or lying is just simply mistakes. We don't generally hold chemical reactions to accountability. Or blame vinegar for reacting to baking soda. However, If someone broke into your house, kidnapped your wife & stole some stuff. And simply said it was a mistake? You'd be ok with that? Sin is the consequence of anything that is not of Gods will, making it evil, and God is Good. So anything not Good is sin. I'm a Christian and I believe what the Bible (God's Word says) 1 John 1:10 If we claim we have not sinned, we are calling God a liar and showing that his word has no place in our hearts. Jesus is Alive!!! ✝️💕🏃🌎💨

Don't mind Theo, he's just a troll who has nothing better to do that kick against the goads for no good reason, yet can't help but gnash with his teeth against those who hold a worldview that poses no threat to his literally mindless faith. (Acts 9:5, 7:54)

@@aaronmonroe7932 What do you mean by "bad"? You don't believe that rape, murder, and child abuse are evil, bad, or sinful? Oh, wait, you did say "bad"... What did you mean by that? I mean, "sees as not right"? And what do you mean by "mind"? Did you mean to say 'brain'? I don't think you've thought this through very much...

"Credible" is an escape to make any argument for evidence to be dismissed. Now for the moral argument I would agree with you, but I don't think you can tell me why it can't work to prove there is a God. It's arguments like these that make all evidence for God suspect.

Can you prove there isn't a Great Designer?

@@memastarful No. Now are you willing to answer my questions with the same directness? Yes or no.

@@jamescat8411 Wrong. I can define what I mean by credible evidence - which is a threshold that can be reached realistically.

It's not the evidence for God that will convince you to believe. It's the Bible. 'So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.' (Romans 10:17) 'For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.' (Romans 3:23) 'And they said, *Believe* on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.' (Acts 16:31) 'He that *believeth* on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.' (John 3:36)

His Nature is the standard of good, we see this through His commandments. Being just and merciful (among many other things) is simply His character, and He wants us to live like Him. God bless you, brother!

You can’t logically explain why living is good. At some point we value certain things, and there are limits to how far we can rationally justify why. The trick is this applies to theists/Christians as well. “Why is obeying God good?” is an equally good question, and there is no purely logical answer for it. So this isn’t a stumper for atheists. Apologetics like this just selectively point out out the limits of our ability to logically explain humane behavior while ignoring the same limits of our ability to logical explain God as a basis for morality. It’s classic “kick the tricky problem up to God and pretend it went away.”

@@ProphetofZod You missed the point as well. Take for example the road rules that all drivers should obey to have safer, healthier, and smoother traffic. It is silly to say "Why obeying the Police is good"? But it is completely justifiable to ask "why to obey rules without Police?" I mean, why should I drive safe if there is no police? I like speed and adrenaline. But if there is the police, then I should obey the rules because they are coming from a higher source that wants to keep everyone safe and healthy. That's why it is good obeying the police. In the same way, you should obey God because He is the ultimate authority that wants to keep everyone safe and healthy. So your question of "why" does not apply when there is a higher authority over you. So it makes sense to ask "why should I care about others" or "why is living good" since there is no higher authority to define this. Without higher authority, we, ourselves, define how we should live or care about. Everything becomes a total subjectivity and a subjective world is not realistic, we can not live in such a world. Objectivity is mandatory and you can NOT have objectivity without God in the same way you can NOT have objective road rules without the Police authority that you MUST obey no matter your status, skin color, nationality, education, beliefs, and physical appearance.

@@ProphetofZod The context of this conversation was that the atheist tried to convince me that God is bad because He does not outright prohibit slavery under all circumstances. The problem with this argument is that either good and bad isn't objectively true, so the argument collapses in on itself, or it IS objectively true, in which case goodness comes from God, and the argument is wrong by default. You seem to prefer the former, in which case calling God bad is logically impossible for you. But my atheist got caught up in mocking me instead, for even asking the question that was to demonstrate the flaw in his argument.

@@SimpleAmadeus "The context of this conversation was that the atheist tried to convince me that God is bad because He does not outright prohibit slavery under all circumstances." One, you haven't shown a god to exist yet. Two, in any case the god of the bible does support slavery. So the question must be asked. If the bible is moral, and the bible supports slavery, is slavery moral? To which anyone could ask if you would be ok with being enslaved? "The problem with this argument is that either good and bad isn't objectively true, so the argument collapses in on itself". Morality is subjective. If by objective you mean in relation to what an object like a book says then yes that would be objective. But while the book says X is moral that doesn't mean the people who read it will conclude the same thing let alone for the same reasons. "in which case goodness comes from God". The god you haven't shown to exist yet and the god that even if you had shown to exist supports slavery. Bit of a problem either way.

@@alexanderstephen1567 "In the same way, you should obey God because He is the ultimate authority that wants to keep everyone safe and healthy." One, you haven't shown a god to exist. Two, even if you had the god of the bible advocates for killing gay people and used the biblical flood to perform global genocide. I'd say that's about as far from keeping everyone safe as it gets. And that doesn't even count the bible's pro slavery stance. "So your question of "why" does not apply when there is a higher authority over you." An authority that says do as I say or suffer for a literal eternity in hell. That's not authority that's a tyrant. "Without higher authority, we, ourselves, define how we should live or care about." Yes, which is a good thing. It allows us to grow as individuals and as a culture so we may learn from past mistakes and take responsibility for our failures and care about one another. "Everything becomes a total subjectivity and a subjective world is not realistic, we can not live in such a world." Subjective morals is the real world. After all can you name me even a single moral stance that literally everyone agrees on under all circumstances?

It's the most logical and reasonable position :)

Stalin, mao, pol pot, Castro, the third Reich, etc etc. And I don't mean that sarcastically, as I was a self-professing atheist for some four decades while acknowledging the value of theism, it's merely an observation of what results from atheism being the motivation for how to run a society.

@@The-F.R.E.E.-J. Stalin, Mao, Pol pot, Castro, Nazis have nothing to do with atheism.. Fail, try again

@@The-F.R.E.E.-J. Only way to discredit atheism is to provide evidence a god exists, nobody has ever done that

@@badideass correction, I was responding to the original post. "Can anyone provide an answer as to why atheism is not a rationally justified position?" If the results of applying atheism to one's culture are mass murder beyond anything humanity has ever known, that may not be 100% proof but, it is evidence that there might be some flaw in that thinking.

Show me a SINGLE atheist that agrees with every single moral law in the Bible. Some are socialists (covet their neighbours goods), other support abortion (thou shall not murder), other fornication, masturbation, or any other kind of sexual perversion. It's always something they don't want to practice so they reject the whole Bible, instead of admitting they have a problem.

Amen. That's why they're so busy redefining everything God has established. They share Satans pride and desire to be their own gods.

Please demonstrate how you know what people are pretending about, and how you know that "they know it's true and can't refute it". I doubt you can. The bible CLAIMS that people know something in their heart, but it's unlikely you could prove that either. And you obviously don't know much about atheism if you think the whole point of it is to be your own moral compass (which there is nothing wrong with).

Human morality has evolved over time, not because of the Bible but in spite of it. You don't have to look back very far to prove it. Mostly Christian European settlers came here with their African slaves and killed millions of Native Americans and stole their land because they thought God was on their side and they had their Bibles to prove it.

No, it isn't. Stop speaking nonsense.

the bible is pretty clear on that. Maybe try reading it

He doesn't enforce it, he was, is, and will always be the objective morality itself. The same applies to the truth because he is the way, the truth and the life. By saying how does he "enforce" morality assumes that there was a time when God haven't enforced morality. He is, by definition, TIMELESS.

Yeah like making up some arbitrary dude who makes rules for Adultery being wrong but is okay with genocide.

@@CheesyChez421 you’ve never read the bible, understood the bible in its correct context to know what it means. Once again someone told you about the bible and instead of reading and understanding for yourself you just agreed to what you heard because it sounded right. So please read before having a discussion with me because I don’t want to confuse you because you have no clue what I’m saying.

I agree with you 50%. What Frank is overlooking, as he has overlooked several times before, is that a morality based on a religion is no more objective than a secular one; in fact, if you think about it, it's necessarily LESS objective.

@@joshuakohlmann9731 What makes it LESS objective? On the atheist planet of the apes, all subjective opinions are equal.

@@festushaggen2563 Because one's moral code is defined by - and limited to - the nature of the god one believes in. Even Christians, for example, can't agree between themselves on what their God wants, much less members of different religions. How in any way can that be called objective?

You misunderstand, if the word evil or the word bad is going to mean anything, surely it has to mean something negative in relation to the someone's or something's experience. If every living thing ever was suffering as bad as it could for as long as it could with no silver lining, surely we can call that bad. If you think something could be worse, you're not making rational sense.

@@joshuakohlmann9731 People can still be wrong in the light of objective truth. They can still have their own biases that assert themselves. Athiests also disagree among themselves about moral issues so singling out Christians for that as unique is unfounded.

Can you elaborate a bit more on your statement?

@@memastarful sure. In the simple basic way it goes like this. Is there a God or Gods? Yes/believes/has faith/claims at least exists=theist Not convinced/doesn’t believe/claims none exist=atheist So both are a positions. And that’s it. Both now have to build/create/develop various philosophies and world views. Many apologists hear atheist and then automatically assume things without learning about them first. Whether this is from being lazy and intellectually dishonest or what I can’t say of course, but many have been doing it long enough that they should know better. Someone tells me they believe…that doesn’t tell me enough and I don’t assume, I ask. This is what apologists get wrong, they think atheist, that means they believe/think/are this/etc etc. quite arrogant of the apologist to assume.

@@therick363 Can you show me examples for you description of apologists? Sounds like you're making a general statement. I'm not defending them but I do wanna get away from them. What's your standard on a good or a bad apologist btw?

@@lordjared2572 it’s simple. Be honest, accurate, and don’t shift and dodge

Your fake morals are made up of candy. You want real morals? You ask the one who gave you that beta.

@@Gracetoyou7 You don't even make sense. Think before you put some random words down if you even expect any future answers.

@@Gracetoyou7 so, you're saying that slavery, rape, and genocide are moral

Can you see texas from up there on your high horse??

@@TylerDurden-oy2hm the view is amazing from heaven

What point?

God's morality doesn't come from anything higher than himself, and is therefore arbitrary.

@@deeds7529 So Heaven has youtube? Ok!

Then the question is why do humans choose bad knowing they can do good Also, good as in selfish good? Good for yourself? Because I think we can agree that sacrificing yourself for your loved ones is morally good. Lying for the good sake of others is however, morally bad.

"Good is defined as something that brings you joy" So if a murderer enjoys killing people then I guess he/she is doing good.

@@inthebeginning4751 Well in his eyes most certainly, otherwise he would feel guilt and don't feel the urge to do it again and again. However It doesn't mean that I feel good about it. Its a subjective moral concept.

The actions of a serial killer compared to what? Thieving a chocolate bar or a couple dollars from your wife's purse? To the simple man, both aren't equitable based on the outward action and consequence of the immoral act performed. No way could stealing a chocolate bar equate to the many serial killers that have made the pages of news in US History. To God, however, the moral wrongness espoused in Mosaic Law is presupposed on a heart/soul condition of the uncleanness begot by sin. To which this sin, regardless of the act performed, is still sin and uncleanness. Whether you got a little dust on your hands, or if you fell into a deep puddle of thick mud, you're still dirtied and need some washing and cleansing... That's what sin is like. And Atheists tend to focus on the outward act of equivalency, rather than the heart issue that causes all suffering and pain, which is sin.

@@hanshammerhand9854 Exactly.

Bell 2:49 Says you can’t follow anything blindly in any religious stories and texts.

That's your opinion

Jepp, one care for their fellow beeings, and one only care because someone told them then must care or else....

"Why is it wrong to inflict pain on people?" Because people don't like pain, and if you loved that person, then you wouldn't inflict pain on them. Love is the bases to go to to see what is morally right. You should look at the argument, rather than just repeat what others have said, because this "human flourishing" argument is as bad as the one in the video.

@@daniilkhimochka9899 Neither the morals equals there is a God or the "flourishing" argument prove there is or isn't a God. Our god could have been an evil god, but that doesn't make what is morally right any different. This is why the atheist see a problem with the morally right argument, but they don't understand why things are morally right, which is why they come up with a flawed argument of their own. This is also way one side can't convince the other, because both sides can see what is wrong with the other's argument. Morally right is very simple. Murder is morally wrong. You don't murder somebody you love, which is why morally right is based on love. If you put love in the equation, then you will come out with what is morally right, and that is Biblical.

@@jamescat8411 Is it morally right to be allowed to consider another person your possession that you can pass on to your children as an inheritance?

@@GuessWhoAsks What is the loving thing to do? Answer that, and you will have a moral answer, instead of trying to paint me in a corner.

@@jamescat8411 Not sure how you are defining "loving", but are you claiming that it is "loving" to consider another person your property that can be passed on to your children as an inheritance?

His point was introducing the question of "why" things are right. The example he uses on dolphins isn't really good example. A better example would be: why is it wrong for people to inflict pain for pleasure. For instance, why is slavery wrong if slaves owners are avoiding "pain" by owning slaves. They are avoiding the pain present in the duties they force their slaves to do. If avoiding pain is the moral basis for judging whether some thing is right or wrong, then slavery could be justified (slave owners are avoiding pain of farming, cleaning .....)

So if we met an alien species with a higher capacity than ourselves, their pleasure would be a higher moral priority?

@@FalconOfStorms Not their pleasure, necessarily, but their suffering (if they had more capacity). This seems like a much better moral standard than the theistic version of this; that if god personally preferred an alien species, their flourishing would be a higher moral priority.

@@jack3400 "For instance, why is slavery wrong if slaves owners are avoiding "pain" by owning slaves." It seems to me that plenty of non-theistic moral frameworks address this question. Virtue ethics, deontology, and utilitarianism all have their answers here. By contrast, theism doesn't answer this question, at least not on its own. You need to add in a theistic moral framework (like "divine command" theory, or "divine nature" theory, etc) on top of theism.

@@inotterwords6115 "Not their pleasure, necessarily" Why not? "This seems like a much better moral standard than the theistic version of this" It really does not. "if god personally preferred an alien species, their flourishing would be a higher moral priority." That's not the theistic alternative. The theistic alternative would be that there's not necessarily a reason to rank us and the superior aliens in terms of who is more deserving of moral treatment. But if your strawman was accurate, it would still be a better moral standard than the atheistic version. It's like me ol' granpaps used to say; "He Who is the eternally existing Creator of all matter, energy, time, morality, space, and life decides the rules." Miss you gramps.

No, the point is NOT to make God happy.. His will and His plan are not the same. If God wanted happiness, He would not have created humans because He already knew the outcome. God desires us to be with Him. He doesn't need us, but we need Him. He wants us to be holy. Only Jesus can do that for us. He wants a relationship with us; his Church body.

@@npsit1 So God went out of his way to create people, knowing full well they'd disobey him and "hurt" him. And to fix the issue, he knew he'd cause before he did it, he sacrificed himself, to save everyone from himself... gotcha...

@@trick7039 is that a problem? I mean your here aren’t u, typing up that keyboard of yours and living life

@@trick7039 God created us with freewill freedom to chose Him or not. He created us to have relationship with Him but we are the ones who reject and turn away over and over. Yet, His stubborn love remains

@@DivineVirtue777 What are you talking about?

Objectives are subjective, since they depend on the desires and attitudes of the Subject who makes the objective. God's moral rules would be subjective if they existed.

just compare the old testament to the supposed ""omnibenevolence" of the christian god and their whole religion falls apart.

@@alspezial2747 Omnibenevolence of the Christian god? Until the new testament, there wasn't punishment in an eternal hell.

Franks basis is God’s character which is shown in the Bible.

He justify the basis by looking at the Bible and seeing if it matches with his view’s if not he’s wrong.

Yes he can show that it is objective because the Bible has not changed so the is an unchanging source for God’s character.

For your last point how did you come to that conclusion?

@@cameronclark447 So Frank's basis for morality includes genocide, slavery, infanticide, and rape? That matches his views? Sorry, but I could not lower my moral standards far enough to worship that god. "Yes he can show that it is objective because the Bible has not changed so the is an unchanging source for God’s character." The fact that it has not changed (actually, it did) would not demonstrate it to be objective. Learn things, kid. "For your last point how did you come to that conclusion?" By the facts that he didn't justify his basis, nor show that it was objective, nor show that it exist, nor show that it allows for human flourishing.

I guess I don't see why this is the case. It doesn't seem like you need to appeal to a god for morality, and adding a god doesn't help answer the ontological questions that Mr. Turek raises. The one he asks in this video is a good example: simply proposing the existence of a god doesn't give you a reason to think that humans have more moral value than dolphins. You have to add a theistic moral system on top of theism.

But no god has been shown to exist. Frank had never demonstrated one.

@@inotterwords6115 is it not reasonable to at least consider (if not conclude), since the physical universe "works" so perfectly, that the same force at work there must have established moral order (where it exists)?

@@therick363 if you can step outside of your rigidity for just one moment, can you at least imagine if you were the Creator of all that is, and you literally gave life to All humans and the entire universe for them to have access to, you might not feel so compelled to "prove" your existence to them?

@@The-F.R.E.E.-J. why can’t he/she/it prove themselves to me and everyone? Why is that such a difficult question to ask of them? Those that believe? Doesn’t bother me at all. I wouldn’t insult them about that. It’s when they cross the line on things. Saying it’s a fact of reality. Or that they know me better than I do and yet when I explain to them my position they still don’t listen?

brilliant!

Everything decays in time. Law of entropy .

Nah they both can disagree on epistemology and ontology. Athiests say evolution as the epistemology, and then say ontologically that it doesn't exist objectively but merely subjectively to the whole population.

The problem with the atheist argument is that evolution cannot answer morality. Morality isn't an evolutionary imperative, as no other social creature exhibits it. No other social creature has laws and rules that all must follow. Other animals will exhibit behavior that humans would deem evil if we did that to each other. Straight up murder, assault, rape, verbal abuse, theft, and so on. All of these are behaviors that other social animals display, as well as humans. But we're the only ones that say they're evil and that punish each other when we do this. And even then, it wasn't always. Native tribes certainly don't believe in our concepts of good and evil. You see this with cannibal tribes in South America, American Indians in the 1800s, African tribes going to war with each other. These people weren't raised in a Christian society and so their morality disagrees with ours, because morality isn't an evolutionary imperative.

@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 Evolution does have to answer for morality if it's the answer for how we developed. You're the one that isn't understanding.

@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 Buddy I can grasp the concept perfectly fine. You're the one that seems to be struggling: God *does* answer for morality, so by your own standard so does evolution. Maybe English is your second language, but I can tell by the way you type that you're out of your depth here. You just said that evolution is the answer for evolution. That's literally circular thinking. Books are the reason for books. Food is the reason for food. Something can't define itself. In addition, you're literally typing incomplete sentences and half formed concepts. You can't even deign to fully type out "you". And yes I am picking apart your grammar, because if you're going to try and say that I lack understanding, then the least you can do is make an effort to prove you understand basic grammar.

@@NovusIgnis What an extremely antiquated and foolish view of human history and morality. 1.Evolution doesn’t “answer” morality, it explains it. Why do humans care about one another? Why do we not kill one another whenever we get the chance? Same reason as most animal species on this planet. Humans are of course the most intelligent species of animal so it stands to reason that we have the most highly developed moral code. Other apes of course exhibit primitive forms of what we would call moral laws. They absolutely have conventions and social rules that are analogous to, and forerunners of, a moral code. Your assertion that “no other social creature exhibits it” is total nonsense. 2.Animals exhibit behaviour that humans would consider evil. And guess what, so do other humans! What does that tell you? Virtually nothing except that perhaps humans have a lot in common with other animals. 3.”Were the only ones that punish each other”. Not true - bands of great apes absolutely punish members who break the social rules of the group. 4.”Native tribes certainly don’t believe in our concepts of good and evil” - the 18th century called - they want their quotes back! This is an insanely arrogant and idiotic thing to say. Virtually all cultures have differences in their law/moral code. Even within cultures there is disagreement. Even within Christianity there is disagreement. Even with sects of Christianity there is disagreement! And not just trivial ones - many Christians disagree on very important points regarding morality and eschatology. You look down your nose at “native tribes” like some sort of pompous colonial invader. Need I remind you that almost ALL the biggest and bloodiest wars and conquests of the last 1500 years have been started by Christian nations. The age of christian empire, conquest and invasions only ended 100 years ago. 5.Your conclusion that therefore morality isn’t a result of us evolving as a social species is totally nonsensical. It’s like saying we didn’t evolve to eat food because each different culture has a different cuisine. You could focus on similarities just as easily as you focus on differences. Most cultures around the world had some variation of “the golden rule” centuries before Christ came along. Most also had outlawed murder, theft and rape too. Not only is it easy to find other cultures that had any and every moral law that can be found in Christianity, there is no such law that can _only_ be found in Christianity. Finally, it has also been noticed by many-a-skeptic that outright or explicit commandments against rape and slavery are conspicuously missing from the bible. And worse still, is that we find passages in the bible that provide instruction as to when and how these morally abhorrent practices may be conducted. It is quite clear to any thinking skeptic that the bible is merely a reflection of ancient near eastern morality and not universal or transcendent at all. What’s also clear is that we’ve evolved intellectually since then and figured out for ourselves that actually rape and slavery are _always_ wrong!

WHY ??

I don't think that kid is a pro, but I'd agree that Mr. Turek is an amateur. I'd like to see him take on a pro sometime, like a philosophy professor.

@@inotterwords6115 then invite Turek to debate the philosopher of your choice. You're barking up the wrong tree about this my friend :)

@@messiahsmisfit33 I asked him to debate Shelly Kagan. He didn't. 😞

Im the guy in the video.. Im a fan of Frank.. He's an okay apologetic for college kids. Im a huge fan of Sam Harris. Im a college kid in Bible school, only 21.. what do you want..

@@reality1958 my fellow Christians in these comments destroying me do not make sense haha..

Up and down ARE subjective, but do not prove the Earth is flat, so your analogy is false. North, South, East and West may VERY slowly change, but our beliefs do not change them, so they are objective. It is simple: If God exists, we objectively have value, so there are rules and morals from God He wants us to follow to make sure we are treated as much as God values us. If God does not exist, all is doomed to death. If God does not exist, all will end in nothing, so all is nothing, we are worth no more than chairs on the sinking Titanic, and even if we can swim, no one will come to save us in the end...

@@m.e.b.4840 *Up and down ARE subjective* No, up and down are relative directions, not subjective directions. *your analogy is false* My analogy shows that we can use concepts in an objective manner without them being absolute. That analogy still holds. *North, South, East and West may VERY slowly change* Considering the movement of Earth they move quite fast. *If God does not exist, all will end in nothing* a) False. You can't get nothing from something. b) That's an argument from consequence and thus completely irrelevant.

@@iljuro Relative: Something dependent on something else (Subjective: dependent on opinion), they are synonyms. Absolute: Existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative (Objective: Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual), they are synonyms. If God does not exist, the universe will die, and our behavior will not change that, so there is no reason to be moral. All will die in the end without God Also, yes, you cannot get something from nothing. Therefore, God creating the universe and objective morality in this discussion is very plausible. How is the argument irrelevant if objective morals exist?

@@m.e.b.4840 If you don't understand the difference between relative and subjective this is a waste of time. Perhaps you could read up on that, and while you're at it check why arguments from consequence are fallacious in cases like this.

@@iljuroMay God bless you and thank you for your time.

pain is only good to the extent that it can be useful to prevent more of itself. If you lost your hand and couldn't survive, pain is not done with you yet.

The logic is that we live in a society and we are products of evolution and things like empathy and reciprocity are useful for group mammals to flourish. Imagine your on a plane, it crashes on some deserted island. Two leaders emerge. One is a brutal violent guy who likes to inflict pain, the other sympathetic. Both have equal capabilities. Which leader would you follow? Would you want to follow the one that randomly kicks people or will rp you, or the one that is sympathetic? As I am a human, I try and avoid pain, so I'm gonna follow the sympathetic one. Heck, I would even follow the sympathetic guy if his survival skills were somewhat less than that of the brute. Let's assume the brute decides to rp you and kill your daughter. What do you think would happen? Id want to prevent what happend to you happen to me, as do X and Y. Even if the brute was very strong, at some point he'd need to sleep. There is a rather great likelihood "our gang" would join forces and attack the brute. To prevent being murdered or rpd ourselves, we bash his skull in in his sleep. Our sympathetic leader has no such fears. He can sleep without needing to fear being killed. In fact, we might take turns to keep each other safe while the others are sleeping. Like pretty much has been going on throughout history. So while the brute may be a bit stronger, his inability to be nice is a danger to his own life. Sometimes someone's particular skills, strength or power may give him some leeway in being more violent, but only as long as his "use" outweighs his "harm done". Now average Joe doesn't have that advantage. So the moment he randomly kicks you in the nuts, for his joy or entertainment, you'll return him the favor, so he will hurt. His pleasure from kicking you must be greater than the level of pain he will endure when you retaliate. Most people dislike experiencing pain more then they enjoy inflicting pain. But let's assume Joe inflicting pain balances his own suffering of pain. In that case you might say: see, not to bad. However, I won't like being kicked or bitten by Joe, whether I can beat him or not. But we're still on that island. And one day a wild boar runs in to Joe. Joe is unable to move. If Joe was a pig, I'm not likely to bring him food and water. Or if so, maybe some scraps. Barely. Had Joe been a very nice guy, hardworking for our group (but not so smart/ practical), the likelihood is far greater I'll run to meet his needs. I like his company and feel empathy for him, so he would be well fed, regardless of being immobile. On a larger scale it also works, but less so. Which is why we see wars and coalitions of countries working together to fight an enemy for as long as it is mutual beneficial. Or, we see fine balances of power, as reciprocity is not only "I'll do for you, if you do for me", but also "I you do to me, I'll do to you", which is what our nuclear arsenals are about: if you bomb me, I'll bomb you to smithereens. With the bible you can go every direction you want. You can claim "an eye for an eye" or "turn the other cheek".

They have no place talking about morality when their books adhere and champion murder, slavery and rape.

@@CheesyChez421 The christian will say that everything god does in the bible is moral. It would be wrong for you to do any of those things, but god is the exception. Therefore, the bible is morally perfect.

@@Generatorman59 yup. A book that commands all those immoral things is the perfect morality. How disgusting of them.

@@CheesyChez421 Why are ancient brown people immoral?

@@autisticphaglosophy7128 why are you defending slavery and rape

No, Sam's point isn't that he thinks we do already, it's that we can say with objective certainty that caring for the wellbeing of each other is good. Let's say living immorally furthers ourselves. It may spike a short term moment of wellbeing, but in the long run it creates a wellbeing deficit. Not just for others but for ourselves

@@BrianBadondeBo It sets a well being deficit for who, whose well being are criminals and drug dealers and thieves concerned with. Many times the tyrants and the dicators and the billionares are the ones flourishing for long periods of time.

@@ceceroxy2227 right, you're proving my point for me. It doesn't matter whose well being deficit is affected, it could be anyone's. Criminals prioritize their wellbeing over others, that's why we came up with the word criminals to describe them. And why is criminality bad? Because it involves others getting hurt or shortchanged, things that relate to experience. If there is no experience, there is no morality

@@BrianBadondeBo I still dont understand your point, why should the criminals not do what benefits them if they arent concerned with the others well being. Why should El Chapo not kill all those people to get his drugs to other countries. I honestly havent even heard a rational argument yet.

@@ceceroxy2227 it's simple, let's say scenario 1) he kills people to get drugs. Scenario 2) he doesn't kill people to get drugs. Scenario 3) he only hurts people a little for drugs but they're fine. We have language to morally describe these options. If we agree, and I think we do, that scenario 1 is the option that has the most wrong in it, then we've bridged the gap. If you think scenario 1 or scenario 3 have less wrongdoing than does scenario 2, I don't know what you're talking about and probably neither do you

there is no "ought"...there is only IF...then you ought, this is what almost all theists and many atheists too, get wrong.

@@RoninTF2011 if then merely implies literally if, then. Ought implies a preferred conditional or possible, which stems from agency.

And where do u think humans have gotten there values from? From an athesis standpoint there shouldn’t be an objective moral standard since its opinion and a bunch chemical reactions.

@@DivineVirtue777 Humans are a social species. We get our moral values from continuing to work with eachother and naturally selecting individuals in our communities that agree with the same moral compass. I.e. killing, stealing and hurting others are wrong because it disrupts the ability for our culture to survive. Those who don't follow those rules simply die off as they don't get to enjoy the good that a community brings. Instead they live on their own with no assistance. You can actually see examples of morals being polar opposites in cultures that conflict with eachother. Let's take the Vikings for example. They believed that in order to reach Valhalla, you had to die an honorable death in battle. Meaning their moral compass revolved around killing those who were outside of their tribe and taking what was theirs to hopefully die an honorable death. And let's say you were a random pagan tribe in Norway, being actively attacked by these vicious people. You'd believe it would be moral to defend yourself and your people by killing these Vikings as they attack you and perhaps taking the fight to them. It increases your tribes chance of survival and if you don't, you get wiped out.

​@@DivineVirtue777 _"And where do u think humans have gotten there values from? "_ Are you asking with respect to Turek's ontological claim? _"From an athesis standpoint there shouldn’t be an objective moral standard since "_ Many atheists do believe in an objective morality. _" since its opinion and "_ Isn't your standard Yahweh's opinion? The guy who drowned babies and condoned slavery. _"a bunch chemical reactions."_ We are chemical reactions. Have you not done high school science?

@@markh1011 I’m strictly speaking how humanity came about from creating an objective moral standard throughout the ages And many atheists don’t because everything is based on there opinion My standard of living isn’t Gods opinion, and u dare speak ill of my God without even understanding the situation that led to that decision. U obviously can’t because u aren’t a God that resides amongst men that constantly needs to make major decisions into changing the events of our lives for one day we’ll all live a better future. Watch that tongue for your creator Never disagreed with the point of us being jus a bunch of “chemicals”, but I bet your wife loves to hear that u only love her because of said chemicals.

@@DivineVirtue777 humans have gotten a lot of our values from our biological, cultural and societal evolution.

In Christianity morality is God’s character like murder is wrong. That’s God’s character. Stealing is wrong that’s God’s character. Torturing babies for fun is wrong that’s God’s character.

Yes. Masters and slaves, according to the Bible, are supposed to love each other and treat one another kindly, among other things. Check Deuteronomy 15, 23:15, and Ephesians 6: 5-9

@@m.e.b.4840 So slavery is moral in your understanding as long as you love your slaves and treat them kindly? I disagree an think that considering anyone to be your property is immoral no matter how well you treat them. For instance, I treat my dog better than I do most other people. I love my dog. If I bought and owned a person like I now own my dog, then are you saying that would be a moral act in your worldview?

It’s just if there is no god there is no objective purpose just subjective purpose. You need something beyond humanity to tell all humans how to live. You can have your own purpose just not objectively.

For example, The Israelites killed a society of people to eradicate pure evil (the sacrificing of children to false gods, selfishness, etc.) on behalf of God’s instruction. Cain, on the other hand, murdered his brother Able out of jealousy. If you look at these 2 scenarios _strictly_ in terms of tangibly, and judge them based solely upon which caused more human _physical_ pain & suffering, then the obvious conclusion would be that the ‘mass murder’ (or possibly even the ‘racially-based mass murder’ if that happened to be a factor) was much worse than the singular murder of ‘just one guy.’ This seems to show that striving to achieve the least amount of _physical_ human suffering possible, should not be the ultimate goal with regards to ‘True morality’ ..but also, is not something to be completely disregarded either. In an imperfect world of lies & deception, it can often be difficult for limited human understanding to properly gauge someone else’s heart, motives, emotions, or intent. Whether one’s actions were justifiable, or if they were based on corruption.. sometimes only God knows.

@@DanielF892 That depends on what you mean by "objective", though. If you think "objective" is close to "absolute", then I can understand what you mean, but if you define "objective" the way the questioner in the video does, there would be no problem for people in general to determine what "objective" should mean for them as a group. I also tend to shrug my shoulders about the supposed lack of "objectivity". It seems that many religious people feel a need for this "objectivity" (whatever they may mean by it), but not because it is a useful or even true concept, but because it gives them the opportunity to introduce their religion into the discussion. Personally, I think the juxtaposition of "objective" and "subjective" is often abused, especially by apologists. In particular, apologists never acknowledge that the "inter-subjective" also exists in the same way as the "objective" exists. I think "inter-subjectivity" is a much more powerful concept with regards to morality than "objectivity".

@@purpleXpotion I am not sure I understand what you are talking about. I don't understand which aspects of the genocide of the Canaanites and the murder of Abel you are comparing. In the Bible, the genocide of the Canaanites, which objectively involved far more pain and suffering than the murder of a single guy, was ordered by God, and supposedly was *_not_* evil. The murder of Abel on the other hand was committed by Cain out of his own emotional turmoil, supposedly against the will of God, and was therefore evil. If we had to choose one over the other; a genocide or the killing of one man, which would we choose? Is that really a difficult choice for you?

@@hansdemos6510 when I said objective I mean the highest order. This is what is right or wrong. So in this case right or wrong purpose. Only an objective truth or being outside of humanity can justify that.

some ppl prefer to avoid suffering, some ppl prefer to inflect suffering. Both are equally valid. To say that humans must flourish there has to be a purpose to the game, not preference.

@@mikeramos91 Exactly

@@mikeramos91 How do you know that humans _must_ flourish? I think humans _want_ to flourish. Hence, they negotiate rules amongst themselves to decrease suffering. The "game" is obviously being self-refereed.

@@incredulouspasta3304 in the theist worldview, humans were originally created with a purpose to flourish & it is wrong to cause others to suffer. But if there is no purpose to the game, then anything that happens in this life is valid. To say otherwise there must be a purpose to the game

@@incredulouspasta3304 What if one group wants to flourish in expense of another group is it right or wrong?