The simple answer God was establishing laws against the owning oh slaves and mistreatment of people already practicing slavery. Changing peoples views takes time and since God does not want to force people to be moral by establishing a way out of the evilness of slavery he showed people a way to change their minds. Really if you get right down to it the Bible is just asking you to be open to change your mind for a better moral way of doing things.

I would argue that the reason self-interests haven't completely torn this country apart (though they've always played a tremendous part in everything) is the understanding that if you value something in your lufe, then you don't take it from others...if you value freedom, then you don't take others freedom. If you value being able to choose your own outcomes, such as what you'll own, where you'll work, who you'll marry, then you don't attempt to take that from others. This works because we understand that if we don't honor these things that we value in others lives, then we risk losing it ourself. Once you get to the point where you create reasons to hamper others, you create the very reasons why you yourself should be hampered. And if you take these things from others, they will willingly try to take them from you, too. You create the situation to give people motive to do so.

Atheists 😂😂😂

I believe... 🙏

check your sources if the Pew put it out I wonder if they have a reason to do so, and if anybody bothered to fact check them. anyone can say anything, it takes a real person of integrity to prove it and even more to have a peer-reviewed to find the flaws.

How someone could seem so smart and yet believe a book made up out of whole cloth by ancient Jews was inspired by universe creating being, is beyond me.

I’m Richard “talking point” Dawkins…and I have no clue what I’m talking about!

The biggest thing I value from religions is that they practice family, they often have similar values in that sense, it's only when you see that history has shifted over time from what those religions taught or "experienced" History is a much closer reference in time to modern beliefs and it's got to find a place to coexist with science to not be detrimental to history or faith based beliefs

History, science, religion, family, friends, all being refigured out right now with a renewed sense of equality

Still then points to recent history and the more peaceful times should be higher priority

1:23:33 Aldous Huxley’s Perennial Philosophy is a book that for me was very hard to read, I read it at a young age 16/17. It planted some seeds that I would later recognize in full. if any modern person wants to really try and understand the fundamentals, I would listen to what ever Kabbalah oriented recorded speeches you can find on Psalms 119. Another book I’d recommend is Vladimir Shmakov’s Sacred Book of Thot. I’ve been translating it meticulously with GPTs very slowly to make sure I’m doing a good job, but it’s absolutely incredible. There are like 5 times more citations than pages, and quotes pulled from every era. Shmakov’s general theory is about synthetic philosophy.

Dawkins : " let's keep the looks of christianity, i like it"

Because anything and be justified. Even when it's wrong. That's one problem with our own subjective ethics or morals. When we get to the point that anything "bad" can be justified, then how do we tell the difference between hood and evil?

Calculator spits outcome that You don't like, but it was you who put the method in for it to give you that outcome. Methodology is flawed. It's bottom up structure that's deemed to fail under it's own weight. There is only one worldview that is coherent - eastern Orthodox

THIS IS MY DREAM COLLAB. I love Elaine Pagels so so much!!

What alex presents is not a internal critique, i suggest debating madebyJimbob or Andrew Wilson, if it'd be theology, metaphysics, worldviews and justification - Jay Dyer

Why does no one mention reddit?

81:15 Khalifa I solemnly swear by the galaxies 81:16 Khalifa Precisely running in their orbits 3:195 Khalifa Their Lord responded to them: "I never fail to reward any worker among you for any work you do, be you male or female - you are equal to one another. Thus, those who immigrate, and get evicted from their homes, and are persecuted because of Me, and fight and get killed, I will surely remit their sins and admit them into gardens with flowing streams." Such is the reward from GOD. GOD possesses the ultimate reward 81:16 Khalifa Precisely running in their orbits

Define elite vs non elite.

Because the idea of living in that society is terrifying and would not be worth the benefit of saving those additional lives. That's the problem with these debate bros. They can't see the forest through the trees.

there is an exact moment where it became immoral and that is in the Torah, it is not relative and I am assuming you are talking about immoral acts with relatives. Read the entire chapter. This generation has no concept of dig deeper. You read the title and think you're a subject matter expert.

The response to your question looks to be heavily edited and stitched together. Please could you post the full long form, non edited version of the response…

In my opinion, what is missing in the desert Island is value in anything other than yourself. What I mean with this is: if we only drive ourselves by our own feelings and experience we prefer over others experiences, there is no actual sense of morality because you would just do whatever you like the most, and even doing something you don't like would be not wrong because you might just be experimenting to discover anything new you didn't know you like... The concept of good and wrong comes when you have to consider how you actions will affect something of value other than yourself. In this case, murder is not something one disapproves by itself as an experience, but as an outrage against something of value. For example, if we don't value a fly's life, there's no moral debate about killing it if my experience is improved by removing the fly from the picture... the "booo" about murder comes from thinking about murdering a person of something of value other than ourselves. Now where comes the idea of "something of value other than ourselves"? I think here is pure evolution, where the only system of value that works in a community is a system where my values don't contradict the values of others, therefore, things like "I like how it feels murdering someone else" can't prevail in time, since it would crush against another person's system of values, which would include himself by just survival instinct. Therefore, we would evolve in a way our system of value contemplates others, the same way it contemplates ourselves, and we should add things we need to survive too, so killing a pig to eat, would be consider good, but killing a pig for fun would be consider bad, because I'm damaging something I would might need in the future... Killing a fly won't make a difference in my life experience, so we didn't evolve into care about a fly's life. I also think the process of considering things of value from other things we already considered valuable, is an evolution of our reasoning, in which we could understand the world into more complex experiences or activities which might benefit the things we value even if its not obvious in first hand... like eating healthy because we value being healthy in the future.

Bumbling idiot this man is

From heaven, I suppose, is what he meant. I have no context though

That's why I lost a lot of respect for Pterson when I realized how full of over-pseudo-intelectulized shit he is. His speech cannot reach an ordinary gray common man.

If we create norms that discourage praise/blame/pride and also rewards and punishment. That will change our behaviors quite drastically I imagine, for the worse? I have no idea.

Wow, you did to AI what the church has done to people since the inception of the Christian faith… well, minus all of the torture, war, genocide, and ostracizing among other heinous acts that the church has committed upon countless people all in the name of God.

Christians do worship the GOD Jesus worshipped. The same GOD of abraham, isaac, and jacob. Would the muslim read the scriptures Jesus read?

Hitchens seems like the most uninteresting person I’ve ever seen. What a joke that he thinks so highly of himself. He holds archaic views

wow not trying to debate an emotional person who has not really done any research?. Ben wow. how audacious

This is why I'm okay with it.

Marcion was actually a Bishop.

I don't know about 'secret christian'. But he is a jerk and not a spokesman for me as an atheist.

That's why you need to derive your objective morality from an all-knowlegable all, all-wise being... (Allah)

Shapiro has convinced his fans that talking fast means talking smart when it's really just talking bullshit really fast.

he realized he was screwed when he said moral relativism cause he realized he had just cooked his own goose.

A priest saying a concept is ludicrous? Oh the irony. How can he even make a statement like that? Then he says “I don’t think you even believe that”. 💩

What did two snakes and dna have to do with any of his religious claims?

27:09 Again false…. 1 Corinthians 15:4-6. 1 Corinthians 15:14. Verse 29 of the same.

Alex’s fear of death reminds me of Julian Barnes’ memoir Nothing to be Frightened of. Both spend too much time in their own heads

You need to debate Jay Dyer

You have to love it when Goyim analyzes the yud and vav keys (we don't pronounce hey). Just do yourself and your ancestors a favour and don't do damage; instead, get occupied with something else…. He’s the One and only One. ‘ברוך השם

44:01 “People worshiping celestial objects” By this, what is meant is ‘people worshiping specific dimensions of the human emotions’, ie. Heartfelt and heart-lead being solar, one’s opinions or imaginations being the lunar, worshiping might being Mars, worshiping poetry or beautify being Venus, etc. Obviously these terms and words are not exactly those same that were around, but I’m just pointing out the premise, which is the basis for Astro-logic, ie the logic of the ‘stars’; stars being those things above us, which we have names to correspond to distinct forces within us.

12:13 Unscholarly and unschooled in the Bible. In Mark 4, from verses 13 to 20, Jesus goes on to interpret and teach the parable to his disciples alone and thereby gives them the model by which to interpret all parables. Elaine says that Jesus doesn’t tell them what it is. Anyone ready enough to simply fact check will no longer trust people of such little professionalism as to lie outright, wanting something to be true so bad, it is no longer lack of knowledge but sentimental delusion.

Piers is one of the most ignorant people ever

The Bible is a clear and present danger to mankind.

if bil gates hade taken a more nerdy side

I'm a big fan of both of these intellectual titans. However, Alex comes across as a pedantic contrarian. He can't keep up with Sam.

40:50 Here onward the distinction between the North and the South, how the North idolizes the ‘Bull’ and the South condemns, and how the North would have been materialistically more endowed versus the South being ‘bumpkins’ (as said by the speaker)… This all makes sense if what understood by the ‘Bull’ is Ego. Ego in the sense of, promotion of the material individuation of self, versus say-aestheticism, universalism, unity, etc. This tension is one of much historical confusion, since there are very valid and pragmatic arguments to both sides.