Poor Angel. He thinks that praying to a mass murdering narcissist makes him moral, and that obeying the dictates of a tyrant makes his morality objective. Such a fool.
Number 31: 16-17., Now keep the girls who have not known man for your themselves. The god of the bible is advocating sexual assault. Tell me about your objective morality again?
I think this Angel is the kind of guy who would like to commit crime X and Y, but he won't do it just because God tells him not to. People like Angel must keep their religion at all costs. He would be the first to do bad things as soon as he no longer believes, because his belief is that everything is okay as long as you don't believe
Gawd bless him for it too. I'm surprised he even returns. I don't know if I respect him for that or pity him because these conversations likely have zero impact on his views. I don't think that's fair for me to say, I'm lumping him in with the VAST majority of people who are willing to have this conversation. Having said all that, I like the dude. "Nothing god does is wrong" he says post the biblical statement that God instructed fools to kill an entire village and take the women and children for themselves. I think I'm just desensitized to this nonsense. They all just say the same ole stuff.
The dude likes to quote from the Bible and can’t even get the moral story of the passages correct. What do you think happens when he reads something new?
I had to look up "modal collapse" and I don't think it means what Angel it hinks it means. I think Angel thinks it is a 9th level D&D spell that makes all the head-hurty go away.
You guys seem to hate Angel more than you do April haha. I have no Angel videos to upload in the foreseeable future, so we just have to suffer through this one.
Angel thinks atheism requires defending when it makes no claims. It's a position on a lack of belief. When someone like angel asserts that atheists must defend their position or else they have modal collapse, it's him shifting the burden of proof that objective morality exists because the Christian God is defined as the source of morality. Definitions are not prescriptive. That's where his claims break down.
I was in this live and still i found myself wanting to real time object to ramblings angel had. I guess he never disappoints to keep us on the edge of our seats lol
Whenever I have this convo I get people to define what objective means. It’s always circular and I just let them embarrass themselves. We’re on the same ground but they try to argue I’m underwater hilarious
The Apologist morality argument is so bad, because they think they have an absolute irrefutable slam dunk argument. Then get so worked up when your average Atheist tells them that they are talking horse feathers.
I am a soulless animal. Does Angel think he’s a soul filled fkn plant??? Him eating so loudly was infuriating. Oh, and if morality relies on a god… that’s FKN subjective.
I was taught morals, I was not taught religion. Its really that easy.. seriously. But the way he calls me/Athiests a "souless animal" really really really shows everyone who HE really is.. lol what a mean person!!
When it comes to morality most Christians are lost and blind. Just look at their track record - they are racist, xenophobic, authoritarian, narcissistic, abusive, deceitful, homophobic, transphobic, unjust, unloving, uncaring, and worse of all - they have no clue that they are, they see nothing wrong. So much for objective morality. 🙄
I'm curious what he thinks modal collapse is. It's like he heard that it's a bad thing about religion and decided to start hurling it around without bothering to check what it is.
This is just Angel practicing "talk-eoke" : Speaking only to hear the sound of one's voice. Eric serves only to give Angel time to catch his breath before repeating his statements.
He keeps saying everyone’s distinction between right and wrong is morally good… but there is no objective good. Subjective human morality is determined by the collection of individual opinions. The things most of us determine are wrong ARE WRONG. And it is all subject to change. That’s literally why we have multiple political parties, religions, groups and nations.
23:49 Why does eating the fruit allow you to actualize only evil. It was the tree of good and evil. To make logical sense to say Adam could not actualize good or evil until he ate the fruit.
Jesus is the objective standard of good? The guy who made his own whip to attack people with? The guy who got his mates to steal a donkey for him? The guy who said he will come back and kill his enemies with a sword? That Jesus?
I learned about this in a philosophy class. We had to read Euthyphro (spelling?) It's the problem of the Divine Command Theory. To a person who believes that morals come from God, is something wrong because God says it's wrong, or does God say it's wrong because it is wrong? If God says it's wrong because it is wrong, then that means there must be a morality that's independent from God. That's a serious problem to his supposedly omnipotent nature if there are things that he didn't create and has no control over. More importantly, this makes God irrelevant to the question of morality. If morality exists independently of God, then we can still be moral beings even without knowing about or believing in God. We dont need him to tell us what to do. If, on the other hand, it's wrong because God says it's wrong, that raises even more problems. What if God told you to do something you disagree with? What if God told you it's wrong to worship him? If there is no morality outside of God, then God is not subject to morality and he can do anything he wants. Is there ANY reason for God to make any particular decision? If nothing guides him, why wouldn't his decisions be random, or self-serving? Why would he feel any obligation towards humanity? Leibniz wrote that supporters of this idea "deprive God of the designation good: for what cause could one have to praise him for what he does, if in doing something quite different he would have done equally well?" and he also wrote that "This opinion would hardly distinguish God from the devil." If we do something because we think it's good, and we think it's good because God says so, then we're just doing something because God says so. Why listen to him over anyone else? What moral authority does he have in this scenario? (Remember, in this scenario his actions are not guided by any sort of moral framework; they're totally arbitrary.) So we're essentially being asked to do what he says because either A. We feel obligated to him for creating us, which is circular reasoning. We should only feel obligated to him if he actually had some reason for creating us, but we've already established that his actions are arbitrary. Might as well praise literally anything he does at that rate, no matter how evil it may appear. B. We should obey him because he's powerful and if we don't, he'll punish us. Sorry but this is not a good reason. If this is what we're supposed to believe, then God is a fucking tyrant. Is it not morally right to stand up to tyrants?
4:05 Everything God says is love. So, if God said to SA someone, then that would be love. That means when Jesus says to love each other then SAing would be love. This is simple logic.
Bless the little man’s socks; he comes here so often to try and defend the god he’s made up in his head and has still never managed to do so. A big part of that is because he doesn’t listen to a word anyone says so he doesn’t listen to what he should be defending 😂
@gowdsake7103 I think people are intelligent if they're curious, like thinking about complex ideas, are open to discussing different opinions, and can explain their own beliefs well. However, Angel seems to struggle with recognizing logical flaws in arguments, which can hurt his ability to have these strong discussions. A trait consistent with apologetics, but he's an intelligent man nonetheless.
A thought experiment to ask these kind of people is one that Plato’s “Euthyphro” focuses on. The question is: is god good because he’s holy or is he holy because he’s good?
Me: asks a question Him: give his one talking point and ignores the question Me: please answer my question. repeats question Him: repeats talking point three times while asking a different question Me: that does answer my question please answer my question Him: repeats talking point while saying you can’t answer my question and repeats question and talking point Me: can you answer my question Him: you can’t answer my question so I’ll repeat my talking point Repeat the above over and over again til Christ returns It’ll be any day now btw
what dose god have to do with morality, its as age old quote goes "do on to others as you would, wish to be done upon yourself". I don't want to be punch in the face, and I know if some one punched me I would be hurt, thus I don't do that to other people as I don't want them to feel bad as I would not
I have never in my whole life heard jesus SAY anything, I have only always ever heard PEOPLE claiming to speak on behalf of this jesus and what he allegedly "says".
"God has objective knowledge over everything" how the fuck do people believe that type of shit. He says humans can't understand things outside of their reality yet immediately claims he knows what a being outside of our reality is thinking????
Bro didn't even come into this debate thinking it was a debate. I feel sorry for anyone in his life that disagrees with him on something. I wouldn't put up with this type of bs in my personal life.
Moses literally gets given 10 moral rules to live by, and then a few pages later, he gets told by the dictator of "thou shall not kill" to go on a killing spree!!! Which he does and that "pleases" the dictator of the moral instruction.
If someone believes a god gave them permission, any atrocity becomes a moral act. If Angel could only understand how repulsive his morals could easily change in to, he would reject the idea of theism.
Is it rational to argue with a person who is incapable of rational thought? Perhaps some ground rules for thinking rationally should be established. That might help but you are ultimately arguing with someone (in Angel's case) who is profoundly ignorant - in a general knowledge sense - and seemingly also not very intelligent. Angel is perhaps on the far left of the Bell curve for IQ. It is not really a thing a person can do much about. Some people are tall and some are short. Intelligence-wise Angel is not the kind of guy who will be making slam dunks.
Some people are too dumb, andninsecure to have a Philosophically Objective conversation because their worldview is intrinsic to breathing, and losing the argument would be akin to dying.
I find the objective morality thing can be turned back into a question of whether God is a subject or an object. Deriving morality from another subject is just subjective morality with more steps. And if he says that god is objective, then he is accepting that he derives morality from an objective fact. Might as well add the adjective soulless for good measure. Objective morality is basically morality based on soulless facts. Facts have no souls. So I have no idea why he talks about atheism having no morality for the reason of being soulless, when objective moral facts (which aren't a thing), don't have souls either. Souls just don't exist at all regardless. An example of an objective source of morality is the fact of whether or not an action infringes on anyone else's health, safety and or liberty. Or an act is immoral when it causes unnecessary suffering. I would be happy to accept that it's a soulless fact. I don't believe in souls, but when someone uses that as a non-sequitur argument that I have no morals because I'm a soulless animal despite giving examples of how despite not believing in any deity that I can make moral acts and judgements, such an assertion is simply a lie.
The problem with Angel is that he argues as if Peterson is soulless while he himself has a soul. You can't have it both ways. You must pick one or the other. Either argue on an even field of no god or an even field of a god. Doing this half and half stuff doesn't work and just leads Angel to constantly insulting because he has no points.
🤦♀️ Even "soulless animals" demonstrate love and morality. As far as we know animals don't believe in a god, so how are they capable of love and morality? 🤔 And Angel, if you disagree that animals have shown that they love and have morality, you'd better be able to refute that with evidence.🙄
Wen someone says “you think you’re smarter than god” I can’t help but cringe. The fact is theists are arguing that they are as smart as god because they follow gods words. Atheists don’t say they are smarter than god, they say they are smarter than a theist. It’s the theists that takes that claim of ignorance and deflects the criticism of their intellect with that of god’s. It’s the egotism of theists that think they are as good as god and if their arguments are insulted then it’s god that’s insulted… aka theists are god in their mind. It’s a ouroboros of egotistic ignorance.
Angel is clearly unaware that non-human animals (which he, no doubt, believes have no souls) also display varying (and surprisingly complex) degrees of morality, especially other primates. This dismantles his argument that one needs a soul or a God in order to have moral principles. Further, God is a subject, and one whose changing commandments are the source of Angel's values, making the moral system he follows entirely subjective. It is based on the opinions and directives of one particular individual and can change at any time. That is, by definition, subjective. I'm always confused that people so unfamiliar with their own religion can be so confident in their belief in it. He wasn't even familiar with what actually happens in the story of Adam & Eve, which is the most well known tale in the bible (aside from Jesus' crucifixion, perhaps.) That's an astounding level of ignorance from someone who feels the right to proselytize to everyone else about the validity of his worldview.
Just because you define God as "objective moral", doesn't mean it is. The same way, I could just define my opinion as the "objective moral standard". Even if God is objective moral, how do you know what is moral? Because a book written by people tells you? What if this book is wrong? There is no objective way to determine, what is objective moral. Also: Can you even have objective morality? Maybe it is impossible. Like an objective correct language. Or objective traffic rules.... in the end, it is just convention.
Well, unless "God" comes down and personally tells someone what morals are or should be, then they are only believing what some men wrote in a book. plain and simple.
Poor Angel. He thinks that praying to a mass murdering narcissist makes him moral, and that obeying the dictates of a tyrant makes his morality objective. Such a fool.
Number 31: 16-17., Now keep the girls who have not known man for your themselves. The god of the bible is advocating sexual assault. Tell me about your objective morality again?
I think this Angel is the kind of guy who would like to commit crime X and Y, but he won't do it just because God tells him not to. People like Angel must keep their religion at all costs. He would be the first to do bad things as soon as he no longer believes, because his belief is that everything is okay as long as you don't believe
@@TheLevantinExactly. He's actually really dangerous if he holds this position as are the others.
Angel isn’t listening to a word you’re saying. You can tell by his stuttering while you’re talking, he is only waiting for his turn to speak.
exactly. if at any point you asked him what peterson just said he’d fail.
He is like a lot of guests. They are not there to have a conversation but simply to proselytize to Peterson’s audience.
Angel: I know you’re flustered.
Peterson: Stop projecting.
I swear this dude hears a new term every other week then jumps on live with you so he can publicly misunderstand the term for a half hour.
Gawd bless him for it too. I'm surprised he even returns. I don't know if I respect him for that or pity him because these conversations likely have zero impact on his views.
I don't think that's fair for me to say, I'm lumping him in with the VAST majority of people who are willing to have this conversation.
Having said all that, I like the dude. "Nothing god does is wrong" he says post the biblical statement that God instructed fools to kill an entire village and take the women and children for themselves. I think I'm just desensitized to this nonsense. They all just say the same ole stuff.
The dude likes to quote from the Bible and can’t even get the moral story of the passages correct. What do you think happens when he reads something new?
Him calling Peterson flustered was peak projection.
I had to look up "modal collapse" and I don't think it means what Angel it hinks it means. I think Angel thinks it is a 9th level D&D spell that makes all the head-hurty go away.
I dismiss everything fundamentalist Christians say with this: “that’s just a theory.”
A quick note for angel. The highness of your pitch and the volume of your voice dont equate to your argument being correct.
You guys seem to hate Angel more than you do April haha. I have no Angel videos to upload in the foreseeable future, so we just have to suffer through this one.
It might as well be Angel calling in as April through a voice changer (or vice versa). There is not much difference between them.
he’s ok sometimes (even though he’s THE DUMB) but he wasn’t even listening you this time around
They're both pretty bad. Angel's got that added "you don't understand, but I'm here to teach you" attitude.
You should get the two of them together for a debate some time. you vs the two of them.
Please stop talking to this guy. I know it makes for good content but his voice is annoying. Same for April lol.
New drinking game, take a shot every time angel says “soulless animals” and see how fast you get to find out if god exists or not.
Angel thinks atheism requires defending when it makes no claims. It's a position on a lack of belief. When someone like angel asserts that atheists must defend their position or else they have modal collapse, it's him shifting the burden of proof that objective morality exists because the Christian God is defined as the source of morality. Definitions are not prescriptive. That's where his claims break down.
Angel must be soo tired from punching that straw man....
How many times do you think Angel repeated himself??
Yes.
Yes, of course we are all soulless animals.
I was in this live and still i found myself wanting to real time object to ramblings angel had. I guess he never disappoints to keep us on the edge of our seats lol
Whenever I have this convo I get people to define what objective means. It’s always circular and I just let them embarrass themselves. We’re on the same ground but they try to argue I’m underwater hilarious
Like a broken gramophone record. Congratulations on your patience PP.
Angel is literally a cultist. He can't believe others can't do anything without being told.
The Apologist morality argument is so bad, because they think they have an absolute irrefutable slam dunk argument. Then get so worked up when your average Atheist tells them that they are talking horse feathers.
I am a soulless animal.
Does Angel think he’s a soul filled fkn plant???
Him eating so loudly was infuriating.
Oh, and if morality relies on a god… that’s FKN subjective.
I won't speak to "soul-filled", but after half an hour of that, I'm fairly convinced he could be a very loud houseplant, yes.
I was taught morals, I was not taught religion. Its really that easy.. seriously. But the way he calls me/Athiests a "souless animal" really really really shows everyone who HE really is.. lol what a mean person!!
The thing is we are "soulless" animals. "angel" Just uses it in a derogatory way so he can feel "humble"...
That's the only thing on which he was correct though... Humans are animals. And there is no evidence that souls exist. But he means it as an insult.
Did those morals include slavery? Capital punishment for speaking up to your parents?
If not, your more moral than angels deity. Thanks for that.
When it comes to morality most Christians are lost and blind. Just look at their track record - they are racist, xenophobic, authoritarian, narcissistic, abusive, deceitful, homophobic, transphobic, unjust, unloving, uncaring, and worse of all - they have no clue that they are, they see nothing wrong. So much for objective morality. 🙄
I'm curious what he thinks modal collapse is.
It's like he heard that it's a bad thing about religion and decided to start hurling it around without bothering to check what it is.
This is just Angel practicing "talk-eoke" : Speaking only to hear the sound of one's voice. Eric serves only to give Angel time to catch his breath before repeating his statements.
christian morality isn't morality at all, it's obedience. there's no method of discernment beyond "jesus said so".
Is it possible that Angel might be capable of answering questions if he wasn't munching on his food during the discussion?
He keeps saying everyone’s distinction between right and wrong is morally good… but there is no objective good. Subjective human morality is determined by the collection of individual opinions. The things most of us determine are wrong ARE WRONG. And it is all subject to change. That’s literally why we have multiple political parties, religions, groups and nations.
Peterson's patience is unnatural 😂
Morals/morality is a social construct. It's just that simple.
if you asked angel to summarize the call he would only be able to tell you what he said
23:49 Why does eating the fruit allow you to actualize only evil. It was the tree of good and evil. To make logical sense to say Adam could not actualize good or evil until he ate the fruit.
Oh boy! He not only got sucked down the rabbit hole, he set up and runs the gift shop there.
Jesus is the objective standard of good? The guy who made his own whip to attack people with? The guy who got his mates to steal a donkey for him? The guy who said he will come back and kill his enemies with a sword? That Jesus?
I learned about this in a philosophy class. We had to read Euthyphro (spelling?) It's the problem of the Divine Command Theory. To a person who believes that morals come from God, is something wrong because God says it's wrong, or does God say it's wrong because it is wrong?
If God says it's wrong because it is wrong, then that means there must be a morality that's independent from God. That's a serious problem to his supposedly omnipotent nature if there are things that he didn't create and has no control over. More importantly, this makes God irrelevant to the question of morality. If morality exists independently of God, then we can still be moral beings even without knowing about or believing in God. We dont need him to tell us what to do.
If, on the other hand, it's wrong because God says it's wrong, that raises even more problems. What if God told you to do something you disagree with? What if God told you it's wrong to worship him? If there is no morality outside of God, then God is not subject to morality and he can do anything he wants. Is there ANY reason for God to make any particular decision? If nothing guides him, why wouldn't his decisions be random, or self-serving? Why would he feel any obligation towards humanity? Leibniz wrote that supporters of this idea "deprive God of the designation good: for what cause could one have to praise him for what he does, if in doing something quite different he would have done equally well?" and he also wrote that "This opinion would hardly distinguish God from the devil." If we do something because we think it's good, and we think it's good because God says so, then we're just doing something because God says so. Why listen to him over anyone else? What moral authority does he have in this scenario? (Remember, in this scenario his actions are not guided by any sort of moral framework; they're totally arbitrary.) So we're essentially being asked to do what he says because either
A. We feel obligated to him for creating us, which is circular reasoning. We should only feel obligated to him if he actually had some reason for creating us, but we've already established that his actions are arbitrary. Might as well praise literally anything he does at that rate, no matter how evil it may appear.
B. We should obey him because he's powerful and if we don't, he'll punish us. Sorry but this is not a good reason. If this is what we're supposed to believe, then God is a fucking tyrant. Is it not morally right to stand up to tyrants?
The ends justify the means. Thanks Angle for that wisdom.
I think we've learned all we need to know about Angel. Please don't have him on anymore.
Every time you you back him into a corner, he goes back to “that’s not in line with the word of Christ.” Complete cop out.
🗣PETERSON!
4:05 Everything God says is love. So, if God said to SA someone, then that would be love. That means when Jesus says to love each other then SAing would be love. This is simple logic.
What is an objective will? Angel hears a a new term like modal collapse and just runs with it.
This guys's argument is going in circles so much that I'm getting dizzy
Bless the little man’s socks; he comes here so often to try and defend the god he’s made up in his head and has still never managed to do so.
A big part of that is because he doesn’t listen to a word anyone says so he doesn’t listen to what he should be defending 😂
Angel embodies why teachers advocate understanding over memorization. Though intelligent, he parrots arguments without grasping core concepts.
How do you determine he is intelligent
@gowdsake7103 I think people are intelligent if they're curious, like thinking about complex ideas, are open to discussing different opinions, and can explain their own beliefs well. However, Angel seems to struggle with recognizing logical flaws in arguments, which can hurt his ability to have these strong discussions. A trait consistent with apologetics, but he's an intelligent man nonetheless.
He doesn’t talk to people to listen and engage, just to yell and insult like a broken record.
5:04 foaming at the mouth " Neooooo!!! Nooooo!!!"
Eric, where the hell do you find these people!? Holy shit.
A thought experiment to ask these kind of people is one that Plato’s “Euthyphro” focuses on. The question is: is god good because he’s holy or is he holy because he’s good?
imagine having to deal with angel on a daily basis
“Soulless animal with no moral law”😭
Im about to EXPOUND on it 🤣🤣🤣
I'm gonna give Angel the win here, solely for using the phrase "rooter to the tooter"
23:50 ?????! I love this guy
Maybe if I repeat myself just one more time I'll convince myself of what mama told me. 😂
Angels own argument literally dismantled Christian morality lol
Frankly, Idk why he bothers to talk with Angel 🤣 Maybe just cause it makes him laugh 🤣
I’ll believe I’m incapable of being superior to a god when one stands before and tells me itself…
Me: asks a question
Him: give his one talking point and ignores the question
Me: please answer my question. repeats question
Him: repeats talking point three times while asking a different question
Me: that does answer my question please answer my question
Him: repeats talking point while saying you can’t answer my question and repeats question and talking point
Me: can you answer my question
Him: you can’t answer my question so I’ll repeat my talking point
Repeat the above over and over again til Christ returns It’ll be any day now btw
what dose god have to do with morality, its as age old quote goes "do on to others as you would, wish to be done upon yourself". I don't want to be punch in the face, and I know if some one punched me I would be hurt, thus I don't do that to other people as I don't want them to feel bad as I would not
Apparently Angel never heard of Hume.🤦♂️
I have never in my whole life heard jesus SAY anything, I have only always ever heard PEOPLE claiming to speak on behalf of this jesus and what he allegedly "says".
That strawman that Angel argues against seem like a horrible person. Too bad he won't argue with Peterson instead of against that strawman.
funny how theists arguments often boil down to "you as a an atheist [lie]"
"What you don't understand" The more you say it, the less it's true Angel.
Angel must be exhausting to get stuck next to at a party.
And I would love to hear him call in to Matt Dillahunty.
Foxtrot Unicorn Charlie Kilo this guy
Damn. I was excited for a new Peterson video and then I heard Angel's voice. Listening to him smugly ramble is a genuine waste of time.
Good news everybody! I can reveal the the source of all objective morality. It was me, I did it! Finally, centuries of debate can be put to rest.
"God has objective knowledge over everything" how the fuck do people believe that type of shit.
He says humans can't understand things outside of their reality yet immediately claims he knows what a being outside of our reality is thinking????
This guy has no idea that the stick isn’t a carrot.
I wonder what Angel thinks the objective favorite color is.
I feel bad that in his 50+ years on this earth noone taught angel how to read.
Unfortunate that he refused to respond to the arbitrariness of Gods rules
Angel is a gobless crank
where do animals like wolves and dogs get their morality? the bible? gAWd?
Bro didn't even come into this debate thinking it was a debate. I feel sorry for anyone in his life that disagrees with him on something. I wouldn't put up with this type of bs in my personal life.
Moses literally gets given 10 moral rules to live by, and then a few pages later, he gets told by the dictator of "thou shall not kill" to go on a killing spree!!! Which he does and that "pleases" the dictator of the moral instruction.
this guy is literally the same 5 min on repeat.
My brain just zoned out at some point when Angel was speaking. I heard words but not what he was saying. So much senseless babbling per second.
If someone believes a god gave them permission, any atrocity becomes a moral act.
If Angel could only understand how repulsive his morals could easily change in to, he would reject the idea of theism.
1:10 “Your will is subjective”
So very wrong, buddy. A L L wills are subjective.
Is it rational to argue with a person who is incapable of rational thought?
Perhaps some ground rules for thinking rationally should be established. That might help but you are ultimately arguing with someone (in Angel's case) who is profoundly ignorant - in a general knowledge sense - and seemingly also not very intelligent. Angel is perhaps on the far left of the Bell curve for IQ. It is not really a thing a person can do much about. Some people are tall and some are short. Intelligence-wise Angel is not the kind of guy who will be making slam dunks.
Theist debates atheist about morality while constantly losing his balance. 32 minutes. 43 seconds.
Some people are too dumb, andninsecure to have a Philosophically Objective conversation because their worldview is intrinsic to breathing, and losing the argument would be akin to dying.
These potatoes assert Jebus is the son of a mythical sky fairy.
Angel is clueless… waste of time big time. Of god exists there can’t be no morality … here you go angel. End of debate
12:23
what percentage of the prison population is atheist btw 😂
I can't believe these kinds of people exist...
I find the objective morality thing can be turned back into a question of whether God is a subject or an object.
Deriving morality from another subject is just subjective morality with more steps.
And if he says that god is objective, then he is accepting that he derives morality from an objective fact. Might as well add the adjective soulless for good measure.
Objective morality is basically morality based on soulless facts. Facts have no souls.
So I have no idea why he talks about atheism having no morality for the reason of being soulless, when objective moral facts (which aren't a thing), don't have souls either.
Souls just don't exist at all regardless.
An example of an objective source of morality is the fact of whether or not an action infringes on anyone else's health, safety and or liberty.
Or an act is immoral when it causes unnecessary suffering.
I would be happy to accept that it's a soulless fact.
I don't believe in souls, but when someone uses that as a non-sequitur argument that I have no morals because I'm a soulless animal despite giving examples of how despite not believing in any deity that I can make moral acts and judgements, such an assertion is simply a lie.
i always wonder how the religious cannot see their own dishonesty and frankly montrous opinions
The problem with Angel is that he argues as if Peterson is soulless while he himself has a soul. You can't have it both ways. You must pick one or the other. Either argue on an even field of no god or an even field of a god. Doing this half and half stuff doesn't work and just leads Angel to constantly insulting because he has no points.
Can "gods-believers" have morals? Do they even know what morals are?
That's some crazy mental gymnastics to basically be okay with assaulting children in everyday just because God says so. Honestly so sad
How in earth can you have an objective will ? 😅
🤦♀️ Even "soulless animals" demonstrate love and morality. As far as we know animals don't believe in a god, so how are they capable of love and morality? 🤔
And Angel, if you disagree that animals have shown that they love and have morality, you'd better be able to refute that with evidence.🙄
Wen someone says “you think you’re smarter than god” I can’t help but cringe. The fact is theists are arguing that they are as smart as god because they follow gods words. Atheists don’t say they are smarter than god, they say they are smarter than a theist. It’s the theists that takes that claim of ignorance and deflects the criticism of their intellect with that of god’s. It’s the egotism of theists that think they are as good as god and if their arguments are insulted then it’s god that’s insulted… aka theists are god in their mind.
It’s a ouroboros of egotistic ignorance.
Angel is clearly unaware that non-human animals (which he, no doubt, believes have no souls) also display varying (and surprisingly complex) degrees of morality, especially other primates. This dismantles his argument that one needs a soul or a God in order to have moral principles.
Further, God is a subject, and one whose changing commandments are the source of Angel's values, making the moral system he follows entirely subjective. It is based on the opinions and directives of one particular individual and can change at any time. That is, by definition, subjective.
I'm always confused that people so unfamiliar with their own religion can be so confident in their belief in it. He wasn't even familiar with what actually happens in the story of Adam & Eve, which is the most well known tale in the bible (aside from Jesus' crucifixion, perhaps.) That's an astounding level of ignorance from someone who feels the right to proselytize to everyone else about the validity of his worldview.
He definitely didn’t read his fairytale book
Just because you define God as "objective moral", doesn't mean it is.
The same way, I could just define my opinion as the "objective moral standard".
Even if God is objective moral, how do you know what is moral? Because a book written by people tells you? What if this book is wrong?
There is no objective way to determine, what is objective moral.
Also: Can you even have objective morality? Maybe it is impossible.
Like an objective correct language.
Or objective traffic rules.... in the end, it is just convention.
oh no it’s angel again 🤦♂️ 😢
Well, unless "God" comes down and personally tells someone what morals are or should be, then they are only believing what some men wrote in a book. plain and simple.
Dude, you need a skipping record rule. Something like "if you repeat yourself x times you are out" or something. This is barely listenable.
Just a comment on the title.
What "morals" are those? Morals don't even exist in an atheistic worldview. The very term makes no sense.
if feels more like this angle guy came on to insult you and preach, nothing else.
Angel has wasted his entire life.