John: Slavery is not allowed in the bible! Bible: Here are the rules for slavery. John: It's not "slavery" slavery! Bible: Slaves are your property. John: It tells you to treat your slaves well! Bible: Beat your slaves, just try not to kill them. John: We are not allowed to capture people into slavery! Bible: "Gather your slaves from the heathens that surround you" John: Slaves are encouraged to escape their masters! Bible: Slaves obey your masters It's amazing how many biblical apologist have yet to read the bible.
@@__Andrew I stand with the most successful abolitionist cause in world history. How about you? Atheists were around for thousands of years before Christianity and didn't abolish slavery anywhere. What advice do you have to offer for a person living in a society that won't have abolition any time soon?
Andrew Christianity offers an abolitionist ideal - which I pointed out in the debate and which you have not disproven. Plus, Christianity ACCOMPLISHES actual abolition. Christianity also offers culturally relevant guidance to survive in societies despite of the practical reality of slavery.
@@johnlovestosing04 no. That's the best theism can do. Those are literally Theistic Arguments. I could say the same to you... Is that all theism can do? Because I agree... This...is a problem.
AceOfShades No, it’s a problem when you don’t do your due diligence to understand the difference between an argument and a catch phrase. It’s a problem when you erect a straw man argument and lump all theists into a monolith. So perhaps you need to clarify what you mean because snarky remarks are insufficient for discussion.
@@johnlovestosing04 due diligence my ass, your Bible does not have any! You could have just said fact checking(even then, the Bible is filled to the brim with factually incorrect statements), but due diligence is a business term. It is the examination of financial records before a transaction is made. Why confuse with such a term if you're just going to mean fact check? There are some terms that you can use that doesn't make you look like a pseudo intellectual. I don't care if an argument is given through a catchphrase or a statement. They are propositions that we can determine the truth value of. Also, no. Theists almost always bring these arguments along. The first one to explain morality, and the other one as an excuse for anything that God does, including acts that are morally reprehensible. We aren't attacking Christians when we attack the Bible. Theism is not a person. The Bible is not a person. God is an idea. God is not a person. We are not lumping Christians together when we criticize the Bible, or when we criticize theism. We are criticizing ideas. And if your idea does not withstand scrutiny then it does not deserve to be recognized.
@@johnlovestosing04 No, it's not the best I can do, but this is a TH-cam comment section, and I can post what I want to post without the need to spend as much time on it as the debaters do. I'm sorry if it rustles your jimmies that I don't, at this very moment, feel the obligation to give a full-blown argument with premises and conclusions to some rando who commented on a year-old post. Here's your elaboration: This is a problem because it's indicative of the broader issue of divine hiddenness, melted down into a couple of example sentences. This post was not for you. It was not meant to provide a substantive argument. It was simply to get my thought at that particular moment into the aether for a temporary release of endorphins.
This one was especially galling to me. Matt explained that Ferrer's stance is that the god of the Bible is the source of morality, but the god of the Bible endorses/commands slavery which is clearly immoral, therefore that god isn't moral and can't be the source/basis of morality. And to that Ferrer responded with a long jag about unfairly judging an ancient society by today's standards. Even after Matt reiterated that his objection wasn't with that ancient society but with the supposedly perfect moral being's dictates to that society (and all that have followed it), Ferrer just repeated his assertion that Matt didn't understand the ancient society. Infuriating.
Florence Gielen It may not be as hilarious if you did research on religion. If you start with a premise that no god can exist or something like that, then you won’t be able to differentiate between mythology and truth.
“Slavery only disappears when a culture is Christianised” Geeeeeet fuuuuucked. Plenty of Indigenous cultures around the word operated and survived with out slavery; indigenous Australians thrived as independent community groups sharing resources, knowledge and technology for tens of thousands of years before Christianity even existed. And when Christians did arrive to Australia they enslaved them....
Yes. And that “slavery” was FORCED on cultures that were not Christian BY CHRISTIANS. His argument is totally pathetic and such a dodge. Also, the old “the only parts of the Bible that count are the ones I liiiiiiikkeeeee!! Waaaaah!” is just lame. Protestants vs Catholics vs other Protestants…who knows…
John Ferrer is, ironically, a moral relativist. At least when if comes to the issue of slavery. Ferrer believes God can only speak to ancient societies in terms of how to treat slaves within a slave-owning society, but cannot outright forbid slavery (as he forbids shellfish and mixed fabrics as Matt points out). Ferrer says in his slide 6a: "Before passing judgment on ancient societies for answering their problems with slavery, you need to offer a better answer first." God, who many believe to be the author of the Bible, clearly had no better answer at that time, so instead dictated rules for how to own slaves. A moral objectivist would state, Slavery is wrong now, was wrong then, and will always be wrong regardless of culture, time, or place. Ferrer's cognitive dissonance also expands to circular reasoning, using a tortured doorknob analogy to describe the atheist's thinking while himself believing we should care about morality because it's morality. He says everything has irreducible levels without demonstrating caring about morality is an irreducible proposition. Stating you should care about morality because you should care about morality is a slippery, circular, contaminated doorknob that even his "supernatural mind" cannot turn without getting infected.
@@ThePharphis Yep. God didn't seem to have a problem saying "absolutely don't do this or that" concerning a wide array of customs that were popular in that era.
His analogies were also pathetic. Christianity gives you an old rundown shed and tells you is the perfect mansion, and also bans you from looking at other places and check if those houses are better with threats of eternal torture. It gives you a broken and misshapen mirror and tells you that the reflection you see in it is the reality, and also tells you is the only mirror you will find in the world. It gives you a doorknob smeared with shit and tells you that is clean. And that if you doubt is clean then you are obviously in the wrong.
Oh, this was painful. John Ferrer made absolutely no sense in his opening argument. He was all over the place and his analogies were weak at best. I kind of felt sorry for him, this is not his forte.
Laura Carson I agree with you entirely. He is clearly very desperate and has nothing to give in this debate. He's seems fairly unintelligent (admittedly this is the first time I've ever seen him). He has no logic whatsoever.
He is all over the place. He really seems to just not get relatively simple shit. It almost seems like he's not even listening at times and throws his own idea in there. He keeps banging on about the reasoning, motivations and, justifications Matt has voiced, and appears to simply pooh pooh them, he however shows or gives absolutely nothing, zilch, nish, nada to back up anything he asserts other than it magically being god. I have a pretty poor and low opinion of apologists in general. Mr Ferrer really doesn't come over as one of the better ones. He for some reason doesn't seem to be able to listen and adapt to arguments being made or points being raised. He misunderstands or ignores them.
I agree. It was hard as an atheist to hear his argument unbiasedly. Im still trying to. I may be an atheist, but its not out of choice. I wish there was an argument for a supernatural claim
@@jadejewell7716 _I wish there was an argument for a supernatural claim_ Just so you don't have to die? Or, more likely, so that the people you love won't have to die? On the one hand, I can understand the feeling. I would _volunteer_ for Hell, if that would mean the people I've cared about would be laughing it up in Heaven for eternity. On the other hand,... eternity? It's hard to imagine how that wouldn't be Hell, eventually, no matter _what._ And what about the billions of other people who'd be tortured right alongside me in Hell? How could I want _that?_ Admittedly, since this seems to be all fantasy, anyway, faith-based people can just imagine whatever they want. Certainly, they do so when it comes to Hell. I swear I've heard _every_ possibility from Christians (let alone the other religions on Earth), including the claim that there isn't a Hell because _everyone_ gets to go to Heaven after they die. Well, faith is just believing whatever you want to believe, and _that's_ what those people - nice people, clearly - want to believe. Sorry about the book. I get carried away. Heh, heh. But for me, I'd just like to see some brand-new scientific discovery that would open up a whole new realm for scientists. Not the "supernatural," exactly, because that's far too vague and has way too much baggage. But something that might have a similar impact on the world. That would be neat. :)
@@Bill_Garthright "Just so you won't have to die"? It's like, "Just so you won't have to get up and get the remote"? Of course. You are telling me you wouldn't want Supernatural abilities to prevent you from death?
This was the difference between one guy who makes bold assertions, strawmen, non-sequiturs, outright lies, word salad, and various other fallacies, and another who makes rational arguments while being intellectually honest.
Yeah there was all that, but at the end of the day, it was merely the difference between a guy that is comfortable with saying, "I don't really know why we do all these things" and a guy who is afraid to say, "I don't really know why we do all these things."
@@danh2716 Matt never said he didnt know why we do these things in regards to morals and ethics. Thats what the debate was about, remember? Matt outlined his logic in regards to his moral and ethical principles in detail. You clearly are not paying attention.
@@danh2716 Oh, and there is nothing wrong with admitting that you dont know something. Claiming to know something you couldn't and dont knows however, is intellectually dishonest.
I got into the atheist program via Christopher Hitchens. Who was a juggernaught of a free thinker..Matt Dillahunty although not as knowledgable in politics as Hitchens was..is a pure masterclass when it comes to atheism and the bible. He is very savvy about a lot of subjects combined with a clear concise delivery he is on the way to be a true legend in free thinkers. He's warm, funny and a all round good guy..hey Matt when are you coming to the UK .i'd love to attend one of your lectures....you are truly an inspiration.
He’s great Egan it comes to religion, logic, skepticism, fallacies etc. Politics, I disagree with him but he’s consistent in his ideology. For someone who’s self taught, he’s brilliant really.
When theists argue about our brains not being reliable....don’t they realize that their belief in God is ALSO reliant on their brains?!?!? I have heard their argument so many times, and it never makes sense.
Yes, but they can trust their brains because.... God. (blah blah blah something about being made in his image... Blah another special pleading thing with blah blah also matter in motion fizzing)
They make a bit of pseudorationalist argument. Rationalism is unpopular in modern Academia for sundry reasons. Yeah, I've invariably found this argument obtuse. My favorite is when they argue that their faith in divine truth and the supernatural "needn't be rational". If they take this to its logical conclusion, they would need to demonstrate some sort of innate knowledge existing beyond our minds. They usually fall back on claiming God bestows them with the knowledge, for they cannot have it by their own reason. This is borderline lunacy for obvious reasons. And, funnily enough, this is also the same circular "Because God did it" bullshit.
@@calebgomez8992 1. What are you saying? Are you suggesting it's impossible to make a truth-claim if you're a determinist? This would seem to be sophistry, but I'll bite. 2. If you're endorsing the argument my fellow men and I struck down, it'd necessarily still fail. The argument itself is circular reasoning. You're attempting to prove your God by stating he exists within the premises. 3. Even if you could somehow demonstrate that there is some "other" form of knowledge, that would be a far cry from evidence for the divine.
@@gotterdammerung6088 and in your naturalistic world view, your brain made you say that 😂 scientific agents do not produce truth, but merely reactions. If your brain is confined to physics, chemistry.. Then explain how truth can come from mere naturalistic reactions.its reactions not rational 😚
Matt's reaction at the mention of "wage slavery"....priceless. The meaningless hours John spent researching for such pathetic attempts to defend that shitty fkn book of his. I share Laura Carson's sentiment. I feel sorry for this dude. Shackled to that book, trying to defend it at all costs. John, let me tell you something. You're not helping your cause. You're digging the hole deeper for you and your ilk. Which is a good thing. Thanks Matt for putting this guy through the wringer.
@@rampagingswine9475 The rubber chicken wins because it has no life and it is not worth much. Bringing nuclear weapons to fight a rubber chicken is such a waste (the nuclear weapons might destroy the user). 😆 🤣 😂
Thank you for this, much appreciated. I tend to listen to the arguments from apologists but they always seem to end up so similar in how flawed they are that it gets repetitive listening to the same circular reasoning over and over again
I love this. I washed my brain-hands with the soap of reason, and dried them with the paper towels of data. Then I used the data-paper towel to open the doorknob of morality, returning to the restaurant of a secular humanism so I could finish my sliders of well-being.
1:49:42 John Ferrer inadvertently defines a moral system without God. He acknowledged that he changed the way he handles things and become a better person based on life experiences and seeing how it impacts those around us.
Without exception, every time I've heard you speak/debate, it's like listening to an intelligent and wise adult (Matt) talking with an immature and dishonest child (the theist). It doesn't matter how many diplomas, degrees or initials they have before their name, they sound like a fearful/confused child, compared to you. This was just another example of how religion is not designed for progress. We've advanced despite religion, not so much because of it. You did a fantastic job Matt. Thank you!
I thought the same thing after re watching his debate with Dr. Jordan Peterson. Matt is the teacher and his opposition is the pupil. Matt is the parent schooling his ignorant children. Lmao it's great to watch. Not to hop on his junk but he might be my intellectual superhero.
@Jim Merrilees if he was a creationist or just a believer he'd wouldn't be Matt as we know him. He would violate so much of logic and his reasoning would be shut down by some one else that could keep up with his fallacious arguments.
1:52:00 - "as a Christian, I give myself a get-out-of-reality-free card, and every time I don't like the conclusion I reach or don't understand the reasoning, I can imagine my preferred conclusion and win every argument.
The best part of this debate was when they were actually having a back and fourth exchange. It is such a shame that these debates do not allocate at least half the time to just a straight up open discussion between debaters like that. That is where the real headway is made and it's the most engaging and entertaining.
Well if doing good is for selfish personal gain which was one of the aspects of morality that Matt pointed out and John criticized how is doing what you think a god tells you so you can get in heaven not a selfish motivation?
@@ArtfullyMusingLaura Once my big sister ask me, because I was very religious and read bible whole, if we really get a reward at heaven and for my bible knowledge I reply: Bible don't say the hungry people will be given food as Jesus say, it say after death all the memories and personality stay in the body only the soul go, so there is not a reward more like the hunger simply disappear so no reward for earthly suffer.
Why do hundreds die in natural disasters? Why are children mistreated and slain? You and me and people just like us. Why does God not step in and stop it? He will. But in the meantime he wants us to recognise our utter general culpability and turn to him for mercy. Yet we would rather blame him for giving us exactly what we (corporately) asked for - to rule ourselves and our world in our own way. Now, there are half a dozen possible objections to this. But if any of them hold, then we are in a worse place - if there is no God who will judge, then there is no justice, no right, no wrong. These are all things we make up to try to make ourselves feel better in a dog-eat-dog world.
@@VYDZ - Why must there be a judge? And why, if religion is necessary for morality, do areas with more religious people have higher violent crime rates & more poverty? Why are children raised without religion generally more kind & generous? We have studies about this. Religion is bad for society. If what you believe about god is true, then wouldn't the opposite be true? But it isn't.
Does anyone else feel that the edited quote from Nietzsche blatantly undermined the message Nietzsche himself was making? Here is the full quote “When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one's feet... Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one's hands. Christianity presupposes that man does not know, cannot know, what is good for him, what evil: he believes in God, who alone knows it... it has truth only if God is the truth - it stands and falls with faith in God.” When you chopped off everything but the last sentence it gives the impression that Nietzsche is requiring God for there to be morality.
It's ultimately irrelevant as it's a quote. It's not evidence for anything. Just because famous person and/or scientists said X, doesn't mean X is true.
_A well furnished room._ Filled with torture devices! And fluffy pillows. Focus on the pillows! And on the reward! Not on the eternal punishment without the possibility for forgiveness or parole that your mom and your brother will get. They made their choice. You will be rewarded and happy in worship and like a perfect psychopath you will thank the Lord that you're not with your family but that they burn in hell forever. Praise the LOrd! Fluffy pillows and rainbows! Religion is mental gymnastics and denial to feel comfortable about lying to yourself and turning your back on the entirety of humanity and all future generations by pissing and shitting on intellectual integrity and sincerity towards our fellow humans. What a great fucking example they are for our children. All religions and all other dogmas are always harmful.
@Cameron Pitts I am pretty sure he said something along the lines of: "You can't demand the Bible give standards for everything." From that I inferred that we can't demand the Bible give standards for slavery. This is because Matt was discussing slavery when he said this. If I find this quote, I'm wondering what you're response will be. Hypothetically I rewatch the video and I find it.... are you going to agree that we can't say the Bible needs standards on things like slavery? Because right now the Bible says: Slaves obey your masters (Even the cruel ones) Slaves are property You can be slaves from foreign nations This is explicitly for slavery. This is not what I would expect from a moral/law-giver God. However, maybe what I expect is wrong. It is maybe moral to enslave. Moral to beat said slave. Moral to keep their children as slaves. If the Bible is the source of morality, these would follow.... because as I said below: "Christianity morality is better thus Christianity morality is better."
drshellking@gmail.com The irony of this statement is that it’s two logical fallacies in one. It’s ad hominem and a straw man. Christians are not a monolith no more than any other belief system.
@@johnlovestosing04 I invoke fallacy fallacy. Just because it is an adhominem doesn't necessarily make his argument false. Because when you think about it, "straw man, straw man, god did it, I believe this, I believe that, blah blah." is pretty much what we get from theists every time.
AceOfShades You’ve got to do better. You’re demonstrating that you don’t know what a fallacy is. Logically speaking, once a fallacy has been committed, what follows is non sequitur. You are not making any good arguments against theism, none. What you’re doing is displaying some type of pseudo intellectual, snarky retort where you can’t help, but continue misrepresent and over simplify the discussion. Do better.
@@johnlovestosing04 sorry, but you're the one who does not know what the fuck a fallacy fallacy is, aka appeal to fallacy. Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false. It is also called argument to logic, the fallacy fallacy, the fallacist's fallacy, and the bad reasons fallacy. *Wikipedia Sorry. You aren't in any position to tell me to do better if you're the one who doesn't know what a fallacy fallacy is. Great job on being an ignoramus. And yeah that is an adhominem. Doesn't mean it's false. It's not a fallacy to say that you're an ignoramus, when you act like one. It's just being intellectually honest. The fact that you're offended by my arguments does not in any way disprove them. Again, fallacy fallacy. You're not demonstrating how I am a pseudo intellectual when you're the one who is missing the point. Sure you might find it snarky, but the truth often hurts, doesn't it?
15:20 "Atheism isn't a worldview, it's just godlessness." Holy shit a theist who actually understands!! It's like a fucking unicorn! Seriously, why is it so hard for most theists to understand that atheism is nothing more than a person living their life without religious baggage?
the usa, compared 2 europe, is so superstitious bcoz it has never suffered the oppression of the christian church while europe suffered the oppression of the christian church 4 many centuries.
@@johnferrer42 Atheists have circular arguments, except for God creating a standard of morals by which you judge God to be upholding the morals that you are using to judge. And atheists have a moral desert of relativism, but slavery can’t be taken out of its context because owning humans doesn’t mean the same thing in all places to all humans.
The subject I love that Matt raises in every debate is that none of the objections raised by theists against secular morality are in any way solved by appealing to a god. Your god does not solve the problem you are criticizing my system for not solving!
@Cameron Pitts What is Righteousness and What is Sin, is Grounded in Yahweh's ONENESS! Yahweh IS the SINGULARITY of BEING. Yahweh IS EXISTENCE/LIFE. Yahweh/Existence, cannot change, cannot be anything other than what it is, cannot be untrue. Yahweh is the Foundational Reality which IS Existence. Existence IS AN Eternal BEINGNESS. The Creation/Universe was brought into existence, by the Existor. The ONE. The ONE who is Existence. Morality is a man made concept that shifts depending on circumstance and opinion, Righteousness does not!
Jerome, now when you can defend that "No" without presuming what you need to prove, then we can have a debate. Meanwhile, you'd need to offer some way - through nature alone - for any moral claims whatsoever to be true. Lacking that, you can't even get started with the typically snarky moral indignation of internet atheism.
@@johnferrer42 If I ask you ''is Harry Potter real'' and you simply answer no, your answer is 100% fine. It's totally the same with any god. Does X fictional character exist? Valid answer : no. And a drawn-out argument is not needed in such a simple case.
9:15 "when you do a broader survey across the history of modern civilization you find that almost every civilization that has formally abolished slavery had to be thoroughly Christianized first even though almost all had atheists in some measure before that." This is just silly.
Countries got rid of slavery only after becoming christianized?!? First, I doubt that, best check the history of Asian countries to debunk that. Second, some of those countries got rid of slavery around 1,500 years after being christianized... which would indicate a lack of even correlation, let alone causation. And that part about the Bible's rules on slavery were because it was giving advice on how to live in a society that allowed slavery?!?!? Why couldn't it just say "don't own slaves yourselves"? That argument is so wrong. Try this, rape is wrong, but when living in a society that allows rape, here are some rules on who you can rape and how to do it. Does that sound like any kind of objective moral standard??
This was Matt at his best, really insightful, and a great summing up of the advantages of secular morality at the end. Thought John was a good opponent too.
I wonder when theists will realize that saying that they have a grounding in god for morality doesn't tell you whether or not there is a god nor does it tell you whether that grounding is good. Seeing how even if there was a god and he did have a particular view on morality, i don't see how that's anymore than his opinion.
I think that when it comes to religious believes Santa Claus is way better "god" than Yahweh. Christian morals are all like these bits of Bible are good, and those bits of Bible do not apply any more because after centuries of suffering they did not work well.
@@nickaplz69 I have often wondered why non-theist debaters don't counter the "objective morality" argument with "You use your God's Subjective morality." Thus there is no objective morality.
@@DBCisco I think it should be used as it's a good counter. I think I only recall matt saying it on the show. Mostly I've heard theists simply assert god solves the issue without a demonstration.
Right?! I'm sitting here like...use your shirttail. Use a piece of tp. Leave why would you close the door in order to wash your hands again?! Poor analogies
I wish I had the restraint and self control to speak calmly to people like. I just can't have these conversations with people in person. Well done Matt
Finally watching this (not even all the way through it) and what struck me the most so far was John saying at the beginning of his rebuttal that "all you need is a desire to do good and a belief about what's good" only works if there is such a thing as good. I was hoping Matt would address this directly because I immediately shouted at my monitor "way to *completely miss the point!*" (though I might have added some other words in there). Ugh... I almost dread watching the rest of this.
This was one of the most grounded apologetic analogies I have ever seen. There were still some deep, deep fallacies with his assumptions, but it didn't hurt to listen to.
This debate keeps on happening and it always comes down to this essential duality. An atheist shows, in functional terms, how we can behave in a manner that most of us consider good, can have reasonable beliefs about that, and can act on certain values. A theist retreats into the pure philosophy of "but is that objectively good," then operates on the unfounded assumption that God can help achieve that at all (at least, not one I've seen has even attempted to support that assertion).
I LITERALLY can't believe he ended his opening statement with the "how do you know you're not a brain in a vat" argument. Against Matt Dillahunty. Smh.
@@IamGarySimpson It falls within "relevant argument" but it demonstrates a lack of experience with serious atheist replies and lazy epistemology. I don't expect Ferrer to be familiar with his interlocutor's entire detailed history of debating, but come one man, that question is like Matt's #1 "Atheist pwnz idiot theist" -titled youtube clip. And it's a good reply, uncharitable video titles aside.
@Oners82 You are aware that there was a rebuttal right? And they talked one on one right? If you indeed watched the entire debate, then your comment makes no sense.
Once again the most important and productive part of the debate is limited to a time frame that does no justice to the topic at hand. Let the two debaters do what they do. Moderate when necessary and q and a at the end depending on if the majority of the crowd is in favor of so or allowing continued dialog.
Defending slavery is fucking WILD. How can someone with real morals sit down and decide how to defend slavery. Religion is the only modern example of how to defend slavery. If you are defending slavery, religion is your only "angle." Can we all agree that this is wrong? Good luck on your journey to mental freedom everyone.
Ferrer's ability to quickly quote scripture off the top of his head but not pronounce "chattel" correctly twice tells you everything you need to know about him
Or to exclaim more than once that it’s an error to interpret the Bible “literally” or to engage in exegesis (but without offering a framework) - dude there are many varieties of Protestants who will argue that you are completely wrong…Honestly John seems very naive.
I wouldn't say so. It certainly was a hail storm but I feel like in order to be a gish gallop it would need to cite statistics which Matt would not be prepared to combat. But all of those arguments are to be expected on this topic of debate and they are abstract enough to deal with abstractly. You could debunk all of them by a quick "I agree that all of those are great problems in morality but just because you define god as the solution to these problems doesn't give us any insight into the solution for any of these problems. To solve any of the problems we would have to know the nature of god and then that problem becomes identical to the ones we faced earlier. To chalk the challenges of these problems to the mystery of god is to stop looking for practical solutions and once we stop glorifying god as an answer we can look for more practical solutions honestly."
I don't think so, but I'm biased too. The first argument was broad - I admit that - but I framed any supporting arguments for it, instead, as suggestive evidence instead of as concrete/hard proofs. Plus, I drew my 2nd and 3rd arguments from examples I mentioned in the first argument, so I could show that there is potential support for the evidental claims in the support of the first argument.
@@lukostello I see what you're saying. I think that's a potentially strong tactic. There's only so much we can realistically unpack and sort through int he course of a 15 minute opening statement. But I like the way you think.
I loved that point what you said about you accepting that you are probably wrong when you make moral judgement and decisions. We are all beings that spend our whole damn lives learning how to live, and during all that time even with all the help we get from our family and relatives, our society and our judicial systems we will keep making mistakes even with the very best of intentions. So yes, I can see the appeal for a divine guidance or something similar that would ground us and help us figure it all out. And yet the guidance could never be complete enough to provide all the answers we need, nor is it reliable enough for us to build true foundations of morality on it. So we'll keep failing and seeing others fail, and we will keep learning and becoming better.
His argument is seriously..... Christianity morality is better thus Christianity morality is better. People need to learn better logic than a tautology.
@Cameron Pitts Yes. I did get this message from him listening to this debate. Would you like to have a discussion about secular vs religious morality? We can discuss the topic below. Why do you believe religious morality is better?
“Meaning is contextual” says the guy who belongs to a religious tradition in which MANY denominations of Protestants believe that every single word in the Bible is literally true as is for NOW. The statement that “most critics” don’t address the “different” forms of slavery in the Bible is wildly ignorant of the vast amount of biblical scholarship ffs. What a joke! This dingdong does the tired old maneuver of pulling out other passages to “refute” the laws explicitly detailed by the Old Testament god (will he also address the explicit statements regarding the murdering of infants and married women while taking young virgins for themselves - said by their god?!)
I have a really hard time listening the Christian side because it's so nonsensical. How can people whose belief system is based on something that they cannot touch, taste, or demonstrate to be true in any way to anyone else be so freaking arrogant about their belief system?
Conversation sumed up: "Moral shotgun blast" "K..morals are easy, it's just a lense" "Well, the Bible!" "Okay, the bibles wrong, here's why...." "Paper towels" "What? Paper towels?" "Yeah, because your brains a dirty door knob" " Ok...paper towels, here's how it works...." "I'm a dualist. " "You're a dualist?" "Yep" "I'm done" "BUT THE BIBLE" *Mattslap "sit down son"
Yeah, chattel slavery was based on case laws: I captured your land, you are mine or you die. Easy. Provide a better alternative? Sure, create people who don't screw up in the first place.
Mees Higersom Slaves have been taken from unconquered lands also... Moslems and Christians bought slaves from Sub-Saharan Tribes who had captured people of other tribes... The Barbary Coast Slave Trade involved raiding Mediterranean costal towns... Many other examples... There are alternatives to making slaves of those defeated in war... Was the only option, at the end of the War in the Pacific, that the USA make slaves of the Japanese People,,, OR Kill them All ?? Would that have been a tenable strategy ?
Mees Hilgersom That would be a logical impossibility. The Creation of Individual conscious Beings involves allowing them to exercise their individual wills and the consequences that brings. It is relational, meaning there are two parties, the Creator and the Created. Relationship requires willingness to be in unity from both sides not just one!
@Michael Deo Have you ever done a bit of programming? I have, so let me take you through this hypothetical. I am making Game of Deaths, in which I design robots that can do actions and after a certain time it is game over. Just before I delete the robot from the game, I judge them based on a arbitrary set of rules hardcoded somewhere outside of the robotsoftware. Let's say I programm a few robots in such a way that they can do everything they want, without boundries. In the same programm I design a few robots that are the same, but I lay boundries on it's will. As soon as it would want something that crosses the arbitrary set of rules, that part of it's will changes slightly, so that it would cross the rules. Example: the robot has a will that gives hime two instructions: paint things and like the colour red. In the arbitrary set of rules however, painting things red is forbidden. Therefore the software changes it's will slightly, so that it likes the colour orange. Next time the robot would want to paint things orange, no problem. I respect your intelligence, you probably see the point I'm making. "But the second option is not free will!" True, but you would be a better designer if you designed them with it, if you want high scores at the end. My wants change all the time, I want a cookie now and in 5 minutes it's probably chocolate. It still makes me have free will and I can't tell the difference between option one or two. Just so you know, even if you want the robot to start a relationship with you and not influence it's will on that point, that doesn't mean you can't influence it's will on other points when they cross the arbitrary set of rules.
The goal of morality is subjective. Deciding if an action meets the definition/goal of morality is an objective process of reasoning. Even if we agree on what morality is and what actions are or are not moral, this still in no way forces us to be moral people. We can agree that [X] is bad, and then still do it. So, there has to be some motivation for why we do good or avoid bad behavior. So, these 3 previous paragraphs alluded to these 3 questions: 1) What is morality, 2) how do we determine what is moral, and 3) why ought we be moral. For question 1, as with all words in any language, words are made up sequences of sounds and syllables to which a definition is also made up and applied to it. Sometimes words can have multiple definitions. This is often a point of confusion between secularists and religious people. Religious people are using the word one way, and secularists are using the word another way. Christians maybe are using the term to mean "anything that corresponds to the nature of god is what is morally good." Secularists are using the term to mean "Something is moral if, considering other potential actions and outcomes, that particular action results in an outcome best suited for minimizing unnecessary harm, and maximizing overall societal well-being." For question 2, we determine what is moral the same way we determine what is healthy. "Healthy" is as vague of a goal/definition as morality is. But generally, something is "healthy" if it improves or maintains biological function, particularly in a long-term manner, and it's "unhealthy" if it degrades biological function. Eating cheese dip and ice cream every day isn't healthy, because you're increasing your risk for heart-attack or stroke. Drinking battery acid isn't healthy because you'll probably die if you do that. How did I determine these things weren't healthy? I compared the consequences of an action to the definition of "healthy". For question 3, the motivation for being good is paradoxically because most of what you do to be good benefits you personally. If I am helpful and kind and loving to my wife, she is helpful and kind and loving to me... and... I want that. Why do I want that? Well... evolution gave me this body, and this body I have has a nervous system and a brain capable of experiencing emotions like fear, sadness, anxiety, etc. The nervous system I have forces me to dislike physical pain. If you smash my hand with a hammer, I do not get to "choose" if I like or dislike that feeling. I am forced to dislike pain. And so, that drives my desire to do actions that cause me to avoid pain. Not causing physical pain to others is one way to not attract pain being given to me. The same goes for emotional suffering. I try to please other people's emotions if I believe it will make my experience of life better. Maybe some Christians are motivated by hell. They are told that if they don't do A, B, or C, they will be punished in an extreme way for all of eternity. I can understand that is very motivating, but to me, hell is like the boogie monster living in your closet at night. I can understand why little children get scared of the boogie-monster, but as an adult, I know there isn't any evidence the boogie-monster is real.
It’s special pleading. He will say “because god says my brain isn’t lying”. In which case you’ll ask “how do you know god isn’t lying, or that your brain isn’t lying about what god says?” Then he will argue in a circle by saying “because god says”.
His defense of slavery in the bible is a hidden argument for moral relativism. Reduced: Apologist: “Meaning is contextual.” Translation: God’s ordinances to one society at one point in time are contextually valid given the nature of the society at that time. Further translation: God’s ethics are situational, and therefore those that claim god’s moral positions at any given time in history are just moral relativists. “It’s right for us, right here, right now.”
Honestly the more I think about this, the more I realize how out to sea the apologist is on their principles. Asked of one: “is it possible that your god’s position on trans rights and the morality of trans people might be 180-degrees the opposite in the future? “ If the answer is yes, then they simply have no objective leg to stand on for their position of trans rights. They’re just automatons, and they admit having no other reason. If the answer is no, they have to explain then how that reconciles with their god’s oscillating views on slavery over time. How is it they know their god has stopped changing its mind, or has achieved the final end goal of its plan on any one issue?
Science is not about using our "lying brains" to determine what's true. The modern scientific method avoids using our brains as much as possible! That's why we have scientific instruments and peer review.
What's important to note about John Ferrer's opening statement (and his position throughout the debate, really) is that he's giving _an account_ for objective morality. An account is an explanation for why something is the case, but it _in no way_ is necessarily correct. In order for an account to actually be correct, the person would need to give a _justification_ for why it is correct or for why anyone _should believe_ that it is correct. John's (or as he would say, Christianity's) reconciliation for the "Is/Ought" problem is _an account_ from his worldview. If he was trying to _convince_ non-believers of his account, _then_ he would need to provide justification for the account. But in this debate, he's not _justifying_ objective morality, he's _accounting_ for it in his worldview and that is _all_ he's doing. But it sounds and _feels_ satisfying to the believers in the audience because they're not questioning its _legitimacy._ They do buy in to the premises that the account relies on, non-believers don't. People can come up with an internally consistent explanation for _anything._ However, the truth of the matter must be satisfied in order for anyone to care about it, or take it seriously. edit: I get the impression that John came into this debate to compare and contrast _accounts_ for the is/ought problem to see if they are internally consistent respectively. It's essentially a stance that makes the account manufacturing side appear superior. edit2: 1:55:53 I rest my case.
33:29 How he solves the is-ought problem; eliminate categoricity. See also 59:51 to 1:00:03 48:54 to 49:14. Basically he's conceding the point that without God we don't have moral goods or moral oughts in the normal sense of those terms. 1:15:45 to 1:16:33. Descriptive, not prescriptive. But then why have the debate?
After his first question, John’s stereo analogy surprised me given the fact that the Bible claims that Jesus said if someone asks you for your hat, give him your coat also, or vise versa. It sounds like Jesus was all for someone giving their stuff to someone who asks for it.
John didn't even address the topic; the topic is not "do we need Christianity for morality?" it is "do we need God for morality." Even if Christian ethics is superior (which it is not), John's argument is still off-topic because the deity and the religion are not the same thing.
louisng114 That is very true! Christianity does not accurately represent Yahweh pr the bible, yet many Atheist make an association fallacy claiming it does,
Did you listen to the whole debate? It sounds like you posted after the first argument, and ignored #2 and #3. The first argument shows and example of how a particular theistic ethical system has proven valuable, perhaps indispensible, for practical ethics. The second and third argument however show that naturalistic ethics fails.
It's like he didn't even try to understand Matt's views on morality. It isn't complicated. It's actually the same thing everyone does. You decide upon a goal, and then try to find things that work towards that goal. Theists have the goal of doing what god wants. Humanists have the goal of increasing human well-being. You can make objective decisions about how to further your goal. This is the closest thing to objective morality that can actually be demonstrated to exist, and just simply looking at human beings and their varrying beliefs is pretty good evidence that humans don't have access to some absolute morality.
Yyyeaaah, I mean... I don't think it's an issue to have a qualified teacher educate people at the same time as having their own personal religious beliefs. But if it can be shown that it biases their teaching? Fuck em.
John also says that being a high functioning sociopath is a classic defeater for the veil of ignorance. Wouldn’t a high functioning sociopath also be a classic defeater for the idea of “morals being written on our hearts?”
At 31:22 Matt says he was "massively wrong" about something on Sunday's show (I imagine The Atheist Experience), and needed to apologize on the following episode. Anyone happen to know what he's referencing here?
A small bit pick of this debate - The theist when beginning his rebuttal on slavery clearly said it was allowed in the Bible but not promoted. That is a bold lie. The Bible goes into details on how one can trick a person into becoming their slave for life. It continues to advocate for slavery and the relationship between owner and slave by telling slaves to never complain or go against their masters. He also used the tired old pathetic argument that it was a different time then. If that's the case, why follow a book meant for the world two thousand years ago today? It's a outright crime that PhD degrees are offered to fools who study fictional books that have zero evidence of anything or even original copies. Might as well start offering PhDs for Lord if Rings and Harry Potter too.
The hardest part of these debates is having to listen to the ridiculous points of Matt's opponents, knowing that Matt can't just jump in to set them straight right away, like he does on the call-in shows. It is a painful having to wait for Matt to speak.
He was SO PUMPED when slavery came up, thinking he'd be the first apologist to "win the case for the christian views on slavery" against Matt... He even had slides prepped up beforehand! Bless his heart. That was almost adorable.
Is a mail order bride a sex slave? Or a nanny? Is a nanny a slave to raise children or clean the house. Is a butler a slave as well when he cooks. So by your logic Jeffrey the butler is a slave on the show fresh prince?
@@deitert07 I have a question about your examples: Are those examples of consenting agreements that can be freely disengaged from? Are the people considered property of another human being if they enter into that contract? If not, it's not slavery.
@@TheGamingLegendsOfficial it is a contract that both parties agreed on. Let me ask. Are you in credit card debt? If you are then you’re a slave to that credit card company. You have to pay back what is owed to them. If you don’t pay it back then you’re in for a rude awakening. Same consent back then. Debt slavery. Nothing to do with race or forced slavery.
@@deitert07 No. Am I the credit card company's property? No. They seize my property until the debt is repaid. I am still free to do as I please. The slavery in the Bible is "you can take these people as property, beat them to within an inch of their lives, and also bequeath them to your children". A butler, nanny, mail-order bride, and debtor are not even close to the same category. Also, no, I'm not in credit card debt, as I only have a secured line of credit that operates with only my own funds.
18:39 John Ferrer's elegant solution of not using his brain gets him out of this bind. Seriously though, unless John asserts that his brain is infallible, he cannot escape this "problem", either. We use the scientific method to get around our biases (because the brain is biased in specific ways that are inherited from our evolutionary past). The more we know our own biases, the easier it is to work around them. Simple.
it's funny when a clear and simple bible verse like "love thy neighbor" doesn't need the line "you're taking it out of context" compared more to a line about slavery that needs 50 lines and pages of quotes from all over the book like an easter egg hunt to get 'proper' context.
I don't see how an undetectable entity can provide a grounding for morality. If a person can't objectively demonstrate what God is, what God wants or that God is the ultimate arbiter of what is good, than how can anyone claim to have an objective moral system? To everyone else it would just be that person's opinion. I also don't know how the person would be able to tell that what they think they're getting from God is actually from God or that it's just from that person's own mind.
@Cameron Pitts Do you know a way we can detect God like we do with things like gravity and electromagnetism? We can accurately and consistently detect and measure the effect of those two forces, I don't know a way to do that with God. That's what I mean when I say undetectable. If you know a way to detect God I would love to hear it.
@Cameron Pitts Why do you say that? I see no reason why an actual infinite couldn't exist. I mean isn't God supposed to be infinite or eternal? If God can be eternal why can't the universe? And besides all that is a far cry from being able to actually detect and demonstrate God's existence to others.
@Cameron Pitts "Otherwise the being you're refuting isn't consistent with a working definition of a God." How was the definition of God determined? Our definitions of things in the natural world require observation. We weren't able to define what the heart is and what it did without direct observation. So how can we define God before we can observe God the way we do other things in the universe. How was God determined to be apart from the world and the universe in such a way that these 1 to 1 comparisons don't apply? Saying that these things can't be compared seems like special pleading to me "Besides, I'm not arguing that infinity doesn't exist at all" But that is what you said. ".. by the impossibility of an actual infinite..." If it is an impossibility then by definition it can't exist. Regardless of all that, the nature of infinity can give us no information on the "prime mover" or "first cause" if there even is one. We have no way to determine if it was an entity with agency or not. We don't have enough information to claim it was God, let alone one that that God is the ultimate moral arbiter. Let's say there is an thinking entity that created the universe as we know it. Why should It care about what our morality is? And why should we care what that entity thinks our morality should be?
My favorite part here is that: "If you know a way to detect God I would love to hear it." was answered with: "I believe that we can deduce..." Which doesn't remotely answer the question. You don't need to 'deduce' and get philosophical with something concrete like gravity and electromagnetism, but you sure as heck do for the notion of a deity.
@Cameron Pitts "Sure, you can define God however you like and refute that God." I didn't define God at all, I asked you how you came up with your definition. I haven't got an answer to that yet. You also haven't provided a reason why God is onto-logically separate from the universe. As it stands it looks like special pleading to me. Please explain why that is not the case. "...An actual infinite is impossible because its the application of infinity to finite things. In this case an infinite can not be applied to a causal series(finite) and us arrive at our present existence(the end). There is a distinction between that and finite things existing with out end or going on infinitely in that they never actually arrive at that end. Succinctly, one continues on and one has arrived. In the case of our causality we would be at the end of an infinite which is by definition, not possible." This is pretty much just gibberish. Why would our present time be the end, for one thing? And how does this lead you to God? "A first cause can certainly give us information about its being. Like the fact that it would ontologically be different then other beings.. like the world." How so? This doesn't follow to me at all. We don't have enough information to know if there even was a first cause let alone what it could be. I see no reason at all for this conclusion. But lets say it was a being with agency. How do you know it's even still around? What if it ceased to be upon the creation of the universe? How would we know? "We should care what that entity thinks about our morality if it has revealed to us that it cares about our morality." This doesn't answer my question at all. I asked why we should care what the entity thinks our morality should be and you responded with essentially "Because we should." My original comment was about the claims of objective morality. And so far none of the points I brought up have been answered.
1:17:40 Great exchange! Matt: I could say, why should I care about morality? John: Because it's morality. WTF? He is taking the doorknob approach right there, circular reasoning. More accurately, it may be called a tautology. What came next was exceedingly condescending. John: Ultimately everything has a point at which asking further scrutiny of it is just proving your failure to understand what you're asking...Asking why should I do what I do is an incoherent question.
Around 01:12:00, he begins talking about his friend who doesn't feel what people feel still being able to do good. Right, he is part of a society or group telling him what is good and he just has to copycat to be considered good. Thanos is an example of someone who thought he was good based on his goal. Was his goal bad? No, not by my standard, he wanted to figure out how to deal with the collapse of society, but his solution partly betrayed his goal as societies likely did collapse and likely did what they always do if enough survive, they rebuild. Coming up with villains requires us to create a goal and remove a lot of mechanism that might prevent us from becoming a ming the villain. Look at the character of Superman. He has the power to rule the world, and possibly more. He instead chooses to try to be human, and protects people when he can, which is often. Despite his goals, he is rarely written to go the route of Tony Stark, seeking to blanket the world in a shelf, and give it a mighty sword (Not saying it doesn't happen in certain versions).
At 1:54:35 John Ferrer assumes the position and shows us what he looks like when he takes a shit. He pushes hard with no relief, then Matt Dillahunty makes his closing statement and gives the audience the laxative they've been waiting for.
John: Slavery is not allowed in the bible!
Bible: Here are the rules for slavery.
John: It's not "slavery" slavery!
Bible: Slaves are your property.
John: It tells you to treat your slaves well!
Bible: Beat your slaves, just try not to kill them.
John: We are not allowed to capture people into slavery!
Bible: "Gather your slaves from the heathens that surround you"
John: Slaves are encouraged to escape their masters!
Bible: Slaves obey your masters
It's amazing how many biblical apologist have yet to read the bible.
It's amazing how many atheists are wooden fundamentalists when it comes to reading the Bible.
Cool. Point out all my errors and how i totally misrepresented the bible.
ha ha ha! It's you! The slavery apologist!
@@__Andrew I stand with the most successful abolitionist cause in world history. How about you? Atheists were around for thousands of years before Christianity and didn't abolish slavery anywhere. What advice do you have to offer for a person living in a society that won't have abolition any time soon?
Andrew Christianity offers an abolitionist ideal - which I pointed out in the debate and which you have not disproven. Plus, Christianity ACCOMPLISHES actual abolition. Christianity also offers culturally relevant guidance to survive in societies despite of the practical reality of slavery.
He tried to argue slavery against Matt
R.I.P. Apologist.
Something people should never, ever do!
Oooh I cant wait to get there
Jesus didn't say shit against slavery. If he was the son of god, wouldnt he of said somethin against it.
When I was looking up morality re: incest and rape I also looked up slavery. Couldn’t find anything on any of them that would suggest they are wrong.
Slavery? more like bravery (for debating Matt xD)
The slavery apologetics is downright disturbing
"slavery apologetics" are two words that should never go together
Just realized something:
"Morality is grounded in God's mind."
"God works in mysterious ways."
This...is a problem.
SamWeltzin Is this the best you can do?
@@johnlovestosing04 no. That's the best theism can do. Those are literally Theistic Arguments.
I could say the same to you...
Is that all theism can do?
Because I agree...
This...is a problem.
AceOfShades No, it’s a problem when you don’t do your due diligence to understand the difference between an argument and a catch phrase. It’s a problem when you erect a straw man argument and lump all theists into a monolith. So perhaps you need to clarify what you mean because snarky remarks are insufficient for discussion.
@@johnlovestosing04 due diligence my ass, your Bible does not have any!
You could have just said fact checking(even then, the Bible is filled to the brim with factually incorrect statements), but due diligence is a business term. It is the examination of financial records before a transaction is made. Why confuse with such a term if you're just going to mean fact check?
There are some terms that you can use that doesn't make you look like a pseudo intellectual.
I don't care if an argument is given through a catchphrase or a statement.
They are propositions that we can determine the truth value of.
Also, no. Theists almost always bring these arguments along. The first one to explain morality, and the other one as an excuse for anything that God does, including acts that are morally reprehensible.
We aren't attacking Christians when we attack the Bible.
Theism is not a person.
The Bible is not a person.
God is an idea. God is not a person.
We are not lumping Christians together when we criticize the Bible, or when we criticize theism.
We are criticizing ideas.
And if your idea does not withstand scrutiny then it does not deserve to be recognized.
@@johnlovestosing04 No, it's not the best I can do, but this is a TH-cam comment section, and I can post what I want to post without the need to spend as much time on it as the debaters do. I'm sorry if it rustles your jimmies that I don't, at this very moment, feel the obligation to give a full-blown argument with premises and conclusions to some rando who commented on a year-old post.
Here's your elaboration: This is a problem because it's indicative of the broader issue of divine hiddenness, melted down into a couple of example sentences.
This post was not for you. It was not meant to provide a substantive argument. It was simply to get my thought at that particular moment into the aether for a temporary release of endorphins.
I enjoy how Matt's answers are actually answers to the question asked. Not some rigmarole.
God, listening to the slavery rationalizations from every christian apologist is starting to make me sick to my stomach.
Yeah, they just can't be honest about it.
This one was especially galling to me.
Matt explained that Ferrer's stance is that the god of the Bible is the source of morality, but the god of the Bible endorses/commands slavery which is clearly immoral, therefore that god isn't moral and can't be the source/basis of morality.
And to that Ferrer responded with a long jag about unfairly judging an ancient society by today's standards.
Even after Matt reiterated that his objection wasn't with that ancient society but with the supposedly perfect moral being's dictates to that society (and all that have followed it), Ferrer just repeated his assertion that Matt didn't understand the ancient society.
Infuriating.
@@cuzned1375 But he has slides.
Laura Carson And sort-of-pithy analogies!
Matt: I use evidence and reason.
John: Doorknob. Mic drop!!!
Go listen to Mike Winger on TH-cam about slavery. I still think he is wrong but it is an excellent version of the theist defense that is well done.
I wish there’d be a “which god do we need for morality” debate. That’d be hilarious.
I would say ocean kel toi's version of paganism. Other pagans are literally Nazis.
@@SamI-bs5mm As a german i violently agree, totally
@@bazingaburg8264 okay not every pagan is a Nazi but many of them hold white nationalist views
I'd pay to see such debate.
Florence Gielen It may not be as hilarious if you did research on religion. If you start with a premise that no god can exist or something like that, then you won’t be able to differentiate between mythology and truth.
“Slavery only disappears when a culture is Christianised”
Geeeeeet fuuuuucked.
Plenty of Indigenous cultures around the word operated and survived with out slavery; indigenous Australians thrived as independent community groups sharing resources, knowledge and technology for tens of thousands of years before Christianity even existed. And when Christians did arrive to Australia they enslaved them....
Yes. And that “slavery” was FORCED on cultures that were not Christian BY CHRISTIANS. His argument is totally pathetic and such a dodge. Also, the old “the only parts of the Bible that count are the ones I liiiiiiikkeeeee!! Waaaaah!” is just lame. Protestants vs Catholics vs other Protestants…who knows…
John Ferrer is, ironically, a moral relativist. At least when if comes to the issue of slavery. Ferrer believes God can only speak to ancient societies in terms of how to treat slaves within a slave-owning society, but cannot outright forbid slavery (as he forbids shellfish and mixed fabrics as Matt points out). Ferrer says in his slide 6a: "Before passing judgment on ancient societies for answering their problems with slavery, you need to offer a better answer first." God, who many believe to be the author of the Bible, clearly had no better answer at that time, so instead dictated rules for how to own slaves. A moral objectivist would state, Slavery is wrong now, was wrong then, and will always be wrong regardless of culture, time, or place. Ferrer's cognitive dissonance also expands to circular reasoning, using a tortured doorknob analogy to describe the atheist's thinking while himself believing we should care about morality because it's morality. He says everything has irreducible levels without demonstrating caring about morality is an irreducible proposition. Stating you should care about morality because you should care about morality is a slippery, circular, contaminated doorknob that even his "supernatural mind" cannot turn without getting infected.
He also could have taught them how to raise, clean, and cook pork and shellfish better instead of banning it altogether.
Well said
@@ThePharphis Yep. God didn't seem to have a problem saying "absolutely don't do this or that" concerning a wide array of customs that were popular in that era.
Not to mention he just let it be a thing that existed in the first place.
His analogies were also pathetic.
Christianity gives you an old rundown shed and tells you is the perfect mansion, and also bans you from looking at other places and check if those houses are better with threats of eternal torture.
It gives you a broken and misshapen mirror and tells you that the reflection you see in it is the reality, and also tells you is the only mirror you will find in the world.
It gives you a doorknob smeared with shit and tells you that is clean. And that if you doubt is clean then you are obviously in the wrong.
Oh, this was painful. John Ferrer made absolutely no sense in his opening argument. He was all over the place and his analogies were weak at best. I kind of felt sorry for him, this is not his forte.
Laura Carson I agree with you entirely. He is clearly very desperate and has nothing to give in this debate. He's seems fairly unintelligent (admittedly this is the first time I've ever seen him).
He has no logic whatsoever.
He is all over the place. He really seems to just not get relatively simple shit. It almost seems like he's not even listening at times and throws his own idea in there. He keeps banging on about the reasoning, motivations and, justifications Matt has voiced, and appears to simply pooh pooh them, he however shows or gives absolutely nothing, zilch, nish, nada to back up anything he asserts other than it magically being god.
I have a pretty poor and low opinion of apologists in general. Mr Ferrer really doesn't come over as one of the better ones. He for some reason doesn't seem to be able to listen and adapt to arguments being made or points being raised. He misunderstands or ignores them.
I agree. It was hard as an atheist to hear his argument unbiasedly. Im still trying to. I may be an atheist, but its not out of choice. I wish there was an argument for a supernatural claim
@@jadejewell7716
_I wish there was an argument for a supernatural claim_
Just so you don't have to die? Or, more likely, so that the people you love won't have to die?
On the one hand, I can understand the feeling. I would _volunteer_ for Hell, if that would mean the people I've cared about would be laughing it up in Heaven for eternity.
On the other hand,... eternity? It's hard to imagine how that wouldn't be Hell, eventually, no matter _what._ And what about the billions of other people who'd be tortured right alongside me in Hell? How could I want _that?_
Admittedly, since this seems to be all fantasy, anyway, faith-based people can just imagine whatever they want. Certainly, they do so when it comes to Hell. I swear I've heard _every_ possibility from Christians (let alone the other religions on Earth), including the claim that there isn't a Hell because _everyone_ gets to go to Heaven after they die. Well, faith is just believing whatever you want to believe, and _that's_ what those people - nice people, clearly - want to believe.
Sorry about the book. I get carried away. Heh, heh. But for me, I'd just like to see some brand-new scientific discovery that would open up a whole new realm for scientists. Not the "supernatural," exactly, because that's far too vague and has way too much baggage. But something that might have a similar impact on the world. That would be neat. :)
@@Bill_Garthright
"Just so you won't have to die"?
It's like, "Just so you won't have to get up and get the remote"?
Of course. You are telling me you wouldn't want Supernatural abilities to prevent you from death?
This was the difference between one guy who makes bold assertions, strawmen, non-sequiturs, outright lies, word salad, and various other fallacies, and another who makes rational arguments while being intellectually honest.
Love it
Yeah there was all that, but at the end of the day, it was merely the difference between a guy that is comfortable with saying, "I don't really know why we do all these things" and a guy who is afraid to say, "I don't really know why we do all these things."
@@danh2716 Matt never said he didnt know why we do these things in regards to morals and ethics. Thats what the debate was about, remember? Matt outlined his logic in regards to his moral and ethical principles in detail. You clearly are not paying attention.
@@danh2716 Oh, and there is nothing wrong with admitting that you dont know something. Claiming to know something you couldn't and dont knows however, is intellectually dishonest.
And the intellectually honest one is bald.
I got into the atheist program via Christopher Hitchens. Who was a juggernaught of a free thinker..Matt Dillahunty although not as knowledgable in politics as Hitchens was..is a pure masterclass when it comes to atheism and the bible. He is very savvy about a lot of subjects combined with a clear concise delivery he is on the way to be a true legend in free thinkers. He's warm, funny and a all round good guy..hey Matt when are you coming to the UK .i'd love to attend one of your lectures....you are truly an inspiration.
He’s great Egan it comes to religion, logic, skepticism, fallacies etc. Politics, I disagree with him but he’s consistent in his ideology. For someone who’s self taught, he’s brilliant really.
When theists argue about our brains not being reliable....don’t they realize that their belief in God is ALSO reliant on their brains?!?!?
I have heard their argument so many times, and it never makes sense.
Yes, but they can trust their brains because.... God. (blah blah blah something about being made in his image... Blah another special pleading thing with blah blah also matter in motion fizzing)
They make a bit of pseudorationalist argument. Rationalism is unpopular in modern Academia for sundry reasons. Yeah, I've invariably found this argument obtuse. My favorite is when they argue that their faith in divine truth and the supernatural "needn't be rational". If they take this to its logical conclusion, they would need to demonstrate some sort of innate knowledge existing beyond our minds. They usually fall back on claiming God bestows them with the knowledge, for they cannot have it by their own reason. This is borderline lunacy for obvious reasons. And, funnily enough, this is also the same circular "Because God did it" bullshit.
@@gotterdammerung6088 lol you were determined to say that 😂 good luck making a truth claim without violating determinism 🤗
@@calebgomez8992 1. What are you saying? Are you suggesting it's impossible to make a truth-claim if you're a determinist? This would seem to be sophistry, but I'll bite. 2. If you're endorsing the argument my fellow men and I struck down, it'd necessarily still fail. The argument itself is circular reasoning. You're attempting to prove your God by stating he exists within the premises. 3. Even if you could somehow demonstrate that there is some "other" form of knowledge, that would be a far cry from evidence for the divine.
@@gotterdammerung6088 and in your naturalistic world view, your brain made you say that 😂 scientific agents do not produce truth, but merely reactions. If your brain is confined to physics, chemistry..
Then explain how truth can come from mere naturalistic reactions.its reactions not rational 😚
Matt's reaction at the mention of "wage slavery"....priceless. The meaningless hours John spent researching for such pathetic attempts to defend that shitty fkn book of his. I share Laura Carson's sentiment. I feel sorry for this dude. Shackled to that book, trying to defend it at all costs. John, let me tell you something. You're not helping your cause. You're digging the hole deeper for you and your ilk. Which is a good thing. Thanks Matt for putting this guy through the wringer.
Two minutes into Ferrer's opening argument and it's apparent he's brought a knife to a drone fight.
More like a sharp stick to an ICBM fight...
@@rampagingswine9475 The rubber chicken wins because it has no life and it is not worth much. Bringing nuclear weapons to fight a rubber chicken is such a waste (the nuclear weapons might destroy the user). 😆 🤣 😂
@@kiabvaj5656 the user just has to be far enough .
He brought a Bible to a nuke war
Matt starts at about 20:15
Thank you for this, much appreciated.
I tend to listen to the arguments from apologists but they always seem to end up so similar in how flawed they are that it gets repetitive listening to the same circular reasoning over and over again
Thanks
@@sethk550 true i Like These debates but over time the theist Position gets really Boring
@@timo4463at this point I think I've heard every argument made by Christian theists.
I love this. I washed my brain-hands with the soap of reason, and dried them with the paper towels of data. Then I used the data-paper towel to open the doorknob of morality, returning to the restaurant of a secular humanism so I could finish my sliders of well-being.
Wish I could like it twice, fella.
1:49:42 John Ferrer inadvertently defines a moral system without God. He acknowledged that he changed the way he handles things and become a better person based on life experiences and seeing how it impacts those around us.
Without exception, every time I've heard you speak/debate, it's like listening to an intelligent and wise adult (Matt) talking with an immature and dishonest child (the theist). It doesn't matter how many diplomas, degrees or initials they have before their name, they sound like a fearful/confused child, compared to you.
This was just another example of how religion is not designed for progress. We've advanced despite religion, not so much because of it.
You did a fantastic job Matt. Thank you!
I thought the same thing after re watching his debate with Dr. Jordan Peterson. Matt is the teacher and his opposition is the pupil. Matt is the parent schooling his ignorant children. Lmao it's great to watch. Not to hop on his junk but he might be my intellectual superhero.
@@Human-gc2yt I totally agree! 😉
@Jim Merrilees if he was a creationist or just a believer he'd wouldn't be Matt as we know him. He would violate so much of logic and his reasoning would be shut down by some one else that could keep up with his fallacious arguments.
@Jim Merrilees bit I do sometimes wonder why he's not pretending to be a believer for that prosperity lol
@@Human-gc2yt Because he's an honest human being who really cares about someone other than himself.
1:52:00 - "as a Christian, I give myself a get-out-of-reality-free card, and every time I don't like the conclusion I reach or don't understand the reasoning, I can imagine my preferred conclusion and win every argument.
They invented their God, made up thier morality and then claim we need God to have morality hmmm.
Well put
why would they do that, life would be much more fun if there was no God.
@@ceceroxy2227 proof?
The rules don't apply to me because I'm a dualist.
Words fail me.
Is it that the rules don't apply or that the argument doesn't apply to him because it doesn't pertain to dualism?
The best part of this debate was when they were actually having a back and fourth exchange. It is such a shame that these debates do not allocate at least half the time to just a straight up open discussion between debaters like that. That is where the real headway is made and it's the most engaging and entertaining.
Looking forward to this, thanks Matt!
Finally a new theistic argument -The argument from dirty doorknobs!
😂😂
My response to the dirty doorknob problem was: Take a paper towel and open the door with it!!!
@@elainejohnson6955 you are a once in a lifetime genius
Thanks for coming to TAMU Matt, I had a great time listening to you. Surprised the recording didn't pick up half of the audience chuckle at 1:22:57
Well if doing good is for selfish personal gain which was one of the aspects of morality that Matt pointed out and John criticized how is doing what you think a god tells you so you can get in heaven not a selfish motivation?
@mldfry And who would think doing that for eternity is a reward. It mystifies me.
@@ArtfullyMusingLaura
Once my big sister ask me, because I was very religious and read bible whole, if we really get a reward at heaven and for my bible knowledge I reply:
Bible don't say the hungry people will be given food as Jesus say, it say after death all the memories and personality stay in the body only the soul go, so there is not a reward more like the hunger simply disappear so no reward for earthly suffer.
Yes, not only getting into heaven but staying out of Hell.would think that's a pretty self interested motivation.
Why do hundreds die in natural disasters? Why are children mistreated and slain? You and me and people just like us. Why does God not step in and stop it? He will. But in the meantime he wants us to recognise our utter general culpability and turn to him for mercy. Yet we would rather blame him for giving us exactly what we (corporately) asked for - to rule ourselves and our world in our own way.
Now, there are half a dozen possible objections to this. But if any of them hold, then we are in a worse place - if there is no God who will judge, then there is no justice, no right, no wrong. These are all things we make up to try to make ourselves feel better in a dog-eat-dog world.
@@VYDZ - Why must there be a judge? And why, if religion is necessary for morality, do areas with more religious people have higher violent crime rates & more poverty?
Why are children raised without religion generally more kind & generous?
We have studies about this. Religion is bad for society.
If what you believe about god is true, then wouldn't the opposite be true? But it isn't.
This is one of my favourite debates from Matt...
Does anyone else feel that the edited quote from Nietzsche blatantly undermined the message Nietzsche himself was making? Here is the full quote
“When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one's feet... Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one's hands. Christianity presupposes that man does not know, cannot know, what is good for him, what evil: he believes in God, who alone knows it... it has truth only if God is the truth - it stands and falls with faith in God.”
When you chopped off everything but the last sentence it gives the impression that Nietzsche is requiring God for there to be morality.
It's ultimately irrelevant as it's a quote. It's not evidence for anything. Just because famous person and/or scientists said X, doesn't mean X is true.
The Bible is a source of morality but we shouldn't demand it give standards for society regarding slavery? Ummm.... you just undercut your own thesis.
_A well furnished room._ Filled with torture devices! And fluffy pillows. Focus on the pillows! And on the reward! Not on the eternal punishment without the possibility for forgiveness or parole that your mom and your brother will get. They made their choice. You will be rewarded and happy in worship and like a perfect psychopath you will thank the Lord that you're not with your family but that they burn in hell forever. Praise the LOrd! Fluffy pillows and rainbows!
Religion is mental gymnastics and denial to feel comfortable about lying to yourself and turning your back on the entirety of humanity and all future generations by pissing and shitting on intellectual integrity and sincerity towards our fellow humans. What a great fucking example they are for our children. All religions and all other dogmas are always harmful.
That sounds like a terrible thesis. Who believes that?
@Cameron Pitts What quote? I didn't use quotes for anything. I did paraphrase what was said.
@Cameron Pitts I am pretty sure he said something along the lines of:
"You can't demand the Bible give standards for everything."
From that I inferred that we can't demand the Bible give standards for slavery. This is because Matt was discussing slavery when he said this. If I find this quote, I'm wondering what you're response will be. Hypothetically I rewatch the video and I find it.... are you going to agree that we can't say the Bible needs standards on things like slavery? Because right now the Bible says:
Slaves obey your masters (Even the cruel ones)
Slaves are property
You can be slaves from foreign nations
This is explicitly for slavery. This is not what I would expect from a moral/law-giver God. However, maybe what I expect is wrong. It is maybe moral to enslave. Moral to beat said slave. Moral to keep their children as slaves. If the Bible is the source of morality, these would follow.... because as I said below:
"Christianity morality is better thus Christianity morality is better."
John Ferrer
You apparently. Jesus you’re not very sharp, are you?
Typical Christian: “straw man, straw man, god did it, god did it, I believe this, I believe that, blah, blah.” Lather, rinse, repeat.
drshellking@gmail.com The irony of this statement is that it’s two logical fallacies in one. It’s ad hominem and a straw man. Christians are not a monolith no more than any other belief system.
@@johnlovestosing04 I invoke fallacy fallacy. Just because it is an adhominem doesn't necessarily make his argument false.
Because when you think about it, "straw man, straw man, god did it, I believe this, I believe that, blah blah." is pretty much what we get from theists every time.
AceOfShades You’ve got to do better. You’re demonstrating that you don’t know what a fallacy is. Logically speaking, once a fallacy has been committed, what follows is non sequitur. You are not making any good arguments against theism, none. What you’re doing is displaying some type of pseudo intellectual, snarky retort where you can’t help, but continue misrepresent and over simplify the discussion. Do better.
@@johnlovestosing04 sorry, but you're the one who does not know what the fuck a fallacy fallacy is, aka appeal to fallacy.
Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false. It is also called argument to logic, the fallacy fallacy, the fallacist's fallacy, and the bad reasons fallacy. *Wikipedia
Sorry. You aren't in any position to tell me to do better if you're the one who doesn't know what a fallacy fallacy is.
Great job on being an ignoramus.
And yeah that is an adhominem.
Doesn't mean it's false. It's not a fallacy to say that you're an ignoramus, when you act like one. It's just being intellectually honest. The fact that you're offended by my arguments does not in any way disprove them.
Again, fallacy fallacy.
You're not demonstrating how I am a pseudo intellectual when you're the one who is missing the point. Sure you might find it snarky, but the truth often hurts, doesn't it?
@@alucarderipmavtube That's the way to do it.
15:20
"Atheism isn't a worldview, it's just godlessness."
Holy shit a theist who actually understands!!
It's like a fucking unicorn!
Seriously, why is it so hard for most theists to understand that atheism is nothing more than a person living their life without religious baggage?
I'm dizzy from all of John's circular reasoning.
the usa, compared 2 europe, is so superstitious bcoz it has never suffered the oppression of the christian church while europe suffered the oppression of the christian church 4 many centuries.
For example?
@@johnferrer42 Atheists have circular arguments, except for God creating a standard of morals by which you judge God to be upholding the morals that you are using to judge. And atheists have a moral desert of relativism, but slavery can’t be taken out of its context because owning humans doesn’t mean the same thing in all places to all humans.
The subject I love that Matt raises in every debate is that none of the objections raised by theists against secular morality are in any way solved by appealing to a god. Your god does not solve the problem you are criticizing my system for not solving!
Do we need God for Morality?
No, because we have morality and god is a fictional character?
Which one of the many deities are we talking about tho ?
@Cameron Pitts
What is Righteousness and What is Sin, is Grounded in Yahweh's ONENESS!
Yahweh IS the SINGULARITY of BEING. Yahweh IS EXISTENCE/LIFE.
Yahweh/Existence, cannot change, cannot be anything other than what it is, cannot be untrue.
Yahweh is the Foundational Reality which IS Existence. Existence IS AN Eternal BEINGNESS.
The Creation/Universe was brought into existence, by the Existor. The ONE. The ONE who is Existence.
Morality is a man made concept that shifts depending on circumstance and opinion, Righteousness does not!
Jerome, now when you can defend that "No" without presuming what you need to prove, then we can have a debate. Meanwhile, you'd need to offer some way - through nature alone - for any moral claims whatsoever to be true. Lacking that, you can't even get started with the typically snarky moral indignation of internet atheism.
@@johnferrer42
Well Said!
@@johnferrer42 If I ask you ''is Harry Potter real'' and you simply answer no, your answer is 100% fine. It's totally the same with any god. Does X fictional character exist? Valid answer : no. And a drawn-out argument is not needed in such a simple case.
9:15 "when you do a broader survey across the history of modern civilization you find that almost every civilization that has formally abolished slavery had to be thoroughly Christianized first even though almost all had atheists in some measure before that." This is just silly.
Yeah very much citation needed lol
Countries got rid of slavery only after becoming christianized?!? First, I doubt that, best check the history of Asian countries to debunk that. Second, some of those countries got rid of slavery around 1,500 years after being christianized... which would indicate a lack of even correlation, let alone causation. And that part about the Bible's rules on slavery were because it was giving advice on how to live in a society that allowed slavery?!?!? Why couldn't it just say "don't own slaves yourselves"? That argument is so wrong. Try this, rape is wrong, but when living in a society that allows rape, here are some rules on who you can rape and how to do it. Does that sound like any kind of objective moral standard??
This was Matt at his best, really insightful, and a great summing up of the advantages of secular morality at the end.
Thought John was a good opponent too.
Same old, same old-don't they get it?-nobody needs a god(especially a thug like Yahweh)to write morality 'on their heart'...
"If you need a deity for morality, you need far more than a deity." - Lao Tuan
I wonder when theists will realize that saying that they have a grounding in god for morality doesn't tell you whether or not there is a god nor does it tell you whether that grounding is good. Seeing how even if there was a god and he did have a particular view on morality, i don't see how that's anymore than his opinion.
I think that when it comes to religious believes Santa Claus is way better "god" than Yahweh. Christian morals are all like these bits of Bible are good, and those bits of Bible do not apply any more because after centuries of suffering they did not work well.
@@nickaplz69 I have often wondered why non-theist debaters don't counter the "objective morality" argument with "You use your God's Subjective morality." Thus there is no objective morality.
@@DBCisco I think it should be used as it's a good counter. I think I only recall matt saying it on the show. Mostly I've heard theists simply assert god solves the issue without a demonstration.
It's good to see people who disagree can come together and talk civily.
Ferrer just won't let go of that dirty doorknob LOL
Right?! I'm sitting here like...use your shirttail. Use a piece of tp. Leave why would you close the door in order to wash your hands again?! Poor analogies
@@mitchlarsen3223 Yeah I had the same thought about just...leaving the door open while you wash your hands lol
Outstanding debate by Matt as alway. Great way to end it. Really clear ruler analogy. 👍
Did he straight up admit that he was going to Gish Gallop in his opening statement?
It seems that way.
See the immediately preceding comment-thread about this.
I wish I had the restraint and self control to speak calmly to people like. I just can't have these conversations with people in person. Well done Matt
Matt crushes it once again
Finally watching this (not even all the way through it) and what struck me the most so far was John saying at the beginning of his rebuttal that "all you need is a desire to do good and a belief about what's good" only works if there is such a thing as good. I was hoping Matt would address this directly because I immediately shouted at my monitor "way to *completely miss the point!*" (though I might have added some other words in there). Ugh... I almost dread watching the rest of this.
"Determinism tends to suggest there's no real moral responsibility."
John Ferrer is ill-equipped to participate in this debate.
Default John when he is gotcha'd:
'*sigh* There's a lot going on there'
Always a great sign when the moderator's opening remarks presume that God exists and is necessary to morality.
This was one of the most grounded apologetic analogies I have ever seen. There were still some deep, deep fallacies with his assumptions, but it didn't hurt to listen to.
The ruler analogy is on point! Great job!
This debate keeps on happening and it always comes down to this essential duality.
An atheist shows, in functional terms, how we can behave in a manner that most of us consider good, can have reasonable beliefs about that, and can act on certain values.
A theist retreats into the pure philosophy of "but is that objectively good," then operates on the unfounded assumption that God can help achieve that at all (at least, not one I've seen has even attempted to support that assertion).
I LITERALLY can't believe he ended his opening statement with the "how do you know you're not a brain in a vat" argument. Against Matt Dillahunty. Smh.
notintheface11 it’s a legitimate argument
@@IamGarySimpson It falls within "relevant argument" but it demonstrates a lack of experience with serious atheist replies and lazy epistemology. I don't expect Ferrer to be familiar with his interlocutor's entire detailed history of debating, but come one man, that question is like Matt's #1 "Atheist pwnz idiot theist" -titled youtube clip. And it's a good reply, uncharitable video titles aside.
@Oners82 r/iamverysmart
Probably because he knew he had nothing left. He knew Matt crushed him.
@Oners82 You are aware that there was a rebuttal right? And they talked one on one right? If you indeed watched the entire debate, then your comment makes no sense.
Once again the most important and productive part of the debate is limited to a time frame that does no justice to the topic at hand. Let the two debaters do what they do. Moderate when necessary and q and a at the end depending on if the majority of the crowd is in favor of so or allowing continued dialog.
I think straw men lives in that barren landscape.
Defending slavery is fucking WILD. How can someone with real morals sit down and decide how to defend slavery. Religion is the only modern example of how to defend slavery. If you are defending slavery, religion is your only "angle." Can we all agree that this is wrong? Good luck on your journey to mental freedom everyone.
Ferrer's ability to quickly quote scripture off the top of his head but not pronounce "chattel" correctly twice tells you everything you need to know about him
Right after he explained how much study he did on the subject to prepare 🤣
Or to exclaim more than once that it’s an error to interpret the Bible “literally” or to engage in exegesis (but without offering a framework) - dude there are many varieties of Protestants who will argue that you are completely wrong…Honestly John seems very naive.
Was John's opening statement a gish gallop? I'm not asking rhetorically but wondering if it meets the definition.
Oh yes.
There was another fallacy as well that he put in there but I can't remember the term for it . Time to watch more dillahunty 😊
I wouldn't say so. It certainly was a hail storm but I feel like in order to be a gish gallop it would need to cite statistics which Matt would not be prepared to combat. But all of those arguments are to be expected on this topic of debate and they are abstract enough to deal with abstractly. You could debunk all of them by a quick "I agree that all of those are great problems in morality but just because you define god as the solution to these problems doesn't give us any insight into the solution for any of these problems. To solve any of the problems we would have to know the nature of god and then that problem becomes identical to the ones we faced earlier. To chalk the challenges of these problems to the mystery of god is to stop looking for practical solutions and once we stop glorifying god as an answer we can look for more practical solutions honestly."
I don't think so, but I'm biased too. The first argument was broad - I admit that - but I framed any supporting arguments for it, instead, as suggestive evidence instead of as concrete/hard proofs. Plus, I drew my 2nd and 3rd arguments from examples I mentioned in the first argument, so I could show that there is potential support for the evidental claims in the support of the first argument.
@@lukostello I see what you're saying. I think that's a potentially strong tactic. There's only so much we can realistically unpack and sort through int he course of a 15 minute opening statement. But I like the way you think.
35:08 He's turned! They got to him! 😂
I loved that point what you said about you accepting that you are probably wrong when you make moral judgement and decisions. We are all beings that spend our whole damn lives learning how to live, and during all that time even with all the help we get from our family and relatives, our society and our judicial systems we will keep making mistakes even with the very best of intentions. So yes, I can see the appeal for a divine guidance or something similar that would ground us and help us figure it all out. And yet the guidance could never be complete enough to provide all the answers we need, nor is it reliable enough for us to build true foundations of morality on it.
So we'll keep failing and seeing others fail, and we will keep learning and becoming better.
His argument is seriously.....
Christianity morality is better thus Christianity morality is better. People need to learn better logic than a tautology.
@Cameron Pitts Yes. I did get this message from him listening to this debate. Would you like to have a discussion about secular vs religious morality? We can discuss the topic below. Why do you believe religious morality is better?
“Meaning is contextual” says the guy who belongs to a religious tradition in which MANY denominations of Protestants believe that every single word in the Bible is literally true as is for NOW. The statement that “most critics” don’t address the “different” forms of slavery in the Bible is wildly ignorant of the vast amount of biblical scholarship ffs. What a joke! This dingdong does the tired old maneuver of pulling out other passages to “refute” the laws explicitly detailed by the Old Testament god (will he also address the explicit statements regarding the murdering of infants and married women while taking young virgins for themselves - said by their god?!)
title should read
"Do we need A god for morality?"*
the "A" is an important nuance.
I have a really hard time listening the Christian side because it's so nonsensical. How can people whose belief system is based on something that they cannot touch, taste, or demonstrate to be true in any way to anyone else be so freaking arrogant about their belief system?
Conversation sumed up:
"Moral shotgun blast"
"K..morals are easy, it's just a lense"
"Well, the Bible!"
"Okay, the bibles wrong, here's why...."
"Paper towels"
"What? Paper towels?"
"Yeah, because your brains a dirty door knob"
" Ok...paper towels, here's how it works...."
"I'm a dualist. "
"You're a dualist?"
"Yep"
"I'm done"
"BUT THE BIBLE"
*Mattslap "sit down son"
Sounds legit.
Hahaaaaaa
John Ferrer highly legit. You were so far out of your depth in this debate. You’re lucky Matt gave you a platform. You should thank him and move on.
Yeah, chattel slavery was based on case laws: I captured your land, you are mine or you die. Easy.
Provide a better alternative? Sure, create people who don't screw up in the first place.
Mees Higersom Slaves have been taken from unconquered lands also... Moslems and Christians bought slaves from Sub-Saharan Tribes who had captured people of other tribes... The Barbary Coast Slave Trade involved raiding Mediterranean costal towns... Many other examples... There are alternatives to making slaves of those defeated in war... Was the only option, at the end of the War in the Pacific, that the USA make slaves of the Japanese People,,, OR Kill them All ?? Would that have been a tenable strategy ?
"Shattelle slavery"
Lmao. This comment! 😂
Mees Hilgersom
That would be a logical impossibility. The Creation of Individual conscious Beings involves allowing them to exercise their individual wills and the consequences that brings. It is relational, meaning there are two parties, the Creator and the Created.
Relationship requires willingness to be in unity from both sides not just one!
@Michael Deo Have you ever done a bit of programming? I have, so let me take you through this hypothetical.
I am making Game of Deaths, in which I design robots that can do actions and after a certain time it is game over. Just before I delete the robot from the game, I judge them based on a arbitrary set of rules hardcoded somewhere outside of the robotsoftware. Let's say I programm a few robots in such a way that they can do everything they want, without boundries. In the same programm I design a few robots that are the same, but I lay boundries on it's will. As soon as it would want something that crosses the arbitrary set of rules, that part of it's will changes slightly, so that it would cross the rules.
Example: the robot has a will that gives hime two instructions: paint things and like the colour red. In the arbitrary set of rules however, painting things red is forbidden. Therefore the software changes it's will slightly, so that it likes the colour orange. Next time the robot would want to paint things orange, no problem.
I respect your intelligence, you probably see the point I'm making. "But the second option is not free will!" True, but you would be a better designer if you designed them with it, if you want high scores at the end. My wants change all the time, I want a cookie now and in 5 minutes it's probably chocolate. It still makes me have free will and I can't tell the difference between option one or two.
Just so you know, even if you want the robot to start a relationship with you and not influence it's will on that point, that doesn't mean you can't influence it's will on other points when they cross the arbitrary set of rules.
The goal of morality is subjective.
Deciding if an action meets the definition/goal of morality is an objective process of reasoning.
Even if we agree on what morality is and what actions are or are not moral, this still in no way forces us to be moral people. We can agree that [X] is bad, and then still do it. So, there has to be some motivation for why we do good or avoid bad behavior.
So, these 3 previous paragraphs alluded to these 3 questions: 1) What is morality, 2) how do we determine what is moral, and 3) why ought we be moral.
For question 1, as with all words in any language, words are made up sequences of sounds and syllables to which a definition is also made up and applied to it. Sometimes words can have multiple definitions. This is often a point of confusion between secularists and religious people. Religious people are using the word one way, and secularists are using the word another way. Christians maybe are using the term to mean "anything that corresponds to the nature of god is what is morally good." Secularists are using the term to mean "Something is moral if, considering other potential actions and outcomes, that particular action results in an outcome best suited for minimizing unnecessary harm, and maximizing overall societal well-being."
For question 2, we determine what is moral the same way we determine what is healthy. "Healthy" is as vague of a goal/definition as morality is. But generally, something is "healthy" if it improves or maintains biological function, particularly in a long-term manner, and it's "unhealthy" if it degrades biological function. Eating cheese dip and ice cream every day isn't healthy, because you're increasing your risk for heart-attack or stroke. Drinking battery acid isn't healthy because you'll probably die if you do that. How did I determine these things weren't healthy? I compared the consequences of an action to the definition of "healthy".
For question 3, the motivation for being good is paradoxically because most of what you do to be good benefits you personally. If I am helpful and kind and loving to my wife, she is helpful and kind and loving to me... and... I want that. Why do I want that? Well... evolution gave me this body, and this body I have has a nervous system and a brain capable of experiencing emotions like fear, sadness, anxiety, etc. The nervous system I have forces me to dislike physical pain. If you smash my hand with a hammer, I do not get to "choose" if I like or dislike that feeling. I am forced to dislike pain. And so, that drives my desire to do actions that cause me to avoid pain. Not causing physical pain to others is one way to not attract pain being given to me. The same goes for emotional suffering. I try to please other people's emotions if I believe it will make my experience of life better. Maybe some Christians are motivated by hell. They are told that if they don't do A, B, or C, they will be punished in an extreme way for all of eternity. I can understand that is very motivating, but to me, hell is like the boogie monster living in your closet at night. I can understand why little children get scared of the boogie-monster, but as an adult, I know there isn't any evidence the boogie-monster is real.
If he's using a "lying brain" to debunk someone's argument wouldn't that apply to his brain as well when it comes to religion and what not?
It’s special pleading. He will say “because god says my brain isn’t lying”.
In which case you’ll ask “how do you know god isn’t lying, or that your brain isn’t lying about what god says?”
Then he will argue in a circle by saying “because god says”.
SnowCoveredNose 01 no because he also has a mind. his words not mine 😂
Lol. He says he has mind & a brain. Two separate things
Zeus TM he’s wrong. All the evidence points to the mind being an emergent property of the brain.
His defense of slavery in the bible is a hidden argument for moral relativism. Reduced:
Apologist: “Meaning is contextual.”
Translation: God’s ordinances to one society at one point in time are contextually valid given the nature of the society at that time.
Further translation: God’s ethics are situational, and therefore those that claim god’s moral positions at any given time in history are just moral relativists. “It’s right for us, right here, right now.”
Honestly the more I think about this, the more I realize how out to sea the apologist is on their principles. Asked of one: “is it possible that your god’s position on trans rights and the morality of trans people might be 180-degrees the opposite in the future? “
If the answer is yes, then they simply have no objective leg to stand on for their position of trans rights. They’re just automatons, and they admit having no other reason.
If the answer is no, they have to explain then how that reconciles with their god’s oscillating views on slavery over time. How is it they know their god has stopped changing its mind, or has achieved the final end goal of its plan on any one issue?
Science is not about using our "lying brains" to determine what's true. The modern scientific method avoids using our brains as much as possible! That's why we have scientific instruments and peer review.
Science absolutely does involve guessing and hypothesizing though. I think that’s when the brain comes in.
Great vid Matt you never fail ever.
"I don't need Good, I just need God." - Matt Dillahunty 2018
lol I like how he realized what he actually said a few moments later. But it was too late. The internet remembers!
It bugged me so much that he couldn't correct himself when he realized it...argh
Checkmate, atheists!
We all know what he meant. A good snapshot of being honest and admitting a mistake. No big deal.
Freud?
What's important to note about John Ferrer's opening statement (and his position throughout the debate, really) is that he's giving _an account_ for objective morality. An account is an explanation for why something is the case, but it _in no way_ is necessarily correct. In order for an account to actually be correct, the person would need to give a _justification_ for why it is correct or for why anyone _should believe_ that it is correct.
John's (or as he would say, Christianity's) reconciliation for the "Is/Ought" problem is _an account_ from his worldview. If he was trying to _convince_ non-believers of his account, _then_ he would need to provide justification for the account. But in this debate, he's not _justifying_ objective morality, he's _accounting_ for it in his worldview and that is _all_ he's doing. But it sounds and _feels_ satisfying to the believers in the audience because they're not questioning its _legitimacy._ They do buy in to the premises that the account relies on, non-believers don't.
People can come up with an internally consistent explanation for _anything._ However, the truth of the matter must be satisfied in order for anyone to care about it, or take it seriously.
edit: I get the impression that John came into this debate to compare and contrast _accounts_ for the is/ought problem to see if they are internally consistent respectively. It's essentially a stance that makes the account manufacturing side appear superior.
edit2: 1:55:53 I rest my case.
Do we need God for Morality?... No.
33:29 How he solves the is-ought problem; eliminate categoricity. See also 59:51 to 1:00:03
48:54 to 49:14. Basically he's conceding the point that without God we don't have moral goods or moral oughts in the normal sense of those terms.
1:15:45 to 1:16:33. Descriptive, not prescriptive. But then why have the debate?
"I'm a dualist"
Alright then, ima head out
why, many people are dualists, its most likely true.
After his first question, John’s stereo analogy surprised me given the fact that the Bible claims that Jesus said if someone asks you for your hat, give him your coat also, or vise versa. It sounds like Jesus was all for someone giving their stuff to someone who asks for it.
John didn't even address the topic; the topic is not "do we need Christianity for morality?" it is "do we need God for morality." Even if Christian ethics is superior (which it is not), John's argument is still off-topic because the deity and the religion are not the same thing.
louisng114
That is very true!
Christianity does not accurately represent Yahweh pr the bible, yet many Atheist make an association fallacy claiming it does,
Did you listen to the whole debate? It sounds like you posted after the first argument, and ignored #2 and #3. The first argument shows and example of how a particular theistic ethical system has proven valuable, perhaps indispensible, for practical ethics. The second and third argument however show that naturalistic ethics fails.
It's like he didn't even try to understand Matt's views on morality. It isn't complicated. It's actually the same thing everyone does. You decide upon a goal, and then try to find things that work towards that goal. Theists have the goal of doing what god wants. Humanists have the goal of increasing human well-being. You can make objective decisions about how to further your goal. This is the closest thing to objective morality that can actually be demonstrated to exist, and just simply looking at human beings and their varrying beliefs is pretty good evidence that humans don't have access to some absolute morality.
Theists are, thankfully, not doing anymore what god wants. At least most of them don't.
This is why the religious shouldn't be allowed to educate our children.
Yyyeaaah, I mean... I don't think it's an issue to have a qualified teacher educate people at the same time as having their own personal religious beliefs. But if it can be shown that it biases their teaching? Fuck em.
John also says that being a high functioning sociopath is a classic defeater for the veil of ignorance. Wouldn’t a high functioning sociopath also be a classic defeater for the idea of “morals being written on our hearts?”
Ferrer said "abolition of slavery is a privilege". What the hell
You should time stamp that statement so people can see/hear the context. Otherwise you're just bullying.
@@CamtronianDaBarbaric Agreed. It's a prooftext, and misrepresentative outside of its context.
At 31:22 Matt says he was "massively wrong" about something on Sunday's show (I imagine The Atheist Experience), and needed to apologize on the following episode.
Anyone happen to know what he's referencing here?
A small bit pick of this debate - The theist when beginning his rebuttal on slavery clearly said it was allowed in the Bible but not promoted. That is a bold lie. The Bible goes into details on how one can trick a person into becoming their slave for life. It continues to advocate for slavery and the relationship between owner and slave by telling slaves to never complain or go against their masters.
He also used the tired old pathetic argument that it was a different time then. If that's the case, why follow a book meant for the world two thousand years ago today? It's a outright crime that PhD degrees are offered to fools who study fictional books that have zero evidence of anything or even original copies. Might as well start offering PhDs for Lord if Rings and Harry Potter too.
The hardest part of these debates is having to listen to the ridiculous points of Matt's opponents, knowing that Matt can't just jump in to set them straight right away, like he does on the call-in shows. It is a painful having to wait for Matt to speak.
He was SO PUMPED when slavery came up, thinking he'd be the first apologist to "win the case for the christian views on slavery" against Matt... He even had slides prepped up beforehand!
Bless his heart. That was almost adorable.
Is a mail order bride a sex slave? Or a nanny? Is a nanny a slave to raise children or clean the house. Is a butler a slave as well when he cooks. So by your logic Jeffrey the butler is a slave on the show fresh prince?
@@deitert07 ... The fuck are you smoking, my dude? What logic is "my logic" in this comment? Do you read the comments you respond to...?
@@deitert07 I have a question about your examples: Are those examples of consenting agreements that can be freely disengaged from? Are the people considered property of another human being if they enter into that contract? If not, it's not slavery.
@@TheGamingLegendsOfficial it is a contract that both parties agreed on. Let me ask. Are you in credit card debt? If you are then you’re a slave to that credit card company. You have to pay back what is owed to them. If you don’t pay it back then you’re in for a rude awakening. Same consent back then. Debt slavery. Nothing to do with race or forced slavery.
@@deitert07 No. Am I the credit card company's property? No. They seize my property until the debt is repaid. I am still free to do as I please. The slavery in the Bible is "you can take these people as property, beat them to within an inch of their lives, and also bequeath them to your children". A butler, nanny, mail-order bride, and debtor are not even close to the same category. Also, no, I'm not in credit card debt, as I only have a secured line of credit that operates with only my own funds.
18:39
John Ferrer's elegant solution of not using his brain gets him out of this bind.
Seriously though, unless John asserts that his brain is infallible, he cannot escape this "problem", either.
We use the scientific method to get around our biases (because the brain is biased in specific ways that are inherited from our evolutionary past). The more we know our own biases, the easier it is to work around them. Simple.
I can't get past the doorknob covered in poo particles!
Really, is that the best he could come up with? Must be a germaphobe. He probably doesn't know that there is a poo particle cloud surrounding us all.
@@ArtfullyMusingLaura Gross! Save me Jesus!
it's funny when a clear and simple bible verse like "love thy neighbor" doesn't need the line "you're taking it out of context" compared more to a line about slavery that needs 50 lines and pages of quotes from all over the book like an easter egg hunt to get 'proper' context.
I don't see how an undetectable entity can provide a grounding for morality. If a person can't objectively demonstrate what God is, what God wants or that God is the ultimate arbiter of what is good, than how can anyone claim to have an objective moral system? To everyone else it would just be that person's opinion. I also don't know how the person would be able to tell that what they think they're getting from God is actually from God or that it's just from that person's own mind.
@Cameron Pitts Do you know a way we can detect God like we do with things like gravity and electromagnetism? We can accurately and consistently detect and measure the effect of those two forces, I don't know a way to do that with God. That's what I mean when I say undetectable. If you know a way to detect God I would love to hear it.
@Cameron Pitts Why do you say that? I see no reason why an actual infinite couldn't exist. I mean isn't God supposed to be infinite or eternal? If God can be eternal why can't the universe? And besides all that is a far cry from being able to actually detect and demonstrate God's existence to others.
@Cameron Pitts
"Otherwise the being you're refuting isn't consistent with a working definition of a God."
How was the definition of God determined? Our definitions of things in the natural world require observation. We weren't able to define what the heart is and what it did without direct observation. So how can we define God before we can observe God the way we do other things in the universe. How was God determined to be apart from the world and the universe in such a way that these 1 to 1 comparisons don't apply? Saying that these things can't be compared seems like special pleading to me
"Besides, I'm not arguing that infinity doesn't exist at all"
But that is what you said.
".. by the impossibility of an actual infinite..."
If it is an impossibility then by definition it can't exist.
Regardless of all that, the nature of infinity can give us no information on the "prime mover" or "first cause" if there even is one. We have no way to determine if it was an entity with agency or not. We don't have enough information to claim it was God, let alone one that that God is the ultimate moral arbiter.
Let's say there is an thinking entity that created the universe as we know it. Why should It care about what our morality is? And why should we care what that entity thinks our morality should be?
My favorite part here is that:
"If you know a way to detect God I would love to hear it."
was answered with:
"I believe that we can deduce..."
Which doesn't remotely answer the question. You don't need to 'deduce' and get philosophical with something concrete like gravity and electromagnetism, but you sure as heck do for the notion of a deity.
@Cameron Pitts
"Sure, you can define God however you like and refute that God."
I didn't define God at all, I asked you how you came up with your definition. I haven't got an answer to that yet. You also haven't provided a reason why God is onto-logically separate from the universe. As it stands it looks like special pleading to me. Please explain why that is not the case.
"...An actual infinite is impossible because its the application of infinity to finite things. In this case an infinite can not be applied to a causal series(finite) and us arrive at our present existence(the end). There is a distinction between that and finite things existing with out end or going on infinitely in that they never actually arrive at that end. Succinctly, one continues on and one has arrived. In the case of our causality we would be at the end of an infinite which is by definition, not possible."
This is pretty much just gibberish. Why would our present time be the end, for one thing? And how does this lead you to God?
"A first cause can certainly give us information about its being. Like the fact that it would ontologically be different then other beings.. like the world."
How so? This doesn't follow to me at all. We don't have enough information to know if there even was a first cause let alone what it could be. I see no reason at all for this conclusion.
But lets say it was a being with agency. How do you know it's even still around? What if it ceased to be upon the creation of the universe? How would we know?
"We should care what that entity thinks about our morality if it has revealed to us that it cares about our morality."
This doesn't answer my question at all. I asked why we should care what the entity thinks our morality should be and you responded with essentially "Because we should."
My original comment was about the claims of objective morality. And so far none of the points I brought up have been answered.
1:17:40
Great exchange!
Matt: I could say, why should I care about morality?
John: Because it's morality.
WTF? He is taking the doorknob approach right there, circular reasoning. More accurately, it may be called a tautology.
What came next was exceedingly condescending.
John: Ultimately everything has a point at which asking further scrutiny of it is just proving your failure to understand what you're asking...Asking why should I do what I do is an incoherent question.
I find it equally amazing, hilarious and irritating that John himself is actually going through the comments and debating XD Truly pitiful
Around 01:12:00, he begins talking about his friend who doesn't feel what people feel still being able to do good.
Right, he is part of a society or group telling him what is good and he just has to copycat to be considered good.
Thanos is an example of someone who thought he was good based on his goal.
Was his goal bad? No, not by my standard, he wanted to figure out how to deal with the collapse of society, but his solution partly betrayed his goal as societies likely did collapse and likely did what they always do if enough survive, they rebuild.
Coming up with villains requires us to create a goal and remove a lot of mechanism that might prevent us from becoming a ming the villain.
Look at the character of Superman.
He has the power to rule the world, and possibly more. He instead chooses to try to be human, and protects people when he can, which is often.
Despite his goals, he is rarely written to go the route of Tony Stark, seeking to blanket the world in a shelf, and give it a mighty sword (Not saying it doesn't happen in certain versions).
"I don't use my brain, but my mind!"
That is why you are sooooo wrong!!!
Joy Bradford all evidence points the mind being an emergent property of the brain.
"not learning over time" is an interesting point for a theist to use. Fascinating
"I'm a dualistic"
Oh ho hoh no no nonono
“You’re a dualist?!”
CLICK.
I remember that call haha
Short answer: no
Is John a presuppositionalist? The dirty doorknob and his laughably absurd "evasion" of it seems to cut awfully close to that line of thinking.
At 1:54:35 John Ferrer assumes the position and shows us what he looks like when he takes a shit. He pushes hard with no relief, then Matt Dillahunty makes his closing statement and gives the audience the laxative they've been waiting for.