Should Religious People Legislate THEIR Beliefs?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ก.ย. 2024
- The Richard Dawkins Foundation wants to disqualify religious people from enshrining their beliefs in law. But this fails for two reasons. First, you can’t prohibit someone from legislating their moral beliefs since all laws legislate someone’s moral beliefs. That’s how the legislative process works.
Second, not all beliefs held by religious people are strictly religious beliefs. This distinction is really important since some want to simply label a belief as “religious” just so they can reject it. As it turns out, no one is trying to legislate strictly religious beliefs. And the examples typically given as religious beliefs are held with equal confidence by non-religious people.
------------------------------- GIVING -------------------------------
SUPPORT THE WORK OF RPL: www.str.org/re...
------------------------------- SOCIALS -------------------------------
Follow Red Pen Logic with Mr. B:
Facebook: /
Twitter: / redpenlogic
Instagram: / redpenlogic
Follow Stand to Reason:
TH-cam: / strvideo. .
Facebook: / standtoreaso. .
Twitter: / strtweets
![โฮ่ง! (SUGOI) - LYKN [ OFFICIAL MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nFp4zjAARFs/mqdefault.jpg)
![[UNCUT] The Loyal Pin ปิ่นภักดิ์ EP.6 (2/4)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/GgeGQOP10RQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really GLORIOUS BEARD, Edward! - And the video was a K.O. ! 💪
That’s right.! Thanks Redpen “Edward” Logic
Hi, my wife and father in law both serves in our church but they support a party that legislate abortions, same sex marriage and sex change, are they being godly? Thanks!
@@chormartinez9555 the bible supports abortion and the bible actually details how it's was done back in the day.
@@johnmatthews3532 Red Pen Logic just made a video explaining how it doesn't
@@chormartinez9555 John Matthews (comment above) is a troll, if not a deliberate liar.
" _You shall not kill_ " is one of the ten commandments ... so no abortion.
“ _A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the Lord your God_ " (Deut. 22;5), and " _You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination._ " (Lev. 18;22). All three commands dating back to roughly 1500 BC, and God hasn't changed since, however much we did.
God is the designer and creator of life, and it belongs to him only.
The sum of every argument ever made by Richard Dawkins is "I believe I am the smartest person I know, so I am always right." I tend to ignore him always.
Your opinion of Dawkins is my opinion of pretty much all atheists
@@holycrusader7804 fax 🤣🤣🤣
It doesn't help that the Bible is so poorly understood by Dawkins...
That he actually thinks that evolution disproves it.
And, anyone not convinced of this personal belief of Dawkins, should apparently be mocked/ridiculed for not agreeing with him on this topic.
Rather poor debate technique.
@@holycrusader7804 the blindness of atheists really just kinda SHOUTS to me that the Bible is true. You give em clear cut evidence and they insist on hardening their hearts
Too bad he would be weeping and gnashing his teeth on the other side. Actually he is stupid becuase he has not done due diligence when majority of mankind believes in God, so there has to be some sanctity and truth! Wish he did adequate research on God as he did with Science.
If you say the word really enough it makes it true. It is the law of Twitter.
That's why I really say that Jeffery Epstein really really didn't kill himself
Some like to throw in "literally" just to be sure.
Got it. “It is literally true that Jeffrey Epstein really really did not kill himself.”
@@joegeorge9869 correct
This single comment has destroyed the entire argument in the video.
It seems to me that “which moral beliefs should be legislated?” is a more appropriate question than “whose moral beliefs should be legislated?”
A more pertinent question is why should this or that moral belief be made law! If the only reason my holy text says it has to be this way then the reason is bad and shouldn't be used.
@@ronaldskeet9880 Typically things are made into law because there is a majority consensus that the law provides some benefit and restricts some action that causes negative outcomes. Even if the moral belief were found in a Holy Text alone it likely would not be enshrined into law without a majority consensus. So, where the belief originates from is really not a major concern.
@@ronaldskeet9880 .... A more pertinent question for you is "why should YOU decide that a moral belief is illegitimate because it supposedly comes from religious text that YOU don't agree with, nor have you researched in any real way...??"
The reason for a moral belief is less relevent than whether or not the moral belief aligns with reality... and EVERYONE has a voice in whether or not that moral belief gets legislated, regardless of the reason for that belief. If a moral position cannot stand up to scrutiny, it shouldn't be law, regardless of the source of that belief.
So, I'll stack my religious texts moral oughts & ought nots against your secular moral relativism all day, any day... my moral beliefs wouldn't wither under scrutiny, BECAUSE they correspond with reality.
@@smashleyscott8272 I agree if you can support your morality based on the the good / harm it does, I don't care where it comes from. On the other hand if the only claim to it being moral is it in an holy book, then I will have major issues. If it is claimed that because an holy book says kill witches, kill homosexuals (Christian and Muslim) and people do want such thing then I have more than issues.
@@ronaldskeet9880 ...
1- by what standard do you judge "good" or "harm"...??
2- are YOU the moral author or arbitor that anyone ought to be concerned for what YOU care about...??
It would be interesting to see Dawkins explain which laws are religious beliefs and which aren't especially since most of the "common law" ideas can be found in the ten commandments. Is stealing or the right to property a religious belief, or is it natural law (no child has to be taught the concept of "mine"). Is it religious belief to say you won't lie in court (bear false witness)? I'm thinking Dawkins has never really put much thought into where laws come from, what makes laws good, and how you need people with a steady morale compass to help you keep your laws from hurting people.
Common laws predate the commandments. There were laws against murder and rape long time before anyone had heard of christianity. The commandments don't even mention rape. In fact, most of the commandments talks about god and how you can't hurt his feelings.
Humans constructed morals. Whether or not you like the idea that it's all subjective, I advise you to stop and actually observe how humans act. They act subjectively regardless of whether they think so or not.
@@challengingoldhollywoodmyt2934 Before christainity absolutely, you can find similar in the hebrew book.
@@challengingoldhollywoodmyt2934 1: God's "feelings" are never mentioned in the commandments.
2: Buddy, you are litterally arguing objective and subjective morality at the same time. Common law has always had the idea that murder is law, so morality is subjective?
3: yes, humans do think subjectively, but this is not proof that morals as a whole are subjective. It's proof that humans are imperfect creatures
Dawkins is not great at thinking through ideas. Most of his moral prescriptions can best be described as "theological inertia"... People will be fine without religion because they "just know" that laws and morals derived from 2000 years of Christianity happen to be intrinsically, intuitively right (except for sex stuff).
Again, more religious thinking here. MOST if not ALL of the "10 Commandments" (there are many, many more, you just choose to ignore) had already been codified in secular bodies of law, i.e., Hammurabi's Code, no god necessary, just human secular beliefs.
More importantly, what do you guys think of beard?
[Only positive comments allowed :)]
You should really
Really
Really
Really
Really
Really
Really
Really
Really
Really
Really
Really
Keep the beard
Considering the campaign people have for William Lane Craig to bring back his beard I'd say keep it or you'll get people petitioning.
Looks good, but you should trim it up a bit. No one wants a scruffy teacher. Unless you're being taught how to survive in the wilderness, then I think it's required.
Hey man!
Beard looks pretty good, let it grow a little more!
If you're comfortable and your wife likes it then by all means keep it
Another note on that: almost every single time I get into a discussion with an atheist about abortion - if they get mad, they are the ones who bring up the Bible first.
I've already brought up
-Science (any biologist agrees: life begins at conception. Unique human DNA, etc.)
-Philosophy ('we both agree that it's wrong to murder - so if it's a life, it's wrong, yeah?')
and/or
-Simple common sense (the 'driving at night, see a silhouette that may be a person: do you stop or ram it and hope it's not? Do you see my perspective?' one, etc.)
(or, potentially, I don't even have time to get to one of these before they start getting mad about the Bible or saying 'Are you a Christian?!')
But sure, I'm the one who's zealously enforcing their doctrinal beliefs while blindly supposing I know exactly what my opponent believes because a 'thought-leader' said so. ;)
I’ve never heard the common sense argument before. That’s really well put!
@@Tyler-Hoskins Ah, glad to have shared it here, then!
To help ground it a bit more, I borrowed a bit from the late Nabeel Qureshi. Dissect the silhouette example:
-If you stop, and it's not a human, you potentially just kept your car's windshield clean
-If you stop, and it is human, you avoided killing someone
-If you don't stop, and it's not a human, you potentially kill an animal or just feel a bump if it's a weird stick in the wind
-If you don't stop and it's a human, you're (at the very least) guilty of manslaughter
In either case of 'not stopping', if you're uncertain of it being human, you're quite likely to be guilty of *at least* criminal negligence.
====
Replace the 'driving at night' and 'silhouette' with 'abortion' and 'fetus.' It actually gets more intense, not less:
-If you don't commit abortion, and it's not a human, then it becomes one (unless stillbirth or some other tragedy strikes)
-If you don't commit abortion, and it is human, you didn't kill a human being
-If you do commit abortion, and it's not a human: then it was just a procedure (with a wide variety of health detriments: don't believe the lies that abortions are 'safe')
-If you do commit abortion, and it is a human: you've killed a human being
Considering the science (i.e. completely unique human DNA at conception, it's not part of the mother's body, mother's body designed to nurture the results of conception so it's not a parasite but a necessary part of the human lifecycle, etc.), it's incredibly difficult to say it's not a human.
Just knowing some more of this (having more background) can help you state the example with more ease.
Two more notes that may be handy:
An example:
-A fireman goes into a burning house, but he only manages to save one of the people that was in there. The other dies in the fire.
-A hitman goes into a house that's perfectly fine, and murders one occupant at the hire of the other.
-Which one is a tragedy, and which one is a crime?
And a note:
Abortion is never medically necessary.
If a life-saving surgery must be performed and the child dies, that's a tragic side effect.
Taking the extra time to kill the baby before performing the surgery (inserting extra steps: i.e. 'open womb, kill child via knife/vacuum/saline' etc.) would delay the life-saving surgery, and potentially risk the mother's life as well.
Live Action here on TH-cam has some great pro-life vids tackling a lot of the abortion arguments (such as the rape/incest example, which requires a bit more tact than perhaps a TH-cam comment can allow: including testimonies of women who were the victims of such circumstances yet chose life).
@@Derek_Baumgartner that’s some really good info! Thanks, Ike… err… Derek 😆
@Derek Baumgartner that is unfortunate the atheist had to bring up the Bible before you did. Maybe that should give you a hint that it is literally impossible to derive an "ought" from science, philosophy, and common sense, and even the atheist knows God's word would have to be the only thing that can objectively define if it did indeed exist.
@@IAmisMaster You're correct that we need God in the paradigm for there to be an objective right and wrong.
However, in many a conversation - especially one not currently about the foundations of morality, but a specific act such as abortion - the person you're speaking to does not view God or His Word as authoritative.
It'd be similar to a Muslim walking up to either of us and saying "Well, since the Qur'an says this, you should agree with me." We don't think the Qu'ran is the Word of God, so we'd disagree with him that because the Qu'ran says something we should agree with it - and that'd be even if we do actually agree about the thing. Our objection would be because that reasoning would be wrong, and our subject shifts to disagreeing about the Qu'ran rather than remaining on the original topic.
-----
And, frankly, as I've heard it put, "God doesn't make stupid laws."
God has given us a conscience and maaaany things are incredibly clear to see (Romans 1) even to those who do not know God or His Word.
For many people who have been 'programmed' to believe that abortion is fine through sloganism ('Women have a right to choose!' [choose.. what? the sentence is incomplete. Should they be free to choose murder? To choose suicide?], etc.), pulling the thread a bit and removing one of the pillars of their worldview may indeed be part of the path that takes them away from their current worldview and into one that is open to hearing the Gospel.
Indeed, a lot of folks hate Christianity because many Christians are opposed to abortion. But if you show that it's logical to oppose abortion even if you're not a Christian, they suddenly lose one reason to hate Christ if they relent that point. "Oh, the Christians had a good reason" suddenly makes thinking 'all Christians are backwards/the Bible is stupid' less plausible.
And, frankly, even if someone doesn't come closer to Christ but does come closer to stopping support of the murder of the unborn, the conversation was productive.
And even further, we're not to cast our "pearls before swine" (Matthew 7): if someone is not in a position to accept God's Word yet, giving them a reason to 'turn again and rend you' strikes me not only unwise, but against what Jesus taught.
====
I recall an example Greg Koukl gave in his book "Tactics" (highly recommend giving it a read): he only had a few moments to speak with a woman at a counter while purchasing something at the store.
He had time for a short conversation, so he asked her about her strange necklace. The woman said she wore it because she was a pagan - a Wiccan, specifically.
He clarified something about what she believed, then used it to pose a question: "If you respect all life, then I suppose you're pro-life on the abortion issue."
She said she was pro-choice.
"Isn't that an unusual position for someone in Wicca to take - I mean, since you're committed to respecting all life?"
She admitted it was odd, then said "I know I could never do that, I could never kill a baby. I wouldn't do anything to hurt someone else, because it would come back on me."
Greg notes in his book that since she used the term 'kill a baby' that he no longer had to hold back and say 'abort', but use her terminology of '[killing] a baby.'
"Shouldn't we do something to stop [other women] from killing babies?"
She falls back on the 'women should have a choice' slogan, and also parroted the idea that it's alright in situations such as incest.
So, Greg took it to the logical conclusion to show her view's inconsistencies.
"Let's just say I had a two-year-old child standing next to me as a result of incest. On your view, it seems, I should have the liberty to kill her. Is that right?"
Customers were lining up, so that was about the end of the conversation. But the woman had lost confidence in her voice after that last statement used common sense to draw the logical conclusions out of her worldview.
====
Now, I may be misunderstanding you, but your saying that it's "unfortunate the atheist had to bring up the Bible before you did" seems to imply that Christians should always be the first person in a conversation about any important topic to point to the Bible.
But that doesn't seem to follow, to me, nor is it something that even Jesus practiced in many of His conversations during His earthly ministry (indeed, just look at His parables: He didn't merely and only quote what we now call the Old Testament).
Am I misunderstanding you? What did you mean when you said that it's 'unfortunate'?
And what do you think is the wiser move to do, instead?
This is why a mere unguided random process does not make sense.
Mr Dawkins is, consistent with his unguided beliefs.
Subjectivity < Objectivity.
GOOD WORK Mr. B
Also, the claim that religious peoples’ beliefs shouldn’t be put into law... is a belief in and of itself XD
Good point. In truth dawkins' hatred of religion is HIS religion
@@shimauma42 Plus dont forger the religion he preaches daily:
“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion-a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint-and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it-the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."
@@i7Qp4rQ Well, let's not take it that far, man. This line of argumentation has actually turned a lot of Christians away from God. They have looked at the science and have seen the evidence for evolution but they believe in this false dichotomy that is preached to them that they have to either believe in science or believe in God. And a lot of the time they choose science and they forsake God, despite the fact that they can go together perfectly. There are also studies that show that the belief in evolution has no effect on one's religiosity. So again, this line of argumentation is actually turned many people against to God for the sole reason that they love science, which at face value should be no motivation to depart from the faith. But because of the culture wars that we have going on, that's just how it is.. it has nothing to do with God or anything but rather everything to do with the culture wars. 😔
@@noahm44
Theistic evolution is despised compromising by both parties. It _only_ works if you mutilate what the Bible actually says with your own agendas.
@@noahm44 Science and God don't go together at all lmfao. You're a step above other Christians because you recognize science as truth, but you still have a ways to go. Science destroys belief in God over and over.
Mr. B has an amazing beard, but his bald head is even more amazing. With it, he reflects the bad logic back at the un-based. Keep up the great work Mr. B!
I think Mr. B’s dome is like Captain America’s shield. It probably violates the laws of physics somehow.
I agree about the beautiful bald head and the lovely beard. I don't think it's possible to reflect logic anywhere. Lol
There's also the Genetic Fallacy. An argument isnt invalid just because of where it comes from, so, an argument isnt wrong just because its religious, it's wrong based on its syllogisms. It would follow then, that a policy is not invalid just because its religious in origin.
Yeah good point.
@@SOMAnxg You assume the "supernatural" is separate from the "natural". Personally I prefer the distinction of physical and metaphysical. The metaphysical gives form to the physical meaning the metaphysical very much interacts with physical. Natural and supernatural work the same but it is also important to mention that theologians also make the distinction of preternatural so maybe associating metaphysical with supernatural is wrong. Regardless, let's take the idea of "zeitgeists" which literally means the "spirit of the times". This spirit can influence public movements meaning, while being an immaterial thing, the zeitgeist has very real and physical effects. Ideas, concepts, and even memes and symbolism work very much the same way so I think it's a nonsequitor to say that "supernatural" means outside of nature and we are dealing with the natural world, therefore supernatural claims cannot be logical. Indeed, logic itself is very supernatural. Ask a tree or animal to explain to you the philosophy of logic using logic. The word logic itself come from the Logos, which can be seen as "supernatural" as logos gives form to the world we live in.
@@SOMAnxg Learn about the Essence/Energy Distiction. We cant know God in his essence but we can know him by his "energies" or how he interacts with the world. So while there is an aspect of God outside of what we call Creation, there is an aspect that interacts with us directly and every church is proof of that because if the archetype of Christ had no affect in the world, there wouldn't be people changing the world in his name, thus Jesus/God interacts by proxy through us. No different than how Kek helped the trolls meme Trump into office. Spirits interact with the world by giving us influence and inspiration. It's literally in the word, inSPIRation. You may be full of yourself and think spirits arent real or provable because you cant touch them but that doesnt deny that our ancestors had knowledge of this and programmed it into our language.
@@SOMAnxg There is no proving. Zeitgeist literally means spirit of the times. Zeit - the times, geist - ghost or spirit. You cant use scientism to weasel your way out of that one.
@@SOMAnxg "no empirical proof" yeah okay Aristotelian. I speak with God every day. It's very empirical if you shut up, calm your mind, and stop being prideful for a minute.
Excellent, I’ve always had an issue with the “you can’t legislate morality” argument
check out Dr. Frank Turek's talk, "Morality: Should it be Legislated?" which goes into more depth on it if you want to :)
th-cam.com/users/results?search_query=frank+turek+legislating+morality+
I think the actual argument is that you can’t expect legislation to make people moral.
@@jeycee32 that was my understanding. Free will prevents any amount of legislation from guaranteeing an outcome.
@@jeycee32 that would make more sense but I’ve seen many memes where they state “you can’t legislate morality” then reference some law they oppose like abortion.
oh, governments can legislate morality, as long as it is secular
Also good morning to Pastor Mike Winger, Jon McCrea, and Purple Pill Philosophy! 😊
I think it was C.S. Lewis who said that all of us have a sense of right and wrong, which proves a higher, absolute right. He went on to say that occasionally you'll run across someone who will debate you on this saying there is no such thing as right and wrong, but if you pull a pistol out and point it at his head he immediately declares that to be wrong. So if shooting him is wrong, then not shooting him would be right, and the person who said there is no such thing as right and wrong has just nullified his case.
But that could just as easily come from evolutionary psychology and not a god.
@@daonedaonly942 It's weird how since Darwin people throw around this word "evolution" or in your case evolutionary. You have a problem though. evolutionary psychology must take place within the psyche of a fully developed person. Evolution still hasn't figured out how that happened. They say there was a Big Bang, but by definition that means there must have been a Big Banger. Some are trying to say that humans were created by aliens. Fine, who created the aliens. Others talk about multiverses, but who created these multiverses. One way or the other God created all life, and all universes, and He did it out of nothing.
@@rockandsandapologetics7254 by definition the big bang requires a big banger? Why? Why must there be a creator for these things? There doesnt. There could be, doesnt mean there must be. Just because it might seem intuitive or the bible says so really doesnt mean anything. And, evolutionary physiology can explain why we believe certain things are right and wrong. Evolution can even provide a cause for consciousness. As creatures evolved and became more complex, they required a mind that was complex enough to interact with their surroundings. And the thing is, our psyche isnt that much different from the animals that live among us. They form communities, communicate, have bonds, feel pain, can empathize, some can even use tools and laugh. It just seems that we can rationalize and reason a bit better. Is it that hard to imagine how evolution could have led to us?
@@daonedaonly942 Let's suppose you can explain a cause for a consciousness via evolution. You still cannot explain a cause for being. Many of the past scientists were Christians. Would you argue with Galileo, or Newton. But you should listen to C.S. Lewis, because he used to be an atheist. Or read the book by Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ. This book was the result of his studying Scripture to prove it wrong. When he couldn't write the book he was assigned to write his wife urged him to write a book about his journey to concluding that Jesus was, in fact the Christ. Understand, these are works written after God showed them the Truth. Did you know Einstein wanted to prove the Universe was eternal? That's what his theory of General Relativity was all about, only it proved there WAS a beginning. So he added a fudge factor to make it look like the Universe always existed. 3 years later a Cosmologist performing an experiment during a Solar eclipse proved the Universe had a beginning. 2 years later a Mathematician in Russia exposed Einstein's "fudge factor." A few years later a Danish astronomer proved that the Universe was expanding. Then in 1927 Edwin Hubble watched the Universe expanding through a 100 inch telescope at an observatory. He sent word to Einstein, inviting him to come and view it himself. 2 years went by and in 1929 Einstein finally made his way to see Hubble and look through his telescope. After doing so he said, "I want to know how God did this. I'm not interested in how He created this or that, or the spectrum of this substance or that substance. I simply want to know the mind of God as He created." We have no record of Einstein becoming a Christian, but he definitely believed God created the Heavens and the earth.
@@rockandsandapologetics7254 I dont care how many scientists were or are Christian's as I could just as easily point out the many athiest scientists and the many who have left their faith. In fact I used to be a Christian myself. Until there is solid evidence for a god, I just cant believe it. And thats from someone who tried so desperately to prove there was a god.
Good Morning, Mr. B! Glad you’re here today!
Edit: the beard suits you, brother! 😄
Honestly, I didn't notice the beard. I thought you always had one. Hahaha It suits you. So natural looking.
I'm sick of unreligious people seeking to enshrine their "beliefs" into law. They haven't earned the right.
I'm really really really really really really glad I found your channel from Good Fight Ministries.🤗🙏
Glad you’re here!
Here from Goodfight Ministries. Really enjoying the channel.
Aristotle: you can't believe what you don't know.
I hope I remember this video when I find a situation when I need it. Keep up the good work
Very well put. This has become one of the biggest debates I've been having with people I know lately, and this explanation is succinct, articulate, and exactly what I need to help better communicate this very topic.
I'm sure you are equally eager and accepting to allow Muslim influence of their religion on our laws as well, following this logic.
Hold on, I'll start playing some music for the inevitable moment when you start dancing around that.
@@piercemchugh4509 Except I'm not going to dance around it. Why would I expect Muslims to be excluded from supporting their beliefs just because I disagree with those beliefs? It would be hypocritical of me to deny them the ability to fight for their morals being upheld in law while fighting for my right to do the same. I just won't vote for that person to be elected into public office. Nice straw man you got there, though.
@@EternalWolf88 True. Fair enough. You are likely pretty safe from having to follow any other religious dogma except your own when majority of politicians including the president are only Christian or some form of Catholic a s well as majority of people. (I mean just try to name someone who isn't.)
Then I will concede that point and bring up another.
The law is meant to be influenced and is written by morality, yes.
Morality based on logic and reasoning that stands on its own.
Not a divine authoritarian dictatorship of divine nature based on nothing but what an unproven dictator commands with no logic behind it.
That's a dogmatic theocracy, not a democracy republic.
Does God have reasoning behind his rules? Great, reference those reasons and we can talk. But our founding fathers did not want law set just because "Gawd said so" period.
Or does God not have reasons behind his rules? In which case its a pointless totalitarian authority. Might does not equal right in America.
Religious freedom means not forcing any specific religion into law. Making laws based on religion for the sake of being based on religion is the most un-American thing I can think of. So what are the moral values behind your proposals, exactly?
Are you sure you are fighting for your rights? Or to impose on others rights?
Because as of now it seems Christians want to impose limitations on OTHER people's rights.
Banning homosexuals from marriage.
Banning trans people from having surgeries.
Banning women from authority over their own biological management.
These things are Not the right to practice their own choices, which Christians already have. Instead, it's forcing choices on others who don't follow their religion.
You guys are definitely on the offensive for as much as you cry that you are being attacked.
@@piercemchugh4509 I can't really argue about needing reasonable and logical reasons to uphold certain morals in law. Arguing simply from authority gets you nowhere when the people opposing you don't respect that authority. So using the Bible as the source for our reasons regarding any given topic falls flat with most people.
So that being said, I would argue that God of course had logical reasons to the laws He put into place. Let's take homosexuality for example. It serves no real purpose is building a society. Two men, or two women, having sexual relations doesn't produce children, which are needed to further society. If the population declines, the society collapses and dies.
I will concede, though, that while I don't support or agree with homosexuality as a whole, I don't think the government really has any place in what two consenting adults do behind closed doors. And before you mention what they do outside of closed doors, I'd say straight couples should keep their sex behind closed doors as well. There's a time and place for sex, and in public ain't it.
As for the marriage aspect, it has traditionally been a social contract between two adults of opposite genders to take care of each other and produce and raise children. The legal benefits of marriage are to encourage people getting married and having kids so that society continues to grow. That definition has certainly changed in the past decade or two, but I personally hold it to the traditional definition.
Since homosexual couples can't have kids, it stands to reason, based on this traditional understanding of marriage, that they have no reason to be allowed marriage. And as such they also would not be granted the legal benefits of marriage.
As for trans people getting surgeries, I don't think the government should have a hand in that either AS FAR AS ADULTS ARE CONCERNED. I do not support allowing surgeries for children, and I am vehemently opposed to it. Children don't have the understanding or forethought capable of making these decisions. Children are not mentally capable of making such life altering choices. Children cannot comprehend the long term effects of these things, and if they change their minds later on, the effects are far harder to reverse than the media would have you believe, if not outright impossible. If they still feel the same way when they're 18, fine. Go ahead. I may still strongly disagree with it, but if an adult wants a body modification surgery, go for it.
In regards to allowing women authority over their own biological management, I'm not opposed to that either. She's free to do whatever she wants with her body. If a woman doesn't want to have sex, she shouldn't be forced to. And rape is already a criminal offense, so I don't think we need to argue that point. I'm also open to perhaps harsher penalties to rapists in general.
Abortion, however, violates another human beings right to their own bodily autonomy, even if they aren't aware of that autonomy yet. Even scientifically speaking, human life starts at conception. As recently as 2018, the University of Chicago conducted a survey among biologists as to when life begins, scientifically speaking. As it turns out, about 96% agree that life starts at conception. So abortion ends the life of another human being. And ending the life of another human being for no good reason is murder, (and simply not wanting kids is not a good reason) that would mean abortion should be considered murder.
There are also far too many other birth control options to really need to advocate for ending a babies life to keep from becoming a parent. Condoms, birth control shots and pills, or even the best option, abstinence. Sure, only abstinence is a surefire way to keep from getting pregnant, but options to keep yourself from getting pregnant in the first place do exist.
Honestly, I'd say this is a fair argument against premarital sex. Sex leads to pregnancy. Sex, be it the result of evolution or intelligent design, is used to reproduce. That's its purpose. It feels goo and relieves stress, among many other beneficial side effects, but its ultimate purpose is reproduction. And having sex before you've secured at least some form of support structure can, and often does, result in unwanted children that the mothers can't support on their own. Not should they have to. The father should absolutely be a part of their lives, and one of the best ways to ensure that is getting married before having sex.
@@EternalWolf88
I would argue that God of course had logical reasons to the laws He put into place
- So if God is using objective moral reasoning that means that there is in fact reasoning separate from God's will. Therefore, God is not necessary for morality. As it can be derived by logic alone.
If the population declines, the society collapses and dies.
- This is why you ban people's free will?
So by that logic, should we force homosexuals to marry opposite gender?
As a matter of fact, should we force straight people to marry? What if someone doesn't want to marry? They are not contributing to the repopulation either. Neither are priests or nuns. There's no reason to believe society will "run out of straight people". Is your sexuality so fragile you think everyone will convert to homosexuality.
There is also the fact that you don't need to marry to repopulate. Ever hear of a sperm bank?
I'm sorry but using this reasoning to ban people from being happy with someone they love isn't just cruel, it's nonsensical.
There's a time and place for sex, and in public ain't it.
- Nobody is having sex in public.
That definition has certainly changed in the past decade or two, but I personally hold it to the traditional definition.
- And you think that you have the right to hold everyone else to it as well. Welcome to the 21st Century. A little history for you. I know christians like to think they invented everything but marriage dates before Christ to the land of Mesopotamia 2350 B.C. So you are talking pretty ignorantly when you say what it was "meant for"/ It is believed to have been meant for binding women to men and ensuring who was the proper hereditary father.
Most people would agree that they don't want children making those kinds of decisions. You are now disassociating yourself with two mainstream positions of people of your faith when you say you "have no problem with it." Just feel like you should know that.
If a woman doesn't want to have sex, she shouldn't be forced to.
- Here we go. The decision to have sex is not the decision to have a child.
If it was, nobody would have to debate because each side would be getting exactly what they want.
The issue is whether participating in one human right warrants the forfeit of the other human right.
The answer is no. Human rights don't work like that. Never have. Name one right in history which participating in it forfeits another human right. (Besides slavery).
There is no point where a woman forfeits her rights over management over her own biology. That's pure radicalism.
And rape is already a criminal offense so I don't think we need to argue that point
- But the issue is whether it is okay to dump a constant traumatic reminder of the rape that ruins the woman's life on her and force her to keep it.
That is cruel and unusual punishment for someone who did nothing wrong.
As it turns out, about 96% agree that life starts at conception.
- That's not human life being referenced. The life of a cell is not the life of a human being.
We are not cells. Otherwise, playing with yourself would be mass murder.
Eggs are not humans. Sperm is not human. Just because they are in the same place does not make it human.
Most people would agree we are more than our cells.
What makes it human at the very least is the existence of a brain.
Hard to debate someone is alive without a brain. Unless they are conservative.
- Something is also by definition not developed if it is still in development.
Destroying a cell is not killing a human anymore than burning a blueprint with a match is arson of a building. Or burning the wood to be used to make a building.
So yes, a cell is alive and the process has begun, but has not completed. At least without a brain.
- There is also the point that I do not care if it is alive. That's right. You read correctly.
It is the lesser of two evils.
Nobody has a right to invade and survive off of someone else's biology against their will.
That's ridiculous.
I can't steal your food when I am starving.
I can't invade your home when I am freezing.
Why would I be able to inhabit a woman's belly and force her to carry me through labor she didn't intend? Who it came from is neither here nor there.
- Would you support a law that mandated that a parent is compelled to donate non vital organs and blood to their dying child?
If not, I would ask you why not?
The pro life argument fits perfectly...
1. The child is indisputably alive.
2. The parents are responsible for birthing that child. That doesn't change when it leaves the womb.
3. The parents are not committed to a relationship comparable to a parasitic one, so they have nothing to complain about.
so why wouldn't we compel them to donate? Hopefully because we see a more fundamental right to your own person that gives the right to life purpose.
The CHILD/fetus has only a right to its own life, not its mothers.
There are also far too many other birth control options to really need to advocate for ending a babies life to keep from becoming a parent
-
Condoms in the real world are about 85% effective. So with 15 out of every 100 "bangs", you're potentially knocking someone up.
The pill is 99% effective, but only if you take it like clockwork. People aren't clockwork.
IUD's are 99%+ effective, but out of a million woman that still gives a 1000+ woman that get pregnant.
What a lot of them expected was for the contraceptive methods to work. These numbers are constantly increasing as time goes on. You put too much faith in this pill and the wrap.
Honestly, I'd say this is a fair argument against premarital sex
- Its not even close. You have no right to take away peoples right to sex and force them into a life of celibacy like a nun. That's just not your place, sir. You are quite arrogant in my opinion. Worse still you are ignorant. A dangerous combination.
Even ignoring that, accidents still happen. Yes, accidents. Unintentional occurrences are accidents.
Teenagers should not have their lives ruined because of a error in judgement they made before they are considered old enough to decide if they should smoke and drink or go to war. Victims should not be forced to take care of their assailant's offspring.
Cry about how soulless I am. I agree. No such thing as a soul. What I do have is a non-bias sense of justice.
"Likewise arguments for traditional marriage can be made without quoting chapter and verse."
Doesn't give a single argument for traditional marriage.
I scrolled down looking for another comment like this just to simply Like it.
I guess that just wasn’t in the scope of the video. While the statement is true, I don’t know of any arguments for it that aren’t entirely rooted in religion.
What disappoints me the most here is the thousands of people liking and retweeting it. That says something.
It means that their god is in their bellies. Which we already knew.
What dissappoints me is the number of people missing the point he was trying to make. He is saying that if for example the only reason your against gay marriage is b/c of your religion then maybe just maybe you shouldn't try to legislate based on that. Far too many fundonmilis (usually) think that American is founded on Christain beliefs and therefore it should be the law of the land. Hint in case you can't tell American is not founded on Christain beliefs the first amendment goes against Christian beliefs and so does the starting words of the Constituion where we say all men are created equal yet reading your bible (tho tbf mainly OT, but, the OT is still apart of the faith) you will see that is not true.
@@Qballl No, that's not what the tweet is saying at all. You just missed the point of the tweet itself _and_ the point of this video, and then you project your own view onto the tweet itself (you're putting words into his mouth). The tweet literally generalises religious people to stop having their beliefs being enshrined in the law, but the problem is literally everything in the law is founded on beliefs, whether religious or not. And somehow beliefs held by religious people are disallowed? The second point made in the video is that not all beliefs held by religious people are strictly religious beliefs. The tweet is under the assumption that religious people _only_ have religious beliefs, which is false, and then discriminates religious people completely. So much for a "foundation on reason and science". Again, you completely missed the point of everything. And what the hell is "fundonmilis"?
@@LightKeyDarkBlade @LightKeyDarkBlade To your last point a typo (can't always type right) meant fundamentalists. Yes it is a bit of a bad typo but it happens only human. Now to address your other point I believe the point of the tweet was more along the lines of people who try to like I said legislate against gay marriage b/c of their belief and have no there reason than that. And yes if you use a loose enough definition of belief anything can be a belief therefore you can base something on it.
@@LightKeyDarkBlade if a muslim passed sharia law in congress would you be okay with it? no? why? that's the point of his tweet... keep your religion to yourself
Anyone else want to now take the discussion down the road of "but where do we get these universal moral laws such as murder is wrong?" - Did someone say C.S. Lewis? ;)
Good video, brother.
*coughMERECHRISTIANITYcough*
I'm an atheist, but the Chronicals of Narnia will always be dear to me. He was a wonderful writer.
@@pollypockets508 That he was. Have you read his space trilogy? _Out of the Silent Planet_ , _Perelandra_ , _That Hideous Strength_ .
They're not universal for a start. Different cultures have different views.
And morals also change. Racism was once universally accepted.
@challengingoldhollywoodmyt2934 - The idea that "all men are created equal, and endowed by God with certain inalienable rights" is a political statement couched in religious terms. No religion actually says that in such positivist terms. God actually recognizes that some are going to be successful and some aren't, but that doesn't make them less worthy of love.
I kept erasing all the clever ways I wanted to simply say: I REALLY love and appreciate these. Thanks for making these!
"Stop forcing your religion on me so I can force secularism on you!"
-- Atheists
Sometimes i feel like Dawkins doesn't understand anything about Religion.
Sometimes I wonder that too...
Well he doesnt. He only mocks it but never give a reasonable response. Hes acting like those 5 year old kids throwing a tantrum. I pray that when Judgement comes, I want God to make those ignorant and arrogant atheists see us on those white thrones beside Jesus. I wanna see the look on their faces when they realise how stupid and foolish they were and how they had many chances but never taken it. I always approach atheist with Love and reasonableness but nooooo they always resort to tantrums. So I give up with them who I see will clearly get our concersation nowhere. But I would love the satisfaction to see their faces on the Great White Throne judgement. Praise Jesus!
@@diollinebranderson6553 I'm sorry, but you are horrible. Some atheist insults you and your first thought is to cast him down into hell and have him grovel before you? There are people in this world I legitimately despise but the thought of making them crawl before me, and be tortured, I wouldn't admit to wanting that out loud nor would I ask for it if I did want it.
@@nathanjasper512 my apologies. I posted that after having an debate with a muslim and I was so pissed how he was going off tracks, blatantly avoiding our main topic of discussion. So it aint Christian-like of me.
But yea, so you just gonna act like most Christians arent trying their best to spread the Gospel? The Bible also says that those who martyred for Christ are in Heaven, asking when Jesus will return to also avenge them, but God replied to wait . God aint just of love. He is also Holy, just and vengeance.
We love you now(as that should be what all Christians have) thats why many of us are trying yo convert people. Not with force, but with compassion (though its unquestionable that many christians doesnt follow this way😂. I mean even great men of Faith like Paul, Peter, Elijah, David fell short of God's standards. Thats why its always best to look at Jesus' works and teaching. )
But yea, then it is you to decide. But I wish to look at the faces of those that were arrogant and soffers when judgement comes (like Richard dawkins). But I am sure that it wont happen like I wish. For God's way is better.
@@diollinebranderson6553 so you want people to burn in hell for millions of billions of trillions of years. Very moral of you.
I'm torn btw what I like most: the sound logic of Mr. B's argument, his creative wit, or the his wicked usage of winks & eyebrow
But why is murder wrong? Without God you can't say it is. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
Because mankind is made in the image of God and thus has inherent worth. And because every human is a human for whom Christ died, and who therefore has inherent worth.
Any other attempt to justify murder being wrong reduces to incoherent nonsense. So either God is God and murder is wrong, or else you're just a lump of DNA and what another lump of DNA chooses to do with you, or what society things of that, is entirely meaningless.
Follow the assumptions to their logical conclusions and corollaries.
You're so humble and knowledgeable. Thank you for all you do.
It's wrong to legislate religious bigotry against others. That's theocracy, it's been tried, and it never ends well.
Atheist: “It’s wrong to legislate morality”
Me: “Why are you trying to legislate THAT moral statement?”
This idea is as self-refuting as they come.
And that is a strawman fallacy that you're engaging in. If you want to steelman it, it would be better to say "It's wrong to legislate religious morality" because even Christians bicker about what's right and what's wrong according to the bible.
@@dieseljester3466 Your accusation of strawmanning is based on a fallacy itself - namely, moving the goalposts, which is what the “if you want to steelman it” statement is - and is therefore false. Nice try, but all you did there was cover up one self-refuting move with another one.
@@kennystrawnmusic No, moving the goalposts would be asking you to prove your assertion after you've already done it, or asking for more or greater evidence after evidence has been provided. What you are doing is providing a quote out of context, or choosing a quote that completely misrepresents someone's position. Atheists, in general, do not say what you think they are saying. Therefore, your above statement is a strawman fallacy.
Please tell me exactly what atheist said that to you. Please. I'd love to know.
@@kennystrawnmusic If you can produce the atheist that actually said that, then it won't be a strawman. If you can't, then you made that shit up and it is a strawman. Go.
Dawkins: We don't need religion to tell us murder is wrong. Everyone intrinsically knows that and they always have.
Chairman Mao: Hold my baijiu...
or we can refine it further... "in a democratic society, we believe everyone's vote, and moral conscience has value... and we don't need religion to tell us violating it is wrong."...
(5 minutes later)
"hence our democratic society doesn't need participation, nor should it allow our fellow religious citizens to be heard, or their moral conscience to impact policy in any way.... cause... science!"
their very perspective devaluing our right to participate in government as equals proves their perspective, on its own, can't sustain the ideological foundation of our democracy for 5 minutes without us.
Believing that people intrinsically know that murder is wrong is a moral belief.
@@acekoala457 it's also a bit of a leap. We can say that everyone seems to know, or 99% of people in societies all over the globe and throughout history... and thus infer it's a universal aprehension of a object be moral truth... but intrinsically?
That's a leap of metaphysics that one wouldn't expect from a naturalist.
Tim Barnett's claim that 1:33 "All laws reflects someone's moral point of view" and that 2:13 "It's moral beliefs that are the kind of belief that gets legislated" are patently false. A law to drive on the right side of the road does not legislate a moral question. A law setting the speed limit to 55 miles per hour does not legislate a moral question. A law that restaurant workers must wash their hands does not legislate a moral question. A law that plumbers must have a plumbing licence does not legislate a moral question. (Etc.)
Because law and morality often intersect people have learned to conflate the 2. As you demonstrate they are not the same thing.
Those laws you mentioned are to prevent road accidents and health hazards. You do not drive on the right side of the road just because it's fun. You do not wash your hands just because it feels good to do so. Their overall aim is to ensure safety since human life is valuable. They may be different in execution but their underlying reason shares the same thing - which is a moral standpoint.
This is awesome stuff, Tim! For too long Christians have bought into this mindset of the non-religious that the non-religious should be the moral arbiters of the universe. You make 2 excellent points on why we need to take a stand.
Na you're done. We've had enough of christianty mucking up the waters. You people have embarrassed yourself for the last 2 years. How about it's time you sit-down and shit up. Thanks.
@@frankstanley8499 Not a chance, buddy
@@Ir0nF1st924 I'm not your buddy, and we'll see.
Everyone who isn't this guy's sheep have already said it, but I'll say it again
Strawman and disingenuous
@@hrodebertcoad9848 Yea. This guy is the worst. I can't believe anyone even follows him.
Let’s look at some more purely christian laws imposed on everyone.
William Tyndale, who was the author of the first English translation of the bible was killed for doing it. It was considered heresy. According to Wikipedia “The spread of Wycliffe's Bible in the late 14th century (an inspiration for Tyndale) led to the death penalty for anyone found in unlicensed possession of Scripture in English, although translations were available in all other major European languages”.
Many bible passages, such as Exodus 21 were used by American slave owners to justify their owning and treatment of black slaves. These passages were used, and ACCEPTED BY JUDGES DURING COURT CASES involving slavery.
In the UK there were still blasphemy laws on the books until 2008. Many US states also have CHRISTIAN BLASPHEMY LAWS ENSHRINED IN LAW.
In the US there used to be widespread LAWS THAT DISALLOWED ATHEISTS FROM RUNNING FOR ELECTED OFFICE. Even without those laws there has never been a president who did not at least pretend to be christian. The state constitution of Texas STILL states that no one can run for office unless they believe in a higher power, despite the supreme court declaring it invalid and UNCONSTITUTIONAL. This was obviously done to keep atheists out of office and to help ensure that only religious people, christians in particular because they are the vast majority in Texas and the US as a whole, so that only their people would be in charge of the money and resources, policies and laws created by which everyone else in the state must abide.
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore declared that Islam and Buddhism do not have first amendment protection under the “free exercise of religion” clause. He says it is because freedom of religion applies only to the christian “god the creator”. Moore has said that, “when legal outcomes contravene “God's law,” public officials charged with executing laws have a moral duty to lay those laws aside in favour of God's law. Moore’s misplaced views have led him to refuse to enforce federal court orders both legalizing gay marriage and ordering removal of a Ten Commandments statue. As chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, he instructed other judges to follow his misguided lead, which prompted his removal from the bench, not once, but twice. And he, as the chief justice in his state gets to decide how those laws are enforced, or purposely not enforced, and he, as a judge and Chief Justice has legal power over everyone else in his state, including those who don’t subscribe to his personal religious views.
Legislators in South Carolina, Texas, Louisiana and Kansas have all tried to force their religious creationism into science classes in order to indoctrinate every child in those states into believing that fairy tales are on the same level as scientific facts. This, despite the fact that the court case of Kitzmuller vs. Dover decided that “Intelligent Design” and creationism did not qualify in any way as science. The US supreme court also decided, in Edwards vs. Aguilar, that evolution is a strongly supported scientific theory and that creationism has no basis in science at all.
Both Louisiana and Tennessee have the legal right to teach creationism as truth in school. The Louisiana governor, Bobby Jindle, described creationism as, “the best science possible”, despite it being legally proven to be unscientific to the point that can not even be called a Scientific Theory.
In South Dakota religious groups pressured lawmakers into passing a law requiring doctors to warn women who want abortions that they are at an increased risk of suicide and depression because of it, despite the American Psychological Association saying that those are not actually verified side effects of abortion. So these lawmakers are forcing doctors to lie to their patients about a matter of medical science in order to discourage them from having abortions because their religious beliefs dictate that point of view.
- The Catholic church has spent tens of millions of dollars in many US states to fund legal opposition to bills wanting to extend the statute of limitations on child sexual assault, which would expose many of their priests to charges for their past abuses. This is a perfect example of how the church publicly pretends to be sorry for the abuses of their priests and says it wants to make amends for it, but privately they quietly fund these lawsuits to make sure that their priests are not actually held accountable.
When the first George Bush was president he was asked by an atheist reporter: Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are Atheists? Bush (Senr): “No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God”. This is the president, who is supposed to represent all Americans, saying he doesn’t consider atheists to be either citizens or patriots because of his religious beliefs. He just disenfranchised millions of Americans from the representation they are given under the constitution as citizens of the country. If the president doesn’t believe that atheists are worthy of citizenship or to be considered patriots because they don’t believe his personal god then surely he must also think that belief in other gods that he considers false to be just as wrong. Those religions all consider his god to be make believe just as much as atheists do, so what’s the difference ? Is the president bigoted against every American who isn’t a christian ? It would very strongly seem so. If you are christian you probably don’t think that is such a big deal, but if it were a muslim president who only considered other muslims to be the only true citizens and patriots in America, you would be marching in the streets protesting that attitude in your leader. Because you know that policy could be made that favours muslims over all else. That is apparently not an issue for christians when the policies (of which there have been many, many thousands throughout American history) favour them, but when it is another religion it would be unacceptable. That is how non-christians feel already.
Sorry this is so long, but don’t blame me, blame yourselves for doing all that purely christian-biased lawmaking. You know, the exact kind that red pen pretends he can’t see anywhere around him. Just to be clear I am ending it here, but if you want I can post another few hundred of these examples, some much worse than many of the horrific ones I already gave you. Yes, red pen, you were right when you said, “Yes, it WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE to legislate one of THESE beliefs”. Yup, and here are are only a very few of the thousands that already exist.
Can you see them now ?
Isn't it weird how neither Tim nor his followers want to recognize and respond to this?
@@hrodebertcoad9848 yeah, it’s not surprising that when they are debating some philosophical point the comments are loaded with true believers, but when you utterly destroy his “good thinking” with easily, independently verifiable facts they don’t seem to have much to say. He’s wrong and they can see it, so they go away and pretend they never read it. Typical christian response.
“All laws reflect someone’s moral point of view”
A great contrast of how God’s perfect law reflects His character.
What are you trying to say?
@@diollinebranderson6553 All moral laws are found in the Bible and reflect God's character.
Which god?
@@IAmisMaster Where is the law against slavery in the bible?
@@darrylelam256
There isn’t, only a law against slavery by means of kidnapping (Exodus 21:16). All those involved in the selling and buying of African slaves in the Trans-African slave trade should have been put to death under God’s law. It’s the fault of liberal Confederate “Christian” Democrats, believing that Old Testament law and death penalty was no more, that allowed the African slave trade to prosper.
Former Christian here. I generally agree with what you're saying. They are not popular, but there are non-religious arguments against gay marriage, abortion, etc. It's fairly irrelevant though, because everyone has values.
The problem with anti- gay marriage arguments is that they are usually just a front for the religious reason imo. Mr B shied away from it, but i have yet to hear a convincing argument for not doing it.
Great video, as always. God bless you
Part 3 of my very long post. The first 2 parts are below: Let’s look at some more purely christian laws imposed on everyone.
William Tyndale, who was the author of the first English translation of the bible was killed for doing it. It was considered heresy. According to Wikipedia “The spread of Wycliffe's Bible in the late 14th century (an inspiration for Tyndale) led to the death penalty for anyone found in unlicensed possession of Scripture in English, although translations were available in all other major European languages”.
Many bible passages, such as Exodus 21 were used by American slave owners to justify their owning and treatment of black slaves. These passages were used, and ACCEPTED BY JUDGES DURING COURT CASES involving slavery.
In the UK there were still blasphemy laws on the books until 2008. Many US states also have CHRISTIAN BLASPHEMY LAWS ENSHRINED IN LAW.
In the US there used to be widespread LAWS THAT DISALLOWED ATHEISTS FROM RUNNING FOR ELECTED OFFICE. Even without those laws there has never been a president who did not at least pretend to be christian. The state constitution of Texas STILL states that no one can run for office unless they believe in a higher power, despite the supreme court declaring it invalid and UNCONSTITUTIONAL. This was obviously done to keep atheists out of office and to help ensure that only religious people, christians in particular because they are the vast majority in Texas and the US as a whole, so that only their people would be in charge of the money and resources, policies and laws created by which everyone else in the state must abide.
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore declared that Islam and Buddhism do not have first amendment protection under the “free exercise of religion” clause. He says it is because freedom of religion applies only to the christian “god the creator”. Moore has said that, “when legal outcomes contravene “God's law,” public officials charged with executing laws have a moral duty to lay those laws aside in favour of God's law. Moore’s misplaced views have led him to refuse to enforce federal court orders both legalizing gay marriage and ordering removal of a Ten Commandments statue. As chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, he instructed other judges to follow his misguided lead, which prompted his removal from the bench, not once, but twice. And he, as the chief justice in his state gets to decide how those laws are enforced, or purposely not enforced, and he, as a judge and Chief Justice has legal power over everyone else in his state, including those who don’t subscribe to his personal religious views.
Legislators in South Carolina, Texas, Louisiana and Kansas have all tried to force their religious creationism into science classes in order to indoctrinate every child in those states into believing that fairy tales are on the same level as scientific facts. This, despite the fact that the court case of Kitzmuller vs. Dover decided that “Intelligent Design” and creationism did not qualify in any way as science. The US supreme court also decided, in Edwards vs. Aguilar, that evolution is a strongly supported scientific theory and that creationism has no basis in science at all.
Both Louisiana and Tennessee have the legal right to teach creationism as truth in school. The Louisiana governor, Bobby Jindle, described creationism as, “the best science possible”, despite it being legally proven to be unscientific to the point that can not even be called a Scientific Theory.
In South Dakota religious groups pressured lawmakers into passing a law requiring doctors to warn women who want abortions that they are at an increased risk of suicide and depression because of it, despite the American Psychological Association saying that those are not actually verified side effects of abortion. So these lawmakers are forcing doctors to lie to their patients about a matter of medical science in order to discourage them from having abortions because their religious beliefs dictate that point of view.
- The Catholic church has spent tens of millions of dollars in many US states to fund legal opposition to bills wanting to extend the statute of limitations on child sexual assault, which would expose many of their priests to charges for their past abuses. This is a perfect example of how the church publicly pretends to be sorry for the abuses of their priests and says it wants to make amends for it, but privately they quietly fund these lawsuits to make sure that their priests are not actually held accountable.
When the first George Bush was president he was asked by an atheist reporter: Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are Atheists? Bush (Senr): “No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God”. This is the president, who is supposed to represent all Americans, saying he doesn’t consider atheists to be either citizens or patriots because of his religious beliefs. He just intellectually disenfranchised millions of Americans from the representation they are given under the constitution as citizens of the country. If the president doesn’t believe that atheists are worthy of citizenship or to be considered patriots because they don’t believe his personal god then surely he must also think that belief in other gods that he considers false to be just as wrong. Those religions all consider his god to be make believe just as much as atheists do, so what’s the difference ? Is the president bigoted against every American who isn’t a christian ? It would very strongly seem so. And he is the CHIEF LAWMAKER IN THE COUNTRY. If you are christian you probably don’t think that is such a big deal, but if it were a muslim president who only considered other muslims to be the only true citizens and patriots in America, you would be marching in the streets protesting that attitude in your leader. Because you know that policy could be made that favours muslims over all else. That is apparently not an issue for christians when the policies (of which there have been many, many thousands throughout American history) favour them, but when it is another religion it would be unacceptable. That is how non-christians feel already.
Sorry this is so long, but don’t blame me, blame yourselves for doing all that purely christian-biased lawmaking. You know, the exact kind that red pen pretends he can’t see anywhere around him. Just to be clear I am ending it here, but if you want I can post another few hundred of these examples, some much worse than many of the horrific ones I already gave you. Yes, red pen, you were right when you said, “Yes, it WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE to legislate one of THESE beliefs”. Yup, and here are are only a very few of the thousands that already exist.
Can you see them now ?
Where did he “pretend he can’t see those”?
@@Ir0nF1st924 it’s when he says, “Yes, it WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE to legislate one of THESE beliefs, but who’s trying to do that ? No one as far as I can see”. He must not have been looking very hard, or at all.
My problem with politics and religion is that many times politics influences religion more than the other way around.
There is no such thing as a secular government or a secular society. When people like Dawkins say this, of course all they mean is that they want their religion enforced by the law.
Dawkins is generally self-refuting.
Also, I think that puppy was in Pink Pen Logic's latest video ... Are you guys related?
except for when you look at what his tweet actually says... yes conservative strawmen of dawkins usually are self-refuting...
@@cptmiller132 So, Cap'n, how exactly would you differentiate the tweet as quoted from the original tweet?
@@WhereWhatHuh sigh... when he sent the tweet he clearly meant that you shouldn't use your religion as justification for a law... for example a muslim trying to pass sharia law in the usa... would you be fine with that? No? Then why should i be fine with christians banning gay marriage for example because "muh bible"? Strawmaning the statement and saying that he meant no religious people should pass laws is insulting to our intelligence and yours for that matter if you actually believe that's what he meant... We've been saying keep your religion out of the laws for that last like 80 years but you people see this tweet here and it's somehow a new concept you've never heard of... just stop
@@cptmiller132 Ah, so only things that are RELIGIOUS should not be legislated. Like for example, that "Thou shalt not murder" thing ... So we'll wipe CPC section 187 off the books, right?
Look, Friend, all that Dawkins is really doing ... if you stop calling things you don't like "religious" and examine the facts and the logic ... All that Dawkins is really doing is venting his anti-religious bigotry. The man really is self-defeating.
According to you, he can't even express what he really means.
@@WhereWhatHuh first off murder was outlawed before religion not to mention you aint the first religion that has said that... second people who propose laws and when asked why immediately say "the bible say..." that IS religious so please take your persecution complex somewhere else
Third the tweet is from the dawkins foundation not dawkins himself so yes someone typed it wrong but you and every other uppity hick in here knew what it meant
Just read a story about Elijah Lovejoy who in 1833 started a Christian publication in St. Louis. In 1835 he really started publishing articles against slavery and how Christians were asleep at the wheel while slavery existed in America. It got so bad in St. Louis that Elijah had to move out of town because the mobs threatened his life and burned his home. In his new town, they destroyed 3 of his printing presses and eventually murdered him at age 35.
Now I am sure everybody today agrees that slavery is and was bad and could never imagine anyone being killed today for standing against slavery. Now just insert 'abortion' and watch history repeat itself.
Now I agree but when it comes to forcing people to pray in school or other things like that whole fiasco with the Baphomet statue it's a different story and I feel like that's more what Dawkins is referring to. I could be wrong though.
Why wouldn't you want prayer?
@@silentghost751 because not everyone Is a godamn Christian
@@behamut92 it's scientifically proven to help the body and release stress. Also language
As a born again believer, I agree with Richard Dawkins on this. So does the Lord. The church is set apart from the world. Paul taught likewise to the church of his day. Paul did not seek or advocate that the principles of the new life in Christ be enshrined in Roman law or society. The Lord isbringing about this lesson upon the whole church. For it is his will that judgement upon the church will result in the ultimate separation from the world. Not taken out of the world, but set apart in heart and mind from the world. The American/Western church is knee deep in the mud that is the world. Walking afyer the prostitute, themother of Christendom, for dominion and power in this world. This is not to be. Believers are to look to the new heaven and new earth because this world is not our home.
The true church is the body of Christ, all who believe.
Without open discourse and freedom of speech lies and misconceptions cannot be exposed.
Yeah like the way this guy lies
@@hrodebertcoad9848
Really?... Could you point out exactly his lies? I have watched this video 3 times now and I can't seem to find any.
@@GSpotter63 The most blatant one is when he says no one is trying to legislate Christianity in the U.S. if you're having that hard of a time finding an example 🙄
@@hrodebertcoad9848
No more than atheist try to legislate their ideas...
Which was one of the primary points of the entire video...
@@GSpotter63 wow that's super disingenuous
There's a difference between making laws that oppress people "because the Bible tells me so" and making laws because it's a reasonable thing to do
Laws should defend life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Laws of a moral nature should defend these principles and nothing else. Legislating moral principles of religion is how you get shariah law.
Your holy book states lying is bad, for you to constantly lie in this video. How incredibly ironic.
That’s all Tim Barnett does in everyone of his videos. He has no clue how to be honest,
Beautiful refutation!
Amen, brother!
As my poli-sci professor said, "You're always gonna legislate morality, the question is WHOSE." 😉
I find it funny when atheists say they have a "right" to be free from religious laws. Except the very idea of having rights comes from Judeo Christian belief. We're made in the image of God, because we're made in the image of God we have intrinsic value, and because we have intrinsic value we have inalienable rights. Rights don't come from the belief of the survival of the fittest.
Hey Mr. B thanks for another great video! Glad I don't have to be the one wading through twitter to find the content 💀
I have a question though. Isn't your Reason 1 taking for granted a philosophy of Law perspective that laws are all based on moral beliefs? What about a social contract perspective where laws merely play a functional role to facilitate social order? Cheers.
What is the benefit of maintaining social order? It ensures that we have stability so that we can protect our lives and the lives of those we love, and it ensures the continuation of the human race. Why do we need stability to protect our lives, and why do we need to continue the human race?
You could keep going, but eventually you’d have to either end at “there is no reason” in which case you have full blown nihilism, or “because it’s morally good” in which case the law is no longer merely functional.
@@nanowasabi4421 Hey, I appreciate the apologetics argument you're going for, but I don't think the argument "what is the motivating purpose X law is rooted in" actually abstracts out into an argument requiring a case for transcendent meaning. At least that's not the level of analysis that my question is really about. Legal political philosophy grounds the function of laws in many things before abstracting out to the level of transcendent meaning.
Richard Dawkin literally made a cringe claim.
Tim Barnett killed it!
So, Mr B... Could you please explain what possible non-religious reason you (or other religious folks) could have for opposing same-sex marriage? You brought it up, but didn't expand on it. No one is opposed to a "traditional" marriage, so that's why I ask how any nonreligious reason for opposing same-sex marriage could possibly exist. Children can be raised healthily in LGBT families, so like what other argument could you possibly have?
I'm a transgender Christian who was raised in a very conservative church btw, so I already know many of the religious arguments. I just can't think of a single argument for favoring only traditional marriage. Honestly, the forward mobility and success of society would seem (and does) greatly benefit from a larger pool of people having access to marriage and the benefits that accompany it...
That’s his pure hate and arrogance of homosexuals. I seriously doubt Tim Barnett shed a single tears when there was that shooting at the gay club pulse. He no different than hate preachers like pastor Anderson, he just will never admit how he truly feels about homosexuals like Anderson does. But he makes it very clear by what he claims in this video. Maybe a single person as they would need someone to watch the child while their working, but a gay or lesbian couple can always have one partner staying home taking care of the child while the other works. Tim Barnett just doesn’t want it done period. Because of his beliefs of homosexuals.
No, this tweet is NOT an attempt to exclude people of faith from the public policy conversation. It's a sincere attempt to set boundaries, so that nobody arguing in the public policy space assumes they have the right to smuggle in religious beliefs poorly disguised as 'common sense morality.' If those hotspots you mentioned were really 'common sense,' we wouldn't be arguing about them. They are in fact hotly contested areas which religious people invariably use religious arguments to support. All this tweet is saying is, you leave your specifically religious assumptions at the door, and work with everyone else to achieve true consensus on good policy, and there's no reason for you to feel left out. But come in with the attitude you're going to take over and force your religious presuppositions on others against their will, and that dog won't hunt.
Gosh... People REALLY need to see your videos. You really dissect things ad clear the air! Really, thumbs up
He's making a strawman and being disingenuous though
But isn't that Tweet about same sex marriage or laws against drawing prophets? Those things are based on religious beliefs and they can be seen in the law in many places. I feel like only abortion was brought up here, and it's honestly not enough to convince me that this foundation is trying to exclude religious people from affecting laws
Sensei Mr. B, I love your videos about good thinking replacing bad thinking. Would you mind telling us what constitutes good thinking? What is the structured pattern here? Thank you.
I just subscribed! Very insightful channel. Mr Gregg Koukl pointed me towards this channel on his podcast.
All the way from South Africa.
Dawkins needs prayer because time is short and he really, really, really, really, really needs Jesus!! Intellectual stupidity and pride have poisoned him. Please pray for this man.
Your arrogance. Oh yes I would agree, thank you for you open understanding!
Your statement is as judgmental as you claim mine-starting to see a pattern angry fella?
@@patrickdoyle8377 And the wheels on the bus go round and round ... LOL ... He'll never see the Irony, Brother.
I fear that Dawkins may have actually crossed that line, where he would never admit the truth, even if it were obvious. He reminds me of the men of Sodom, who were sternly warned by a righteous man, entreated to do no more evil, blinded by an angel, but who STILL, despite all of that, "Wearied themselves trying to find the door."
Even if One were raised from the dead, still they would not believe."
But let us pray for him nonetheless, in case it is not too late...
@@SOMAnxg Truth is that which objectively exists, irrespective of the observer.
In terms of historical events, it is what professor Elizabeth Vandiver refers to as "History B." (History A is the story that we tell; history B is what really happened)(This from her lectures on Herodotus).
Now, Friend, you say, "What makes something true is proof that something actually exists." Okay, let's examine that statement, if that's alright:
The Higgs Boson was discovered within the last few years. Prior to that, it was a hypothetical and theoretical explanation ... one of several possible ... for some otherwise odd events. But before the Higgs Boson was actually observed, there was no proof that it existed.
Do you mean to tell me that the Higgs Boson "became true" when it was observed? Or do you mean to say that it was discovered to be true when it was observed?
You see, Wes, there is a big difference between something being true and us knowing that it is true. We may buy into History A, and ignore History B ... Or we can diligently search for History B.
This happens to pop us when I literally had this discussion with a peer of mine. They always kept insisting on the idea 'separation of church and state'.
Had to tell them that isn't to be taken at face value, but to be looked at how it is presented and worked into the fabric of society.
Look at our constitution. It was written by dudes who were God-fearing yet insist on the disentangle of an "established religion", not religion itself, in government. This is a reason why they separated from Britain. And the constitution has values of Christianity in it to that people just don't bother to see because it overlaps with other faiths and a secular view.
The only time religion shouldn't be part of legislation should be when it forces a faith-based idea to be law (baptism, conversion, religious holidays, etc)
"According to the Dawkins Foundation, religious people should be barred from having their beliefs influence public policy."
Yeah if you didn't read what he said. He said religious people need to stop believing they are "entitled" to having their beliefs enshrined in law. Regardless of this, I'm not a particular fan of Dawkins but I also don't think anyone's religion should be given legal benefit or influence our laws in any way so I'll go ahead and argue against the position that religious belief should be left out of our legal system.
"With religious people excluded, who then gets to participate."
Everyone, including religious people because it's not his, nor is it my position, that religious people are excluded. Simply religious beliefs, since religious beliefs do NOT guarantee our country will run better which should be the only consideration for how our country runs.
"The Dawkins Foundation wants to exclude religious people from enshrining their beliefs into law."
Close enough. That's how we're designed to function. In order for you to have freedom to practice the religion you want, it has to be prevented that law should support any specific establishment of religion. If Islam or Buddhism is inscribed into law, that necessarily takes away at least some of your freedom as a Christian.
"1.) All laws legislate someone's moral beliefs."
No, all laws legislate a gestalt of no one person in particular's beliefs about what is better for the country and its people. In a democracy, that's decided by the people (ideally). Though since only a certain class of people get to write laws, I guess you could say it tends to represent their beliefs.
"Why do we have laws against stealing other people's stuff."
Because if we lived in a society where stealing was okay, ownership means nothing. You could be kicked out of your house by your landlord (more easily than they can now I mean) and you would have no way to do anything about it. How do you think that society would function? You probably have already correctly assumed it wouldn't. Morality did not come into play here. Nor does it when crafting our legal system.
"Without morality, laws would simply be an exercise in power, and that's not right."
Based. Unfortunately, laws are almost exclusively a show of power. Not because they lack morality, but because each one comes with the threat of violence should you break them.
"Murder laws are good because they are based in the belief that it's wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings."
I'd actually extend that to guilty human beings too, but no. Murder laws are good because in a society where murder is okay and also there's a class system to climb (and in a capitalist society we sure do have one of those) people would murder each other all the time just to not be the poor class. Do ya wanna live in the purge, cause that's how you get the purge. And again, no morality.
"Why does Dawkins single out religious people..."
as not being "entitled" to having their moral beliefs enshrined in law. I don't know if you've noticed, but a lot of religious people tend to be REALLY loud about how "their rights are being infringed" when other people get rights their book says they shouldn't have. Like gays right to marry, trans people having rights to HRT or even puberty blockers, and women having the right to their own bodily autonomy, NONE of these infringes on the rights of the religious. You are not forced to be gay, trans, or have an abortion just because other people can, but it is MOSTLY the religious (Not to be confused with most religious people) who think that other people shouldn't get to have it either. That is the entitlement Dawkins was referring to, as cringey and unhelpful as it is to refer to an entire group of people as entitled, but cringey and unhelpful kind of defines Dawkins at this point.
"2.) Not all beliefs held by religious people, are religious beliefs."
Yeah. I- we know that. That's been my point this whole time.
"Who's trying to do that? No one as far as I know."
Having skipped ahead it's because you seem to think that if a law doesn't name a religion by name it isn't specifically endorsing that religion. But that's not the case.
"The argument against abortion isn't based on religion it's based on moral common sense."
Noooo it's pretty heavily based on religion. Like, I can't tell you what's in your head, but the Pro-Life stance is inherently religious. Pro-Lifers say that abortion is murder because they have assigned personhood to the fetus. They don't do this because they have evidence of that, but because that is what they believe to be true. And among Pro-Lifers, the most prevalent belief influencing this idea (that fetus's are people) is Christianity, presumably telling them that all fetuses have already received their God-given soul.
"Pro-Lifers point to science and philosophy, not religion, to point out that abortion kills an innocent human being."
In order to kill, you must first be alive. Also I would argue that religious people do point to philosophy (not science tho). I say that however, being painfully aware that religion is just one of MANY philosophies, which itself can be used to argue for anything. I used it at the beginning of this paragraph. Here I'll do it again. I have granted a fetus all the rights of a person. For all intents and purposes it has all the rights a fully autonomous human being does. Does that fetus then have the right to live parasitically off of another human? Put another way, do I have the right to live parasitically off of you? If you said yes to the first and no to the second, you are granting fetuses special rights that cancel out the rights of another person, the mom.
"Arguments against traditional marriage can be made without quoting chapter and verse."
You didn't really defend this one. I mean in hindsight you didn't really defend the abortion argument either, you just appealed to some vague argument that certainly exists out there that doesn't rely on religion, but I digress. So I'll just say, "NUH UH" Traditional marriage is basically defined by the bible. To use the term is to make your argument religious. And the arguments I've heard about this, that at least attempt to cover its religious roots, is that "it requires a man and a woman to raise a child" despite none of the data showing that to be the case, and in fact in some cases, children of gay couples outpace their straight raised peers. So where'd they get the idea that opposite sex parents are better at raising children? What is religion, but an idea?
Tim Barnett is purposely being dishonest about what the Dawkins foundation is claiming because that’s all Tim Barnett does is lie his ass off to glorify his beliefs.
How can you tell a christian man is lying?
His lips are moving.
"How do you think that society would function? You probably have already correctly assumed it wouldn't."
That argument still makes a moral judgement that society functioning is a good thing, if someone disagrees with that moral judgement why should they agree with a law against stealing?
"I'd actually extend that to guilty human beings too"
Does that mean you think killing someone in self-defense or killing enemy soldiers invading your country is wrong?
"Do ya wanna live in the purge, cause that's how you get the purge."
Again you are making a moral judgement, that living in the purge is a bad thing
"Pro-Lifers say that abortion is murder because they have assigned personhood to the fetus"
Yes, the fetus is a unique human being, if you are suggesting they shouldn't get human rights, what are your criteria for humans to deserve rights?
"If you said yes to the first and no to the second, you are granting fetuses special rights that cancel out the rights of another person, the mom."
Not necessarily, other factors can change the outcome people consider to be moral e.g. switching the track in the trolley problem to kill 1 person but save 5 people, vs killing 1 person to harvest their organs and save 5 people who need those organs to live
Ok. Let's exclude Dawkins' religious beliefs first.
The second anyone says "common sense" while making a point, I immediately know they have nothing important to say. Common sense says totally different things for every person who thinks they know what common sense is, so really, as a basis for an argument, it says nothing.
You have nothing important to say.
I always say that common sense doesn't mean its right, good, just or anything else, its just common. At one point it was common sense to say the earth was flat.
and you just did it yourself. Therefore, you have nothing important to say.
I respect your opinion and I probably agree with it to some extent as well. Uttering the word "common sense" is not really a good way of making an argument, maybe Tim could have been more careful with his words and just said something else. Being said, I disagree with the idea that just because someone utters the word "common sense" we can now just dismiss what is being said and just label it as someone who has "nothing important to say" .Because, if we are actually listening, Tim did also give a reason why abortion is wrong, and he didn't just stopped by saying that it is wrong solely because of "common sense". Let say I asked a guy about his opinion on murder, and he said" well, I think killing innocent people is wrong, I mean that's just common sense, murder doesn't promote the flourishing of humankind". Sure, the guy uttered the word "common sense" but if we simply dismiss what he said because he just uttered that word, we would fail to realize that he also did gave a justification on why he thinks murder is wrong, namely because he thinks that murder harms human flourishing.
I would argue that the non-Christian does hold a religious belief when they say stealing is wrong. They are just unable to justify that religious belief in their worldview.
I think that you are missing the point that the Dawkins Foundation was trying to make (and yes, they could've worded their tweet a whole lot better). I believe that the point that they were trying to make is that if you are trying to get a law passed, and you cite the god of your choice as the reason behind it, then that proposed law should be rejected. Now, if you can come up with non-religious reasons as to why a law should be passed or repealed, then I believe that we could then have a proper dialogue about it.
To give an example about this: you wouldn't want Muslims passing a law saying that only their prayer is allowed in school and that it has to be done three times a day facing Mecca. That's the way other religions and atheists feel when Christians want a law passed saying that the Lord's Prayer should be recited in school along with the Pledge of Allegiance. So when you want a law passed, put a limitus test on it: ask yourself if you would want that law passed if someone was doing it in the name of Islam, or Hinduism, or whatever other religion you can think of. If the answer is no, then you should probably revise your outlook on that proposed piece of legislation.
On a side note; you totally rock that beard look. ^.^
Totally agree I love pork, beef and shellfish, don't want them banned.
Dawkins is religious too. In his world, he is his own god. He thinks he knows best. Couldn’t possibly be any greater being that exists. Would absolutely love if we all bowed down and worshipped him.
Wow I can't believe Richard Dawkins would even suggest something so illogical based off someone with an intellect as supposedly high as his. Was there more to his side of the story? Or is it as plain silly as it seems?
No. He actually is this dumb. New Atheism is embarrassing.
@@toomanymarys7355 Old Atheism as well.
@@war13death Actually, some of the old atheists were at least somewhat intelligent; they merely chose not to look Christianity squarely in the eye. Bertrand Russell was brilliant when not talking about religion. Charles Dodgson ( a Christian of like virtue and education) could have beat him and dropped the mike on him in chess, free verse, extemporaneous humor, or nearly any other mental contest ... but Russell wasn't stupid. Merely misguided and blinded.
Not to be nit picky here, but the tweet was from the foundation...its very likely Richard Dawkins himself had absolutely nothing to do with it.
Thank you Mr. B! Always a pleasure
So reasonable where they 😂
Polly needs a haircut
*cassualy bragging with a cute puppy*
True. We’re under a lockdown in Ontario, Canada so Polly hasn’t been able to get a haircut.
@@RedPenLogic oh,poor Polly :(((. Hopping it gets better:))
Firstly, right from the beginning (or at least the 0:54 mark) Mr. Dawkins' point is being twisted. He didn't say anything about religious beliefs "influencing public policy", he said religious beliefs shouldn't be enshrined in the law. (I doubt Mr. Red Pen would approve of, for instance, Islamic beliefs being made the law of the land.) Secondly, all laws don't necessarily legislate someone's moral beliefs. It's illegal to drive through a red light at an intersection. That's just a matter of public safety (like most laws) and has nothing to do with "moral beliefs".
Its sad to still see people use religion to justify bigotry, despite his claims that its not. No matter how you try to spin it, trying to prevent gay ppl the same right to marriage as straight people IS a religious belief. To state that this belief is "held with equal confidence by non religious ppl" is a straight up lie and a sad excuse to make it seem like the intolerance is rooted in something other than religion. I don't know one person who is against gay marriage who isnt a Christian.
Why should a secular state even respect marraige in the first place? Marraige is about creating a stable and loving environment for raising the next generation - something you can't do biologically. That is why we used to have state recognition and protection of marraige in the first place and not for other human relations like, say friendship. But secularists have nothing but narcisisitic hedonism to base their morality on. First the secularists destroyed the institution by introducing free sex, destroying the link between sex, childbirth and family, denying differences in gender roles and introducing no fault divorce, and now you want to destroy it by redefining what it is. So you tell me, what exactly is marraige, and what is the point of states recognising gay marraige? Can you give a reason why the state should not also recognise polygamous marraiges like that of Islam and Mormonism, or are you a bigot? Love is love right? Not that love or sex has anything to do with marraige, since it can happen in its absence anyway.
So, at the end of the day, what exactly _is_ marraige? A state recognised contract between two or more people of any gender for financial benefit, which can be terminated at any time for any reason when it is no longer convenient for the persons involved? Well, whats the point of that? Besides there already is something for that: Its called a company. Congratulations, you basically reduced marraige to nothing more than a business transaction.
The fact of the matter is: marraige _is_ a religious institution. A secular marraige is meaningless and not worth the paper its written on. Take religion out of it, and all you have is a temporary business transaction.
@@Hannodb1961 So becuase a gay couple can't have children biologically, that makes their marriage invalid? I hope you hold the same standard of logic for straight couples who are infertile or who choose to not have kids. Or are those marriages business transactions as well.
Quite frankly, who the hell are you to decide what a "stable and healthy environment" to raise kids is? I know plenty of kids from nuclear families who are messed up and know adopted kids of gay parents who turned out just fine.
There are numerous reasons why polygamous marriage should not be legal. Do your own research- I'm not going to list them all out for you. But it is laughable to compare it gay marriage, which is a union between 2 indivs. And I guess you've conveniently forgotten about all the 'godly' men in the Bible who practiced polygamy.
Continue being an ignorant bigot if you want, but I'd urge you to do some research outside of the bible to grow some intelligence.
@@narru9603 As I expected, nothing but emotional rants in reply, and ofcause it wouldnt be complete without throwing arround labels as well.
God is the one who ordained marraige, who defined it, and told us how we are to express our sexuality, who are you, a mere creature, to go against _His_ will?
You have not in the least addressed my argument about what exactly the purpose of a secular marraige is, you did not give any reasons why polygamy should be banned, you completely ignored the fact that even social workers recognise that taking kids away from their biological parents is the _least ideal_ solution and is the absolute last resort. (I do charity work in a childrens home. I know that kids are insanely loyal to their parents, regardless of what they've done to them) You did not address the matter of divorce, which is incredibly traumatic to the kids involved. Psychologists today recognise that a lot of social issues, especially among boys, is due to a lack of a farther figure in their lives, but you would be perfectly ok with artificially creating a child to satisfy the desires of a lesbian couple. Yes, and marraiges falls apart because it is no longer a complimentarian relationship, bit an egalitarian competition. Feminism made us believe that men and women are the same, and rhat there shouldn't be different gender roles. Todays society is all about me me me, and my desires, and I dont give a damn about who I hurt in the process. Has it ever occur to you that desires can be deceitful? That getting what you desire wont actually make you happy, but miserable instead? God gives those who harden their hearts over to the desires of their sinful heart _as punnishment_ I look at the world the secular "prograssive" movement has created, and all I see is increasing loneliness, depression, isolation, cold heartedness, strife, nihilism, unhappiness and discontent. The more we chip away from the moral foundation on which western society was build, the more the roof is caving in on our heads. I'm not _merely_ drawing a line and saying no further, I'm saying society has to turn back to regain what we lost.
So, yes, you do in the privacy of your own home whatever you want to do, but dont expect me to give any recognition to a relationship that is not ordained by God as to how we should live. You're not married, you're just friends with benefits.
@@Hannodb1961 marriage existed long before religion. And even in the bible it's origins are not about love. Its about property succession. Hence in the bible women's consent is not required in marriage as it is merely a commercial transaction between two men or a formal procedure to be able to legally rape women POWs.
Does anyone know what happened to "Red Pen Logic"? It's been months since the last release.
Very Informative ... Thank you
Please don't legislate this one...
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Christians used to enshrine that verse in law for centuries. It took secular law to aboilsh that atrocity.
Dawkins has a really big internal problem with people that believe in God. He's really biased.
Hi my name is Matthew I'm a new subscriber and also a saved follower of god I love some of your feedback on your videos I did want to give some feedback of my own though I actually live in Australia and a big problem we have here and also when I was living in California I noticed is first off not anything against believers like myself but but the but the problem is a lot of the times politicians will make rules on the basis of they say it's lawful when in fact I would argue that it goes quite a few things against the Bible and even in some cases in some areas they've even agreed that their decisions are not even legal but have argued their lawful I'm talking about judges at this point so even though I agree that I would much rather be true believer judge the problem comes from people who think they're believing in god but in reality their decisions don't actually come from God like I've seen some of your videos were you have right corrected some people who have said they're Christian that hold views that a contrary to the Bible and I know that we've we all make mistakes but it's really hard to justify anyone making decisions off of their own personal faith because often legislative decisions up are completely against the Bible and people justify them by their own personal feelings agree with I do agree with a lot of your points and thank you for this but in terms of the position that everyone holds views and the future will come from a place if I'm getting this right now hope I am it's hard though because if you've been a victim to certain rules like hearing Australia there was a mental health commission in which the government recently apologized for what I would describe as as a truly terrible the royal mental health commission Australia
Sort of like every believer here is so biased they don't realize that this tweet is being strawmaned?
This is very useful when stopped by the police when preaching the gospel,.. good reminder blessings
Yet again , Logic defeats Atheism . Btw TH-cam is not sending notification of your new videos .
Who said atheism had logic to begin with?
It’s not? And you have the notifications bell clicked? That’s not good.
Great ! Thats what I needed to hear
As always, great video! I would make a small observation. Not all laws have a moral foundation. Positive laws, like paying taxes on April 15th (non-COVID years), have no moral basis. Rather, they are mere social conventions. You are right, however, that we typically legislate morality. After all, what else should we legislate? Someone’s morality always gets written into law, and it makes sense to consider the most morally informed amongst us, even if that includes religious people.
The idea that "we should all pay taxes to a government that serves us" is a moral idea. Whether or not we all do so fairly, or if the government serves well or when to pay up, is a separate question and may be a positive judgment that we try to legislate. But if we are writing laws about paying taxes, we assume a moral foundation. Unless, of course, we are merely enforcing extortion.
I wanted to know if you could do like a dismal bell after you finish the lesson thought it would be cool and I like what your doing thank you
The irony of people who want to legislate their morality based on their religious beliefs telling other people they can’t or shouldn’t legislate their morality because of theirs.
Non belief is not a religion.
I was at your Chaos vs clarity conference.
Morality has nothing to do with your imaginary friend,
There needs to be a clear separation of church and state.
If, for instance, the government legislated that everybody in the country had to attend church, once a week, that would definitely be wrong, on so many levels.
Yet, that is the sort of thing that many christians would vote for.
Yes, opposition to abortion is purely based in religious belief.
As Dark Wing Duck says “Let’s get dangerous!”
Richard "I am scared to death to debate William lane craig " dawkins
How can arguments for traditional marriage be made without quoting chapter and verse? I really want to know.
I love the idea that my belief in God tarnishes my moral compass, but their belief ( it is a belief ) in Nothing makes them morally superior. Too Funny.
@Richard Fox
Right, because this is a Christian country with Christian founders, and Iran is a Muslim country with a long Muslim history. People in Middle Eastern countries frequently vote for “oppressive religious laws” when given the chance, and they believe that we do too when we enact laws that line up with Christian culture. And we enact a lot of laws because of our Christian heritage; we just don’t see it because we’re used to Christian laws being seen as morally good.
Some states are abolishing the death penalty. I suspect most Muslims in the Middle East would see this as us blindly following the Bible when it says to forgive the sinner. Everyone knows infidels should be put to death.
Women have the right to vote in the West. Obviously that’s just because our book says they were made in the image of God, and our “Messiah” treated women with respect and gave them leadership roles. Everyone sensible would know that women should be subservient to men in all ways. They just can’t be trusted to be in charge, and you don’t have to be a Muslim to see it.
Holy hell that's an incredibly big strawman, and I thought Tim's was bad but you've just gone way out on that one. 😳
@Richard Fox
You should read up on the reasons why slavery was abolished in the US. Hint: “all men are created equal” can be traced back to the Bible. And the argument that the Bible itself supports slavery has been refuted many times over by people more educated than I.
The West is far and away the most tolerant culture concerning LGBT rights. Do you think that’s just a coincidence? Or does it maybe have something to do with Jesus teaching Christians to hate the sin but love the sinner?
Obviously bad laws can be justified using the Bible. But the entire constitution, and by extension, our legal philosophy, is based on Biblical principles. If you won’t acknowledge that, then you’re the one misrepresenting the influence of the Bible on our laws.
@@hrodebertcoad9848 I'm far out, Dude.
@Richard Fox
The verses are there, but they don’t mean what you think they mean. Again, you can find a better argument than mine if you just take two seconds to look, and I have better things to do than to rehash arguments that have been made already, but I can address your most flawed point easily enough: the “neither slave nor free” verse is obviously not condoning slavery. In what way does acknowledging the existence of slavery equate to condoning it? Pointing out this simple mistake removes most of the verses that supposedly support slavery from the discussion in one fell swoop.
And I could spend a lot of time arguing with you about whether Humanist ideas are based on the Bible, but to support my original point it’s sufficient that you have admitted that they were Christians. The Bible doesn’t directly say that all men are created equal, but that idea came from Christian culture and Christian culture alone. The only question is whether they came to their conclusions through or in spite of their Christian beliefs, and they certainly believed that it was the former.
They don't understand the argument because if you use the same against them, they will backtrack on it or claim
"it's different" when applied to a different group.
Tweet: You are not entitled to haveing your beliefs in law.
Reads: You are not aloud to join the discussion.
Its a difference between being entitled to you controlling the law and being able to join the discussion.
The hyperbolic senseless repetition of the word "really" in such message helps nothing but to exhibit their extremely infantile, obnoxious and lackluster ways of thinking, which in turn should help us notice their opinion is of no value, and even contrary to truth, proving themselves incapable of proper communication and reasoning to begin with.
Part 1:He is actually suggesting that the tweet wants, “religious people be excluded from the political process”, leaving only atheists to vote. That is an insanely biased reading of that statement, that the tweet wants all religious people excluded, rather than simply meaning that their religious based beliefs should not be put into laws that bind everyone else, including the huge number of people who do not believe in your god or your bible. That is a typical red pen straw man. I will admit that the tweet could have been phrased more clearly, but it is willfully narrow thinking to actually interpret it in the way he suggests here.
The US was specifically founded to be a SECULAR nation, with a very purposeful separation of church and state, and yet christians have been trying desperately to get their ridiculous beliefs put into law since the very beginning, often successfully.
Red pen then goes on to try to pretend that your religious beliefs about stealing or murder are just regular, everyday common sense morals that nobody should object to, and yet he is cherry picking (as usual) to get that effect. And yet, where did he get those morals ? From the ten commandments.
So what else do the ten commandments actually say ?
“Have no god before me” if that was put into law it would be establishing a state religion, which the constitution specifically disallowed.
“Not take the lord’s name in vain”. Again, this would be a legal prohibition against saying anything bad about the god of only one set of believers, not any others. It would also be a total violation of the first amendment of the constitution securing the right of free speech. It would also be, again, an implicit endorsement by the state of only one religion, so this one is unconstitutional twice !
“Keep the sabbath holy”. So nobody gets to make a living on Sunday because one group of people has a god that needed to rest on that day ? Even if they do not share in that belief ? If you make everyone honour that once a week then it is just another form of establishing a state religion, which is unconstitutional …. again. Also, that one was actually put into law long ago. Where I live it was law for 87 years before it was overturned in 1992. Many places STILL have that PURELY CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS LAW in effect.
“Honour thy father and mother” And if they don’t, which they WON’T because they are CHILDREN, then your biblical law says they must be STONED TO DEATH. If enacted, that would basically be a death sentence for every child that ever existed, if they even live to their rebellious teenage years.
“Not to commit adultery” Clearly modern society doesn’t even agree with that one since nobody is charged with the crime of adultery, nor are they STONED TO DEATH as the bible commands. I guess, considering the massive number of christians that commit this “crime” there wasn’t much incentive to put the death penalty adultery law into place.
“Do not covet your neighbour’s wife, oxen, goods, etc.”. How exactly would you put that into law since it is literally a THOUGHT CRIME (god IS big brother ….. I knew it !).
So, out of your ten commandments there are at least SIX that would be unconstitutional, authoritarian or horrific death penalty crimes that no reasonable person would ever enforce. And yet these stupid commandments adorn countless legal courthouses across the US, put there by christians so they can pretend that “the laws of the US are founded on christianity”, which they are very clearly not. So when the Dawkins Foundation says they don’t want your religious beliefs enshrined in law, just take a look at only the ten commandments and realize that even just those alone would be utterly horrific if put into law, not to mention all the other utterly horrific “morals” and commandments that are in the bible.
Also, if you are thinking something like, “we would never put in those bad ones, because we know how to choose the right ones to follow” then you are basically telling your god that you will choose which of his COMMANDMENTS to follow and which you will feel free to ignore.
He’s not gonna like that.
And if you honestly believe that without secular people to rein in your religious stuff, including the horrific ones, that society would be just fine, then take a look at muslim fundamentalist countries where the religion is fully enshrined in law and enforced. Rarely do they execute citizens for being gay or leaving islam, but it does happen. Mostly it’s rare because far too many people are terrified of admitting to either of those things to ever risk saying it out loud. Saudi Arabia has a law that says ALL ATHEISTS ARE TERRORISTS. All christian commandments put into law would be pretty much the exact same horror show. If you don’t believe me, go read all 613 commandments. I dare you to tell me it would be a good society if all of them were enforced by law.
Most of you will not have read this far, thank you to those that did. But I am not finished destroying red pens “logic”. In my next post I will show that his assertion that truly religious beliefs (contained only in, and regarding, christianity) are not being put into law when he says, “Yes, it WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE to legislate one of THESE beliefs, but who’s trying to do that ? No one as far as I can see”. As I already pointed out, I guess he can’t see the no Sunday shopping laws that have been, and still are in many, many places, on the books for about a century. So either he is simply completely ignorant of the subject he is trying to “set the record straight” about, or he is lying. Since he seems like a pretty intelligent guy, he has left me no choice but to call him a liar. It takes about ten seconds of research to find the enormous number of purely religious laws on the books. There are FAR MORE purely christian laws on the books, or that have been tried to be put on the books by christians, than just the Sunday shopping one, so read my next post if you want to know the truth that red pen is pretending he just can’t see !
I've still not heard why religious beliefs are inherently less legitimate than any other beliefs.
Dawkins is a super religious guy, I’m not sure why he is arguing against his religion of science.
Love these videos! When is the next one coming?
First of all, you missed the most important word in that sentence -ENTITLED. The whole idea that the religious get to decide what the definition of "marriage" is, is ridiculous. Marriage is the union between two PEOPLE, in the eyes of the law. Anything else is a violation of their human rights. In your bible, there is the passage that says homosexuality a sin, and the punishment is death. Is that the kind of law you would like to enshrine? So would you want the Islamic sharia law enacted in your country?
Bottom line, anything that infringes on the rights of other based on the rules of your bible should not be put into law.
"Pro - Birthers" and anti abortion laws are so from the bible and your religion. Until a fetus can survive outside of a womb, it is not a human. Pro-Birthers have no right to take away a woman's bodily autonomy. I hear many right wing Americans complaining that they shouldn't have to wear a mask or get a vaccination because it violates their bodily autonomy. Why should they get to decide that they don't have to get a vaccination that can save them and not kill other people, but a woman can't decide to have some cells removed from her body?
That is why religious beliefs that violate peoples basic human rights should not be enshrined in the laws.
I don't think you understood the video enough to see the point but okay. Also, your point about homosexuality shows that you haven't studied the Bible long enough to know why that verse exists in the first place. :) While Christians are the ones mostly against abortion, like what Mr. B said, you don't really need the Bible to go against abortion. Science actually affirms that Life starts at Fertilization with the Embryo's conception soooo if you say that those babies are not human, you might need to do more research on that ^_^
@@Randz777 homosexuality is seen throughout nature. It has been shown to be partially influenced by genetics. So anything the Bible has to say about it is completely wrong. Secondly when an egg is fertilised it is just dividing cells. By your logic cancer is life and it shouldn't be killed. Until a FETUS is able to live outside the womb it is not a person. I think if you read your bible you will find many parts where the good of the Bible kills many babies, and orders the deaths of many more.
The medical decisions of a woman is hers and hers alone. She gets to decided how her body is used. Not you, Mr. B, me or anyone else gets to decide that. Forcing a woman to go thorough an unwanted pregnancy is barbaric and takes away their human rights, and turns them into a second class citizen.
@@mikelipton6116 The statement "just because it is seen throughout nature, it automatically means that it's something us human beings should apply" is just not right. I mean, there are things that animals do that humans don't, so are you suggesting that we also do those things? The thing is, we aren't animals, we're human beings so we shouldn't look to nature to guide us with what we are to do. Just because it is seen through nature, doesn't mean that it's already the right thing to do. Some animals eat their own children sooooo yeah by your logic we can allow that as well.
If you are trying to prove to me that fertilized eggs are just dividing cells then tell that to all the biologists who believe otherwise...just google it and see whether science actually agrees with you on that one :) you don't need the Bible to prove that life begins at fertilization. Maybe the question is: How do you define life?
Maybe you have to do research as to why God orders the death of some people rather than just use it as an argument :) there are tons of videos and articles out there that actually give an explanation for all of the things that happened in the Old Testament so have fun reading! ^_^
You only believe that because you don't believe that babies in the womb are not people so until you change that stance, I can't really say anything that will convince you otherwise :)
@@Randz777 I never suggested that we do all the things that animals have adapted to do. What I said was that it is seen in nature, and if it has a genetic component, then if you believe in a god, and that god created everyone, then that god made those people have the genes that express that homosexuality. Therefore it is something that that god wanted for us.
But I guess you have never watched the news. I don't know how many times I have seen the horrible, and tragic story of a parent killing a child. So it does happen in our societies.
But to correct you on another note, we are actually animals. We are highly social, tool wielding animals. We are closely related to the great apes. We share up to 98% of our DNA with them.
Oh, I know the apologists "reasons" for why the god of the bible ordered the genocides of people. "They sacrificed babies on burning hot alters". The problem with that, is that this god, who is all knowing, created those people with the foreknowledge that they were going to sacrifice babies. Then allowed it to happen for a length of time. Then after that time sent in its followers to kill them off. A task that wouldn't have been necessary if this god had either not created those people, or perhaps just made them without the inclination to do that. So either way the god of the bible wanted those baby sacrifices to happen. That god planned those sacrifices.
Until that bunch of dividing cells can survive outside the womb, it is not a person. That is the truth of the matter. That is where the ethical and legal point stands. I don't really care about the opinion of some biologists. I am sure I can find other biologists that say something different.
Once you start forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies all you are doing is taking away their human rights, and forcing them to go to illegal and dangerous back ally abortionists. Would you want people telling you what medical procedures you could and couldn't have, especially when they are safe and could improve your mental and physical health?
Abortions happen less in countries that have excellent sex ed for kids in school. If you want less abortions in your country, you should fight for better sex ed and greater access to contraception. If you do that then we wouldn't have to have this debate.
@@mikelipton6116 well, based on your views about God, it would seem as though the God of the Bible has been misunderstood or maybe you need to read more about Him to understand Him better. :) And well I don't really agree that we are animals, but that's a different story altogether :)
Your second paragraph actually shows that the Bible is also misunderstood because the main problem that the Bible is addressing is SIN. That is the main point of Jesus' death on the cross. Because sin entered the world. Just because God allowed something to happen, it already means that it's what He wanted to happen. That is just not true and is also unbiblical :) but hey that's your view and not what the Bible teaches at all.
As I said, you can argue with biologists or rather science itself about your so-called "truth" :) I mean, just type in google and you can see that that's what Science teaches. It's NOT an opinion.
This is also going to be my last reply because we will never reach an agreement because our views outside of these views are also different and I respect that but at the same time, until those views change, we will just be going around in circles so good day to you bro! hope that you will continue to find the truth as you journey through life! God bless you! ^_^
Try not to say "kill", the proper term is "murder". It's a nuance, but an important one.
Hey! Mr. B! We just found your videos and love them! Are you going to make more soon? (Yes please!)