In many religions and even many scientists will agree(and that's probably 1/10 of real scientists and that's all I need is that 1 out of 10 will agree there's morals and legal ground standing) there is concept called "choosing your battles" it's a huge grey area and majority of us fall in spectrum.. not everything is black or white(cut and dry)it doesn't have to, somethings don't have a right or wrong answer. When you do the SAT test: you are graded in the best possible answer(not your fast quick to response first answer..) There's another saying "learning to do what is right ,rather than doing what is easy.." that right there speaks in great values and volumes.. And learning terminology of the root words,the emotional and damaging meaning behind them are both truth and deception(that's why the bible says "Guard all your senses(hearing,sight,voice,mind,hands and Nose they all can be tricked) set the guard post up and polish your armor" that no one can sway your own instincts. And we lost many things by trading one value system for another.. thus losing your own identity "know thyself.."
3:43 *absolutely wrong...* Why there needs to be some "absolutely wrong" in order to be ethics. I mean in a way there may be some "absolutes" derived from personal stuff, like "I don't want to be r@ped". Because if any body wants it, then it is not "r@pe, is just normal s#x, right. So, from what I want I can say that "not wanting" is part of something being wrong, I mean not all that is "not wanted" is wrong, but (maybe) everything that is wrong has a "not wanted" part. So, you want to r@pe but by definition you don't want to be r@ped, then r@pe is always wrong, because in order to validate your "not wanting", that subjectivity has to be valid in every other similar or overlapping subjective experience, if you deny that somebody else "not wanting" to be r@ped as meaningless, then because your subjectivity is the same, you just invalidate your own subjectivity. So, in order to have some valuable subjectivity, every subjective experience has to be valuable. 4:43 *the atheist crumbles...* Why? prove it. Your assertion is that r@pe is wrong because God don't want that? So, it is just about "wanting", right? How is that not relative, or what do you mean by that being absolute? I mean, what if God only likes pizza without pineapple? is it wrong to eat pizza with pineapple? If so, how is that better than saying "lets analyse why this thing is wrong instead of just because this God says so"? Because to me or anybody else, just eating pizza with pineapple is just preference, you are not doing anything wrong, so this appeal to unquestioned intuitions it is saying nothing, it is just trying to trick people. Sure, it sound "bad" to say "k@lling and eating people" is absolutely wrong, but the fact that it sounds bad, is not proving the why it is the case.
Morality is subjective kid. Psychopaths or narcissists, for example, don't feel bad about their actions toward others. So by their perception they are always right, but according to a more empathizing person they are not. Majority of people have empathic view toward their fellow humans and seek to enforce that norm onto society. The major problem with this argument is what's called a change in context conflating the subjective to the objective. If there was an objective morality then no one would believe differently from right and wrong. This is why laws and policies are argued over all the time. It's even why the God of the Bible changes what right and wrong is considered from old to new testament.
Actually, the changes from Old to New Testament aren't actual morality issues. The morality issues don't change: murder is still wrong, theft is still wrong, adultery is still wrong, etc. What does change is the cultic law which, in the Old Testament is designed to do two things deal with the problem of unholy man in the presence of a holy God by providing a priestly intermediary and a sacrifice system to temporarily deal with the sin issue along with keeping Israel separated from the pagan nations to preserve the bloodline of the coming Messiah. Even the basis of salvation doesn't change as Abraham is justified by faith just as Christians are. The difference is that Abraham is justified on the promise of the resurrection whereas Christians are justified on the fact of the resurrection.
Actually it does, it changes how you're supposed to treat those who have wronged you. Rather than an eye for an eye your supposed to turn the cheek and forgive. The problem with this fairytale is it's so poorly written and rewritten that allows anyone to justify one thing while in the same breath suggest it's unjust.
Absolutely wrong isn't something even the christian can say. They do, because they think they can but they cant. Granting that god exists, He would know the objective truth. But you have no way of proving that he communicated this to you. There are many ways to interpret scripture. Who is to say you got the correct objective truth out of it. You can't. Only if you have some direct connection to god could you say what is absolutely wrong. But you don't have this.
Getting Saved is why you're here.
In many religions and even many scientists will agree(and that's probably 1/10 of real scientists and that's all I need is that 1 out of 10 will agree there's morals and legal ground standing) there is concept called "choosing your battles" it's a huge grey area and majority of us fall in spectrum.. not everything is black or white(cut and dry)it doesn't have to, somethings don't have a right or wrong answer.
When you do the SAT test: you are graded in the best possible answer(not your fast quick to response first answer..)
There's another saying "learning to do what is right ,rather than doing what is easy.." that right there speaks in great values and volumes..
And learning terminology of the root words,the emotional and damaging meaning behind them are both truth and deception(that's why the bible says "Guard all your senses(hearing,sight,voice,mind,hands and Nose they all can be tricked) set the guard post up and polish your armor" that no one can sway your own instincts. And we lost many things by trading one value system for another.. thus losing your own identity "know thyself.."
💯✝️
we have been civilized, otherwise it’s whatever rule is strongest wins, usually by force
3:43
*absolutely wrong...*
Why there needs to be some "absolutely wrong" in order to be ethics. I mean in a way there may be some "absolutes" derived from personal stuff, like "I don't want to be r@ped". Because if any body wants it, then it is not "r@pe, is just normal s#x, right.
So, from what I want I can say that "not wanting" is part of something being wrong, I mean not all that is "not wanted" is wrong, but (maybe) everything that is wrong has a "not wanted" part.
So, you want to r@pe but by definition you don't want to be r@ped, then r@pe is always wrong, because in order to validate your "not wanting", that subjectivity has to be valid in every other similar or overlapping subjective experience, if you deny that somebody else "not wanting" to be r@ped as meaningless, then because your subjectivity is the same, you just invalidate your own subjectivity. So, in order to have some valuable subjectivity, every subjective experience has to be valuable.
4:43
*the atheist crumbles...*
Why? prove it.
Your assertion is that r@pe is wrong because God don't want that? So, it is just about "wanting", right? How is that not relative, or what do you mean by that being absolute? I mean, what if God only likes pizza without pineapple? is it wrong to eat pizza with pineapple? If so, how is that better than saying "lets analyse why this thing is wrong instead of just because this God says so"? Because to me or anybody else, just eating pizza with pineapple is just preference, you are not doing anything wrong, so this appeal to unquestioned intuitions it is saying nothing, it is just trying to trick people. Sure, it sound "bad" to say "k@lling and eating people" is absolutely wrong, but the fact that it sounds bad, is not proving the why it is the case.
This man doesn't represent us. Don't worry we'll make sure he gets a good cancelling and shaming.
there still is common sense and emotional attachment…
Hitler was an evolutionist.
Hitler also believed in a god. Not the christian one mind you. But he did believe in god.
Sooo according to your logic.......
@@aidanya1336 god is different than God
@@YECBIB So is evolution and whatever motive Hitler had for doing what he did.
Did the Israelites kill Canaanite children? Was that wrong?
Morality is subjective kid. Psychopaths or narcissists, for example, don't feel bad about their actions toward others. So by their perception they are always right, but according to a more empathizing person they are not. Majority of people have empathic view toward their fellow humans and seek to enforce that norm onto society. The major problem with this argument is what's called a change in context conflating the subjective to the objective. If there was an objective morality then no one would believe differently from right and wrong. This is why laws and policies are argued over all the time. It's even why the God of the Bible changes what right and wrong is considered from old to new testament.
Actually, the changes from Old to New Testament aren't actual morality issues. The morality issues don't change: murder is still wrong, theft is still wrong, adultery is still wrong, etc. What does change is the cultic law which, in the Old Testament is designed to do two things deal with the problem of unholy man in the presence of a holy God by providing a priestly intermediary and a sacrifice system to temporarily deal with the sin issue along with keeping Israel separated from the pagan nations to preserve the bloodline of the coming Messiah. Even the basis of salvation doesn't change as Abraham is justified by faith just as Christians are. The difference is that Abraham is justified on the promise of the resurrection whereas Christians are justified on the fact of the resurrection.
Actually it does, it changes how you're supposed to treat those who have wronged you. Rather than an eye for an eye your supposed to turn the cheek and forgive. The problem with this fairytale is it's so poorly written and rewritten that allows anyone to justify one thing while in the same breath suggest it's unjust.
Maybe you should listen to what he said a little more carefully
He literally said, “ NO”
@@RueRoss And a lot of other stuff that you ignore.
He's just looking to bait views because he can't handle working a job.
@@colbyr.adamson4427 wow that was kinda crazy turn
@@petertoupin7246 yup.. that threw me off too lol 🤫
people get stoned in the bible tho
Absolutely wrong isn't something even the christian can say. They do, because they think they can but they cant.
Granting that god exists, He would know the objective truth. But you have no way of proving that he communicated this to you.
There are many ways to interpret scripture. Who is to say you got the correct objective truth out of it. You can't. Only if you have some direct connection to god could you say what is absolutely wrong. But you don't have this.
Atheists 🤦♂️🤦♂️👹
actually didn’t do anything to prove any point… Jesus is just another subjective reference, good is good bad is bad no matter why!