Atheist Debates - The Bible and Rape
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 ธ.ค. 2017
- Part of the Atheist Debates Patreon project: / atheistdebates
What does the Bible say about rape? Many verses that people object to aren't clearly about rape...but some are. I take a look at some of the apologetics and why the verses are still problematic.
It disgusts me when Christians try to justify this saying something like, “Well, we can’t judge stuff like this because we would be applying a modern standard to an ancient culture.” Wait, it’s culture that is at issue? I thought this was supposedly the perfect Word of a perfect God?
Dan Conger and yet they want us to live by biblical standards of morality.
Yeah and if that's the argument then why continue making such a fuss about gay people?
That's when you say "What happened to objective morality?"
@@michellem7290 Religious institutions are finding it harder to survive over time as they become less relevant. Some churches welcome LGBT now. So much for the bible being the word of god. They have been brilliant at interpreting the word of god for many years, and their inventiveness to get around what is in the bible continues to impress.
iAMGayBisexual She was not attacked, but indeed taken advantage of and humiliated.
Stuff like this is why I cannot take the apologetic "without God, there is no objective morality" seriously.
It seems like the people who use that argument are the people with the most messed up moral compasses
Yep
It's not even a serious apologetic to begin with, it's a thoroughly bad-faith argument, because "objective morality" doesn't even exist anywhere. ALL morality is subjective, depending on what humans define as standards and how those standards are agreed upon between us. The "problem" of objective morality is not solved by appealing to a God, whether that be a creator-God, or however else God is defined.
Arguments for the existence of a God don't provide any grounding for morality, because they are merely assertions based on little or no evidence of anything. So they usually fall back upon holy scripture of some sort, whether that be the Bible, Koran, Torah or whatever. But those effectively say little more than "these things are moral / these other things are immoral because God says so". That isn't a grounding for morality at all - it's merely a moral pronouncement or commandment - morality being defined by nothing more than the whims of God, which is also subjective.
Either way, we're stuck with subjective morality, either from human standards and agreements, or from "divine" pronouncements or commandments. So we still have to decide for ourselves which to use. Given that there are parts of every holy scripture which we can't all agree on as being moral or immoral, there is nothing particularly superior about using morality derived from "God". So on balance, it's probably better to use morality derived from humanistic principles, which are at least grounded in the reality we all share.
Breaking the chamber - Who else should command us then but god to burn witches, kills homosexuals and kill family member who choose another religion? The Bible is a book of horror and it is about an immoral monster.
Why is rape bad if there is no God?
And for years, sitting in the pew, people do not even wonder why some passages are never read in sermons...
It's actually embarrassing that once I believed in this book's holiness.
AdolfvonHeidrich I'm embarrassed too but we can only go forward now
Shouldn’t be embarrassed. I’m sure lots of people are convinced on a lot of things that aren’t true.
How did you change your mind (if you don't mind me asking)?
th-cam.com/video/0YoSypyTtW4/w-d-xo.html
14 Y.o me realizing that the Books of Songs never actually read by anyone ever in my Church: 👁👄👁
When people say that "it was the way people did stuff back then" i like to make this analogy:
You have a young son, and he starts stealing some things when you take him to the market. He starts with candy and then moves on to some bigger things like toys and soon enough it is normal for him to do it. One day you discover it, and you don't like stealing, so now you have some options on how to deal with it: 1) You can tell him that his actions are wrong and that he can't do it anymore, giving him punishment when he does it. 2) You can just look to the other side and pretend you don't know what he's doing. 3) You can say "well, it's the way he does things, one day he'll learn", and proceed to make some rules regarding which store he can and cannot steal from, and how much he can steal in one go.
Anyone in a sane mind would know that numbers 2 and 3 are a really awful example of parenting. Everyone would criticize it. But when it comes to god (an all powerful, all good god who knows for certain what is moral) they just say "well god permitted it because it was the way at the time". Isn't god powerful enough to enforce these laws regardless of what people are doing? Wouldn't a good parent be against his son stealing (or slaving people, or raping a captive girl), even though his son argues that "it his normal for him"? No good parent would ever choose to let his son do what he whats, nor institutionalize the bad act. And it only gets worse when you realize that god preferred to impose laws against shrimp than against slavery.
And than they usually hop to the "God doesn't want to interfere with our free will" argument.
Nevermind he did that all the time
Heres an idea. Tell a Christian that youre going to read them passages of the Koran or the Tora and read these passages from the bible to hear their initial reactions. I doubt theyll make any apologies
Steve G haha, that's a great idea
You could tell them that and actually read from the bible. They would criticise it and not know the difference.
@@thejohn6614 that's literally what they said.
@@Vivi2372 yup. Must have been half asleep and read it wrong or something.
This is my go to strategy in my attempts to deconvert my brother, who is still a Christian. Frame it as something in the Quran, and when he expresses disapproval, link it back to something in the bible. Since most of the ideas in the Quran are simply Old Testament ideas taken to an even further extreme, this is incredibly easy to pull off.
With regard to the female captive whose entire family was killed, and, presumably, her entire village, as well, who was then taken as a "wife"...if the man lost interest in her, and set her free...she had nowhere to go.
YY4Me133 it was over 30 000 of them if memory serves me, but he could sell her on or set her to work in a field or something out of his sight and maybe score another one the next time they conquered a foreign town
Also, when they say virgin, do you know the age of that poor girl? What i found out-but don’t quote me- they would marry as young as 12. So when they write virgin, we are not talking about a women, but most likely a child.
Inner_ Souls great point
"What kind of father would make his daughter marry a man that sexually assaulted her?"
Well, what kind of father would sell his daughter as a slave? Yet Exodus 21 says some fathers did.
th-cam.com/video/0YoSypyTtW4/w-d-xo.html
Republican Christians would. They are extremists.
Thank God I'm an atheist
Apophis lol..good one.
Apophis yikes bro you’ll see
Me and you both
Jack Jameson yeh I just fuckin bet I'd feel it
Is that a John Denver song? ..oh wait
Why is it a woman's responsibility to "cry out"? In addition to "fight or flight" we now recognise "freeze" as a trauma response. This is a basic survival instinct that is triggered if we have no hope of escape. A person may stop struggling and lie very still, they may mentally remove themselves from the attack and sometimes have no recollection of what happened afterwards. It's evident in animals as well as humans and can be seen when a lion catches an antelope and the antelope just stops struggling, then when the lion walks away the antelope suddenly arises and runs off.
In addition a woman may make a conscious decision not to resist an attack. This is more of a cognitive decision where she decides the best strategy for preservation is to submit to the attack. An omniscient deity would be aware of both our basic and higher cognitive survival strategies. and would surely ensure they were incorporated into any laws.
Yes. Or as Matt said she may be consenting (nothing wrong with that, well maybe cheating but nothing death-penalty worthy) or even raping the man.
well you see god just forgot to write all that down in the bible there fore it doesn't really count because verse so and so says something else so just go with that.
it also struck me to the idea that if she was knocked unconscious or her mouth was covered why there is nothing about that in the laws? Never even mentioned.
astupidgenius creates
Yeah sure men can be raped too. As to whether you are a stupid genius, I don't consider I am in a position to judge you and if I'm entirely honest I don't massively give a shit.
astupidgenius creates but they aren’t properly to be sold.
Always a good day when Matt uploads!
Ya
For sure
tyler laird www.shareislam.com
Ali Baba hey Ali www.mohamedwasapedophile.com
Question to Christians: If one of the 10 commandments stated "Thou shalt not rape", would that make the Bible a more moral book? Of course it would. Why didn't they include it above, lets say 'having a graven image' ?
Well, i mean, if you're gonna have 11 or 12 commandments, sure. But when you set it at only 10, even a supposedly all-powerful being has to prioritize.
@Cuzn Ed, well, as i say, it seems almost comical that Rape doesn't make it in the top 10, but God is adamant that he doesn't want any graven images of himself.
Heck, *four* of the commandments are about protecting his ego. So, yeah, thoroughly wacked priorities.
bonnie43uk You clearly don't understand. If the almighty God did not prohibit graven images then there would be so many crap drawings of him. Just imagine parents taping an awful god drawing on the fridge for all to laugh at. I reckon a good stoning is too lenient for them.
^there is more than 10 commandments
Met a "christian" on tinder. He seemed pleasant when we met. Once he learned i was jewish he got excited at the idea of bringing me to his church. He discussed it as if he wanted to show off a pet. Then he praddled on about the beauty of christ, and the wonderful virtue of abstinence. He asked for a kiss in his car before he dropped me off, then tried to slide his hands up my dress....so much for virtue and wholesomness. He apologized the next day over text and said he had a dream that he was called to be with me. To make me a Christian and to be lead in the faith by him.....i blocked him. My only experience with a religious man. It will be my last.
LOL I am a former Catholic. I have had former altar boys tell me that oral sex didn't count as sex. On our first date. Another mass attending guy wanted sex on the first date. They are all hypocrites.
Can I take you out instead? 💐
@redmamba4695 Oh thats very nice of you im in a committed relationship now so im sorry i cannot.
@@passivelyasking4825 haha it ok. Hope everything goes well in your relationship 👍😊
@redmamba4695 thank you 😊
Former COC here. Keep it up Matt. A voice as strong as yours was bound to come along eventually. I'm either incredibly glad it is this soon or o so disappointed you were not born a little earlier.
People who want to explain why any passage of the Bible which we now find morally repugnant only apply to the time when the Bible was written must explain what standard they use to determine which passages should be discarded. That standard must come from outside the Bible, which means the Bible cannot be taken as a real moral authority.
Steve Davis and why couldn't their god be consistent all the way through
Bible is outdated, it maybe an acceptable book of rules 2000 years ago, but that doesnt change the fact that the rules are partly unmoral!
Cherry picking is stupid, it just shows that the bible is not good and that the faith they have is unsupported!
Actually that's not true cause Jesus came to fulfill the law meaning to complete, which is why you dont see Christians making sacrafises anymore
Steve Davis - It is the same "god" that give the order to kill homosexuals, witches and family members who choose another religion.
@@nicosteffen364 No it wasn't acceptable 2000 years ago.
God: The most unpleasant character in all fiction.
Chapter 2, sentences one and two
Dude, sickkkkk fedora👌🏻
Have you read the book? Dan Barker has written some good stuff I am told, and I am getting God: The most unpleasant character in all fiction. loaned to me.
Great speech. I'm always surprised by how many women especially actually follow these beliefs when they so clearly attempt to degrade them (most religions, including Christianity) I had two ladies knock on my door the other day to teach me about Jesus (yeah, we get them regularly in the UK also despite religion not really being a huge thing here any longer) One lady was also black which adds another head scratching layer given the Bible's views on slavery which harmed this nice ladies ancestors so badly. I spoke politely to them for a while, and pointed out several things that they had both apparently "missed" in their perfect book. They looked eager to leave rather than actually talk with somebody who has an interest and (limited) knowledge on the subject. But I did ask them to read their book more thoroughly and come back to discuss it if they wished to do so. I suspect I'll never see them again sadly but who knows. Keep up the good work, people like you are slowly changing our world for the better.
@CHAOTIC GOOD They never did return despite saying they would. I think I've been blacklisted as I haven't had any visits since 😂
Comic books and science fiction books are good books for teaching morality when you claim it's true you're making a different claim completely
Captain Picard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yaweh
Very informative video as always thanks Matt for your great work keep it up we need you
I thought the bible (and God) was unchanging and perfect. That what was written then applies today. If the Old Testament is not applicable, then all of that shit about homosexuality doesn't apply. Etcetera. Also, some Christian churches still subjugate women.
And there's good reason to say that it's unchanging. Matthew 5:17-18 clearly say that the old testament still applies. The only people who deny that are those who ironically throw Jeremiah 31:31 from the old testament without even finishing what's being said! Verse 33 implies it'll be the same law, only now it's "in their minds and on their hearts" so they can't break it anymore. And then they continue the mental gymnastics by either ignoring that Revelation has Jesus coming back to finish the work or the "second coming" is somehow new work.
Good content and beautifully put together. Thank you Matt.
Your best speech yet.
I would have panic attacks about marriage when I was a Christian because as a woman I was taught that I could never divorce my husband. That meant if I married someone who turned out to be abusive to me, I would be trapped in a relationship with him and even as a christian that terrified me. I never wanted to get married until I became an atheist. Being taught who I was suppose to be from god's standards pushed me away more than anything else.
You can be our weird wonderful wizard any day
I always watch Matts uploads but today I really REALLY put my listening ears on and listened LISTENED
When ever a christian tries to defend their bible by telling you that the law does not apply today, or that the historical context must be taken into account, show them this passage:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. --Matthew 5:17-19
he sure has the spelling of a theist
Tommy _144 most people don't even understand what the Bible is talking about when it mentions heaven and Earth passing. The source for the prophetic subject of heaven and Earth passing is found in Isaiah 65. The prophet describes the destruction of old covenant Israel except for the elect as creating a new heavens and earth. It's symbolic language that just another way of saying old covenant world. So when Jesus says till heaven and Earth pass he really means " till old covenant Jerusalem is destroyed not one not or title shall by no means pass away till all be fulfilled". It seems to have it's fulfillment in the fall of Jerusalem in 70 ad with it's old covenant priesthood and temple destroyed.
wishingfreedom . You keep telling yourself that.
We can show them anything we like, they will simply take an apologist stance as they have already moulded their preferred aspects of the bible to be the word of god to align with their own moral code, so anything else is irrelevant in their view. Delusion comes in many shapes and sizes.
Thanks bro... usefull in debates
Jesus: "That was Moses' idea not mine." Matthew 19:8
Moses: "These are God's ideas not mine." Lev. 27:34, Deut. 28:1,15
When I was as Christian I used the excuse that the unjust laws were Moses' attempt as a primitive Middle Eastern man to govern a society. Last year, I noticed Leviticus 27:34 and many other passages like it. If there is a just God who created life, He would not be so stupid as to write such laws. Sounds more like the Taliban. My faith in the Bible completely eroded. I prefer to be an apostate and a heretic.
Haha I say this all the time. When people in the U.S. state they want the bible taught in public school I retort with "would you be comfortable with ME teaching your kids the bible?"
😂😂😂
Yeah there is no moral justification behind many of these terrible things whatsoever....the mental gymnastics religious people have to take to get around this is nothing short of superhuman.
thanx so much for this. This subject is not discussed enough.
How is it possible for anyone to look at facts like these and STILL not figure out that MANKIND, specifically MEN, were responsible for writing & enforcing this crap?? And it really never ceases to amaze me (in a bad way) that this is being presented as somehow moral or even divine teaching, and I have to argue with Christians about who really has the moral high ground...come on people!
Another great vídeo, Matt. Thank you!!
So, what's up with the Bible having specific prices listed? Didn't they have fluctuating prices at the market?
algi the writers were trying to run the tribe.
THIS MAN IS A LEGEND.
Country rape is when your a kid who likes rock in roll and have to go on a road trip in your father's station wagon and you have to listen to country and western music on the radio all the way.
Luu dat
Thank you so much! I appreciate your video.
Great video!
Great talk. Can't wait to see more videos on the topic of women in the bible! Super interesting (also rather frustrating but well, still religion we're talking about here, so no surprise)
I used to look in shame and mockery at Sharia law and Islamic law. The Bible contains the same nonsense.
Thank you for your work Matt!
Tremendously important video!
Wait a minute! If women are property of their husbands, that automatically means, that it allowes men to rape their wifes - unless there was a passage which explicitly does forbids this. Nobody, no matter if they had an affair before or agreed to a marriage at one point, necessarily has to continuusly want sex with the partner. But if one of them is property of the other, there is no choice about that on this side. That would have been worth mentioning, wouldn´t it?
THAT completely normalizes rape. And other than the other points, where modern christians can claim, that the pro-rape-interpretation is extremely outdated in real life chistianity, there is no way they can claim it in this case. Christian resistance against marital rape being illegal, is a very fresh phenomenon.
To attest that this is still relevant: The current leader of the largest party of Germany has voted against making marital rape count as a crime. Said party (CDU) is considered to be centrist in Germany.
@@kappascopezz5122 would it at least work in a 2 way street? If she gets sick of it then she'll just buy a strap-on and start showing hubby how it feels as he ignores her saying no
"Shaving head" for captive woman could be related as well to the removal of the cultural insignia commonly represented by the way different clans had their hairs.
Lu Randir LoL. No, it was done to control her.
It is about humiliation, degradation and everyone sees she is war spoils.
@@TorianTammas I can see, this zombie is trending ;)
yup in general I would agree, but there are cases where hair represent culture, and you humiliate enemy by removing his insignia (remove or burn flags, destroy uniforms, destroy god signs etc)
excellent work Matt! I know my bible quite well, but there were a couple of excellent examples there that I didn't know about
Nice video. I was hoping to see nice discussion in the comments about the subject of the video, but apparently a lot of people find it necessary to flood this video (due to it being recent) with content that is unrelated..
The focus on virginity only means that females who were not virgins did not even pose a "moral" question (they had no market value). They were probably not only not seen as not having any rights (shared with virgins), but also lacking any value, as such their maltreatment was not hurting any man's property rights, thus nobody felt the need to justify their maltreatment, hence they were not important to even register in a religious codex.
23:40 Those versus couldn’t be more abundantly clear and what they represent. I don’t know how anybody maintains their sanity arguing with people that will try to justify any of that.
This is one of your better videos, Matt. I got a lot out of it. Did you follow through and make a video about what the bible says about women?
Thank you. Thank you so much for this.
I haven’t read all of the other comments, so this may have already been addressed. Mary was betrothed to Joseph. She was purportedly a virgin. God impregnated her. I assume she was in a village setting. (Meaning not a field) wouldn’t this qualify as a stoning offense? Sure, we could argue that god was exempt from his own law. I find that problematic. Still, it could be argued. What do the apologist say about this? Surely it’s been brought up. Just an observation.
To be fair...
In the legend, God magically impregnates her without intercourse. Therefore she's still a virgin, and he hasn't broken his own rule.
But you make a great point about the village. The rest of the village were surely expected to stone her to death and heap shame on her family and even Joseph, but they didn't. It must be that her claims of magical impregnation were pretty darn convincing. If i remember the legend correctly, her mother or aunt or something also witnessed Mary's visit from an angel, so probably they backed up her story.
Either that, or you've found one of many continuity errors in the legend. :-)
The same way that God made Adam, male and female, God made the body for Jesus in the womb of Mary. "A body You have prepared for Me." It isn't that hard to understand purposefully.
No rape involved. No sex involved. Creation involved.
KMANelPADRINO if it isn’t hard to understand, then the process should be easy to explain. How exactly does the supernatural process work? Is there an incantation? If so, what words are used? Is there a special ritual performed? What is this God made of? What substance brings this being into a defined existence? How exactly do you define existence? What are the prerequisites that differentiate something that exists from something that is considered to be non existent? These seem like simple questions for someone who seems to understand how a virgin conception happens supernaturally.
KMANelPADRINO the op is asking why the villagers didn't stone her which is irrelevant to the ideas of how it happened.
Highly likely the story, at least details of it, were made up long after the time frames (there were several contradictory times for Jesus birth) in which it supposedly happened.
Also it was in a time with Romans in charge (and raping peasants) and greeks around as well so they may not have been free to stone as they wished
She clearly had a good reason to make up a story to save herself from being stoned to death
I have heard that the homosexuality mentioned in the new testament was to do with men who raped boys. That was one explanation I was given when I brought it up. Of course that is very much open for interpretation. Then there's Sodom and Gomorrah but that's men wanting to rape angels, not men being raped. Apart from that, I don't think I've come across or even heard Christians discuss men being raped.
Sharlene Gray lolwut? I know plenty of Christians who know men can get raped, and even a Christian man who himself has been raped. I don't know the kind of people you hang around but that is a very strange comment.
Jeff I'm talking about in sermons and bible study discussions when talking about what the bible says. Just my experience with the first 20 or so years of my life growing up in a middle range progressive church. Rape in general wasn't really talked about to be honest.
Jeff of course it wasn't ignored that men could be raped but it just wasn't talked about and I liked the point Matt raised in that it never discusses in the bible what the consequences of that is.
in fact, you can take all the laws about men and women having sex outside of marriage, and still apply them when the men doesn't consent. if a woman rapes a man in or out of the city, he gets killed, no possible defense even if he cries out. If an unmarried woman rapes a man, she gets to marry him, and beside, he has to work to provide for her forever and must pay her father money.
yup, these laws are even worse than you previously thought.
Sharlene Gray hmmm Progressive Church, 🤔
Damn that was hard hitting. Great video
Thanks for talking about this topic. I was expecting a bit about Lot and his daughters.
Matt I'd like to listen to you as I am working. Is there a pod cast of your channel?
Alfredo Beltran yeah I listen to a lot of podcast too. If you get TH-cam Red you can listen to TH-cam like a podcast, that's what I do. It's definitely worth the money & it's only 10 bucks a month. 👍
Adding to that, Google Play Music is also $10 a month and includes TH-cam Red.
John Doe thanks for sharing. I didn't know that.
Brandon Heath Shaw You're welcome!
Brandon Heath Shaw thank you for responding. But is there another way? Cheeper?😕😬
Matt, you should watch Ask yourself's video breakdown of your phone chat with VG. Ask yourself is fair to both of you in his break down but I think that it might be very educational and worth while of your time to swallow your pride, your emotions and just watch his video.
I have read the Bible cover-to-cover 17 times. I stopped reading it because of my failing vision. The first 3 or 4 times, I did it to become a better Christian. The remaining times it convinced me that I could no longer defend my position. Thanks, Matt.
Thank you for what you do.
I'm trying to make a list of the top 10 craziest or most immoral bible chapters. so far my top three is Genesis 38, Exodus 21 and Numbers 31. Any more suggestions?
you atheiost have no foundation to say anything is immoral . yopu just love to proved how dumbv you are loser. according to atheism rape murder genocide is all a okay in atheism atheism teaches that human life has no value. thanksa for proving atheist are total fruit cakes.
Are you being serious?
johnloves jesus
I don't know if you're a troll, but that was probably the weakest argument I've ever heard, it's not even worth my time refuting. Have you ever read the Bible?
Luke Janis He has all the hallmarks of troll. Trolling username ✔ Inconsistent bad spelling and grammar ✔ Piss poor but satirical arguments ✔
Not that I can say much with my username!
johnny five amoris Iesu Christi TRIGGERED A BIT?
Im angry that i used to sit through sunday school and listen to this bullshit as a little girl!
Jamie Hamel are you a bad girl I have 50 shekels for your father
Good thoughts Matt, thanks
thank you Matt
Also, im glad its not just me who thinks virginity is stupid! I feel more powerful and satisfied and empowered that i get to enjoy my sexuality anyway i want and dont have to suppress it.
Mmmmm baby
6:30 I agree, still absolutely horrible. She could have been drugged or been too scared if the rapist said he's going to hurt her family is she screams.
And in any case cheating shouldn't be punished with death. I'd still use it in this context as an example of Biblical immorality.
There were no rape drugs back them.
It's interesting to note that in Italy before the 60s and 70s there was something called "rehabilitating marriage" ("matrimonio riparatore" in Italian) which was very common especially in rural areas.
Seems more terrifying than interesting.
Matt, I am interested to know how you defended these versus when you were an evangelist? I can see both sides, but I definitely am a bit unclear as to why most things are not just explicitly said. Do not rape! Regardless of the law against fornication/adultery. Or how when some people explain the meanings behind these versus add so much to what is actually written. Why was what they are explaining, not just written?
It almost sounds as though this book was written by backwards savages.... and not a divine, infinitely wise creature filled with love.
lol
With all the #metoo stuff going on, as well as other events and advances regarding awareness of gender inequality, it boggles my mind how many women (and men who should support women's rights) stay faithful to the god of the Bible.
The best. Thanks, Matt...
Its interesting to hear the sorts of arguments you make here compared to your dismissals of the mythicist position elsewhere and it seems like you have two separate methodologies you are using on these topics, with the one here being much more loose, willing to look at context and overall (in my opinion) more reasonable.
Some passages in the Bible cannot be read because people would walk out of church. A Good Minister talks about the Goodness of God everything else is kept quiet. Pastors will looses there 501 3c if they talked about the Bible fully so alot of passages are kept a secret.
Virgin = certainty of being the father of the children (sons!) she births for you. And that measures your manly status in the community.
I think the focus is on whether she’s betrothed because her consent doesn’t matter in any of the situations, it’s all about whether a man was harmed by property damage.
This is a very powerful video.
Great video. Unfortunately this type of religious form of Abrahamic doctrine is practiced around the world and is justified in other countries.
Matt, ever consider having a chat with Ben Shapiro?
That's fucking awesome.... "would you let me read passages OF MY CHOOSING from the "good book"... to your children?"
LMAO... I never thought of that one. That's fucking gold!
Mattamous ! Awesome job! You are a great study. Ever though about starting in depth study of Islam? You would be such a great force for good there as well. Reading Warner, Spencer and alike are informative but... when you read where a Christian apologists is complaining about the other middle eastern religion down the street, it comes off as shallow. It feels like school kids pointing fingers.
It would be a huge project for you. ( and I know very depressing reading) but the truth about Islam coming from you, would seem to me, to be much more credible and luminous.
Great video, I learned a lot. Never stop.
Wtf is vegan gains?
From what I understand he is a vegan youtuber that called the atheist experience not to discuss atheism/theism but to discuss veganism. He did that not by making a case for veganism (he seemed totally uninterested in doing so) but by trying to frame Matt Dillahunty's position for him despite being corrected multiple times that he was getting it wrong.
is it a bad thing that I am just bored of arguing with christians. it just gets old after awhiele
It’s hard to win an argument with a smart and rational person, but it’s damn near impossible to win an argument with a Christian.
21:22 Based on later passages, im guessing the shaving of the head was not so much to make them less attractive but to psychologically shame or torture them, since i do recall a verse that says something along the lines of "a womans long hair is her glory", or something to that effect. So its likely a case of Hey, im going to strip away your glory or your pride that you see in yourself so that you're mentally broken and less likely to resist or put up a fight because youre now just an empty shell of yourself.
According to kjv lay hold means force look also to the kjv part about rebellious son.
Why the obsession about virginity?
I think it is really simple, it is a good way to know atleast her first child is that of the husband.
I don't think old times had DNA scanners
But that is also stupid and immoral, because again it is all about the interest of the father/husband and just ignores the wishes and best interest of the woman
So the interest in virgins comes from a more primal evolutionary response. It’s like it makes sense in our monkey brain to want to go after virgins because there’s an unclaimed are in touch that way you’re guaranteed to get your genes in there. So that was kind of ancient people’s obsession with virginity no I’m not saying that we should continue or propagate this but that’s kind of why ancient people start like this typically
daily_ berry yea.. kind of makes me think of the hand maids having children when the wife could not.... not saying I know. Just a thought.
daily_ berry not everything is about male superiority or male dominance. Remember back then women were just not equal to men. Men did the fighting women didn’t. So why would you treat her like one of the fighters. Not saying we should still do it, but there was no need to propagate and trick people into female domination because that’s just how people thought.
Oopsie Poopsie because it was the norms and accepted that men had the power? Please listen to yourself.
Excellent points.
"This is the way they talked about things"
I'm convinced this is the way some of our ancestors will describe our language about "deserve" and other moral ideas tied to a contra-causal "free" will where retributive bloodlust is involved.
I run into this kind of nonsense all the time, seeing people as property, in *any* context - is an attempt to devalue the only way we get to value. It's so short-sighted, and a source of so much of our suffering.
what do you think of the situation with logan paul recently?
Can you please talk about the "criterion of embarrassment"?
Chicken, go debate VeganGains
Virginity is considered important, in part at least, because of paternity uncertainty. This has no bearing on the moral standing of the text, but that is at least a partial explantion for purity culture.
Virginity means she is without child which means any child after that point would be his. It's also about pledging herself fully to her husband as is instructed for both partners to do.
John Fouse If she is a virgin, then she has no previous partners. What happens past there isn't relevant to the fact that bring a virgin means she isn't pregnant with another man's child at the time of meeting or first sex with the husband.
"He examined the Book which She had been reading, and had now placed upon the Table. It was the Bible.
'How!' said the Friar to himself; 'Antonia reads the Bible, and is still so ignorant?'
But, upon a further inspection, He found that Elvira had made exactly the same remark. That prudent Mother, while She admired the beauties of the sacred writings, was convinced that, unrestricted, no reading more improper could be permitted a young Woman. Many of the narratives can only tend to excite ideas the worst calculated for a female breast: Every thing is called plainly and roundly by its name; and the annals of a Brothel would scarcely furnish a greater choice of indecent expressions. Yet this is the Book which young Women are recommended to study; which is put into the hands of Children, able to comprehend little more than those passages of which they had better remain ignorant; and which but too frequently inculcates the first rudiments of vice, and gives the first alarm to the still sleeping passions. Of this was Elvira so fully convinced, that She would have preferred putting into her Daughter's hands 'Amadis de Gaul,' or 'The Valiant Champion, Tirante the White;' and would sooner have authorised her studying the lewd exploits of 'Don Galaor,' or the lascivious jokes of the 'Damsel Plazer di mi vida.' She had in consequence made two resolutions respecting the Bible. The first was that Antonia should not read it till She was of an age to feel its beauties, and profit by its morality: The second, that it should be copied out with her own hand, and all improper passages either altered or omitted. She had adhered to this determination, and such was the Bible which Antonia was reading: It had been lately delivered to her, and She perused it with an avidity, with a delight that was inexpressible. Ambrosio perceived his mistake, and replaced the Book upon the Table."
Matthew Lewis, The Monk
I usually reference Deuteronomy 21:11-14 alongside Numbers 31:15-18
Oh lol I should’ve watched a little further 🤦♂️
So, virginal girls have mystical value? Is that where we get the phrase "Mint in box"?
I SHOULD feel ashamed of that joke, but it amused me too much
TheKyrix82 well there’s no biblical punishment for ‘unboxing’.
Well, if it happens before sale, you throw it in a fire. That's punishy
*Man up and debate VegainGains* Check your twitter Matt, contact Richard Burgess aka VeganGains through twitter for a debate.
I'd hope that Matt has the intellectual honesty to concede the argument altogether instead of defending the indefensible. It sucks admitting that needlessly killing animals for food is immoral, but Dawkins and Harris managed to acknowledge it.
I was a meat eater up until just six months ago, and somehow decided to try it for health reasons. No regrets. Sadly the ethics weren't my initial impetus, but I always admired vegans for doing what I, at the time, thought I couldn't.
Ditto, I would add that I became a vegan to minimize my carbon foot print as much a s possible.
ColdCutz I did it for health reasons too (along with liking animals) and it stopped my joint and foot pain and cured my digestive problems so I could get off the powerful daily painkillers which resulted in my brain working enough to access the religious stuff I'd gotten mixed up in.
So veganism resulted in me coming across Matt Dillahunty and others and looking at the science
Ever read "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis?
Does anybody ever question, what the age limit of the virgins would have been?( The spoils of war.) Since the passage doesn't say and this is a Jewish story, should we use the Talmud as a reference and the age limit it sets of three years and a day?
Debate Vegan Gains or admit defeat. I’m not a Vegan Gains fan but you got to respond on why you wouldn’t agree to it.
fuck vegan gains. The dude is a nut job who believe he can ween a carnivore off of meat and get them into a vegan diet. Dude video recorded his grandfather dying so he could prove meat eaters all die from heart attacks. I seen his debate eith bearing the dude just throws arguments from authority and then turns around as proclaims if you have an argument from authority and it speaks against his views he declares it wrong, a fallacy, or just an opinion. He argue morality while being a highly immoral fucktard. Just watch his old videos playing FPS games he is like a zoned in psychopath. Then goes on about killing and slaughtering meat eaters to teach them a lesson.....yeah real fucking moral from a guy who loves to argue not eating animals is moral because it is wrong to hurt any other creature.........yeah this is his logic.
Who's this Vegan Gains and why should Dillahunty debate him?
Because Matts time is far to valuable to fuck around with a dick weed like him.
oppermanfitness
I don’t see any reason for Matt to debate him, he’s not even in the same league, maybe once he gets out of his Mom’s basement, as far as I’ve seen he’s a hypocrite, he talks about eating animals, how does he know that plants don’t experience pain and fear, he doesn’t but he also realizes he has to eat something so he draws his own subjective line at not eating animals, why not stop eating plants since he doesn’t know 100% that plants can’t feel. Seems to be just his opinion to me. His argument works only if he gives up eating all together and sacrifices himself. That’s why people can’t debate people like that because their own position is hypocritical.
gogi laugh all you want. Plants can feel pain. Didn't you do biology at school?
I'm thankful for what you did and do for atheists, but you are wrong on veganism, no wonder you lost your cool on the debate against richard. You've grown a big ego, let it go...
The irony of it all is that you'll most likely end up having a heart attack or stroke. You might see this as a personal attack, but let's be real here heart disease is the leading killer for a reason, we don't eat like we are supposed to. A whole foods vegan diet has been proven to reverse heart disease amongst other chronic illnesses. Ask Caldwell B. Esselstyn, MD. How's your blood pressure? LDL? take care you can save yourself.
Thank you! my christmas present
Damn Matt dillahunty is always a awesome listen to. Never heard a bad conversation or speech from him. Dawkins, hemet, and dilahunty, my fave atheist speakers. “THANK GOD FOR THESE GUYS” 😂😂😂😂
Here are a few more that are really good: AronRa, Seth Andrews, and Dan Barker. I appreciate all that these guys do to bring us the actual truth!
Why are you afraid to debate "Vegan Gains" his channel is 5 times larger than yours... it would be good PR for your channel, and if you are confident in your beliefs and logic you should be able to destroy vegan gains logic. [Although vegan gains logic is pretty solid]... stop running!
David Munoz Hey I got a great idea let's go to a video and argue about some shit the video isn't even about. Hey remember when vegan gains recorded his dying grandfather to prove eating meat his bad because people that die only die because they ate meat? Remember when he nearly killed his dog and his wife was scared of him for weeks afterwards because he was so pissed the government conspiracy of meat eaters was gonna jail him for his immoral unethical treatment of a dog? Hey hey Remember when vegan gains took the moral high road about vegans being so great because they don't want to hurt things and then started talking about murdering and killing people that ate meat? Yeah yeah shut the fuck up
Vegan gains is immature and dishonest. Why would anyone debate such a person? And what does veganism have to do with atheism?
David Munoz
Is it possible that Matt doesn’t care about the topic of vegans, personally me as an atheist could give a damn about the topic of vegans, I’m guessing Matt doesn’t give it much thought either, you’re so stuck on yourself that you think everyone should even care about this topic.
Captain Atheist I don't know anything about this vegan gains bloke but for a reason to care your children's future environment should count. Check out Dr Oppenlander's work if you want to know more
Now it's obvious why you won't debate Vegan Gains, he destroyed you... Can you seriously not come up with an argument? There's only one cogent argument against veganism, and you haven't even bothered (or can't) work it out.
The Neo-Epicurean Your confusion is adorable. Sad, but adorable. Acknowledging that I did debate him while claiming I won't, followed by yet another claim that I need an 'argument against veganism' when the issue is whether there's an argument for the claim that eating meat is immoral. It's just amazing to watch your cognitive dissonance expose itself with every post. Adios :)
My friend, I fear the cognitive dissonance is on your side. And just to be clear, I'm not some teenager, I'm a philosopher of ethics. I've been a long time Atheist, my childhood hero in analytics was Russell and I read 'Why I am Not a Christian' when I was 13, and I must say, that you have built a career around arguing against religious people, which we all know don't have an argument, other than faith. The vegan argument is a whole different case, and you've failed to build an argument.
I can try to help you Matt, no one else is reading this thread, so these comments won't be widely read.
I take it you're familiar with the emergence of social contract theory, through the thinkers including Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Paine, and the counters of Burke, and adaptions by Wollstonecraft and wider context added by Bentham and Mill, and later thinkers like Rawls. You use social contract as a defence of the needless suffering and killing of animals, is if social contract is in an of itself a actual moral defence of an action, when clearly through it's history it's been expanded to include and exclude certain peoples and behaviours. Social contract is not a justification of any action, merely the 'house rules' as it were, much in the same way that Papal bull or religious doctrine were before it, albeit constructed on more rational grounds. We'll come back to this.
You also admit you're 'speciesist', as if that isn't more than just saying I'm a racist or misogynist. The burden would fall on you to defend that position with reasoning, and here you will struggle. It's impossible to draw a distinction between all humankind and all animals, there will always be some humans that would fall under into the category of animals, yet you would not want them to be treated as we treat animals, hence the emergence of the term 'speciesism'. So you can't proudly declare yourself as a speciesist, as if that has some moral backing, that would be exactly like arguing man has dominion over the animals by some divine right.
You can try to find a distinction between animals and humans, but so far in the world of thinking and philosophy this hasn't been found, we are all just animals that are using the same emergent cognition, as Hume put it 'The arguments are in this case so obvious, that they never escape the most stupid and ignorant.' (Of the Reason of Animals, 1909-14).
My point thus far, the paths of reasoning you are using are fruitless. I do know of cogent arguments that use social contract and a few minor points, that would have Vegan Gains, not beaten, but sufficiently countered. Let me know if you want me to continue.
If every other animal kills another animal for food, and even some species of plant kill animals for food; what is it about the human animal that makes killing another animal for food "needless"or immoral?
We have clearly got this far via our ability to be apex predators. There is an abundance of data to suggest this. Meat made us. Specifically, cooked meat. Our brains that compose symphonies, work advanced arithmetics, and make us laugh, are the same brains that evolved to out think our prey. We are no more separate from the food chain, because of our sentience, from animals who are less sentient.
Yes, there are significant moral implications, underscored by the devastation that our numbers and methods impose upon the earth, which need consideration.
Eating meat is just how we work. You wouldn't berate a car for consuming carbon fuels if that journey took you somewhere important, even if the exhaust was not the healthiest.
We do need to look at ways to contain our impact, maybe veganism is a solution. But that's not because killing animals is somehow a thing that they can do but we can't. That's just silly.
I would really be interested in seeing what a society of vegans looked like if they had evolved alongside us. Since no such society exists, I'm inclined to think it wouldn't work very well.
Rembrandt - 'You wouldn't berate a car for consuming carbon fuels if that journey took you somewhere important, even if the exhaust was not the healthiest.' Ok, let's work on that analogy, firstly the two actors you point out are the driver of the car and the people hurt by exhaust fumes. The car is nothing to do with this as it's just a tool, like a knife, so of course you'd never blame the non-sentient car! But you might blame the driver...
And if the fuel you use for your car was found to be creating external issues (such as the lead poising back before the 2000's) and someone created an alternative fuel that meant you could still drive your car just fine, you'd have to be a total asshole to say you wanted to stick with the old fuel just because you liked the smell. What argument could you use for not switching to the less harmful fuel?
I believed and I didn't read the Bible, I wish I had studied it, but like many people I just accepted what was thrown at me because I was lazy to find out the truth on my own. I just thought "Pastors, give me your opinion on the Bible and I will obey, blindly, it's all god's word, I don't wanna do the thinking myself". That's insanity!!!
Has Matt had more than one public interaction with Vegan Gains, or am I the only one who thinks that a twenty minute phone call on TAE doesn't constitute a "debate", no matter what VG's fans like to think?
Actually, I've worked out who VG reminded me of during that call.
ShockOfGod.
Shock used to claim he'd "destroyed" the TAE hosts for the benefit of his fans. He'd call into the show, framing the debate in a very loaded way and demand the TAE hosts justify Atheism from the loaded framework he'd set up. So when they explained why his question was ill framed and didn't work and tried to frame things in a way that wasn't a loaded trap, Shock would claim he'd "won".
That's the same sort of impression I got from when VG called into the show...
That's not a bad comp.
The difference is that AFAIK, shockofgod is not a real and present danger to himself and those around him, including animals. Vegan Gains is lucky he's not in a jail cell.