Morality 2: Not-so-good books


Imagine your society has a new leader who publicizes four laws they
intend to phase in, as follows: Law 1: Any citizen who talks
on a Friday will be executed. The leader was born on a
Friday and didn’t talk and wants this respected in law. Law 2: Your leader
can kill citizens or order their killing
for any reason. Law 3: Any citizen forced by
your leader to commit crimes through mind-altering
drugs, will be punished. Law 4: Parents who commit crime
will have their children killed and if it’s not
their first offence they’ll be made to
eat their children. These laws would no
doubt spark outrage. Law 1 kills people
for victimless crime. Law 2 makes the
lawmaker unaccountable by declaring their own killings
‘lawful’ by definition. Laws 3 and 4 explicitly
punish the blameless directly contradicting the principle
of personal responsibility with law 4 adding an obscene
element designed to dehumanize. They are definitive
cases of injustice. So if asked about our
objections to these laws we’re not confined to saying
they’re not to our taste. We have non-arbitrary
reasons to object. These laws would lead to
clearly identifiable abuses. We know too much about what constitutes harmful
behaviour, suffering and responsibility to allow such laws to be incorporated
into our justice systems. But what if this leader’s been
in office all your life and you’ve been brought up to
think they’re morally perfect? Such a lawmaker wouldn’t
make laws that were unjust so this would create
major cognitive dissonance. How would we respond? Perhaps we’d invent
some context in which of
course it’s right for someone who’d done
so much for the society to make some essentially
arbitrary demands. Or perhaps we’d try
to evade the problem by saying their grasp of morality
was so far ahead of ours we couldn’t understand them that they ‘worked
in mysterious ways’. But we’d be wrong. Clearly, the root
of the problem is the false and morally corrupting
idea that the lawmaker is perfect. It’s corrupting because, in causing
us to accept unjust laws it leaves us defending
the indefensible. Remove this idea and we can see
the unjust laws for what they are. When we accept ideas uncritically or make them sacred, so
we don’t question them this can distort
our moral reasoning because we’re then prone
to having mistaken ideas ruling our attitudes and behaviour
outside our awareness. Those who’ve swallowed whole (or ‘intro-
jected’) the idea, “The lawmaker is perfect” cannot properly evaluate the law until this distorting idea
is identified and removed. Identifying ideas we’ve ‘swallowed whole’ is sometimes the key to resolving
problems in many areas of life. When we consider the traits attributed
to the biblical deity, Yahweh clearly if it existed, it
couldn’t be better placed to mete out fair,
consistent justice. We’re told it
knows our thoughts knows who’s guilty or innocent,
and is perfectly moral. So, unlike human
justice administrators it would have no excuse for
punishing anyone but the guilty or for punishing
them disproportionately. And yet, according
to the Bible it permits, commits and commands
the vilest atrocities corresponding directly to the
laws we’ve just rejected. It orders the killing of those
who work on the sabbath, gay people and women who show insufficient evidence
of virginity on their wedding night. It kills 70,000 people when David
takes a census, at Yahweh’s request and kills almost all land animals
by flooding for human wickedness. It hardens the hearts of the Pharaoh,
the Egyptians and the King of Heshbon through mind control, to enable
their defeat and destruction; it sends a
‘powerful delusion’ to make certain people ‘believe a
lie’ in order to condemn them; and it deceives prophets into
giving false messages then punishes them for doing so. Having stated no child will
be killed for its father it orders the killing of children
for their father’s sins; the killing of
Amalekite infants; the killing of
children without pity. And at least three
books in the bible see Yahweh sink to announcing one of the
most depraved punishments we could imagine: making people eat their own families. Some claim that if the
monotheistic god doesn’t exist everything is permitted. In fact, if we accept the
Bible, the reverse is true. The Bible tells us explicitly that Yahweh has not only permitted
but endorsed rape, slavery the killing of babies, familial
cannibalism and mass murder. It is Yahweh that
permits everything. When our judgment isn’t
impaired by false teaching we can plainly see
the injustices here as we did with
the four laws. But what if we’ve
been brought up to think Yahweh really
exists and is morally perfect and this now
rules our judgment? How do we respond to these acts? Declare them just? We know that killing those known not to be responsible
for the sins being punished is quintessentially unjust. Do we concoct elaborate
justifications? No. When we indulge any impulse
to excuse or defend these acts we’re already going
dangerously astray. If we justify these acts,
what won’t we justify? Do we brush Yahweh’s cruelties
under the carpet of symbolism claiming they’re not meant
to be taken literally? Nothing in the Bible makes clear that
Yahweh’s infanticides are purely symbolic. But even if they were, the idea of
an omnibenevolent baby-punisher makes no more sense as a symbol
than as a literal being. Do we claim these passages
are beyond our understanding? Not only is
that unconvincing when we condemn humans who
act this way without hesitation it represents one of the most
deplorably irresponsible attitudes towards morality and
justice we can encounter. We can’t paper over
these serious issues by declaring the existence of a supernatural
being with unfathomable behaviour. Nor should we be duped into thinking
this response shows humility. Admitting we don’t understand
everything about the universe is humble. Saying we don’t understand that making people eat their
children is a depraved punishment even if it’s ordered by a god is an inexcusable abdication
of critical judgment. But if one does argue there’s a
god that works in mysterious ways ways that utterly contradict
our notions of moral behaviour then its nature is clearly not
the source of our morality. If, according to the Bible Yahweh’s nature deems familial
cannibalism a just punishment yet we’d call any human who
devised such a punishment depraved then these positions
are in direct conflict and invoking divine mystery does
nothing to resolve that conflict. Responding to these atrocities with
examples of mercy doesn’t work either. It just shows the Bible contains
both mercy and atrocity. Some emphasize the New
Testament above the Old shifting focus from Yahweh to the
comparative gentleness of Jesus. But in Matthew 15, Jesus
endorses Yahweh’s order to kill those who
curse their parents presumably including
Tourette’s sufferers whose cursing results
from neurological disorder. Two of the gospels have the bizarre
story of Jesus punishing a fig tree making it wither because it
has no fruit when he’s hungry even though it’s not the
season for it to bear fruit. This is like smashing
a tv set on Friday because the Sunday
film isn’t showing. It’s unstable behaviour,
a tantrum. Some apologists say Jesus is reinforcing
the parable of the barren fig tree a comment on fruitless people. But that doesn’t hold water. The tree he curses isn’t barren: his words show he is stopping
it from bearing fruit again. Also, later verses reveal that
the main point of this miracle is to show that with enough faith,
one can literally move mountains. This is merely a display of destructive
power against a healthy tree to show Jesus’ dominance over nature and convince his disciples they
shall receive whatever they desire if they pray with
enough conviction – a questionable
message in itself. Jesus tells a man
wishing to follow him that he can’t go back
to inform his family. The man must instantly dispose
of his closest relationships. No option even to fetch his
family so they can all follow. These are Christian family
values according to the Bible. The ‘good news’ of Jesus
is not so good. Of course,
as before what’s at the root of all these
familiar responses is a false belief. Once we realize the biblical
god doesn’t exist; once we overcome our reluctance
to question an idea fed to us when we were least able to evaluate it – an idea we’re trained, some of us
even threatened, not to question – the dissonance disappears and we stop having to torture logic
to disguise Yahweh’s injustice. A perfectly just being would not
order the killing of innocents. It wouldn’t
create problems or violate the principle
of responsibility by using mind-control to
induce punishable behaviour. It wouldn’t regulate abusive practices
such as slavery, but condemn them. Nor would it punish disproportionately… Declaring something perfect then using that declaration to infer
that everything it does is perfect is not how valid
reason works. When one argues for the existence
of a god that’s perfect in its justice, love and honesty these are highly specific and
highly fragile claims… A being with these qualities
can’t do just anything. Many behaviours will, by definition,
lie outside its possible repertoire. If it punishes the innocent
or makes use of deception any claim to perfect virtue
shatters into incoherence. Perfection
is an absolute and when Yahweh uses deception regardless of the reasons apologists
put forward for this behaviour the use of deception
*in and of itself* destroys the claim that
Yahweh is perfectly honest. Many who reject theism are told
they owe their morality to religion that they borrow ‘moral capital’
from Judeo-Christian tradition. Even if this
were true the Judeo-Christian tradition
borrowed from what came before. It wasn’t the
monotheistic religions that invented prohibitions
against murder, theft or perjury. These prohibitions promote
peaceful coexistence and were doing so long before
the Bible’s writers were born so the claim that we borrow
moral capital already rings hollow. But, more
importantly if the Judeo-Christian tradition
reflects the Bible an epic set of texts in which practices across
the entire moral spectrum are endorsed
and permitted from virtuous
to vicious it’s no more valid to
say we borrow from this than to say we borrow
from a hypothetical human whose extensive catalogue
of good and bad deeds range from charity
to mass murder. Something that spans
the moral spectrum will, by definition, have
some great virtue in it but this doesn’t mean we
use it as a moral guide. When the mass-murdering
charity worker stands trial the charity doesn’t make
up for the murders and the murders destroy any
claim that he’s a role model. Likewise the many immoral
teachings in the Bible provide the grounds on which we must
condemn these passages outright as morally
disgraceful and reject
any suggestion that the Bible is a source
of reliable revelation. We cannot trust the
Bible as a moral guide. But it’s even
worse than that. The insanity
of the Bible is that what it permits in one
passage it prohibits in another. The making
of images or likenesses of anything
from Earth or Heaven is both forbidden
and commanded. People are ordered to
stone others to death yet only those without sin are
fit to cast the first stone and we’re told no
one is without sin. Good deeds must be
shown, and not shown. These conflicting requirements
defy rationality. Of course, much of
the Bible’s appeal depends on its countless
moral inconsistencies which enable almost anyone to find passages that endorse
their particular view. Some find passages to
support their bigotry; some to validate their
thirst for blood. Others focus on passages
endorsing peace and acceptance. But books that endorse all view-
points, ultimately endorse none. Non-Christians who
cite biblical cruelties are often accused
of cherry-picking. In fact, non-Christians
can freely acknowledge both kindness and
cruelty in the Bible; but clearly it’s the cruelties that
should concern any decent person. It’s those who ignore the immoral
content of religious scripture who are truly
cherry-picking. Theists who discard the less
palatable parts of scripture should at least be honest about
the standards by which they do this and concede that they are applying their
own independent judgment to scripture. Obviously, when we use
our own moral sense to separate good and
bad in scripture – when we revise our
interpretations of it to reflect the more
enlightened view of our time – it isn’t scripture
guiding our morality but our morality guiding
our perception of scripture. The Bible is an extra-
ordinary set of texts. However what it gives us is
not the word of a perfect being but a fascinating record of the inconsistent beliefs
and customs of ancient people as described by a disparate
assortment of fallible human authors writing centuries ago borrowing extensively
from others’ mythology and giving frequently
conflicting versions of events never witnessed
by the authors but circulated for
decades by word of mouth. Many of these authors felt the
mass extermination of lives was honourable
behaviour for a god confusing morality
with power and they poured this flawed
understanding into their writings. But if their ancient
minds failed to see the cruelty and contradiction
in what they wrote it should not be
invisible to us now and we do ourselves
grave injustice if we enshrine their
ignorance in our morality. They didn’t know
better. We do. Religious scripture is
fixed in distant history and its many endorsements of
cruelties we don’t tolerate today make this abundantly evident. It is not a virtue of religious
dogma that it doesn’t change. It is the most
profound failing. Moral systems
that can’t develop in response to advances in
our understanding cannot edify. They ossify. Moral considerations far from leading us to embrace
the so-called ‘good books’ are exactly what should
lead us to reject them. The next video
in this series looks closer at the
nature of morality including discussion of objectivity,
subjectivity and the is/ought problem.

100 thoughts on “Morality 2: Not-so-good books

  1. @Again with morality

    I know that you have no clue on what the bible really says surrounding this video's primitive perspective on the moral that surrounds it, if you want to see my response to the whole video, keep scrolling down in the video's comments until you my comments answering everything about this video, all I can say is that morally speaking the bible perhaps the most moral truths that's disposable to mankind, WHY ?? Like I said, I already responded in a lengthy descriptive response.

  2. I'm going to respond to you with a forwarded message with a quick response to your question on how the bible is morally bulletproof in the eyes of modern scholars

    articlesbase.
    com/christianity-articles/did-­god-command-us-to-kill-sabbath­-breakers-5332466.html
    (I intentionally separated the link because youtube doesn't allow to post links) This is an article called "Did God Command Us to Kill Sabbath-Breakers?"
    This next one is a youtube video about a book,
    youtube.
    com/
    watch?v=1C3q3Zr_R8E

  3. First of all, I dont use conspiracy theories, just the universal adopted truth that one has to believe in something then try to prove it as I already demonstrated you with verses and what they talk about (divine inspiration surrounding science) I dont argue against the scientific method, never did, I argued that the fine tuning isn't measurable in the scientific method but it doesnt disprove it as well & it's a reasonable deduction, all I argued was the reliability of your hypothesized argument

  4. and secondly, how about europe with Renaissance and all of the scientific discoveries made by da vinci and most of the scientists at that time that were strong believers?

  5. And thirdly, you should try to find another example other than a ball because that fails to demonstrate reasonable deduction as reasonably thinking would work against it, that's the beauty of good reasoning

  6. Again you dont even get the point of the argument even though I explained it three times now ….
    The ball would not be destroyed by mere velocity in an N.U. in empty space, because the only thing that causes Force here is the acceleration (F=m*a) which can be slow.
    Further more for the sake of this argument – you can assume an undestroyable object – without touching the point of dispute.
    You don't understand basic physics nor basic logic.
    I am tired of arguing with you – get some education…

  7. actually, it's you who doesn't get logic, obviously, your example relies upon matter, which in this case, the ball has to be made of something, except being a ball of light, then you attack me by saying that I'm not educated, perhaps I'm not a geologist, but I study in almost every aspect of science, studying in a university right now taking courses of science strictly, I doubt that you can even understand the elementary side of science as you have to resort to childish arguments without a point

  8. I had already seen the point you're trying to get across, even though you can't provide a real world example but concerning fine tuning, this argument doesn't fit the case to try to disprove it!

  9. INetPeacmaker (2/2)
    Well, very interesting and I guess defendable position – I am personally unable to see how you get that from the Quran (and probably most Muslims would agree with me), and why you require a god, but who am I to judge … ?
    Can’t help seeing a “humanist and naturalist denier” (forgive me that 😉 ), who carries the Quran as a crutch – if not unnecessary (because it made you aware about philosophical questions) than at least replaceable …
    But this is just my opinion …

  10. INetPeacmaker (1/2)
    O.k. I sum it up simplified: You believe in a god, based on faith – just as Sartre claims this god does not give you moral values, but the Quran is kind of a loose guidance to a morality relatively close to humanism (focusing on free will and personal responsibility [all the way down with good old Sartre]) … also the Quran is a quite ineffective, however a guidance which leaves room for own discoveries, to modern science?

  11. You study "science" this is not even a subject in any university I know. But if you are educated in science as you claim, than explain me how an object in empty space in a Newtonian Universe is destroyed by mere velocity … this is really basic stuff – Mechanics I … go on do it … explain your sheer G force 😀
    the example focuses on the possibility of wrong premisses under unknown circumstances or conditions do you really don't get that?

  12. And by the way, even if the ball would be destroyed by your miracolous "sheer G force" the broken bits still would accelerate (in a Newtonian Universe of course) or is your "sheer G force" also able to destroy matter – probably this "force" comes directly from the Bible?

  13. Inet Peacemaker (2/3)
    You first claim, that god does not give moral laws (Sartre) but somehow you smuggle him in again through the backdoor in the appearance of some kind of a guiding guru … maybe also a bit like Kant– requiring the idea of god so that “not everything is allowed” or as “basis for moral values”?
    Whatever can’t help having the suspicion, that this is an -at least replaceable – if not unnecessary crutch.
    But who knows? 😉

  14. Inet Peacemaker (1/3)
    Again, there is not much disagreement left – I guess you are in a good position to defend your faith, the way you approached it is probably not even disputable.
    Furthermore again^^ – Still, the only point left is, that I personally cannot see how you draw your – in my opinion – without doubt reasonable worldview from the Quran, or why you need a god?

  15. I miss took you for an educated person, as you know english isn't your strong point at all, but I'll let it slide, I said I study various sciences, not that science is a particular subject but a general classification for courses that I'm taking such as physics, biology, engineering, etc. Also in the example you have provided as we're dancing around it a lot, as arrogant and unscientific, and illogical you are, that example is redundant, furether more, you never explained from a start open space

  16. as one would speculate that the ball being made up of a different molecular structure, in the sense that the matter of the ball is different from that of light, that any object pushed at the speed of light would in a sense have to deal with change of velocity to some degree which you failed to provide so I assumed. Here's a link about this topic,
    physicsforums.
    com/showthread.
    php?t=17553
    about your argument, you try to undermind reasonable deduction, then you accuse me of not critical thinking

  17. In your subjective view, one cannot be right, in an experiment where one concludes an outcome before even experimenting and the results yield a different outcome, how would you go on to speculate it, would you say that you were wrong or that there was a mistake in the experiment or an unforeseen variable that's at hand? That what I went on with the credibility of your argument, that it dwells in the realm of speculation such as mine which are subjective rationally thought deductions

  18. Again dont use arguments that contradict yourself while to try to prove me wrong because the infallible truth is that you cannot disprove my hypothesis with yours while mine in nature presents itself a relevant answer to the world around me as opposed to yours that by nature is a question, not to be taken as an answer, literally it's millions of different kinds of interpretations, there's no single theory out there that's an answer to disproving god and answering creation as accurately as god

  19. So you could understand science and the seriousness of religion, it's all broken down from this tree
    First it's;
    SCIENCE -> THEORY ->
    from theory it's broken down to these two categories;
    ATHEISM/ or THEISM
    Lets look at theism;
    THEISM -> (ISLAM, JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY, BUDDHISM, HINDUISM, etc.) and within all of these branches, there are still many different branches.
    as for atheism;
    ATHEISM -> (STRING THEORY,HARTLE–HAWKING STATE, Millions more) as you know, all of these are hypotheses in the

  20. realm of assumptions. In other words they all rely upon assumed variables that are not testable, so to say that I lack critical thinking, then I present examples & I explain theories such as fine tuning from reasonable deducting, then you try to undermind reasonable deducting which you rely upon heavily, example the use of radio activity dating to prove the age of earth & going off to a redundant topic where in the process of trying to prove me wrong, you contradicted yourself.

  21. @ 12345shushi (4/4)
    Summing up you don’t understand the basic stuff of math, physics and logic – but talk about modern physics, cosmology, geology, radioactive half-life, meteorology and genetics ….
    Your utter not understanding of basic principles is reflected in the utter nonsense throughout your comments.
    Again get some education before you talk about subject you do not understand at all…

  22. @ 12345shushi (3/4)
    The fact that you don’t understand that even if it would break, the broken bits would still accelerate, shows me that you do not understand Energy Conservation either, which is one foundation of Thermodynamics (and Mech) which is another basis of physics,
    The fact that you think, that the argument ,that the ball could get destroyed before proofing the point of the argument shows that you do not understand logic either.

  23. @ 12345shushi (2/4)
    Thinking that a ball gets destroyed from “sheer G force” shows me that you do not even understand principles of mechanics (F=m*a) which is the very basic of physics.
    Further not knowing what velocity is, demonstrates that you also do not even understand movement tasks, which is one of the first basic subjects you learn in maths.

  24. @ 12345shushi (1/4)
    Lots of words – Avoiding answering the question? No “sheer G force” anymore?
    I explained the point of the argument four times now – you don’t get it
    But anyway:
    Make an experiment – sit down on your chair and don’t move – now you move with app. 30.000 m/s on earth through space – now open your trousers and see if your balls have disappeared – if yes I apologize.
    Velocity alone is a matter of choosing a reference point – and does not cause forces on objects (in e.space)

  25. I'm sorry, if you "push" an object, obviosly the object isn't going to experience force in it, or is it like you said in your example? Because it sounded like you said that …

  26. and if the object did get destroyed, there's a loss of energy as well, well in other words the energy gets divided among the peaces of shattered debrhi, but fact of the matter is that you didn't add a variable such as *open space* under the assumption that we're talking realistically such as fine tunning theory, of course the ball could fictaciously go to the speed of light in an open space, free of friction but this isn't the case as that would be again redunant. But again you claim that I dont

  27. get the point, which happens to be the dangers of thinking logically, as that fictacious ex. you've given couldn't be possible, yet I answered that the nature of that example doesn't fit the category of fine tuning because realisitically & logically speaking that ex. isn't realistic & logical (it's redunant) as fine tunning is, & if it is, it is to the extent of some degree (the variables that exist such as light & an indestructable ball) but for the most part that ex. is beyond logical thinking

  28. The best you could do is accuse me of thinking logically & not following your fallacious illogical incoherent arguments! You can know a lot of science & secular dogmas but in the end, it's not what you know but how you use it, & I already knew all of those elementary aspects of science, you're just trying too hard to prove me wrong from looking at mere judgements I've made from the incoherent mistakes you've done, simply put it as this, you need to think more logically, one isn't exused from it!

  29. how wrong can you be on this point good person?you have no choice as a muslim.Islam has no agenda but to vilify people.you are wrong when you say you do not know what indoctrination means.you are the living example.
    how bright and and how sad at the same time.

  30. Law 3 at the beginning is´nt so absurd at all. All criminals are forced into crime in some sense. Based on theyr experiences, knowledge, and/or situation they had no other choice than to do what they have done. There is no significant difference between a crime due to mindcontrol or to other factors that have shaped the Brain of the criminal. That leads to thr question if it is just at all to punish criminals. Its difficult, but i tend to think so because unwanted actions have to have prices.

  31. Excellent video essay.
    The audio sounds like someone from Britain. I could hardly imagine an American dealing with such a subject.

  32. I'm not sure that killing Amalekite infants is punishing those infants for the sins of their parents. I think the Bible considers being an Amelkite a sin per se. So it's not internally inconsistent, just genocidally racist.

  33. The thing about the "god works in mysterious ways" argument is that it dismantles claims that God is perfectly moral just as well as it dismantles claims that God is not. If you cannot understand God's morality, how do you know it's moral in the first place?

  34. Humanity is in a huge fix between immorality (competition, greed, ownership, faith, crime etc), everything we are doing wrong in society today against morality (collaboration and collaboration and..) until we share and treat each other as equals within a ecosystem that requires balance and respect too, we are doomed.
    False economics and values is the pursuit of politicians for uninformed voters to believe they are protected.  Complacency in belief is not a virtue – it is structural violence – ignorance is killing us on many levels.

  35. The author of this video has absolutely no knowledge of the biblical witness or how to interpret it as the hearers did.  It is certainly the case that ancient reports of Yahweh's violent actions against people can be emotionally disturbing.  The disturbance is caused by a proper understanding of the primary source of Western morality, which is undeniably the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.  There are a number of secular intellectuals who know that the ethic of Jesus and Christianity (unconditional love) is the basis for secular liberalism.  Look up Jürgen Habermas' comments on the subject.  

    I would argue the biblical stories are replete with mercy and love.  It is irresponsible and irrational to say the atrocities completely invalidate the mercy and love of Yahweh expressed over and over in biblical witness.

    It is utter absurd and laughable to suggest Jesus would curse a fig tree to punish it.  It was done to teach his disciples about the nature of faith.  He intentionally taught in parables for reasons he gave.  

    Anyone rational religious person can admit there is difficulty in biblical interpretation simply because we are dealing with translations of ancient languages. It is always important to evaluate any biblical text in the historical and cultural context in which it was written.

    This commentary was done without the necessary knowledge and is therefore, without value.  Auditing a few religious studies courses or academic biblical studies courses at a university could have prevented this.  It is dogmatism at its worst.  It does not help in the ongoing dialogue between people of faith and secular humanists, which has been going on in the academy for centuries.

  36. This guy is like an oracle from on high, sent to educate the primitive homo sapiens.
    O if they but had ears to listen.

  37. Exceptionally well analyzed, QS! "The insanity of the bible" sums it up. Reading the bible without the preconceptions that there is a god and he's perfect shows all its insanities. Unfortunately, the believers are so conditioned to fear doing even that, to read the text as it is.

  38. WOW…I AM IMPRESS HOW IGNORANT AND ARROGANT IS THIS GENTLEMEN"MR. Qualia Soup" for  trying to explain something that he don't know about..YOUR JUST A FOOL. Its written in .the bible.. "the fool says is no God"
    BUT .YES THE BIBLE TALKS ABOUT you AND REFER TO you AS A FOOL,,;;lol
    When ever you Meet Jesus.. He will reveal to you the containing of this very Holly Book..And IS When Your Eye will be Open..

  39. Jesus…Jesus…Jesus. Name above all name..
    Represents the perfect sacrifyce. Freedome and Salvation ofour souls…aleluya..
    Love you.Jesus fot what you did at thecross for me…:*** :**

  40. Not to good as a book ????? It is a perfect
    Book wrten by apostols and direcred by the Holy spirit…lol the #1 most read book in the whole world :))

  41. The problem with arguing a topic like this is that there is always the question after the initial question. 'Why is x wrong?' Long explanation including y. We then have the question 'why is y wrong?' We then get to z. Etc etc. That is why I disagree with your points, your arguments are still based on unanswered questions.

  42. These videos are absolutely amazing. It's too bad there are relatively so few of them. I'd pay to support development of more of these.

  43. I like the basics of the morality series. I like how it tries to disprove claims logically, but for some reason I feel that this series is lacking. It cannot go into every bit of everything, obviously, but I cannot bring myself to "like" it despite agreeing on what I believe to be the "big points". 

  44. There are only ten laws that God gave us, these laws are called the ten commandments.
    1.     I, the Lord, am your God. You shall not have other gods besides me.
    2.     You shall not take the name of the Lord God in vain
    3.     Remember to keep holy the Lord's Day
    4.     Honor your father and your mother
    5.     You shall not kill
    6.     You shall not commit adultery
    7.     You shall not steal
    8.     You shall not bear false witness
    9.     You shall not covet your neighbor's wife
    10. You shall not covet your neighbor's goods

    Jesus said If you want to keep right with God follow them.
    Mat 19:17  "Why do you ask me concerning what is good?" answered Jesus. "There is only One who is good. Keep the commandments if you want to enter life."

    And if you want to keep Perfect with God he gave further instructions.
    Mat 19:21  Jesus said to him, "If you want to be perfect, go and sell all you have and give the money to the poor, and you will have riches in heaven; then come and follow me."

    If you atheist have a problem with that come and talk to me.  Other wise hold your tongue.  If you dont believe in God. Good on you Mate.

  45. Well, this leads to a very arguable point. The Bible is not necessarily the word of God, now is it?  How was it written? There were no printing presses, so it had to be rewritten by hand, by monks working for those in power who certainly had agendas, if you know your history. As a matter of fact, the Bible was kept out of the hands of the people for some time, until Martin Luther and his more democratic approach to Christianity–every member gets a Bible and discerns for themselves ultimate truth, no central authority (Pope) and each area or region run by a regional leader, like our government today where the states have power to accept or reject federal dictates. Think of the Spanish Inquisition, witch burnings, convert or die wars of the Catholics and Protestants and the non-separation of church and state in Europe for over 1.600 years. So who knows WHAT the prophets, or actually Jesus and God were really saying, if you believe in such. A good book to read on this is Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. Here's a VERY important point the video leaves out in its entirety. Not the greatest critical thinking now is it? 

  46. Why do people continue to post comments, with sometimes complex part arguments, as if they are soliciting honest responses, only to disable comments. Or even worse come back to a thread of comments and THEN disable comments instead of engaging with the argument.
    Strikes me as shockingly cowardly practice.
    No matter who does it. Strangely though it seems to be largely the "believers" who cannot defend the assertions they make.

  47. I can't count how many times I've sent this treasure to people. For some reason, this slam dunk of a video just doesn't always resonate…

  48. Christians. It's really very, very simple. Your religion, like all religions, is mythology. That doesn't make it "false", it's just not science, nor accurate history. We don't get our morality from this book, we get it from the societies and cultures we live in. In fact, many believers have a far worse sense of morality BECAUSE OF this book. I could give many examples, but the most profound and poignant right now are those in my country, America, who justify war, murder, and torture in the name of their god. The recent CIA report on torture has illustrated that well, as it is the christian right-wing who sees nothing immoral about what our country did to these people. Why? Because they get their "morality" from this book of ancient myths, and see all muslims as evil and "hell-fodder" anyway. 

  49. Quality Poop is as deceptive as they come.  The  ones to fall into his trap are the unlettered and the bigots.  Take for example his interpretation of Mathew 15: 1 -6.   Even a cursory read of those verses by a neophyte would not exorcise his mangled interpretation.  The center piece of that verse is the abuse of the law for the traditions of man. That is what Quality Poop is guilty off. He is doing a verbal gymnastic with the words of Scripture to suit his own moral traditions. 

  50. YAHWEH PERMITS COMMITS AND COMMANDS THE VILEST ATROCITIES.

    Supporting evidence produced by Quality Poop.

    Num 15:32  And it came to pass, when the children of Israel were in the wilderness, and had found a man gathering sticks on the sabbath day,
    Num 15:33  That they brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole multitude.
    Num 15:34  And they put him into prison, not knowing what they should do with him.
    Num 15:35  And the Lord said to Moses: Let that man die, let all the multitude stone him without the camp.
    Num 15:36  And when they had brought him out, they stoned him, and he died as the Lord had commanded.

    Result of critical analysis of this verse by Quality Poop:   Vicious Yahweh, ordering the killing of a man picking  sticks on the Sabbath day.

     Modern day sentiment:  Bad Bad Yahweh.

    Analogy for simplification of issue:   Not too far away from modern time, the penalty for stealing a horse, Law says death by hanging.

    Modern day armchair critic (MDAC):  This is a Very bad and vicious law.

    Old time defenders (OTD):  Na Ya wrong, Hanging not for stealing, but for stealing a horse.

    MDAC:  Ridiculous! death for stealing a horse.

    OTD: Na  for stealing not simply a horse, but a vital component on which my entire society depends upon,  for its survival.

    MDAC: What do you mean.  An animal is the center of your existence.

    OTD: Ya, dumbass, If you steal my horse, I cant till my land, I cant feed my family, I cant build my house, possibilities of death occurring, my meager social life is ruined.  Dont you think it is a punishable by death crime if your life depends upon it and after I explained it to you.

    MDAC: If you present it in that fashion.  I think the punishment justifies the crime.

    At first glance it does seem cruel to kill a man for stealing a horse, but when you think outside the box a very different picture emerges.

    The Sabbath day was much more important to the Israelite and to their God than the horse to the man of the mid – west. The man who was picking up stick on the sabbath day, was not merely picking up sticks, but he was being defiant. The Jews who caught him, did not take him to Moses to decide his faith, because they already knew the penalty for breaking the Sabbath, they took him because they could not believe their eyes that he was doing such a thing.  They thought he was crazy.   Moses speaks to God because he could not decide himself, because it was so bizarre a crime, He then Consult Yahweh, knowing that God knows the inner working of every man.   God calls for his death because he knew that he was being defiant.  He is sentenced for a communal stoning, because it is a crime against the entire community.

    If you atheist claim to be people of honesty and logic, pit my explanation of this verse against Quality Poop and judge whose explanation has more validity.

    Quality Poop is a product of:  Arrogance and Ignorance. A lethal combination.

    I was told by one of his fans that he has produced a video on Critical Thinking.

    I wont be surprised if you bans me from this site.  This would not be the first anyway.

  51. Really! Jesus to demonstrate his powers zaps  a fig tree.

    Raising of the dead, healing of the Leper, Healing of the Blind was not demonstration enough.

    Maybe he was practicing before he went out and zapped these other great things.

    You could not find anything more convincing to bring him down.  Dumbass.

  52. QUALITY POOP IN THIS VIDEO COMMENTS THAT GOD HATES GAYS.

    Sorry I completely disagree.

    One of Christianities Objective Absolute  Moral Truth is.   Love the Sinner.  Hate the Sin
    With that Objective truth from the Moral law Giver, hating Sinners is out of the Question.

    Atheist do you have anything comparable to this in you subjective truth.

    You would have to condemn the sin and the Sinner or love the Sin and the Sinner.

  53. God is supposed to be a perfect and fair judge, but he sorts people into either absolute torture and absolute bliss based on a technicality.  A mindless computer could do that!  Why should I go to hell just because the bible is flawed and the culture I grew up with is a bunch of idiots who convinced me that they're full of shit?

  54. "Mind-control" that anachronism hurts. Why not read what a Christian has actually writen cf. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2079.htm#article3

    Additionally, you're ignoring the principle of voice. If something is prophesied, it does not mean it is commissioned, it rather could express allowance. Why does God allow cannibalism? That's a different question. Was God obligated to prevent such an evil? God owes no one anything.

  55. Question to my 8 yo kid after both watched the segment when Jesus curses the fig tree: "You are Jesus, you are hungry and you see there's a fig tree with no figs in it; what do you do?"

    Response "make it grow figs?"

    Don't blame me. The little man has a mind of his own.

  56. As more and more evidence mount up against the stupidity that is religion, it produces in me the thought to just completely wipe out religion for their ignorance and seemingly endless supply of contradictions and bullshit that is the bible.

    How is it such an educated populous has not gain the authority to do away with religion all together?
    If such dogmas were not to exist however, would it be uncritical to say that some people would have develop differently?

    P.S I invite you guys into a discussion about the last two questions?

  57. Make no mistake, all those things in the Bible happened, yet the author has NO CLUE as to what he reads or what he is talking about. Dont be fooled. if youd like to know the reason as to ANYTHING concerning that, i can explain it to you. then YOU can decide and I am more than confident that you will see how foolish the author is.

  58. Yahweh was a douche. Let's quit reading mythology like fact. it's metaphor. it's allegory. it's archetypes. Yahweh represents the ego.

  59. While watching this video, I kept nodding and amazed of how perfect the arguments and the analogies are !
    A brillinat video !

  60. Nice videos! I recently came across a saying of the prophet of Islam as follows

    Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "Were it not for Bani Israel, meat would not decay; and were it not for Eve, no woman would ever betray her husband." (Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 3083)

    So when I asked muslims , some told me that it means the israelites were the first to store meat till it decayed,others told me that the bacterias that are responsible for meat decaying might have come to existence at that time because even science doesn't know how old are these organisms and are yet to discover!

    Lol could you make a video debunking these claims?

  61. When confronted with this logic, many Christians will default to 'those who are ordered killed by Yahweh are deserving of death,' even if they are children. Mental gymnastics — that all are fundamentally evil and so deserving of wrath, is used to justify what is ultimately the arbitrary infliction of punishment.

  62. I like the message and the sincerity. There's just a bit too much room reverb in the mix.
    I'd drape a few more blankets in front of the hard surfaces and try again.

  63. I think the god of the old testament is a great metaphor for the cold indifference of nature. That's something society really needs to grow a better relationship with.

  64. Looking at Exodus 20:5 makes it clear that "don't make images" in Exodus 20:4 means to not make images and then worship them. This doesn't seem to conflict with Exodus 25, where no instruction was given to worship the images of the cherubim.

  65. There is no reason to persecute gay people today, but it doesn't make it reasonless far back. The reason why gay people were banned because they used to reduce the fitness of the entire society (In the past you had to produce as many children as possible). On the other hand, not only we're overcrowded now, but we have a tool to procreate in case that population drops too extreme. This is why gay marriage should be no longer illegal now.

  66. I find it odd that so many christians think that critical thinking equals doubt and that trying to falsify claims is not just evidence but air tight proof of doubt.

    In the bible you can find plenty of verses that say you shouldn't doubt god's [insert whatever]. Nowhere does it say not to be critical and not to falsify claims made in the bible. The bible says you shouldn't test god, but that's very different from critical thinking and trying to falsify a claim. The bible also says you should investigate and that those who look for answers will find them. Many atheists agree with those verses. Critical thinking and trying to falsify claims should lead towards god existing and being all good if that is indeed the case. You only dare to be critical about the bible and its god and try to falsify its claims if your faith is sturdy and you are sure it will lead you to knowing more about god and bring you closer to him.
    Not daring to be critical of the bible only shows how insecure the faith in its god is, or how little you have read the book that tells you to invest time in it to get to know god better and build a relationship with him.

  67. Is there any wonder why they try to cram this idea of the lawmaker being perfect in as young as humanly possible? Long before you know of anything this entity has been claimed to have done you're absolutely hammered with the idea that they're good, perfect, and just, absolutely always, unquestionably. Only then are you taught the highly twisted versions of the stories, typically with so many things snipped out to make it "kid-friendly" that it's totally unrecognizable.

    I was taught that this lawmaker had "written his morality onto my heart" and that when I heard my conscience objecting, that was Him.

    But my conscience was objecting to the contents of the bible.
    The most evil book I've read in my entire life.

  68. 3:20 I…hadn't thought about that.

    The entire old testament looks different now.

    I mean I already wagered that the OT rules were too stupid to have been conceived by anything of superhuman, or even average human, intelligence, but that really slams the point down with the force of a million anvils.

    Why the hell are there so many rules in the old testament that require silly rituals to attempt to "prove" guilt/innocence if God is supposed to be able to read minds? You wouldn't need to haul your son up a mountain and attempt to gut him like a fish, God would just know that you would have done that and be done with it. You wouldn't need to show menstrual sheets, as God would know whether or not the woman was a virgin.

    Their entire system falls apart. The rules don't even get to make sense in the religious viewpoint of thinking god exists. They are somehow an entire tier dumber than I ever gave them credit. Unbelievable.

  69. 3:30 I'm reading the Samuel bit and I'm not sure I understand it. Looking for context, I can't find any. It looks like.
    1. God is mad. When isn't he? Maybe his cereal was soggy that morning. No contextual event is given except that David thinks it's his fault.
    2. David takes a census of fighting soldiers.
    3. God gives David an evil ultimatum: 3 different tortures, pick your poison!
    4. David goes with the plague, resulting in 70K deaths.

    It doesn't seem like the census is why God is pissed, just some unspecified wrongdoing by David, to be punished by killing 70,000 unrelated people.

    That doesn't match how you phrased it, but it certainly doesn't make the action any less horrendous or more reasonable.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *