Best Video To Send To Non-Believers On Morality

DaisyDay

blind squirrel
Jan 7, 2003
34,442
14,563
✟227,791.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Found a video that proves the existence of God that even my non-Christian friends were willing to watch all the way through.

This is probably the most approachable and amicable version of the Moral Argument I've seen:

Why do you believe that morality has to be "objective"?

Also Biblical morality seems highly variable depending on chapter, verse and circumstance.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,639
✟452,058.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Also Biblical morality seems highly variable depending on chapter, verse and circumstance.
There are two constant, immutable rules in the Bible.

Obey God.
Don't be gay.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
12,965
1,633
✟201,866.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Found a video that proves the existence of God that even my non-Christian friends were willing to watch all the way through.

This is probably the most approachable and amicable version of the Moral Argument I've seen:

IMO the first mistake in this video is within seconds of starting; it claims morality to be a set of principles or laws that determine what people should do, then it goes on and on as if morality were a set of objective laws.
Morality are not laws, they are subjective opinions based on what people think they should or should not do. This is obvious from the fact that moral beliefs vary from person to person; laws do not. Yeah; a lot of easy and basic stuff we can agree on like rape, murder, or stealing is wrong, but when it comes to the details; everybody seem to disagree. If they were laws we would agree on what they are.
Then he attempts to find the source of morality by creating 3 straw men examples of what people claim, like some alien race created it, evolution created it, it does not exist, or that his idea of God created it. He attempts to make a case for his God by claiming his God exists outside our universe, is timeless, and is non-material; (as if this makes him qualified to determine morality).
But what about all the other beings that are tieless, non-material, and exists outside our Universe? Wouldn’t they be just as qualified to determine morality going by his logic? Suppose they disagree with his idea of God What makes his God more qualified than them?

The reality is, his God is described as a cognitive being capable of thought. This means it is no more reasonable for him to be the arbiter of morality than it is for me, or anyone else regardless of him living outside of time, the Universe, and is non-material, because he is a thinking being just like us. So any decision he makes is subjective to his thoughts just as it is for us or all the other cognitive beings living outside of the Universe, Time, and material.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Gene2memE
Upvote 0

The happy Objectivist

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2020
909
274
55
Center
✟50,919.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Found a video that proves the existence of God that even my non-Christian friends were willing to watch all the way through.

This is probably the most approachable and amicable version of the Moral Argument I've seen:

This is straight up an argument from ignorance. He gives 3 alternative theories of morality, declares that they don't work, and then proceeds to say that this proves that "God" exists. The fact that the vast majority of people find this kind of reasoning compelling, is the main problem in the world today. This is logic 101. Every person should be able to spot the fallacy in this video within the first minute.

I am an "unbeliever" and if this is the best video on the moral argument for God, then the theist is completely empty handed.

I notice that he does not discuss Objectivist ethics. I wonder why that is?

The conclusion of his argument is a self-refuting proposition, therefore the argument can not be sound. Even if his argument were valid, it would still fail on this account. But it's not valid.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Don't look directly at me
Mar 11, 2017
8,361
7,446
52
USA
✟180,073.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Oh, come on...

Morality is obviously subjective. It's just that some people choose to the subjective moral system they attribute to their god. Even if there is a god that determines what is moral, those moral opinions are still those of the god and therefore subjective.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Whyayeman

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2018
2,516
1,704
Worcestershire
✟93,368.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
If the existence of God is provable then the foundation of all religions - faith - is redundant.

Nonetheless plenty of people think they have succeeded.

Descartes: 'Cogito ergo sum.' That was seen through centuries ago.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Estrid
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
6,773
2,310
38
Hong Kong
✟86,478.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Found a video that proves the existence of God that even my non-Christian friends were willing to watch all the way through.

This is probably the most approachable and amicable version of the Moral Argument I've seen:


Send it to non believers if you want your faith to
look ridiculous
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Nithavela
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
26,339
15,986
Orlando, Florida
✟970,483.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
How are you defining intersubjective and relational?

Intersubjectivity - Wikipedia

Morality isn't objective, but it isn't arbitrary. It does no good to talk about things being moral or immoral in the abstract, because people don't exist as abstractions. That is what I meant by relational.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
26,339
15,986
Orlando, Florida
✟970,483.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Intersubjective is still subjective, it just means that more than one subject agrees.

But that agreement is critical, because it forms the basis of morality. So that's why I said it isn't subjective.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: DaisyDay
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,639
✟452,058.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
But that agreement is critical, because it forms the basis of morality. So that's why I said it isn't subjective.
All intersubjective things are subjective. If they aren't subjective, then it's knowledge, and it isn't intersubjective.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
26,339
15,986
Orlando, Florida
✟970,483.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
All intersubjective things are subjective. If they aren't subjective, then it's knowledge, and it isn't intersubjective.

What commonly passes for knowledge is intersubjective also, unless you believe personal intuition is a basis for knowledge.
 
Upvote 0

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,195
Vancouver, WA
✟94,443.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Found a video that proves the existence of God that even my non-Christian friends were willing to watch all the way through.

This is probably the most approachable and amicable version of the Moral Argument I've seen:


Without watching the video, I bet it conveniently avoids the topic of slavery.

Edit: Yup.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,195
Vancouver, WA
✟94,443.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Of course morality is subjective. Even Christians' ideas of what is and isn't moral has changed over the years.

As for the evolution part of the video, I'll just say that dude has a warped idea of what survival of the fittest means. Let me paint you an example: Say you have two populations of proto-humans trying to survive in the wilderness. One clique is like a street gang, not hesitant to weed out the weak members. The other clique is like a football team, realizing that they can accomplish more if they work together.

Suppose a new, bigger, stronger, faster predator comes along. Which population is most fit to survive? The one which acts like the strawman version of survival of the fittest from the video, or the one which values all members of the team?

Survival of the fittest does not necessarily mean the biggest, fastest, and strongest. Sometimes it's smartest, most cunning, or even caring. Because it doesn't mean the winner of a pack, it means best suited to overcome predatory circumstances.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Whyayeman

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2018
2,516
1,704
Worcestershire
✟93,368.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Survival of the fittest does not necessarily mean the biggest, fastest, and strongest.

Is it worth pointing out that this expression is not from Dawin's Origin of Species? It is not a very good or useful summary; it leads to the 'nature red in tooth and claw' which is not applicable to the majority of species.

It is pretty clear that the makers of the video had little understanding of the theory, now so well established as to merit being termed 'Law'. It is very unlikely to have much traction beyond a fundamentalist religious outlook. But give it a try. The ones that stay awake might be engaged by it...
 
Upvote 0