The terms absolute, universal and objective all mean different things. Providing evidence for one does not validate the other two. The fact of the matter is there is no evidence of an absolute moral code. The best one can do is point to principles held, promoted and enforced universally across human cultures. However, humans have shared biology, which is a far more meaningful explanation for how most humans share moral principles.
The burning of witches is a moral stance of the god of the bible. Exodus 22:18 “You shall not permit a sorceress to live. " Leviticus 20:27 “A man or a woman who is a medium or a necromancer shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon them.” Thus, if you no longer do that as a Christian, it shows that even the morality of god changes. As for Stalin, well, while it is certainly arguable that communism would be untenable in a theistic climate - making atheism necessary for communism - the apologetic fails because atheism isn't sufficient for communism; fires only start in the presence of oxygen, but no fire has ever said to have been caused by the presence of oxygen. Indeed, (weak) atheism can't be considered sufficient for any action. For this reason, this argument is an instance of the association fallacy being employed between atheism and Stalin. As the de facto ruler of the USSR, he initiated many purges. Many clergy were killed and this is often cited as Stalin's anti-christian mark. However, like Henry VIII he did not simply remove clergy, he replaced them. He established a new national church of Russia, which of course answered to him. He considered the church very important to extending control from Moscow to the satellite nations. Stalin's church was called the Russian Orthodox Church or The Moscow Patriarchate; and the suppressed church was called the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. They have a bitter history. Stalin was many things, a former theologian, the head of the national church, and one of the most brutal dictators in history. His own views on religion are difficult to guess. Many scholars think of Stalin as a ruler who envisioned himself as a god. Furthermore, there is the concurrent claim that the USSR was an atheist nation. While the Communist Party suppressed religious fervor, it did so only out of jealously of loyalties. The Communist Party demanded loyalty to itself above all others, even above God. Russia has always been an intensely religious nation. They consider the leader of the Eastern Orthodox Church to be equal to the Vatican's Pope; or even above the Pope. To claim that Russia became atheistic overnight in 1917 only to emerge deeply religious in 1989 is incredibly ignorant. One may also note that almost all of the leaders of the USSR, from Lenin to Gorbachev, except for Malenkov, were atheist or non-religious or did not have their religion documented. Yet only Stalin committed such historic atrocities. Gorbachev explicitly affirmed his atheism, but he nonetheless campaigned for religious freedom and was very friendly toward believers. It is clear that while Stalin was an atheist, he was not a Secular Humanist, and his form of rule would not be tolerated under Secular Humanist ideals, thus showing that not all atheists are the same, nor do they follow the same set of beliefs, other than the lack of belief in a god. I already covered the golden rule that Jesus copied from prior belief systems in the other video. I will repeat it here for anyone looking at this video. Confucius, founder of the ancient atheistic religion of Confucianism, stated his own version of the so-called “Golden Rule” - do not impose on others what you would not choose for yourself - some five centuries before Jesus was teaching a very similar ethical code. Similar formulations are also found in the works of Isocrates, Diogenes Laertius, Epictetus and in the Mahabharata, and it can be argued the Golden Rule is essentially a derivative of the basic principle of reciprocal altruism dating back to our Paleolithic ancestors. So, basically the Moral Argument begs the question as to whether morality is in fact ultimately authoritative, and whether morals actually exist or have meaning independently of us or whether, as many believe, there are alternative explanations for the existence of morals. In reality, it is neither necessary to follow a religion in order to be moral, nor is a religious person necessarily a moral one. Certainly, there appears to be no good reason to suppose that the absence of religion predisposes a person to be “bad”. Furthermore, atheism is quite compatible with philosophies like humanism which does have a system of ethics and purpose. For theists who argue that atheists have no motivation to be moral, the atheist could answer that virtue is its own reward and that, as Aristotle believed, being good and living virtuously is the only way to a fulfilled, self-actualized life. God and religion do not need to come into the equation at all.
If only we had a time machine to go back and ask Stalin about his views on religion and whether he saw himself as a god. The conversations would be... enlightening, to say the least!
@@DanMason2025 "So, tell me where morals come from?" Morality can be grounded in several philosophical and pragmatic frameworks. Humanism: Core Idea: Humanism emphasizes human welfare, values, and dignity without reliance on the divine. Moral Principles: Promotes empathy, compassion, and respect for others, advocating for the well-being of all humans. Utilitarianism: Core Idea: Actions are judged right or wrong based on their consequences. Moral Principles: Seeks to maximize happiness and minimize suffering. The principle of the greatest good for the greatest number is central. Secular Ethics: Core Idea: Ethics can be developed through reason, science, and philosophical inquiry, independent of religious beliefs. Moral Principles: Encourages the use of logic and evidence to determine ethical behavior, emphasizing universal principles like justice, fairness, and equality. Social Contract Theory: Core Idea: Morality arises from agreements among individuals to ensure mutual benefit and social order. Moral Principles: Focuses on rules and norms that rational individuals would agree upon to live harmoniously in society. Evolutionary Biology and Psychology: Core Idea: Moral behaviors can be understood as evolutionary adaptations that enhance survival and cooperation. Moral Principles: Traits like altruism, fairness, and empathy are seen as products of evolutionary processes that promote group cohesion and survival. Virtue Ethics: Core Idea: Emphasizes character and virtues as the foundation of morality. Moral Principles: Encourages the development of moral virtues such as honesty, courage, and kindness, focusing on the cultivation of a good character. Moral Relativism: Core Idea: Moral principles are not absolute but are shaped by cultural, social, and personal contexts. Moral Principles: Recognizes the diversity of moral perspectives and emphasizes tolerance and understanding of different moral frameworks. Rationalism: Core Idea: Morality is derived from rational thought and the application of reason. Moral Principles: Promotes logical consistency and coherence in ethical decision-making, valuing principles that can be universally applied through reason. " You are simply running away from your history. In brace it, your belief system leaders to sin/murder or do you even believe in sin? " The only belief that is the same between me and Stalin is the lack of belief in any gods. From there, pretty much everything he did would be considered objectively immoral. " If only we had a time machine to go back and ask Stalin about his views on religion and whether he saw himself as a god. The conversations would be... enlightening, to say the least! " Of the three people that theists tend to bring up as atheists who went to far, Stalin did not see himself as a god. According to his daughter, even acknowledged that Jesus was a real person. That was Pol Pot, which again, had theistic tendencies so, while absolutely not christian but he did still believed in a higher god like power. Now then, since you are dodging the issue at hand. In the Bible it explicitly says that believes in that god were to be killing witches, if that is no longer true then that god's morality is subjective.
The terms absolute, universal and objective all mean different things. Providing evidence for one does not validate the other two. The fact of the matter is there is no evidence of an absolute moral code. The best one can do is point to principles held, promoted and enforced universally across human cultures. However, humans have shared biology, which is a far more meaningful explanation for how most humans share moral principles.
The burning of witches is a moral stance of the god of the bible.
Exodus 22:18 “You shall not permit a sorceress to live. "
Leviticus 20:27 “A man or a woman who is a medium or a necromancer shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon them.”
Thus, if you no longer do that as a Christian, it shows that even the morality of god changes.
As for Stalin, well, while it is certainly arguable that communism would be untenable in a theistic climate - making atheism necessary for communism - the apologetic fails because atheism isn't sufficient for communism; fires only start in the presence of oxygen, but no fire has ever said to have been caused by the presence of oxygen. Indeed, (weak) atheism can't be considered sufficient for any action. For this reason, this argument is an instance of the association fallacy being employed between atheism and Stalin.
As the de facto ruler of the USSR, he initiated many purges. Many clergy were killed and this is often cited as Stalin's anti-christian mark. However, like Henry VIII he did not simply remove clergy, he replaced them. He established a new national church of Russia, which of course answered to him. He considered the church very important to extending control from Moscow to the satellite nations. Stalin's church was called the Russian Orthodox Church or The Moscow Patriarchate; and the suppressed church was called the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. They have a bitter history.
Stalin was many things, a former theologian, the head of the national church, and one of the most brutal dictators in history. His own views on religion are difficult to guess. Many scholars think of Stalin as a ruler who envisioned himself as a god.
Furthermore, there is the concurrent claim that the USSR was an atheist nation. While the Communist Party suppressed religious fervor, it did so only out of jealously of loyalties. The Communist Party demanded loyalty to itself above all others, even above God. Russia has always been an intensely religious nation. They consider the leader of the Eastern Orthodox Church to be equal to the Vatican's Pope; or even above the Pope. To claim that Russia became atheistic overnight in 1917 only to emerge deeply religious in 1989 is incredibly ignorant.
One may also note that almost all of the leaders of the USSR, from Lenin to Gorbachev, except for Malenkov, were atheist or non-religious or did not have their religion documented. Yet only Stalin committed such historic atrocities. Gorbachev explicitly affirmed his atheism, but he nonetheless campaigned for religious freedom and was very friendly toward believers.
It is clear that while Stalin was an atheist, he was not a Secular Humanist, and his form of rule would not be tolerated under Secular Humanist ideals, thus showing that not all atheists are the same, nor do they follow the same set of beliefs, other than the lack of belief in a god.
I already covered the golden rule that Jesus copied from prior belief systems in the other video. I will repeat it here for anyone looking at this video. Confucius, founder of the ancient atheistic religion of Confucianism, stated his own version of the so-called “Golden Rule” - do not impose on others what you would not choose for yourself - some five centuries before Jesus was teaching a very similar ethical code. Similar formulations are also found in the works of Isocrates, Diogenes Laertius, Epictetus and in the Mahabharata, and it can be argued the Golden Rule is essentially a derivative of the basic principle of reciprocal altruism dating back to our Paleolithic ancestors.
So, basically the Moral Argument begs the question as to whether morality is in fact ultimately authoritative, and whether morals actually exist or have meaning independently of us or whether, as many believe, there are alternative explanations for the existence of morals. In reality, it is neither necessary to follow a religion in order to be moral, nor is a religious person necessarily a moral one. Certainly, there appears to be no good reason to suppose that the absence of religion predisposes a person to be “bad”. Furthermore, atheism is quite compatible with philosophies like humanism which does have a system of ethics and purpose. For theists who argue that atheists have no motivation to be moral, the atheist could answer that virtue is its own reward and that, as Aristotle believed, being good and living virtuously is the only way to a fulfilled, self-actualized life. God and religion do not need to come into the equation at all.
So, tell me where morals come from?
You are simply running away from your history. In brace it, your belief system leaders to sin/murder or do you even believe in sin?
If only we had a time machine to go back and ask Stalin about his views on religion and whether he saw himself as a god. The conversations would be... enlightening, to say the least!
@@DanMason2025 "So, tell me where morals come from?"
Morality can be grounded in several philosophical and pragmatic frameworks.
Humanism:
Core Idea: Humanism emphasizes human welfare, values, and dignity without reliance on the divine.
Moral Principles: Promotes empathy, compassion, and respect for others, advocating for the well-being of all humans.
Utilitarianism:
Core Idea: Actions are judged right or wrong based on their consequences.
Moral Principles: Seeks to maximize happiness and minimize suffering. The principle of the greatest good for the greatest number is central.
Secular Ethics:
Core Idea: Ethics can be developed through reason, science, and philosophical inquiry, independent of religious beliefs.
Moral Principles: Encourages the use of logic and evidence to determine ethical behavior, emphasizing universal principles like justice, fairness, and equality.
Social Contract Theory:
Core Idea: Morality arises from agreements among individuals to ensure mutual benefit and social order.
Moral Principles: Focuses on rules and norms that rational individuals would agree upon to live harmoniously in society.
Evolutionary Biology and Psychology:
Core Idea: Moral behaviors can be understood as evolutionary adaptations that enhance survival and cooperation.
Moral Principles: Traits like altruism, fairness, and empathy are seen as products of evolutionary processes that promote group cohesion and survival.
Virtue Ethics:
Core Idea: Emphasizes character and virtues as the foundation of morality.
Moral Principles: Encourages the development of moral virtues such as honesty, courage, and kindness, focusing on the cultivation of a good character.
Moral Relativism:
Core Idea: Moral principles are not absolute but are shaped by cultural, social, and personal contexts.
Moral Principles: Recognizes the diversity of moral perspectives and emphasizes tolerance and understanding of different moral frameworks.
Rationalism:
Core Idea: Morality is derived from rational thought and the application of reason.
Moral Principles: Promotes logical consistency and coherence in ethical decision-making, valuing principles that can be universally applied through reason.
" You are simply running away from your history. In brace it, your belief system leaders to sin/murder or do you even believe in sin? "
The only belief that is the same between me and Stalin is the lack of belief in any gods. From there, pretty much everything he did would be considered objectively immoral.
" If only we had a time machine to go back and ask Stalin about his views on religion and whether he saw himself as a god. The conversations would be... enlightening, to say the least! "
Of the three people that theists tend to bring up as atheists who went to far, Stalin did not see himself as a god. According to his daughter, even acknowledged that Jesus was a real person. That was Pol Pot, which again, had theistic tendencies so, while absolutely not christian but he did still believed in a higher god like power.
Now then, since you are dodging the issue at hand.
In the Bible it explicitly says that believes in that god were to be killing witches, if that is no longer true then that god's morality is subjective.