Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to my podcast. This is an audio
Speaker 1: version of my videos available to make listening to my
Speaker 1: stuff in the background easier than YouTube makes it. But
Speaker 1: since my videos are primarily made for YouTube, there may
Speaker 1: be occasional references to visual materials. If you'd like this
Speaker 1: podcast ad free, you can join us on Patreon Apppatreon
Speaker 1: dot com slash Vice Rhino. Please enjoy.
Speaker 2: Hello and welcome to my channel Vice Rhino. Here today,
Speaker 2: I've decided to poke backwards through the answers in Genesis
Speaker 2: Canada catalog to find some classic Calvin to respond to,
Speaker 2: and I found this video saying that atheist morals make
Speaker 2: no sense. I'm sure this will probably wind up just
Speaker 2: being a bog standard can't have objective morality without God
Speaker 2: sort of video, But you never really know with Calvin,
Speaker 2: So let's take a look.
Speaker 3: This video will show you where the idea of right
Speaker 3: and wrong comes from and why atheism can't.
Speaker 2: Certain enough strong. With that awkwardly constructed statement there, it
Speaker 2: took me a little bit to figure out what it
Speaker 2: was that atheism can't. I did get there eventually. Maybe
Speaker 2: I'm just slow. That could be it.
Speaker 3: Whenever someone declares someone's done something wrong, they're communicating they
Speaker 3: believe there's a moral law, and that the perpetrator of
Speaker 3: the offense broke said moral law.
Speaker 2: Alternatively, it could just be that the thing that was
Speaker 2: done is a thing that they don't like. And since
Speaker 2: when it comes to issues that have been categorized as
Speaker 2: moral issues, most people can generally agree that they don't
Speaker 2: like to be on the receiving end of a lot
Speaker 2: of them, we have decided as a society that those
Speaker 2: things have consequences that are supposed to act as a deterrent.
Speaker 3: Hence what they did was wrong. But moral laws must
Speaker 3: have an origin. A moral lawmaker.
Speaker 2: An origin sure, a moral lawmaker, though that depends on
Speaker 2: what you mean by that. I know that he means
Speaker 2: specifically the Christian God, but I would argue that the
Speaker 2: evolution of cooperation could be called the moral lawmaker, as
Speaker 2: most moral issues seem to be related to things that
Speaker 2: would either aid or harm cooperation. We can see a
Speaker 2: rudimentary form of this in chimpanzees. They will share with
Speaker 2: each other, but are more likely to share with individuals
Speaker 2: who have a history of sharing with them. They retaliate
Speaker 2: if they think they have been wrong, even if the
Speaker 2: retaliation yields no benefit in and of itself. For example,
Speaker 2: in a situation where one chimp was observed stealing food
Speaker 2: from another, the victim of the theft acted to destroy
Speaker 2: the food in anger before the thief could eat it.
Speaker 2: They will form alliances that support each other in dominance fights.
Speaker 2: They cooperate when hunting monkeys and will share the meat
Speaker 2: with not only the hunting party, but with other members
Speaker 2: of their group. Better cooperation leads to survival advantages for
Speaker 2: social species. Humans are just a species that took that
Speaker 2: stat and maxed it out.
Speaker 3: And if there's no moral lawmaker or law giver above
Speaker 3: and beyond human beings, then who's to say which human
Speaker 3: beings have the right to impose their beliefs on others.
Speaker 2: We human beings are. I know it's a bit of
Speaker 2: a flawed system, But here's the issue. Morality comes into
Speaker 2: play when something bad happens to people. Killing is a
Speaker 2: moral issue because it's people being killed. Stealing is a
Speaker 2: moral issue because it's people being stolen from. Adultery is
Speaker 2: a moral issue because it is a person being cheated on.
Speaker 2: And all of these moral issues also have exceptions. I
Speaker 2: didn't want to kill him, but he was about to
Speaker 2: kill me, so I was just offending myself. If you
Speaker 2: see someone stealing baby products, no you didn't. And there
Speaker 2: are plenty of people who have relationships where things that
Speaker 2: someone like Calvin might call adultery are acceptable. And all
Speaker 2: of these things that I've called exceptions have people saying
Speaker 2: that they are not exceptions. One of the churches I
Speaker 2: used to attend in my Christian days was of the
Speaker 2: Brethren in Christ denomination. They believe that the commandment not
Speaker 2: to kill is an absolute I have heard sermons explaining
Speaker 2: the importance of holding to your values even in the
Speaker 2: face of great personal sacrifice. If someone breaks into your house,
Speaker 2: even if they threaten your life or your family's lives,
Speaker 2: not only should you not kill them, you shouldn't commit
Speaker 2: any violence against them. This is a position that I
Speaker 2: would presume that Calvin does not agree with, given the
Speaker 2: article on the Answers in Genesis website that makes the
Speaker 2: distinction between lawful and unlawful killing. Quote. Killing does not
Speaker 2: have to be always right or always wrong. God has
Speaker 2: provided qualifications, so what are we to do here? The
Speaker 2: Bic Church believes in the impallibility of scripture, same as
Speaker 2: Calvin does. They believe in the Christian God is the
Speaker 2: source of morality, same as Calvin does, and yet they
Speaker 2: don't share Calvin's moral opinion on killing. To echo Calvin's question,
Speaker 2: which of these Christian human beings who believe they get
Speaker 2: their morality from the same source gets to impose their
Speaker 2: moral beliefs onto others. Everyone has the exact same problem
Speaker 2: when it comes to enforce a morality, regardless of what
Speaker 2: you think the source of morality is. Since that is
Speaker 2: the case, I would argue that secular morality has a
Speaker 2: leg up because religious morality often imposes moral opinions on
Speaker 2: otherwise a moral actions. With secular morality, we can agree
Speaker 2: that causing harm is undesirable, so actions that cause harm
Speaker 2: to other people can have restrictions placed on them, but
Speaker 2: actions that do not can be left up to the individual.
Speaker 2: You think masturbating is a moral, fine, don't do it,
Speaker 2: but it doesn't hurt anyone, so there shouldn't be a
Speaker 2: law against it. Now, obviously this is more than a
Speaker 2: touch oversimplified. Our laws are so complicated at this point
Speaker 2: that we have people whose entire job is to have
Speaker 2: a decent understanding of tiny slivers of the law, not
Speaker 2: to mention the fact that legal does not necessarily equal moral.
Speaker 2: But yeah, what it comes down to is people we
Speaker 2: argue over what moral system works best, implement the winner,
Speaker 2: see what happens, rinse, and repeat.
Speaker 3: In fact, the mantra often heard in modern society is
Speaker 3: that people should have the right to decide right and
Speaker 3: wrong for themselves.
Speaker 2: As long as their actions don't cause harm to other people.
Speaker 3: Then yes, But that's clearly not tenable in societies where
Speaker 3: human beings with different opinions must live in harmony with one.
Speaker 2: Another question, Calvin, how is it that everybody has come
Speaker 2: to have different opinions on morality if all of our
Speaker 2: senses of morality were given to us by this moral
Speaker 2: lawgiver who has a single moral code that he wants.
Speaker 1: Us to fight.
Speaker 2: Wait a minute, I think I can answer that one.
Speaker 2: It's the fall. Calvin clearly has the correct moral opinion.
Speaker 2: So anytime we find ourselves in agreement with him, that's
Speaker 2: because God wrote his moral law on our hearts, And
Speaker 2: anytime we disagree, that's because of the fall. So now
Speaker 2: I deny God in my unrighteousness, and I just want
Speaker 2: to sin. Follow up question, does the Bic church deny
Speaker 2: God in their unrighteousness. I'd argue that they actually go
Speaker 2: to rather extreme length in their desire to obey what
Speaker 2: they see as God's moral code. So how'd they end
Speaker 2: up with the wrong moral opinions? Weird that Christians can't
Speaker 2: agree on the thing that they all believe they get
Speaker 2: directly from God, especially when they then turn around and
Speaker 2: say that our morality is proof of God.
Speaker 3: Some moral relativists declare that each separate country or society
Speaker 3: is responsible for determining right and wrong for their own people.
Speaker 2: M how long do you think it will have take
Speaker 2: him to get from that statement to Nazi Germany?
Speaker 3: But in that case, to use an extreme example, weren't
Speaker 3: the well, we'll just say the bad guys in World
Speaker 3: War to Germany? Weren't they right for butchering seven million
Speaker 3: Jewish people?
Speaker 2: Seven seconds? It took him seven seconds. I must be psychic.
Speaker 2: How could I possibly have predicted that that's where this
Speaker 2: was going. It's almost like his previous sentence was constructed
Speaker 2: to avoid the real position that most people have about
Speaker 2: minimizing harm and maximizing well being, instead setting up a
Speaker 2: nice little fake argument that maybe some people that I've
Speaker 2: never actually seen are making where morality changes at ultimately
Speaker 2: arbitrary national borders. Now why do you think he'd do that?
Speaker 2: Is it maybe because he knows that the real position
Speaker 2: is much harder to argue against. That's not to say
Speaker 2: there aren't apologists who argue against the real position, but
Speaker 2: usually the argument has to rely on the fact that
Speaker 2: wild hypotheticals can result in moral justifications for heinous actions.
Speaker 2: By way of moral math, if an alien threatens to
Speaker 2: kill everyone on earth unless you rape someone, would that
Speaker 2: be a moral action for you to do?
Speaker 4: When would rape be acceptable? And you said that exact stime,
Speaker 4: you said, well, most of them, you can almost throw
Speaker 4: them out. But hypothetically, if a bunch of aliens came
Speaker 4: down and said we're going to destroy all of humanity
Speaker 4: if you don't write a girl, would you do that?
Speaker 4: And you said in that debate, yes.
Speaker 2: The problem with that tactic, especially for those Christians who
Speaker 2: think that the Bible is perfect, is that this is
Speaker 2: the same justification they end up using to justify God's
Speaker 2: immoral actions in the Bible.
Speaker 5: We need to understand this was not an arbitrary ethnic cleansing,
Speaker 5: but in fact, this is a specific judgment on a
Speaker 5: morally degraded people.
Speaker 6: God's command for Israel to drive out the Canaanites was
Speaker 6: not race based, but behavior based, as the Canaanites engaged
Speaker 6: in acts that would be considered criminal in civilized societies.
Speaker 7: First it starts off with incest, and then it goes
Speaker 7: into adultery. Then it goes into offering your children to molek,
Speaker 7: homosexual sins, and then bestiality. And we know from Canaanite
Speaker 7: primary source documents another all of these things being practiced
Speaker 7: by the Canaanites.
Speaker 8: He gives reasons, right, he doesn't just wake up like
Speaker 8: a mob boss and go Canaanites, I want him dead, right,
Speaker 8: He's got reasons for it. And probably the biggest reason,
Speaker 8: after four hundred years of warning, is that the Canaanites
Speaker 8: were sacrificing their children on the molten hot God molek
Speaker 8: this idol.
Speaker 2: It's okay for God to kill off multiple entire societies
Speaker 2: because those societies were bad. So by using moral math,
Speaker 2: it becomes morally acceptable to commit a henos atrocity in
Speaker 2: order to prevent worse atrocities from happening. The apologist feeling
Speaker 2: that they need to justify God's actions in this way,
Speaker 2: demonstrates that their sense of morality is not based on God,
Speaker 2: it's based on harm reduction. If they actually got their
Speaker 2: morals from God, then the genocides of the Bible were
Speaker 2: moral because the source of morality said to do them,
Speaker 2: no further justification required. But instead of doing that, they
Speaker 2: hunt for explanations that attempt to minimize God's atrocities and
Speaker 2: then pretend that this doesn't automatically equate to subjective morality
Speaker 2: based on harm versus benefit calculations.
Speaker 3: This was the way the bad guys argued during the
Speaker 3: Nuremberg Trials. They declared that in their country society, it
Speaker 3: was officially legal for people of a certain ethnicity to
Speaker 3: be killed, making such actions lawful and therefore not immoral.
Speaker 2: Just remember that argument next time you see someone from
Speaker 2: Answers and Genesis making the distinction between murder and killing
Speaker 2: in order to explain how they can be pro death
Speaker 2: penalty well believing in the Ten Commandments.
Speaker 3: However, the argument offered by the Allies was the claim
Speaker 3: of the existence of a higher moral law, declaring the
Speaker 3: destruction of innocent people unlawful and immoral under any circumstances.
Speaker 2: That propos of nothing. Here's a tweet from US Secretary
Speaker 2: of State Marco Rubio saying that the International Criminal Court
Speaker 2: shouldn't be allowed to prosecute Americans because it isn't subject
Speaker 2: to American laws. I think I might have found one
Speaker 2: of the people that argue that morality is bound to
Speaker 2: the borders on our maps. But my question is, if
Speaker 2: the higher moral law is so obvious, then why did
Speaker 2: it take until the mid twentieth century for us to
Speaker 2: figure out that we should be holding individuals responsible for
Speaker 2: their war crimes. Seems like this is the kind of
Speaker 2: thing that should have happened relatively early in human history,
Speaker 2: if God were actually the source of such things, because
Speaker 2: as it stands, it looks rather like morality has been
Speaker 2: developing and evolving all throughout human history.
Speaker 3: In fact, they argued in accordance with an absolute moral
Speaker 3: law that transcends individual human reasoning or determination.
Speaker 2: Well, they actually justified the existence of the International Military
Speaker 2: Tribunal which conducted the Nuremberg Trials by appealing to various treaties, covenants,
Speaker 2: and packs that were assigned before World War II, including
Speaker 2: but not limited to, the kelog Brim Pact of nineteen
Speaker 2: twenty eight, the Lacarno Pact of nineteen twenty five and
Speaker 2: the League of Nations Covenant of nineteen nineteen. But I mean,
Speaker 2: when of facts ever stopped Calvin from saying things. I mean,
Speaker 2: maybe there were some emotional appeals invoking a higher moral
Speaker 2: law in some of the speech making that happened at
Speaker 2: the Nuremberg Trials, but the actual legal justification was firmly
Speaker 2: based in documents created by and agreed upon by human beings. Also,
Speaker 2: I'm going to go out on a limb here and
Speaker 2: say that there weren't any such emotional appeals at the trials,
Speaker 2: because Calvin does love a good quote. Mind, So if
Speaker 2: anyone had said anything in the course of the trials
Speaker 2: that could have even been remotely construed in that way,
Speaker 2: you can bet your ass that Calvin would have quoted it.
Speaker 3: So where then do human rights and worth come from?
Speaker 2: From us? From empathy, from our own inflated feelings of
Speaker 2: self importance. I feel like it's important that I not
Speaker 2: be murdered, so by Gully, I'm okay with making murder
Speaker 2: illegal because it protects me just as much as it
Speaker 2: protects anyone else In theory.
Speaker 3: At least, well, a story I heard years ago will
Speaker 3: make the point. A couple in England discovered a vase
Speaker 3: in a thrift store and purchased it for a mere
Speaker 3: tan British pounce. The husband thought the piece of junk
Speaker 3: was a waste of money, but, like many husbands, decided
Speaker 3: against protesting his wife's wishes too strenuously.
Speaker 2: Yeah, women be shopping him all right? Does anyone still
Speaker 2: find that type of joke funny?
Speaker 3: He often made negative remarks about it, until one day
Speaker 3: they happened upon a television program featuring antiques showcasing a
Speaker 3: vase remarkably similar to theirs, which sold for over one
Speaker 3: hundred thousand pounds. To their delight, appraisers determined their modest
Speaker 3: thrift store acquisition was very valuable indeed, and they managed
Speaker 3: to sell it for over one hundred and thirty thousand pounds.
Speaker 2: Moral of the story always by cheap, ugly vases from
Speaker 2: thrift stores, just in case.
Speaker 3: Now, the question we could ask is this what changed
Speaker 3: the husband's mind from thinking it was a frivolous throwaway
Speaker 3: item to embracing it as the best decision his wife had.
Speaker 2: Ever made money. Obviously, if I sold some cheap thrift
Speaker 2: store item for over one hundred grand, I would also
Speaker 2: be happy to have purchased the item, regardless of what
Speaker 2: that item was.
Speaker 3: What was the difference in the perceived value as virtually
Speaker 3: worthless or practically priceless.
Speaker 2: The subjective opinions of people who were willing to shell
Speaker 2: out massive amounts of cash for it.
Speaker 3: Simply put, he discovered its origin. It hadn't been mass
Speaker 3: produced in a mindless factory in England. It had been
Speaker 3: carefully molded and made ages past by a master craftsman
Speaker 3: in China, Okay.
Speaker 2: But ultimately it is the subject of value placed on
Speaker 2: the item by the people who were willing to buy
Speaker 2: it that did the trick. It doesn't matter if it
Speaker 2: were made by a master craftsman in ancient times if
Speaker 2: there's nobody around who's willing to pay for it. In fact,
Speaker 2: speaking of historical items, the more valuable ones are often
Speaker 2: paradoxically the ones that would have been less valuable to
Speaker 2: the people living at the time. I live not too
Speaker 2: far away from historic fort Erie, the sight of the
Speaker 2: bloodiest battle of the War of eighteen twelve. One of
Speaker 2: the prize artifacts on display in the museum there is
Speaker 2: the uniform of one of the common British soldiers that
Speaker 2: is in relatively good condition. Officers' uniforms, they explain, are
Speaker 2: easy to come by. They were cherished and preserved by
Speaker 2: their owners, often passed down through the family, but a
Speaker 2: lowly private's uniform was likely to be cut into strips
Speaker 2: and uses cleaning rags when all was said and done.
Speaker 2: Because of this, today the privates unit is much more
Speaker 2: valuable than the officer's uniform by virtue of how rare
Speaker 2: it is to find one in good condition. Turns out
Speaker 2: the value of historical artifacts is relative and subject to
Speaker 2: change over time.
Speaker 3: You see, the origin of something determines its meaning.
Speaker 2: The origin of something can have an impact on its meaning,
Speaker 2: but it does not determine it. If I write Calvin
Speaker 2: of Answers in Genesis, Canada is a liar on a
Speaker 2: piece of paper, while in my office it means the
Speaker 2: same as it would if a person in Scotland were
Speaker 2: to type it into a word processor. Different origins, same meaning. Now,
Speaker 2: if I were to instead write suck my on a
Speaker 2: piece of paper, that would mean something different than it
Speaker 2: would coming from our hypothetical scotsman. In that we have
Speaker 2: two different So we can see that origin can impact meaning,
Speaker 2: but it doesn't necessarily impact, meaning.
Speaker 3: Its meaning determines its value.
Speaker 2: Well. Going back to the example of the vase, its
Speaker 2: value was determined by its desirability to collectors, which is
Speaker 2: certainly tied up in its origin in this case, but
Speaker 2: the origin is impacting its subjective value to whoever bought it.
Speaker 2: There is nothing objective going on here. But also, while
Speaker 2: its value is related to its origin, it's a matter
Speaker 2: of scarcity as well. If we were to unearth a
Speaker 2: large collection of similar vases from the same time period,
Speaker 2: then the monetary value of the vase would immediately drop.
Speaker 2: Its origin did not change, but its value did, because
Speaker 2: origin is only part of the value equation at best.
Speaker 3: And its value determines what you should do with it.
Speaker 2: Again, to continue quibbling with technicalities, its value can have
Speaker 2: an impact on what you should do with it, but
Speaker 2: it does not determine it in and of itself. Because
Speaker 2: here's the thing. The couple that bought the vase for
Speaker 2: ten pounds, when they learned its value, decided to sell it,
Speaker 2: but someone else, when they learned its value, decided to
Speaker 2: buy it. Two people looking at the same object decided
Speaker 2: to do not just different but opposite things with it. Actually,
Speaker 2: come to think of it. This shows the value of
Speaker 2: the object to be subjective as well. The people who
Speaker 2: sold it valued it less than the money that they
Speaker 2: would get for selling it, while the people who bought
Speaker 2: it valued it more than than the money that they
Speaker 2: spent to buy it.
Speaker 3: Similarly, if human beings are just the result of mindless
Speaker 3: evolutionary forces originating in some primordial swamp, with no purpose
Speaker 3: or meaning behind our existence, then we have no inherent
Speaker 3: absolute value.
Speaker 2: Maybe, but just as the vase from your example has
Speaker 2: subjective value, we also have subjective value. It's people that
Speaker 2: value other people, and honestly, even if there was a God,
Speaker 2: his opinion about our value doesn't mean that we also
Speaker 2: have the same opinion. In fact, I'd say that I
Speaker 2: value people more than the God of the Bible, because
Speaker 2: I don't think that anyone deserves eternal torture in the afterlife. Now,
Speaker 2: I'm not some holier than thou condescending asshole who refuses
Speaker 2: to say that the idea of Hitler being posthumously tortured
Speaker 2: is not appealing. I mean, there are definitely people who
Speaker 2: I would like to see get their comeuppance, but eternity
Speaker 2: takes it out out of the realm. Of any sort
Speaker 2: of justifiable punishment ideally cause someone like Hitler the equivalent
Speaker 2: amount of pain as what he inflicted on other people
Speaker 2: in life, and then he gets to cease to exist.
Speaker 2: That is way more reasonable than the eternal punishment for
Speaker 2: finite crimes thing that God does. And I think that
Speaker 2: on that point alone, it shows that I value human
Speaker 2: life more than the Christian God does. I also like,
Speaker 2: wouldn't have invented cancer, or earthquakes or that parasite thing
Speaker 2: that's causing everyone in the US trying to eat healthy
Speaker 2: their pants. Hell, while we're at it, I would have
Speaker 2: made the healthy foods taste good and the unhealthy ones
Speaker 2: taste bad, rather than giving us a palette that suggests
Speaker 2: we evolved in a state of constant food shortage, thus
Speaker 2: leading us to prioritize calories over nutrients.
Speaker 3: And also no absolute rights.
Speaker 2: Well, if you want to talk about rights, Christianity is
Speaker 2: a terrible place to go for them. The Old Testament
Speaker 2: has the death penalty for being the wrong religion, so
Speaker 2: there goes your freedom of religion. Women are to be
Speaker 2: silent and are not permitted authority over men, so there
Speaker 2: go women's rights. Slavery is permitted both the kind that
Speaker 2: apologists like to call a gentle slavery as though that
Speaker 2: makes it moral, as well as chattel slavery in the
Speaker 2: same vein as Antebellum slavery. So there goes the right
Speaker 2: to freedom. Enticing people away from the religion also has
Speaker 2: the death penalty, so under old Testament law, I would
Speaker 2: be executed for having my YouTube channel, So there goes
Speaker 2: freedom of speech. Honestly, I'm actually had a bit of
Speaker 2: a loss for coming up with something that we do
Speaker 2: consider to be a right today that could be unequivocally
Speaker 2: supported by the Bible. I'm sure you could find a
Speaker 2: few that aren't contradicted by it, but I can't think
Speaker 2: of any that it actually explicitly protects.
Speaker 3: However, the realization that God created man has revealed in
Speaker 3: Genesis has profound, transcendent, lawful, moral, and practical ethical implications.
Speaker 2: Yeah it does, and none of them are good.
Speaker 3: This was what the Allies argued against the bad guys
Speaker 3: from World War Two.
Speaker 2: You know, this video is actually kind of weird for me.
Speaker 2: I've never seen Calvin shy away from using words like
Speaker 2: Nazi before, and the way he's doing it with his
Speaker 2: cute little euphemisms is more than a little cringey. It
Speaker 2: makes me want to unalive myself.
Speaker 3: The existence of God's moral law. Ultimately, human beings have
Speaker 3: inherent value and worth because of their incredible creator, Jesus Christ.
Speaker 2: It's definitionally not inherent if it's based on something external.
Speaker 2: We don't have worth because God values us. We have
Speaker 2: worth because we value us. I don't give a rat's
Speaker 2: ass about the opinion of some being who can't even
Speaker 2: be bothered to introduce himself to us, and so I
Speaker 2: do not derive my worth from his opinion of us.
Speaker 2: To take it back to the base example, it'd be
Speaker 2: like if the person at the thrist store that was
Speaker 2: selling the vaz promised them that even though he was
Speaker 2: selling it for am easly ten pounds, it really was
Speaker 2: worth over one hundred thousand pounds. You just need to
Speaker 2: have faith that the buyer will purchase it after you die.
Speaker 3: Even though we're corrupted in nature and sinful in our actions,
Speaker 3: God deemed us of such value that he gave his
Speaker 3: only son that whoever believes in him should not perish
Speaker 3: but have eternal life.
Speaker 2: Well, if he really valued us, he wouldn't have made
Speaker 2: all that rigmarole necessary. He forgave people in the Old
Speaker 2: Testament without requiring a sacrifice first, so that is clearly
Speaker 2: a possibility for him. So if he really valued us,
Speaker 2: he could judge us based on our actions and provide
Speaker 2: the appropriate afterlife consequences. I'm not saying everyone gets eternal paradise,
Speaker 2: but it is ridiculous that a good person of the
Speaker 2: wrong religion gets sentenced to eternal torment. And don't give
Speaker 2: me that bully about how nobody is good and that
Speaker 2: we all deserve eternal torment. You will never convince me
Speaker 2: that there is no meaningful difference between Hitler and sam Neil.
Speaker 2: One was clearly a much better person than the other,
Speaker 2: And if you can't see that, then I don't see
Speaker 2: why I should listen to you about anything related to morality.
Speaker 3: It is indeed a paradoxical marvel that our gracious God,
Speaker 3: knowing that his creations would rebel against him, completely unworthy
Speaker 3: and of themselves, deemed us worthy of the willing sacrifice
Speaker 3: of his son Calvin.
Speaker 2: You were just saying we all have inherent worth and value,
Speaker 2: and now you're saying that because we're worthless and valueless.
Speaker 2: It's impressive that God sacrifices himself for us. I guess
Speaker 2: just there goes the idea of inherent value. Turns out
Speaker 2: we're just a bunch of worthless jumps after all.
Speaker 3: From before the foundations of the world. We have rights
Speaker 3: in spite of our wrongs.
Speaker 2: I bet whoever wrote that gave themselves a massive pat
Speaker 2: on the back for being so clever. We have rights
Speaker 2: because we human beings decided to enshrine them into law.
Speaker 2: If we were to follow what the Bible says, then
Speaker 2: our list of rights would be short. Indeed, despite what
Speaker 2: all the apologists who want you to think that Christianity
Speaker 2: is responsible for the advent of modern democracy will tell you.
Speaker 3: God has indeed overpaid for us. But in doing so,
Speaker 3: he's applied even more value to the undeserving souls that
Speaker 3: he's saved.
Speaker 2: This was a really weird pivot, like he's spent the
Speaker 2: entire video so far explaining how we know humans have
Speaker 2: inherent value because they were created by God. But now
Speaker 2: humans are all a bunch of garbage, not worth the
Speaker 2: carbon they're made of. You gotta pick a lane, buddy.
Speaker 2: I get the we are all worthless garbage message is
Speaker 2: necessary in order to attempt to justify hell. But you
Speaker 2: can't make that argument well simultaneously arguing that we have
Speaker 2: an immense inherent worth and value.
Speaker 3: So the question for atheists is philosophically, how does naturalism
Speaker 3: account for human rights? Make it make sense?
Speaker 2: It accounts for human rights because human rights are things
Speaker 2: that we humans have gotten together and said, hey, you
Speaker 2: know what, it sure would be swell if we had
Speaker 2: these rights. What I don't understand is how you think
Speaker 2: we go from Christianity to human rights, even if we're
Speaker 2: just sticking to the Ten Commandments. Like, let's pretend for
Speaker 2: a moment that the Ten Commandments are laws and see
Speaker 2: how many rights we have at the end of them.
Speaker 2: Number one is to have no other gods, so that
Speaker 2: violates our freedom of religion. Number two is to make
Speaker 2: no images of anything in heaven above, in the earth beneath,
Speaker 2: or in the water under the earth, and that you
Speaker 2: cannot bow down to serve those images, so we lose
Speaker 2: our freedom of expression and our freedom of religion again.
Speaker 2: The third is to not take the name of the
Speaker 2: Lord your God in vain, so there goes freedom of speech.
Speaker 2: Fourth is to keep the Sabbath day holy and do
Speaker 2: not work, so there's one day of the week that
Speaker 2: we don't have the freedom to even work on household
Speaker 2: projects for ourselves. Fifth is to honor your father and mother,
Speaker 2: which could be seen as a violation of the freedom
Speaker 2: of association. Six is to not murder. Finally, more than
Speaker 2: halfway through the list, we've got one that does not
Speaker 2: actively violate things that we consider rights today. Seventh is
Speaker 2: to not commit adultery, which is a principle that I
Speaker 2: can agree with, provided the people in the relationship are
Speaker 2: the ones who get to define what adultery means to them,
Speaker 2: which would make this a really hard one to enact
Speaker 2: as a law that doesn't violate freedom of association, And
Speaker 2: even if we could figure it out, this would probably
Speaker 2: best be left as a personal rather than a legal matter.
Speaker 2: Eight is to not steal, sure that one doesn't actively
Speaker 2: violate any rights we've now got two. Nine is to
Speaker 2: not bear false witness against your neighbor. This is commonly
Speaker 2: interpreted as being a command not to lie, which would
Speaker 2: violate freedom of speech if it were made into law,
Speaker 2: but with the wording it has, it seems more likely
Speaker 2: to me that it's talking about someone lying in order
Speaker 2: to frame someone for a crime. They didn't commit, So
Speaker 2: depending on the interpretation, this one is either fine or
Speaker 2: violates freedom of speech. Tenth is to not want other
Speaker 2: people's things, with that list of things, including their slaves.
Speaker 2: So given the implicit approval of slavery, this one violates
Speaker 2: general personal freedom. Actually I missed it earlier, but the
Speaker 2: same goes for the fourth commandment. Part of it is
Speaker 2: to give your slaves the day off as well, But
Speaker 2: even ignoring that number ten violates freedom of thought. If
Speaker 2: we're generous here, there are three commandments out of ten
Speaker 2: that if these commandments were to become laws, do not
Speaker 2: actively violate things that we consider to be rights today. So,
Speaker 2: however you account for human rights philosophically, there is little
Speaker 2: to no basis for them in scripture. That's it for
Speaker 2: this one. Today's comment the Day comes to us from
Speaker 2: Peter Rivera Junior six eight ninety nine, who asks you
Speaker 2: ever going to be back on the God Awful Movies
Speaker 2: Podcast West Excellent timing on that question. By the time
Speaker 2: this video is published, my second appearance on the gamcast
Speaker 2: should already be live. They started posting to YouTube as well,
Speaker 2: and I was doing hat Shenanigan, so it might be
Speaker 2: worth watching instead of listening, So assuming their video is
Speaker 2: up before this one goes live, I'll leave a link
Speaker 2: to it here. Thanks for watching. I'll be back next
Speaker 2: Friday with more, but if you need to get yourneo
Speaker 2: fix in before then. I last room was service every
Speaker 2: Wednesday eight thirty Eastern on my other channel, The Watering Hole,
Speaker 2: and periodically published shorts on the channel Vice Rhino Shorts.
Speaker 2: Thanks to Piper for being my editor, and special thanks
Speaker 2: as always to my patrons, who are the origin of
Speaker 2: the idea that is my channel. If you'd like to
Speaker 2: make my channel a special little boy, you can join
Speaker 2: us on Patreon for as little as a dollar per
Speaker 2: week over at patreon dot com slash Vice Rhino, or
Speaker 2: by supporting the channel and one of the other methods.
Speaker 2: I can be found at links adviceround dot com, which
Speaker 2: is also where you'll find links to my other projects.
Speaker 2: If for whatever reason you want to send me stuff,
Speaker 2: might po box addresses in the description See and next time.
Speaker 2: Just so you know, I'm switching back and forth between
Speaker 2: Vase and VAZ on purpose because everybody's going to like
Speaker 2: no matter which one I go with, somebody's gonna complain
Speaker 2: about it. So if I go with both, then people
Speaker 2: will be like complaining about me switching back and forth,
Speaker 2: and I think that's funnier. So that's what I'm going for,
Speaker 2: And feel free to put that in their take so
Speaker 2: that they can complain about it and then watch that