1. STDs almost exclusively persist within human populations that do not majorly adhere to chasity before marriage and culturally enforced monogamy. 2. Human male violence was a major and persistent threat to early communities. This is curbed in large part by non-competition for mates, achieved easily through culturally enforced monogamy. -Related: male violence not only strains internal group relationships, not only threatens the immediate well being of physically fit members of a community, but it also dramatically increases infanticide. 3. There is considerable data about the mental health consequences of poly relationships. You can argue that those consequences are a result of 2,000+ years of Judeo Christian values dominating the subconscious or something, but there is a legitimate misery found in these relationships that starkly contrasts the strength of human pair-bonding for life. 4. Strong sexual morality leads to more complete families, better outcomes for children. This is easy, off the dome argumentation that is supported with a 10 second Google search. It's ontological, supported with objective truth., it fosters a culture with statistically describable, anthropologically relevant, and logically consistent benefits. Your position is one that seemingly has very little support beyond some absurd desire to be free from perceived constraints. You ride a rollercoaster, spitting and thrashing at the safety bar keeping you on the ride. You're free to do whatever you like in this life, others are free to inform you that it's a poor choice and dislike those decisions.

@CosmoPhiloPharmaco

2 күн бұрын

Very well said, man! Appreciate this comment.

@PyroCrusader

2 күн бұрын

Facts.

@johnwentz2149

2 күн бұрын

Even if all of those claims were admitted, it still would not be sufficient ground for a moral law. The commandments regarding sexuality are categorical, meaning it can never be right to not follow them. If the basis of the commandments are on their possible consequences, then if the consequences were different, the command would also have to be different. But it is supposed to be constant, regardless of consequences. What you have argued for is not, in fact, the immorality of sexual behavior which deviates from the supposed law, but the imprudence of it.

@PyroCrusader

2 күн бұрын

@@johnwentz2149 Ya didn't even read the comment you're responding to. >Even if all of those claims were admitted, it still would not be sufficient ground for a moral law. Those claims are literally confirmed by various sources, how can you say "even if", as if you still doubt it while it is true. > If the basis of the commandments are on their possible consequences, then if the consequences were different, the command would also have to be different. But it is supposed to be constant, regardless of consequences. Well then if the consequences were different, the commandments regarding sexuaity would also be differents, you said it yourself. If we assume a perfect God that do not act in hazard but possess the perfection of wisdom and thus is capable of creating commandments in accords with the facts. >What you have argued for is not, in fact, the immorality of sexual behavior which deviates from the supposed law, but the imprudence of it. There right here is a fallacy, and a really dihonest one. First, it goes from the principle that imprudence is not immorality, which is sometimes true. However, just after that, it says that if we argue to prove imprudence, we didn't prove any immorality. That is completely false, even legally speaking and from an atheist point of view. If someone drive at 180 km/h on a city road and kill a child, his imprudence was, in fact, immoral, in the sens where he deliberately put danger on others because of his recklesness. Here, the point that is made by the og is that in his points, immorality and imprudence could be considered as the same things. And you just chose to ignore it because it fit your narrative of an impossibility of juge other based on their sexual behavior. Baffling of mediocrity.

@westonharby165

2 күн бұрын

Most STDs can be transmitted from mother to child. So you can still get STDs as a virgin. Also rape exists.

Can I ask your view on the nature of moral systems? Are you an objectivist, emotivist, etc etc?

10:09 Adding to this argument, let's say a woman is married to a man who is a travelling merchant, and became of the dangers of traveling, she would stay in town. It would be harder for her to have children, since her husband could arrive in a non fertile time of her menstrual cycle, and even if that's not the case, sex in the fertile period does not always result in pregnancy. If she had a second husband, her chances of getting pregnant would increase.

Another example is that God designed human bodies to be capable of childbirth at early ages yet we try to avoid that by protecting teenagers

@CounterApologist

3 күн бұрын

That's a great point I wish I thought to include in this video!

@Marques2000

3 күн бұрын

@@CounterApologist it fits even better with the "abstinence only" thingy

@0live0wire0

2 күн бұрын

Once again, atheists don't know Christian theology and strawman it. God didn't create man and woman with the bodies we have now. In Eden before the fall there was no procreation, death, suffering or want and Adam and Eve were more akin to angels - they were perfect creations. They got the "garments of skin" (their corporeal bodies as we know them) only after the fall when death entered the world. The fall was cosmic in scope meaning it changed everything (or as people like to say today - we entered a different timeline).

@Wartensteiin

2 күн бұрын

Thats a bad point

@Marques2000

2 күн бұрын

@@Wartensteiin Why?

do a video about presuppositionalist apologetics

Ultimately it doesn't really matter whether divine morality is subjective or not, and this is due to the (purported) divine punishment-reward system. Even if one thinks that God's commands are arbitrary, it is still maximally rational to choose to obey God's commands since the *potential* suffering now for having to favor divine morality over human morality is infinitely dwarfed by the unimaginably excruciating suffering in hell (and the same applies to the potential satisfaction for refusing to submit). So, ultimately this is all moot for practical purposes.

@richm368

2 күн бұрын

This suggests that you are choosing your morality under threat of literally unimaginable torture. It makes me curious if another religion had a nastier hell if people would convert for that reason alone.

@johnwentz2149

2 күн бұрын

The point is that this undermines the moral argument since "God" is no longer "moral" in any sense humans can recognize through reason, so there is no longer an argument for belief in God based on the need to objectively ground moral truths. Also, I put "God" in quotes because the God of classical theism is partially knowable to humans insofar as God has all the perfections humans can understand and more they can't. For example, humans cannot know all the power of God, but can know that all power they do know belongs to God. Likewise, they cannot know all goodness in God's essence, but know that all Goodness they do know belongs to him. Divine command theory subverts this by saying things we as humans rationally know to be bad are actually good according to God. In so doing, it is talking about a being which has to be ontologically distinct from classical theistic God. That's why I used "God," because describing an entity I know can do morally evil things as God would be blasphemy.

@0live0wire0

Күн бұрын

That's Pascals wager but I don't think it would convince many atheists today.

I would object that the essentiality of human nature is in conflict with a contingency argument, since the human nature would be an abstract fact and not a concrete aspect of contingent reality.

@CounterApologist

2 сағат бұрын

I mean I added an entire section of the video talking about the problems with such a fringe view - human nature is a necessary fact? It also doesn't avoid the problem, as I addressed in the video.

Interesting video, but I have some questions. Why is mind-independence or stance-independence necessary for a form of the moral argument to go through? Why can't the theist just say that there are real moral facts and duties that are binding on people and that the best explanation is God? Also, I don't see why these (don't want KZread to censor my comment) kinds of ethics can't be grounded in God's nature, especially if the whole Christian ethical system can be grounded in loving God and loving your neighbor. It could be that some of these acts are inherently destructive to some or all the participants involved in them and thus don't fulfill the command to love your neighbor as yourself. I imagine a response to what I said could reduce down to "did God have an arbitrary design choice when making this part of humanity" but then one could respond that marriage and children reflect aspects of God's nature. For example, marriage reflects Christ and the Church. It could also be possible that sharing existence with more people is inherently a loving act. Another option could be to say that procreation mirrors the Trinity if the Filioque is true.

@CounterApologist

Күн бұрын

Because the moral argument is dependent on positing objective moral values and duties, because moral realism is something that most people seem to want to believe in. To say that morality is ultimately subjective based on god's stances and desires is to admit that morality is relative and that the only reason we ought to obey god is because we really live in a Celestial North Korea where we either do what the Dear Leader says or we will be made to suffer. I think your point about grounding marriage in reflecting the nature of Christ and the Church is demonstrably false - that literally *can't* be part of god's nature simply because the existence of the church is dependent on contingent beings existing to make it up. So while you can say marriage reflects Christ and the Church that is not a part of god's necessary nature - simply because the church is contingent and god can't have any contingent properties in his necessary nature.

This line of argumentation is not internal critique of Christian theology. In Christianity we have the second person of the Trinity, the Son, who was made flesh and acquired a fully human nature in the face of Christ ("God became man so that man can become god"). So we absolutely have a reference point and a standard for being a man. That's what Christianity hinges upon and it's what makes it unique - namely, we have a personal God.

@CounterApologist

Күн бұрын

LOL, you've basically committed a Christian heresy. You can point to the incarnation, and even if we grant that it is coherent - none of the human properties of Jesus are part of god's nature. Otherwise you introduce an incredible amount of contingent properties to a necessary being, which is heretical. Also Christianity is committed to god existing without the universe, and so Jesus couldn't have had a human body and all of its parts if there was literally no space or time for that body to exist in. Similarly Jesus wasn't incarnate until many millions of years post the creation of the universe, so again nothing about the incarnate Jesus can be part of god's nature nor ground any morality to it - because god had to design humanity and all of our functions first before god could incarnate Jesus into human form.

@0live0wire0

Күн бұрын

​@@CounterApologist oh, did I. I bet I know the dogmas, the heresies and christology better than you. You atheists always assume you know more about the religion you criticize than you do, and often end up strawmanning the Christian beliefs (although I admit many who call themselves Christian have a bad theology and bad arguments for their faith so they're not setting the bar too high). Christ has both a fully human AND a fully divine nature and both were present in Him at all times - this is the Orthodox doctrine. I said "acquired a fully human nature" but I didn't meant that as the arians who discard His divine nature. "Also Christianity is committed to god existing without the universe, and so Jesus couldn't have had a human body and all of its parts if there was literally no space or time for that body to exist in." Nobody claimed The Son had a human body prior to the incarnation. That's the point of the incarnation - to assume human nature/body in our temporal and spatial created reality. His body was created and that's why He had to be born by a woman just like every other man. "Similarly Jesus wasn't incarnate until many millions of years post the creation of the universe, so again nothing about the incarnate Jesus can be part of god's nature nor ground any morality to it - because god had to design humanity and all of our functions first before god could incarnate Jesus into human form." Nowhere does the Bible say anything about millions of years, you're confusing the biblical narrative with the evolutionary narrative. But that's irrelevant to the argument either way. The second person of the Trinity, the Son is uncreated and begotten by the Father. He is equally God as God the Father and through Him (also referred to as the Word) everything was created. The Word of course is Christ and He created Adam in His image. As I've replied elsewhere, Adam didn't have a natural human body as we know it. It was more akin to the angels, it wasn't corporeal or subject to degradation and death. The corruptible human body, as we know it is the result of the fall (referred to as the garments of skin in Genesis). It is that body Jesus assumed when He became flesh, and while it still cares His image it is not the same perfectly good body He created in Eden on the sixth day.

@0live0wire0

Күн бұрын

​ @CounterApologist oh, did I. I bet I know the dogmas, the heresies and christology better than you. You atheists always assume you know more about the religion you criticize than you do, and often end up strawmanning the Christian beliefs (although I admit many who call themselves Christian have a bad theology and bad arguments for their faith so they're not setting the bar too high). Christ has both a fully human AND a fully divine nature and both were present in Him at all times - this is the Orthodox doctrine. I said "acquired a fully human nature" but I didn't meant that as the arians who discard His divine nature. "Also Christianity is committed to god existing without the universe, and so Jesus couldn't have had a human body and all of its parts if there was literally no space or time for that body to exist in." Nobody claimed The Son had a human body prior to the incarnation. That's the point of the incarnation - to assume human nature/body in our temporal and spatial created reality. His body was created and that's why He had to be born by a woman just like every other man. "Similarly Jesus wasn't incarnate until many millions of years post the creation of the universe, so again nothing about the incarnate Jesus can be part of god's nature nor ground any morality to it - because god had to design humanity and all of our functions first before god could incarnate Jesus into human form." Nowhere does the Bible say anything about millions of years, you're confusing the biblical narrative with the evolutionary narrative. But that's irrelevant to the argument either way. The second person of the Trinity, the Son is uncreated and begotten by the Father. He is equally God as God the Father and through Him (also referred to as the Word) everything was created. The Word of course is Christ and He created Adam in His image. As I've replied elsewhere, Adam didn't have a natural human body as we know it. It was more akin to the angels, it wasn't corporeal or subject to degradation and death. The corruptible human body, as we know it is the result of the fall (referred to as the garments of skin in Genesis). It is that body Jesus assumed when He became flesh, and while it still cares His image it is not the same perfectly good body He created in Eden on the sixth day.

@CounterApologist

23 сағат бұрын

@@0live0wire0 "*Nobody claimed The Son had a human body prior to the incarnation*. That's the point of the incarnation - to assume human nature/body in our temporal and spatial created reality. His body was created and that's why He had to be born by a woman just like every other man." "Christ has both a fully human AND a fully divine nature *and both were present in Him at all times* - this is the Orthodox doctrine." I mean pick one. If he didn't have a body prior to creation of the universe then he can't have a fully human nature at all times. Human nature is to have a physical body and all of the biological designs that were mentioned in the video. So it can't be part of his necessary nature, most especially because human nature is contingent on humans being created, but god can't have any contingent properties - that is a heresy. I do happen to know a bit about heresies because I was a Christian for almost 30 years. You on the other hand can't go for a single post without contradicting yourself.

@0live0wire0

16 сағат бұрын

​@@CounterApologist dude, just read on Orthodox Christology otherwise I have to spell out everything for you not to get it out of context and see contradictions where there's none. Both natures were present at Him at all times *when He was incarnated in a human body*, not prior to this. The incarnation is a concrete moment in time and space in our world. How can He posses a human nature before becoming human? I thought that's self-explanatory. Christ assumed Adam's fallen nature, that's why He's called the second Adam, so that He can reverse the fall by defeating death (which was brought about by the fall).

It's always been a bit confusing to me why male and female humans would both be considered in God's image. The modern apologetic line is that this refers to rationality, as if merely the fact that humans are rational justifies God choosing to make us as otherwise unlike God as seemingly possible. So to be in the image of God is to possess a rational mind, but NOT to be immaterial, timeless, immortal, unchanging, morally perfect, etc. The irony is that the older Christians had a much more straightforward answer: Male humans were in God's (scripturally masculine) image, and female humans were somehow deficient. Very useful way to both control women and resolve the question of what it even means to be in God's image. Monstrous, sure, but a tighter answer than this wishy-washy rationality claptrap.

@NOONE-bs5zh

2 күн бұрын

jesus was god and was human so that is how they resolve that . a woman was the literal mother of god for them, and the older chrystian were greek and romans, relative pre-chrystianity Greece and Rome was pretty terrible for women, the new religion was magnitude freer for women, if the objective was controlling women i feel like it failed.

Sex, it all boils down to that. Very fitting video after pride. Good job Counter

These apologists use the term "objectivity" to convince people that "God's" values are something that can't be messed with, that they are a law. You have to follow them or else, and of course, they will never admit to this since it doesn't sound too appetizing to say such a thing to non-believers. Instead, they want to gaslight you into thinking that you also have these values, and since God and you have these values, they are objective. It still doesn't make sense to say such a thing because if moral values are mind-independent, and if values need a valuer to do the valuing (mind-dependent), then how does it make sense to even make a distinction between the two; objective value is an oxymoron. Even God is doing the valuing, he's a subject, why haven't these brainwashed theists realized that by now. Also, please talk about why these same people shun atheists for fornicating if they can't marry because they technically can't because every relationship in Christianity needs a Godhead to be legitimate so why are they so pissed about non Christians having sex before marriage.

With all this nonsense, it is not a miracle that I'm an igtheist.

@0live0wire0

2 күн бұрын

Dude, you have no objective standard for morality. This is the ultimate nonsense.

@adalbertred

2 күн бұрын

@@0live0wire0 , mate, there is no objective morality. This is the nonsense with which crooks of the world control believers.

@0live0wire0

2 күн бұрын

@@adalbertred then what's the point of arguing against Christian morality? It surely can't be "bad" because there's no objective morality and everything is a matter of preference, right? Your statement is a contradiction. If nothing is objectively good or bad, then what does it matter if crooks manipulate believers? There's nothing bad with being a crook as a consequence of your worldview. Yet you use language that implies otherwise. How come?

@adalbertred

2 күн бұрын

@@0live0wire0 it is bad because it makes people suffer. So, there is no objective morality but, because we live in a society, there is a set of rules resulted after thousand of years of living together. That is why we consider bad to kill, still, rape (which is not even mentioned in the 10 commandments), or do anything that make people suffer. In other words, I don't bother you, you don't bother me.

@0live0wire0

Күн бұрын

@@adalbertred is all suffering bad? If that's the case why don't people just self-delete? Saying there are a set of socially constructed rules doesn't give you a value judgment. How do you know there is such a thing as progress and the rules "evolved"? Since those rules are subject to change along with culture, what if there is a new political regime that put forward a new set of rules? How could you be able to judge if that's progress or regress, if the change is for good or bad? This refers to an old problem in philosophy posed by David Hume (who's an atheist skeptic) - you can't get an "ought" from an "is". Just because something is the way it is, doesn't tell us it should be that way.