4:25 That was a painfully OBVIOUS PIVOT by Glen. No you didn’t say you’re 2+2 = 4 was an analogue for “All humans are worthy of protection” You said “2+2 = 4” to demonstrate that a truth is a truth regardless if people agree IN REPLY TO Matt’s reflection of your critique that Humanism’s foundation could be ignored by those who don’t agree. Then Matt, rightly pointed out that it’s a bad analogy because 2+2=4 is not in the same ballpark as philosophical questions like “what is the reason we do what we do?” (Because 2+2 is obvious and can be physically demonstrated where as god being the foundation for morality can NOT.)
Moses King yeah no, we literally use physical means to demonstrate to children how to count using their fingers. How that skated past you is beyond me. I take it you have faith that you have 5 fingers then.
Very telling how they cut out when Matt starts to plainly answer, after trying to get to the root of the disagreement first. I expect nothing less, unfortunately.
They have the full debate posted already, and have been releasing clips that seem to favor Glenn, and some that seem to favor Matt IMO. Unbelievable is about as fair as "debate" channels get
@@G14U Of course I've watched the full video and I'm objecting to where they cut the video to end where they did not allow the full answer to be expressed which is a form of manipulation or Deception. In the fact that they know most people will not watch the full video it makes it even more Deceptive
@@DrVarner yeah if I have a choice to save either my unborn child or my wife I am choosing my wife.... once the child is born I will choose the child? Birth has meaning, a lot of meaning!
@@cjp1599 I don’t disagree with much of what you said. My point is that an unborn baby is still human. The choice between mother and unborn child is not made easy because of a lack of humanity but because of a lake of familiarity and knowing.
@@DrVarner knowing of many parents who have or had severe needs kids(in the 90's my mom was a pediatric physical therapist that worked out of our home, and I do not classify Downes as severe needs)-most if not all of the parents wished they had known about the issues before birth. Not only has the child significantly worsened the parents lives, often the parents did not believe their children lived a good life. It was sadder for them to see this life form struggle so extremely with such little joy. Life when healthy is a gift, when not healthy sometime real humanity is preventing life.
Well, at least they've shown their true colours and that like all theists, they can't be unbiased and honest. I wonder how long it takes until they disable comments and scrap debates and start making only propaganda videos.
@@51elephantchang I agree wholeheartedly and perhaps I should have complete my prediction by saying he will leave the team and channel, but that was hard for me to do because I hope I'm wrong and that he stays and corrects this dishonest editing of debates he is a part of instead, but experience teaches us that that is most probably just wishful thinking.
@Caratacus So what you're saying is that the scientific method is the best way of learning what is true, because it demands repeatable and/or verifiable evidence and peer review before relying on any conclusion to minimize inevitable bias and other thinking errors. Well, if everyone was that reasonable there'd be no theism.
What evidence do you have that leads to you to believe that "this video is edited in favor Glen"? Did you not see the exact same part of this dialogue in the full discussion video? After watching/listening/reading Dillahunty for many years, I have yet to see him confirm your observation that this was an "edited" video that takes him out of context or has him in some way to say something he didn't actually say on the topic at hand.
I could literally say the same thing about the atheist community, and so many video compilations of Christian atheist debates, both Christians and atheists are biased, I know enough about Justin Brylee to know that he is a fair moderator, does he have a biased absolutely but he is extremely honest and he’s willing to look at things honestly.
Well it's pretty obvious that God doesn't think that all humans are worthy of protection. He stands by watching as children are raped, apparently he's all powerful yet does nothing. What would you say about a person who stood by and watched a child get raped? Would you call them good? Loving?
Nothing could convince you God exists. He created everything in existence and you STILL don't believe Him. What else could He do? You're looking for an audible voice or action, but suppress the very idea that we shouldn't even be here without a creator.
@@crazyprayingmantis5596 DNA! A great example among everything in existence. You wouldn't believe that a children's book could be created by accident, but because of "natural processes" you believe that something absurd like DNA just came about.
@@jakeschwartz2514 The reason we know children's books are created is because we can compare them with things that we know aren't created. What are you comparing the universe to in order to conclude that it was created?
Crazy prayingmantis This is my only statement: Jesus Christ is lord and he died for your sins. I hope your soul is saved in time friend. God bless you!
"All human beings are worthy of provision and protection" That gets you nowhere in the abortion debate. How about if someone needs your kidneys in order to survive? Does the government then have the right and obligation to force you to give that person your kidney? No? I thought all human beings were worthy of provision and protection.
You are intentionally misrepresenting it. All humans being worthy of protection simple means don't kill them. And the govt should take steps to prevent something like it occurring.
@@albertbenny431 To knowingly not give someone dying who needs a kidney your kidney knowing they will die if you don’t is the exact same as not giving a fetus your organs to survive off of knowing they will die it’s the exact same. It is in any other situation a choice for A human to use their body to save another human except when we talk about abortion. Now all of a sudden all humans are not equal. You can’t have it both ways either your obligated to use your body to save lives or your not.
@@roonski2048 no it’s not it’s a simple premise. If you are pro life you hold the logic That humans are morally obligated to use their body’s to save a life. To knowingly not give someone dying who needs a kidney your kidney knowing they will die if you don’t is the exact same as not giving a fetus your organs to survive off of knowing they will die it’s the exact same. It is in any other situation a choice for A human to use their body to save another human except when we talk about abortion. Now all of a sudden all humans are not equal. You can’t have it both ways either your obligated to use your body to save lives or your not.
@@kittykatxox845 you are not obligated at all. Pro lifers want to give the fetus special rights. Name me a human that has the right to use another humans body for survival without the consent of that human?
@@nikharris7121 Or, we could make no assumptions whatsoever, and find the real response and then be able to discuss a topic from a basis of fact and not assumption.
@@nikharris7121 a bit like how we can assume people can walk on water, or assume that humans can rise from the dead after a few days, or humans can part seas with a wave of hand, assume it is possible to impregnate virgins from a million miles away.....yeah man, assumption is great.
Scrivener talks a lot but says pretty much nothing. Furthermore humanism has been expanding ever broader in recent history and humanistic and animal rights are at an all-time high and climbing, which is contradictory with what Scrivener says in the beginning.
Humanism fails because there is no objective standard. They have already changed their morality to allow abortion up to 9 months out of "compassion." Now, people like Peter Singer advocate infanticide up to the age of 3-4 years old. Humanism is a system for uneducated atheists who want Christian morality but are too spineless to back it up.
Glen switched the analogue of 2+2=4 from, "God is the self-evident foundation for morals", to "all humans are inherently valuable and deserving of life and protection." Neither analogue is self-evident in the manner of 2+2=4. As humanists, we can readily grant that "all humans are inherently valuable and deserving of life and protection", while also asserting that none of these definitions and rights include the right to use a non-consenting person's body to be kept alive.
@Caratacus At its foundation, secular morality is opinion dependent--for example, morality is about human well being, life is better than non-life, all life is inherently valuable, etc. Once these foundational axioms are accepted, we can agree upon and choose objective means of achieving them. Yes, it's scary, but based in reality. If you're a serial killer or a Hitler and don't accept these axioms, I don't want to talk to you. And since secular morality is unashamedly human centered, we can safely ignore God's inscrutable commands, like his obsession with foreskins.
@Caratacus I'll try once more. Like moral axioms, secularists value good health, even though the universe doesn't care about our health. We can't help but care; it's just axiomatic/foundational. Do you have to check in with God before you can care? Does that mean we cannot objectively say drinking orange juice is better than drinking battery acid? Please. Your "meat bag" analogy is reductionist. It all depends on how the meat is put together. You already acknowledge this when you excuse a toddler with an underdeveloped brain who shreds one of your valuable books, but punish the adult who does the same thing, in full possession of a mature brain. If your morality was just free-floating, why bring in the brain at all?
@Caratacus carefully re-read my responses. Did I ever deny that foundational moral axioms were based on opinion? Did I ever claim that moral facts had the ontological reality you require? By the way, how would you recognize moral facts that had the objectivity you desire?
@Caratacus Can you please give me your definition of objective moral facts? If they are human independent, would they exist in a universe without humans? You see, our objectivism comes at the end of a conditional statement: if humans exist, and if we agree that morality is about their well being, THEN, here's what we can objectively say about that well being. It has something to do with not being raped, robbed or murdered everyday. And not drinking battery acid. These are objective facts about humans, and they have the best ontological grounding we could hope for: scientific. I don't care if they do or don't have an ontological grounding apart from humans.
@Caratacus Here's an analogy that may help you. When choosing a career, you may be equally suited for any number of them. So, the choice will be subjective. Suppose you choose medicine instead of the law. After your subjective choice, we can now speak objectively about the various career moves you might make toward your goal. Some are clearly going to be better or worse than others. Your progress toward your goal is even objectively measurable. Similarly, this is the only kind of moral objectivity claimed by myself, and I believe, Dillahunty.
Cut out and edited to sound out of context, 🙂 the fact that you have to edit something so it seems someone means something different in order to feel like you have a point is all you need to know about the owner of this channel and 99% of the comment section ❤️
@@brianjosephmedia1086 the one in question, given the video. I know he "responds" as in he says words after the question is addressed to him. But in my opinion he really doesn't address the key issue the question poses
@@ooooooppppp11 the "are all humans worthy of protection" question is cut out before he finishes his response so its left sounding like he just says no, in the actual interview he says that he doesn't like the simplistic way the question is posed because we have humans that are definitely not worth keeping around, people who cause inmense amounts of harm and are way beyond repair, so no, the answer to is every single human worthy of protection is no.
It really depends on what type of provision and what kind of protection you mean Glen. That's an awfully ambiguous statement. First off... from what? From eating baked beans? From homosexuality? From any rights of any kind? This should be the imperative conjunction to any premise that includes protection for a human, especially *all of them*. How naïve. If we assume he means perhaps human rights - all humans rights are worthy of provision and protection, then there is a huge maybe there. First of all, not all humans are in fact equal when it comes to human rights. You don't have the right of freedom in the generic sense after you commit a serious enough crime, most societies would say. If we are topically talking about life, i.e. the right to life of all humans then again, a big exception is required here. Every human has the right to life, but not if it is simultaneously at the expense (of given liberty) of another human. All people must be considered in a big sweeping statement like that.
In my opinion and i am an atheist if the world becomes a place were it doesn’t take a thought to abort babies because they have Down syndrome then it’s a world I don’t want to live in.
Even if there was an objective morality in universe, it still wouldn't mean God was foundation for it. We know axiomatically that 2+2=4, but how does that prove God as foundation?
And how does that prove that he's not? You have faith in your atheistic worldview (because you can't prove it either, you just take it for granted). You probably don't even know anything about Christian theology, yet you aim to destroy it somehow (without the knowledge of the matter in question), I hope you realize this.
@@gambinalvarezjesusdavid3454 It seems to me it's other way around, you know nothing about atheism. See, atheism doesn't claim there is no God, it says there is no good evidence nor proof that he exists. Please read my comment again. I never said that something proves God doesn't exist, I only said that existence of objective morality doesn't prove he exists. It really surprises me that you think I know nothing about Christianity. You don't know me and you couldn't conclude anything from my two sentences.
@@gambinalvarezjesusdavid3454 Atheism isn't a world view. You are in fact an atheist for every god ever suggested, yet you've settled on one - because that it the god you were taught about, and indoctrinated in, as a child. Your atheism with regards to Thor, isn't a worldview, - it's a lack of belief. You don't even know what the word means. I'll repeat - YOU are an atheist for every god ever suggested, except one.
I think the point he’s trying to make us do you need God as the ultimate foundation in order to, recognize that 2+2 = 4, your responses well we know that therefore God can’t be responsible for it, he’s saying we need God to justify that, he’s using sort of a presuppositional method.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 It's an axiom. It can't be justified, it's a self-evident truth. Everybody believes 2+2=4, regardless of their religion. So why do you need justification? If someone stops believing in God, does he stops believing in 2+2=4?
Holy crap he actually said 2 plus 2 equals 4 when that is not absolutely not totally accurate. There are many ways where you can add two and two and not get four and just so I don't seem crazy here's one you can add two cups of baking soda to 2 cups of vinegar and your end product will be over 5 cups of foam that is a case where two and two does not equal 4. Just trying to make the point that nothing is absolute and it's all subjective
What Glen is missing is that there isn't some central authority deciding that fetuses with Down's Syndrome will be aborted. This is the decisions of many individual people deciding that they aren't prepared to raise a child with Down's Syndrome, and no one has the right to force them into that responsibility. No one has the right to force them into the responsibility to have a child at all if they decide they aren't prepared.
@Les Brown okay...sounds reasonable to me. Yes abortion is a difficult issue. I am a liberal, I stand on a woman's right to choose, but there are no good solutions here.
@@mosesking2923 utilitarianism has its applications...but you are treating it as if it is the only thing Matt is about. If you know Matt, he is a proponent of the superior moral standard of well being
@@lawrenceeason8007 If Matt is an atheist, quite simply he has no morality. Atheists are incapable of having any objective morality so they have to twist evolution and utilitarianism to fit their view. His "moral standard" is not moral at all. Just a baseless subjective opinion and nothing more.
If all a worth of protection, then stop all that hate on LGBT+ people, you dont control who you are atracted to and you dont control if you feel a women or a man or neither of women or man. And if all are worth of protection, then stop going to war, because of religion.
Love the honest editing 👍👍👍 Clearly, there was no rebuttal. All human life must be protected. When sending soldiers off to war, make sure to instruct them to not kill the enemy.
There is no "humanity", its a fake abstract concept. What is there in the real, physical world is: either civilization, or hunter-gatherer tribes. Those with down syndrome don't fit in neither - in hunter-gatherer tribes they wold be eliminated by a natural selection. In civilization they don't fulfill minimal requirements to contribute to the civilization: don't match desired employee profiles for ordinary jobs, don't match "inventor/genius"-type contributors to the civilization, can't understand scienceadvanced machinery, law or medicine etc. They are outside of civilization or primitive tribes. Their can be parasites, which is a net negative role. Supporting their existence is thus immoral, maladaptive and counterindicated. Especially considering alternatives - like more space for nature instead of such parasite, which is dying right now due to environmental problems.
@@sickboy666fu More or less I take it to mean: All members of the human family are worthy of protection from conception until death. This of course applies to the law abiding citizens, as well as to the death row inmates (they are worthy of protection until their legal appointment with the death chamber). The only exception to this rule is, perhaps, people who are killed in the commission of crimes or combatants in wars. But I think in this video the question was quite simpler and it wasn't necessary to cover all the bases. I think he was basically asking whether or not every member of the human family was worthy of life and was worthy to not have his life thwarted. In which case I would obviously say yes.
@@southernstoic8279 So there's A-line you can cross where you are no longer worthy of life like a crime or an act of war? In those instances the person is no longer worthy of protection and may forfeit their right to life?
Scrivener's opening remarks led me to believe that he thinks someone other than the mother determines who aborts the Down's child. It's that person's choice. Just because the parents discover the unborn child has Down's doesn't mean they will choose to abort it. Since the number of Down's children isn't zero after this procedure, it shows many don't abort anyway. But he seems to be trying to equate the test for Down's with the forced abortion that ensues, and that's just not true. Very dishonest.
"All humans need to be treated equally", I don't believe it is a Christian principle, I believe it is a human principle. There was a time when Christianity didn't exists, and I can't accept that humans destroy their tribe fellows. So, treated your fellows equally is humane, not Christian.
I hear what you saying what there is nuances. We don't treat everyone equally impossible to treat everyone equally. No offense my family gets great oppressive and then you And I would not treat a child rapist equally in any regards. In theory treating everyone equally it's nice but it's not reality. Treat everyone with respect till respect is no longer deserved
Historical ignorance. Christianity began at a time when people were the total property of their owners. Julius Caesar killed over a million people with swords, enslaved millions more, and was laughing at the poor slave kids sold into sexual slavery on the streets of Rome. If you think that treating 'fellow humans equally' isn't Christian, you are a historical idiot.
@Caratacus How does that change it? Not everyone watching this video will have seen the full debate. This video on its own is just incredibly dishonest and based on this channel's other video clips from this debate, it's intentional. Also, is "anti-christian" meant to be an insult? Christianity is a disgustingly immoral religion.. Sounds like a good thing to me to be against it.
@Caratacus That's silly. In the same way I hate cancer but not cancer patients, I hate Christianity but not those afflicted by it. This channel has repeatedly posted dishonest clips and titles. If you can't see it, that's a symptom of your Christianity.
@Caratacus I'm not the one calling strangers bigot, totalitarian, fanatics, troll and whatever other insult because they've pointed out that a video is dishonest. In fact, all I did was ask you how the fact the full debate was posted first changes the fact this specific video is dishonest. Since you don't have an answer to that, you've resorted to just flinging shit. Dishonest videos like this and shit-flinging is all Christianity has left in defense of of its disgusting and ridiculous claims.
@@ciaran8025 they didn't use their religion but they went against their religion. It is probably time for you and alike to pause and just for the sake of intellectual honesty admit it.
Christian : Who are we to say who is to be granted life? Also christian : here is a list of those who are going to burn in hell ...forever. (Ps it includes 90% of all humans who will ever be "created ")
My skepticism is being chipped away at little by little every day . I use to love and agree with the majority of the atheistic answers and explanations to the big questions but I have found myself pausing and contemplating quite a bit lately .......✌🏼
I have a child with down syndrome. We didn't do a test before hand. It wouldn't made the outcome any other way. It's all for our own comfort. If it doesn't fit your plan then you can rid of it. Plain and simple. That's sick. But there are other cases I can't speak of. Only on the down syndrome kind.
I think it's best we leave it up to the individual to decide what is best for their lives. to many variables to pass judgment. If you believe in a God then it's between God and that individual its none of our concern.
@Caratacus You would have to demonstrate a moral fact in order to know if there is a moral fact. Would genocide be a moral fact or can you present a moral fact? (OK so you don't have to apologize but can you please tell me I look pretty orSay something nice about me please🤷🏿♂️😉🤤)
@Caratacus Is it more of a fact that that everyone agrees that torturing babies is wrong? Is there anyone who thinks it's good to torture babies? I don't see how that's a fact When you haven't define the situation? In The Bible it commandsThe stoning of children as a punishment. Would that not be torturing babies? What if God commanded you to torture a baby for every other human to live?. Or better yet a sadistic killer was going to kill every human in the world with A-bomb unless you tortured one baby. Would that then be morally correct? It always depends on the circumstances. What if a baby needs a very dangerous And painful procedure to save its life. Would that be considered torture? It always comes out to be different subjective Perspectives. Simply killing for pleasure and fun ultimately upsets the herd and its ability to survive. Our survival mode goes into protection when Others come to a different conclusion on our well being.
@Caratacus I never claimed to be a secular humanist. I see no evidence for Christianity to be true and I see no evidence that objective moral truths exist only subjective. That doesn't mean moralities is not based in a creator I just see no evidence for your advocating for Knowledge of the creator and I see no evidence that we don't all come to a subjective conclusion. That is all I've argued. It is way more complex than you are willing to delve into
It is Christian in that only Christianity gives one an objective morality, and an absolute truth, that loving your neighbor is the greatest good and a commandment of a perfect, holy and loving God. That is truth, not arrogance.
Tis easy enough to read passages in the bible to capture the utter disengenuousness of Glen's statement that all people should be treated equal in the Xtian worldview.
Matt’s logic is sort of broken on this. Also, saying “no you’re wrong” is not an argument. Matt never seems to present a real argument. He simply disagrees. There are times when he is pressed to actually deal with a topic beyond his extreme skepticism, in those instances Matt’s logical argumentation flies off the rails.
Honestly it’s the editors fault. This was chopped & screwed to make it looks like Glen had a Bible & Matt had nothing. Matt’s position is that you can’t say “This is what God thinks is moral” until you can demonstrate a God exists. We live in a world where the religious justify “morals” with a god that’s indistinguishable from one that doesn’t exist. Looking out for each others best interest is a case by case thing, and if it was solved in the Bible it’s hard to believe that the legislation of laws & courtrooms would look like they do today.
@shan Please stop embarrassing yourself. Evolution & your culturally relevant religion aren’t mutually exclusive. Evolution is an observable, demonstrable fact of nature. How you “feel” about it is irrelevant. How do you think vaccines are made? How do you think Siberian wolves became domesticated house dogs like German shepherds & chihuahuas. Denying evolution is like denying the germ theory of disease, or the theory of gravity. Edit: Matt doesn’t have a problem reducing people’s arguments; theists have a tendency to convolute simple ideas because mental gymnastics are a con artists favorite maneuver. Also; lots of theists confuse themselves with arguments they don’t even understand, because of the complexity they involve & imply.
@shan lol I’m not going to sift through your mountains of defensive and hypersensitive bullshit. Either stop acting like a brainwashed sycophant or people like me will continue to call you out on it
If you're familiar with Matt Dillahuntys views from TAE you'd know his views are actually well founded in logic and he's very able to argue for then. If you watch the whole debate, rather than just a shirt clip you can see for yourself.
Sorry, but Glen's logic is what's broken here, not Matt's. Matt's logic was right on. Glen hasn't even proven there exists a god to give him his morals. He just gets them from some old book who knows who wrote.
It seems to me that Matt (the internet poster child for secular humanism) should have a better answer than saying, "I have no idea." And yes, saying "I have no idea" in the context of this particular debate is problematic for him.
@@jesspavlichenko5745 I agree. I think Matt typically does a very good job at debating. I have watched the whole debate three times, and I still find it very problematic for Matt to not be able to answer this fundamental question of whether all humans regardless off attributes, achievements, etc. are worthy of protection and the preservation of life. How can anyone take him seriously as a proponent of humanism?
@@dacreamofthecrop I agree that saying “I don’t know” is ok sometimes. But when you are defending the thesis that secular humanism is the way we should ground our ethical worldview, you need to be able to account for the question of whether all humans have dignity. If you can’t answer that question with a definitive yes or no then I think that’s extremely problematic for Matt’s secular humanism argument. Glen in my humble opinion is right to call him out on that.
I don't think all lives are worthy of protection. Some people are demonstrably detrimental to society and I wouldn't bat an eye at their demise, callous but honest. Let the same be said of me if I ever refuse to be beneficial to society or am unable to be. I apply the golden rule in this scenario: I wouldn't want to take care of anyone who is disabled and wholly dependent on a guardian, or a deadbeat; and would merely let their lives play out to chance; and I wouldn't want anyone to care for me if I were the same. Let me die if I'm disabled, although I would prefer to be euthanized or given up to the state, but preferably the former. If I'm a deadbeat, let me be murdered.
Ecclesiastes 1:4 "One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever." Solomon is dramatically describing life here on earth, and the folly of that existence when God is left out. No matter how exciting life may seem to be “under the sun,” ultimately, it has no value without God. we exist for a very short period of time but the earth remains forever in contrast to our short life spans. Nothing ever changes. So, any search for real meaning and lasting profit cannot come from under the sun. We will die and eventually stand before God and be judged. Those who have trusted Jesus Christ to forgive their sins and have given Him their lives will spend eternity with God. Those who have not done so will spend eternity in the Lake of Fire. Let us place our faith in God alone so that we would be strong in the Lord and ready to battle against the doubts planted by the enemy. Lord, increase our Faith! John 10:10 I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.
@@MrTheclevercat If you leave God out, then life has no meaning. So I pray that you would embrace the One who authored your life and who freely offers life in all its fullness.
That's it? How do I see the rest of this converstation. My 14 year old just asked me about the idea of not having people with known genetic ailments reproduce and I tried to explain eugenics and the slipperly slope of who decides which genetic anomolies are a problem, and how it is inherantly ablist and that has led Nazis and others to do horrible things. I would love to hear more about topics like this.
As an atheist who believes in inalienable value of human life the abortion always upset me. 15 years ago I needed to vote in a referendum in this matter and it was very painful to recognize that´s no other choice than allow it in certain conditions. But religious moral systems don´t help at all to fix this dilemma.
I think a lot of "atheists" feel the same way. Essentially it is murder, and I feel very uneasy about it. However I recognise on a pragmatic level it is better to have legal abortions than not.
@John Z So what about the right of the man who's baby it also is? And the baby is not in a position to ask for the mothers consent, it is the two people that have brought it into being by their actions. The child, or potential child, does not have a voice.
@John Z Sure. I get the argument & have thought about it.... And I am not anti abortion, I accept it as the best pragmatic option, but that doesn't mean it sits easily with me. For me it is taking a life. Practically and legally it is a very tricky area.
@John Z Thank you and @John Z too. It´s cool when one feel comfort by seeing other free thinkers sharing common concerns on "life and death" issues without mocking everything with supposed eternal and divine "moral values".
A well known set of humans that are not worthy of protection start with Stalin, Hitler, Genghis Khan, and Putin. There are also many humans that would not make the well known list that are also not worthy. Then there are all the organisms that are not human that are not worthy. Then there is the set of what is human. This discussion had a long way to go, yet I feel would land squarely opposed on defining that last premise.
That ending is very troubling for the secular moral system, I’m not sure if you could ever make the case that all humans are really worthy of protection under the assumptions Matt offers. Hopefully that argument further develops.
You can't make the case that all humans are worthy of protection using humanism? I think you can. The whole foundation revolves around humanity and human well being. With that being said, I think Matt did a poor job here.
David Frey you may correct but I the secular moral system is very situational based, like I’ve heard Matt say that owning people as property is wrong. But I’m not if that’s quite a correct statement based from his humanist system. Just being owned as a person doesn’t really conflict with his 3 foundations
@@kevinpurnell9465 well I can't speak for Matt. But for me, it's pretty clear that if there's a shared interest in human wellbeing, then owning other people as property is wrong. It certainly beats the Bible which condones slavery and beating your slaves.
Existence is the foundation of humanity. Whatever system is the cause of human existence and its continuation determines the root of human morality, not humans themselves. Humans are a part of the entirety but we are not the entirety itself. We survive existence in accordance with the natural laws which govern life, regardless of whether we accept it or not humans are not the origin of all things. Call it what you may.
Life is more than just a Right, it is also a Sacred Gift. The gift of Life to a Newborn Baby is a Sacred Gift. Because they have not done anything wrong to deserve Death.
Humans are finite beings hence relative entities while God is an infinite being, an absolute entity, therefore human morality will always be relative while an absolute moral truth will only come by accepting the existence of God.
I feel that you are missing the point. The point is that without a standard outside of humans...call it what you want there is no way of anything being right or wrong. We may view things as right and wrong here in the USA, but that may not be the cases in Africa and it's just "their" truth in an atheist society
For a start, the title is wrong. An unborn fœtus is not a human person. But even if it were, no person has any right to occupy any part of another person with even part of his her or its own person. It is highly understandable that a woman carrying a fœtus that would become a seriously handicapped baby, would rather NOT carry that fœtus to term.
@@justsomeguy6336 I already dealt with the hypothesis that a fœtus is a person. No person of any kind is entitled to have any part of themself, let alone the entirety, inside any part of a woman that doesn't, or even simply no longer, wants it there.
@@albertrogers2506 Dude you talking like featus get inside womans body by wind or accident. I dont know maybe you still dont know where kid comes from ?;P
Incorrect, binary is a java script that was defragmented by a Trojan horse mainframe firewall on a symbiotic dual frame network. If you don’t know about computers you shouldn’t comment.
These comments are a nice example of what Scrivener said about us wanting to shrink who "we" are and exclude "them". Using language like "atheist mobs" "coming in droves". It's a persecution mentality that it's just not needed in a debate. Dilahunty comes across as someone who listens intently and thinks before he speaks and we could all do with being a little more like that perhaps.
After 45 years as a christian and then realizing it was a total lie...I can tell you that the Atheists I've met have been brighter, more honest, realistic, less delusional and certainly more respectful than christtards.
Kit Cumbie You were never saved. You believed in a lie that was beneficial for you in the form of “Christianity”. You did not die to yourself become a new creation (Gal. 2:20/2 Cor. 5:17).
How To Go To Heaven 1. Realize you are a sinner Romans 3:23 exp. lying,cussing,gossip, sex outside marriage 2. Punishment for sin-Lake of Fire Revelation 20:15 3. Salvation is not in good deeds,baptism.or religion Titus 3:5 4. Salvation is 100% in Jesus Christ, The True God John 14:6 Jesus Christ loves you! 5. Jesus Christ died on the cross for all your sins,shed His blood, buried,and came alive. Romans 10:9 6. Trust in Christ and His shed blood on the cross only for salvation. 7. Right now pray,"Dear Lord Jesus Christ,please be my Savior and Lord, I trust in your blood at the cross,you were buried,and came alive,please come into heart and save me,I am a sinner,Amen." Romans 10:13 8. If you prayed and accepted Christ, heaven is your home. John 3:16 9. Go to a Baptist church next Sunday 10. Read the Old King James Bible everyday 11. Every day pray to the Lord LightHouse Ministries
Why do people always try to make abortion into a religious debate. The foundation is biology. I've been a doctor for 30 years Embryology 101 taught me that life begins at fertilization. If you think someone has a right over someone else's life because of whatever reasoning they feel fits their situation then what's to stop someone else from claiming a right over your life. It's a slippery slope that we are walking on right now in this society.
Cause it's just for the case of abortion or cases of people who are unconcious and depend on third persons? "then what's to stop someone else from claiming a right over your life. " Well we already do that legally, executions. Or we validate other people defense actions against some attacker. Are there valid reasons for parents to abort their child?
@@martok2008 *_Cause it's just for the case of abortion or cases of people who are unconcious and depend on third persons?_* I'm not following what you mean by your response here. You ended the remark with a question mark but I'm not understanding the question you are asking here. Could you please explain further? Not seeing how your response proves abortion to be a religious argument. *_Well we already do that legally, executions. Or we validate other people defense actions against some attacker._* Not really seeing how this applies. The person being legally executed has been through a lengthy trial, has had the opportunity to plead their case with someone standing by their side and has had the opportunity of many appeals lasting for years if not decades. Do you believe society should give similar rights to an unborn child or give them less rights than we currently give to a convicted serial killer? *_Are there valid reasons for parents to abort their child?_* I can't think of any off the top of my head.
@@Matt-1926 The question mark was because I'm thinking out loud, I don't have a strong decisition towards any side. Unborn fetus are a special case, much like people in a coma are, but I think I get what you mean in the sense of setting a very individualistic society. The idea of allowing people to take unilaterally a human life without careful examination is unsettling. Serial killers are concious, is not the same category much like we would talk about people in a coma. My higher problem with abortion I think would be the previous, but I don't feel much sorrow for a fetus in the sense that unconcious death to me doesn't sound a type of brutality. "I can't think of any off the top of my head." A child shifts completely the future of the people who take care of it. Obviously we could say it's their responsibility for having sex in the first place. The idea that people have a right to have sex whenever they want but at the same time having the right to abort if they want to, not sure I agree these freedoms are worth the cost then and maybe that's the issue.
@@martok2008 *_My higher problem with abortion I think would be the previous, but I don't feel much sorrow for a fetus in the sense that unconcious death to me doesn't sound a type of brutality._* Well just wanted to point out that the baby in the womb is no more unconscious then a person is when they are asleep. So would killing someone in their sleep also not sound a type of brutality? *_A child shifts completely the future of the people who take care of it._* Agreed. Also the shift doesn't end when the baby is born, usually continues to shift for decades. This is the slippery slope I'm talking about. There are some that are pushing for abortion up to the minute the baby is born. Pretty soon it will be take the baby home for a trial run before you decide.
@@Matt-1926 "So would killing someone in their sleep also not sound a type of brutality?" Not the act itself if done painlessly, but what implies is the problem. The idea that anyone would not know if they wake up tomorrow, and what would happen to those that depend on that person, and the society that allows that, all sets an enviroment. Redundantly, the underlying big issue is a society that allows making decisitions on terminating the lifes of their individuals while not totally able to accurately tell the better or worst. We do it with terrible criminals and vegetative state individuals cause calculating that outcome seems more easy; in the case of the embryo/fetus seems we could maybe say there are vastly more options to take rather than taking their life? Adoption would be the obvious one, but even taking that option out by the lack of volunteers, the question is if just setting a foot in terms of cultural allowance would be for better or worst and how. Sorry for the long redundant paragraph, english is not my mother tongue and probably neiher my writing/summary skills are good lately. "This is the slippery slope I'm talking about" Agree, that's the underlying issue and that which I'm not sure about abortion.
On the latest Glenn/Matt clip JB, If you haven't banned me, I'll need to know why two of my comments were deleted after I saw them posted on the thread.....more specifically the second since it was 100% clean and on topic?
Wow, so much hate. instead of talking about how malicious this video was and dishonest.Why don't we discsuss what was missed out in the video? I do think on matts moral framework, humans have no value except if they give value in return. If I am wrong. It seems this video highlights that. However, feel free to reply if you disagree :)
It doesn't work, you'll end up redefining valuable human however you like. That all humans have the right to live by default and unconditionally is the only answer. Even if you accept this, there will be people trying to dehumanize others so they can do evils to them (like in the case of abortion and the negation of the life continuum from conception).
@@demetrius_francus1268 I disagree with you, It made a lot of difference. He taught us how to be better slave masters, taught us genocide, war, which hunting, taught us the flat earth and killed the globe earthers, raped childrens and nuns, taught us how womens are inferior, how you can sell daughters etc etc.
All kids have the right to be born. not all adults have the right to be parents. some adults are denied the right to be parents, by being sterile, aka, no bullets, no eggs.
Neither the government nor any person should have a saying in when, how and wether you allow other people to use your body. Glen is trying to depict this as humanism excluding babies with Down syndrome when it's actually quite the opposite: those babies have the same right to use your body as everyone else, which is only after your explicit consent.
Gravity... Exist regardless of human's agreement. Well the claim is like that for theist, objective morallity is based on God's will, if Atheist do not agree with it then let them be, let them find their based on objective morallity, to say I don't agree with gravity doesn't make you can Deny gravity and then jump and fly, you will fall and hurt your self, but hey you are free to jump and hurt your self, those theist knows better. Me thinks anyway, hence my money is with the theiest in this. Gin,
@@sonofode902 Gravity is the force that attracts a body toward the center of the earth, or toward any other physical body having mass. Do you think gravity cannot be demonstrated?
Dillahunty... I better think about how to answer this as my career hangs in the balance! I don't want to puss off the Pro Choice supporters. Notice how totally dodged the question ❓ 😆
The religious guy wants to deny the parents of a downs syndrome child the right to abort. Matt, unfortunately, did not stand up for the parents right to their own solution to the problem. Seems to me that the right to abort and the decision to abort, or not, rests solely with the parents and not a church doctrine or some third party know all see all BS. Would the church guy's religious order take on the task of loving, nurturing, and providing for the downs syndrome child on to adulthood and thereafter? If so, good. If not, back off.
I cant see your pov. A parent cant do WHATEVER they want. There is a limit to parents rights, right? Whether its "the government" or society...which the govt is representing(?)...the society has a point in drawing the lines of acceptable amd unacceptable behavior/actions regarding child and parent.
@@jpapan1 A parent cant do WHATEVER they want. There is a limit to parents rights, right? - Yeah lmao very little. And until something is born, youre not parents. Youve no legal obligations. And parents 'can do whatever they want' is realized in a right to give the child away. Since you cant give away something that literally lives inside you and dont want to carry it to term, you can get an abortion. If you think that woman has a right for abortion because she doesnt want a child its an end of your argument. Like. They theoretically abort 'healthy' pregnancies theres no argument why someone shouldnt abort an 'unhealthy' one
@@chapter404th jesus fuck prove it! what you cant? why do you believe itthen????
4 роки тому+1
People overwhelmingly consider abortion an alternative because they are self centred, naturally it helps ones God consciousness if you can lie to yourself about this being best for the child your about to murder, Matt won’t be able to perceive this until God fixes his heart and opens his eyes.
' because they are self centred' (sic.)- you - a man - are lecturing women, whose lives are at stake in the mere act of birth - on what is best. At least have the humility of your ignorance and refrain from your ridiculous incendiary language. The child is being murdered but the mother merely died in childbirth... pfff
@@mosesking2923 Guess many of the Holocaust victims who weren’t Christ followers got the same hell treatment......meanwhile a serial killer like Son of Sam declares himself now a moral Christian, therefore heading to heaven? Kind of a messed up system if those two worlds do in fact exist.
@@DMalltheway If someone repents, then they are forgiven. If someone doesn’t, then they are lost. Simple as that. The Jews don’t get a free pass just because they endured hardship.
Well, some if not most of us base our worldview on reality. Some, if not most of us aren't too afraid to lose anything. Reality will be just as reliable as it has been and all knowledge can be found out again. Losing people or even pets is a bigger worry. We can miss the time we spent with someone and their personality the same as a theist would, even though most theists then dream up an afterlife in an unjustified hope where they will meet again, provided their loved ones don't go to hell or are annihilated. Personally I know what it is to miss people and I'm not worried about it and will just deal with it and share memories with other loved ones. The thing I am most afraid to lose is my guitar. I know it's insured and I'll get a new one, but not the same day probably and I don't know if anyone near me has an acoustic guitar for me to play on. I think one neighbour has an electric guitar and I'm really shit at playing on those. That worries me. I hope I will never have to go through that. But basically, when you base your world on reality, you don't have a whole lot to worry about. Even if you forget everything, you can still rely on reality to be as reliable as it ever was and the world will spin on and people will still be social animals, willing to help, mostly. If your worldview is based on assuming you know what a god wants, then you're in deep shit. You have nothing to show for and anyone's interpretation is as useless as yours is and you will never have a reliable way to show that your wishful thinking is less useless than that of another theist. Meanwhile, in reality, people agree on goals we share and have reality backing up claims that certain actions are likely to have certain outcomes with reliable and verifiable evidence.
@@Helmutandmoshe my dad told me he used to pull out. That upset me bery much. Do you know how many brothers and sisters wound up in various positions around my.....ok. even i couldn't finish that one. Just like my dad. BOOM!
If you wouldn’t love your own offspring just cuz they have a disability, please don’t have children at all. What if your child became disabled later in life in a car accident or something? Would you kill it? Or love that child like you did before?
The very fact that it's a matter of discussion is haunting. And they say that Medieval Times were our Dark Ages... It's disgusting to look at this "thing" called Matt.
You're suggesting that philosophical and moral quandaries should never be considered or discussed? That we just bow our heads and accept moral positions on modern problems from random dudes in cloaks who claim to have a direct line of communication with an invisible deity? I'm not sure how you believe you have a moral high ground there, bud.
The very phrase you used to describe a person as a thing and even using quotes (implying what?) is the exact problem Glen is talking about. However, notice that Matt recognizes the problem, points out that whether it's a humanist problem or not is a different discussion, and also points out that religion is susceptible to this kind of problem. So the very fact that this discussion can take place in a respectful and educated way is a very good thing because without dialogue there's no progress.
4:25 That was a painfully OBVIOUS PIVOT by Glen. No you didn’t say you’re 2+2 = 4 was an analogue for “All humans are worthy of protection”
You said “2+2 = 4” to demonstrate that a truth is a truth regardless if people agree IN REPLY TO Matt’s reflection of your critique that Humanism’s foundation could be ignored by those who don’t agree. Then Matt, rightly pointed out that it’s a bad analogy because 2+2=4 is not in the same ballpark as philosophical questions like “what is the reason we do what we do?” (Because 2+2 is obvious and can be physically demonstrated where as god being the foundation for morality can NOT.)
nope, math cannot be physically demonstrated. It is purely a mental concept.
Moses King yeah no, we literally use physical means to demonstrate to children how to count using their fingers. How that skated past you is beyond me.
I take it you have faith that you have 5 fingers then.
Math is an immaterial method that is applied to explain the physical world. Purely comes from the mind.
Mathematics has no physical attributes...
@@electricspark5271 2 + 2 =4 can be demonstrated physically
@Anden Ekadi 2 + 2 = 4 does though
Very telling how they cut out when Matt starts to plainly answer, after trying to get to the root of the disagreement first. I expect nothing less, unfortunately.
@alliwantisalife
Where was Matt cut out? And How did they do it?
The full talk is available
They have the full debate posted already, and have been releasing clips that seem to favor Glenn, and some that seem to favor Matt IMO. Unbelievable is about as fair as "debate" channels get
Yes theist want black and white answers.
@@stevenwiederholt7000 He gave a response to the question and they did not include it
This video is dishonest by not allowing Matt's Response at the end
There is a full video on unbelievable.
@@G14U Yup and most people don't watch full videos.
Nuns Of Your Business thats unfortunate. How can you make the best decision on what you think of it without hearing everything that was said?
@@G14U Of course I've watched the full video and I'm objecting to where they cut the video to end where they did not allow the full answer to be expressed which is a form of manipulation or Deception. In the fact that they know most people will not watch the full video it makes it even more Deceptive
Nuns Of Your Business actually that is false, most people watch the full video on this channel rather that these short clips.
I’m concerned that this is even a debate to begin with
It is an argument because a large portion of the population thinks the unborn human is unworthy of the same protection as a born human.
@@DrVarner spittin
@@DrVarner yeah if I have a choice to save either my unborn child or my wife I am choosing my wife.... once the child is born I will choose the child?
Birth has meaning, a lot of meaning!
@@cjp1599 I don’t disagree with much of what you said. My point is that an unborn baby is still human. The choice between mother and unborn child is not made easy because of a lack of humanity but because of a lake of familiarity and knowing.
@@DrVarner knowing of many parents who have or had severe needs kids(in the 90's my mom was a pediatric physical therapist that worked out of our home, and I do not classify Downes as severe needs)-most if not all of the parents wished they had known about the issues before birth. Not only has the child significantly worsened the parents lives, often the parents did not believe their children lived a good life. It was sadder for them to see this life form struggle so extremely with such little joy.
Life when healthy is a gift, when not healthy sometime real humanity is preventing life.
That was a very Atheist response... I Laugh so hard...
One of the quickest wits of our time.
I'm absolutely disgusted at this cut and paste job.
Well, at least they've shown their true colours and that like all theists, they can't be unbiased and honest. I wonder how long it takes until they disable comments and scrap debates and start making only propaganda videos.
@@stylis666 Justin seems too nice for this type of low trick..
@@51elephantchang I agree wholeheartedly and perhaps I should have complete my prediction by saying he will leave the team and channel, but that was hard for me to do because I hope I'm wrong and that he stays and corrects this dishonest editing of debates he is a part of instead, but experience teaches us that that is most probably just wishful thinking.
Ha. Yeah. And someone fucked with the sound. The host's voice sounds like miss piggy and kermit the frog 69ing.
@Caratacus So what you're saying is that the scientific method is the best way of learning what is true, because it demands repeatable and/or verifiable evidence and peer review before relying on any conclusion to minimize inevitable bias and other thinking errors. Well, if everyone was that reasonable there'd be no theism.
Clearly this video is edited in favour Glen, called Highlights and Bias at the same time.
What evidence do you have that leads to you to believe that "this video is edited in favor Glen"?
Did you not see the exact same part of this dialogue in the full discussion video?
After watching/listening/reading Dillahunty for many years, I have yet to see him confirm your observation
that this was an "edited" video that takes him out of context or has him in some way to say
something he didn't actually say on the topic at hand.
I could literally say the same thing about the atheist community, and so many video compilations of Christian atheist debates, both Christians and atheists are biased, I know enough about Justin Brylee to know that he is a fair moderator, does he have a biased absolutely but he is extremely honest and he’s willing to look at things honestly.
Not really I wouldn’t say so.
2+2 = 4 can be rigorously proven using mathematics. Can Scrivener do the same with his moral claims?
Well it's pretty obvious that God doesn't think that all humans are worthy of protection.
He stands by watching as children are raped, apparently he's all powerful yet does nothing.
What would you say about a person who stood by and watched a child get raped?
Would you call them good? Loving?
Nothing could convince you God exists. He created everything in existence and you STILL don't believe Him. What else could He do? You're looking for an audible voice or action, but suppress the very idea that we shouldn't even be here without a creator.
@@jakeschwartz2514
What evidence do you have that the universe was Created?
@@crazyprayingmantis5596 DNA! A great example among everything in existence. You wouldn't believe that a children's book could be created by accident, but because of "natural processes" you believe that something absurd like DNA just came about.
@@jakeschwartz2514
The reason we know children's books are created is because we can compare them with things that we know aren't created.
What are you comparing the universe to in order to conclude that it was created?
Crazy prayingmantis This is my only statement: Jesus Christ is lord and he died for your sins. I hope your soul is saved in time friend. God bless you!
All humans are entitled to protection from arbitrary theism. Very few of them are given it.
From a Christian perspective, not all religions hold that to be axiomatic.
@@electricspark5271 It's a pretty common practice throughout many cultures
@@sickboy666fu we are talking about religion not cultural practices. Religion is universal.
@@electricspark5271 Religion is culture
"All human beings are worthy of provision and protection" That gets you nowhere in the abortion debate. How about if someone needs your kidneys in order to survive? Does the government then have the right and obligation to force you to give that person your kidney? No? I thought all human beings were worthy of provision and protection.
You are intentionally misrepresenting it. All humans being worthy of protection simple means don't kill them. And the govt should take steps to prevent something like it occurring.
Strawman and a false dichotomy in one.
@@albertbenny431 To knowingly not give someone dying who needs a kidney your kidney knowing they will die if you don’t is the exact same as not giving a fetus your organs to survive off of knowing they will die it’s the exact same. It is in any other situation a choice for A human to use their body to save another human except when we talk about abortion. Now all of a sudden all humans are not equal. You can’t have it both ways either your obligated to use your body to save lives or your not.
@@roonski2048 no it’s not it’s a simple premise. If you are pro life you hold the logic That humans are morally obligated to use their body’s to save a life. To knowingly not give someone dying who needs a kidney your kidney knowing they will die if you don’t is the exact same as not giving a fetus your organs to survive off of knowing they will die it’s the exact same. It is in any other situation a choice for A human to use their body to save another human except when we talk about abortion. Now all of a sudden all humans are not equal. You can’t have it both ways either your obligated to use your body to save lives or your not.
@@kittykatxox845 you are not obligated at all. Pro lifers want to give the fetus special rights. Name me a human that has the right to use another humans body for survival without the consent of that human?
WTF? Where's Matt's response?
Maybe we could just assume his response was silly.
@@nikharris7121 Or, we could make no assumptions whatsoever, and find the real response and then be able to discuss a topic from a basis of fact and not assumption.
@@nikharris7121 a bit like how we can assume people can walk on water, or assume that humans can rise from the dead after a few days, or humans can part seas with a wave of hand, assume it is possible to impregnate virgins from a million miles away.....yeah man, assumption is great.
What do you mean he did give his response not his full response and Glenn his full thing either you can watch the full thing.
@@nikharris7121 Silly? No it's Scrivener who believes in a sky fairy....Matt is the guy with the bald head
Scrivener talks a lot but says pretty much nothing. Furthermore humanism has been expanding ever broader in recent history and humanistic and animal rights are at an all-time high and climbing, which is contradictory with what Scrivener says in the beginning.
Humanism fails because there is no objective standard. They have already changed their morality to allow abortion up to 9 months out of "compassion." Now, people like Peter Singer advocate infanticide up to the age of 3-4 years old. Humanism is a system for uneducated atheists who want Christian morality but are too spineless to back it up.
Glen switched the analogue of 2+2=4 from, "God is the self-evident foundation for morals", to "all humans are inherently valuable and deserving of life and protection." Neither analogue is self-evident in the manner of 2+2=4. As humanists, we can readily grant that "all humans are inherently valuable and deserving of life and protection", while also asserting that none of these definitions and rights include the right to use a non-consenting person's body to be kept alive.
@Caratacus At its foundation, secular morality is opinion dependent--for example, morality is about human well being, life is better than non-life, all life is inherently valuable, etc. Once these foundational axioms are accepted, we can agree upon and choose objective means of achieving them. Yes, it's scary, but based in reality. If you're a serial killer or a Hitler and don't accept these axioms, I don't want to talk to you. And since secular morality is unashamedly human centered, we can safely ignore God's inscrutable commands, like his obsession with foreskins.
@Caratacus I'll try once more. Like moral axioms, secularists value good health, even though the universe doesn't care about our health. We can't help but care; it's just axiomatic/foundational. Do you have to check in with God before you can care? Does that mean we cannot objectively say drinking orange juice is better than drinking battery acid? Please.
Your "meat bag" analogy is reductionist. It all depends on how the meat is put together. You already acknowledge this when you excuse a toddler with an underdeveloped brain who shreds one of your valuable books, but punish the adult who does the same thing, in full possession of a mature brain. If your morality was just free-floating, why bring in the brain at all?
@Caratacus carefully re-read my responses. Did I ever deny that foundational moral axioms were based on opinion? Did I ever claim that moral facts had the ontological reality you require?
By the way, how would you recognize moral facts that had the objectivity you desire?
@Caratacus Can you please give me your definition of objective moral facts? If they are human independent, would they exist in a universe without humans?
You see, our objectivism comes at the end of a conditional statement: if humans exist, and if we agree that morality is about their well being, THEN, here's what we can objectively say about that well being. It has something to do with not being raped, robbed or murdered everyday. And not drinking battery acid. These are objective facts about humans, and they have the best ontological grounding we could hope for: scientific. I don't care if they do or don't have an ontological grounding apart from humans.
@Caratacus Here's an analogy that may help you. When choosing a career, you may be equally suited for any number of them. So, the choice will be subjective.
Suppose you choose medicine instead of the law. After your subjective choice, we can now speak objectively about the various career moves you might make toward your goal. Some are clearly going to be better or worse than others. Your progress toward your goal is even objectively measurable.
Similarly, this is the only kind of moral objectivity claimed by myself, and I believe, Dillahunty.
Cut out and edited to sound out of context, 🙂 the fact that you have to edit something so it seems someone means something different in order to feel like you have a point is all you need to know about the owner of this channel and 99% of the comment section ❤️
@@myutubechannel_nr1 in the full debate, watch it, it's interesting.
@@brianjosephmedia1086 how does Matt respond to the question?
@@ooooooppppp11 which one of them specifically?
@@brianjosephmedia1086 the one in question, given the video. I know he "responds" as in he says words after the question is addressed to him. But in my opinion he really doesn't address the key issue the question poses
@@ooooooppppp11 the "are all humans worthy of protection" question is cut out before he finishes his response so its left sounding like he just says no, in the actual interview he says that he doesn't like the simplistic way the question is posed because we have humans that are definitely not worth keeping around, people who cause inmense amounts of harm and are way beyond repair, so no, the answer to is every single human worthy of protection is no.
It really depends on what type of provision and what kind of protection you mean Glen.
That's an awfully ambiguous statement.
First off... from what? From eating baked beans? From homosexuality? From any rights of any kind? This should be the imperative conjunction to any premise that includes protection for a human, especially *all of them*. How naïve.
If we assume he means perhaps human rights - all humans rights are worthy of provision and protection, then there is a huge maybe there. First of all, not all humans are in fact equal when it comes to human rights. You don't have the right of freedom in the generic sense after you commit a serious enough crime, most societies would say.
If we are topically talking about life, i.e. the right to life of all humans then again, a big exception is required here. Every human has the right to life, but not if it is simultaneously at the expense (of given liberty) of another human.
All people must be considered in a big sweeping statement like that.
Way to end the clip before Matt had a chance to make an actual point. This is 5 minutes of time wasted.
Watch the full conversation, its a good one!
In my opinion and i am an atheist if the world becomes a place were it doesn’t take a thought to abort babies because they have Down syndrome then it’s a world I don’t want to live in.
You are living in world where healthy babies are aborted coz "my house is to small". Guess where that came from ?
your 'opinion' is very sheltered and very 1st world
Even if there was an objective morality in universe, it still wouldn't mean God was foundation for it. We know axiomatically that 2+2=4, but how does that prove God as foundation?
And how does that prove that he's not? You have faith in your atheistic worldview (because you can't prove it either, you just take it for granted). You probably don't even know anything about Christian theology, yet you aim to destroy it somehow (without the knowledge of the matter in question), I hope you realize this.
@@gambinalvarezjesusdavid3454 It seems to me it's other way around, you know nothing about atheism. See, atheism doesn't claim there is no God, it says there is no good evidence nor proof that he exists. Please read my comment again. I never said that something proves God doesn't exist, I only said that existence of objective morality doesn't prove he exists. It really surprises me that you think I know nothing about Christianity. You don't know me and you couldn't conclude anything from my two sentences.
@@gambinalvarezjesusdavid3454 Atheism isn't a world view. You are in fact an atheist for every god ever suggested, yet you've settled on one - because that it the god you were taught about, and indoctrinated in, as a child. Your atheism with regards to Thor, isn't a worldview, - it's a lack of belief. You don't even know what the word means. I'll repeat - YOU are an atheist for every god ever suggested, except one.
I think the point he’s trying to make us do you need God as the ultimate foundation in order to, recognize that 2+2 = 4, your responses well we know that therefore God can’t be responsible for it, he’s saying we need God to justify that, he’s using sort of a presuppositional method.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 It's an axiom. It can't be justified, it's a self-evident truth. Everybody believes 2+2=4, regardless of their religion. So why do you need justification? If someone stops believing in God, does he stops believing in 2+2=4?
Holy crap he actually said 2 plus 2 equals 4 when that is not absolutely not totally accurate. There are many ways where you can add two and two and not get four and just so I don't seem crazy here's one you can add two cups of baking soda to 2 cups of vinegar and your end product will be over 5 cups of foam that is a case where two and two does not equal 4. Just trying to make the point that nothing is absolute and it's all subjective
Sad sign of the the times that Matt Dilihunty is consider some type of intellectual.
What Glen is missing is that there isn't some central authority deciding that fetuses with Down's Syndrome will be aborted. This is the decisions of many individual people deciding that they aren't prepared to raise a child with Down's Syndrome, and no one has the right to force them into that responsibility. No one has the right to force them into the responsibility to have a child at all if they decide they aren't prepared.
The clarity of logic evident through Matt's responses
@Les Brown what are your thoughts?
@@lawrenceeason8007 There is no "logic" in Matt's debate. Just utilitarianism which can be used to justify anything. Ask Adolf Hitler.
@Les Brown okay...sounds reasonable to me. Yes abortion is a difficult issue. I am a liberal, I stand on a woman's right to choose, but there are no good solutions here.
@@mosesking2923 utilitarianism has its applications...but you are treating it as if it is the only thing Matt is about. If you know Matt, he is a proponent of the superior moral standard of well being
@@lawrenceeason8007 If Matt is an atheist, quite simply he has no morality. Atheists are incapable of having any objective morality so they have to twist evolution and utilitarianism to fit their view. His "moral standard" is not moral at all. Just a baseless subjective opinion and nothing more.
If all a worth of protection, then stop all that hate on LGBT+ people, you dont control who you are atracted to and you dont control if you feel a women or a man or neither of women or man.
And if all are worth of protection, then stop going to war, because of religion.
Love the honest editing 👍👍👍
Clearly, there was no rebuttal. All human life must be protected. When sending soldiers off to war, make sure to instruct them to not kill the enemy.
That is why we have soldiers. To protect us. Game over
@@musicloungepty507 Who is "us"?
@@SnareRushJunkie the people
@@musicloungepty507 dude it’s in the description so you can watch the entire thing.
There is no "humanity", its a fake abstract concept. What is there in the real, physical world is: either civilization, or hunter-gatherer tribes. Those with down syndrome don't fit in neither - in hunter-gatherer tribes they wold be eliminated by a natural selection. In civilization they don't fulfill minimal requirements to contribute to the civilization: don't match desired employee profiles for ordinary jobs, don't match "inventor/genius"-type contributors to the civilization, can't understand scienceadvanced machinery, law or medicine etc. They are outside of civilization or primitive tribes. Their can be parasites, which is a net negative role. Supporting their existence is thus immoral, maladaptive and counterindicated. Especially considering alternatives - like more space for nature instead of such parasite, which is dying right now due to environmental problems.
"All members of the human family are worthy of protection." "I have no idea." "That's a problem." I agree. That's a problem.
I don't even know what it means
@@sickboy666fu "All members of the human family are worthy of protection." You don't know what that means?
@@southernstoic8279 It's too simplistic of a statement with no explanatory powers for all situations. How do you define it?
@@sickboy666fu More or less I take it to mean: All members of the human family are worthy of protection from conception until death. This of course applies to the law abiding citizens, as well as to the death row inmates (they are worthy of protection until their legal appointment with the death chamber). The only exception to this rule is, perhaps, people who are killed in the commission of crimes or combatants in wars. But I think in this video the question was quite simpler and it wasn't necessary to cover all the bases. I think he was basically asking whether or not every member of the human family was worthy of life and was worthy to not have his life thwarted. In which case I would obviously say yes.
@@southernstoic8279 So there's A-line you can cross where you are no longer worthy of life like a crime or an act of war? In those instances the person is no longer worthy of protection and may forfeit their right to life?
Scrivener's opening remarks led me to believe that he thinks someone other than the mother determines who aborts the Down's child. It's that person's choice. Just because the parents discover the unborn child has Down's doesn't mean they will choose to abort it. Since the number of Down's children isn't zero after this procedure, it shows many don't abort anyway. But he seems to be trying to equate the test for Down's with the forced abortion that ensues, and that's just not true. Very dishonest.
"All humans need to be treated equally", I don't believe it is a Christian principle, I believe it is a human principle. There was a time when Christianity didn't exists, and I can't accept that humans destroy their tribe fellows. So, treated your fellows equally is humane, not Christian.
I hear what you saying what there is nuances. We don't treat everyone equally impossible to treat everyone equally. No offense my family gets great oppressive and then you And I would not treat a child rapist equally in any regards. In theory treating everyone equally it's nice but it's not reality. Treat everyone with respect till respect is no longer deserved
Historical ignorance. Christianity began at a time when people were the total property of their owners. Julius Caesar killed over a million people with swords, enslaved millions more, and was laughing at the poor slave kids sold into sexual slavery on the streets of Rome.
If you think that treating 'fellow humans equally' isn't Christian, you are a historical idiot.
The belief that all human beings are worthy of protection is incompatible with God's actions in the Bible.
All innocent human beings*
@@Miskeen-33 Adding innocence is irrelevant to the discussion of this video, especially when your religion teaches that no human being is innocent.
@@onionbelly_ no it isnt
@@Miskeen-33 Just believe whatever you want. Take care.
It's funny that a Christian channel is sooo dishonest that they cut out Matt's part..
@Caratacus How does that change it?
Not everyone watching this video will have seen the full debate.
This video on its own is just incredibly dishonest and based on this channel's other video clips from this debate, it's intentional.
Also, is "anti-christian" meant to be an insult? Christianity is a disgustingly immoral religion.. Sounds like a good thing to me to be against it.
@Caratacus no. We don't give a rats ass about Christianity. Just keep your unfounded beliefs out of public policy
@Caratacus That's silly. In the same way I hate cancer but not cancer patients, I hate Christianity but not those afflicted by it.
This channel has repeatedly posted dishonest clips and titles. If you can't see it, that's a symptom of your Christianity.
@Caratacus Seems like religion has rotted your brain.
@Caratacus I'm not the one calling strangers bigot, totalitarian, fanatics, troll and whatever other insult because they've pointed out that a video is dishonest.
In fact, all I did was ask you how the fact the full debate was posted first changes the fact this specific video is dishonest.
Since you don't have an answer to that, you've resorted to just flinging shit.
Dishonest videos like this and shit-flinging is all Christianity has left in defense of of its disgusting and ridiculous claims.
If you say I have no idea then have to explain yourself, that's the problem.
All humans deserve protection. Take care of the live ones and I’ll take your advice on the pre ones.
Including all the priests that have used the church and their religion to systematically rape children for most probably centuries?
No action on your part, then?
What a hero.
Wat do u mean by pre? Waiting to be conceived?
@@ciaran8025 they didn't use their religion but they went against their religion. It is probably time for you and alike to pause and just for the sake of intellectual honesty admit it.
@@harutikz Sad you defend made up religions.
Simple who makes the decision: Women who are pregnant.
bring Aron Ra please.
bic boi God damn 🤣👏👏👏
Buy better mics, all I can hear is his tongue and the spit in his mouth when he speaks.
There is no god , how can his morals exist?
Mehmet Yilmaz What makes you think morals have to come from a god?
Loik Steininger That’s not what I’m saying, that’s what theists are saying, morals are made by people and I don’t like theists morals!
Mehmet Yilmaz I misunderstood your comment it seems, I definitely agree with you on thats
Morals are human invention, it changes over time. We don't need God, or holy books to decide what's good or bad for societies.
How can u know there are no God ? Just curious
Understand if u statement was I dont belive there are a Creator
2+2=4 can be demonstrated. god cannot, at this point in time.
Christian : Who are we to say who is to be granted life?
Also christian : here is a list of those who are going to burn in hell ...forever. (Ps it includes 90% of all humans who will ever be "created ")
Good point!!! I hadn't thought of that.
Funny thing is you will not find that part in the Bible
Because God is the one who’ll judge, not the Christians.
Let me make up a magical invisible person, and that will be the basis of my morality. See, now I have objective morality!
So, no response to the actual argument that spot objective moral values. Got it.
Matt is right... Dont equate your god to 2+2=4
He is making an anology of objective truth.
@@electricspark5271 There's no such thing as a objective truth as sound as 2 + 2 = 4
@@sickboy666fu Objective truth does not exist?
If that is true. How did you make that statement?
@@electricspark5271 I spent the whole night drinking I don't know why I read Objective morality. Opps
@@sickboy666fu I was an alcoholic before being saved by Jesus. There is hope!
Christianity is atheism under a shield of religion.
My skepticism is being chipped away at little by little every day . I use to love and agree with the majority of the atheistic answers and explanations to the big questions but I have found myself pausing and contemplating quite a bit lately .......✌🏼
It's always good to see people keeping an open mind.
Skepticism is just an amazing tool to figure out solutions for the problems caused by "absurd beliefs". It wont solve all the human issues by magic.
Good work, skepticism doesn't always = intellectual honesty
Sincerely ask God to show you that he’s real and just be patient and keep an open mind
Will Stueve ....I agree Will . Thx
😢Matt's logic is the same as Hilter's!
I have a child with down syndrome. We didn't do a test before hand. It wouldn't made the outcome any other way. It's all for our own comfort. If it doesn't fit your plan then you can rid of it. Plain and simple. That's sick. But there are other cases I can't speak of. Only on the down syndrome kind.
I think it's best we leave it up to the individual to decide what is best for their lives. to many variables to pass judgment. If you believe in a God then it's between God and that individual its none of our concern.
@Caratacus And popular opinions almost always win. I see no indication it's anything other
@Caratacus You would have to demonstrate a moral fact in order to know if there is a moral fact. Would genocide be a moral fact or can you present a moral fact? (OK so you don't have to apologize but can you please tell me I look pretty orSay something nice about me please🤷🏿♂️😉🤤)
@Caratacus Is it more of a fact that that everyone agrees that torturing babies is wrong? Is there anyone who thinks it's good to torture babies? I don't see how that's a fact When you haven't define the situation? In The Bible it commandsThe stoning of children as a punishment. Would that not be torturing babies? What if God commanded you to torture a baby for every other human to live?. Or better yet a sadistic killer was going to kill every human in the world with A-bomb unless you tortured one baby. Would that then be morally correct? It always depends on the circumstances. What if a baby needs a very dangerous And painful procedure to save its life. Would that be considered torture? It always comes out to be different subjective Perspectives. Simply killing for pleasure and fun ultimately upsets the herd and its ability to survive. Our survival mode goes into protection when Others come to a different conclusion on our well being.
@Caratacus I never claimed to be a secular humanist. I see no evidence for Christianity to be true and I see no evidence that objective moral truths exist only subjective. That doesn't mean moralities is not based in a creator I just see no evidence for your advocating for Knowledge of the creator and I see no evidence that we don't all come to a subjective conclusion. That is all I've argued. It is way more complex than you are willing to delve into
How very arrogant to say, "That's a very christian instinct," as though only christians have compassion.
It is Christian in that only Christianity gives one an objective morality, and an absolute truth, that loving your neighbor is the greatest good and a commandment of a perfect, holy and loving God. That is truth, not arrogance.
Tis easy enough to read passages in the bible to capture the utter disengenuousness of Glen's statement that all people should be treated equal in the Xtian worldview.
They should not. There is nothing wrong with genocide as long as if it is done correctly. The world is a better place without the Canaanites.
@@mosesking2923 Amen to that🙏
😒😒😒😒.
according to matt, only women are
Matt’s logic is sort of broken on this. Also, saying “no you’re wrong” is not an argument. Matt never seems to present a real argument. He simply disagrees.
There are times when he is pressed to actually deal with a topic beyond his extreme skepticism, in those instances Matt’s logical argumentation flies off the rails.
Honestly it’s the editors fault. This was chopped & screwed to make it looks like Glen had a Bible & Matt had nothing. Matt’s position is that you can’t say “This is what God thinks is moral” until you can demonstrate a God exists. We live in a world where the religious justify “morals” with a god that’s indistinguishable from one that doesn’t exist.
Looking out for each others best interest is a case by case thing, and if it was solved in the Bible it’s hard to believe that the legislation of laws & courtrooms would look like they do today.
@shan Please stop embarrassing yourself. Evolution & your culturally relevant religion aren’t mutually exclusive.
Evolution is an observable, demonstrable fact of nature. How you “feel” about it is irrelevant. How do you think vaccines are made? How do you think Siberian wolves became domesticated house dogs like German shepherds & chihuahuas.
Denying evolution is like denying the germ theory of disease, or the theory of gravity.
Edit: Matt doesn’t have a problem reducing people’s arguments; theists have a tendency to convolute simple ideas because mental gymnastics are a con artists favorite maneuver. Also; lots of theists confuse themselves with arguments they don’t even understand, because of the complexity they involve & imply.
@shan lol I’m not going to sift through your mountains of defensive and hypersensitive bullshit. Either stop acting like a brainwashed sycophant or people like me will continue to call you out on it
If you're familiar with Matt Dillahuntys views from TAE you'd know his views are actually well founded in logic and he's very able to argue for then. If you watch the whole debate, rather than just a shirt clip you can see for yourself.
Sorry, but Glen's logic is what's broken here, not Matt's. Matt's logic was right on. Glen hasn't even proven there exists a god to give him his morals. He just gets them from some old book who knows who wrote.
There is a case but it is for the Mother to decide not Glen.
Moral at the lowest
@@musicloungepty507 ... morals?
YOU are the one after ALL women's bodies.
@@marksandsmith6778 I am willing to die for the truth.
@@musicloungepty507
Truth? Christianity is a 1500 year old lie.
@@marksandsmith6778 I was talking about Jesus. I will never defend religion in a bit.
It seems to me that Matt (the internet poster child for secular humanism) should have a better answer than saying, "I have no idea." And yes, saying "I have no idea" in the context of this particular debate is problematic for him.
Good thing this conversation went on longer than 5 minutes
@@jesspavlichenko5745 I agree. I think Matt typically does a very good job at debating. I have watched the whole debate three times, and I still find it very problematic for Matt to not be able to answer this fundamental question of whether all humans regardless off attributes, achievements, etc. are worthy of protection and the preservation of life. How can anyone take him seriously as a proponent of humanism?
Nothing wrong with “I don’t know.” I prefer that all day to “ I know everything so obey.”
@@dacreamofthecrop I agree that saying “I don’t know” is ok sometimes. But when you are defending the thesis that secular humanism is the way we should ground our ethical worldview, you need to be able to account for the question of whether all humans have dignity. If you can’t answer that question with a definitive yes or no then I think that’s extremely problematic for Matt’s secular humanism argument. Glen in my humble opinion is right to call him out on that.
I don't think all lives are worthy of protection. Some people are demonstrably detrimental to society and I wouldn't bat an eye at their demise, callous but honest. Let the same be said of me if I ever refuse to be beneficial to society or am unable to be. I apply the golden rule in this scenario: I wouldn't want to take care of anyone who is disabled and wholly dependent on a guardian, or a deadbeat; and would merely let their lives play out to chance; and I wouldn't want anyone to care for me if I were the same. Let me die if I'm disabled, although I would prefer to be euthanized or given up to the state, but preferably the former. If I'm a deadbeat, let me be murdered.
Ecclesiastes 1:4
"One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever."
Solomon is dramatically describing life here on earth, and the folly of that existence when God is left out. No matter how exciting life may seem to be “under the sun,” ultimately, it has no value without God. we exist for a very short period of time but the earth remains forever in contrast to our short life spans.
Nothing ever changes. So, any search for real meaning and lasting profit cannot come from under the sun. We will die and eventually stand before God and be judged. Those who have trusted Jesus Christ to forgive their sins and have given Him their lives will spend eternity with God. Those who have not done so will spend eternity in the Lake of Fire. Let us place our faith in God alone so that we would be strong in the Lord and ready to battle against the doubts planted by the enemy. Lord, increase our Faith!
John 10:10
I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.
Your own bible claims that life has no meaning without the god described in that bible? That's really persuasive...... LOL
@@MrTheclevercat
If you leave God out, then life has no meaning. So I pray that you would embrace the One who authored your life and who freely offers life in all its fullness.
@@loveandfaithfulness4479 If your life has no meaning without god I pity you deeply. You have an imaginary friend and you aren't immortal.
That's it? How do I see the rest of this converstation.
My 14 year old just asked me about the idea of not having people with known genetic ailments reproduce and I tried to explain eugenics and the slipperly slope of who decides which genetic anomolies are a problem, and how it is inherantly ablist and that has led Nazis and others to do horrible things. I would love to hear more about topics like this.
Watch the entire debate--no contest--Matt wins.
I disagree but he did better than he normally does.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 You must be a theist.
YES, All innocent humans are worthy of protection!!!
As an atheist who believes in inalienable value of human life the abortion always upset me. 15 years ago I needed to vote in a referendum in this matter and it was very painful to recognize that´s no other choice than allow it in certain conditions. But religious moral systems don´t help at all to fix this dilemma.
Does the body you inhabit belongs to you?
I think a lot of "atheists" feel the same way. Essentially it is murder, and I feel very uneasy about it. However I recognise on a pragmatic level it is better to have legal abortions than not.
@John Z So what about the right of the man who's baby it also is? And the baby is not in a position to ask for the mothers consent, it is the two people that have brought it into being by their actions. The child, or potential child, does not have a voice.
@John Z Sure. I get the argument & have thought about it.... And I am not anti abortion, I accept it as the best pragmatic option, but that doesn't mean it sits easily with me. For me it is taking a life. Practically and legally it is a very tricky area.
@John Z Thank you and @John Z too. It´s cool when one feel comfort by seeing other free thinkers sharing common concerns on "life and death" issues without mocking everything with supposed eternal and divine "moral values".
A well known set of humans that are not worthy of protection start with Stalin, Hitler, Genghis Khan, and Putin.
There are also many humans that would not make the well known list that are also not worthy.
Then there are all the organisms that are not human that are not worthy.
Then there is the set of what is human.
This discussion had a long way to go, yet I feel would land squarely opposed on defining that last premise.
That ending is very troubling for the secular moral system, I’m not sure if you could ever make the case that all humans are really worthy of protection under the assumptions Matt offers. Hopefully that argument further develops.
You can't make the case that all humans are worthy of protection using humanism? I think you can. The whole foundation revolves around humanity and human well being. With that being said, I think Matt did a poor job here.
David Frey you may correct but I the secular moral system is very situational based, like I’ve heard Matt say that owning people as property is wrong. But I’m not if that’s quite a correct statement based from his humanist system. Just being owned as a person doesn’t really conflict with his 3 foundations
@@davidfrey08 Matt, didn't do a "poor job", he spoke what results of his worldview. Exactly the job we would expect him to produce.
@@kevinpurnell9465 well I can't speak for Matt. But for me, it's pretty clear that if there's a shared interest in human wellbeing, then owning other people as property is wrong. It certainly beats the Bible which condones slavery and beating your slaves.
@@brando3342 okay. Well I think he's wrong.
Existence is the foundation of humanity. Whatever system is the cause of human existence and its continuation determines the root of human morality, not humans themselves.
Humans are a part of the entirety but we are not the entirety itself. We survive existence in accordance with the natural laws which govern life, regardless of whether we accept it or not humans are not the origin of all things.
Call it what you may.
Life is more than just a Right, it is also a Sacred Gift. The gift of Life to a Newborn Baby is a Sacred Gift. Because they have not done anything wrong to deserve Death.
@Jason Lusk you are among the new breed of Nazis.
Neither have pre-born babies.
Scrivener reminds of a stern minister from some period drama...
if you can’t be productive to society you don’t need to be here.
Dude this is an all or nothing thing. You can either kill kids or you can’t.
Justin enjoys a chuckle at AxP s problems.
💩
How can Christianity be the foundation of morality when god choose a married woman to be mother of his son that is himself (confusing)?
Your misunderstanding of the nature of God does not make Him immoral.
Jeff Payne nobody understand the nature of God, since we haven't agreed his exists at the end.
@@CCCBeaumont Would ordering the killing of women and children make him immoral
Nuns Of Your Business That would certainly make you immoral if you did it. It would be a category error to suggest it would make God immoral.
@@CCCBeaumont So basically God can do nothing immoral? He could rape a child as long is it's God doesn't matter? Is that what you're saying? "DCT"
Humans are finite beings hence relative entities while God is an infinite being, an absolute entity, therefore human morality will always be relative while an absolute moral truth will only come by accepting the existence of God.
Can you prove it’s existence or just assert it without evidence?
The moral framework being discussed here is too simplistic to even commence the conversation, and I say that as a Christian.
His argument is not answering where we would get a standard of truth. Just because he doesnt want to believe it doesn't make it not true.
Amen. Now...demonstrate that its true and that its not a faith based belief.
Ill be over here waiting.
Hed probably believe it...or better yet
..accept it as truth if it could be demonstrated as such.
Demonstrate it's a life or that it's ok to abort a child with down syndrome?
Similarly, just because someone "believes" in the existance of a supernatural entity or God doesn't mean that it’s true 😂😂😂
I feel that you are missing the point. The point is that without a standard outside of humans...call it what you want there is no way of anything being right or wrong. We may view things as right and wrong here in the USA, but that may not be the cases in Africa and it's just "their" truth in an atheist society
For a start, the title is wrong. An unborn fœtus is not a human person. But even if it were, no person has any right to occupy any part of another person with even part of his her or its own person.
It is highly understandable that a woman carrying a fœtus that would become a seriously handicapped baby, would rather NOT carry that fœtus to term.
The problem is how you define personhood. But a fetus is a human life, that’s objective science.
@@justsomeguy6336
I already dealt with the hypothesis that a fœtus is a person. No person of any kind is entitled to have any part of themself, let alone the entirety, inside any part of a woman that doesn't, or even simply no longer, wants it there.
@@albertrogers2506 Dude you talking like featus get inside womans body by wind or accident. I dont know maybe you still dont know where kid comes from ?;P
Binary is not programming. Binary is a networking term.
Incorrect, binary is a java script that was defragmented by a Trojan horse mainframe firewall on a symbiotic dual frame network. If you don’t know about computers you shouldn’t comment.
binary is programming.... it's literally one of the first things they'll teach you in a computer science or logic course
Da Vi what programming language uses binary?
@Les Brown are you okay man?
@Les Brown show me one syntax in programming that uses binary
The atheist mobs have found yet another channel to complain and repeat old fallacies on. They are persistent, we must give them that.
These comments are a nice example of what Scrivener said about us wanting to shrink who "we" are and exclude "them". Using language like "atheist mobs" "coming in droves".
It's a persecution mentality that it's just not needed in a debate.
Dilahunty comes across as someone who listens intently and thinks before he speaks and we could all do with being a little more like that perhaps.
After 45 years as a christian and then realizing it was a total lie...I can tell you that the Atheists I've met have been brighter, more honest, realistic, less delusional and certainly more respectful than christtards.
Kit Cumbie You were never saved. You believed in a lie that was beneficial for you in the form of “Christianity”. You did not die to yourself become a new creation (Gal. 2:20/2 Cor. 5:17).
Sure atheists are persistent...... They aren’t very tolerant of the stupid, the immoral and the intolerant.
How To Go To Heaven
1. Realize you are a sinner Romans 3:23 exp. lying,cussing,gossip, sex outside marriage
2. Punishment for sin-Lake of Fire Revelation 20:15
3. Salvation is not in good deeds,baptism.or religion Titus 3:5
4. Salvation is 100% in Jesus Christ, The True God John 14:6 Jesus Christ loves you!
5. Jesus Christ died on the cross for all your sins,shed His blood,
buried,and came alive. Romans 10:9
6. Trust in Christ and His shed blood on the cross only for salvation.
7. Right now pray,"Dear Lord Jesus Christ,please be my Savior and Lord,
I trust in your blood at the cross,you were buried,and came alive,please
come into heart and save me,I am a sinner,Amen." Romans 10:13
8. If you prayed and accepted Christ, heaven is your home. John 3:16
9. Go to a Baptist church next Sunday
10. Read the Old King James Bible everyday
11. Every day pray to the Lord
LightHouse Ministries
Why do people always try to make abortion into a religious debate. The foundation is biology. I've been a doctor for 30 years Embryology 101 taught me that life begins at fertilization.
If you think someone has a right over someone else's life because of whatever reasoning they feel fits their situation then what's to stop someone else from claiming a right over your life.
It's a slippery slope that we are walking on right now in this society.
Cause it's just for the case of abortion or cases of people who are unconcious and depend on third persons?
"then what's to stop someone else from claiming a right over your life. "
Well we already do that legally, executions. Or we validate other people defense actions against some attacker.
Are there valid reasons for parents to abort their child?
@@martok2008 *_Cause it's just for the case of abortion or cases of people who are unconcious and depend on third persons?_*
I'm not following what you mean by your response here. You ended the remark with a question mark but I'm not understanding the question you are asking here. Could you please explain further? Not seeing how your response proves abortion to be a religious argument.
*_Well we already do that legally, executions. Or we validate other people defense actions against some attacker._*
Not really seeing how this applies. The person being legally executed has been through a lengthy trial, has had the opportunity to plead their case with someone standing by their side and has had the opportunity of many appeals lasting for years if not decades.
Do you believe society should give similar rights to an unborn child or give them less rights than we currently give to a convicted serial killer?
*_Are there valid reasons for parents to abort their child?_*
I can't think of any off the top of my head.
@@Matt-1926 The question mark was because I'm thinking out loud, I don't have a strong decisition towards any side.
Unborn fetus are a special case, much like people in a coma are, but I think I get what you mean in the sense of setting a very individualistic society. The idea of allowing people to take unilaterally a human life without careful examination is unsettling.
Serial killers are concious, is not the same category much like we would talk about people in a coma. My higher problem with abortion I think would be the previous, but I don't feel much sorrow for a fetus in the sense that unconcious death to me doesn't sound a type of brutality.
"I can't think of any off the top of my head."
A child shifts completely the future of the people who take care of it. Obviously we could say it's their responsibility for having sex in the first place. The idea that people have a right to have sex whenever they want but at the same time having the right to abort if they want to, not sure I agree these freedoms are worth the cost then and maybe that's the issue.
@@martok2008 *_My higher problem with abortion I think would be the previous, but I don't feel much sorrow for a fetus in the sense that unconcious death to me doesn't sound a type of brutality._*
Well just wanted to point out that the baby in the womb is no more unconscious then a person is when they are asleep. So would killing someone in their sleep also not sound a type of brutality?
*_A child shifts completely the future of the people who take care of it._*
Agreed. Also the shift doesn't end when the baby is born, usually continues to shift for decades. This is the slippery slope I'm talking about. There are some that are pushing for abortion up to the minute the baby is born. Pretty soon it will be take the baby home for a trial run before you decide.
@@Matt-1926 "So would killing someone in their sleep also not sound a type of brutality?"
Not the act itself if done painlessly, but what implies is the problem. The idea that anyone would not know if they wake up tomorrow, and what would happen to those that depend on that person, and the society that allows that, all sets an enviroment.
Redundantly, the underlying big issue is a society that allows making decisitions on terminating the lifes of their individuals while not totally able to accurately tell the better or worst. We do it with terrible criminals and vegetative state individuals cause calculating that outcome seems more easy; in the case of the embryo/fetus seems we could maybe say there are vastly more options to take rather than taking their life? Adoption would be the obvious one, but even taking that option out by the lack of volunteers, the question is if just setting a foot in terms of cultural allowance would be for better or worst and how.
Sorry for the long redundant paragraph, english is not my mother tongue and probably neiher my writing/summary skills are good lately.
"This is the slippery slope I'm talking about"
Agree, that's the underlying issue and that which I'm not sure about abortion.
On the latest Glenn/Matt clip
JB, If you haven't banned me, I'll need to know why two of my comments were deleted after I saw them posted on the thread.....more specifically the second since it was 100% clean and on topic?
Cause UA-cam sucks...
Wow, so much hate. instead of talking about how malicious this video was and dishonest.Why don't we discsuss what was missed out in the video? I do think on matts moral framework, humans have no value except if they give value in return. If I am wrong. It seems this video highlights that. However, feel free to reply if you disagree :)
It doesn't work, you'll end up redefining valuable human however you like. That all humans have the right to live by default and unconditionally is the only answer. Even if you accept this, there will be people trying to dehumanize others so they can do evils to them (like in the case of abortion and the negation of the life continuum from conception).
@@gambinalvarezjesusdavid3454 sorry what?
no and will they? no
He looks like those chicks in a beauty contest: I wish peace in the world!
Of course they are. People are so valuable to God, He came Himself, as God in flesh: His name is Jesus Christ.
Amen
And then he left and let us in our sh*** so that they is no difference between the world before his arrival and after his departure
@@demetrius_francus1268 I disagree with you, It made a lot of difference. He taught us how to be better slave masters, taught us genocide, war, which hunting, taught us the flat earth and killed the globe earthers, raped childrens and nuns, taught us how womens are inferior, how you can sell daughters etc etc.
All kids have the right to be born.
not all adults have the right to be parents.
some adults are denied the right to be parents, by being sterile, aka, no bullets, no eggs.
If all kids have the right to be born Then there wouldn't be miscarriages
Life is a privilege.
The foundation of morality is darkness
Neither the government nor any person should have a saying in when, how and wether you allow other people to use your body. Glen is trying to depict this as humanism excluding babies with Down syndrome when it's actually quite the opposite: those babies have the same right to use your body as everyone else, which is only after your explicit consent.
Gravity... Exist regardless of human's agreement.
Well the claim is like that for theist, objective morallity is based on God's will, if Atheist do not agree with it then let them be, let them find their based on objective morallity, to say I don't agree with gravity doesn't make you can Deny gravity and then jump and fly, you will fall and hurt your self, but hey you are free to jump and hurt your self, those theist knows better.
Me thinks anyway, hence my money is with the theiest in this.
Gin,
Only problem with your analogy is one can demonstrate gravity.
@@sickboy666fu what caused it (gravity) then.
@@sonofode902 Gravity is the force that attracts a body toward the center of the earth, or toward any other physical body having mass. Do you think gravity cannot be demonstrated?
@@sickboy666fu I know what gravity is, yes it can be demonstrate, my question is what cause it?
@@sonofode902 I just told you
Dillahunty... I better think about how to answer this as my career hangs in the balance! I don't want to puss off the Pro Choice supporters. Notice how totally dodged the question ❓ 😆
Matt is the new Hitch. So much better than the sell out Sam Harris.
What did harris do?
I like harris....i just cant listen to him.
He is way too boring.
His way of speaking just irks the hell out of me.
The religious guy wants to deny the parents of a downs syndrome child the right to abort. Matt, unfortunately, did not stand up for the parents right to their own solution to the problem. Seems to me that the right to abort and the decision to abort, or not, rests solely with the parents and not a church doctrine or some third party know all see all BS. Would the church guy's religious order take on the task of loving, nurturing, and providing for the downs syndrome child on to adulthood and thereafter? If so, good. If not, back off.
I cant see your pov. A parent cant do WHATEVER they want. There is a limit to parents rights, right?
Whether its "the government" or society...which the govt is representing(?)...the society has a point in drawing the lines of acceptable amd unacceptable behavior/actions regarding child and parent.
@@jpapan1 A parent cant do WHATEVER they want. There is a limit to parents rights, right? - Yeah lmao very little.
And until something is born, youre not parents. Youve no legal obligations. And parents 'can do whatever they want' is realized in a right to give the child away. Since you cant give away something that literally lives inside you and dont want to carry it to term, you can get an abortion.
If you think that woman has a right for abortion because she doesnt want a child its an end of your argument. Like. They theoretically abort 'healthy' pregnancies theres no argument why someone shouldnt abort an 'unhealthy' one
As Paul said a conscience is proof of God whether you believe in him or not.
So why call it a god and not just consciousness (I think this is the word you meant to use).
@@dacreamofthecrop regardless of what word you use, our conscience will be the means of how we’re judged by God one day
@@chapter404th jesus fuck prove it!
what you cant? why do you believe itthen????
People overwhelmingly consider abortion an alternative because they are self centred, naturally it helps ones God consciousness if you can lie to yourself about this being best for the child your about to murder, Matt won’t be able to perceive this until God fixes his heart and opens his eyes.
' because they are self centred' (sic.)- you - a man - are lecturing women, whose lives are at stake in the mere act of birth - on what is best. At least have the humility of your ignorance and refrain from your ridiculous incendiary language. The child is being murdered but the mother merely died in childbirth... pfff
John 3:3
“Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
@Les Brown You still can repent.
@Les Brown Repent for what? Your uncontrolled anger issues, for starters.....
@Les Brown If your mother was an unbeliever she might be burning in Hell for eternity. Do your best not to share her fate....
@@mosesking2923 Guess many of the Holocaust victims who weren’t Christ followers got the same hell treatment......meanwhile a serial killer like Son of Sam declares himself now a moral Christian, therefore heading to heaven? Kind of a messed up system if those two worlds do in fact exist.
@@DMalltheway If someone repents, then they are forgiven. If someone doesn’t, then they are lost. Simple as that. The Jews don’t get a free pass just because they endured hardship.
What are "atheists" afraid to lose?
Well, some if not most of us base our worldview on reality. Some, if not most of us aren't too afraid to lose anything. Reality will be just as reliable as it has been and all knowledge can be found out again. Losing people or even pets is a bigger worry. We can miss the time we spent with someone and their personality the same as a theist would, even though most theists then dream up an afterlife in an unjustified hope where they will meet again, provided their loved ones don't go to hell or are annihilated. Personally I know what it is to miss people and I'm not worried about it and will just deal with it and share memories with other loved ones. The thing I am most afraid to lose is my guitar. I know it's insured and I'll get a new one, but not the same day probably and I don't know if anyone near me has an acoustic guitar for me to play on. I think one neighbour has an electric guitar and I'm really shit at playing on those. That worries me. I hope I will never have to go through that.
But basically, when you base your world on reality, you don't have a whole lot to worry about. Even if you forget everything, you can still rely on reality to be as reliable as it ever was and the world will spin on and people will still be social animals, willing to help, mostly. If your worldview is based on assuming you know what a god wants, then you're in deep shit. You have nothing to show for and anyone's interpretation is as useless as yours is and you will never have a reliable way to show that your wishful thinking is less useless than that of another theist. Meanwhile, in reality, people agree on goals we share and have reality backing up claims that certain actions are likely to have certain outcomes with reliable and verifiable evidence.
@@stylis666 I think it's time for you to place the ministry of Christ above your electric guitar.
do christians fervently ignore the truth and lie constantly? Because they are fearful and weak.
@@judahmaccabee9148 I think it's time for you to pack up your toys and leave.
@@MrKit9 Followers of Christ have a monopoly on The Truth.
If I found out I was having a downs baby I’d abort it. Sorry, but it’s a disability I don’t want to deal with or allow.
@@Helmutandmoshe my dad told me he used to pull out. That upset me bery much. Do you know how many brothers and sisters wound up in various positions around my.....ok. even i couldn't finish that one.
Just like my dad. BOOM!
@@jpapan1 I'm not sure what you are talking about.
If you wouldn’t love your own offspring just cuz they have a disability, please don’t have children at all. What if your child became disabled later in life in a car accident or something? Would you kill it? Or love that child like you did before?
This is appalling…
The very fact that it's a matter of discussion is haunting. And they say that Medieval Times were our Dark Ages... It's disgusting to look at this "thing" called Matt.
You're suggesting that philosophical and moral quandaries should never be considered or discussed? That we just bow our heads and accept moral positions on modern problems from random dudes in cloaks who claim to have a direct line of communication with an invisible deity? I'm not sure how you believe you have a moral high ground there, bud.
Pedro Augusto Fernandes So much for that Christian morality that says love everyone including your enemies
J w what is it about him that is fraudulent?
The very phrase you used to describe a person as a thing and even using quotes (implying what?) is the exact problem Glen is talking about. However, notice that Matt recognizes the problem, points out that whether it's a humanist problem or not is a different discussion, and also points out that religion is susceptible to this kind of problem.
So the very fact that this discussion can take place in a respectful and educated way is a very good thing because without dialogue there's no progress.
You're indeed proving that the Dark Ages aren't over by calling a human being "thing."
Yes, all life should be protected. Jesus bless you all 😊
How is blessing going to help?