Objective Morality is STUPID And So Is Matt Walsh (Daily Wire)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лют 2025
- One of the many matts of silly, here today, to tell us how we MUST think and why the thing he said we need to do is silly, because of how smart he is... HOORAY!
I DO NOT DO GIVEAWAYS if anyone replies with my name/picture (but not highlighted) in the comments telling you you have won something, it is 100% a scam. Don't give them anything but a block and a report.
Mrs Sics Channel (Spoonstaff Stories): / @spoonstaffstories7061
Join Sics Whisky Club (UA-cam Membership) for $5 a Month: / @sirsiccrusader
Merch Store: represent.com/...
Support Me On Directly Patreon: / sirsic
$10+ Supporters (Who were happy to be associated with my dumb arse. Check your patreon messages if you're a 10+ supporter and you want to be in this esteemed list :D )
In no particular order:
What Jesus?
Joshua Garza
Questionmark
lukas_dox
Ultima9
CoolGuyGrant
DogOfKrondor
Julian layzell
Sami Kay
Fritzy Fox
Lane0525
Soxxly
Robert L
Odd Fellow One
Myster-M
follow @SirSicCrusader on Twitter: / sirsiccrusader
Channel art Created for me by Extellus
/ extellus
Intro and outro music created for me by Galactic Bubble Productions
/ galacticbubblep
/ @galacticbubbleproduct...
#Atheism #Morality #Smart
Amazing how the entity that “created” objective morals isn’t bound by those morals and is one of the most horrific creatures there is.
I see
Buts the god don't have to behave itself to it's own subjective standard it imposes on humanity. Theist logic. /S
Also how these so called christian enact abortion bans and refuse medical care for women in name of the bible that is pro abortion.
Where is the good in having women dying in sepsis in hospital parking lots after miscarry, when the simple medical treatment emptying the womb get you in death row.
Cosmic narcissist he is, this Mr. Godington.
lucky there is not :D
I remember being told early in my nursing career that I could never be as caring as a nurse who was religious because I am an atheist. So yes, it definitely happens. I'm still baffled by the logic, but grateful that at least I wasn't straight up accused of eating babies... I guess?
"I choose to be a nurse because god told me too, you became a nurse out of the goodness of your heart and a desire to help people therefore, you care less somehow!" Damnit, people like that are thick a bricks.
Leave the baby-eating to Sic
I got told the exact same thing - except the "reason" presented was because I was a man.....
@@31Blaize Which is backwards.
“Never do business with a religious son-of-a-bitch. His word ain't worth a shit -- not with the Good Lord telling him how to fuck you on the deal.”
― William S. Burroughs
you don't eat babies ? how can you call yourself an atheist if you don't eat any baby
A video in a car? I'm gonna trust 100% of what he's saying
Its the most convincing venue for great thinkers
@@SirSicCrusader Objectively speaking ...
Most likely next to a playground.
He just saw all the flat earthers, and said “hey, I should get in on that! That’s the way to convince people! After all, it worked on me!”
These kind of people are in cars to drive their point home, like a schoolbus full of children into an active volcano full of lava-proof sharks.
Ah yes "I can't imagine not needing threats to be a good person", is a really wierd way to conclude that you have moral authority.
I see
It means that they have zero morality, only ethics.
I could be ea*tin+g ba+bi*es now but you know hell is frightening.
Ironically, when people like him do finally get a little bit of a real threat due to the immorality of their actions, he gets up on his high horse and cries victim.
Given what Jesus spent a lot of time talking about, these guys would probably call Jesus Woke as Matt got smited to hell. The blatant hypocrisy and lack of self awareness was what made me leave the church.
The way I heard one conservative theist say it is that religion gives a "grounding" for morality and that atheistic morality is just a bunch of nice thoughts and opinions that could be undermined by stronger people who hate your sense of morality at any moment. I'm like, "Uh, how is that different than religious 'objective' morality?"
They explained it very badly then lol... The difference of objective morality is it's taught to us it's free from subjective opinion.... If everything was subjective and Hitler thought he was doing the right thing we can't call him a bad person we can't call any murderer rapist thief a bad person because subjectively they could have been doing the right thing it's all in their mind.... Religion led to an objective morality before we had another means to make one..... But creating an objective morality doesn't mean that all your book says is right
I will never understand the obsession with “objective morality.” Like if nobody’s hurting each other, what difference does it make if we all have slightly different opinions on morality?
"becasue if im right then you have to do what I say" - evangelical christians
@ but what about blood for the blood god, or skulls for the skull throne? Can I even get Khorne for the corn flakes????
There is nothing wrong with trying to build a foundation of absolute morality, the issue is building the pillar upon it has to stand. Back in the day, it was religion, which was a flimsy pillar.
"Objective Morality" simply means the subjective morality of their "Sky Daddy".
@@miguelcondadoolivar5149 It’ll likely take centuries or even millennia of introspection and humanity finding peace and stability, but it may happen one day. Not in our era though.
Matt: 'No one says that atheists can't do good things!'
Psalm 14: 'They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.'
haha
Don't confuse us with facts!!!
Also that trash known as Romans 1:20.
As ever, Matt proving that Christians don't read the "Good Book". In fact, it's near impossible to read the Bible and remain a Christian.
Despite how Crimsbians use it, that's talking about "fools." "Fools" say in their heart there is no God. "Fools" do abominabubble works. There are no "fools" that doeth good. Acc. to the Psalm, all "fools" are atheitits. However, it doesn't follow that all atheitits are "fools."
Solomon wasn't talking about atheists, he was talking about the nazi's of his day, the philistine or Carthaginians if you will. They were corrupt, they sacrificed new borns, and they raped and pillaged anyone who refused to trade with them.
context is really key when reading ancient libraries like the bible. That's what bible means, it's a contraction of bibliotheke or rather a latinization.
Moral relativism is just a way to excuse to abhorrent behavior. It is objectively true that killing someone for fun is immoral, regardless of the culture. As for Mr. Walsh, he is a douche.
4:50 And it's not like Walsh doesn't enjoy treating people like shit; he's quite well known for it.
The fact that morality is an expression of one's instinctual capacity for empathy and compassion proves you don't require a disembodied sky daddy voice to tell you rape, murder, theft, etc is wrong.
Simply put: if you understand that your actions harm another person, and you'll feel bad about it afterwards, then you likely won't do it.
Obviously there are exceptions, psychopaths and such, but they arent the rule.
:0
I dunno. It might be a rule among those who need a sky daddy so badly.
Matt definitely doesn't have any compassion or empathy for anyone else. That's why he has to come up with something else.
@@CincyFlightIKR? Practically every time he opens his mouth it's to put down others. And I'm not even strictly talking about the whole trans thing. Pet owners, action figure collectors, nerd culture, Native Americans, people with mental health issues, etc. The guy thrives off of insulting and criticizing others for doing nothing but living differently than him. For liking different things or feeling differently than him.
If it's different than his tacky, rigidly old fashioned white trash worldview, it's bad.
Also, I don't buy him claiming to feel compassion for trans kids.
Sensed zero heartfelt anything in his voice other than the usual monotone/condescension.
@@SirSicCrusaderAnd look, are humans flawed, fucked up creatures?
Of course, I'm not denying it.
We all make mistakes or act selfish sometimes.
But, most of us still care about others and try to be better.
I doubt Matt Walsh has the self awareness to really try though, despite what he'll claim.
Apologists have been parroting the "objective morality cannot exist without a god" for so long that they’ve forgotten that nobody ever actually proved that.
In my recent experience, if you repeat something often enough, lots of people will accept it as fact regardless of evidence or plausibility.
An objective basis for morality isn't necessary. All we need is a _functional_ basis. A target description of the kind of society we want to live in. And the one I want to live in features a strong, cooperative focus on benefiting as many people in it as possible, as much as possible.
An objective basis for morality isn't just not necessary, it is literally impossible. Morality only ever exists when you have intelligent beings judging the morality of things, but if such beings are there to judge it, then it is definitionally subjective and not objective.
On the Sixth day of Christmas, Sir Sic gave to yee: Matt Walsh in a clown car, Five Jeff Allen jokes, A Prager U diploma, a box of Tate & and Oatwens, two Steve Harvy handclaps, and a Block of David Wood.
heh
🤣🤣🤣
Is the U in Prager U meaning Useless?
@@yotest3697Unlearniversity
"As an atheist you cannot logically assert any kind of objective moral code" is a weird way of saying "there is no conclusive evidence for the existance of an objective moral code."
You understand what he said then. If you have objective morals, theology is going to be a necessary component of that. Atheism is a theology absent a deity, logically it leads to a subjective morality, or in otherwords if you can get away with it it's not immoral or wrong. The rational conclusion of atheism is always "He who has the most toys wins." With theism he who is the most moral wins.
Who is right? Probably the theists, and it would be wise to act as if god exists, even if you don't believe it be true. This one behavior will do more to ensure your material well being than justifying your immorality. The reason being when you follow those "objective" morals your social status will be better, therefore more opportunity to get material things etc...
I thought I was atheist until I realized that acting as if there is no god is a personal pass to do as much evil as I please so long as I can convince people that the evil deeds I've done are in fact not evil, because evil is subjective and it doesn't exist. This is why all religions see atheism as a bankrupt philosophy.
Also Atheism is as old as Monotheism. The greek philosophers debated it endlessly. They concluded the philosophy lacked virtue and made animals out of men.
I'm not defending walsh, he is a moron. I'm just pointing out Atheism really is a morally bankrupt philosophy. It's ammoral. Which in my opinion is how we get nonsense like "killing a baby is a moral good because, "I might not be able to afford to send him to private school, or he'll have to eat chef boyardee instead of personal chef prepared meals, or the father has absconded so that poor baby will be fatherless, better he not even be born right?"
@@SaanMigwell "theology absent a deity"?
'A study of the nature of God and religious belief' without God? So atheism is a study of the nature of religious belief?
That isn't right.
Atheism is _not_ a philosophy or world view, it is a _trait_ by which you can group world views.
Treating it as one world view is like saying polytheism is one world view. I think the Hindus and the modern Greek Pagans would disagree vehemently that they hold the same world view.
You said atheism is 'ammoral'. I don't know if you meant immoral, which it isn't, or amoral, which it definitely is.
Atheism is not concerned with morality. It is merely an answer to the question: "Are there any god or gods?"
For an atheist, the answer is either "I don't know" or "I think not."
There are atheists that believe in objective morality as a truth of the universe or subjective morality enforced by spirits rather than people.
There are atheists who believe in an afterlife where the dead are confronted with their actions in life, only to be released after they work through every way they've hurt others (and themselves). No God required, but a clear, objective standard for Good (helping and not hurting others) and Evil (the opposite).
"acting as if there is no god is a personal pass to do as much evil as I please"
If you personally need a God to not be evil I am glad you believe in one, but this is an argument from consequences. Not liking a situation doesn't make it less likely to be the case.
And, according to doctrine, _Christianity_ is a free pass to do as much evil as you please as long as you say you're sorry in time and accept Jesus' sacrifice.
_Most_ people don't treat it that way, luckily, but, as the bible says the _only_ unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the holy spirit, everything else is fair game as long as you repent in time.
Might be why there's been so many people insisting that we're living in the end times over the last 2,000 years.
"Killing a baby is a moral good" God didn't have any problems with it when it came to Sodom and Gomorrah, the Flood, Job's children, David's newborn child, the Egyptian firstborn and the total destruction of His people's enemies after battle, including women, children and property.
Oh, except for the pre-adolescent girls, they were to be taken as 'wives'.
I won't even engage in the so called 'reasons' you gave, which are clearly facetious.
@@SaanMigwelldo you need some dressing for your word salad?
@@SaanMigwell
Of course it's always the theists who are right. They even solved the is-ought problem!
Right?
@SaanMigwell consider that the things you're saying are all founded and defined entirely by racism. Do you not think it's a bit coincidental that so called objective morality just so happens to line up with white, eurocentric values?
It's made even more funny to be wrapped in a fairy tale of a higher being enforcing these so called rules, since any being more intelligent than humans would understand that different cultures, species, and groups are a thing and thus morality cannot be objective.
if objective morality existed thered be no need for laws
shonk
And no need to change laws. Like, apparently we don't know the objective morality, so it's functionally nonexistent even if it exists
If morality is objective then it doesnt matter if a god exists or not. If a god tells you what is moral, then it is 100% subjective.
You just have to be educated, average intelligence, and honest to understand that though. That means Matt Wash is lacking at least one of those three things.
Why? Just because there'd be choices that are objectively better, it doesn't mean everyone would know what those choices are. And even id they did, it wouldn't mean they'dlso automatically make those choices. By this logic it would also be impossible for humans to hold beliefs that are objectively wrong. Yet they still do.
@@muskyoxesJust because we don't know something, it doesn't mean we can't ever know it. I'd argue the field of ethics has made quite a lot of progress towards establishing more objective ethical rules through the critical analysis of moral arguments.
Matt: "There can be no objective morality without God."
Me: "Then I guess you agree with me that there is no such thing as objective morality." 😁
hah
Logicks is no fair, matey.
I mean, there could be.
But until sin particles are discovered and an accumulation of them for doing or thinking the bads is observed (or the opposite with virtue particles), well... I think I'll call BS on it.
You lied as usual. Typical atheist. Zero logic.
@@GriffonSpade -- Clearly, CERN needs to get involved in this to discover this elusive sparticle.
Matt Walsh calls himself a "theocratic fascist", so not only do I feel safe in discounting anything he says about morality, I take pride in it
He also """accidentally""" admitted to being a pedophile on four separate occassions on social media, so there's that too
Matt Walsh? It's been a hot minute since we've seen his brand of the Big Silly on your channel, Sic.
I see he's gone the cartheist route, that's a good marker of the level of Big Silly here...
ah
I truly miss the moronic ramblings of feurstein... seems like Walsh is attempting to fill his shoes
“Treat others as you want to be treated” can be, on its own, a moral code.
“I believe in objective morality, which is why I act like an insufferable twat to everyone at every given moment,”
Gosh… Matt Walsh has fewer thinky bits than Door Mat.
ouch
Nice
it is an insult to the door mat to compare it with matt walsh
I thought you meant Jimmy Dore Mat
At least the doormat is useful smh
Even if a god existed, if it decided morality, what is moral and what isn’t, that would still be subjective morality because it’s the personal subjective morality of that deity.
When he says morality so wrong that he accidentally supports ignorance and evil and slavery and genocide, and then people have to subjectively interpret and change and ignore some of its evil laws of morality so stoning people is no longer OK or whatever, that’s subjective morality based on the creative writing based on the subjective morality of an invisible ghost monster.
ah
Nono, there I have to be devils advocate and speak for Walsh.
If there was a creator God, they also created morals and can absolutely decide what the universe sees as a moral or unmoral action. Like a force of nature.
@@sharktos3218 If the morality was derived from the will of a subject, it’s subjective morality.
It doesn’t matter if the subject is a deity.
@@Oxus21 It would not come from God's will. They would make it part of the universe. It would be, by definition of an almighty being, be objective. Not a hard concept to understand...
@@sharktos3218 Still can’t see how it’s not in the end subjective to the whims of the deity, unless the deity itself has no “free will” and follows some higher parameter
"Objective morality" is like the "ark of the covenant"; it is nowhere to be found.
"atheists like to impune the intelligence of believers", Oh man that is too good a comment not to run with .. Over to you Sic, you're doing it so well with this one !
:D
Impugn is a fancy word for him to be tossing about.
@@RobPaige So fancy I couldn't even spell it correctly!
Used to be an atheist . Not anymore
It is not lack of literal IQ that is the problem with religious believers. It is the squandering of the intellect that they do have, caused by psychological, social and emotional factors. Intelligent people can be led to believe very stupid things.
Matt Dillahunty is a smart Matt
ah
@@SirSicCrusader Google offered me the option to translate your comment into English. According to Google, the English translation of your comment is "ah."
I read it in an old comment on a different video, but I'll still reaffirm it. If you need the threat of hell to be a good person, you are not, in fact, a good person; you are a bad person on a leash.
That kinda good thing in the end...
What is bad and good tho?😂
Atheists love to make assertions without the lack of foundation.
Is it?
@@dennisduncan7561 no, we have no basis for good/bad
Usually, when presented with the concept of "objective morality", I ask one simple question:
Are genocide and slavery sins?
Because, how do you justify anything being objectively wrong by the standards of your religion when even the worst ways to treat each other don't count as such.
That's why I don't believe that morality is objective, and thus I condemn all the genocide and slavery done under the beliefs of my pantheon, including some individual gods themselves.
Matt Walsh- "My Strawman of an Atheist is using a Strawman to refute my stupid assertion".
ah
Accurate and succinct AF
The only thing atheism asserts is that your god claim is shit! Also, morality from "god" is subjective, as "god" is the subject providing them.
I see
Well, if God existed and was all knowing, of course the morals they create would be objective by definition. Because they would be rules of the universe, so to say
@@sharktos3218 No definition of “objective” means based on the will of a thinking being.
@@Oxus21 Bro God created morals would as objective as magnetism. You can call that subjects too and see how far you get...
@@sharktos3218 The only reason the laws of electromagnetism are objective is becasue there are no supernatural beings capable of altering or cancelling them at will. If the Abrahamic god existed then electromagnetism would be as alterable as any other law by the god's whim.
Objectively, Matt Walsh is the worst.
Subjectively, Matt Walsh is also the worst.
oof
Well, he’s neither nor, it’s cognitive dissonance combined with Dunning Kruger effect, we know religion easily causes those. Yah he means well, but good intentions mean nothing also.
@@neonphoenixoriginal He really _doesn't_ mean well. It doesn't always come across in these car videos, but he is a _monumental_ ass.
@@neonphoenixoriginal Matt Walsh is also a pedophile, so yeah, he IS the worst
@@neonphoenixoriginalMatt Walsh does not mean well. He is a hateful liar.
If Christians can tell me what is going on in my head, I can make fun of Matt for embracing the magical sky daddy.
heh
Yeah!
Just curious, how's their accuracy? I mean, are they revealing or just asserting?
Preaching in sunglasses, CHECKMATE ATHIESTS!!!!!!
heh
I don’t know why everyone is so hung up on the idea of an objective morality, or why it matters, when one can use the simplest yardstick ever: “Does this suck if someone does it to me or my stuff? Then I probably shouldn’t do it to someone else or their stuff.” A yardstick which works and is just as viable for theists and atheists alike, coincidentally.
Further, if one has a deity or other higher, lower, eldritch or alien power that is capable of developing a code of absolute morality and imprinting it on reality, communicating that code to us mere humans, but also allows for people to violate that code and then only selectively punishes infractions against it (oftentimes only after the death of the perpetrator or in an otherwise unverifiable fashion), then that doesn’t seem to matter much. That’s aside from people then only following that yardstick because they’re concerned about the potential punishment rather than because they understand it to be the correct behavior, which honestly makes atheists seem like the better people overall, since they don’t need the threat of a non-tangible entity’s wrath to do something the nice way.
:0
Matt sitting in a car most likely next to a playground.
oof
He's in west Chester county meeting up with CC
@@kennydavers3946good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, wherever you may be.
Yeah, but must keep at least 100m away. You know .. restraining orders and such.
@@giuseppesavaglio8136
If god is eternal, and the universe is only ~14 billion years old, what was he doing for the past infinite years?
solitaire
Jerking off and drinking Sir Sic’s Whiskey
God is omnipalmitant, I guess.
having a wank.
Touching his pee-pee.
Objective morality is stupid and Matty is objectively stupid?
sure
I had this argument in collage dude was like right and wrong is just known by all because Jesus.
ah
And that's why we all agree about morality! Oh, wait...
I seriously wonder what goes on in their mind... how they can't see that not even all Christians can agree about morality. They're all using the same book and basis and can't even agree amongst themselves!
A couple months ago I got into an argument with someone over whether or not you can call someone's actions evil if they didn't think they did anything wrong. Stupidest argument I've ever had
hah
Perhaps it wouldn't be *_unanimously_* evil, but i don't think _anything_ can be.
@irrelevant_noob I'm of the opinion that if you do something that would be considered evil by the majority of people who hear about it, then regardless of your own thoughts on what you did, it's evil. The guy I argued with took umbrage at me saying that though
@@The_Ragequit_Cannon ah, that's quite understandable. Might get a bit fuzzy on whether simple majority is enough, but overall it makes intuitive sense. Tho i can see some trouble that this perspective is not persistent over time: a few millennia ago being a non-theist could've been seen by the majority of people to be evil.
@@irrelevant_noob As an example of my stance I provided to him, and now you, the Bataan De@th (censored because of UA-cam) March, a very gnarly (to put it mildly) event during WWII where Imperial Japan forced American and Filipino POWs to march on empty stomachs. I won't go into details here, but rest assured, everyone I've talked to about it have agreed this was a deplorable crime against Humanity
And yeah, times change. Back then being theistic was the norm and you were considered evil if you didn't worship any gods, to say nothing of a specific god or gods depending on who was conquering or influencing who
Just critizise the founding fathers for owning slaves and see how fast those guys switch to moral reletavism
Objective morality is definitely the most common stupid oxymoron that keeps being baselessly asserted. The existence or not of a god has nothing to do with the stupidity of claiming that subjective opinions are somehow not based on a mind. Just because you believe your opinions are so obviously true that reality itself has to agree with you doesn't make your subjective opinions objective.
Matt Walsh humiliated himself and exposed his ignorance when he went on Joe rogans podcast and talked about gay marriage
unsurprising
Joe is married, he will not marry Matt - Also, I'm first in line if Joe gets a divorce
The Daily Wire is not the go-to place for free thinking!
Or smart thinking.
@@thecatattheend2250 Very true!
Or thinking in general.
I'm not a scientist or have a PhD but compared with Matt walsh I'm a rocket scientist
Another believer in the invisible sky daddy that raids Sir Sic's whiskey stashes! It must be him because it's definitely not me doing it!
fair
It's not "Sky Daddy". It's "Heavenly Father"... 🤡
I prefer "Imaginary Sky Fairy". Something about the "Fairy" over "Daddy" torques some Xtians in an interesting way
@@drewharrison6433 .... close enough
@@dilanbrinkley3587 to REALLY piss em off spell it as faerie instead of fairy
"Objective morality is stupid."
Said the person living the safest part of the planet.
You know what as soon as i heard this guy's voice i came to the conclusion that I'd rather go and drink all of Sir sic's whiskey instead of giving this guy the benefit of the doubt
shonk
Matt sounds like he did.
I have convened with the council of Matt’s, and we have excommunicated him. From now on, he shall be referred as just Walsh
Objective morality implies knowing something about objective reality that cannot be observed in any way because it has no effects on anything.
Because, you know, it's actually subjective.
fair
Ironically, they will point to their own feelings about morality as a way to demonstrate they are objective... I think they just don't know what objective means.
"I know it's wrong to torture babies for fun because I feel it deep down that it's wrong!"
@@JoyfulArtist21 Christianity has spent like 1600 years teaching motherfuckers the wrong definition of "objectivity"
I think this is the "is-ought problem"--nothing about reality implies anything about morality. But I think there's a bridge. Suffering is inherently bad in that it feels bad. And we know suffering is real, because we directly experience it. So there are things that are inherently good and bad in reality. And this seems morality adjacent to me.
now Yesterday, Matt Walsh made a stupid argument...
and tomorrow probably
I bet it's more logical that we have a good moral code because we're social animals and we need it to survive and also to be into a community rather than a grumpy invisible guy with ego issues
"Shows no rational basis for an objective morality." Here's a thought then, maybe this is because there is no such thing as an objective morality.
You know your thoughts are worthwhile when you have to sequester yourself in a car to express them 😂
:0
"atheism doesn't provide a moral framework!"
Yeah, of course not. It's not a moral position. It doesn't describe a moral or philosophical system because it wasn't designed to. It's not trying to.
Solve hungry, eat humons 😂
yis
If humanity has taught us anything its there is no objective reality. We break every single so called objective morality on a daily basis. We are just smart animals
If were smart then howcome most of us choose violence instead of talking things over?
That doesnt sound smart, at all
Morality has never been a topic of question for Christians towards atheists? I seem to remember something called The Catholic Inquisition having been a thing.😂
I wasn’t expecting the Spanish Inquisition to!
American protestants don’t understand that catholics are christians too.
Conversely... Religious person here, and I do not believe in objective morality. What societies believe is and isn't morally acceptable changes too much over time to imagine there's any coherent power keeping morality on track. Even the big things like killing, while doubtless evolved in to a great extent, vary in terms of interpretation and extent and who any prohibitions apply to. For e.g., here in Britain a lot of people claim they'd be quite happy with killings carried out by the judicial system, whereas I would oppose that. So even there, there isn't a fixed, universal viewpoint.
And what morality I have is nothing to do with the gods. They don't care if I'm a good person or not, and they're not going to give me a lovely reward at the end of it all if I've been nice. Nor, thankfully, are they going to subject me to ruthless, brutal neverending torture like the Christian god threatens his followers with. *Eternal life*? Can there be any damnation more cruel?
So no: I just go with the moral perspective I was brought up with, supplemented by my own self-questioning over quite a lot of years.
I just mention it because they - political christianist frauds like this guy - that atheists have no source for objective morality. Well, nor do religious people, necessarily.
If Matt thinks that you need to believe in God to be moral, I doubt he has ever talked to any atheists.
ah
No, he sticks to talking to children on the playground.
Silly Matty doesn't understand that a cosmic creature saying "This is good because I say so." is the least objective thing possible.
Especially when the stories prove that that same creature violates those rules and also changes them to the opposite on a whim.
"Matt" synonyms: dull, grey, gloomy, dismal, dreary, shabby, sombre, lacklustre, flat, dingy, colourless, uninspired, vapid, cheerless.
damn
I would’ve gone with arrogant and overconfident
@@Dianasaurthemelonlord7777 Active listening is objectively beneficial.
@@inyobill not sure what the hell this has to do with what I said
This Matt is flatter than matte.
i love how theists ignore the fact that even IF a god exists, morality STILL isnt objective... because that god, right, IS the subject that determines what is right and what is wrong. That god's opinions and beliefs are the foundation for their moral system.
Well, I never said morality is objective.
@@HotBaraDad666 well Matt was certainly talking about it... aaaand a large majority of Christians do claim it is... should i have said "some/most/a majority of theists..."? sure. do your individual beliefs/opinion about the nature of morality effect the substance of my statement? nope...
To any extent morality is "objective" the Daily Wire misses the mark big time
ouch
Every time I had to deal with the law, traffic tickets and such, a church or MUH HOLY BUK was never involved!
ah
I get that this is an older video from him... but this is the same guy who regularly makes offensive remarks and chastises people for not being able to take a joke or even recognize something he said was a joke. But if we dare say "sky daddy" as a joke, he clutches his pearls! Guess it's okay for him to make offensive jokes about people we can demonstrate to exist vs us making jokes about a powerful being he believes in.
I personally don't refer to their god as "sky daddy" because they just focus on that and can't really engage further than that. But, I mean... it's just a synonym for "heavenly father." It practically means the same thing. But, yeah. The people who do say that are showing irreverence. Why would people who don't believe in a god show reverence for a being they don't think exists?
Thanks for making this video ❤🙏
One minute ago is words im not allowed to say on the internet
:0
Say 'em! Say 'em!
my dad's been watching you and i honestly think you're very entertaining :) keep up the good work
Cheers!
Mocking God Botherers is never too low a bar!
haha
Morality only makes sense through a subject, or a group of subjects, really, because if it's a single subject, it's ethics.
Haha all the dumb Matts. The nemesis of Sir Sic.
I mean...
And the ultimate fact that all the whisky belongs to Sir Sic.
exactly
Just got here from the Chris Hanson channel....is it me or does Matt look creepy af?
damn
Don't hurt meee 😭 I'm scared! PLEASE
Remember, Matt has a child pregnancy fetish 😂
Looks can be receiving
They arent in this case though
As an ambassador for Matthews everywhere, the Matthews you cover don't speak for any of the rest of us.
Matt Walsh making silly, pointless, stupid arguments? What a strange observation, surely you must be mistaken, Sir Sic. Matt Walsh is nothing if not the finest example of Christian apologetics.
*hack*cough* sorry I was chokgin my own own bulls^%t.
I know right
"Or remaster ET from Atari"
Don't do that Sic, don't scare me. That would truly be the ultimate sin right there...
You know, if you think about it, the ten commandments could be summed up pretty much in one. Don't be a dick. There's a lot that falls under that to varying levels of dickery. Theft, murder, betraying the trust of/being violent to your partner/family/children, abusing animals, etc, etc. All varying levels but all fall under being a dick. So, to reiterate: don't be a dick.
❤
That deserves a heart
Similarly are 42 Ideals of Ma'at for me.
Except about half of the ten commandments have nothing to do with morality & everything to do with religion only ("thou shalt have no god before me," "keep the sabbath holy" etc.)
@@digigalbytes2445: Yeah, the ten commandments would really have to be summed up in two: Suck Yahweh's dick, and don't be a dick.
Have a good holiday Sic, I've started on the whisky already!!
Please don't shout, about morals and forces Geff...
gah
Not a braincell in sight, just Matt Walsh living in the moment.
A cartheist video. Why do they always record in the car?
because they are banned from the house
@@SirSicCrusader I wonder why. Perhaps the wife kicks them out because they're tired of the stupidity.
Like CC, Christ from New York, Westchester County; their wife kicked em out
@@Dianasaurthemelonlord7777 makes sense actually.
@@Dianasaurthemelonlord7777when the dog causes too much trouble, you do the same.
The biggest question with objective morality is who decides it.
"God does"
Ok... which god? Because there are plenty of religions, and their god(s) quite often have differing opinions on what is good and what is not.
"Mine is the one true god"
So says everyone, so we're still on square one.
Can we shout out the extra effort, Ms Sic has been putting into the animation.
Goes out of his way to defend them and they go against him. Throw themselves in it without any provocation
Watching Sir Sic while drinking whiskey is quite an experience, I highly recommend. He's funny normally, but it's even better when you're on the same sauce he is.
The moral of the story is that the notion of "objectivity" is incoherent wherever it is used.
What he not need is religion but empathy.
Sic I tried watching your video, and I got second hand drunk passing out. Good video as always
Matt Walsh is the guy who watched "God is Not Dead" & thought it was a documentary hahalol
When everything we know is bad is bad except for when god does or commands those things, it isn’t objective
God doesn't live in the sky, he lives on top of mt sinai, the Bible says that in multiple verses, most clearly in exodus
Brain read the title as Objectively Stupid Is M Walsh
Autocorrect win
"Atheism doesn't provide a basis of morality"... yes, that's what morals and value systems are for. Believing in gods doesn't provide that either, unless adding other things like the idea that a particular god is morally right no matter what they do.
Someone that follows morality solely because of divine threat should not be allowed to dictate the whims of actually morally clear individuals.
I’ve been watching a lot of videos that debunk all this this through philosophy and science. But sir sic just takes the piss and does it in a funny way. It’s quite refreshing
I think this is the first video that I've seen that actually explained subjective morality in a way that makes sense to me. I've known for a while that it isn't what the various Matts have said, but now I finally know what it is instead of just what it isn't.
I mean, go and find better brainers than me, but this is my understanding, and how it most certainly isn't the same thing as moral relativism.
If you require an invisible magical sky wizard to command you to be Good under the fear of eternal damnation... congratulations you're a psychopath in waiting until the voices tells you bad things are ok
"Assuming there are any..." I mean, I didn't expect the Sir Sic-RCE crossover to be a Smackdown but I am already making popcorn!
Deities would also be subjects, so a theist's morality is no less subjective
Matt Dillahunty - There, a smart Matt
I wish Matt would open an introduction to ethics book some time. There's quite a few reasons why most philosophers are agnostics/atheists but most are also moral realists.
...honestly, at least the beginning slots *right into* a discussion I've had with my partner the other day - so, so, so many people don't understand what a context is and that different behaviors are encouraged and discouraged depending on the context. This idea now seems even more widely applicable than I originally thought.