Thoughts on Morality Video?

103 posts / 0 new
Last post
whatistruth1838.146's picture
Also,

Also,

Now that you yourself has stated that, according to your beliefs what is right and wrong is somewhat arbitrary (though it should be stated that it is not SOMEWHAT arbitrary BUT COMPLETELY arbitrary since without objectivity all are personal whims [even if there is order in group consensus it still is a group whim and therefore completely arbitrary though not random]) I would now like to put forth the following situation that I hope you or others can interact with given your acknowledgement of a subjectively moral world:

John Doe is the president of the US and likes the color red, specifically maroon its his favorite color. I'm not sure but I doubt that your favorite color is maroon. I have a chance of being right (for sake of argument lets say that I am).
Because your favorite color is NOT maroon then John Doe says:
1. Because your favorite color is NOT maroon then I don't believe you should have a job.
2. Because your favorite color is NOT maroon then I believe that you should not own land.
3. Because your favorite color is NOT maroon then you should go to jail
4. Because your favorite color is NOT maroon then you're a bad person
5. Because your favorite color is NOT maroon then I should go to war with you.
6. Because your favorite color is NOT maroon then you should get an F on an assignment.
7. Because your favorite color is NOT maroon then you shouldn't be allowed to vote
8. Because your favorite color is NOT maroon then any other action with negative consequences.

According to your beliefs this would should not sound absurd at all. What's the difference between making laws about peoples rights on the basis of what color's we like and things like murder? Yes there are consequences to murder (life is taken) but without objective morals who's to say that's bad with any objectivity. The only thing we could say is that those with authority wield the morality of the day.

But what the video brings up is that our general reaction to such a world would suggest that humans do inherently believe that there is an objective standard that people should live up to. The issue with denying objectivity (morality in this case) is that our collective experience says otherwise. just as I would physically stop if I bumped into a wall showing that the physical world is objective so to our innate experience reacts to the walls of injustice. This is a case for objective morals which we all run into.

LogicFTW's picture
After writing a long reply,

After writing a long reply, which is still below I realized I could actually make this shorter, here is the shorter version first, you can read the rest if you like, especially if the short version does not make sense to you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Imagine if objective morality was a thing, was real, like how the definition would define it: If morality were real and objective, it would be something you could feel, interact with, possibly pick up and throw, maybe cut it in half, look up at close, look at in a powerful microscope to examine its innards. Maybe you need a CERN tool to detect it, and after an amazing break through you confirm it! It would be universal, the physical real world effect of morality would be universal no matter what people thought.

All that is silly of course, we know none of that could happen with morality, it is clearly not objective, it is subjective, a thought or an idea, you cannot do any of the above mentioned to a thought or idea.

Now that we are both clear that morality is NOT objective, the rest of the response to your post is easy.
Of Course this maroon president is completely absurd to everyone but perhaps the president himself and perhaps a few of his crackpot supporters.

Yes; the "oh no very scary!" thought that morality is in the eye of the beholder. One group of people can have different morality than others.Every individual has a slightly different take on morality from everyone else, all 7+ billion of us. You already know this, the guy sitting next to you in your church has a slightly different idea of what morality is then you do, they may be similar, (probably,) they may not be. Their is no universal morality law, subjective or not subjective.

It is too bad really, if morality was subjective by the power of your god, we would have no murder, stealing, cruelty to others etc, of course we would have no free will either, and we would essentially be robots taking commands but meh, schematics.

The video got one thing wrong with its statement, "our general reaction to such a world would suggest that humans do inherently believe that there is an objective standard that people should live up to."

And as I explained why, what's wrong with the above sentence is the word: "objective." Otherwise I, (and many other intelligent people,) would agree, we do believe that: "there is a standard people should live up to."

You can not "physically bump into the walls of injustice" But you could do a play on words, "I am going to name this real physical wall here injustice! Heyyy I am bumping into the walls of injustice!" GO ME!

Take away the word objective out, leave your supposed god out of it, and we both agree.

>>> the old longer reply<<<
You are confused on what our beliefs are and what they mean.
Yes, many of us atheist agree objective morality does not exist. Just like objective (fill in your own idea or thought) does not exist in the physical world. It is like saying: "This cold ice water is hot."

In the very definition of objectivity, it defines things that are real, that exist beyond the metaphysical thought.
Thought or concept "A", okay, not objective, this is confirms our agreed upon definition of objectivity. Objective reality such as the force of gravity objective item "A", okay, we both agree, examples are showing we agree upon the definition of objectivity. We go through 100 examples all happily agreeing this is objective, this is not, this is objective this is not a real clear pattern emerges, thoughts are not objective, actual physical things in the world that affect us w/o thought are.

Then suddenly we get to morality, just another thought process, like so many other non objective things we just made a long list of when defining what objectivity means. And suddenly hold everything, I am changing the definition of objectivity we both had going that we both agreed upon as ideas and thoughts are not objective.

Suppose you were right, your god created morality. Saying: morality is objective would STILL BE WRONG! Why? Because you just changed the definition of a few words to suit this single case of usage! This all knowing all powerful god would be laughing at how you got your words and definitions tripped up trying to win a weak case for his existence. If morality was not a thought or an idea, but instead objective it would work like gravity. Whether you agreed with it or not it would still be there. You can argue and dismiss or rename the force of gravity all you want as you fall out of the sky, you are still going to go splat when you land because of gravity. Imagine if objective morality was real, like how the definition would define it: morality would be real, it would be something you could feel, interact with, possibly pick up and throw, maybe cut it in half, look up at close, look at in a powerful microscope to examine its innards. Maybe you need a CERN to detect it, and after break through you confirm it! All that is silly, we know none of that could happen with morality, it is clearly not objective

Whats even worse is you then base the reason why morality is suddenly objective even though it is just a thought process is based on some very old heavily edited book full of easy to detect contradictions and flat out lies.

whatistruth1838.146's picture
You are really smart

You are really smart LogicForTW. I wish I had more time to really dig in to your arguments!

I would like to refute something. A thought or idea can be objective. Immaterial things can be objective. For example, I just thought about a tree outside my house. It was a simple thought about how _____ tree is beautiful. Though I did not write down the name of the tree in this comment I did think about it (honestly and you can trust me I'm a Christian lol.jk). It was not written down yet the thought "I think that ____ tree is beautiful" was objectively an existing thought... this immaterial thought is objective. Therefore, immaterial ideas/thoughts/principles can objectively exist. The definition of objectivity according Google is as follows:

Adjective: (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Dictionary.com states: of or relating to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
Webster's dictionary: a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

Mostly all of these definitions are talking about an object lets say object Q. Q is objective if it exist independent of perceptions/distortions from the observer. The physical tree is a good example of this but that does not mean that Q has to be physical. Q can indeed be immaterial like my thought of the tree and still objectively exist since it exists regardless of your perceptions or thoughts about my thought sentence.

LogicFTW's picture
The dictonary.com definition

The dictonary.com definition you linked said: "existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality"

You said further down:
"Q can indeed be immaterial like my thought of the tree..."

Your thought of the tree is.. a thought! :)

The tree exist independent of my thought. Yep.

Your thought of a tree. Not objective by the very definition you posted.

Your thoughts of a tree does exist (not objectively!) regardless of my thought process. Yep!

The very definition of objectivity you posted explains why objective morality cannot exist. It is a misuse of words. It is like saying that dark black is what color and brightness the sun is.

The idea/thought process of objective morality is a word game using words that combining them is gibberish. If god created morality, it would not be called objective morality, it would be called something else by us. Likely just morality.

A better sentence to describe a supposed god created morality would be: The book that is supposedly the word of god, mentions god in all his power created morale rules, these morale rules are vague and often times quite contradictory when examined (like everything else in this book.) These morales have no real power, (god gave us free will to ignore these morale rules!) but hey don't worry dear reader, god created this whole morales thing, so you need not concern your self with morales, just follow what I say in this book!

Then 1000's of years after this book was written, some religious scholars came up with a word game, using confusing not well understood words as a way to show to their religion followers a supposed proof of their god, as science and education advancement increasingly makes their god, simply the god of gaps.

CyberLN's picture
You and that video posit that

You and that video posit that without a god objective morality is impossible.

Which god?

MCDennis's picture
I try not to accept ideas

I try not to accept ideas about morality from a book that advocates slavery and stoning rebellious children, and one that advocates murdering ''witches" which don't exist.

whatistruth1838.146's picture
MCD this a different argument

MCD this a different argument. This thread is simply about the existence of objective morality without God. We can discuss that later though!

CyberLN's picture
Which god???

Which god???

whatistruth1838.146's picture
As a believer in Jesus Christ

As a believer in Jesus Christ I would say the God of the Bible and the video's creators would hold to the same view. But going into this might derail right now our purpose which is to establish that objective morals without a God (who is transcendent outside of the created order) cannot exist. But if you have a question please post.

mykcob4's picture
Then don't dismiss MCD's

Then don't dismiss MCD's statement. You say the god of the bible and MCD pointed out the hypocrisy of the bible. You can't have it both ways which you are desperately trying to do.
We on this forum have tried to show you the flaw in your logic. We have asked pointed questions that are apparently disturbing to you, but none the less are a requirement for you to go forward with your argument.
1) Which fucking god?
2) If the bible isn't a valid way to judge your idea of objective morality then why the christian god?
3) Which particular set of people or society are you confining your argument to because any expansion to all the people of the world of all time would certainly blow holes in your objective morality theory. Which in on its base is invalid, since morality is dynamic and subjective by definition.
4) Objective morality even if it could be established only needs an overall authority, you don't need a god for that. In fact, you can't have a god for that because the people that would set that authority and enforcing that authority would be ever changing, AND the definition of said god would change just as often. Take the bible. The written authority of christianity. How fucking many are there, have there been? Thousands maybe more! Again which proves that there has never been is not now and never will be objective morality, EVEN IF EVERY PERSON ON EARTH was of the same exact faith.

Nyarlathotep's picture
mykcob4 - Again which proves

mykcob4 - Again which proves that there has never been is not now and never will be objective morality, EVEN IF EVERY PERSON ON EARTH was of the same exact faith.

Exactly. To have an objective moral standard that came from a deity, we'd need a very different set up than what we have (I tried to come up with one earlier by suggesting that deity would beam his desires into everyone head; maybe that wouldn't work, but something would have to be very different than it is now). But yes, the fact that you can't get believers of the same denomination to agree on this shit, should be sounding the skeptical alarms. But I suppose if you believe the bible is the word of god; your skeptic alarm might already be on the fritz.

LogicFTW's picture
Plus of course by the very

Plus of course by the very definition objective means its something that exists outside of just thought.

If morality was truly objective it could be cut in half, or reduced, or increased. Moved or avoided, detected by scientific equipment or something similar.

But of course that is impossible.

whatistruth1838.146's picture
LogicForTW it isn't that

LogicForTW it isn't that objective objects are outside thought but rather that they are not influenced or dependent upon a thought of an OBSERVER to exist. The OBJECT IN QUESTION does not have to be material but rather it has to exist independent of an OBSERVER'S THOUGHTS in order to be objective. my thoughts objectively exist as an object, though they are immaterial, because they are not dependent upon your thoughts too exist and what I just thought is not influenced by your thoughts either.

You are stating that objective must = physical. I just proved that an immaterial thought can objectively exist, therefore objective objects need not be physical to be objective.

LogicFTW's picture
Your thoughts objectively

Your thoughts objectively exist as an object?

On the line above that, you just finished explaining "it isn't that objective objects are outside thought but rather that they are not influenced or dependent upon a thought of an OBSERVER to exist."

Let me break down that statement to see if we are on the same page here.

"it isn't that objective objects are outside thought" --- I think you are saying: objective objects exist whether we think about them or not. Correct? If so, I absolutely agree.

"but rather that they are not influenced or dependent upon a thought of an OBSERVER to exist." --- you are sort of repeating the first part of the statement right? But just said in a different way. my rephrase of your words for clarity: Objective objects are not influenced or dependent on a thought of an observer to exist. An observer being an intelligent human and your "god." Again I agree.

You just utterly lose me when you say your thoughts are objective. How does that fit in the definition you just gave above? How are your thoughts objective? To me that is like saying the definition of hello is a greeting, it is NOT goodbye. Then saying right after: my hello also includes the meaning of goodbye!

You are right! Your thoughts do not depend on my thoughts to exist. (Exist does not mean objective!) Your thought is not influenced by my thought, I agree. But are you not an observer of your own thoughts? What happens to your thought when you stop thinking about it?

An object does not have to be material, never said it did. Gravity is pretty immaterial, but it still exist whether we think about it or not. It can be studied, quantified. It will still be there it does not care what we name it, or what we think of it. It can be lessened, or increased, (travel past earth's gravity field or accelerate quickly.) Can your thought do any of that? If you are gone does your thought in your head remain?

This is an important discussion, well removed from "is god real" or "can morals be objective?" debates. We are down to the core of it. Are thoughts objective? No, by the very definition of objective that we agree on, thoughts are not objective.

You have proved nothing about thoughts being objective. You only proved that you changed the definition you provided for objective to, (very confusingly,) fit your narrative.

Seriously, find a well studied biblical scholar and have this same conversation with that person. Chances are he too will say "thoughts are clearly not objective!" If you are still not convinced, do a poll with anyone that isn't biased, (one way or the other,) and ask them: "are thoughts objective?" using the definition of objective you just provided.

whatistruth1838.146's picture
Mykob4... Does disagreement

Mykob4... Does disagreement discredit of a belief system?

Scientists disagree all the time... is science therefore not true?

I will try to engage with your other point. through others if possible.

mykcob4's picture
Whaaat?!!!!!

Whaaat?!!!!!
1) Science is not a belief system.
2) Scientist disagreeing has nothing to do with the validity of the scientific method. They all agree on that.
3) "I will try to engage with your other point. through others if possible." What the fuck does that mean? Are you afraid to engage with me?

whatistruth1838.146's picture
I'm not dismissing MCD's

I'm not dismissing MCD's statement. I believe I said that we should return to which God but that this is not a requirement for this forum. Rather that objective morality requires god (of course that leads to a god with certain attributes but talking about that will derail our discussion for now. We have to establish one thing at a time to be productive)

None of these questions are disturbing. It's only I have limited time to answer multiple questions that take a while to respond to adequately to give your words the respect they deserve.

But to quickly respond:
1st before we get to God or a bible, who is anyone here to judge scripture when there is no objective standard for you guys to judge it by. You have a majority consensus on this forum.. but that's arbitrary. You have no more right according to this to say that its wrong than I do to say that it's right according to your thinking. It shouldn't really produce much anger because all of it should be arbitrary according to an objectiveness world.

1) The God of the Bible.
2) God's existence supports objective morality and God's word expresses his thoughts on morality as it asserts for itself though of course this is a different argument to prove these statements (which is again why I don't want to go there right now because we are going to go on trails that wont settle the initial argument of this thread). If the God is objectivity itself then agree or disagree with his positions on morality it doesn't change that they are the standard and that means that scripture also is the standard regardless of agreement. Secondly you are not looking at the totality of scripture and what it teaches in TOTAL. Yes there were laws regarding slavery (though it's version of slavery is different then than an Americans perspective because of its history) but in total we are not meant to be slaves to something against our will according to scripture. Jesus came in order to set us free from our slavery John states "if the son sets you free you will be free indeed" and "I have come that they may have life and have it to the full". These are not affirmations of slavery but of God's intention of freedom.

3. Can you please copy and past morality and it's definition and show how it is subjective by definition?

4. Yes objective morality needs an overall authority. It cannot be set by man otherwise its subjective so the rest of your example falls appart. There are many different COPIES of the books in scripture. These documents were compiled cross examined and constitute the one Bible that Christians used today.. Again there are many assertions but not much support for the claims that I'm seeing on these threads. Not yet any way though I know they are there.

Main issue mykob4 that I'm seeing with our back in forth is you are saying Objective = subjective which is the same as me saying perfect = almost perfect and building arguments on perfection from there... I think this needs to be discussed amongst all of you. Do you agree with mykob4?

objective = subjective? We can even break it down objective of material objects and objective of immaterial objects.

mykcob4's picture
https://www.merriam-webster

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morality
Nothing about a god. Nothing about it being objective or subjective. Only one part that defines it as subjective and proves my point "two groups with clashing moralities".
I have over and over shown the flaws in your logic and the flaws in the video. The main flaw is that both are based solely on assumptions not proven.
I have not in any way said that objective and subjective are the same thing. I have said that given all the data, all the evidence that is proven that morality is not and can never be objective. Even in theory.
You in your arguments have given your god an authority, yet you cannot and will not prove your god.
you said, "who is anyone here to judge scripture when there is no objective standard for you guys to judge it by." The answer is that there IS an objective standard to judge it by that being the burden of proof that it is fact which you ignore and fail to do.
You also made a false statement, " There are many different COPIES of the books in scripture. These documents were compiled cross-examined and constitute the one Bible that Christians used today." You assume there is only ONE bible and there are more than a thousand bibles currently in use all different.
From wikipedia search, "The Bible has been translated into many languages from the biblical languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The Latin Vulgate translation was dominant in Western Christianity through the Middle Ages. Since then, the Bible has been translated into many more languages. English Bible translations also have a rich and varied history of more than a millennium.
Included when possible are dates and the source language(s) and, for incomplete translations, what portion of the text has been translated. Certain terms that occur in many entries are linked at the bottom of the page.
Because different groups of Jews and Christians differ on the true content of the Bible, the "incomplete translations" section includes only translations seen by their translators as incomplete, such as Christian translations of the New Testament alone. Translations such as Jewish versions of the Tanakh are included in the "complete" category, even though Christians traditionally have considered the Bible to consist properly of more than just the Tanakh.
P literature.svg This literature-related list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.
Contents [hide]
1 Early incomplete Bibles
2 Partial Bibles
3 Complete Bibles
4 See also
5 References
6 External links
Early incomplete Bibles[edit]
List of incomplete Bibles
Bible Translated sections English variant Year Source Notes
Aldhelm Psalms (existence disputed) Old English late 7th or early 8th centuries Vulgate
Bede Gospel of John (lost) Old English c. 735 Vulgate
Psalters (12 in total), including the Vespasian Psalter and Eadwine Psalter English glosses of Latin psalters 9th century Vulgate
King Alfred Pentateuch, including the Ten Commandments; possibly also the Psalms Old English c. 900 Vulgate
Aldred the Scribe Northumbrian interlinear gloss on the Gospels in the Lindisfarne Gospels Old English 950 to 970 Vulgate
Farman Gloss on the Gospel of Matthew in the Rushworth Gospels Old English 950 to 970 Vulgate
Ælfric Pentateuch, Book of Joshua, Judges Old English c. 990 Vulgate
Wessex Gospels Gospels Old English c. 990 Old Latin[1]
Caedmon manuscript A few English Bible verses Old English 700 to 1000 Vulgate
The Ormulum Some[which?] passages from the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles Middle English c. 1150 Vulgate
A translation of Revelation[citation needed] Book of Revelation Middle English Early 14th century A French translation[which?]
Rolle Various[which?] passages, including some[which?] of the Psalms Middle English Early 14th century Vulgate
West Midland Psalms Psalms Middle English Early 14th century Vulgate
Geoffrey Chaucer, "The Parson's Tale", in The Canterbury Tales Many Bible verses Middle English c. 1400 Vulgate
A Fourteenth Century Biblical Version: Consisting of a Prologue and Parts of the New Testament[2] New Testament Middle English c. 1400 Vulgate
Life of Soul Majority of text consists of Biblical quotations Middle English c. 1400 Vulgate
Nicholas Love, OCart, The Mirror of the Blessed Life of Jesus Christ Gospels paraphrased Middle English c. 1410 (printed 6 times before 1535) Johannes de Caulibus, OFM [possible author], Meditationes Vitae Christi (in Latin)
William Caxton Various[which?] passages Middle English 1483 (Golden Legend)
1484 (The Book of the Knight of the Tower) A French translation[which?]
Partial Bibles[edit]
Bible Content English variant Year Source Notes
Aramaic English New Testament New Testament Modern English & Hebrew (Divine names) 2008-2012 Aramaic New Testament texts A literal translation of the oldest known Aramaic New Testament texts. This is a study Bible with over 2000 footnotes and 360 pages of appendixes to help the reader understand the poetry, idioms, terms and definitions in the language of Jesus (referred to as Y'shua in the text) and his followers. The Aramaic is featured with Hebrew letters and vowel pointing.[promotional language]
Bible in Worldwide English New Testament Modern English 1969
Brenton's English Translation of the Septuagint Old Testament Modern English 1844 Septuagint
The Common Edition New Testament New Testament Modern English 1999
The Comprehensive New Testament New Testament Modern English 2008 English Translation of the Nestle Aland 27th Edition of the Greek New Testament[3]
Confraternity Bible New Testament Modern English 1941 Revision of the Challoner Revision of the Rheims New Testament. OT was translated in stages, with editions progressively replacing books in the Challoner revision of the Douay-Rheims; when complete, it was published in 1970 as the New American Bible
A Conservative Version New Testament Modern English 2012
Cotton Patch Series New Testament Modern English 1973 modern Black American idiomatic, e.g. rendering Jew as white man; Gentile as negro; Ephesus as Birmingham, Alabama; Rome as Washington, DC; Jerusalem as Atlanta, Georgia
The Emphatic Diaglott New Testament Modern English 1864 Greek text recension by Dr Johann Jakob Griesbach
Five Pauline Epistles, A New Translation New Testament Modern English 1908 (combined in one volume in 1984) Epistles of Romans, 1st and 2nd Corinthians, and 1st and 2nd Thessalonians, by Scottish scholar William Gunion Rutherford
The Fresh Agreement: God's Contract with Humanity New Testament Modern American English 2011 3rd edition of Robert Etienne (1550) with several modifications when warranted by manuscript evidence The Fresh Agreement brings the range and specificity of the modern vocabulary to the traditional Greek text.
God's New Covenant: A New Testament Translation New Testament Modern English 1989
Grail Psalms Book of Psalms Modern English 1963 (revised 2008) French La Bible de Jérusalem Translated according to the principles of Gelineau psalmody. Used for liturgical worship by the Catholic Church.
The Kingdom New Testament: A Contemporary Translation New Testament Modern English 2011 Eclectic Greek By NT Wright.[4] (ISBN 978-0-06-206491-2)
Kleist-Lilly New Testament New Testament Modern English 1956
Lexham English Bible New Testament, with Old Testament in translation Modern English 2010 SBL Greek New Testament
The Living Oracles New Testament Modern English 1826 Compiled and translated by Alexander Campbell based translations by George Campbell, James MacKnight and Philip Doddridge, with reference to the 1805 critical Greek text by Johann Jakob Griesbach Replaces traditional ecclessiastical terminology such as "church", "bishop" and "baptise" with alternative translations such as "congregation", "overseer" and "immerse".
McCord's New Testament Translation of the Everlasting Gospel New Testament Modern English 1989
James Moffatt's 'The New Testament, A New Translation' New Testament Modern English 1913 Greek text of Hermann von Soden
Helen Barrett Montgomery, Centenary Translation of the New Testament New Testament Modern English 1924
The New Life Testament New Testament Modern English 1969
The New Testament translated by Richmond Lattimore New Testament Modern English 1962–1982 (Compiled in one volume in 1996) Wescott-Hort Text By Richmond Lattimore. (ISBN 978-0865474994)
The Open English Bible New Testament Modern English 2010 (Work in Progress) Twentieth Century New Testament (English), Wescott-Hort (Greek), Leningrad Codex (Hebrew) Aiming to be the first modern public domain translation, with the NT edited from the public domain Twentieth Century New Testament and the OT newly translated.
Phillips New Testament in Modern English New Testament Modern English 1958
Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible Modern English 1844 Revision of the King James Version Also called "Inspired version of the Bible" by Mormons
Spencer New Testament New Testament Modern English 1941 Greek text The gospels were originally from the Vulgate, then the translation was restarted using the Greek
Third Millennium Bible (The New Authorized Version) New Testament, Old Testament, Apocrypha. Modern English 1998 Revision of the King James Version.
Twentieth Century New Testament New Testament Modern English 1904 Greek text of Westcott and Hort.
Two Nineteenth Century Versions of the New Testament New Testament Modern English Compiled by D. P. Ryan 1995 Various manuscripts and critical editions of the Greek text. "Translated by JND and by WK with Comments on Text and Translation from the Works of William Kelly of Blackheath" (ISBN 0-9640037-9-1)
The Unvarnished New Testament New Testament Modern English 1991
The Voice New Testament Modern English 2008 "A Scripture project to rediscover the story of the Bible" (ISBN 1-4185-3439-0)
World English Bible & World Messianic Bible New Testament, Psalms & Proverbs available in print. Old Testament work in progress for Hebrew Names Version but entire WEB Bible available in print. Modern English New Testament, Psalms & Proverbs available in print. Old Testament work in progress. Majority Text New Testament, Psalms & Proverbs available in hard copy, printed format. Printed Old Testament in progress for HNV but entire WEB is available in print and online & Complete HNV Bibles available online. Released into the Public domain by Rainbow Missions, Inc.[5]
Wuest Expanded Translation New Testament Modern English 1961 Nestle-Aland Text
Complete Bibles[edit]
Complete Bibles
Bible Abbr. English variant Date Source Notes
American Standard Version ASV Modern English 1901 Masoretic Text, Westcott and Hort 1881 and Tregelles 1857 This version is now in the public domain due to copyright expiration.
American King James Version AKJV Modern English 1999 Revision of the King James Version This version has been dedicated to the Public Domain by Michael Peter (Stone) Engelbrite.
Amplified Bible AMP Modern English 1965 Revision of the American Standard Version
An American Translation Modern English 1935 Masoretic Text, various[which?] Greek texts.
ArtScroll Tanakh (Old Testament) Modern English 1996 Masoretic Text
An American Translation Modern English 1976 Masoretic Text, various[which?] Greek texts.
The Beloved and I: New Jubilees Version of the Sacred Scriptures in Verse Modern English 2005
Berkeley Version Modern English 1958
Bible in English Modern English 1949
The Bible in Living English Modern English 1972
Bishops' Bible Early Modern English 1568 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus
Catholic Public Domain Version Modern English 2009 Sixtus V and Clement VIII Latin Vulgate by Ronald L. Conte Jr., in the public domain
Children's King James Version Modern English 1962 Revision of the King James Version. by Jay P. Green
Christian Community Bible, English version Modern English 1986 Hebrew and Greek
Christian Standard Bible CSB Modern English 2017 Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, Novum Testamentum Graece 28th Edition (NA28), United Bible Societies 5th Edition (UBS5).
Clear Word Bible Modern English 1994
Common English Bible CEB Modern English 2011
Complete Jewish Bible CJB Modern English 1998 Paraphrase of the Jewish Publication Society of America Version (Old Testament), and from Greek (New Testament) text.
Contemporary English Version CEV Modern English 1995
Concordant Literal Version Modern English 1926. Rev. 1931, 1966 Restored Greek syntax. A concordance of every form of every Greek word was made and systematized and turned into English. The whole Greek vocabulary was analyzed and translated, using a standard English equivalent for each Greek element.
Coverdale Bible Early Modern English 1535 Masoretic Text, the Greek New Testament of Erasmus, Vulgate, and German and Swiss-German Bibles (Luther Bible, Zürich Bible and Leo Jud's Bible) First complete Bible printed in English (Early Modern English)
Dabhar Translation Modern English 2005 Masoretic Text, Codex Sinaiticus
Darby Bible DBY Modern English 1890 Masoretic Text, various critical editions of the Greek text (i.a. Tregelles, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort). This Bible version is now Public Domain due to copyright expiration.
Divine Name King James Bible[6] DNKJB Early Modern English 2011 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus Authorized King James Version which restores the Divine Name, Jehovah to the original text in 6,973 places, Jah in 50 places and Jehovah also appears in parentheses in the New Testament wherever the New Testament cross references a quote from the Old Testament in 297 places. Totaling to 7,320 places.
Douay–Rheims Bible Early Modern English 1582 (New Testament)
1609–1610 (Old Testament) Latin, Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. This work is now Public Domain.
Douay-Rheims Bible (Challoner Revision) Modern English 1752 Clementine Vulgate This Bible version is now Public Domain due to copyright expiration.
EasyEnglish Bible Modern English 2001 Wycliffe Associates (UK)
Easy-to-Read Version Modern English 1989 Textus Receptus, United Bible Society (UBS) Greek text, Nestle-Aland Text
Emphasized Bible EBR Modern English 1902 Translated by Joseph Bryant Rotherham based on The New Testament in the Original Greek and Christian David Ginsburg's Massoretico-critical edition of the Hebrew Bible (1894) Uses various methods, such as "emphatic idiom" and special diacritical marks, to bring out nuances of the underlying Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts. Public Domain due to copyright expiration.
English Jubilee 2000 Bible Modern English 2000
English Standard Version ESV Modern English 2001 Revision of the Revised Standard Version. (Westcott-Hort, Weiss, Tischendorf Greek texts)
Ferrar Fenton Bible Modern English 1853 Masoretic Text and Westcott-Hort
Geneva Bible Early Modern English 1557 (New Testament)
1560 (complete Bible)
Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus First English Bible with whole of Old Testament translated direct from Hebrew texts
God's Word GW Modern English 1995
Good News Bible GNB Modern English 1976 United Bible Society (UBS) Greek text Formerly known as Today's English Version
Great Bible Early Modern English 1539 Masoretic Text, Greek New Testament of Erasmus, the Vulgate, and the Luther Bible.
HalleluYah Scriptures English & Paleo Hebrew Names 2009 Masoretic, DSS, Majority Text, Aramaic Peshitta. Free Restored Name Scriptures
Hebraic Roots Version English & Hebrew Names 2004 Hebrew Masoretic Text, Hebrew and Aramaic New Testament sources. The Hebraic Roots Version Scriptures is a translation of the Tanakh/Old Testament from the Hebrew Masoretic Text. Revised from the public domain JPS 1917 edition, and placed together with a revised edition of the Hebrew Roots New Testament (based on Hebrew and Aramaic sources) each with useful footnotes, and an informative preface to the whole work.
Holman Christian Standard Bible HCSB Modern English 2004 Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, Novum Testamentum Graece 27th Edition, United Bible Societies 4th Edition.
The Inclusive Bible Modern English 2007 From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek
International Standard Version ISV Modern English 2011
Jerusalem Bible JB Modern English 1966 From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, with influence from the French La Bible de Jérusalem.
Jewish Publication Society of America Version Tanakh (Old Testament) JPS Modern English 1917 Masoretic Text The Old Testament translation is based on the Hebrew Masoretic text. It follows the edition of Seligman Baer except for the books of Exodus to Deuteronomy, which never appeared in Baer's edition. For those books, C. D. Ginsburg's Hebrew text was used. This Bible version is now Public Domain due to copyright expiration.
Judaica Press Tanakh (Old Testament). Modern English 1963 Masoretic Text
Julia E. Smith Parker Translation Modern English 1876 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus
King James 2000 Version Modern English 2000 Revision of the King James Version.
King James Easy Reading Version Modern English 2010 Revision of the King James Version. Textus Receptus. King's Word Press. GEM Publishing.[7]
King James Version AV or KJV Early Modern English 1611 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus, Tyndale 1526 NT, some Erasmus manuscripts, and Bezae 1598 TR. This Bible version is now Public Domain worldwide due to copyright expiration except in the United Kingdom due to crown letters patent until 2039.
King James II Version KJ2 Modern English 1971 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus by Jay P. Green, Sr.
Knox's Translation of the Vulgate Modern English 1955 Vulgate, with influence from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
Lamsa Bible Modern English 1933 Syriac Peshitta
A Literal Translation of the Bible LITV Modern English 1985 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus (Estienne 1550) by Jay P. Green, Sr.
Leeser Bible, Tanakh (Old Testament) Modern English 1994 Masoretic Text
The Living Bible TLB Modern English 1971 American Standard Version (paraphrase)
The Living Torah and The Living Nach. Tanakh (Old Testament) Modern English 1994 Masoretic Text
Matthew's Bible Early Modern English 1537 Masoretic Text, the Greek New Testament of Erasmus, the Vulgate, the Luther Bible, and a French version.[which?]
The Message MSG Modern English 2002 A fresh translation/paraphrase into contemporary language and idiom by Eugene Peterson.
Modern English Version MEV Modern English 2014 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus Revision of the King James Version
Modern King James Version Modern English 1990 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus by Jay P. Green, Sr.
Modern Language Bible Modern English 1969 Also called "The New Berkeley Version"
Moffatt, New Translation Modern English 1926 Greek text of Hermann von Soden
Murdock Translation of the Western Peshitto Modern English 1852[8] Western Peshitto (or Peshito)[9] by Dr. James Murdock. The Western Peshitto "is virtually the same as the Eastern Peshitta, besides the addition of 2Peter, 2John, 3John, Jude and Revelation".[10]
Names of God Bible NOG Modern English (GW) & Early Modern English (KJV) 2011,2014 GW edition: NT: Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament 27th edition. OT: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. KJV edition: OT: Masoretic Text, NT: Textus Receptus. By Ann Spangler, The Names of God Bible restores the transliterations of ancient names—such as Yahweh, El Shadday, El Elyon, and Adonay—to help the reader better understand the rich meaning of God’s names that are found in the original Hebrew and Aramaic text.
New American Bible NAB Modern English 1970
New American Bible Revised Edition NABRE Modern English 2010
New American Standard Bible NASB Modern English 1971 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland Text
New Century Version NCV Modern English 1991
New English Bible NEB Modern English 1970 Masoretic Text, Greek New Testament
New English Translation (NET Bible) NET Modern English 2005 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland/United Bible Society Greek New Testament
New International Reader's Version NIrV Modern English 1998 New International Version (simplified syntax, but loss of conjunctions obscures meanings)
New International Version Inclusive Language Edition Modern English 1996 Revision of the New International Version.
New International Version NIV Modern English 1978 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (based on Westcott-Hort, Weiss and Tischendorf, 1862).
New Jerusalem Bible NJB Modern English 1985 From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, with influence from the French La Bible de Jérusalem.
New Jewish Publication Society of America Version. Tanakh (Old Testament) NJPS Modern English 1985 Masoretic Text
New King James Version NKJV Modern English 1982 Masoretic Text (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 1983), Textus Receptus
New Life Version NLV Modern English 1986
New Living Translation NLT Modern English 1996
New Revised Standard Version NRSV Modern English 1989 Revision of the Revised Standard Version.
New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures NWT Modern English 1950 (New Testament)
1960 (single volume complete Bible)
1984 (reference edition with footnotes)
2013 (revised)
Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament, Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, Hebrew J documents, as well as various other families of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts
The Orthodox Study Bible OSB Modern English 2008 Adds a new translation of the LXX to an existing translation of the NKJV in a single volume.
Quaker Bible Modern English 1764 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus
Recovery Version of the Bible Modern English 1985 (NT w/ footnotes, revised 1991)
1993 (NT, text only)
1999 (single volume complete Bible, text only)
2003 (single volume complete Bible w/ footnotes)
OT: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS; revised 1990 edition).
NT: Novum Testamentum Graece (Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 26th edition)
A study Bible with a modern English translation of the Scriptures from their original languages. Comparable to the English Standard Version and the New American Standard Bible.
Revised Version RV Modern English 1885 Revision of the King James Version, but with a critical New Testament text: Westcott and Hort 1881 and Tregelles 1857
Revised Standard Version RSV (ERV) Modern English 1952 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament.
Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition RSVCE Modern English 1966 Revision of the Revised Standard Version.
Revised English Bible REB Modern English 1989 Revision of the New English Bible.
The Scriptures Modern English & Hebrew (Divine Names) 1993, revised 1998 & revised 2009 Masoretic Text (Biblia Hebraica), Textus Receptus Greek text Popular Messianic Translation by the Institute for Scripture Research
Simplified English Bible Modern English.
The Beloved and I English Verse 2005+ New Jubilees version of the Bible in English Verse by Thomas McElwain. Four volumes.
The Story Bible Modern English 1971 A summary/paraphrase, by Pearl S. Buck
Taverner's Bible Early Modern English 1539 Minor revision of Matthew's Bible
Thomson's Translation Modern English 1808 Codex Vaticanus (according to the introduction in the reprint edition by S. F. Pells) of the Septuagint (but excluding the Apocrypha) and of the New Testament
Today's New International Version TNIV Modern English 2005 Masoretic Text (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 1983), Nestle-Aland Greek text Revision of the New International Version.
Third Millennium Bible Modern English 1998 Revision of the King James Version.
Tree of Life Version TLV Modern English May 2016 An authentic Jewish Translation of Holy Scripture
Tyndale Bible Early Modern English 1526, revised 1534 (New Testament)
1530 (Pentateuch)
Masoretic Text, Erasmus' third NT edition (1522), Martin Luther's 1522 German Bible. Incomplete translation. Tyndale's other Old Testament work went into the Matthew's Bible (1537).
Updated King James Version Modern English 2004
The Voice Bible VOICE Modern English 2012 "The heart of the project is retelling the story of the Bible in a form as fluid as modern literary works while remaining painstakingly true to the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts." (ISBN 1401680313)
A Voice In The Wilderness Holy Scriptures Modern English 2003 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus
Webster's Revision Modern English 1833 Revision of the King James Version.
Westminster Bible Modern English 1936 Greek and Hebrew
The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible[11] Modern English 2010 Revision of the Challoner Revision of the Douay-Rheims Bible. Released into the public domain by The Work of God's Children (nonprofit corporation)
World English Bible[12] WEB Modern English In progress The World English Bible (WEB) is a Public Domain (no copyright) Modern English translation of the Holy Bible. That means that you may freely copy it in any form, including electronic and print formats. The World English Bible is based on the American Standard Version of the Holy Bible first published in 1901, the Biblia Hebraica Stutgartensa Old Testament, and the Greek Majority Text New Testament. It is in draft form, and currently being edited for accuracy and readability. Released into the public domain by Rainbow Missions, Inc. (nonprofit corporation)
Wycliffe's Bible (1388) WYC Middle English 1388 Latin Vulgate
Young's Literal Translation YLT Modern English 1862 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus This Bible version is now Public Domain due to copyright expiration.
The Orthodox Jewish Bible OJB Modern English 2002
Tree of Life Bible[13] TLV Modern English 2014 Masoretic Text, the 27th Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece The Old Testament translation is based on the Hebrew Masoretic text. It follows the edition of Seligman Baer except for the books of Exodus to Deuteronomy, which never appeared in Baer's edition. For those books, C. D. Ginsburg's Hebrew text was used.
Messianic Aleph Tav Scriptures[14] MATS Modern English & Hebrew (Divine Names) In progress Hebrew Masoretic Text, Hebrew and Aramaic New Testament sources. The Messianic Aleph Tav Scriptures ?? (MATS) is a study bible which focuses on the study of the Aleph Tav character symbol used throughout the old testament (Tanakh) by both Moses and the Prophets and is the most exhaustive and unique rendition of its kind in the world. Over 5 years in the making, this English rendition reveals every place the Hebrew Aleph Tav symbol was used as a "free standing" character symbol believed to express the "strength of the covenant" in its original meaning.
New Messianic Version Website NMV Modern English 2013 Maintains Jewish context of the entire Bible, using Hebrew names for God and Jesus, and translating Hebrew names of people and places
See also[edit]
Jane Aitken, first woman in the United States to print an English version of the Bible
Bible glosses
Byzantine text-type
English translations of the Bible
Gospel
Middle English Bible translations
Miscellaneous English Bible translations
Modern English Bible translations
Nestle-Aland Text
Pentateuch
Peshitta
Psalms
Psalter
Septuagint
Textus Receptus
Vulgate
References[edit]
Jump up ^ Bosworth, James (1874). The Gothic and Anglo-Saxon Gospels in Parallel Columns with the Versions of Wycliffe and Tyndale, 2nd ed. London: John Russell Smith, Soho Square. pp. xi–xii.
Jump up ^ Anna Paues (1902), ed., A Fourteenth Century Biblical Version: Consisting of a Prologue and Parts of the New Testament, Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Jump up ^ Review of The Comprehensive New Testament, 2009. Society of Biblical Literature. Retrieved 9 January 2012.
Jump up ^ The Kingdom New Testament: A Contemporary Translation, Harper Collins, 2011, ISBN 978-0-06-206491-2.
Jump up ^ http://www.ebible.org/
Jump up ^ [1]
Jump up ^ Sword Bible, King's Word Press, Inc. Retrieved 9 January 2012.
Jump up ^ "Online version of Murdock Translation of the Western Peshitto". Retrieved 31 March 2013.
Jump up ^ "Online version of Murdock Translation of the Western Peshitto". Retrieved 17 April 2013.
Jump up ^ "Online version of Murdock Translation of the Western Peshitto". Retrieved 17 April 2013.
Jump up ^ The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible. Retrieved 9 January 2012.
Jump up ^ http://ebible.org/
Jump up ^ [2]
Jump up ^ [3]
Catalogue of English Bible Translations; A Classified Bibliography of Versions and Editions Including Books, Parts, and Old and New Testament Apocrypha and Apocryphal Books. William J. Chamberlin. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1991.
External links[edit]
Bibelarchiv Vegelahn: English Bible translations, illustrated list with historical details and extracts from the publishers' Forewords
List of English Bible Versions, Translations, and Paraphrases – a very extensive list by Steven DeRose, with detailed information and links to online sources
[hide] v t e
English language translations of the Bible
5th–11th century
Wessex Gospels Hatton gospels Old English Hexateuch Old English Bible translations
Middle English
Wycliffe Middle English Bible translations
16th–17th century
Tyndale Coverdale Matthew Great Bible Taverner Geneva Bishops' Douay–Rheims King James (KJV)
18th–19th century
Challoner Webster's Young's Literal (YLT) Revised (RV) Living Oracles Darby Emphatic Diaglott Joseph Smith Quaker Julia E. Smith Parker Translation
20th century
American Standard (ASV) Rotherham's Emphasized Ferrar Fenton Worrell New Testament Moffatt, New Translation Knox Basic English (BBE) Revised Standard (RSV) Anchor New World (NWT) Modern Language (MLB) New English (NEB) The Bible in Living English New American Standard (NASB) Good News (GNB) Jerusalem (JB) New American (NAV) Living New International (NIV) New Century Bethel New King James (NKJV) New Jerusalem (NJB) Green's Literal Translation (GLT) Recovery Christian Community New Revised Standard (NRSV) Revised English (REB) Contemporary English (CEV) The Message (MSG) Clear Word (TCW) New Life (NLV) 21st Century King James (KJ21) Third Millennium (TMB) New International Reader's (NIrV) New International Inclusive Language God's Word New Living (NLT) Heinz Cassirer's translation Complete Jewish Bible International Standard (ISV) Holman Christian Standard (HCSB) New American Bible (NAB)
21st century
World English (WEB) World Messianic English Standard (ESV) Today's New International (TNIV) New English (NET) New English Translation of the Septuagint Orthodox Study Bible The Voice Common English (CEB) Apostolic Bible Polyglot Open English (OEB) Eastern Orthodox New American Bible Revised Edition Lexham English The Orthodox Jewish Original Aramaic Bible in Plain English Divine Name King James Names of God Tree of Life Bible Modern English (MEV) Shem Qadosh Christian Standard (CSB)
Additional lists
List of English Bible translations Old English (pre-1066) Middle English (1066–1500) Early Modern English (1500–1800) Modern Christian (1800–) Modern Jewish (1853–) Miscellaneous"

I have more than complied with your request. A work that you should have done yourself before you even started this thread and made the claims, false claims I might. I know you are young, but that is no excuse for being lazy. It is also no excuse for being stubborn. You can't accept that there is no authority that is singular. Now you may rank your faith higher than all the rest but in reality it isn't.
Atheists have an objective approach. We accept the facts as they are. we don't have an agenda. You certainly have an agenda, but the facts don't bare out what you WANT to be true. Quite the opposite.
Your vidoe is little more than a political propaganda piece and nothing more. It is based on false assunptions. I and others have more than proven that but you can't and won't accept it. You say that we haven't proved that fact but we have more than proved it. The thing about learnig is accepting facts no matter where those facts lead over propaganda and no matter what your agenda may be.
Now you have been reduced to jus apologizing and justifying your god. You tried to "sneak the validity of your god through a premise of "objective morality." That has been severely shot down.
Conclusion: 1) There is no overall authority supernatural or otherwise.
2) Morality is always, always has been, and will always be subjective.
3) Morality is determined by the society that dictates it and the environment that it is born out
of.
That's it, no more, no reason to go any further. If you want to say that there is a higher power an overriding authority that dictates an objective morality, you first have to PROVE that that higher power exists. You have failed to do that. In fact, you have purposely ignored that requirement. You have insulted everyone here by dismissing facts, saying that we have no authority or RIGHT to judge YOUR faith(scripture) when in fact, we were not judging but instead were questioning and scrutinizing, requiring the facts that just aren't there. When we said that you said something we quoted you directly, yet YOU have decided to twist our statements and make claims that are false about things we never said. That just pisses people off. people that have debated honestly and done the work that didn't do in the first place.
In otherwords, you don't know a damn thing. You are dishonest, and lazy. Your head is filled with propaganda that is solely based on FALSE assumptions. You keep asking me and others to do research work for you. Work you should have done in the first place.
You have no integrity, no credibility, and your claim has no validity.

whatistruth1838.146's picture
Mykob4,

Mykob4,

Thank you for your response. I have limited time to debate with multiple people alone so I am going to have to slow down my responses to give everyone's words the attention they deserve. You have leveled about 6 accusations/points which I believe should be addressed. I have summarized them and quoted them so you can see they were your words. If you do not believe I quoted them in context please correct my summary. Then I will address the summaries one by one. Here is the list.

1. Your video’s argument is based on assumption
a. The main flaw is that both are based solely on assumptions not proven.
b. I have said that given all the data, all the evidence that is proven that morality is not and can never be objective. Even in theory.
c. You in your arguments have given your god an authority, yet you cannot and will not prove your god.

2. Prove your God First Otherwise you are dismissing our arguments.
a. You in your arguments have given your god an authority, yet you cannot and will not prove your god.
b. you first have to PROVE that that higher power exists. You have failed to do that. In fact, you have purposely ignored that requirement.
c. If you want to say that there is a higher power an overriding authority that dictates an objective morality, you first have to PROVE that that higher power exists. You have failed to do that.

3. Scripture
a. You also made a false statement
b. You assume there is only ONE bible and there are more than a thousand bibles currently in use all different.
c. English Bible translations also have a rich and varied history of more than a millennium.
d. Because different groups of Jews and Christians differ on the true content of the Bible,

4. Objective for us; no objective for you
a. The answer is that there IS an objective standard to judge it by that being the burden of proof that it is fact which you ignore and fail to do.
b. You have insulted everyone here by dismissing facts, saying that we have no authority or RIGHT to judge YOUR faith(scripture) when in fact, we were not judging but instead were questioning and scrutinizing, requiring the facts that just aren't there.

5. We’re being honest and fair but you’re not
a. When we said that you said something we quoted you directly, yet YOU have decided to twist our statements and make claims that are false about things we never said. That just pisses people off. people that have debated honestly and done the work that didn't do in the first place.

6. You are wrong for having an agenda
a. Atheists have an objective approach. We accept the facts as they are. we don't have an agenda. You certainly have an agenda, but the facts don't bare out what you WANT to be true. Quite the opposite.
The thing about learning is accepting facts no matter where those facts lead over propaganda and no matter what your agenda may be.

whatistruth1838.146's picture
Your video’s argument is

Your video’s argument is based on assumption
I’m assuming that you mean there are two assumptions within the video. Number one that there are objective morals and number two there is a God. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Atheist will claim that God can neither be proven to exist or not. If this is the case then by your own reasoning which sounds like “assumptions are wrong to have in intellectual debates” you would have to say that we cannot assume that God exists and therefore objective morality exists However, by that reasoning we could also not assume that God does not exist and therefore we cannot say that there is no such thing as objective morality or the “theory of it” as you say. According to your own beliefs both my and your statement are not reasonable. Both of us are assuming (me assuming there is a God you assuming there is no objective morality without proving there is no such thing as God) Though I would say that I have my reasoning for the existence of God but have not yet discussed it and therefore because of my lack of communicating this on this thread it appears I am assuming but I digress. As an atheist with this belief about assumptions (if it is your belief) please clarify how you can say insulting things like “lazy, dishonest, etc” to me because you think I’m wrong for having an assumption (though you are assuming I have an assumption (i.e. because I have not yet provided evidence for the existence of God I therefore have none and therefore assume that God exists) but it is ok for you to hold an opposing assumption (that God & objective morality does not exist) if indeed you hold one).

There is only one assumption that the video truly holds to and its this: THAT MOST LIKELY YOU AND MOST HUMANS BELIEVE THERE ARE OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUES. That I would say is an assumption or belief that the video creators and myself would hold to. Sorry if you do not believe that there are standards that are objective that we should hold to. If you do not (though I believe that you do believe in objective moral standards like Hitler was wrong, murder is wrong rape is wrong etc in all cultures at all times), then there is no real obligation to obey anything or anyone. There is no reason other than self preservation. Because that guy has a gun and will shoot me/send me to jail/give me a ticket if I do not do what they say then I will obey his standard of morality. But in actuality if you took all power away, then without objectivity there is no binding reason to obey anyone or anything and a serial killer without any laws or power’s opposing him/her should not feel bad about doing what he wants according to his/her standard of morality. And again, who are you to say otherwise? Who is anyone to say otherwise? You can state well human life is iimportant, but who says without objectivity? You could state well evolution determined that human life is important/ any other number of reasons, but who says so without objectivity? You could give whatever scientific reason or what not but at the end of the day in a world without objective morality there is no real objective moral obligation that anyone has to anyone or any group of people. It may not be smart to be a serial killer in such a world but in that world smarts has nothing to do with morality because morality doesn’t exist. Morality in that world is simply this – opinion, and group opinion. When I say you have no right to judge my statements or the Bible, I am not saying foreign words to you on my own behalf. I am stating a fact from a world without objective moral standards. A world that you believe in. I am saying your own law that you generate when you do not belief in objective morality. That’s the point of the video. Without objective morality no one or no group of people have the objective moral right to call an action objectively good/bad and therefore all consequential actions of reward or punishment are arbitrary and meaningless. That’s the point of the video.

Also when it comes to the term morality.. which comes form the word moral. we are discussing essentially one definition. I am going to use the same site you used with the word moral which is what morality is derived from. Of the definitions the following is the most relevant to our discussion:
"of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior"
Yes it doesn't say God yes it doesn't say objective or subjective. But here's the thing. Principle's of right and wrong is what we are questioning. These principles are not inherently subjective. There is nothing within this definition that says that it is subjective. There's also nothing within this definition that says objective or God as you say. we therefore have to start to reason are right and wrong objective or subjective? Without God/objective standard they cannot be. that is the point of the video. This has implications for things as discussed or will be discussed in other responses here. We are not trying to prove God or not right now we are simply stating that there is no objective morality and that to agree with this means that you have to agree with it's implications logically. You don't have to in your free will but logically you would have to. That's all.

whatistruth1838.146's picture
Prove your God first

Prove your God first otherwise…
There is a reason why I am not ignoring or dismissing but rather putting on hold the arguments for the existence of God off until they are appropriate to this thread. Mykob4 I do believe that we need to discuss the existence of God but we do not need to discuss it before the premises are proven true and also we are discussing his existence by means of this premise though this is more of a proof by reasoning and that reasoning only exists if there is objective morality.

Imagine for a moment that we are all blindfolded in a room with an elephant. I am touching the elephant and I say to you as you sit in the corner away from us “There is an elephant in the room!” You say to me no there isn’t. I reply yes there is, here come over here and touch what I am touching I will prove that there is an elephant in the room to you! You reply “no, prove there is an elephant first then I’ll come over and touch it.
This is what is happening. We could talk for hours on the existence of God and indeed we will; however, it is not wrong to attempt to prove a surrounding premise first and to limit the discussion to that before all else (i.e. touch what I’m touching). I do not need to prove that there is an elephant in the room before I prove to you that I am touching something. Yes that something could be anything but we haven’t arrived at that argument yet. It is more efficient to build proofs and evidence and reasoning first and then go to the conclusion.
I do not have to prove that there is a God in order to prove that without a God objective morals do not exist. I simply have to prove you need an objective standard in order for objective morals to exist. That is the limit of our argument for this thread; everything else is great but inefficient at building this premise so we can work on the next one and then the next one. If we want to be efficient and thorough I feel that it would be best to stick to foundational topics and move on from there. Yes proving God’s existence is foundational. But we have to arrive there somehow and this is one of many premises that I am postulating to get to that conclusion. Some arguments need God first. But this is not one of them. Here’s a consequential question if I’m not being clear:
SINCE THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE MORAL STANDARD IN A UNIVERSE WITHOUT GOD THERE ARE THEREFORE NO OBJECTIVE MORALIS.
IF THERE ARE NO OBJECTIVE MORALS THEN THERE IS NO REAL MORAL REASON TO OBEY OR DISOBEY ANYONE OR ANYTHING OTHER. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GOOD PERSON OR BAD PERSON; NO SUCH THING AS GOOD OR EVIL
THEREFORE PEOPLE WHO ADHERE TO THIS BELIEF SHOULD NOT CALL HITLER BAD/GOOD; RATHER JUST THIS ONE FACT HE KILLED MANY PEOPLE BUT THIS SHOULD BE SEEN AS A NEUTRAL STATEMENT. WE CAN SAY THAT WE SUBJECTIVELY FEEL THAT IT WAS WRONG BUT WE KNOW THAT THIS SUBJECTIVE FEELING IS REALLY ARBITRARY AND MEANINGLESS RELATIVE TO ANOTHER PERSONS (A NAZI GERMAN FOR EXAMPLE) OPINION. THEY HAVE AS MUCH RIGHT TO SAY THAT IT WAS RIGHT AS I HAVE TO SAY THAT IT WAS WRONG ACCORDING TO MY VIEW OF AN MORALY OBJECTION-LESS WORLD.

whatistruth1838.146's picture
Scripture is not reliable

Scripture is not reliable because of the many copies and translations
This is not a very strong point and here’s how.
Your two main contentions are one there are many copies complete and incomplete and different translations that therefore prove the bible to be false.

If Christianity and God were true and real then:
There would only be one translation of the Bible in the entire world
There would be only one length of the Bible in the entire world (i.e. there would be 66 books that constitute the bible and those books would all have the same amount of words with no variations anywhere)
Every Christian everywhere would agree on the one translation and the one length of the Bible
However
There are multiple translations
There are multiple lengths of text
Christians Everywhere do not agree
Therefore Christianity is false

Regarding your accusation that I made a false claim by saying that there is one book that Christians use. Let me clarify. Main stream Protestant Christianity uses one canonization of scripture (the 66 books that were selected to compose scripture). There are other offshoots which people would not generally agree to be Christian (Mormon, etc) who do not use this version; however, mainstream Christianity would not say they are indeed Christian therefore they do not count for my statement. So you are right in that my statement could be taken as false depending on your defnintion of Christian and the Bible. However:

Regarding translation
Lets say we are in a class and there is one teacher and he hands out a syllabus for the course. He finds out that there are students of different nationalities who speak different languages. He therefore makes different translations of that syllabus. Are all of the syllabi therefore different and in disagreement?

Lets say someone had a time machine and transported native English speakers from the Elizibethian English Era, one from earlier, one from 100 years ago, and one from modern day. The teacher therefore made multiple English translations in order to help his students understand. Are those translations therefore not in agreement with eachother?

Regarding length
Let’s say that there were not enough copies so one student made copies of only different parts of the syllabus and distributed those different parts because of incompetence or whatever. Therefore eight students have different portions of the syllabus. Are those different portions not valid portions of the syllabus? Are those different portions in disagreement with the larger complete syllabus handed out?

If all of the different parts of the syllabus were compiled would they not have a complete syllabus?

In your long list of different copies and translations of the same text you haven’t proved that there is a disagreement between them… you’ve only stated what I have in my example above which is what history also affirms about the different translations and manuscripts which have been compiled and carefully examined by Christian and non-Christian scholars.

In regard to All Christians Agreeing Everywhere.
Lets say I had a red piece of payper lying on the table. I see it you see it but there is another man named Tom ColorBlindman. We both say that the paper is red he says it’s green. Is the paper therefore not red because we could not agree? Does our disagreement therefore delegitimize the objective nature of the paper? All else being equal the paper is red regardless of our observations however we have more reason to believe those who are not color blind than those who are.

Therefoere Christians don’t necessarily have to agree in order for something to be true. But what you are talking about is what belongs in the Bible which I agree should be discussed but this is another conversation about canonization. Again I AM NOT DISMISSING THAT WE SHOULD TALK ABOUT THIS.. ONCE AGAIN I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT AND WE SHOULD AND WILL DISCUSS THIS LORD WILLING. But right now that is another point. I’m only addressing your claim that we have to agree in order for something to be right.
On a side point what was put into scripture was not arbitrary but rather compiled using very lengthy debates scrutiny hermeneutics and other methods which the Church did for many years. Much education and careful thought was put into canonization but again this is another talk (I say this because I have had many discussions about God and know when it will derail on a particular topic).

Therefore all of your premises are not solid.
There can be different translations without disagreement
There can be different lengths without disagreement
Christians do not ALL have to agree all the time for something to be true.
Therefore Christianity does not conclusively false based on the examples I provided above which are analogies but those analogies communicate truths supported by history.

Sky Pilot's picture
whatistruth1838.146,

whatistruth1838.146,

Since you say that you are a Christian I must say that your are clueless about the most basic thing of all.

You said: "Regarding your accusation that I made a false claim by saying that there is one book that Christians use. Let me clarify. Main stream Protestant Christianity uses one canonization of scripture (the 66 books that were selected to compose scripture). There are other offshoots which people would not generally agree to be Christian (Mormon, etc) who do not use this version; however, mainstream Christianity would not say they are indeed Christian therefore they do not count for my statement. So you are right in that my statement could be taken as false depending on your defnintion of Christian and the Bible. However:"

I suggest that you don't have a clue as to how the Protestant Bible with its 66 books came to be. You should research that before blowing your leg off on other issues.

whatistruth1838.146's picture
Objective for us; no

Objective for us; no objective for you
“The answer is that there IS an objective standard to judge it by that being the burden of proof that it is fact which you ignore and fail to do.…You have insulted everyone here by dismissing facts, saying that we have no authority or RIGHT to judge YOUR faith(scripture) when in fact, we were not judging but instead were questioning and scrutinizing, requiring the facts that just aren't there.”

Number one… you or someone else said there is no objective moral standard so how can you say there now IS one. I’m going to assume that you are saying that there is an objective intellectual standard of debate on proving God first before anything else. I have already addressed why I haven’t yet earlier. If you are saying however, that I am a bad person because I haven’t adhered to this “objective” standard… again who are you to say if I’m good or bad. You can say it but it’s a subjective moral standard… in which case I shouldn’t take it to heart according to an morally objection-less world. I agree that there are ways of debating and I’m not disagreeing with you that there are. I’m just saying that according to the laws of your world if you hold to them (i.e. there are no objective moral standards) you can call me whatever you want good/bad.. but it doesn’t hold much weight. Even if it’s said collectively by multiple atheists. That’s a believe I would expect you should adhere to according to the rules of the morally objection less world.. but even me saying that is funny as I think about it because in that world you can do whatever you want and there really are no should lol. Very chaotic. I’m not arguing that because of chaos we should use God as a crutch like I can’t explain the universe therefore God-gap. (though I have thoughts on this). Rather I’m simply saying that Atheists throw around morality when according to their beliefs I’m not sure logically they should (morally whatever but logically no). .

whatistruth1838.146's picture
We’re being honest and fair

We’re being honest and fair but you’re not

I hope by my actions past and present I have proven otherwise. Otherwise if your statements have grounds I apologize for them and will try to do better. If others feel the same way then please let me know and I will seriously consider them and seek to change if I have been unfair/lazy/other. Thank you for your honesty!

whatistruth1838.146's picture
You are wrong for having an

You are wrong for having an agenda
I'm not sure if you are saying this but your words suggest a nuance of mal intent or malicioiusness for having an agenda.

Here it is: that all of you would come to know Jesus Christ as your Lord and savior and that we would all come to know truth. Where I am wrong I hope that you correct. Where you are wrong I hope that you correct. That is my "agenda".

If a man saw people walking over to a cliff and cried out to stop them from doing so is he wrong for his passionate actions? You may say that he is illogical or perhaps he is ill advised to think there is a cliff but I think that if I know a truth, especially one with eternal ramifications I will always seek to warn people of what I know given its heavy implications. How is this wrong if you are saying that it is? Perhaps its intellectually wrong you could say that but I think it speaks well of mine/anyone else s character to seek to save people if I believe that truth states that they need saving.

If you saw a fire in a building should you not say anything? especially if you have reasons to believe that there is a fire?
Why then should I not say anything if I see a cliff that other's are walking off?
If what I am saying is false then it shall fall apart but whatever is true shall stand the test of time for I am not speaking of my own accord or opinion but what is objectively true and worth saying and debating about.

CyberLN's picture
WIT said, " Yes objective

WIT said, " Yes objective morality needs an overall authority. It cannot be set by man otherwise its subjective..."

What I just don't get in all of this is that if a human determines that x is im/moral then it is subjective. But if some other being determines that x is im/moral and compels other beings to adhere to it, it's objective. Seems to me that if x is subjective for one being, then it's also subjective for another being. I can see exactly zero difference between the two just because 'authority' is thrown into the mix.

whatistruth1838.146's picture
CyberLN,

CyberLN,

Its not that one is a being that makes it subjective but the nature of that being that makes it subjective. Human beings are limited, finite, imperfect, etc. It is impossible for us to be the essence of anything teleologically. However, God is a completely different order of being. Scripture says that God alone is Good. he is not simply a good being but rather he is goodness itself. He is objectively what good is. Essentially good is a being God. This being the case then we have an objective standard to compare things to. Also the God of the Bible is unchanging and transcendent above time. Man cannot claim to be such therefore man is incapable of being or making principles that are objectively good. So again it is not that he is simply another being but that he is another order of being which is transcendent that makes it objective.

Secondly, just has citizens must obey the law of its ruler's or face penalties, just as a student must follow the sylabus of an instructor in the instructors class or face consequences, so to must we obey the regulations set forth by a God who created and owns everything. That would be the rational. Of course God has to be true in order for that rational to apply (which I believe he does) but that is the rational in a God (of the Bible) existing universe.

CyberLN's picture
I reject your assertions.

I reject your assertions.

LogicFTW's picture
Woah on this thread. Lots of

Woah on this thread. Lots of conversation back and forth with whatistruth. Hopefully he will have time to return back to the conversation he was having with me :)

We boiled it down to: "are thoughts objective?"

I think I have whatistruth cornered by using the definition of objective that whatistruth provided. Which works backwards from there, if thoughts are not objective, then morality can not be objective (It is a thought). If morality can not be objective then the common theist argument for god's existence that: "there is no morality without god, therefore god is real", argument falls apart.

I still await his reply :)

BTW whatistruth feel free to reply to my post far above, here to make it easier to find/read/follow. When you have time.

Even if he does not reply to me, I now have a much better understanding of this particular common theist "god is proven real" argument. :)

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.