Comments by "Taxtro" (@MrCmon113) on "3 Things Everyone Should Know About Religion" video.

@christinabutterfield1801 They are often believed in in the same way you believe in Giraffes. The belief itself is not elevated to a virtue, they are just honestly mistaken.
6
1. Cars are very diverse, but when you get under the tires, your fate is the same. 2. Christianity and Islam are still in favour of slavery. It's just that many people, who call themselves Christians or Muslims, do not agree with this part of the religion anymore. 3. That's finally a good point. Many people overlook that religions come with a load of believes about the world, which influence every aspect of our lives.
2
@donthappybeworry5348 "For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." -Matthew 5:18-19 Jesus doesn't seem to agree that the "old covenant laws don't apply to Christians". Where exactly does the New Testament "denounce" slavery? Because it actually supports it: "“Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ”" -Ephesians 6:5-8 "Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse." -1 Peter 2:18 It seems like Jesus, Peter and Paul all disagree with you.
1
Somali Kid Wrong. Was the bible re-written or the quran? No. People still defend the slavers in those texts to this day. And they hold the reputation of the texts to be more important than the well being of their fellow men. Even if they were completely convinced of the false narrative, the truth would still be there for anyone in the future to find. That's pretty much what happened with flat earthers. Theologians hadn't believed in a flat earth for a very long time, but it's still part of the texts.
1
Somali Kid Let me indulge this red-herring: You don't find anything objectionable about slavery besides it being "economically obsolete"? You think that's the problem? It seems to me that you yourself are defending slavery in the attempt to defend religion (which happens all of the time and supports my point). You'd never do what you are doing right now if it were not for religion. There is nothing in the bible or the quran or in any tradition that says slavery is ok only in the "agrarian" era, making this objection extremely silly in the first place. But even if it was true, it would still make Christianity and Islam utterly morally bankrupt and we'd still have them corrupt the moral and intellectual integrity of their followers.
1
Somali Kid >Would you argue that your ancestors were inherently immoral, just because they had different values and perspectives on life? Yes they were. And I hope that my descendants will be better than me. >Had you yourself, lived in the agrarian era, you would have accepted slavery as just another form of labour. There were opponents of slavery during what you call the "agrarian" era and slavery was abolished while it was extremely profitable. The British Empire bought freedom for slaves at a massive price. Meanwhile abolitionists had an extremely hard time arguing their case, because of the strong support of slavery in the bible. Christianity and Islam allow and even encourage slavery. That should be the end of the moral analysis. If any non-religious ideology took such a clear stance, you would have no problem to condemn it.
1
Somali Kid >You believe, despite having no interest in any deity. What do you mean with "despite"? That if I found a god, who agrees with me that would make my moral intuition more authoritative? >that your morality is objectively correct That statement by itself doesn't make sense. There is what you call morality, the axioms, and there is conclusions. It has nothing to do with objectivity or subjectivity. It's about how you call things. However that you make the attempt to defend religion via the argument that the suffering of slaves isn't really "bad", because you have problems with the word bad, should tell you how weak your position is. Imagine someone claiming that the Loch Ness Monster exists and upon being challenged, he brings up Hume and Derrida. Not very convincing, huh?
1
Somali Kid You haven't understood a single word of what I just wrote, huh? There is a difference between the question of what you call morality and the question of what, for example, optimizes happiness. >I really couldn't care less by religion at this point You are only here to defend religion or have you given up on that? If so, congratulation. I haven't wasted my time.
1