This page has moved to a new address.

Refuting VenomFangx's video '"Traditional Morality (Objective) versus Modern Morality (Subjective)"

Friday, December 31, 2010

Refuting VenomFangx's video '"Traditional Morality (Objective) versus Modern Morality (Subjective)"

So seeing as Shawn (VenomFangx) has uploaded quite a few videos already and I intend to refute most if not all of them, it is time for another installment of “Refuting VenomFangx”. In this his entitled “Traditional Morality (Objective) versus Modern Morality (Subjective)” Shawn makes the claim that Bible has the only objective morality and that is has been changed over years so that we still use the words “good” and “bad” but they do not have the same meaning as they once did.

He starts out with a story from a book he read which entails humans revolting against science and killing scientists ect. But then a Renaissance occurred and people attempted to recover the scientific knowledge of the previous generations. The claim is made that they would still use the same vocabulary such as supernova but it might not refer to a star exploding but to, and I quote, “on page 300 of that broken book there is a diagram". Now I don’t want to dwell on this for to long seeing as the video is rather lengthy and I want to write about everything but I must touch on this quickly. Diagrams explain an event. If there is a diagram of a supernova it is explaining the event that is occurring. So if I were to say supernova they wouldn’t think “Oh that diagram is a supernova” they would think “Remember that diagram that showed a supernova?” That is the point of a diagram, to explain something, not take its place.

He then proceeds to say that traditional morality as he calls it was rebelled against during the enlightenment (let it be known that to him traditional morality come from the Bible which endorsed the stoning of disobedient children and the killing of a women if she was not a virgin at the time of marriage to name a few AND the fact that the enlightenment gave rise to some of the best virtues in western society such as freedom of speech, which he obviously uses, freedom of religion ect.) But now we get to move on to the fun stuff. These next points will be organized in the manner in which they are brought up in the video so watching it first might help.

Shawn claims that objective morality should be good but people with “standards” as he calls them are seen as bigoted and closed minded. Well let’s entertain the hypothetical, say there was a person named X who was timeless and lived forever. His moral standard consisted primarily of the slogan “I hate black people”. If he lived in the 1920’s that would be a fine position to hold. America was racist then. Then fast forward to the 1950’s. The position is still ok, not many people will argue him but if we jump to present day we would have people harassing him, calling him names ect and all because he kept the same moral standard that said “I hate black people”. Societies evolve and values change. People change and along with them their sense of right and wrong. Moral standards must change as well or the society will falter so if anything the changing of morals speaks to their strength not weakness.

The next claim that is made is that there is a Tao or Law of God which exists and must be followed yet anything can be said to exist but that doesn’t make it so (here he claims science can’t prove it but I shall come to that later). I could claim that the Magical Green Genie of JP’s Basement (‘twas and inside joke involving my friends Church) handed down a moral guide line and if it is broken the person shall be eternally dammed to unicorn hell. It’s absurd yet it has the same validity as the claim that there is a Tao or Law of God.
Now we come across some circular logic that goes a little something like this: The Tao says that man will reject what the Tao wants us to become and in turn we reject it and then it is said “that’s what the Tao said would happen therefore it’s true!” So broken down it goes like this. X said humans would deny it and when they do it means X is true because it foresaw that. This is a pointless argument so let’s move on shall we?
Here is where Shawn claims that science cannot detect the Tao or Law of God but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Well to start off almost everything that “exists” can be detected in some way or another (some cannot such as the concept of the number 1, things that are in our mind). The proponent would then claim that the Tao is one of those that cannot be detected but that is somewhat true. We cannot detect whether or not it is here but it had to have been written down somewhere (Shawn would say the Bible) and if we can test the validity of the book in which it is written down in, we can decide whether or not it is a reliable source. So the Bible for example claims that a flood covered the Earth and that Noah took 2 of every species. We can test that claim considering a) if there were only 2 of every species there would be massive in breading and thus massive birth defects would could easily be seen in the genome of animals b) the fresh water from the rain would dilute the saltwater and thus change the concentration of ocean salt which could kill all sea life AND the salt levels would drop and we could easily see that by looking at salt shoals. That is one example of something that is in the Bible that can be scientifically tested and if multiple stories or prophecies/things of that nature are shown to be reliably true than the Bibles validity is raised greatly and thus although we cannot detect the Tao directly we can test the source in which it is found and see if that source is reliable at all.

Well of course he went on to say that he doesn’t have enough time to prove the Bible is true and that might be true as well but it’s irrelevant. Until the Bible can be shown to be true than what is the point in saying it has the right moral guide lines (even though it endorses slavery among other nasty things). So to even go with his argument that our morals are just misinterpretations of Gods Law requires the assumption that the Bible is true and for this last paragraph I shall grant him that assumption.

He then said we should think about what we deem to be ok because we might be inadvertently damning people to a life of eternal torment because we didn’t follow God’s Law. He mainly referenced gay marriage and that we should be careful because it might be against God’s plan. Anything could be against his plan. Me writing this could damn me to hell for all I know but making something illegal because it “might” be against the plan of an unproven Cosmic Sky Daddy, with very questionable morals might I add, is utterly insane! And even if we were to go by the Bibles moral standards and go by Shawn’s logic that if something might damn someone to hell it mustn’t be allowed to occur, than the eating of shellfish must be banned (Leviticus 11:10-12), the wearing of fabrics made of more than one kind of fiber should be banned (Leviticus 19:19) and stoning disobedient children should become common place (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)

So Shawn’s claim that we have drifted from any form of objective morality only works if the holy book it is written down in is known to be true, not just claimed to be so. Also, science can test the validity of said holy book to determine if it’s reliable and thus the true Word of God.

I hope you enjoyed this post and if you have any questions or comments or you just feel like leaving me hate messages the comments are wide open and I do try to respond to all of them. Have a wonderful New Year and I shall see you in 2011!

VenomFangx's video

~~Peter «▼»



Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home