All Episodes
Previous
Jan. 20, 2026 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
43:57
Atheists Can't Prove Ethics!
|

Time Text
God's Rational Universe 00:05:29
All right.
Welcome to freedommain.com slash delay to help out the show, but appreciate that.
There's a fellow who sends me messages, and lately his messages have been regarding UPB, universally preferable behavior, irrational proof of secular ethics, my proof of morality.
And he says, UPB doesn't prove why things are immoral.
Hume's guillotine, God-based morality, does.
When people abandon God, they fail.
Literally, all these people got effed up in life.
Highly successful people exist across the entire belief spectrum.
History and the present are filled with extraordinary, accomplished atheists, agnostics, non-believers, scientists like Marie Curie, Stephen Hawking, and Richard Feynman, philosophers and writers like Nietzsche Sartre and Camus, business and tech leaders like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, entertainers and thinkers like Ricky Gervais, Seth McFarland, and many more.
All these people got effed up in life according to the sky.
Morality is definitely God-based, not matter-based, and Christianity is the best of that philosophy.
So, look, of course, I get it's a teeny tiny bit of an incoherent rant, but I appreciate the passion, like I really do.
I really, really appreciate the passion that this gentleman has for these, you know, very, very important issues.
And I'm going to do my best to sort of respond to this as a whole.
Personally, I like to think myself that God would not make morality anti-rational.
God gives us reason, and reason is an instinct and a very powerful instinct that we have.
So God gives us reason, and it would be kind of cruel for God to give us a rational universe, minds that are intensely tuned towards rationality, and then say that morality has nothing to do with rationality, right?
That would be, because, you know, the purpose of life is to be good, to be moral.
And at least the purpose of life in a Christian universe is to be moral.
And it would make, it would be kind of cruel to give a rational universe and to give human beings a great instinct and automatic processing of rationality, right?
Kids know when things don't make any sense and they kind of give you that cockeyed funny look, a cockheaded funny, funny look and so on.
Right.
And so that would be kind of mean, right?
And I think that certain sort of pathological elements of religion where, you know, human beings have a sexual instinct and then you say, well, sexual matters or behaviors are really bad and immoral and all that comes from the body is bad because but to the girdle that the gods inherit below is all the fiends that Satan runs the body and the world and all of that like that.
That's just, I think that's kind of pathological, right?
So if God says to be moral is the greatest thing, I'm going to put you in a rational universe and give you great instincts and automatic processing of rationality and have that instinct and automatic process of rationality develop in a fairly autonomous way through your interaction with rational reality.
Oh, but the entire purpose of your life is the exact opposite of the universe that I've created, which is rational and objective, your instinct for reasoning, which I've placed within you, and that the entire purpose, that would be really crippling people, right?
That would be really crippling people.
And that would be like saying that the purpose of life is to hit a ball and then giving people epilepsy and blindness, right?
That that would be kind of cruel, right?
So it has been my belief that God did not create a purpose for humanity that goes to the complete opposite of the universe that God created and the rational and cognitive faculties that God placed within us.
So to me, the only fulfillment of God as a moral creature, as a moral being, sorry, creatures, not sorry, words, not like you've got tentacles or something, right?
But the only way that to me God could be fulfilled as a moral entity would be to say that morality is as rational as the universe I created and as objective and rational as the logical faculties I gave you in your mind, right?
The processing of rationality is automatic in humanity, right?
So if you say to a two-year-old, come here and go away at the same time, the two-year-old will be like, huh?
That doesn't make any sense, right?
If you say to a kid, I've given you an iPad, and you give them only a box with an empty, like with emptiness in there, and they would say, that's not an iPad.
I'd say, no, the picture's right there, but that's not an iPad.
That's just an image.
That's not the thing itself, right?
So we're born and grow up into instinctual rationality in a rational universe.
So of course, morality would have to be rational.
Otherwise, it would just be a setup, like it would just be a way of tricking you to go to hell or something like that.
Logical Contradictions Explained 00:08:46
So that's sort of number one.
So when he says that UPB cannot prove that things are immoral, yes, it absolutely can.
Not only can it, but it does.
So if you say, thou shalt steal, right?
If you say theft is universally preferable behavior, then you are incorrect.
And you are incorrect because if you say that theft is universally preferable behavior, then theft ceases to exist as a category.
If you say everyone must want to steal and be stolen from, but if you want to be stolen from, it's not theft, then if you say, thou shalt steal, theft is universally preferable behavior, then theft ceases to exist as a category that is achievable, and therefore you have a logical contradiction.
It is wrong.
It is an anti-rational, impossible formulation to say thou shalt steal.
Thou shalt not steal is fine.
If you say, thou shalt not steal, there is no logical contradiction in thou shalt not steal.
There is an immediate, you don't need any empiricism, right?
You simply need to look at the formulation of the argument to realize that it is immediately self-contradictory, like a square circle, like go north and south at the same time, like gases both expand and contract when heated, right?
So thou shalt steal is impossible to achieve.
It is self-contradictory.
It is wrong.
A self-contradictory statement cannot be true or valid, right?
If you say all men are mortal, Socrates is a man, but Socrates is immortal, then you have a rational mismatch.
You have a logical mismatch.
It cannot possibly be true that all men are mortal and Socrates is a man and Socrates is immortal, right?
It's the outer circle and the inner circle, right?
Sort of the Venn diagram, right?
The outer circle.
So the outer circle is all men are mortal.
The inner circle is that Socrates is a man.
So Socrates is a small circle within the larger circle of all men immortal.
And then you say Socrates is immortal, then Socrates is both in the circle and out of the circle at the same time when the two are oppositional.
So it's not, you can't be in two places at the same time, and you can't be both in the category of mortal and immortal at the same time.
Anymore, if I were to say to you, I need you to deliver the iPad to Newark, New Jersey, and also keep it right here, you would say, No, I can't both deliver it to Newark, New Jersey and keep it right here, assuming here it's not, of course, Newark, New Jersey.
So, yeah, you can't achieve it.
I need you to go on a business trip to Vegas and also be here at the same time.
I need you to be in Vegas tomorrow and here in Toronto tomorrow at the same time, you'd say, Well, I can't be in Vegas and here, right?
And Socrates cannot be both mortal and immortal at the same time, right?
So, so it's not possible.
Theft can never be universally preferable behavior because it immediately cancels out its own category.
Everybody needs to steal and be stolen from.
Everybody should want to steal and be stolen from.
Well, you can't want to be stolen from, and therefore, theft is destroyed as a category the moment you universalize it.
So, theft can never be universally preferable behavior, like it can never be.
And it's not a matter of empiricism, it's not a matter of time, it's not a matter of preference.
It is an immediate, self-contradictory statement to say theft is universally preferable behavior, aka thou shalt steal.
Impossible can never, ever be consistent or rational.
It is a logical self-contradiction.
It is absolutely impossible.
It will never be achieved.
It can never be achieved.
There's no possibility, 0% whatsoever.
It is as possible as getting into a cab in the suburbs and say, take me to the airport outside the city and take me downtown to the heart of the city at the same time.
The cab driver will tell you that's impossible.
And it's not just impossible now, or this afternoon, or tomorrow, or in Timbuktu, or in the Seychelles.
It is impossible to go two opposite directions at the same time.
Like having a theory that says matter attracts and repels at the same time.
It's not possible.
So, yes, that which is impossible cannot be the good or the goal, right?
This is foundational as well.
If the good has to be achievable and not impossible, if I were to say the good, the moral good, the only possibility for moral good is to live for three days without breathing or taking in oxygen in any way, then that would be impossible.
Something cannot be the good, the goal, the ideal, and impossible as well.
And so, the good must be the possible.
The good cannot be the impossible.
To saying that the ideal or what people should do is that which it is impossible for them to do would be a logical contradiction.
I'm sure we can agree with that, right?
If you were to say to an employee, or to, let's say, to a business manager, that the only way he would be considered as successful in running the business is if he both won and lost, like he had a profit and a loss of a million dollars by the end of the quarter in the business.
That he made a million dollars and lost a million dollars in the same context in the same time frame.
He would say, Well, it's not possible.
If I've made a million dollars, I have not lost a million dollars.
If I have lost a million dollars, I have not made a million dollars.
Therefore, it cannot be a good business practice or an ideal business practice or best business practice to both lose and gain money.
And I'm just talking about simple math.
I'm not talking about EBITDA or funky accounting things or money laundering.
I'm just talking about the straight numbers.
If you've made a million dollars, you haven't lost a million dollars.
Net, right?
If you've lost a million dollars, you haven't made a million dollars.
So if you were to say to someone, good business practice, best missing practice is to make and lose money in the same context.
Or if you were to say to an employee that I wish you to both succeed and fail in this project, I need you to both complete this assignment and do the opposite of completing this assignment, right?
If you were to say, your success is to build this bridge and also to do the opposite of building this bridge, then you would be giving them an impossible task, right?
Cannot be achieved.
You cannot both build the bridge and do the opposite of building the bridge as well.
Or if the goal is to repair, I'm sorry to labor at this point, but it's really, really important because this is just continual.
It's been coming at me for almost 20 years, right?
So I'm just going to hammer this point until there's no nails sticking up.
So I hope you'll forgive me for the repetition.
Let's say there's a bridge that's falling apart.
And you say to the engineer, your goal is to both repair the bridge and remove the bridge.
I need you to repair it to full functioning order and also remove the bridge completely and destroy it completely.
The engineer would say, I cannot both repair the bridge and return it to its proper functioning order and also destroy and remove the bridge.
Because in one of those situations, the bridge is repaired and there.
In another one of those situations, the bridge is removed and gone.
The bridge cannot be both there and not there at the end of this project.
You're going to have to choose one.
Do you see what I mean?
And if you were to say, I will give you $10 million in a bonus if the bridge is both repaired and gone, right?
The bridge is both there and repaired and also removed and destroyed.
I will give you $10 million.
That would be a way of saying to someone, I'm never giving you $10 million because to achieve that is impossible.
Empirical Evidence Matters 00:12:16
So yes, absolutely UPB can tell you what is immoral.
What is immoral is having it as an ideal.
Self-contradictory moral standards like thou shalt rape, thou shalt steal, thou shalt assault, thou shalt murder.
That would be immoral to have those as an ideal.
To have respect for persons and property, to refrain from initiating the use of force, is logically consistent.
Thou shalt not steal is logically consistent.
Thou shalt steal is logically self-contradictory.
Therefore, it is wrong.
Now, as far as people who are atheists who are failures, well, that's funny in a way, because that's saying that the truth or falsehood of a belief system is driven by empirical evidence.
So let's say, it's a bit cherry-picking, I get all of that, but let's say everyone who's an atheist or an agnostic, their life gets screwed up in some way.
Let's just say that.
I have no problem conceding everything and then looking for logical consistency.
So the argument would be that everybody who's an atheist or an agnostic, their life gets screwed up.
And therefore, we will judge atheism and agnosticism by empirical evidence.
Fine.
Okay.
So the truth or falsehood of a proposition, atheism, agnosticism, the truth or falsehood of a proposition is driven by empirical evidence.
Fine.
Where's the empirical evidence for God?
Right?
We're judging the truth or falsehood of an idea by empirical evidence.
Let's say every single person who's an atheist or an agnostic is screwed up.
Well, life gets effed up or whatever he said, right?
Okay.
I mean, okay, obviously it's cherry-picking.
There are lots of people who are religious whose lives get screwed up.
There are lots of people who are atheists whose lives don't get screwed up.
But let's concede the entire point.
I don't want to haggle over percentages.
Concede the entire point and say atheism is judged by empirical evidence.
Okay, great.
Where's your empirical evidence for God?
Because remember, empirical evidence is how you judge things.
Sean, fine.
Then show me the empirical evidence for God.
And if you cannot show me the empirical evidence for God, then don't tell me that a belief is judged by empirical evidence.
I won't have it.
It's bullshit.
And it's embarrassing bullshit.
It's partisan bullshit.
And I really hate that partisan bullshit.
I'll be honest with you.
I hate it on the left.
I hate it on the right.
I hate it among atheists.
I hate it among religious people.
I hate that partisan stuff.
So if you want to put forward a principle that says a belief is judged solely by empirical evidence, and you make up the standard wherein everyone who's religious has a great life and everybody who's an atheist has a terrible life or effed up or whatever you want to say, right?
Fine.
Okay, so then what you need to do is say, okay, so I've got a standard which says beliefs are judged by empirical evidence.
And in the absence of empirical evidence, the belief is falsified.
In the absence of empirical evidence that atheists have good lives, the belief is falsified, okay?
So you're saying, in the absence of empirical evidence, a belief is falsified.
Okay, where's your empirical evidence for God?
Everyone thinks that they have this sharpshooter rifle that only goes off on other people.
It's amazing, right?
They think that this nuclear strike they bring in on the city that they live in is only going to take out their enemies, right?
No.
If you want to say empirical evidence is how you judge the truth or falsehood of a belief, then you've got to provide empirical evidence for the existence of God or atheism is proved.
So you're trying to disprove atheism when you're in fact reinforcing atheism because atheism says, where is the empirical evidence for the existence of God?
Well, atheism says two things, that for something to be true, for something to be valid, for something to exist, right?
Because people say God exists, God is real, God is true, God is valid, God exists.
Okay.
So then we have a category called existence.
Excellent.
So we have a category called existence.
And that category is communicated.
God exists.
That category of existence is communicated by people who exist.
People who can't, who don't exist, cannot communicate about existence because they don't exist, right?
Someone who is aborted, a fetus that is aborted, can never be an adult who can tell you about existence or non-existence.
Sound waves, which is what you're listening to at the moment, rely on the presence and absence of sound.
Sound is there and not there.
The closer the frequency, the higher the pitch, blah, blah, blah.
So the presence and absence of sound waves is what sound is.
You cannot communicate anything, for instance, boo with a continuous tone, right?
If you try to communicate anything using a continuous tone, you communicate nothing in terms of intellectual content or conceptual content.
It doesn't communicate anything.
Silence communicates nothing in terms of intellectual content.
I guess you could say, well, if this is true, don't say anything, right?
But that's in response, right?
The initiation of silence.
If I just stare at you, I'm not communicating anything.
So light, reading, reading requires the presence and absence of light, right?
If everything is redacted and it's one giant wall of blackness or it's one giant wall of whiteness because there's no text or everything's blacked out, then no text is communicated.
So reading requires the presence and absence of light, right?
It requires light and dark or some contrast of some kind, right?
Or changing colors or whatever it is, right?
So, the presence and absence of something.
Braille requires the presence and absence of raised dots on a piece of paper.
So, there is no communication without people who are present, and there is no communication.
Even if people were present, they've left.
Like, somebody could be dead, of course, and they leave behind their writing or their recordings or whatever it is, right?
So, there is no communication without the presence and absence of things: sound, light, touch, and so on.
I mean, sound, light, and touch are the major ways of doing it.
So, if we're going to say God exists, then we have a category called existence.
The person who is saying God exists exists.
The person who is saying God exists to another person is saying that other person exists.
And how do we know that they exist?
Well, because their existence is not self-contradictory, and they are validating their existence through empirical evidence, right?
If I look at someone and I can see them, I assume they exist.
If I have doubt, I can go up and, I don't know, give them a me-too moment and touch their face and check that, right?
So, the person who says God exists is a person who exists, and we know that he exists because of rational consistency and empirical evidence.
Their existence is not self-contradictory, neither is it contradictory with their argument.
Because if a person who exists uses the existence and absence of sound waves to communicate verbally that God exists, they're saying that their existence is self-contradictory.
There's a category, their existence, sorry, their existence is not self-contradictory.
And there's a category called existence that is not self-contradictory and requires the presence of something.
The empirical presence of something, sound waves, light, touch, for audio, visual, and braille.
So, there's a category called existence, which is required to communicate that God exists.
And that category called existence has to be logically consistent and require the empirical evidence for the presence of something.
Sound, light, touch.
So, God exists creates a category of existence which requires logical consistency and empirical evidence.
I mean, can you imagine how strange it would be you're supposed to meet your friend at the street corner of Young and Dundas in Toronto at 6 p.m. on Tuesday, 6 p.m. on Tuesday, you show up, but he's not there.
And you call him, and he picks up right away and he says, I'm right here.
And you look around and you're like, Which corner, right?
And he says, I'm on the southwest corner, and you say, I'm on the southwest corner.
What do you mean you're here?
I don't understand.
And then he sends you a selfie, and you get goosebumps, right?
Because he's standing right where you're standing, sending you a selfie.
And you turn around, and behind you, there's a woman in the red coat, and you look at the selfie your friend sent you, and there's behind him there's a woman in a red coat, and he's standing right where you're standing, but he's not there.
And you send him a selfie, and you say he says, Well, that's weird.
I just saw this woman in the red coat, too.
I'm standing here.
It's the right southwest corner of Young and Dundas in Toronto.
It's Tuesday at 6 p.m.
We're both here at the same time.
Where are each other?
That would be like a supernatural horror movie, right?
That he's sending you a picture that he's standing right where you are standing, but he's not there.
That would be beyond eerie.
That would be impossible that you would both be in the same place.
And maybe you stand, okay, go stand right on that little subway grate.
And you both go stand right on that little subway grate.
And you send selfies of yourself standing on that little subway grate, then you would have to be in some alternate dimension because you could not both occupy the same space at the same time.
And you're both standing on a tiny little dot, tiny little subway grade, and you're both standing there sending each other selfies, videos even, and you're waving around and everyone's passing behind, like you, he does a video call with you, right?
He does a video call with you.
He's standing right where you're standing.
You turn around, the same people are walking around you, but he's not there, but you're not there for him, and he's not there for you.
That would be impossible, right?
Foundationally, functionally, in reality, completely and totally impossible, right?
So, people who say God exists, they have a category called existence, which is logical consistency and empirical evidence.
And they're using presence and absence to communicate that God exists, logical consistency and presence and absence, empirical evidence.
So, then they say God exists.
Existence is a category called logical consistency and empirical evidence, but God is neither logically consistent.
In fact, God is logically self-contradictory, and God, there is no empirical evidence.
And of course, there cannot possibly be empirical evidence for an entity that is self-contradictory.
You cannot have empirical evidence, for instance, of, of course, a square circle.
You cannot have empirical evidence of a square circle because a square circle is a self-contradictory entity which cannot exist.
So, of course, if people say God exists, they are creating a self-contradictory statement.
And they are saying that which does not exist exists because existence is logical consistency and empirical evidence.
And they're saying that for which is logically self-contradictory and for which there is not only is not but cannot be any empirical evidence, that the opposite of existence is in the category called existence.
In other words, logical self-contradiction combined with the complete absence or opposite of empirical evidence that existence equals non-existence.
Christianity's View on Charity 00:15:37
And that is not possible.
Now, let's take another example of morality.
So, Christianity, thou shalt not steal, and Jesus's exhortations for charity and kindness are always voluntary.
Jesus did not say you need to convince the government to steal from the unborn in order to give people money in the here and now in return for votes, right?
Jesus and Christianity are transmitted through the strength and resilience of the family.
So, when women got the right to vote, and immediately you start, well, very quickly, you started to see a large number of income coercive income transfer programs, old age pensions, unemployment insurance, disability, socialized medicine, and the welfare state, and then very quickly, you know, alimony and child support and things like that.
Which, I mean, obviously, men need to be responsible for the children that they have, but it's through the government, not through private contract.
So, when women got the right to vote, which drove the social programs, which then drove the attractiveness of Western countries or European-based countries to a lot of immigrants who were looking more for free stuff than freedom,
how well did the church do with violations of thou shalt not steal and the forcible transfer or the forced transfer of wealth from generally the more competent and more responsible to the less competent and less responsible?
The welfare state, from a Christian standpoint, is almost purely devilish.
It is almost purely demonic.
It violates thou shalt not steal.
It violates thou shalt not bear false witness because people can't even be honest about the coercive nature of it.
It certainly violates commandments against envy.
It promotes many of the seven vices: sloth, envy, greed, of course, and lust, because the products of sex are children, and this allows sex addicts to remain largely not responsible for the children that they produce.
So, of course, Christians are taught to be suspicious of women's lack of principles, right, through the Eve story and other things.
And look, I'm not saying I agree with all of this, but I'm talking about from the standpoint of Christianity.
From the standpoint of Christianity, the state is very dangerous, and women tend to be less conscious of and adhering to moral rules, right?
We all understand this.
So, the welfare state, and by that, I don't just mean welfare as a singular institution, but the welfare state as an entire cluster or series of programs designed largely to take money from men and give it to responsible men and women and give it to irresponsible men and women.
Or to be even more specific, the welfare state in general takes money from responsible men and gives it to irresponsible women.
And the welfare state was the beginning and the end, the beginning of the end of the West.
So, Christianity has, right at its heart and soul, the foundational absolute of thou shalt not steal, and charity must be voluntary.
And women are to be viewed skeptically as a whole with regards to their moral virtues.
So, how did Christianity do with the great test of demonic anti-morality known as, from again, from the Christian perspective, but I mean, also from a libertarian perspective, but from the Christian perspective, how did Christianity do in the great demonic temptation of the welfare state?
Driven largely by the votes of women that a lot of Christians are taught to be suspicious of.
Female moral autonomy in Christianity has not led to too many good things.
I mean, God is all kicked out.
I got Adam and Eve kicked out of paradise, right?
I think a fairly substantial negative, wouldn't you say, according to the theology?
So how did Christianity do when this great temptation of violently obtained free stuff was handed out to often, often, not always, but often the least moral in society?
Women who had children out of wedlock, irresponsible men who fathered children and then left them, abandoned them and so on, right?
And men and women who were drunks and drug users and, you know, just irresponsible people as a whole.
How did Christianity do with regards to many, many violations of Christian, absolute Christian morality?
How did Christianity do as a whole with this issue?
Well, it failed completely and totally and utterly, and in fact, sided with the devilish impulse to use violence and debt and enslavement to get things for free, which goes against almost all of the seven deadly sins.
It goes against at least half of the Ten Commandments and goes against the explicit warning about the dangers of women plus the state, women plus Satan.
That is the foundation of Genesis.
Now, how did Christians do in the past with this temptation?
And we can say, well, okay, that's kind of abstract and they really didn't know all the outcomes, even though it was clear that it was coercive, right?
And charity, according to Jesus, charity must be voluntary.
And here, it's neither voluntary nor charity.
And in fact, the people who want it aren't even paying for it, because if they were paying for it, there wouldn't be a giant ass national debt.
So we could say, well, in the 1920s, the 1930s, 1950s, 60s, 70s, you know, it was pretty abstract.
And, you know, you'd have to really be down on your theology.
I don't really think so, because thou shalt not steal, and charity must be voluntary.
Is, you know, if I put a gun to someone's head and make them give 20 bucks to a homeless guy, nobody thinks that that person has done a moral thing.
I've done an immoral thing.
And they've just tried to survive.
It has to be chosen in order to be moral.
And you force, like, it has to be consensual.
It has to be, everyone's into consent until it comes to the welfare state.
So how did Christians do with this?
And of course, I'm not just picking on Christians, other religions as well.
But this person is saying that Christianity is the best.
Okay, so if Christianity is the best, how did Christians do with the great demonic temptation of the welfare state?
Well, they largely cheered it on and celebrated it and continued to defend it as if it is God's greatest gift to the known universe.
In other words, if you were to go to a bunch of Christians and say the welfare state is immoral and corrupt and decadent and harms virtue and rewards vice, therefore the only moral thing to do is to abolish it and return to a system of private church-based charity or private voluntary charity.
What would happen?
And you were to make the theological arguments, what would happen?
Would the Christians say, ooh, you know what?
That's a really good point.
It is coercive.
It does rely on the power of the state, which is a secular institution and that is populated by a lot of non-Christians.
And it takes away voluntary charity.
It rewards vice.
It feeds the seven deadly sins and it punishes virtue and productivity and hard work and responsibility.
And therefore, it is kind of demonic.
And of course, it's not, it doesn't even pay for itself.
So it enslaves the children, right?
And Christianity, whatever you do, at least among you, whatever you do to children, thus also do you do to me.
Well, enslaving children through endless debt is not exactly virtuous, and so on, right?
So would the Christians say, oh, that's a great point.
You know what?
We have to really advocate for the end of the welfare state and a return to private charity and virtue and volunteerism and so on, right?
Would they say that?
Well, no.
I mean, look, of course, you could find individual Christians who would, but they would not.
They would not.
So when something is unambiguously, clearly evil, according to essential, basic Christian theology, one would expect Christians to oppose it.
And you could say, well, they didn't know at the time, but now the welfare state, in many instances, has been in for 80 plus years in some circumstances and situations, right?
I mean, the 1930s where a lot of old age pension stuff came in and so on, right?
So the evidence is in.
The facts are clear.
The result of this catastrophic failure to maintain basic Christian ethics.
This isn't, you know, some sort of complicated just war theory.
This is thou shalt not steal.
And for something to be virtuous, it must in fact be voluntary.
This is not complicated stuff.
Well, how have they done?
How has this gone as a whole?
Oh, I mean, it's not super complicated.
It has gone completely disastrously and catastrophically.
Hi, good afternoon.
Hi.
Could I get a Jesus?
One of the few times that Jesus showed extremely volatile anger and violence was with the money changers, the financial manipulators, and those who were usuriously ripping off the general population based upon their faith, on their desire to provide donations or to pay for the support of religion.
So based upon people's desire to be virtuous, they were being ripped off financially.
And he took a whip to the money changers at the temple.
So people's desire to be virtuous is to provide charity.
However, if they are putting the next generation into bottomless debt in order to pretend to pursue their virtues, then they are worse than the money changers in the temple.
A national debt is worse than the money changers in the temple.
Because the people who are getting their money changed at bad rates or bad interest, they are doing so voluntarily.
It is their choice.
It is based upon their faith, and they're not inflicting it on others.
But national debts, of course, are inflicted on the unborn, right?
The national debts are inflicted on those who aren't even around and have no choice or preferences or options, right?
And to enslave the young for the sake of the greed for virtue of the elders is not good, right?
It's not charity if you enslave other people in order to achieve your supposed good, right?
So how are Christians doing with regards to the question of national debts, of the national debt?
Are they saying, well, the one thing we absolutely have to do is to pay off the national debt?
Whatever burden we have to bear, we must do it because Jesus said that financial enslavement for the pursuit of virtue, trapping people into usurious or unjust financial arrangements is evil to the point where it's one of the few things that Jesus gets, I mean, almost murderously angry about.
Whipping people is pretty destructive.
So how are Christians doing with regards to the national debt?
Well, they're doing terribly.
They are demanding more and more.
And the Christians refuse to even talk about the national debt.
Like, for my memory, other than maybe H. Ross Perot, sort of back in the day, Ross Perot was talking about the national debt.
Because I remember there was an exchange where they said, you know, you don't have any experience.
He's like, yeah, it's true.
I don't have experience running a multi-trillion dollar debt up or whatever it was.
It could have been even hundreds of billions of dollars back in the day.
But Ross Perot was the last guy, and he was an independent, of course, right?
And he was the last guy to talk about all of this, right?
And they just made fun of him with his charts and his short stature and his sort of nasally voice and so on.
So they just made fun of him, right?
And so, and a lot of Christians got very angry at him because he took votes away from the Republican side, right?
And Donald Trump is a Christian, and a lot of the people who support Donald Trump are Christians.
And I've never, outside of Rothbard decades and decades and decades ago, I've not seen any one try to deal with the national debt or even talk about it.
It's not, certainly over the last couple of election cycles, it's not even a thing.
Like, you can't even talk about it.
So, there's that.
How have Christians been doing with regards to the world wars?
I mean, Christian leaders, a lot of them, mostly Christians, if not all Christians, started World War I and World War II.
And of course, people prayed to God to find out whether World War I or World War II were going to be good or bad things.
And I suppose God said they're going to be good things because 60, 70 million people died or were killed and murdered for the sake of these wars that were sort of one-two punch, in many ways, destroying the West.
How has that been as a whole?
I mean, it's not to pick on people, of course.
It is simply that from an outside standpoint, a lot of the great evils in the world are enthusiastically supported by Christians, even when those great evils go directly against the most foundational Christian ethics that exist.
This is not a challenge that can be overcome.
This is not a reality that can be ignored.
Why Christians Claim They Have All the Answers 00:02:47
And this is after 2,000 years plus.
This is after 2,000 years plus.
Now, if Christians had woken up and said, okay, this is all terrible stuff, we drifted from the faith, blah, blah, blah.
You know, clearly, you know, the church that advocates for all of these things is kind of on the demonic side or satanic side or devilish side or whatever, right?
But they haven't.
So by what standard are Christians saying, oh, we have the answers?
Now, this is Christianity where to get things wrong will send you to hell.
So if you are pro-welfare state or not moving heaven and earth to end it or pay off the national debt or anything like that, then you are taking the side of evil.
If you're taking the side of evil, then you go to hell.
So how many Christians are saying, well, gee, this is very clearly against virtue, against morality.
It goes against Jesus' teachings.
It is of the devil.
And therefore, unless we oppose it with everything we've got, you know, peacefully and with prayer and with sermons and then we all go to hell, doesn't matter.
So if you have a belief system that is reinforced by the direct threat of eternal torture, torment, and hell, or failing that, the promise of paradise and heaven versus non-existence or some sort of limbo or whatever it is, right?
So if you have the ultimate reward and punishment system and you still can't get anyone to follow your rules, then excuse me for thinking there has to be a better answer.
Because to me, this is like a bunch of people praying for health as opposed to developing market-based modern medicine.
These are people saying, well, no, you can't have your scientific medicine, bro, because we're just going to pray for people's health, which doesn't work.
So, you're saying, well, you kind of have your philosophical, rational virtues, because we've got our Christian virtues.
For what?
For what?
For compliance with evil?
Even with the threat of heaven, the threat of hell and the promise of heaven?
Nah, come on.
It's not the answer.
It's not the answer.
It's not an answer that works.
It's not an answer that's real.
As I said before, Christians can't even decide on whether people have to earn forgiveness or not after 2,000 years.
So, yeah, it's not a real thing.
It's not even close to a real thing.
We need a better answer.
Freedomman.com slash on it.
Export Selection