Just wanted to point out, our knowledge of the morality standard is necessarily intersubjective (grosso modo: we can't learn that honesty, love etc. are "good" by ourelves, we need society for that), which means it is synthetic. Now, as you clearly implied, our knowledge that honesty is moral is a posteriori knowledge. These two premises make any moral judgement ("dishonesty is immoral") a synthetic/a posteriori proposition; rendering God (or god, or whatever) completely irrelevant.
A quick thought- In 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 it talks about God sending a delusion so people would believe the lie and so be condemned, but the reasoning the verses state God does so is because they refused to love the truth and be saved. Hmm....
If a man refuses to love the truth, would God sending man a lie for him to love be an act of mercy?
This would seem to better co-inside with all Romans 1 and many verses dealing with God desiring all to be saved. Meh what do I know :P
@ChrispyTheology777 Probably; but a quick glance at that argument will show that his actions are inconsistent with his nature. Going a bit deeper will show how some values (loving the Truth) appear to be more "valuable" than others, and this creates some serious inconsistencies with what we believe morality to be. Go a bit deeper and you'll find a world of fallacies and inconsistencies waiting to feast on your sanity.
A healthy, happy, flourishing society deserves examination in my view. You and your fellow debater for Christian morality both enjoy the practical presumption of a peaceful majority, you try to isolate it. It's typical American spray-on culture really. You both dispose of violence in your own way, then conscript peace and love into sickly optimism when surreptitiously "unnecessary suffering." That is murder too.
In a few debates with Christians, mainly creationists, I've accused God of narcissism through his need for constant praise and thanks. You're far more articulate than me at making these arguments, I was wandering what your views are on this.
It is true that some with non-theist concepts become increasingly atheist as they become educated but the reverse is also true: those who have reasonably strong theistic views are polarised to their views. What does that tell us? Not actually very much at all.
No it proves my theory; atheists are only 7-8% of the population (see recent Gallup poll). In my own country alone, creationism is a minority belief amongst Christians and the greatest threats by far to science here is both atheism and pantheism. There is no evidence that your faith is actually deminished as you are educated, only that naturalists spend more time being educated and that naturalists are more likely to be atheists anyway.
@AtheistTower That's utter bullshit. Atheists make up a 3rd of the world's population. Many developed countries are increasingly atheist, and in fact, the most atheist countries are, by correlation, not necessary causation, the most well off. You AREA aware atheists have been around since prior to christianity right? Atheism...hell MATERIAISM is older than Christianity by centuries upon centuries. There is evidence that faith diminishes with education, via deconversion of college students en mas
Creationists? Why even bring them up; there have always been more Christians that believe in evolution than atheists. And further more I see atheists rejecting science when it doesn't agree with their personal views; they reject that an unborn human is human because it's inconvenient, many atheists reject using genetic engineering on the basis of paranoia and their own nature-worshipping philosophy; and yet you think that Christians are the enemy of science?
@AtheistTower "Why bring them up if there have always been more christians that believe in evolution than atheists Bullshit. In the united states more than half the country believe evolution is a fraud. "And furthur I see atheists rejecting science....they reject that an unborn human is human because it's inconvenient" What? What science says a zygote is a human being? None. I know this because that's an arbitrary ontological definitoon, not a scientific subject.
@AtheistTower Yes, christian fundamentalists are enemies of science. Islamic fundamentalists, and a lot of muslims actually ,are enemies of science. New age hippy woo woo people like Deepak Chopra are eneies of science. However, you cannot possibly, in any way, logically draw a line from atheism, to anti science. you can't do it. "Many atheists reject using genetic engineering" Who, and why? You understand that atheism in no way is the 'worship of nature' right?
Yeah the problem is, you're asserting that there is NO evidence, when there is. Simply not evidence that agrees with the narrow-minded terms and conditions that you specify for it. Why should the creator of the universe play by your rules? So your rejection position is a false assertion based again on your own views of the rules of evidence based reasoning. I can use evidence-based-reasoning to see God, I can use logic and philosophy to see God, it isn't difficult to see him.
@AtheistTower Ok, WHAT evidence do you have that don't boil down to arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity, or any other logical fallacy? There has never bee a defined god that either A. has been demonstrated to exist in any way, or B. has a useful definition so that it makes sense to call that thing God(I.E. "God is love!" But we already have a word for love, and we understand love, and it's not a supernatural thing.)
It's odd that Epy uses a "hardwire" assertion in support of objective morality. Hardwiring is completely transitory, and it is only true for our species at the present time. Evolution of our "hardwiring" will change and has changed. In all populations there are "deviant" behaviors that are "hardwired" into that sub-population. If selective pressure favors that behavior in the future, the "deviant" behavior may well become the majority behavior.
haha ''do rapists like ourselves desire a flourishing society etc etc..''. As usual a very well thought out sequence of good arguments though . I would like to collaborate on a vid with this guy,
I've thoroughly enjoyed your most-viewed videos, TB.
However, while I get your arguments, I find it relatively difficult to grasp the overarching structure of it all. I'm sure that said structure does exist, but it's not made clear.
I suggest publishing text transcripts of your videos, broken up by paragraph. I think you must create some kind of text before/while you make these videos, so hopefully you could publish it with a minimum of effort.
Objectivity applies only to minds. Values are arrived at through an objective process of logic and reason. Only rational beings can hold the concept of value which further reduces to life as their base. Without life as the base no values are possible.
If there is or is not a GOD, if we evolved or were we created... the bottom line is: we all know what is morally right and what isn't and if we ALL would behave accordingly then the world would be much more peaceful place to be. If Christians would actually live by the words the cram down everyone's throats, the world would be a much more peaceful place to be.
I would have used God's deceiving Adam and Eve by telling them that they will die if they eat the fruit as an example of God's lying, but whatever. I suppose your example is less vulnerable to theist's apologetics ("He meant that they will eventually die, of course!") than mine.
i honestly don't have the patience to argue with theists who use the moral argument. it's obviously contrived so that they can feel morally superior to atheists.
why do you think theists spend so much time talking about morality?
@henriktor Pause the video at any time and he'll be making a funny face haha but watch the video normally and you'll never see them. Haha but seriously thanks for putting your videos up they're really interesting
If you would like a better insight into human behavior, I would suggest reading "Nature via Nurture: Genes, Experience, & What Makes Us Human" by Matt Ridley
What I saw Epy doing was equating "objectively true" with "objectively moral"- He's literally changing your argument to fit his views. What we do with the objective truth is subjective. thats where the morals come in. take the facts, "rape causes suffering to the one who is raped" and then decide that suffering is bad(nobody wants to suffer) and come up with the moral. It isn't the case from the start that the objective fact constitutes an objective moral
I promise I'm not "stalking" you, but I enjoy your videos so much, I am watching them all. What a great job evolution did when you were created. Your mind is such a brilliant one, and I would be remiss if I didn't mention this, but your physical being is also a great creation. I think like you, but I cannot now, nor ever shall be, as articulate as you are. Thank you for expressing such valuable information.
Three minute philosophy summarizes all this bullshit, and is funny to boot. Epidemic is on the Descartes/Aquinas side of things, and Theretical is on the David Hume side of things.
Check out Three Minute Philosophy by college binary. It is very insightful, but funny. Seriously.
I wish that you spent more time developing your own views and not tearing apart this other guys. You and I both know that tearing apart this guys view wouldn't advance your own theory of morality which you barely even spend much time on in both of your videos. In your previous video as well as this one you spend more time rejecting the Christian view of morality.
I'm not convinced we have no hardwired morals via evolution. the desire for a functional society, as an example, would be evolutionarily advantageous. In addition, it is possible that respecting human life is in fact hard wired into us, and that Hitler was a sociopath. in other words, that Hitler did not value non-Aryan life is so far removed from normal human behavior that we actually label it as pathology
we do have "hardwired" evolutionary morality. As morality is a value system and our biology is a informing factor in our value system.
an example would be "instinctive protection of the young" or "sympathy for suffering" or any other emotional based value.
we hold sex and violence to be the most sacred values, though out time and culture. This is not a logical choice but an emotional(biological) appeal to these.
In Canada, until 1938, making fun of baldness was punishable by mauling by woodland bear. The reason it was such an effective form of punishment was that the woodland Samaritan act if 1918 made it illegal to due any undue harm to a woodland creature. So not only could you not fight back, but you were posthumously guilty of illegally feeding wildlife.
Don't know if I'm beating a dead horse with this, but I want to clarify one thing. The story of Elijah is not about baldness, it was the fact that the children were making fun of a prophet of God that pissed him off. Granted I still don't think the response those kids got was appropriate, but it does coincide with the notion that the Christian God is a jealous God(Biblical 1st commandment). Why an all powerful deity need be jealous is beyond me, but I figured I give my humble bit of input.
@shotinthedark90 "All you've said is that our intuitions are toward survival, not that survival is intuitively good."
If we assume the contrary, that survival is bad, then we destroy ourselves.
Simple.
It becomes the only choice. Any creature that comes to the idea that survival is bad offs itself. And the victors write the history books. :) (the ones who think survival is good)
So sorry, but what is to stop someone who has such a relativistic view of morality from concluding that there is no such thing as morality at all, that it is a superfluous myth?
I understand that you think most people value a decent society and less suffering, but what makes you so sure that those are "good"? What if by the Zeitgeist of some society the people decided those things were worthless? On what grounds would you criticize them?
@PageofLegend Most contemporary theologians view the Euthyphro dilemma as a false dilemma. It's not that things are moral because God says them or because God says them because they are moral. They are moral because they are the ESSENTIAL PROPERTIES of God. It's like saying, why does 2+2=4? Is it because we say so that it is so, or is because it just is so, and that's why we say so? Well, neither. Look into Kant's explanation of synthetic a priori propositions or william lane craig's explanation
@Saltheigh Feel free to toss whatever you like out there. It doesn't mean that it holds water in any way, shape, or form. Your claim is pure nonsense. The idea that in a mindless universe 2+2 would not equal 4 is ridiculous. These are mind-independent concepts (i.e. transcendent). These are similar to the rules of logic. Your statement is beyond ignorant.
@barifkin31 'Course, if you were, say, a mathematical anarchist, and sincerely believed that our current math system causes unnecessary pain and suffering to humankind, you could create a new system of math in which 2+2=5, and urge others to believe in it. As long as 2+2 and all possible variants always equals 5, then you have a logically consistent system. Congratulations, you've just created a new math. Good luck convincing others to throw out the old one, which is perfectly fine.
@Saltheigh You have a very weak grasp on mathematics, philosophy, morality, and reality in general. I'd recommend not venturing out of your computer cave until you develop skills necessary to function properly in society. Your gross misconceptions only show how your education has failed you. Read up Peano's axioms or Godel's incompleteness theorems. Silly silly internet ranter.
I watched this exchange between TB and Epydemic and to me it's like watching a professional football team (TB) playing a high school football team (epydemic). Epydemic is so out matched that you know what the result is going to be long before the kickoff. You might think the high school team has some attributes that might put the professional team to work but at the end of the game you are there saying, yeah, yeah that's pretty much what I had expected. A total shut out, TB 42, Epydemic 3.
Hey dude, Nice video but could you consider speaking a little slower or writing some more text or some kind of diagram on the video of what you are saying because it's really hard for a non native speaker to follow your argumentation properly without losing the overview and what your are saying is so sophisticated that everyone should have the possibility to understand you!
I really encourage everyon watching this to go to "Three Minute philosophy" and check out the philosophies summarized there. This guy is earnest enough, but his work is clearly derivative of the great philosophers summarized in the "three minute" videos. Also, Three minutes" are pretty funny/
@JEJMDTD Also, this guy promises "footbal metaphors" and uses ONE metaphor - and he does that inappropriately! He call the Christian guy "quarterback", and then spends 10 minutes arguing with the "Quarterback"! Everyone who has ever played football knows that arguing with the quarterback is FORBIDDEN in the huddle. (Hollywood BS notwithstanding)
@Oddstacks Punishment is suffering inflicted with the intention that the one being penalized will either be less inclined (fines) or unable (jail) to cause needless suffering to others in the future.
My brain is mandated to meander over minutiae for some reason. One can still have the highest respect for and value placed on human life and be a serial rapist. Saying rape is bad is a rights statement, not a right to life statement.
Watch out with that Elisha story. You're gonna get a lot of "They weren't children, they were called "youths" meaning Compton street gangs who drink the blood of sacrificed virgins' broken hymens and rape crocodiles to prove their manhood."
I know that this response is astonishingly grade-school level, but I just can't help but believe that, since action X can go from being seen as immoral to being seen as moral from the viewpoint of observer Y by the simple application of a magnetic pulse, where the heck "god" can fit into the equation at all.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I used to be like you. A 25 year old kid who's faith and heart were empty, who tried to discredit God with evolutionary dogma. Thank God I grew up, and if your're lucky you will to :)
@VicFranklyn So you're saying you turned from an atheist into a christian? Would you mind sharing your experiences that converted you?
You mention that you grew up, stating that denying god is a sign of immaturity and acknowledging him is a sign of maturity. In what way is one's belief classified as mature or immature? Just as you have said it is immature to not believe God, I can say it is immature to blindly accept something because you can't explain otherwise. What say you?
Pfft. Somehow, I doubt that. For one, TheorecticalBullshit has enough mental prowess to realise that evolution and the concept of a god are not mutually exclusive.
"Thank God I grew up"
You're laughable attempt to patronize TB says otherwise.
@VicFranklyn as if your objections hold any weight whatsoever. Your blanket assertions that evolution is 'dogma' is laughable - it's evident that you fail to realise what dogma even is. If that is supposedly granted to be fact, what does it change? It still fails to provide any support to the implicit notion that the biblical portrayal of Yahweh exists.
Oh, and I like how you blatantly misrepresent our views. We're not objecting on the basis of evolution.
@BionicDance It still bugs me a little that you blocked me for trying to answer the last version of your "challenge" on objective morality through civil conversation in the comments, but since you recently equated victory with being blocked in this manner (via SchlockofGod), I've at least gotten some ironic consolation. Good luck with your new 'sincere' quest for proof.
The Christians have a stronger all around game. They give 110% for the whole game, and work together better as a team. The Atheists have a questionable offense, weak defense, and spend most of their time arguing with each other. That is why Christians can run it right up the gut of the Atheists, and use their strong running foundation for a dazzling air attack. Christians 35 Atheists 0
@Lazyintellectual4 Oh lighten up. Have you seen "three minute philosophy"? The guy does three minute summaries of the world's great philosophies. Also, he makes it funny. You and the other guy should check them out.
Also, you really should put more football metaphors in your discussion. I really feel gypped on that!
@JEJMDTD Christians have no game at all. Being an atheist that can intelligently defend their own worldviews can take a lot of education and time, but Christians have not come up with a new defense that hasn't already refuted a million times over.
You probably think a Christian's better "game" comes from them all having a consistent defense while atheists all scatter theirs. They don't. Christians ALL value Christian values differently and are just as "inconsistent". Every single one. Even you
@TheHairline Christians have a much better game than atheists. As noted, atheists get about halfway into the game, become nihilists, and leave the field, discouraged that there is no point in anything. Or better yet, they all commit suicide. Christians, on the other hand, play a team game, helping out the next guy on the line, and takeing help from the other guy.
@MNSDaz I really have a hard time distinguishing between atheism and nihilism. I mean, if we are not here serving a higher purpose, what's the point?
Also, I have to say, based on an unscientific observation of the people I happen to have met, that atheists are the most miserable bunch of people I have ever seen. Really, nothing scientific, but atheists tend to whine and complain and carp and argue. They are generally unpleasant.
@JEJMDTD interesting, i would say the same thing about christians. but i know enough not to base assumptions off of a small number of personal observations.
as for a higher purpose-- why would you need a higher/ultimate purpose to live? i find smaller, relative purposes just as meaningful. you get to define your own purpose, and not try to mold yourself into a pre-existing expectation. i don't believe in an ultimate purpose, but this does not make me a nihilist.
@MNSDaz You would say you have a hard time distinguishing between Christianity and nihilism? ;)
Why do you need a higher purpose to live? Well, I just do not see the point of existing simply to take up space and move though time. And how do you know that your "smaller" purposes are "just as meaningful" as my higher sense of purpose, if you do not have a higher sense of purpose?
I did not say lack of purpose makes anyone a nihilist. It sure doesn't help though.
The is very arrogant and unpleasant of you Christian to assume someone has no purpose to live, might as well say they have horns or some other self-serving dehumanizing propaganda…
@Hexdoll Well atheist - what IS your purpose to life? I am not being arrogant (maybe unpleasant - depends on you really) - I really do not see any point in living if we are not serving a higher purpose.
As an atheist my purpose in life is to have a comfortable, happy existence and to do my best to extend that experience to my friends and loved ones. After all, there is one and only one life I'm sure to have and it would be foolish of me to throw it away or suffer needlessly because I'm not obeying the will of some invisible dictator. And on top of it all I am moral because I understand as a social animal that if I want to enjoy life I had best respect my peers' rights to do the same.
@bloodyinkpen So I guess strangers, people in other countries, that is, your fellow man outside your scope of existence may as well not exist? That must be nice, cruising through life in world where you are part of the 20% that consumes 80% of the resources, and tough crap on those people starving to death or beset by diseases. Out of sight, out of mind. How nice for you!
@JEJMDTD What's that got to do with anything? I actually do do my part to try and lessen the suffering of those less fortunate than myself, as again, as a social creature I understand that I should treat others with the same treatment I'd desire in their position. That doesn't mean I shouldn't enjoy my own life in the meantime. Again, it's the only one I have, I'm not going to waste it suffering needlessly or serving non-existant deities.
@bloodyinkpen If your desire for "comfortable, happy existence" extends only to your "friends and loved ones" because that is the limit of your understanding, then the majority of the world is outside your scope of caring.
However, if you are extending your charity beyond what you can see based on your belief that there is suffering, are you not responidng to the "will of some invisible dictator" (ie your "sense" of right and wrong, and your "belief" that you are helping?
@JEJMDTD Point A is pragmatism. I can't save everyone, so I do what good I can.
As to the point B about responding to the will of an invisible dictator, not at all. I don't have a sense or belief about it at all. My morals are based on rationality. I treat others with kindness and respect and decency because that's how I want to be treated in return. If I cultivate that behavior in myself I help cultivate it in others. That's what being a social animal is all about.
My purpose is to live freely and to try to help others do the same, everything else is just butter. You need have the courage to take responsibility for you own purpose, on your own terms or you might as well be cattle..if you feel that religion offers that purpose then serve it and be happy doing it, just do not think we all need that option.
You don't have a "higher" purpose, JEJMDTD, because you don't know why god created the universe, and without that knowlegde, your claim is presumptuous
Ask yourself this, what's the point of creating a universe if you're omnipotent and any goal you desire to acheive is instantly obtainable?
And in light of this, what other purpose can there *be* for your existence, other than to be a plaything for a bored god? There's your Nihilism, mate. Enjoy.
@MNSDaz Also, if possible, I would like you to incoprorate football metaphors into your response. This guy promised football metaphors in the title of his video, and somebody should throw the penalty flag on him for false advertising. there was like one metaphor?
@JEJMDTD Why what is the purpose of a Christian? To get into heaven and stay there forever? Doing what? What is higher purpose? To do someting that an Allmighty could do just as well without you? Christians want happiness after they die, atheists want happiness before they die. I can not see big difference here. Except of course that happiness after death is completly irrational, illogical. While we have some proof that happiness does exists before death.
@adamkoncz I assure you that all the Christians I know pretty much like being happy. So stop being silly.
The question of human suffering and our responsibility to our fellow man to alleviate it is complex. Perhaps you should actually consult Christian thought leaders before deciding whether our approach to this conundrum is worthy of your breezy, thoughtless dismissal.
@JEJMDTD Funny thing is that for some reason you have not anwsered to that simple question that "What is the purpose of a Christian?" I have asked this many times from many Christian and not one of them could answer anything else than the general Christian crap. "God or Jesus is the purpose. To serve them. To love them." And for what reason? "you gain your salvation, you go to Heaven etc." Maybe serving your imaginary friends is enough for you, but personally I think it is insane.
@adamkoncz Did you know Mother Theresa expressed sincere doubt in the existence of God? She wrote of her doubts extensively in her autobiography. Yet she perservered in her mission to alleviate suffering.
Do you think coming to the conclusion that we are indeed serving a higher purpose is an easy thing? do you think that finding such devotion, and how we come to it, is easily described in words?
@adamkoncz Christians are really dumb, huh? Unsportsmanlike conduct. Harrassing the poster. 15 yards.
Generally speaking we exist to serve God. You find that unsatisfactory, but given that Xtians beleive God created everything, God gave us all choice, and God made us all unique, how we come to serve him would be a highly individualized, personal matter, wouldn't it?
I guess that is what I was trying to point out with Mother Tersa, but you did not get it.
@JEJMDTD Brilliant. Now I am absolutely speachless. So you claim that serving an Allmighty who actually does not need your servitude is somehow higher purpose than trying to make the world better not because God told you so but because it makes you warm and fuzzy?
The other thing is that who decide which is the proper way to serve? As you said the servitude highly individualized, personal matter. Almost as it is serving God is not different than serving your own desire.
@JEJMDTD You dont know whether God exist or not. (M.T did not know) You do whatever satisfy your self ego and justify it with God's will. You might help the sick, you condemn gays, or start a crusade. As a Christian you can be a saint or an evil bastard, just like an atheist can be. The difference is that you use God as a blanket. The question is, how is that blanket of yours makes your desires more purposeful, more important than an atheists?
@adamkoncz I assume that believing that you do God's work indulge your self importance. Just dont forget. God (if exists) does not need you to do his work. You are doing it for yourself and yourself only. And all the work you have done in your whole life is nothing that God could not do in a second. If He really wants to, if the work is important to Him!
@adamkoncz Clearly you can assume whatever you like. Clearly you can ascribe atever motivation you feel is appropriate to other people's actions.
But it sounds like you understand Free Will. I do not need to do God's work. But I do it anyway in the belief that God does care that I act as a true Xtian.
I know my works have served to benefit a lot of people. Yes, it feels good. Is that a bad thing?
@adamkoncz Yes, Christians regularly sin. They make bad choices either out of greed, malicious intent, or some other venal motivation.
However, it is incumbent on the Christian, upon recognizing that they have sinned, toask forgiveness and try to make amends. Failure to do so permanenely separates them from God's love. It is called redemption.
As an atheist, you perform atrocities for whatever venal purpose, but since it benefitted your personal agenda, all the better for you. Correct?
@JEJMDTD No, it is not correct. As an atheist I also have conscience, I feel remorse. Just like almost every other person on the planet. Do not try to expropriate human emotions on behalf of your religion. Just because morality is subjective it does exist. If anybody with emapthy does something against his morality (based on his culture) he will be afraid, he will feel remorse. It is no magic. It is social behaviour.
@JEJMDTD Congratulations I think this one is called "Reductio ad Hitlerum". Saying that an atheist can not have conscience, because he is an atheist is rather disgusting. On the other hand now you just have to prove at the minimum that there is no atheist with a conscience. If you really want to prove yourself right you have to prove that no person other than Christians have conscience.
@adamkoncz First of all, congratulations on mentioning Hitler. You fulfilled Godwin's law. ANOTHER 10 yard penaly on the atheists!
Secondly, this entire video, and atheism in general, argues against the existence of a conscience. After all, a little ghostly figure existing independently in your existence guiding you hardly seems to be rational.
Your entire world view, not to mention your lexicon, is informed by religion.
@JEJMDTD I am not talking about the "soul" I am talking about conscience.
"Conscience is an aptitude, faculty, intuition, or judgment of the intellect that distinguishes right from wrong. ... In psychological terms conscience is often described as leading to feelings of remorse when a human does things that go against his/her moral values..."
I also have not mentioned Hitler. You used a fallacy and the name of that fallacy is "Reductio ad Hitlerum". Technically this is the name.
@adamkoncz In a sense, I guess that is what this entire video is about, isn't it? That is , whther a conscience (ethics, right and wrong) is something that is formed and exists independently of humans. (Hopefully my description gave you a smile)
As to "reductio", I would say YOU mentioned Hitler first, and this broke Godwin's law, as it appears there are several other ways you could have described my admittedly fallacious (but jocular) argument.
@JEJMDTD What you said is not about whether the conscience exist objectively and independently of humans. You said that christians have and atheist don't have conscience.
Please read my response to Epydemic2020. Do you think that the conscience of an ancient Roman, a feudal Samurai, a 13th century mongol or Thomas Jefferson is the same as the conscience of a XXI century US citizen's? If yes then why the differences in behaviour?
@adamkoncz Frankly I thought the atheists would be objecting to have a conscience. In my religion conscience and soul are more or less interchangeable.
The existence of an independent right or wrong is pretty much the central point of this whole debate - no? That is, the "religious" conscience would condemn a samurai for chopping off some peasant's head. The samurais individual conscience may feel quite comfortabel with it. Therefore, is any morality universal and eternal?
@JEJMDTD Conscience has an accepted definition that has nothing to do with religion, only biology and psyhology. Yes everybody in the world has conscience and it has more to do with upbringing that an external and objective source. The debate is about whether independent morality exists, and not about non-christians, atheist have conscience or not. It is clear, factual that almost everybody knows the difference between right and wrong. Only R & W has different meaning in different cultures.
@adamkoncz Sorry. Right and wrong has the same meaning in different cultures. But different hings are right and wrong in different cultures.
Now killing is wrong now, but it was accepted and honored by the samurais or gladiators. Prostitution is wrong today, but it was sacred and holy in the ancient Near East, acepted and honored in Japan. Wife swapping is bad, but it was common practice amongst Inuits.
All these cultures had strict morality and moral laws. Only thing they were different.
@adamkoncz Conscience also has an accepted definition that has everything to do with religion. I think we agree that the debate here is whether there is an independent right and wrong, or whther it is all relative.
@JEJMDTD I feel that we are at the point when you have to prove that there is a single objective morality (something that is true in every community, and a person grew up isolated will instantly understand as the "right" thing) that can not be derived from self preservation and desire for happiness on either personal or on community level.
Something that is coming from God and not evolution.
@adamkoncz Your demand that I separate God from evolution seems unreasonable. In my mind, God works through evolution, as He does through several other vehicles.
I say this because of the evolutionary miracle of the conscience at all. The ability of any group of independent organisms to live cooperatively runs counter to all the "logic" dictated by atheists.
@JEJMDTD Just show me a moral teaching that is universal and objective through history though cultures. Or show me a morality that only applies to Christians. Show me that Christianity not just another cult. And tell me that why is that morality could come only from God.
@adamkoncz I am reminded of a similar demand for "proof" chronicled in the Gospels. Jesus failed to provide proof that was satisfactory to the Pharisees (or maybe it was Pontius Pilate), so Jesus was executed.
"Proof" that God exists? You atheists all figure out some part of some mechanism God has put in place (like genetics) and claim that since you understand some mechanism, God does not exist. Frankly, I have always felt the burden of evidence was on you.
@JEJMDTD You mean proof not "evidence," those are two entirely different things. And that was either a pedant miss-step or a glaring insight. Judicially a proof is given by tested evidence. So I assume they're asking for a falsifiable definition of God that can be tested. God, as far as every theological tome I've ever come across is "demonstrated" *in respect of faith,* meaning it remains a negative and the tautologies, etc., only work given the pre-acceptance of a conclusion or pleadings.
"Frankly, I have always felt the burden of evidence was on you."
No, Jejmdtd. Atheism is a stance of rejection. Theists claim that god (x) exists for reasons a, b and c. Atheists reject the claim that x exists, stating that a,b, and c are insufficient reasons to deduce that x exists.
The only "burden" on the rejector is to demonstrate why a,b and c are insufficient.
The "burden of proof", however, always lies with the claimant. That holds true for anything.
There *are* counter-arguments for every argument made for the existence of god. They convince me. Obviously they don't convince you, or you are unaware of them.
But atheism doesn't *make* a claim, it *rejects* a claim. Do you see the distinction?
If the burden of proof is on the rejector, then you have to prove there *aren't* invisible fairies pulling matter together, otherwise the statement is considered true. See?
@threewiseman1 No, I don't think so. To me, your argument is like saying "We do not really exist". When I say we obviously do and for you to consult your senses, you say "Our senses are faulty and unreliable, therefore we can not trust them."
...the Force is strong in this one
Scyntist 4 days ago
the dark tone of the wind blowing at the end really put it all together
IronAnimation 5 days ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Just wanted to point out, our knowledge of the morality standard is necessarily intersubjective (grosso modo: we can't learn that honesty, love etc. are "good" by ourelves, we need society for that), which means it is synthetic. Now, as you clearly implied, our knowledge that honesty is moral is a posteriori knowledge. These two premises make any moral judgement ("dishonesty is immoral") a synthetic/a posteriori proposition; rendering God (or god, or whatever) completely irrelevant.
alvarojosemarquez 1 month ago
When first clicking on the video, you looked a bit like Chris Cornell. lol
nopulpapple 1 month ago
A quick thought- In 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 it talks about God sending a delusion so people would believe the lie and so be condemned, but the reasoning the verses state God does so is because they refused to love the truth and be saved. Hmm....
If a man refuses to love the truth, would God sending man a lie for him to love be an act of mercy?
This would seem to better co-inside with all Romans 1 and many verses dealing with God desiring all to be saved. Meh what do I know :P
ChrispyTheology777 2 months ago
@ChrispyTheology777 Probably; but a quick glance at that argument will show that his actions are inconsistent with his nature. Going a bit deeper will show how some values (loving the Truth) appear to be more "valuable" than others, and this creates some serious inconsistencies with what we believe morality to be. Go a bit deeper and you'll find a world of fallacies and inconsistencies waiting to feast on your sanity.
alvarojosemarquez 1 month ago
Comment removed
ChrispyTheology777 2 months ago
TBS unequivocally owned that kid...good God (no pun intended), did that kid get owned...
420morozco 2 months ago
Why don't you post more often, TBS :(
BJ219 3 months ago 3
You look like House in the thumbnail. :P
ThatGuyWithHippyHair 6 months ago
That kid should ask himself if a sociopath is hardwired to recognize any objective values in human life.
RenegadeScion 7 months ago
A healthy, happy, flourishing society deserves examination in my view. You and your fellow debater for Christian morality both enjoy the practical presumption of a peaceful majority, you try to isolate it. It's typical American spray-on culture really. You both dispose of violence in your own way, then conscript peace and love into sickly optimism when surreptitiously "unnecessary suffering." That is murder too.
fredbloggs02 7 months ago
@fredbloggs02 I'm...not sure what this means. Are you saying you don't want a happy, healthy, flourishing society?
BigLundi 4 months ago
Comment removed
fredbloggs02 7 months ago
In a few debates with Christians, mainly creationists, I've accused God of narcissism through his need for constant praise and thanks. You're far more articulate than me at making these arguments, I was wandering what your views are on this.
iansheridan123 8 months ago
@EmbraceDorkhood
It is true that some with non-theist concepts become increasingly atheist as they become educated but the reverse is also true: those who have reasonably strong theistic views are polarised to their views. What does that tell us? Not actually very much at all.
AtheistTower 9 months ago
@EmbraceDorkhood
No it proves my theory; atheists are only 7-8% of the population (see recent Gallup poll). In my own country alone, creationism is a minority belief amongst Christians and the greatest threats by far to science here is both atheism and pantheism. There is no evidence that your faith is actually deminished as you are educated, only that naturalists spend more time being educated and that naturalists are more likely to be atheists anyway.
AtheistTower 9 months ago
@AtheistTower That's utter bullshit. Atheists make up a 3rd of the world's population. Many developed countries are increasingly atheist, and in fact, the most atheist countries are, by correlation, not necessary causation, the most well off. You AREA aware atheists have been around since prior to christianity right? Atheism...hell MATERIAISM is older than Christianity by centuries upon centuries. There is evidence that faith diminishes with education, via deconversion of college students en mas
BigLundi 4 months ago
@EmbraceDorkhood
Creationists? Why even bring them up; there have always been more Christians that believe in evolution than atheists. And further more I see atheists rejecting science when it doesn't agree with their personal views; they reject that an unborn human is human because it's inconvenient, many atheists reject using genetic engineering on the basis of paranoia and their own nature-worshipping philosophy; and yet you think that Christians are the enemy of science?
AtheistTower 9 months ago
@AtheistTower "Why bring them up if there have always been more christians that believe in evolution than atheists Bullshit. In the united states more than half the country believe evolution is a fraud. "And furthur I see atheists rejecting science....they reject that an unborn human is human because it's inconvenient" What? What science says a zygote is a human being? None. I know this because that's an arbitrary ontological definitoon, not a scientific subject.
BigLundi 4 months ago
@AtheistTower Yes, christian fundamentalists are enemies of science. Islamic fundamentalists, and a lot of muslims actually ,are enemies of science. New age hippy woo woo people like Deepak Chopra are eneies of science. However, you cannot possibly, in any way, logically draw a line from atheism, to anti science. you can't do it. "Many atheists reject using genetic engineering" Who, and why? You understand that atheism in no way is the 'worship of nature' right?
BigLundi 4 months ago
@EmbraceDorkhood
Yeah the problem is, you're asserting that there is NO evidence, when there is. Simply not evidence that agrees with the narrow-minded terms and conditions that you specify for it. Why should the creator of the universe play by your rules? So your rejection position is a false assertion based again on your own views of the rules of evidence based reasoning. I can use evidence-based-reasoning to see God, I can use logic and philosophy to see God, it isn't difficult to see him.
AtheistTower 9 months ago
@AtheistTower Ok, WHAT evidence do you have that don't boil down to arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity, or any other logical fallacy? There has never bee a defined god that either A. has been demonstrated to exist in any way, or B. has a useful definition so that it makes sense to call that thing God(I.E. "God is love!" But we already have a word for love, and we understand love, and it's not a supernatural thing.)
BigLundi 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BigLundi
What evidence do you want? Tell me how you define evidence, though I suspect you will define it as narrowly as possible.
AtheistTower 4 months ago
How to go viral with your video overnight this is 100% guaranteed to deliver 1500 views per night while you sleep Y2BVIEWS com.
pettrybooks 9 months ago
It's odd that Epy uses a "hardwire" assertion in support of objective morality. Hardwiring is completely transitory, and it is only true for our species at the present time. Evolution of our "hardwiring" will change and has changed. In all populations there are "deviant" behaviors that are "hardwired" into that sub-population. If selective pressure favors that behavior in the future, the "deviant" behavior may well become the majority behavior.
ampere11 9 months ago
You put things perfectly! Good Job!
dillinjabreakz 9 months ago
I love you so much!!
Wiilovewii 9 months ago
haha ''do rapists like ourselves desire a flourishing society etc etc..''. As usual a very well thought out sequence of good arguments though . I would like to collaborate on a vid with this guy,
righteousfury1 10 months ago
I've thoroughly enjoyed your most-viewed videos, TB.
However, while I get your arguments, I find it relatively difficult to grasp the overarching structure of it all. I'm sure that said structure does exist, but it's not made clear.
I suggest publishing text transcripts of your videos, broken up by paragraph. I think you must create some kind of text before/while you make these videos, so hopefully you could publish it with a minimum of effort.
I have other suggestions as well. Let's talk.
airandfingers 10 months ago
Objectivity applies only to minds. Values are arrived at through an objective process of logic and reason. Only rational beings can hold the concept of value which further reduces to life as their base. Without life as the base no values are possible.
SCRYER1973 10 months ago
If there is or is not a GOD, if we evolved or were we created... the bottom line is: we all know what is morally right and what isn't and if we ALL would behave accordingly then the world would be much more peaceful place to be. If Christians would actually live by the words the cram down everyone's throats, the world would be a much more peaceful place to be.
IDV82atl 10 months ago
I would have used God's deceiving Adam and Eve by telling them that they will die if they eat the fruit as an example of God's lying, but whatever. I suppose your example is less vulnerable to theist's apologetics ("He meant that they will eventually die, of course!") than mine.
ThatGuyWithHippyHair 10 months ago
Your a modern-day phylosopher, like aristotle.
viicISrotcib 11 months ago
i honestly don't have the patience to argue with theists who use the moral argument. it's obviously contrived so that they can feel morally superior to atheists.
why do you think theists spend so much time talking about morality?
sum1unxpected 1 year ago
Why is it that when there is lag on the video it always catches you making a face?
henriktor 1 year ago
@henriktor Pause the video at any time and he'll be making a funny face haha but watch the video normally and you'll never see them. Haha but seriously thanks for putting your videos up they're really interesting
SultansOfSwing11 10 months ago
You incorrectly use "infer" when you should use "imply" at 20:00.
Good video BTW.
michalchik 1 year ago
you have so many perfectly true points. and you're cute while you make them. :)
cassieefrass 1 year ago
I learn so many words from you.
Seniortrends 1 year ago 3
My head hurts now. Damn, I wish I was smarter.
Guitcad1 1 year ago 6
If you would like a better insight into human behavior, I would suggest reading "Nature via Nurture: Genes, Experience, & What Makes Us Human" by Matt Ridley
AnarchistAsh 1 year ago
What exactly are the "Gratuitous Football Metaphors" in this video?
ianmathwiz7 1 year ago
@ianmathwiz7 ...every time tb says qb...quarterback...
mlozano322 1 year ago
What I saw Epy doing was equating "objectively true" with "objectively moral"- He's literally changing your argument to fit his views. What we do with the objective truth is subjective. thats where the morals come in. take the facts, "rape causes suffering to the one who is raped" and then decide that suffering is bad(nobody wants to suffer) and come up with the moral. It isn't the case from the start that the objective fact constitutes an objective moral
creepyoldman2 1 year ago
I promise I'm not "stalking" you, but I enjoy your videos so much, I am watching them all. What a great job evolution did when you were created. Your mind is such a brilliant one, and I would be remiss if I didn't mention this, but your physical being is also a great creation. I think like you, but I cannot now, nor ever shall be, as articulate as you are. Thank you for expressing such valuable information.
tahoemack 1 year ago 4
I still think your definition of murder is pretty good.
To kill someone in self defense or to execute someone for crimes committed, do not fall under ''murder''.
MoveOrder 1 year ago
You are a legend.
corridorofpower 1 year ago 21
@corridorofpower When I grow up I want to be this guy.
It's the moral right thing to do.
sergioelmejor1 1 month ago
Where exactly are the "gratuitous football metaphors" in this video?
ianmathwiz7 1 year ago 3
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST! sorry for the caps but u still got it dude. u articulate my every thought perfectly :)
keggerous 1 year ago
what a douche
xxMyokiQT 1 year ago
I tought he was dane cook.
LilTortillaBoy420 1 year ago
@LilTortillaBoy420 Dane Cook is a no talent hack. This guy is really, really smart.
AlexanderEddy 1 year ago 4
Where were the football metaphors?
Nulono 1 year ago
Three minute philosophy summarizes all this bullshit, and is funny to boot. Epidemic is on the Descartes/Aquinas side of things, and Theretical is on the David Hume side of things.
Check out Three Minute Philosophy by college binary. It is very insightful, but funny. Seriously.
JEJMDTD 1 year ago
I thought you sais you were not an atheist? Did you change your mind?
Veraldo 1 year ago
I wish that you spent more time developing your own views and not tearing apart this other guys. You and I both know that tearing apart this guys view wouldn't advance your own theory of morality which you barely even spend much time on in both of your videos. In your previous video as well as this one you spend more time rejecting the Christian view of morality.
othellopiano 1 year ago
Excellent debating style Mr. Bullshit! *thumbs up*
PhilosophyWatch 1 year ago
I'm not convinced we have no hardwired morals via evolution. the desire for a functional society, as an example, would be evolutionarily advantageous. In addition, it is possible that respecting human life is in fact hard wired into us, and that Hitler was a sociopath. in other words, that Hitler did not value non-Aryan life is so far removed from normal human behavior that we actually label it as pathology
siremorich 1 year ago
@siremorich
we do have "hardwired" evolutionary morality. As morality is a value system and our biology is a informing factor in our value system.
an example would be "instinctive protection of the young" or "sympathy for suffering" or any other emotional based value.
we hold sex and violence to be the most sacred values, though out time and culture. This is not a logical choice but an emotional(biological) appeal to these.
Hexdoll 1 year ago
In Canada, until 1938, making fun of baldness was punishable by mauling by woodland bear. The reason it was such an effective form of punishment was that the woodland Samaritan act if 1918 made it illegal to due any undue harm to a woodland creature. So not only could you not fight back, but you were posthumously guilty of illegally feeding wildlife.
bennybradycom 1 year ago
You're like the atheist Ben Affleck.
skoorbevad 1 year ago
Don't know if I'm beating a dead horse with this, but I want to clarify one thing. The story of Elijah is not about baldness, it was the fact that the children were making fun of a prophet of God that pissed him off. Granted I still don't think the response those kids got was appropriate, but it does coincide with the notion that the Christian God is a jealous God(Biblical 1st commandment). Why an all powerful deity need be jealous is beyond me, but I figured I give my humble bit of input.
TheTubaMonkey 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheTubaMonkey 1 year ago
A bit deep, but explained well. I was waiting for the old " Q.E.D." at the end.
Good work, but its a little short. :)
TooferMan 1 year ago
@shotinthedark90 "All you've said is that our intuitions are toward survival, not that survival is intuitively good."
If we assume the contrary, that survival is bad, then we destroy ourselves.
Simple.
It becomes the only choice. Any creature that comes to the idea that survival is bad offs itself. And the victors write the history books. :) (the ones who think survival is good)
jinitron 1 year ago
I am speaking practically. I think that this philosophy is unstable and dangerous, standing on nothing but the smoke of good intentions.
Also, by what I can see of human history, I'm afraid your view may be a little too optimistic of what people are capable of sustaining.
I would argue that there have been societies that fell off this cliff, and that the gospel is what brought sanity back into their world.
Llamacrossing 1 year ago
So sorry, but what is to stop someone who has such a relativistic view of morality from concluding that there is no such thing as morality at all, that it is a superfluous myth?
I understand that you think most people value a decent society and less suffering, but what makes you so sure that those are "good"? What if by the Zeitgeist of some society the people decided those things were worthless? On what grounds would you criticize them?
Llamacrossing 1 year ago
@Llamacrossing Survival
infinit888 1 year ago
@Llamacrossing i believe that there is no such thing as morality.
doesnt mean i dont have my own preferences.
such preferences include: reducing human suffering.
I may not have the luxury of attaching the label of "moral" to a certain preference, but it doesnt mean i wont fight to defend it.
And appealing to consequences is not a very classy way of addressing an argument.
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
=O <-- my face through the whole video. You, sir, are a genius and I can only hope to aspire to your level of brilliance.
TheDarxide23 1 year ago
The "E" dilemma still stands, and no believer can logically answer it.
PageofLegend 1 year ago
@PageofLegend Most contemporary theologians view the Euthyphro dilemma as a false dilemma. It's not that things are moral because God says them or because God says them because they are moral. They are moral because they are the ESSENTIAL PROPERTIES of God. It's like saying, why does 2+2=4? Is it because we say so that it is so, or is because it just is so, and that's why we say so? Well, neither. Look into Kant's explanation of synthetic a priori propositions or william lane craig's explanation
barifkin31 1 year ago
@barifkin31 Human beings defined numbers. Just tossing that out there.
Saltheigh 1 year ago
@Saltheigh Feel free to toss whatever you like out there. It doesn't mean that it holds water in any way, shape, or form. Your claim is pure nonsense. The idea that in a mindless universe 2+2 would not equal 4 is ridiculous. These are mind-independent concepts (i.e. transcendent). These are similar to the rules of logic. Your statement is beyond ignorant.
barifkin31 1 year ago
@barifkin31 Okay. If no one were around to count anything, the concept of numbers becomes meaningless.
Saltheigh 1 year ago
@barifkin31 'Course, if you were, say, a mathematical anarchist, and sincerely believed that our current math system causes unnecessary pain and suffering to humankind, you could create a new system of math in which 2+2=5, and urge others to believe in it. As long as 2+2 and all possible variants always equals 5, then you have a logically consistent system. Congratulations, you've just created a new math. Good luck convincing others to throw out the old one, which is perfectly fine.
Saltheigh 1 year ago
@Saltheigh You have a very weak grasp on mathematics, philosophy, morality, and reality in general. I'd recommend not venturing out of your computer cave until you develop skills necessary to function properly in society. Your gross misconceptions only show how your education has failed you. Read up Peano's axioms or Godel's incompleteness theorems. Silly silly internet ranter.
barifkin31 1 year ago
@barifkin31 you didn't watch the video in it's entirety did you?
infinit888 1 year ago
@infinit888 I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about. Did you read all of my comments?
barifkin31 1 year ago
I watched this exchange between TB and Epydemic and to me it's like watching a professional football team (TB) playing a high school football team (epydemic). Epydemic is so out matched that you know what the result is going to be long before the kickoff. You might think the high school team has some attributes that might put the professional team to work but at the end of the game you are there saying, yeah, yeah that's pretty much what I had expected. A total shut out, TB 42, Epydemic 3.
Relativisticism 1 year ago
Hey dude, Nice video but could you consider speaking a little slower or writing some more text or some kind of diagram on the video of what you are saying because it's really hard for a non native speaker to follow your argumentation properly without losing the overview and what your are saying is so sophisticated that everyone should have the possibility to understand you!
greetings from germany !
detrexer 1 year ago
Awesome vid!! Make your vids as long as you need, stefbot; I MEAN TBS!! LOL
PursuitOfTruth 1 year ago
I really encourage everyon watching this to go to "Three Minute philosophy" and check out the philosophies summarized there. This guy is earnest enough, but his work is clearly derivative of the great philosophers summarized in the "three minute" videos. Also, Three minutes" are pretty funny/
JEJMDTD 1 year ago
@JEJMDTD Also, this guy promises "footbal metaphors" and uses ONE metaphor - and he does that inappropriately! He call the Christian guy "quarterback", and then spends 10 minutes arguing with the "Quarterback"! Everyone who has ever played football knows that arguing with the quarterback is FORBIDDEN in the huddle. (Hollywood BS notwithstanding)
That in and of itself is aten yard penalty!
JEJMDTD 1 year ago
Is punishment promoting suffering? If so....... well I suppose we should shut down the courts and the prisons and turn the other cheek.
Oddstacks 1 year ago
@Oddstacks Punishment is suffering inflicted with the intention that the one being penalized will either be less inclined (fines) or unable (jail) to cause needless suffering to others in the future.
Saltheigh 1 year ago
The end of the vid had me going "OOOOOOOHHHHHH!"
UrieWhore68 1 year ago
My head hurts. But I like it.
MrCarbon14 1 year ago
Please most my response video, thanks
TheReligiousLeft 1 year ago
My brain is mandated to meander over minutiae for some reason. One can still have the highest respect for and value placed on human life and be a serial rapist. Saying rape is bad is a rights statement, not a right to life statement.
Watch out with that Elisha story. You're gonna get a lot of "They weren't children, they were called "youths" meaning Compton street gangs who drink the blood of sacrificed virgins' broken hymens and rape crocodiles to prove their manhood."
BoozyBeggar 1 year ago
yeah why dont you make a whole video looking side on......ya fruity nutbag
myjizzureye 1 year ago
I know that this response is astonishingly grade-school level, but I just can't help but believe that, since action X can go from being seen as immoral to being seen as moral from the viewpoint of observer Y by the simple application of a magnetic pulse, where the heck "god" can fit into the equation at all.
swordnquil 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I used to be like you. A 25 year old kid who's faith and heart were empty, who tried to discredit God with evolutionary dogma. Thank God I grew up, and if your're lucky you will to :)
VicFranklyn 1 year ago
@VicFranklyn So you're saying you turned from an atheist into a christian? Would you mind sharing your experiences that converted you?
You mention that you grew up, stating that denying god is a sign of immaturity and acknowledging him is a sign of maturity. In what way is one's belief classified as mature or immature? Just as you have said it is immature to not believe God, I can say it is immature to blindly accept something because you can't explain otherwise. What say you?
mikechis101 1 year ago 4
@VicFranklyn
"I used to be like you."
Pfft. Somehow, I doubt that. For one, TheorecticalBullshit has enough mental prowess to realise that evolution and the concept of a god are not mutually exclusive.
"Thank God I grew up"
You're laughable attempt to patronize TB says otherwise.
threewiseman1 1 year ago 25
@VicFranklyn as if your objections hold any weight whatsoever. Your blanket assertions that evolution is 'dogma' is laughable - it's evident that you fail to realise what dogma even is. If that is supposedly granted to be fact, what does it change? It still fails to provide any support to the implicit notion that the biblical portrayal of Yahweh exists.
Oh, and I like how you blatantly misrepresent our views. We're not objecting on the basis of evolution.
Please, start thinking.
RatherCynical 3 weeks ago
well executed and thank you for taking your time to post this. keep it up.
TheSlackerebel 1 year ago
@BionicDance It still bugs me a little that you blocked me for trying to answer the last version of your "challenge" on objective morality through civil conversation in the comments, but since you recently equated victory with being blocked in this manner (via SchlockofGod), I've at least gotten some ironic consolation. Good luck with your new 'sincere' quest for proof.
hugesinker 1 year ago
TBS, I think there are a few objective values for conscious beings that come about during the course of their lives. One example is self-consistency--
Stimulus during a being's existence causes them to value certain things over others.
Lets attempt to assume that they do not value self-consistency.
However, maximizing any value is improved by some consistent effort.
Therefore, self-consistency is something they will be compelled to value.
hugesinker 1 year ago
The Christians have a stronger all around game. They give 110% for the whole game, and work together better as a team. The Atheists have a questionable offense, weak defense, and spend most of their time arguing with each other. That is why Christians can run it right up the gut of the Atheists, and use their strong running foundation for a dazzling air attack. Christians 35 Atheists 0
JEJMDTD 1 year ago
@JEJMDTD I really hope you didn't mean this....especially placing all your eggs in one basket....
Lazyintellectual4 1 year ago
@Lazyintellectual4 I did not place my eggs in one basket! Christians have a better ground game AND a better pass attack! ; )
JEJMDTD 1 year ago
@JEJMDTD Yeah read TheHairline's comment directed towards you.
Lazyintellectual4 1 year ago
@Lazyintellectual4 Oh lighten up. Have you seen "three minute philosophy"? The guy does three minute summaries of the world's great philosophies. Also, he makes it funny. You and the other guy should check them out.
Also, you really should put more football metaphors in your discussion. I really feel gypped on that!
JEJMDTD 1 year ago
@JEJMDTD Lighten up? I'm fine, nothing wrong here. Just saying your point really isn't 100% valid, that was all.
Lazyintellectual4 1 year ago
@Lazyintellectual4 So, did you wathc three minute philosophy yet? I personally like the one on Thomas Aquinas, since I am Chistian and all.
JEJMDTD 1 year ago
@JEJMDTD Christians have no game at all. Being an atheist that can intelligently defend their own worldviews can take a lot of education and time, but Christians have not come up with a new defense that hasn't already refuted a million times over.
You probably think a Christian's better "game" comes from them all having a consistent defense while atheists all scatter theirs. They don't. Christians ALL value Christian values differently and are just as "inconsistent". Every single one. Even you
TheHairline 1 year ago
@TheHairline Christians have a much better game than atheists. As noted, atheists get about halfway into the game, become nihilists, and leave the field, discouraged that there is no point in anything. Or better yet, they all commit suicide. Christians, on the other hand, play a team game, helping out the next guy on the line, and takeing help from the other guy.
Christians 49 Atheists 0.
JEJMDTD 1 year ago
@JEJMDTD do you honestly think that being atheist leads you to being nihilist? or that you can't be anything else besides nihilist?
MNSDaz 1 year ago
@MNSDaz I really have a hard time distinguishing between atheism and nihilism. I mean, if we are not here serving a higher purpose, what's the point?
Also, I have to say, based on an unscientific observation of the people I happen to have met, that atheists are the most miserable bunch of people I have ever seen. Really, nothing scientific, but atheists tend to whine and complain and carp and argue. They are generally unpleasant.
JEJMDTD 1 year ago
@JEJMDTD interesting, i would say the same thing about christians. but i know enough not to base assumptions off of a small number of personal observations.
as for a higher purpose-- why would you need a higher/ultimate purpose to live? i find smaller, relative purposes just as meaningful. you get to define your own purpose, and not try to mold yourself into a pre-existing expectation. i don't believe in an ultimate purpose, but this does not make me a nihilist.
MNSDaz 1 year ago
@MNSDaz You would say you have a hard time distinguishing between Christianity and nihilism? ;)
Why do you need a higher purpose to live? Well, I just do not see the point of existing simply to take up space and move though time. And how do you know that your "smaller" purposes are "just as meaningful" as my higher sense of purpose, if you do not have a higher sense of purpose?
I did not say lack of purpose makes anyone a nihilist. It sure doesn't help though.
JEJMDTD 1 year ago
@JEJMDTD
The is very arrogant and unpleasant of you Christian to assume someone has no purpose to live, might as well say they have horns or some other self-serving dehumanizing propaganda…
Hexdoll 1 year ago
@Hexdoll Well atheist - what IS your purpose to life? I am not being arrogant (maybe unpleasant - depends on you really) - I really do not see any point in living if we are not serving a higher purpose.
JEJMDTD 1 year ago
@JEJMDTD
As an atheist my purpose in life is to have a comfortable, happy existence and to do my best to extend that experience to my friends and loved ones. After all, there is one and only one life I'm sure to have and it would be foolish of me to throw it away or suffer needlessly because I'm not obeying the will of some invisible dictator. And on top of it all I am moral because I understand as a social animal that if I want to enjoy life I had best respect my peers' rights to do the same.
bloodyinkpen 1 year ago
@bloodyinkpen So I guess strangers, people in other countries, that is, your fellow man outside your scope of existence may as well not exist? That must be nice, cruising through life in world where you are part of the 20% that consumes 80% of the resources, and tough crap on those people starving to death or beset by diseases. Out of sight, out of mind. How nice for you!
JEJMDTD 1 year ago
@JEJMDTD What's that got to do with anything? I actually do do my part to try and lessen the suffering of those less fortunate than myself, as again, as a social creature I understand that I should treat others with the same treatment I'd desire in their position. That doesn't mean I shouldn't enjoy my own life in the meantime. Again, it's the only one I have, I'm not going to waste it suffering needlessly or serving non-existant deities.
bloodyinkpen 1 year ago
@bloodyinkpen If your desire for "comfortable, happy existence" extends only to your "friends and loved ones" because that is the limit of your understanding, then the majority of the world is outside your scope of caring.
However, if you are extending your charity beyond what you can see based on your belief that there is suffering, are you not responidng to the "will of some invisible dictator" (ie your "sense" of right and wrong, and your "belief" that you are helping?
JEJMDTD 1 year ago
@JEJMDTD Point A is pragmatism. I can't save everyone, so I do what good I can.
As to the point B about responding to the will of an invisible dictator, not at all. I don't have a sense or belief about it at all. My morals are based on rationality. I treat others with kindness and respect and decency because that's how I want to be treated in return. If I cultivate that behavior in myself I help cultivate it in others. That's what being a social animal is all about.
bloodyinkpen 1 year ago
@JEJMDTD
My purpose is to live freely and to try to help others do the same, everything else is just butter. You need have the courage to take responsibility for you own purpose, on your own terms or you might as well be cattle..if you feel that religion offers that purpose then serve it and be happy doing it, just do not think we all need that option.
Hexdoll 1 year ago
@Hexdoll "Live freely"? What does that even mean? Do you mean live to fulfill whatever desire your body happens to demand at that moment?
I do have courage to to take responsibility for my own purpose. Actually, since God gave us choice I have no alternative to taking responsibility.
"Happy" serving God? I have actually found serving God to be quite a rigorous challenge. Worth it, but t is sucky work.
JEJMDTD 1 year ago
@JEJMDTD
You don't have a "higher" purpose, JEJMDTD, because you don't know why god created the universe, and without that knowlegde, your claim is presumptuous
Ask yourself this, what's the point of creating a universe if you're omnipotent and any goal you desire to acheive is instantly obtainable?
And in light of this, what other purpose can there *be* for your existence, other than to be a plaything for a bored god? There's your Nihilism, mate. Enjoy.
threewiseman1 1 year ago
@MNSDaz Also, if possible, I would like you to incoprorate football metaphors into your response. This guy promised football metaphors in the title of his video, and somebody should throw the penalty flag on him for false advertising. there was like one metaphor?
JEJMDTD 1 year ago
@JEJMDTD Why what is the purpose of a Christian? To get into heaven and stay there forever? Doing what? What is higher purpose? To do someting that an Allmighty could do just as well without you? Christians want happiness after they die, atheists want happiness before they die. I can not see big difference here. Except of course that happiness after death is completly irrational, illogical. While we have some proof that happiness does exists before death.
adamkoncz 1 year ago
@adamkoncz I assure you that all the Christians I know pretty much like being happy. So stop being silly.
The question of human suffering and our responsibility to our fellow man to alleviate it is complex. Perhaps you should actually consult Christian thought leaders before deciding whether our approach to this conundrum is worthy of your breezy, thoughtless dismissal.
JEJMDTD 1 year ago
@JEJMDTD Funny thing is that for some reason you have not anwsered to that simple question that "What is the purpose of a Christian?" I have asked this many times from many Christian and not one of them could answer anything else than the general Christian crap. "God or Jesus is the purpose. To serve them. To love them." And for what reason? "you gain your salvation, you go to Heaven etc." Maybe serving your imaginary friends is enough for you, but personally I think it is insane.
adamkoncz 1 year ago
@adamkoncz Did you know Mother Theresa expressed sincere doubt in the existence of God? She wrote of her doubts extensively in her autobiography. Yet she perservered in her mission to alleviate suffering.
Do you think coming to the conclusion that we are indeed serving a higher purpose is an easy thing? do you think that finding such devotion, and how we come to it, is easily described in words?
JEJMDTD 1 year ago
@JEJMDTD I am coming to a conclusion that Christians are really dumb. Should I write into stone for you to understand the question???
What is the higher purpose that Chrisitans serve?
You claim you have a higher purpose and atheist do not. What is that purpose?
adamkoncz 1 year ago
@adamkoncz Christians are really dumb, huh? Unsportsmanlike conduct. Harrassing the poster. 15 yards.
Generally speaking we exist to serve God. You find that unsatisfactory, but given that Xtians beleive God created everything, God gave us all choice, and God made us all unique, how we come to serve him would be a highly individualized, personal matter, wouldn't it?
I guess that is what I was trying to point out with Mother Tersa, but you did not get it.
JEJMDTD 1 year ago
@JEJMDTD Brilliant. Now I am absolutely speachless. So you claim that serving an Allmighty who actually does not need your servitude is somehow higher purpose than trying to make the world better not because God told you so but because it makes you warm and fuzzy?
The other thing is that who decide which is the proper way to serve? As you said the servitude highly individualized, personal matter. Almost as it is serving God is not different than serving your own desire.
adamkoncz 1 year ago
@adamkoncz You really can not get the concept of God giving men free will, can you? Well, it is probably a little too complex for you.
I have struggled with other parts of my Faith (not your particular hang up over Free Will.) and found satisfactory answers with some research.
I doubt very much if I can satisfy your senselessy antagonistic doubt in 500 character posts.
JEJMDTD 1 year ago
@JEJMDTD
How can you be given free will that is a logical contradiction.
Hexdoll 1 year ago
@Hexdoll No it isn't.
JEJMDTD 1 year ago
@JEJMDTD
Sorry it is in the real universe.
Hexdoll 1 year ago
@JEJMDTD You dont know whether God exist or not. (M.T did not know) You do whatever satisfy your self ego and justify it with God's will. You might help the sick, you condemn gays, or start a crusade. As a Christian you can be a saint or an evil bastard, just like an atheist can be. The difference is that you use God as a blanket. The question is, how is that blanket of yours makes your desires more purposeful, more important than an atheists?
adamkoncz 1 year ago
@adamkoncz I assume that believing that you do God's work indulge your self importance. Just dont forget. God (if exists) does not need you to do his work. You are doing it for yourself and yourself only. And all the work you have done in your whole life is nothing that God could not do in a second. If He really wants to, if the work is important to Him!
Well obviously He does not care.
adamkoncz 1 year ago
@adamkoncz Clearly you can assume whatever you like. Clearly you can ascribe atever motivation you feel is appropriate to other people's actions.
But it sounds like you understand Free Will. I do not need to do God's work. But I do it anyway in the belief that God does care that I act as a true Xtian.
I know my works have served to benefit a lot of people. Yes, it feels good. Is that a bad thing?
JEJMDTD 1 year ago
@adamkoncz Yes, Christians regularly sin. They make bad choices either out of greed, malicious intent, or some other venal motivation.
However, it is incumbent on the Christian, upon recognizing that they have sinned, toask forgiveness and try to make amends. Failure to do so permanenely separates them from God's love. It is called redemption.
As an atheist, you perform atrocities for whatever venal purpose, but since it benefitted your personal agenda, all the better for you. Correct?
JEJMDTD 1 year ago
@JEJMDTD No, it is not correct. As an atheist I also have conscience, I feel remorse. Just like almost every other person on the planet. Do not try to expropriate human emotions on behalf of your religion. Just because morality is subjective it does exist. If anybody with emapthy does something against his morality (based on his culture) he will be afraid, he will feel remorse. It is no magic. It is social behaviour.
adamkoncz 1 year ago
@adamkoncz An atheist with a conscience?
JEJMDTD 1 year ago
@JEJMDTD Congratulations I think this one is called "Reductio ad Hitlerum". Saying that an atheist can not have conscience, because he is an atheist is rather disgusting. On the other hand now you just have to prove at the minimum that there is no atheist with a conscience. If you really want to prove yourself right you have to prove that no person other than Christians have conscience.
Great job degrading yourself!
adamkoncz 1 year ago
@adamkoncz First of all, congratulations on mentioning Hitler. You fulfilled Godwin's law. ANOTHER 10 yard penaly on the atheists!
Secondly, this entire video, and atheism in general, argues against the existence of a conscience. After all, a little ghostly figure existing independently in your existence guiding you hardly seems to be rational.
Your entire world view, not to mention your lexicon, is informed by religion.
Touchdown for God's Squad!
JEJMDTD 1 year ago
@JEJMDTD I am not talking about the "soul" I am talking about conscience.
"Conscience is an aptitude, faculty, intuition, or judgment of the intellect that distinguishes right from wrong. ... In psychological terms conscience is often described as leading to feelings of remorse when a human does things that go against his/her moral values..."
I also have not mentioned Hitler. You used a fallacy and the name of that fallacy is "Reductio ad Hitlerum". Technically this is the name.
adamkoncz 1 year ago
@JEJMDTD I mean you really, really think that conscience is "a little ghostly figure that guiding you"?
adamkoncz 1 year ago
@adamkoncz In a sense, I guess that is what this entire video is about, isn't it? That is , whther a conscience (ethics, right and wrong) is something that is formed and exists independently of humans. (Hopefully my description gave you a smile)
As to "reductio", I would say YOU mentioned Hitler first, and this broke Godwin's law, as it appears there are several other ways you could have described my admittedly fallacious (but jocular) argument.
JEJMDTD 1 year ago
@JEJMDTD What you said is not about whether the conscience exist objectively and independently of humans. You said that christians have and atheist don't have conscience.
Please read my response to Epydemic2020. Do you think that the conscience of an ancient Roman, a feudal Samurai, a 13th century mongol or Thomas Jefferson is the same as the conscience of a XXI century US citizen's? If yes then why the differences in behaviour?
adamkoncz 1 year ago
@adamkoncz Frankly I thought the atheists would be objecting to have a conscience. In my religion conscience and soul are more or less interchangeable.
The existence of an independent right or wrong is pretty much the central point of this whole debate - no? That is, the "religious" conscience would condemn a samurai for chopping off some peasant's head. The samurais individual conscience may feel quite comfortabel with it. Therefore, is any morality universal and eternal?
JEJMDTD 1 year ago
@JEJMDTD Conscience has an accepted definition that has nothing to do with religion, only biology and psyhology. Yes everybody in the world has conscience and it has more to do with upbringing that an external and objective source. The debate is about whether independent morality exists, and not about non-christians, atheist have conscience or not. It is clear, factual that almost everybody knows the difference between right and wrong. Only R & W has different meaning in different cultures.
adamkoncz 1 year ago
@adamkoncz Sorry. Right and wrong has the same meaning in different cultures. But different hings are right and wrong in different cultures.
Now killing is wrong now, but it was accepted and honored by the samurais or gladiators. Prostitution is wrong today, but it was sacred and holy in the ancient Near East, acepted and honored in Japan. Wife swapping is bad, but it was common practice amongst Inuits.
All these cultures had strict morality and moral laws. Only thing they were different.
adamkoncz 1 year ago
@adamkoncz Conscience also has an accepted definition that has everything to do with religion. I think we agree that the debate here is whether there is an independent right and wrong, or whther it is all relative.
JEJMDTD 1 year ago
@JEJMDTD I feel that we are at the point when you have to prove that there is a single objective morality (something that is true in every community, and a person grew up isolated will instantly understand as the "right" thing) that can not be derived from self preservation and desire for happiness on either personal or on community level.
Something that is coming from God and not evolution.
adamkoncz 1 year ago
@adamkoncz Your demand that I separate God from evolution seems unreasonable. In my mind, God works through evolution, as He does through several other vehicles.
I say this because of the evolutionary miracle of the conscience at all. The ability of any group of independent organisms to live cooperatively runs counter to all the "logic" dictated by atheists.
JEJMDTD 1 year ago
@JEJMDTD Just show me a moral teaching that is universal and objective through history though cultures. Or show me a morality that only applies to Christians. Show me that Christianity not just another cult. And tell me that why is that morality could come only from God.
adamkoncz 1 year ago
@adamkoncz I am reminded of a similar demand for "proof" chronicled in the Gospels. Jesus failed to provide proof that was satisfactory to the Pharisees (or maybe it was Pontius Pilate), so Jesus was executed.
"Proof" that God exists? You atheists all figure out some part of some mechanism God has put in place (like genetics) and claim that since you understand some mechanism, God does not exist. Frankly, I have always felt the burden of evidence was on you.
JEJMDTD 1 year ago
@JEJMDTD You mean proof not "evidence," those are two entirely different things. And that was either a pedant miss-step or a glaring insight. Judicially a proof is given by tested evidence. So I assume they're asking for a falsifiable definition of God that can be tested. God, as far as every theological tome I've ever come across is "demonstrated" *in respect of faith,* meaning it remains a negative and the tautologies, etc., only work given the pre-acceptance of a conclusion or pleadings.
Slip819 1 year ago
@Slip819 Want to rephrase that counsellor?
JEJMDTD 1 year ago
@JEJMDTD
"Frankly, I have always felt the burden of evidence was on you."
No, Jejmdtd. Atheism is a stance of rejection. Theists claim that god (x) exists for reasons a, b and c. Atheists reject the claim that x exists, stating that a,b, and c are insufficient reasons to deduce that x exists.
The only "burden" on the rejector is to demonstrate why a,b and c are insufficient.
The "burden of proof", however, always lies with the claimant. That holds true for anything.
threewiseman1 1 year ago
@threewiseman Yes, you never demonstrated that a), b) and c) are insufficient. So, the burden of proof is on you.
JEJMDTD 1 year ago
@JEJMDTD
So, the burden of proof is on you."
There *are* counter-arguments for every argument made for the existence of god. They convince me. Obviously they don't convince you, or you are unaware of them.
But atheism doesn't *make* a claim, it *rejects* a claim. Do you see the distinction?
If the burden of proof is on the rejector, then you have to prove there *aren't* invisible fairies pulling matter together, otherwise the statement is considered true. See?
threewiseman1 1 year ago 55
@threewiseman1 No, I don't think so. To me, your argument is like saying "We do not really exist". When I say we obviously do and for you to consult your senses, you say "Our senses are faulty and unreliable, therefore we can not trust them."
JEJMDTD 1 year ago
@threewiseman1 Not even worth it.
johngeetar 1 year ago