@Tank94Mage Yes, I think I am. I have, at least, not really been presented, as far as I know, to anything set so much in stone that there weren't exceptions.
Take taking a human life. Immoral? Sure. And yet the US has legally allowed death sentencing.
What I do think is set in stone is the fact that being moral is a good idea. It's the best option. From thereon, it's fairly "simple" to construct good universal moral concepts such as the golden rule.
@Gnug215 You know it is a moral obligation to follow laws of logic. I.e. you trying to proove somthing through logic that is set in stone points to a moral law.
@Tank94Mage I'm not sure I'm following you here. How is an obligation (according to who?) a moral law? And how do you conclude that following logic points to moral laws? Are you saying morals and logic are the same thing? Is there a logic lawgiver too?
@Gnug215 None of that is what I was saying, what I was saying is that for someone to follow the laws of logic they have to decide morally to follow a rule.
@Tank94Mage What's wrong with that logic is that the two premises are assumptions.
Humans observe nature, make up words to describe it, imitate it, but that doesn't mean that just because we humans have made laws, which obviously have a lawgiver, then it's the same in nature.
Natural laws are descriptions of what happens EVERY time under specific circumstances. With human laws, it can be different each time. It's not ALWAYS a law that you can't kill, is it?
@Gnug215 There are assumptions? You are arguing for a Nihilistic view at that point. I don't just assume that there are moral laws as even you admit there are. Nor do I assume that all laws have a lawgiver because of the very definition of a law. Your trying to twist the words when you say its not always a law to not kill because morally it is not right to kill.
@Tank94Mage I'm not twisting anything, other than demonstrating that, as you now almost seem admit, not all laws have a lawgiver.
The fact that we humans have something that we have chosen to call "moral laws" (what those exactly are is up to debate) is not evidence for any kind of moral lawgiver. Hence, the logic of your syllogism is wrong.
Belief in God is not enough as you claimed, the devil and his angels sure believe in him yet will they be saved? "once saved always saved is not what we believe in, you basing your arguments from what some inconsetant people believe in. "Generally exepted understanding" from what standard? I put it to you, THERE ARE MORAL LAWS, ALL LAWS HAVE A LAW GIVER, THEREFOR THERE IS A LAWGIVER. if anyone tells me what is flawed with this statment then i conced defeat.
@Tank94Mage The only way to be saved is through Jesus, right? And the "once saved always saved" is something I've heard many Christians claim, so if you don't accept that, then my criticism of that particular bit of theology does not apply to you. I do indeed perceive it as generally accepted among many Christians.
As for the moral laws and lawgives, you're just making (yelling) a statement. You have no evidence for it, do you? If you show me evidence for the lawgiver, then I shall concede.
Starting as a christian we were subjected to the murder and mayhem and destruction in the bible. We managed to convince religious teachers of RH (religious hour) every day, that some of us had something else to do. We escaped for an hour of calm and peace without having to draw pics of jesus being crucified or people being stoned. Then followed a life of seeing the corruption of the church, child molesting church leaders, christian thieves and liars. It doesnt take much to see who is evil!!
What I meant was that when religious people talk about morality, their message is essentially "Because God said so". But well, since it's kinda hard to prove God's existence, their message actually boils down to what you said, "Because I said so" - or "Because some ancient goat-herder with a papyrus said so, and I agree!"
Christian style religion in general is easily identifiable as a means of regulating the social activities of the commoners during the era of its creation (while mythology style is simply an explanation for the reason behind forces that hold sway in the world)
I don't see what compels people to believe so strongly in it. If we could just get it out of the way, many more productive advances in science and humanity in general could be made in a relatively short time.
As an ex-Christian, I think I can see some of the motivation for believing in it. It can actually be a very difficult mental process to not have well-defined absolutes to stick to. That "tentativeness" of, for example, not knowing what came before the Big Bang, but accepting that you don't know, can be very hard.
The same goes for not having an absolute moral compass.
Even when I was a lot younger and still believed in the basic Christian idea of God, I questioned the ethical standards of it's foundations and found that they were terribly, TERRIBLY flawed.
Same here, really. I don't think I even ever expected Christianity to have a complete set of morality. I always figured society would handle that.
It seems Christians are upholding some idea about morality being absolute in their head, just by referring to God. And yet you'd be hard pressed to find two Christians who have the exact same moral standards. Funny how that works.
2) The analogy in the moral sphere would be the re-examining of a moral problem a number of times before arriving at a conclusion, entailing the sum of right plus wrong, divided by the square root of two. But we all know “the sum of right plus wrong, divided by the square root of two” has no meaning. So therefore the moral high ground that Christians take is non-existent.
1) Christians are flawed in their embracing of absolute morality. Their assertion that there are unquestionable moral laws unconsciously relies on Quantum Mechanics’ Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which stipulates that the more one knows of a particle’s position, the less one knows of its momentum, & vice-versa. This encapsulates for our time the loss of a moral compass, the difficulty of absolute judgments.
Of course religious morality is flawed. The bible suggests some pretty wicked stuff yet people cherry pick which to follow and which not to follow. So that bears the question, does morality really come from religion when you are choosing which acts to follow? Seems like its more a personal choice than a biblical one and another strike against religion.
Exactly. And one of the excuses often used is "but that's the Old Testament", and then they proceed to explain how the rules of the OT made sense for that society back then.
By doing so, however, they actually admit that morality changes with the times, something they usually argue heavily against, too.
I am an athiest and I worship only myself, is that so wrong?
Self preservation is the hallmark of our species, following selective propagation thru copulation with the opposite sex, ensuring generational proliferation of my superior genes are carried on to successive incarnations, hence the cycle of survival begins all over again.
Even though I am homosexual by choice, I plan to breed with select women of my choosing, ensuring my DNA carries on long after I am pronounced clinically braindead.
(continued) I imagine you have heard the statement that "It is easier for a camel to go throught the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God". Do you know why that is so? Not because money is evil, but because the rich man doesn't think he needs saving. God saves those who accept that they need saving. The person who says, I don't need God, does not need to be sent to Hell, they have chosen it for themselves. C.S. Lewis said,"The door of hell is locked from the inside"
Your hypothetical person who lied just once in their life would be a law-breaker the same as the murderer. Neither deserves heaven. Both deserve Hell, yet God offers mercy. What can be said of those who refuse it? (continued)
The bible teaches the exact opposite, at least in regards to heaven. God is perfect and so is His standard. It is impossible for us to live up to His standard. This is precisely the reason why our sins must be paid for. There is no weighing our good deeds against our bad to see which is heavier. We are either law-breakers or we are not, as James 2:10 makes clear. (continued)
Which is exactly why Christian morality is flawed: Good deeds (being morally good) accomplishes nothing, and on the flip side, one minor bad deed effectively sends you to Hell for eternal, excruciating punishment.
According to Christians, morality is not about what we humans consider good or bad (toward each other) but only about what God says (although not what he does, since genocide and whatnot was not beyond him).
Firstly, I want to thank you for your replies. I wish that I had the means to make my own video, or that YouTube was an easier place to carry on a discussion, But all the same, I appreciate your time. Part of the trouble with discussing this issue is simply that there is so much to be said, and a proper discussion really demands laying some foundations and defining terms. I will try to do that tomorrow if i have the time as this is definitely an issue worth discussing. Thanks again.
Although I would imagine that it may be the fault of Christians who misrepresent the teaching of the Bible rather than yours, I yet must correct you on the statement "the reward or punishment for living up to these standards or failing to do so are corespondingly ultimate". I'm afraid that if you have ever heard that notion given as the teaching of the Bible then it is very likely given by a person who has never read it. (continued)
The notions opposed in this video are some I have seen espoused by many Christians in my time, among other here on YouTube; even VFX, which is/was the biggest voice of Christianity here on YouTube.
I mean, you don't deny that the punishment/reward in the theist "model" is Hell and Heaven, right?
And the ways to get to Hell are many, actually it's by default, while Heaven has only one way, even one that doesn't really deal with morality, namely Jesus.
Also, I might point out that you contradict yourself in the first place when you say that being moral out of fear of punishment is not really being more at all. If someone is only moral in order to gain reward or to avoid punishment, then what is it that they are being guided by? They are in fact being guided by self-interest. The very thing you later cite as a good reason to be moral. I would be very interested in your thoughts on these observations.
(third and last comment, in case you are losing track of which response is to which.)
While what I've said so far denotes a dichotomy, once we agree to that social contract, we open up the possibility of a scaled spectrum of morality, namely: how much good we can do.
Maintaining the socail order is good, but furthering it, helping others beyond that, that is the ideal, and what can truly be considered good.
This can be a bit hard to explain, but did that make more sense?
None of those reasons leave you being moral for the sake of morality itself, but rather being moral because it happens to please or benefit you in some way. With that being said, could you please elaborate on what it means to be moral for the sake of being moral.
So, not doing bad towards others because it is bad to you is a more pertinent explanation, and while that still may appear as self-interest, it is clear that the interest extends to everyone else, too, so that the rule becomes one that benefits all. This is the social contract we agree to which, to me, is a matter of common sense, because the alternative is obviously negative; total breakdown of society. (cont.)
Alright but I am a christian and I do not fear hell. Instead, I decide to live by the commandments of righteousness because I appreciate God's love for me. He loves us so much that he sent his only Son to die on the cross for us to pay for our wages. That means that we are free, we have freewill. However, if we decide to be wicked, we choose to be foolish.
Well, that's nice, but I'd argue that you still couldn't claim the moral high road (not saying you are, btw) on that, because as I see it, being moral for the sake of morality is the most moral you can get - any other reason for being moral is... well, not immoral, but something else. Do you see what I'm getting at?
But again, this video doesn't really apply to you, but to those Christians that claim to be more moral than others.
Gnug215, I'd like to ask you a question: When you state that it is more moral to be moral for the sake of being moral, what exactly do you mean? You seem to have trouble making yourself clear on that point, among others. All the "good reasons" that you mention for being moral, common sense, compassion, the golden rule, all really boil down to the last one that you mention, that being self-interest. (continued)
About being moral for the sake of being moral - as opposed to being moral for the sake of reward, say, from peers, from society or in the afterlife, or from fear of punishment:
The alternative may seem to be self-interest, but I disagree that this is quite the case.
The point of the Golden Rule is not to state that what is good to you is good to all, but rather that what isn't good to you probably isn't good for others, in a general sense. (cont.)
1)Many people who lived before Jesus came to earth were good people and thus didn't deserve their fate of limbo
2)If you have to accept Jesus to get into heaven most of the world is doomed already PURELY on where they were born and which faith they were brought up to believe
It's not really that hard to understand though. If one believes that abortion is murder, then one would also believe that anyone who supports the right of some people to have an abortion also supports the right of a person to commit murder. If one were to support the right of someone to commit murder, then they are saying that they believe that it's OK for someone to commit murder, as long as they can justify it to themselves. It's guilt by refusal to act.
touchy subject I know, but you're saying then murder is never justifiable?
In my philosophy class we were given an interesting thought experiment which asked if we would kill a baby in order to save 1000 people from dieing. Would you?
It matters less if you would actually do it, the point is more to show that there are no absolutes in life.
At least that's how I see it. But I'm curious to hear more of this "guilt by refusal to act."
No, I'm not even touching on the issue of justification. (mostly because justification is not needed to have an abortion).
Guilt by refusal to act is basically the concept of someone deserving guilt for an act that they see as wrong because they could have done something to prevent the act but refused to do so.
I'm going to assume you're anti-abortion, correct? If so, have you never heard a case where you thought it was justifiable for a mother to get an abortion. A case in which you use only yourself and not your bible to make a decision based on what you think is right, guided only by empathy, compassion and reason. I'd be happy to provide some gloomy stories if not.
I am anti-abortion, but not without exceptions. I don't use a Bible (it would be pretty weird for me to do so, not being a Christian) or any other holy book. I have heard plenty of scenarios where I think abortions would be an acceptable thing, which is why I don't approve of a blanket ban. For me though, the justification is pretty much limited to health of the mother or rape.
so then you're not anti-abortion, you simply support abortion because it is a useful, albeit devastating, procedure for such examples as you've mentioned.
Besides rational scenarios where having a child would cause more harm than good, what other reasons are there to have an abortion? Have you met a girl who has had one? Not exactly an easy thing for a girl to go through so I think we can fairly rule out "a method of contraception", no?
I am (generally speaking) anti-abortion. I simply won't pretend that it is never the best of a variety of awful choices (for instance, when the mother's health is at risk). Are you saying that it isn't used as a method on contraception, or that it shouldn't be used as one?
Depends what you mean by contraception. Having an abortion because you can't afford the child is thinking in the child's best interest and not simply contraception. If so, then that broad definition would also emcompass health of the mother.
If women are using abortion as a replacement for condoms, they are certainly the exception not the rule. The people I know who have had
abortions have done so not because they wanted to, but because it was in the best interest for them and the child.
I'd accept that sort of thinking if not for the fact there are so many couples ready and willing to adopt babies. I still don't see how you would be able to tie using abortion as a simple contraceptive tool to the health of the mother. I'm not talking about using it as contraception as in lieu of condoms or something, but as a backup when whatever form of contraception a woman was using failed.
The "best interest of the child" argument only works if you accept that the child is better off dead.
It would include the health of the mother because, under the aforementioned definition, it would always involve choice, and therefore a heirarchy of betters would have to be established in order to justify a just decision. In fact, there's room one to argue, if the choice was either mother or child, that the moral high ground might involve sacrificing one's own life for the child.
This is all philosophy bullshit tho. Life, unlike academics, takes place in the real world, (continued)
...and requires context to situations in order to come to rational decisions based on virtue. This causes a dilemma; who gets the ultimate choice over onse's body? The individual or the State?
Adoption is an option but not a solution. There can be psychological burdens from growing up in orphanages. Much of this depends on the age, time and condition of the half-way home.
Furthermore, it's not about thinking the child is better off dead but rather, wanting to spare a child(continued)
from a set of circumstances that may be detrimental/abusive to their overall development. I think, for example, people who are addicts, or have anger issues shouldn't be bringing children into this world.
We're not talking about moral high ground or personal nobility. We're talking about not killing. If it was a life or death choice between the mother or the child, I'd leave it up to the mother. If the two options are dead or something else, then yes, it IS about being better off dead.
The point is, this is biblical, if you want to counter them, you need to counter their stupidity and stuff they have in their bible. It doesn't matter if the Chritians think this, this is where their logic leads.
Christians no longer think that slavery is ok
ay, does this change the fact that the bible that is supposedly word of god, and a moral compass advocates and tells the Jews to do so? Or that the bible was used as an excuse to continue it?
enter the dilemma of saying the bible is the word of god or that we derive morals from the bible. If we are able to distinguish what is good and bad by reading the bible(e.g. murder, slavery, witchburning, stoning, etc.,) then a) we are working from an independent factor to god(be it innate or learned) and/or b) god is a savage trying to get us to perform acts contrary to moral principals for unknown reasons.
Heh I like my theory C). If there struely and really is a god out there he created the koran, bible, Torah, Bahk gavida and all the others with the idea of wheeding out those who truly don't deserve heaven, by putting books out tehre with the most horrible of ideas and commandments, and seeing wich people will throw out their morals, their belief in right and wrong, simply because god commands it. Religion is simply the true test from god.
I think what they are saying is that, acording to the bible all you need is to repent and ask for forgiveness and you go to heaven, and some parts of the bible even imply simple belief in Jesus is all that is needed.
Now if you have someone that rapes/kills children, babies what have you, and in the end repents and realizes his mistakes he goes to heaven, no if and or buts, otherwise the whole idea of salvation through grace doesn't work.
In this case, all those that were killed that were not saved *and no where in the bible does it state that Children are exempt from damnation if they die below a age* went to hell.
So yes, heaven is full of murderer's rapist and such that found god in their later years, while all those that they killed or tormented but were never saved went to hell. A wonderfully just system..
Health care professionals who perform abortions are not necessarily liberal or atheists. There are even mainstream churches who support a woman's right to choose as a matter of their own conscience.
False statement, ie, a straw man.
Those same placard-carrying folk think believing murderers go to heaven and their victims go to hell unless they were "saved". That's their dogma. Some even believe all aborted fetuses go to hell.
I'm supposed to not say a true statement -- believers think murderers go to heaven -- in exchange for others to not use a false statement -- liberal atheists kill babies.
It's not me who says so. It's the christians who declare salvation through grace, not works.
You can live the most horrid perverted life, commit every crime, revel in every evil act imaginable; but if you "give your life to Jesus" at the end, you go to heaven. According to THEM. Not me.
The most religious places on earth are prisons. Because it doesn't matter what you do, you get to go to heaven just by raising your hands in the air and waving at the ceiling.
Here's the conundrum...if Scott Peterson's wife is in heaven and heaven is pain free, does she know whether or not Scott converts and ALSO goes to heaven? And what about his unborn child? Some Christians argue that unbaptised babies go to hell -- this is why they're against abortion.
So, (assuming he converts as most death row inmates do) Scott gets to go to heaven but the baby he murdered endures eternal torment.
Bravo Excelent video. But is it all creationists that have a flawed moral sense or is it just the bulling fanatics that you are refering to. I would like to think that some have a greater moral sense for the same reasons some atheists do, because its right. I feel that humans are naturaly evil apes and that some just use fanatical religious beliefs as the venue to redeem thier conscience from guilt. Why are they threatened by athiests, are they fearful of weeknesses exposed or appearing stupid?
Thanks! And these are interesting questions you raise. I am fully aware of the fact that I generalized heavily in this video, so I wouldn't say it applies to all.
Mostly, I'm trying to poke holes in faulty arguments, and sometimes that involved accusing a whole group of various misdeeds.
I agree that some do probably have a greater moral sense, but they still seem to contribute that wholly to God, somehow.
I feel that humans are naturally neutral apes, capable of both good and evil, some more than others. Explaining and redeeming those qualities within us is, I think, part of the reason religion arose in the first place. Religion usually explains where evil comes from, thus relenquishing us humans of a lot of the guilt or, ultimately, responsibility, but it also takes the credit for our good, so it's a tradeoff. Mostly a bad one, I think.
It does seem to me as if some of these fanatics are afraid of being exposed as morally corrupt people, and so they adhere vigorously to a faith and go through (most of) the motions needed to pass as a religious person, and thus by default (by their logic) a moral person.
Like I say in my video, a lot of them "admit" that they would do whatever they felt like if they believed there was no divine morality.
I'm sure they actually believe, but I question their motives.
Yes it does seem that alot of them do commit moral injustices with out guilt or remorse, simply because they believe God will hold their actions as just and forgivable. Evil is excusable in their minds, I hold their logic in contempt and simultaneously pity their intellect.
Indeed, me too. Well, those of them that do what you said. I do realize not everyone is like this, and I have plenty of Christian friends that prove that, but ah well, that's how it is - and I think it just goes to show that there is nothing special about the Christian religion, since like every other group/religion out there, they have their village idiots, too.
True, the creationists have been pleasently absent from most of my videos.
I could of course interpret that as a sign that the creationist are just totally stumped by my arguments, but I'm afraid that it probably just means that not too many people are watching my vids. ;)
well they are great videos so... its only a matter of time before you get tons of creationists up in here telling the rest of us that we are going to hell etc etc etc...
Enjoy the underground time while it lasts. Before you know it creationist bot will be spamming you too! :P
If the only reason to do "good" is the illusion of getting into heaven, you are being selfish. Its like telling a small child: "if you say sorry you will get a candy-bar", the child wont apologies because it feels sorry, but because it wants the candy-bar.
Well, I'd be prone to agree with you, actually. Or well, I'd say that it's likely that the first prophets of a religion could be psychopaths, but the very first followers would be... well, something else - maybe just normal, trustworthy people with a huge need to believe in something.
But yeah, since psychopaths are often pathological liars, it's not unlikely that they would generate a whole mythology around themselves like that.
The more research I do, I think psychopaths invented religion to control people. Think about the earlier religions and human sacrafices for example. It's definatly psychopatic behaviour criteria.
Lets just say that if I was right, Religious morality would come from psychopaths who just twisted morality to gain control over the masses.
As of 2012:
Less than 1% of the US prison population is Atheist.
75% of the US prison population is Christian.
~24% of the US prison population follow some other religion
~10% of the overall US population are Atheists.
75% of the US population is Christian.
Looks like religious people who claim to be the most moral are the ones going to prison.
inEarthCEO 1 month ago
@inEarthCEO A piece of statistic that Christians have a really hard time dealing with.
Gnug215 1 month ago
Comment removed
inEarthCEO 1 month ago
Are you saying that morality is not set in stone?
Tank94Mage 9 months ago
@Tank94Mage Yes, I think I am. I have, at least, not really been presented, as far as I know, to anything set so much in stone that there weren't exceptions.
Take taking a human life. Immoral? Sure. And yet the US has legally allowed death sentencing.
What I do think is set in stone is the fact that being moral is a good idea. It's the best option. From thereon, it's fairly "simple" to construct good universal moral concepts such as the golden rule.
Gnug215 9 months ago
@Gnug215 You know it is a moral obligation to follow laws of logic. I.e. you trying to proove somthing through logic that is set in stone points to a moral law.
Tank94Mage 9 months ago
@Tank94Mage I'm not sure I'm following you here. How is an obligation (according to who?) a moral law? And how do you conclude that following logic points to moral laws? Are you saying morals and logic are the same thing? Is there a logic lawgiver too?
Gnug215 9 months ago
@Gnug215 None of that is what I was saying, what I was saying is that for someone to follow the laws of logic they have to decide morally to follow a rule.
Tank94Mage 9 months ago
@Tank94Mage Hmm, I've never been too good at discussions like this. You've lost me here. :)
Gnug215 9 months ago
@Gnug215 It's fine =] It's just an open discussion but hopefully I gave you somthing good to think on.
Tank94Mage 9 months ago
@Tank94Mage Certainly, and likewise. Thanks for the discussion. :)
Gnug215 8 months ago
simple logic
1.all laws have a law giver
2.there are moral laws
3. therefor there is a moral lawgiver
whats wrong with that logic?
Tank94Mage 9 months ago
@Tank94Mage What's wrong with that logic is that the two premises are assumptions.
Humans observe nature, make up words to describe it, imitate it, but that doesn't mean that just because we humans have made laws, which obviously have a lawgiver, then it's the same in nature.
Natural laws are descriptions of what happens EVERY time under specific circumstances. With human laws, it can be different each time. It's not ALWAYS a law that you can't kill, is it?
Gnug215 9 months ago
@Gnug215 There are assumptions? You are arguing for a Nihilistic view at that point. I don't just assume that there are moral laws as even you admit there are. Nor do I assume that all laws have a lawgiver because of the very definition of a law. Your trying to twist the words when you say its not always a law to not kill because morally it is not right to kill.
Tank94Mage 9 months ago
@Tank94Mage I'm not twisting anything, other than demonstrating that, as you now almost seem admit, not all laws have a lawgiver.
The fact that we humans have something that we have chosen to call "moral laws" (what those exactly are is up to debate) is not evidence for any kind of moral lawgiver. Hence, the logic of your syllogism is wrong.
Gnug215 9 months ago
Belief in God is not enough as you claimed, the devil and his angels sure believe in him yet will they be saved? "once saved always saved is not what we believe in, you basing your arguments from what some inconsetant people believe in. "Generally exepted understanding" from what standard? I put it to you, THERE ARE MORAL LAWS, ALL LAWS HAVE A LAW GIVER, THEREFOR THERE IS A LAWGIVER. if anyone tells me what is flawed with this statment then i conced defeat.
Tank94Mage 9 months ago
@Tank94Mage The only way to be saved is through Jesus, right? And the "once saved always saved" is something I've heard many Christians claim, so if you don't accept that, then my criticism of that particular bit of theology does not apply to you. I do indeed perceive it as generally accepted among many Christians.
As for the moral laws and lawgives, you're just making (yelling) a statement. You have no evidence for it, do you? If you show me evidence for the lawgiver, then I shall concede.
Gnug215 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gnug215 simple logic
1.all laws have a law giver
2.there are moral laws
3. therefor there is a moral lawgiver
whats wrong with that logic?
Tank94Mage 9 months ago
Starting as a christian we were subjected to the murder and mayhem and destruction in the bible. We managed to convince religious teachers of RH (religious hour) every day, that some of us had something else to do. We escaped for an hour of calm and peace without having to draw pics of jesus being crucified or people being stoned. Then followed a life of seeing the corruption of the church, child molesting church leaders, christian thieves and liars. It doesnt take much to see who is evil!!
MikeWhiskyTango 1 year ago
Christian morality can be summed up in 4 words, "because I said so". That's got to be the worst basis for ethics ever.
humanistheart 1 year ago
@humanistheart If by "I" you mean "God" by extension - which then again really just means "I", then yes, I agree. ;)
Gnug215 1 year ago
@Gnug215 Uh-huh, not sure what your meaning there. But you agree with me, so that's a plus.
humanistheart 1 year ago
@humanistheart Heh, I know I was babbling...
What I meant was that when religious people talk about morality, their message is essentially "Because God said so". But well, since it's kinda hard to prove God's existence, their message actually boils down to what you said, "Because I said so" - or "Because some ancient goat-herder with a papyrus said so, and I agree!"
Gnug215 1 year ago
@Gnug215 Ah yes, much more articulate, lol. Very good points you brought to the table my friend :)
humanistheart 1 year ago
@humanistheart If left unchecked, I tend to babble incoherently. Anyway, glad I was able to make the point. :)
Gnug215 1 year ago
Christian style religion in general is easily identifiable as a means of regulating the social activities of the commoners during the era of its creation (while mythology style is simply an explanation for the reason behind forces that hold sway in the world)
I don't see what compels people to believe so strongly in it. If we could just get it out of the way, many more productive advances in science and humanity in general could be made in a relatively short time.
EdikShepherd 2 years ago
I absolutely agree.
As an ex-Christian, I think I can see some of the motivation for believing in it. It can actually be a very difficult mental process to not have well-defined absolutes to stick to. That "tentativeness" of, for example, not knowing what came before the Big Bang, but accepting that you don't know, can be very hard.
The same goes for not having an absolute moral compass.
Gnug215 2 years ago
Even when I was a lot younger and still believed in the basic Christian idea of God, I questioned the ethical standards of it's foundations and found that they were terribly, TERRIBLY flawed.
EdikShepherd 2 years ago
Same here, really. I don't think I even ever expected Christianity to have a complete set of morality. I always figured society would handle that.
It seems Christians are upholding some idea about morality being absolute in their head, just by referring to God. And yet you'd be hard pressed to find two Christians who have the exact same moral standards. Funny how that works.
Gnug215 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2) The analogy in the moral sphere would be the re-examining of a moral problem a number of times before arriving at a conclusion, entailing the sum of right plus wrong, divided by the square root of two. But we all know “the sum of right plus wrong, divided by the square root of two” has no meaning. So therefore the moral high ground that Christians take is non-existent.
muIhoIIanddose 1 year ago
1) Christians are flawed in their embracing of absolute morality. Their assertion that there are unquestionable moral laws unconsciously relies on Quantum Mechanics’ Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which stipulates that the more one knows of a particle’s position, the less one knows of its momentum, & vice-versa. This encapsulates for our time the loss of a moral compass, the difficulty of absolute judgments.
muIhoIIanddose 1 year ago
Of course religious morality is flawed. The bible suggests some pretty wicked stuff yet people cherry pick which to follow and which not to follow. So that bears the question, does morality really come from religion when you are choosing which acts to follow? Seems like its more a personal choice than a biblical one and another strike against religion.
chrisinsocalif 2 years ago
Exactly. And one of the excuses often used is "but that's the Old Testament", and then they proceed to explain how the rules of the OT made sense for that society back then.
By doing so, however, they actually admit that morality changes with the times, something they usually argue heavily against, too.
Gnug215 2 years ago
I am an athiest and I worship only myself, is that so wrong?
Self preservation is the hallmark of our species, following selective propagation thru copulation with the opposite sex, ensuring generational proliferation of my superior genes are carried on to successive incarnations, hence the cycle of survival begins all over again.
Even though I am homosexual by choice, I plan to breed with select women of my choosing, ensuring my DNA carries on long after I am pronounced clinically braindead.
HardlineAthiest 2 years ago
Uh... If you say so.
Gnug215 2 years ago
(continued) I imagine you have heard the statement that "It is easier for a camel to go throught the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God". Do you know why that is so? Not because money is evil, but because the rich man doesn't think he needs saving. God saves those who accept that they need saving. The person who says, I don't need God, does not need to be sent to Hell, they have chosen it for themselves. C.S. Lewis said,"The door of hell is locked from the inside"
posttenebraslux100 2 years ago
Your hypothetical person who lied just once in their life would be a law-breaker the same as the murderer. Neither deserves heaven. Both deserve Hell, yet God offers mercy. What can be said of those who refuse it? (continued)
posttenebraslux100 2 years ago
The bible teaches the exact opposite, at least in regards to heaven. God is perfect and so is His standard. It is impossible for us to live up to His standard. This is precisely the reason why our sins must be paid for. There is no weighing our good deeds against our bad to see which is heavier. We are either law-breakers or we are not, as James 2:10 makes clear. (continued)
posttenebraslux100 2 years ago
Which is exactly why Christian morality is flawed: Good deeds (being morally good) accomplishes nothing, and on the flip side, one minor bad deed effectively sends you to Hell for eternal, excruciating punishment.
According to Christians, morality is not about what we humans consider good or bad (toward each other) but only about what God says (although not what he does, since genocide and whatnot was not beyond him).
Gnug215 2 years ago
Firstly, I want to thank you for your replies. I wish that I had the means to make my own video, or that YouTube was an easier place to carry on a discussion, But all the same, I appreciate your time. Part of the trouble with discussing this issue is simply that there is so much to be said, and a proper discussion really demands laying some foundations and defining terms. I will try to do that tomorrow if i have the time as this is definitely an issue worth discussing. Thanks again.
posttenebraslux100 2 years ago
Thanks to you as well.
This is indeed not a fitting place for such a discussion, which is why I'm now working on sending you a personal mail replying in more detail.
I hope that's ok with you. :)
Gnug215 2 years ago
Although I would imagine that it may be the fault of Christians who misrepresent the teaching of the Bible rather than yours, I yet must correct you on the statement "the reward or punishment for living up to these standards or failing to do so are corespondingly ultimate". I'm afraid that if you have ever heard that notion given as the teaching of the Bible then it is very likely given by a person who has never read it. (continued)
posttenebraslux100 2 years ago
The notions opposed in this video are some I have seen espoused by many Christians in my time, among other here on YouTube; even VFX, which is/was the biggest voice of Christianity here on YouTube.
I mean, you don't deny that the punishment/reward in the theist "model" is Hell and Heaven, right?
And the ways to get to Hell are many, actually it's by default, while Heaven has only one way, even one that doesn't really deal with morality, namely Jesus.
Gnug215 2 years ago
Also, I might point out that you contradict yourself in the first place when you say that being moral out of fear of punishment is not really being more at all. If someone is only moral in order to gain reward or to avoid punishment, then what is it that they are being guided by? They are in fact being guided by self-interest. The very thing you later cite as a good reason to be moral. I would be very interested in your thoughts on these observations.
posttenebraslux100 2 years ago
(third and last comment, in case you are losing track of which response is to which.)
While what I've said so far denotes a dichotomy, once we agree to that social contract, we open up the possibility of a scaled spectrum of morality, namely: how much good we can do.
Maintaining the socail order is good, but furthering it, helping others beyond that, that is the ideal, and what can truly be considered good.
This can be a bit hard to explain, but did that make more sense?
Gnug215 2 years ago
None of those reasons leave you being moral for the sake of morality itself, but rather being moral because it happens to please or benefit you in some way. With that being said, could you please elaborate on what it means to be moral for the sake of being moral.
posttenebraslux100 2 years ago
So, not doing bad towards others because it is bad to you is a more pertinent explanation, and while that still may appear as self-interest, it is clear that the interest extends to everyone else, too, so that the rule becomes one that benefits all. This is the social contract we agree to which, to me, is a matter of common sense, because the alternative is obviously negative; total breakdown of society. (cont.)
Gnug215 2 years ago
Alright but I am a christian and I do not fear hell. Instead, I decide to live by the commandments of righteousness because I appreciate God's love for me. He loves us so much that he sent his only Son to die on the cross for us to pay for our wages. That means that we are free, we have freewill. However, if we decide to be wicked, we choose to be foolish.
remix01 2 years ago
Well, that's nice, but I'd argue that you still couldn't claim the moral high road (not saying you are, btw) on that, because as I see it, being moral for the sake of morality is the most moral you can get - any other reason for being moral is... well, not immoral, but something else. Do you see what I'm getting at?
But again, this video doesn't really apply to you, but to those Christians that claim to be more moral than others.
Gnug215 2 years ago
Gnug215, I'd like to ask you a question: When you state that it is more moral to be moral for the sake of being moral, what exactly do you mean? You seem to have trouble making yourself clear on that point, among others. All the "good reasons" that you mention for being moral, common sense, compassion, the golden rule, all really boil down to the last one that you mention, that being self-interest. (continued)
posttenebraslux100 2 years ago
About being moral for the sake of being moral - as opposed to being moral for the sake of reward, say, from peers, from society or in the afterlife, or from fear of punishment:
The alternative may seem to be self-interest, but I disagree that this is quite the case.
The point of the Golden Rule is not to state that what is good to you is good to all, but rather that what isn't good to you probably isn't good for others, in a general sense. (cont.)
Gnug215 2 years ago
Reasons god is totally unfair:
1)Many people who lived before Jesus came to earth were good people and thus didn't deserve their fate of limbo
2)If you have to accept Jesus to get into heaven most of the world is doomed already PURELY on where they were born and which faith they were brought up to believe
ratcatcherman 3 years ago
ya but apparently god works in mysterious ways
or maybe there's nothing mysterious about it and us non-believers have it right when we call him unfair, cruel, and tyranical.
Grizzly0679 3 years ago
It's not really that hard to understand though. If one believes that abortion is murder, then one would also believe that anyone who supports the right of some people to have an abortion also supports the right of a person to commit murder. If one were to support the right of someone to commit murder, then they are saying that they believe that it's OK for someone to commit murder, as long as they can justify it to themselves. It's guilt by refusal to act.
Beskargam 3 years ago
touchy subject I know, but you're saying then murder is never justifiable?
In my philosophy class we were given an interesting thought experiment which asked if we would kill a baby in order to save 1000 people from dieing. Would you?
It matters less if you would actually do it, the point is more to show that there are no absolutes in life.
At least that's how I see it. But I'm curious to hear more of this "guilt by refusal to act."
Grizzly0679 3 years ago
No, I'm not even touching on the issue of justification. (mostly because justification is not needed to have an abortion).
Guilt by refusal to act is basically the concept of someone deserving guilt for an act that they see as wrong because they could have done something to prevent the act but refused to do so.
Beskargam 3 years ago
yeah I got it. Jumped the gun with my initial response. My bad.
Grizzly0679 3 years ago
oh ok, I see what you're saying.
I'm going to assume you're anti-abortion, correct? If so, have you never heard a case where you thought it was justifiable for a mother to get an abortion. A case in which you use only yourself and not your bible to make a decision based on what you think is right, guided only by empathy, compassion and reason. I'd be happy to provide some gloomy stories if not.
Grizzly0679 3 years ago
I am anti-abortion, but not without exceptions. I don't use a Bible (it would be pretty weird for me to do so, not being a Christian) or any other holy book. I have heard plenty of scenarios where I think abortions would be an acceptable thing, which is why I don't approve of a blanket ban. For me though, the justification is pretty much limited to health of the mother or rape.
Beskargam 3 years ago
so then you're not anti-abortion, you simply support abortion because it is a useful, albeit devastating, procedure for such examples as you've mentioned.
Besides rational scenarios where having a child would cause more harm than good, what other reasons are there to have an abortion? Have you met a girl who has had one? Not exactly an easy thing for a girl to go through so I think we can fairly rule out "a method of contraception", no?
Grizzly0679 3 years ago
I am (generally speaking) anti-abortion. I simply won't pretend that it is never the best of a variety of awful choices (for instance, when the mother's health is at risk). Are you saying that it isn't used as a method on contraception, or that it shouldn't be used as one?
Beskargam 3 years ago
Depends what you mean by contraception. Having an abortion because you can't afford the child is thinking in the child's best interest and not simply contraception. If so, then that broad definition would also emcompass health of the mother.
If women are using abortion as a replacement for condoms, they are certainly the exception not the rule. The people I know who have had
abortions have done so not because they wanted to, but because it was in the best interest for them and the child.
Grizzly0679 3 years ago
I'd accept that sort of thinking if not for the fact there are so many couples ready and willing to adopt babies. I still don't see how you would be able to tie using abortion as a simple contraceptive tool to the health of the mother. I'm not talking about using it as contraception as in lieu of condoms or something, but as a backup when whatever form of contraception a woman was using failed.
The "best interest of the child" argument only works if you accept that the child is better off dead.
Beskargam 3 years ago
It would include the health of the mother because, under the aforementioned definition, it would always involve choice, and therefore a heirarchy of betters would have to be established in order to justify a just decision. In fact, there's room one to argue, if the choice was either mother or child, that the moral high ground might involve sacrificing one's own life for the child.
This is all philosophy bullshit tho. Life, unlike academics, takes place in the real world, (continued)
Grizzly0679 3 years ago
...and requires context to situations in order to come to rational decisions based on virtue. This causes a dilemma; who gets the ultimate choice over onse's body? The individual or the State?
Adoption is an option but not a solution. There can be psychological burdens from growing up in orphanages. Much of this depends on the age, time and condition of the half-way home.
Furthermore, it's not about thinking the child is better off dead but rather, wanting to spare a child(continued)
Grizzly0679 3 years ago
from a set of circumstances that may be detrimental/abusive to their overall development. I think, for example, people who are addicts, or have anger issues shouldn't be bringing children into this world.
Grizzly0679 3 years ago
We're not talking about moral high ground or personal nobility. We're talking about not killing. If it was a life or death choice between the mother or the child, I'd leave it up to the mother. If the two options are dead or something else, then yes, it IS about being better off dead.
Beskargam 3 years ago
The point is, this is biblical, if you want to counter them, you need to counter their stupidity and stuff they have in their bible. It doesn't matter if the Chritians think this, this is where their logic leads.
Christians no longer think that slavery is ok
ay, does this change the fact that the bible that is supposedly word of god, and a moral compass advocates and tells the Jews to do so? Or that the bible was used as an excuse to continue it?
wolfwing1 3 years ago
good point on slavery.
enter the dilemma of saying the bible is the word of god or that we derive morals from the bible. If we are able to distinguish what is good and bad by reading the bible(e.g. murder, slavery, witchburning, stoning, etc.,) then a) we are working from an independent factor to god(be it innate or learned) and/or b) god is a savage trying to get us to perform acts contrary to moral principals for unknown reasons.
Grizzly0679 3 years ago
Heh I like my theory C). If there struely and really is a god out there he created the koran, bible, Torah, Bahk gavida and all the others with the idea of wheeding out those who truly don't deserve heaven, by putting books out tehre with the most horrible of ideas and commandments, and seeing wich people will throw out their morals, their belief in right and wrong, simply because god commands it. Religion is simply the true test from god.
wolfwing1 3 years ago
I think what they are saying is that, acording to the bible all you need is to repent and ask for forgiveness and you go to heaven, and some parts of the bible even imply simple belief in Jesus is all that is needed.
Now if you have someone that rapes/kills children, babies what have you, and in the end repents and realizes his mistakes he goes to heaven, no if and or buts, otherwise the whole idea of salvation through grace doesn't work.
wolfwing1 3 years ago
In this case, all those that were killed that were not saved *and no where in the bible does it state that Children are exempt from damnation if they die below a age* went to hell.
So yes, heaven is full of murderer's rapist and such that found god in their later years, while all those that they killed or tormented but were never saved went to hell. A wonderfully just system..
wolfwing1 3 years ago
But that's different that "liberal atheists kill babies". You don't need to be either a liberal or an atheist to "kill babies".
And frankly, I would go about as far as I could possibly go to distance myself from that kind of thinking. Including getting a more-tolerant religion.
middlekk 3 years ago
Sigh/ That's what "straw man" means.
Health care professionals who perform abortions are not necessarily liberal or atheists. There are even mainstream churches who support a woman's right to choose as a matter of their own conscience.
False statement, ie, a straw man.
Those same placard-carrying folk think believing murderers go to heaven and their victims go to hell unless they were "saved". That's their dogma. Some even believe all aborted fetuses go to hell.
True statement.
middlekk 3 years ago
So, what you're presenting is a false dichotomy.
I'm supposed to not say a true statement -- believers think murderers go to heaven -- in exchange for others to not use a false statement -- liberal atheists kill babies.
It's not a fair exchange.
middlekk 3 years ago
Again. It's not me who says so.
It's Christians who say that salvation is through grace, not works.
According to their philosophy, it is quite possible that Karla Faye Tucker is in heaven and the person she murdered is in hell.
So, your "tu quoque" argument fails to recognize that one statement is a true expression of belief, while the other is an obviously false straw man.
Sorry. Not playing that game. I stand by my statement.
middlekk 3 years ago
It's not me who says so. It's the christians who declare salvation through grace, not works.
You can live the most horrid perverted life, commit every crime, revel in every evil act imaginable; but if you "give your life to Jesus" at the end, you go to heaven. According to THEM. Not me.
Don't shoot the messenger.
middlekk 3 years ago
5 stars... :)
smygenelite 3 years ago
Thanks. :)
Gnug215 3 years ago
Heaven is filled with murderers and baby rapists.
The most religious places on earth are prisons. Because it doesn't matter what you do, you get to go to heaven just by raising your hands in the air and waving at the ceiling.
middlekk 3 years ago
Heh, yeah, how's that for morality?
:)
Gnug215 3 years ago
Here's the conundrum...if Scott Peterson's wife is in heaven and heaven is pain free, does she know whether or not Scott converts and ALSO goes to heaven? And what about his unborn child? Some Christians argue that unbaptised babies go to hell -- this is why they're against abortion.
So, (assuming he converts as most death row inmates do) Scott gets to go to heaven but the baby he murdered endures eternal torment.
Some morality.
middlekk 3 years ago
extreamly flawed logic indeed!
GHLemaitre 3 years ago
Heh, that's just screwed. I don't see how anyone could defend this viewpoint. It just doesn't make any sense, morally speaking.
Gnug215 3 years ago
Bravo Excelent video. But is it all creationists that have a flawed moral sense or is it just the bulling fanatics that you are refering to. I would like to think that some have a greater moral sense for the same reasons some atheists do, because its right. I feel that humans are naturaly evil apes and that some just use fanatical religious beliefs as the venue to redeem thier conscience from guilt. Why are they threatened by athiests, are they fearful of weeknesses exposed or appearing stupid?
GHLemaitre 3 years ago
Thanks! And these are interesting questions you raise. I am fully aware of the fact that I generalized heavily in this video, so I wouldn't say it applies to all.
Mostly, I'm trying to poke holes in faulty arguments, and sometimes that involved accusing a whole group of various misdeeds.
I agree that some do probably have a greater moral sense, but they still seem to contribute that wholly to God, somehow.
Gnug215 3 years ago
I feel that humans are naturally neutral apes, capable of both good and evil, some more than others. Explaining and redeeming those qualities within us is, I think, part of the reason religion arose in the first place. Religion usually explains where evil comes from, thus relenquishing us humans of a lot of the guilt or, ultimately, responsibility, but it also takes the credit for our good, so it's a tradeoff. Mostly a bad one, I think.
Gnug215 3 years ago
It does seem to me as if some of these fanatics are afraid of being exposed as morally corrupt people, and so they adhere vigorously to a faith and go through (most of) the motions needed to pass as a religious person, and thus by default (by their logic) a moral person.
Like I say in my video, a lot of them "admit" that they would do whatever they felt like if they believed there was no divine morality.
I'm sure they actually believe, but I question their motives.
Gnug215 3 years ago
Yes it does seem that alot of them do commit moral injustices with out guilt or remorse, simply because they believe God will hold their actions as just and forgivable. Evil is excusable in their minds, I hold their logic in contempt and simultaneously pity their intellect.
GHLemaitre 3 years ago
Indeed, me too. Well, those of them that do what you said. I do realize not everyone is like this, and I have plenty of Christian friends that prove that, but ah well, that's how it is - and I think it just goes to show that there is nothing special about the Christian religion, since like every other group/religion out there, they have their village idiots, too.
Gnug215 3 years ago
Wow. Awesome vid dude. Great job. Love it. Yeay! Kitties are in it too. :)
katskrach88 3 years ago
Hehe, thanks!
And yes, my goal is to have kittens in all of my vids. ;)
Gnug215 3 years ago
just an observation but, I think it is nice to have a good comment discussion with out the creationists and bible thumpers for a change.
TachiRdiesDirty 3 years ago
True, the creationists have been pleasently absent from most of my videos.
I could of course interpret that as a sign that the creationist are just totally stumped by my arguments, but I'm afraid that it probably just means that not too many people are watching my vids. ;)
Gnug215 3 years ago
well they are great videos so... its only a matter of time before you get tons of creationists up in here telling the rest of us that we are going to hell etc etc etc...
Enjoy the underground time while it lasts. Before you know it creationist bot will be spamming you too! :P
TachiRdiesDirty 3 years ago
i had to chuckle at that candy bar line :)
TachiRdiesDirty 3 years ago
Hehe, I chuckled too when eyeseetheworld used the analogy, since he's dead on. :)
Gnug215 3 years ago
If the only reason to do "good" is the illusion of getting into heaven, you are being selfish. Its like telling a small child: "if you say sorry you will get a candy-bar", the child wont apologies because it feels sorry, but because it wants the candy-bar.
eyeseetheworld 3 years ago
Exactly. Christian morality is like this huge candybar in the sky for adults.
That's not superior or productive in any way if you ask me.
Gnug215 3 years ago
Outstanding video, Gnug -- the posters and comics alone were a complete riot! I must ask, where did you find them?
TrenchantAtheist 3 years ago
Hey, glad you liked it, thanks! :)
The pictures in my vids are mostly from scouring the Internet by Google picture search, and from various picture sites.
I have a couple thousand lying around now.
And yes, it took forever to find and dl them all. :)
Gnug215 3 years ago
Thanks. :)
Well, I'd be prone to agree with you, actually. Or well, I'd say that it's likely that the first prophets of a religion could be psychopaths, but the very first followers would be... well, something else - maybe just normal, trustworthy people with a huge need to believe in something.
But yeah, since psychopaths are often pathological liars, it's not unlikely that they would generate a whole mythology around themselves like that.
Gnug215 3 years ago
Thanks for making this video, great job Gnug!
Not to go off on a huge tangent.
The more research I do, I think psychopaths invented religion to control people. Think about the earlier religions and human sacrafices for example. It's definatly psychopatic behaviour criteria.
Lets just say that if I was right, Religious morality would come from psychopaths who just twisted morality to gain control over the masses.
TachiRdiesDirty 3 years ago
"The more research I do, I think psychopaths invented religion to control people" -- TachiR
On that subject, here is an excellent -- and brilliantly troubling -- "How to make your own mind control cult" (i.e. religion on the small scale)
watch?v=mnNSe5XYp6E
TrenchantAtheist 3 years ago
thanks I will check it out!
TachiRdiesDirty 3 years ago
Heh, I watched that vid, great stuff.
:)
Gnug215 3 years ago
me too ditto!
TachiRdiesDirty 3 years ago
"Heh, I watched that vid, great stuff." -- Gnug
Glad you enjoyed it. I would recommend all the other videos in my favorites and say they're all great... but of course I'm biased :)
TrenchantAtheist 3 years ago
Hehe, judging from a quick look of your favs, it seems we have quite a few of them in common.
Although I have just a tad more favs than you. So yeah, ditto on the recommendation! :)
Gnug215 3 years ago