Richard Dawkins - Religion vs Morality

[Confessor62]

This video is hilarious. He doesn't know what on earth he is talking about. His argument is completely inept. If he had done any Philosophy papers at Oxford he would realise his mistake. Morality is dependent on there being a God. Do a paper on Ethics at university and then comment guys!

[toronto444444]

@Confessor62 There is no god. At least there has never been any solid evidence for one. I have seen Santa Claus though. Lots of times. And Superman. I've seen him too! But no one has any proof of god.

[toronto444444]

@Confessor62 Anyone stupid enough to insist morality is dependent on a god must believe in a god. Only the irrational believe in the superstition of gods, higher powers, spirits, souls. No one needs to be told 'you should not murder'. Society (people) figured out it was common sense. Group co-operation gets more accomplished. No god required. Prove how gods (without the use of man made holy books like the bible) give us morality as a command. Man wrote the bible not a god.

[toronto444444]

@Confessor62 You could be but regardless of the label there are certain truths that rational people see as self evident as adults. Morality developed among civilized peoples without input from god. In fact wherever religion holds power there is a greater chamnce for black and white rules that end up causing immoral behaviour. The dark ages were highly religious and in hindsight very immoral. The age of reason moved morality in a positive direction by ignoring religious dogma.

[toronto444444]

@Confessor62 look for the 'immorality of religion' Hitchens. youtube. He sums up the immorality of jesus quite nicely.

[toronto444444]

@Confessor62 Religion has been resposible for more immoral acts in history than any other force. Morality was around long before any organized religious superstition. The new testament was made up to counter the immorality of the old testament. The most moral countries are the least religious. Norway, Sweden and teh Netherlands. The least moral are also the most religious. More spousal abuse and porn shops can be found in the bible belt than anywhere else.

[Confessor62]

@toronto444444 I am curious what you are defining as moral. After studying a bit of philosophy you will understand that objective morality is reliant on a God's existence. Note that what I am talking about when I say morality, is a moral imperative. a SHOULD.

I.e. You should not murder. This is only relevant when it comes from a God who has created us. You talk about spousal abuse etc, but I would challenge you, why is that stuff wrong? Looking forward to see your reply.

[toronto444444]

@Confessor62 Anyone with a balanced conscience can tell right from wrong. Some people may rationalize their way around it e.g.shop lifting, stealing, bullying but if they are rational they know the behaviour is morally wrong. Up to 1% of the population are psycopaths. They may not be able to control their choices but they often commit immoral acts and not believe they are immoral but they are a minority. Societies without religion are more moral than religious ones.

[Confessor62]

@toronto444444 Ok. I would like to make a few points here. In those points I am not going to try make you believe in God as you keep saying I am trying to do. I am going to take the position of a moral nihilist. Firstly if we need to clear up what morals and ethical principles actually are. I would argue that when we talk about ethics we are talking about a way to live. i.e. Someone might have the moral "you should not murder". This is an instruction of how to live.....

[Confessor62]

@Confessor62 The word "should" implies function and design. i.e. a clocks function is to tell time. Now if God created us with a "function" (creates us with and for a purpose) if we do not perform this function, this is incorrect, it is wrong. It would be like you building a clock with the function to tell time. It ticks away for a few seconds and then blows up. You built that clock with a function, it didn't fulfill that function. That is what we mean by the word "wrong".

[Confessor62]

@Confessor62 ...So its the same scenario if God exists. If God exists, and If he created us with a function, then we can get those "should"s. We can have right and wrong. i.e. what Hitler did to the Jews was really "wrong". "Why was it wrong" Because it went against an inbuilt function. He wasn't supposed to kill all those people. God is a way to get a moral system. But now, lets approach the Atheist worldview and get a moral system going....

[Confessor62]

@Confessor62 ...2) Alright you can stop assuming God exists now, we are going to make a moral system without him now. Lets take "you should not murder". Again, this is an imperative. So lets question this. "Why should I not murder?" the reply might be that murder causes suffering and bad stuff. But this is begging the question, you have just put the question back. So the imperative is no longer "you should not murder, but rather "You should not cause suffering".....

[Confessor62]

@Confessor62 .... So this means if I find myself a situation where I can murder and not cause suffering, then it is not wrong. (So if I found a hobo and could shoot him in the head for no reason, i am not causing suffering thus there is nothing "wrong" with this.) But lets question this again. "Why should I not cause suffering?" Now this process can go on for ages, but what it eventually breaks down to is personal opinion. So you, who have the view that murder is wrong....

[Confessor62]

@Confessor62 ...is just as justified as someone like me who has no problem with murder. "Murder is not wrong, people just don't like it for their own selfish reasons".

You said above society can make morality. So there is a town of 10 people, and I come along , and a rule they have is that there is no stealing. I'm then caught stealing and hung. This isn't an example of a moral system, this is an example of me(the Nihilist) getting someone elses will forced upon me.....

[Confessor62]

@Confessor62 ... the opposite could happen. Me and 10 of my Nihilist friends have a town going and a rule we have is that all the men must rape someone on the full moon. A person comes along he doesn't want to do it, but we force him to do it. This is the same situation as the one above. Rules from society aren't morals, its more of a "who has the bigger stick" game. Now for some rebuttal to your last post a way up the page....

[Confessor62]

@Confessor62 "anyone with a balanced conscience..." can they really? What is a "balanced" conscience. I would argue this is a very subjective term. As I can claim to have a very "balanced conscience". I could say you have an imbalanced conscience. What about people who say they don't have a conscience? Why don't they have one? How do you know you are "supposed" to have a conscience and what does that even mean? I have a very good conscience as a Nihilist...

[Confessor62]

@Confessor62 Right. Sorry to go on a bit but ethics isn't a 500 word comment. I'm looking forward to your reply. Try reading a bit of about Nietzsche. He is a good case study. (Chuck Friedrich Nietzsche into wiki and you'll get his page)

[toronto444444]

@Confessor62 Did you fail philosophy 101? Or worse, pass? You're overthinking it. Read Sam Harris 'The Moral Lanscape'. Rational thinkers have moved beyond what you're rambling on about. And I'm not having any discussion based an assumption that there is an invisible superman skygod. That's just stupid.

[Confessor62]

@toronto444444 Haha. I am doing a Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy. I saw a quick video on Sam Harris talking about his book, and while he might have a few interesting ideas, (i think I can predict his argument from the clip) but it will not give morality. (For reasons outlined above). From the way you are arguing though it would appear you have never seen the inside of a Philosophy class. I would expect that level of argument from someone at High School. Go away and study ethics...

[Confessor62]

@Confessor62 ...learn the ethical theories and think critically. Science cannot give morality any more than the Nihilist can. I'm not saying you should believe in God, but more so you should free yourself of the chains of morality and become a Nihilist. If you could please outline where my argument has gone wrong, rather than not having anything to respond with thus dismissing it. That's my challenge to you

[toronto444444]

@Confessor62 Wow. BA in Phi. So you sucked at math and science? BA's in philosophy are not worth the paper they're printed on. Steve Job's never graduated college. Many people with degrees can't think their way through a simple proposition.

You seem to fit the bill. Starting any discussion with the assumption that there is a flying spaghetti monster is childish and lame and plain stupid. You should just start your career at the gap or mc d's now and save your money. BA...haha

[Confessor62]

@toronto444444 Again, you havent shown me where my argument is flawed. Just stated its crap. You obviously have very little logical ability. First lesson of logic. If you are going to bad mouth something, you need to give a reason. Science cannot operate properly because of a philosophical problems. But you still need to attack the argument by showing me 1) what area is outdated, 2) Why it is outdated. Hope you have a good day at school :)

[SVWillmer]

This is what the bible is saying:

"God isn't the god written in any text book, hes my angry big daddy that will beat you up if you pick on me or make me feel an idiot again"

[staranjela]

some really good stuff here

[MrJonkelp]

very interesting video thanks

[flygflyg]

god allowed Abraham to marry his own sister,get her pregnant,and prostitute her.

[toronto444444]

"What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others." The golden rule. Most agree it's the most reasonable and important one. It came from an atheist ( he didn't call himself that because the word wasn't in his language. The golden rule quoted here came 500 years before christianity. Confucius wrote it. Most other religious rules are amoral. As are most of the major religions. They're dangerous fairy tales for shallow thinkers. peace

[PokemontrainerNelly]

@toronto444444

Actually, Ancient Egypt, Zoroastrianism and Judaism (in that order, maybe even some before them) had it earlier then Confucius. Also, most world religions have had the Golden Rule before, at, or after Christianity

[toronto444444]

@PokemontrainerNelly Many cultures developed it. If you just apply a little logic it has to be the basic law of any culture. " If you don't mess with me and my stuff I won't mess with yours then we can relax and go about our business". OR I'll treat you the way I want to be treated". The funny thing is, the golden rule is not one of the 10 commandments. The first four are all about obeying god, idols, & praying on Sunday.

Of course there are different versions. all man made

[arecuk1]

Have scientists proven if Richard Dawkins exists?? Maybe the jury is still out on that.

[OtonielRochaSC]

It is common for skeptics to sneer at christianity because it makes so much account of faith. They seem to assume that they have no need of faith, in anything. It would be easy to show that of all men, religious skeptics must be most credulous and must have most faith, of some sort.

[tra1215]

@OtonielRochaSC I wouldn't say people have no need of faith. It's BLIND faith that is the problem. I have faith that someday, science will figure out how everything came to be. But I have that faith because science has figured out so much in the past. My faith is based on something tangible. Not so with religions. You are expected to believe in god with only a book full of ridiculous, impossible stories as proof. Faith is fine. Blind faith is not.

[toronto444444]

@OtonielRochaSC Faith = belief (in something) without evidence. What idiot wants to admit to that? Rational people acknowledge what is real and provable. No one needs to believe in anything that is unprovable. If something can't be proven then it is nothing. You're saying we have to believe in nothing (god is not proven so god=nothing). Rational thinkers say we only acknowledge what is real and provable. Aethists don't 'believe' in nothing. We only deal with what's real.

[PokemontrainerNelly]

@toronto444444

That's not necessarly true.The Bible encourages people to aquire knowledge(Isaiah 1:18,Ecclesiastes 7:25, Hosea 4:6,1 Thessalonians 5 19-21 just to name a few).The whole point of Buddhasium is to rid oneself of ignorance.What is provable is based on what science has currently discovered.Atheism believes God doesn't exist.Science is just fuel that can support either arguement if you look for both sides of the arguement.It is your choice to search for the information

[toronto444444]

@PokemontrainerNelly Science does not in any way shape or form support the idea that there is a god and it certainly doesn't support organized religion's dogma. Science provides all the proof ones needs to disprove most if not all religious dogma.

Atheists don't believe any god(s) exists because there is no proof for any gods. We don't 'believe' or 'have faith' there is no god. We don't 'believe in' science. We acknowledge the proofs science provides. Religion offers none

[OtonielRochaSC]

The chief peculiarity in their case is, that having rejected the light and the evidence of truth through their radical enmity of heart against it, they are shut up to the necessity of believing things without evidence and against evidence as their only resort. They are compelled to believe that to "leap into the dark" at death is the best ending of human life.

[RCRhythm]

@OtonielRochaSC Good point. So, instead of "leaping in to the dark" at death, let's put our faith in a god who allegedly ordered his armies to murder the INFANT CHILDREN of the armies they defeats in combat. Let's trust the god who ordered his armies to distribute captive wives among the camp of his people like property, after killing their husbands in battle. Let's put our faith in the god who gave instructions on how to beat one's slave to death (Exodus 21:20-21).

Brilliant thinking.

[coyoteself]

Some of the most moral people I know are not "Religious." While some of the least moral people I know use their religion as justification for their immoral actions

[lynnguist]

Empathy and sympathy are what give us our morality. 

[07Aristotle]

@lynnguist That is moral relativism.

[ndrthrdr1]

I ordered a couple T-shirts from richarddawkins,net to show my support for his efforts and to show Christians that I am not one of them.

[700bees]

@gekritzl So the sparing of young girls is unacceptable to you... Israel got victory over Midian. This is how war happened in that time period: kill everybody. So in that situation they could have either killed the girls or not. Seeing as they didn't they would be considered orphans and that point. It's not as if they attacked Midian for the purpose of getting virgin girls. Virgin girls were seen as harmless and would have been useful as servants for their daughters and wives.

[paenitet7nullum]

wait uh you guys know that were just monkeys right? Monkeys walking around on a rock in space. if morality can change, if right and wrong can change that means that it is not fact. That means that it is simply opinion. wich means that we think its there but its really not.

[700bees]

"stone people to death when they break the Sabbath" is not intended to be obeyed by anyone in the modern day. The only reason slavery is not acceptable now is because we've exchanged legally indentured servant-hood for wage slavery and the technological advances that no longer require slaves for large infrastructural endeavors. It isn't as if moral people subtly influenced society over time to adapt to a better standard. Slaves of old are the reason many things of antiquity were made possible.

[fiercey]

stoning and such old testament (breaking sabbath) laws arent void because of secular thought, but the new thought of Jesus. Jesus said sabbath is made for man not man for sabbath. and also he gave less harsh consequencs for things like adultery and lieing. (not death, but divorce). not informed response by dawkins.

[byteresistor]

@fiercey Let's say for the sake of argument that the NT has so called better moral values than the OT. Now, why did god change his mind?

[700bees]

@byteresistor God did not change his mind. Man perverted God's laws and Jesus corrected them. Jesus never got rid of the OT laws, he just made it so that people could understand them again by revealing the spirit of the law. Before Christ came man had made thousands of traditions that they stacked onto God's laws which they in turn taught as if they WERE God's laws.

The case in which Jesus pardons an adulteress would not stand according to OT law since the husband had to be the one to accuse her

[byteresistor]

@700bees What is the true spirit/meaning of the laws that condone slavery in the OT? Or genocide in the name of that god?

[700bees]

@byteresistor Slavery occurs when one party has a debt they cannot pay to another party or are born into slavery. They can earn their own freedom and all slaves must be released and all land returned every 50 years. (7 yrs for fellow countrymen) If a slave does not do what the master (lawfully) asks then they have the right to capital punishment, however if a tooth or an eye is lost the slave must be released. Genocide didn't happen in the Bible and if it did it was not due to racial difference.

[byteresistor]

@700bees "Genocide didn't happen in the Bible"

The conquest of Canaan etc.

And how nice of you for showing that the bible indeed condones slavery.

[700bees]

@byteresistor The only reason you don't condone slavery is because our debtors and criminals are safely locked away, forgotten, and out of your sight. In the past, we let men be men and work and live and socialize while still receiving penalties. Now we let men rot in cells and their children get raised to become just like them on the streets or raised poorly by the government. Thanks for reminding me how rotten our culture is.

[byteresistor]

@700bees Aren't there any depths you people won't sink into in trying to defend the indefensible? You're basically saying slaves were slaves because they were all criminals. Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? No don't answer...

[700bees]

@byteresistor Is there any response that you will take as a whole and not cherry-pick problems out of? I was explaining to you why you and the culture don't "condone slavery". In Rome many slavers were debtors and criminals. I never said that ALL slaves were criminals. Slavery that the Bible speaks of usually were just people who did not have land or couldn't support themselves; the poor. Slavery would have been a step up from where they would have been otherwise.

[700bees]

@byteresistor We don't see 'slaves' anymore because today we have the State taking care of millions of people. You cannot compare American slavery to biblical slavery. The bible does not allow kidnapping, like America did to get the slaves we had in colonial America. There is very little difference between Bilbical slaves who are taken care of, fed, given a roof, and treated as family and workers who are given a wage that only allows the meeting of necessities. In the Bible slavery = servanhood.

[gekritzl]

@700bees - "The bible does not allow kidnapping" - yes it does, as well as murder and rape. E.g., God commands Moses to exterminate the Midianites, except virgin girls (31:18), which they get to keep for themselves. Deut 20:13-14 says to take the women, children, and cattle for yourselves. YOU FAIL.

[gekritzl]

@byteresistor - The bible CONDONES slavery? It not only condones, but goies into detail about how to sell your daughter into slavery! I'm with you. And Jesus recommends savage whipping of disobedient slaves. Why didn't Jesus say, just once, "do not sell or buy humans."

[gekritzl]

@700bees - "Slavery occurs when one party has a debt they cannot pay to another party" - OR, if you just want to make money by selling your children:

Ex 21:7-8 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

SICK. INHUMAN.

[700bees]

@gekritzl Yeah parents who force their children to get a job to help out should be shot.

[700bees]

@gekritzl Also I don't know how bad being a slave could be if you get weekends and holidays off by law, have no bills to pay, get fed, treated like family, also if you're a fellow Isrealite your slavery can only last a maximum of 7 years. Seems like a nice deal for a peasant worker.

[3209486]

@fiercey JESUS GAVE DIVORCE? NOT AN INFORMED RESPONSE BY DAWKINS? ARE YOU SHITTING ME? divorce in the constructed christian reality was the sole creation of king henry VIII.

[700bees]

@3209486 Divorce is not advised by the Bible apart from cases of adultery. Anything other than this IS a secularization of Christian standards That secularization and disobedience is the reason that Christians have the same divorce rate as non-Christians.

[GODandPEACE]

Judaism, Christianity and Islam are fundamentally flawed and that makes their claims to the highest morality standard a joke; one of the basic tenets of high morality is unconditional opposition to any form of cruelty towards others. Most of us would agree that slavery was one of the most horrific atrocities inflicted on humans during the time of Moses, Jesus and Mohammed and yet there is nothing in the scripture of any of these three religions which outlaws slavery and declares it a great sin.

[Edelibo]

In addition, the "moral" that homosexuality is a "sin", doesn't make any fucking sense!

I think i am save to say, that must of us accept that it is not very ethical to hurt other humans, in either feelings or the physical body.

And... you pretty much hurt homosexuals (Real and OTHER PEOPLE)

if you believe that it is a "sin", and try to prevent them from loving each other.

And... that could in someway be seen as a sin.

More hypocrisy... whoop-di-doo...

[TheRadicalLiberal]

Religion got its morality from humans not the other way around. Every religion has its version of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" which just comes from people being able to empathize with other people and feel what a wrong would if it was done to them instead. That covers violence and theft and all their variants - any action that causes loss or pain to another human being. And conversly charitable acts that do good to other people and would be good for us in turn.

[petestrat07]

What the big mystery here? Morality stems from our emotions and learning to live together as a species, it's just been fine tuned over time.Part of which makes humans different to other species is that we can imagine what it would feel like to be in another individuals situation. Morality is much older than religion. Religion has simply played a huge role in promoting moralty because so many people can't think for themselves and it's too easy to act on our primal insticts.

[saved03]

@petestrat07 To act on our primal insticts. So if that instict is to have sex with little girls and boys is not evil but good because they are acting on their primal insticts? Good luck with that in a criminal court. Then being on the sex offenders list for the rest of you life. Yes there are little girls and boys who are perfectly willing to have sex but that makes no difference in how willing or not. It's still rape in the eyes of the law. Do you want to rethink your position on morality?

[petestrat07]

@saved03 No need to rethink my position at all. You have just validated my statement. I don't have sex with children because I know it wrong on so many levels. Even the most hardened criminals will agree that sex with minors should carry harsh penalties.It is despite the bible that society has evolved into stamping this evil crime out. The bible clearly states that if you have sex with a minor that you must pay her father an amount of money and then marry her.You sir needs to re-read your bible

[saved03]

@petestrat07 I didn't validate anything about your statement. Morals do not evolve. Absolute morals that is. If you say morals evolve. Than you would have to say scientific laws evolve. We both know that they do not evolve. Don't tell me that there are no absolute morals because you just validated my statement with your reply. I agree with you that sex with children is wrong on so many levels. So that shows that there is one true answer for that moral. It's an absolute. So why can't others?

[petestrat07]

@saved03 I not going to debate with you. Im tired of trying to talk sense into creationists and thet discuss this topic ad nausuem. We decide what is moral, not some imaginary master and hide and seek. The bible is filled with violence, murder, slavery, homophobia, pedophilia, a jealous angry and intollenant God and tje ten commandment are mainly a pathetic, self indulgent joke focused more on the feeling of an insecure God. If you want to belive that garbage go for it.

[saved03]

@petestrat07 Run when you can't back up claims. Morals need authority to be morals. The rules of Chess are applied world wide no matter what culture. The laws of math and science applies to every culture. Yet morals are not? With that view of the Bible. You will never come to the understanding that you need a Savior. You are so arogant that you are saying that YOUR MORALS are higher then God's. Here again you are proving that we have knowledge of good and evil. Can evolution tell how we got it?

[petestrat07]

@saved03 I don't need to run and I don't need a savior. I'm not wasting my time debating with you. Go away and get educated.

[saved03]

@petestrat07 I'll pray for you that you see the need for the Savior Jesus Christ.

[hempheadfor20]

@saved03

I've got a feeling your going to need to pray for quite some time....

Once you've got petestrat taken care of you can start praying for me to.

Ha!

[wowpapa]

I don't think people can understand everything.

[xylonisawesome]

@wowpapa

Yet you try to understand the "fact" of this inability to understand. If your point is true, your point is pointless.

[hitssquad]

"Our morality is probably based upon a sort of desire [...] to do good."

Hmmm.

[metalpwner]

@hitssquad Wonderful job taking that little tiny bit out and isolating it, considering he used plenty of more concise language to describe what he thought our moralities were based on shortly thereafter... Did you just stop the movie right there and slap that post out on your keyboard?

[hitssquad]

@metalpwner "Did you just stop the movie right there and slap that post out on your keyboard?"

Yes. Nothing he could say after that could make up for that absurdly-elementary tautology, given that he apparently meant it in all seriousness.

[metalpwner]

@hitssquad He said it and then quickly realized it was an insufficient word to use. He's thinking on his feet, and the word "good" is so common it just slipped out. He used plenty of other words that were sufficient. If he meant to just say "good" he would have left it at that. Cut the man some slack and listen to exactly what he is getting at, give him the time of day before focusing in on his one accidental tautological misspeaking, and maybe then you can talk about the actual matter at hand.

[roberto8ag]

It is interesting to see Dawkins struggling when talking about the relationship between morality and religion.

And I think is because he fails, philosophically, to understand what religion is.

The justification of morality or ethical behavior leads to defend a particular myth, which originates from religion.

[SirPwn4lot]

Morality doesn't originate from religion at all..... God sending bears to kill little children is HARDLY moral.....

[001C4LIFORNI4]

@SirPwn4lot we all have different definitions of morality, so to some people it could be moral. Just like some people think hitler was right.

[paenitet7nullum]

@SirPwn4lot oh yes it is. they were cranky

[RogerabbitGosu]

@SirPwn4lot

Say what you like about their morals.. I bet that was fun

[TheRadicalLiberal]

@roberto8ag I don't see that he failed at all, he explained it perfectly.

[SalomeTirza]

@roberto8ag Sorry to say (well not really ;o)), but it's you that doesn't understands anything. You don't know nothing about philosophie, neither do you know anything about your own religion and its history, nor any thing about human history.