This guy recommended dendrophilian and I watched his videos. That was some of the sickes and vilest shit I've ever seen and heard...I htought orygyn was too smart for such nasty shit like that....
@theherdmentality The videos are substantial despite the approach he takes. Where is the correlation between intelligence and condemning that approach? He's just having a bit of fun.
@theherdmentality Because you were intelligent enough to notice the same thing in variablast's videos. That his campaign may have merit, but his approach turns people off and is even offensive, in which case hte message gets lost. Variablast makes a lot of noise about a barely relevant issue, he isn't trying to build bridges or cures despite the his black girlfriends in the videos Dendro, on the oher hand is just disgusting, perhaps making scientific points, but overall just gross
@theherdmentality The difference is dendro isn't pushing an idea. What I told variablast was PR advice to help with his cause, dendro's just making videos and it's up to him how he does it.
has to be fun to get comments on a video that is months old :D
i feel that if someone is attempting to kill somebody, but saves their life in the process; i would indeed commend them for saving a life, but i would also institute a lighter punishment...possibly 2-3 months of community service or short time in prison.
on the matter of attempting to save their life but killing them instead it is much harder to decide what to do with that...the intent was good but the outcome was not. idk what
One other thing, could you explain to me what exactly an atheist believes. I know that an atheist doesn't believe in God, but other than that I am not sure on what you believe.
Well that's all there is to it. Any stereotype of an atheist would fail if it described anything beyond that lack of belief in a God. That said, at least on YouTube, most atheists arrive at many of the same conclusions: support for science, social freedoms and varying degrees of distaste for violence. But there are still exceptions and there are many ways to lose faith so this is not necessarily a majority I represented. I hope that helped somewhat.
The reason I didn't reply to that comment was that you didn't give any examples of evidence. You just said that two different people could interpret the same evidence differently and I agree with that. As with the "meaning" part, when someone becomes an atheist, it is not lost. It simply switches from objective to subjective. The perception that they have only one finite life motivates them to make the most of that life.
That includes instincts. Although they might not be direct traits, they are still the result of the formation of the brain which is still down to evolution.
This is somewhat off topic, but why is it so difficult for people to be open to the possibility of a creator; that there might be a design behind everything we see and discover; that sciences, such as biology, are the discoveries of the processes set up by a creator?
We are open to it, it's just there's no evidence for that creator. Design is correlation at best. Why propose something that raises more questions than it solves rather than find a naturalistic explanation?
No evidence for a creator? I disagree. Through the many arguments I've had with friends in high school I believe that a creation scientist and an evolution scientist can study the same evidence and say that the evidence supports their beliefs. I think this outcome is based on each scientists' perspective when they examine the evidence. Also, the idea that God created everything means that He did so with a purpose in mind before hand and not by accident.
Wait, some animals eat their own young, others pay little to no attention to their young. Some animals, of the same species, when they meet each other are likely to try to kill each other. Also if there isn't a higher power or God involved then who has the authority to say which behaviors are acceptable or not?
No-one's saying that animals are perfect, we're just saying they have an evolutionary distaste for killing their own species. As for the higher power part, we have the authority, as a collective, to decide what is acceptable or not for the good of the entire community. As I previously stated, we then obey these laws because we recognise the benefit of doing so (and fear the consequences of not).
Question: If you believe that God doesn't exist, and that evolution is the answer; then how do you determine if something is moral/right or immoral/wrong? If everything is here by accident and no higher power was involved then how can anything be moral or immoral to begin with?
Personally, I believe that God created everything, and I am what is considered to be a christian.
In the absence of a divine being to guide our morality, we set guidelines for ourselves (i.e. don't do anything which causes other people pain). This is putting it very simply.
Wait a minute. If God doesn't exist, and we're here as the result of some genetic mutation of an animal, then why would we even bother to consider any guidelines on how to behave in the first place? Don't animals just do whatever they want regardless of how it effects other animals?
That's not the case at all. I think thunderf00t illustrated it best when he showed a clip of piranhas feeding and noted how they don't eat each other. In practice, societies need guidelines such as laws in order to operate and we all observe and understand the benefits of such a society so we choose to obey these laws. In terms of animals doing whatever they want, they do, but, for the most part, they don't want to kill each other. If they did, natural selection would have finished them.
Natural selection is why todays animals are the way they are. They act based on the "instincts" they evolved to have, which give the illusion of laws, which are the large scale result of the restrictions within their own minds. Peoples brains can go beyond this type of thing which is why we need laws or all the people without morality or common sense would be running riot...oh wait...they are.
Lol this is just my opinion, which could change in the next 5 minutes. 'S been fun chatting.
One way of looking at it is considering what behavioural patterns are on average going to be most benificial to humans as a species.
We need rules as a species, even if the idea of morality is irrelevant, to at least attempt to people in general happy, and healthy, so we don't all die out.
Unfortunately people with power tend to be selfish.
Intent is the moral answer in my opinion. The Nazis made huge medical advances that benefit us to this day, the cost was innocent lives. Concequences diminish in the mind in preference to accelerated learning. My morality detests this. Without supernatural ideoligy I truelly feel that morality lies in intent and intent alone.
I think it`s their way of saying "fu.. you". Just say that it`s not very nice to say that to a person, and that they don`t seem very friendly talking like that.
Simply because they can`t prove that god exists so they use other available tactics to get people to disbelieve you. You don`t look like a mean person to me! Being atheist doesn`t mean that anyone is a "bad" person. Very religious people mean that if you don`t believe then you are going to hell. Its them who are bad, and not you.
Religious people will use comments to drag you down, and too make themselves seem better because they value a god. Just because someone values a god doesn`t mean that people who don`t believe in him doesn`t. One of their tactics to get more believers is to use emotional blackmail.
I have a question: Do you see yourself as a good person? If so, does it make you angry when you see videos when Ray Comfort (or others) is saying things like Atheists have no morals, and, because Atheists don't follow the Ten Commandments (among other tenets), you're not a good person. Thanks!
I don't think in terms of good and bad. All I know is that I refrain from causing intentional harm and try to help people as much as possible. When Comfort says stuff like that, he's saying it out of stupidity and the fact that people believe him doesn't bother me. They're on the way out.
Excellent video. My morality comes from empathy, 'If I don't want something done to me, don't do it to other people'
In the 1st example, I think the person should be punished for the intent to kill. Assuming the intent could be proven. Actually, I am not sure the result should be taken into consideration. If they attempted to murder someone, they should be treated as a serious danger.
I hadn't noticed the camera thing. Doesn't bother me at all. Some people have some weird notions.
nice vid Orygyn. I saw thedefendingchamp's vid as well. I made a vid addressing atheism and morality about a week and a half ago. Morality is derived so many different ways. I'm going to post the revised vid as a response to thedefendingchamp. I would post it as a response to this(your) vid, too, but I can choose only one. If you would like to see it, let me know or check thedefendingchamp's channel.
P.S. The light on your forehead was distracting. hahaha, just kidding.
I believe that intentions should not be judged in this particular situation. I would consider a life saved a reason to pardon someone. On the flip side, where the intentions are life and death results, well some compinsation should be considered, but definately leniancy. (my spelling and grammar is bad sorry) maybe a nominal fee for the deceased family.
This has turned into one big mess. I can hardly understand anything.
I just feel that postmodern ideas of morality are sooooooooo dangerous. If you can sincerely say that evil is relative to the person perceiving it, is scary.
Because, then I can justify just about anything that I do that YOU may deem evil by saying: Well that is YOUR idea of evil, and the happiness and desires that I violate of my victims, are meaningless simply because they are weaker than I am.
It's only scary if you honestly believe that there's nothing in place of divine morality for atheists but then what would the law be for? The law steers people in the direction of a cooperative society and then, as their understanding of the law and the world grows, they can identify laws that are counterproductive to that cause and change them to ones which are more productive. Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development explains it better than I can.
Sure you can. By saying; I shall not steal this squid from the marketplace, because I personally believe it is wrong, it justifies it to you, and your own sense of justice. Maybe it takes more moral integrity to decide on a course of action as someone who is not a theist. Because they are not looking to a god for moral guidance, and are sure in themselves of the moral high ground.
So then someone who says: I will steal anything that I like, because it is right, justifies stealing?
You make me laugh. I don't need to be told not to kill, not to steal, not to rape, and there are so many reasons as to why I believe that you don't need the Bible to tell you to do so. The Bible proves this exact same thing. People were being tried for killing, rape before the ten commandments were written.
There's a couple of points there. First "happiness" refers to everyone's happiness and not just their own. Second, happiness is only part of it. Desires are more important. Third, this is only how I derive my morality. I'm not going to go out and rape someone anytime soon or ever.
And what about Hitler and the rest of Germany... Hitler and the rest of Germany felt it was good for EVERYONES happiness if they had rid themselves of Jews, and later blacks, or natives...
But anything can happen, there is no reason, according to your reasoning as to why rape cannot become normalized.
I've explained about rape. You are assuming that Hitler gets his morality the same way I do but that is simply not true. Remember: "I believe I am acting in accordance with the will of almighty God" (paraphrased). If he was the problem would be caused by failure to accurately assess the desires of others and what makes them happy. My way of judging moral worth can and should only be used by a skeptic with particular principles which is why again I specify that this mindset only applies to me.
OK if you want to argue atheist morality in general that's fine. In terms of happiness, a judgement is made based on the person's ability to understand the things that make people happy. Where that understanding isn't developed enough, the law keeps them in check anyway and their own empathy contributes. That same empathy is why they'd value happiness because they perceive happiness to be positive so they can go from there.
And so what if a person decides to go against all of these things. I have my own values, morals (most of which I get from the Bible) but there is no reason as to why I should have to follow them... Especially if I feel that 'not following' them, serves a greater purpose for ME!
I guess what I mean to say with all of this is: SAYS WHO? You can dance around all you like, but it all comes down to: SAYS WHO? The moment you say is or isn't or must/musn't should/shouldn't: SAYS WHO?
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE validate to me why your oppinions are valid. Prove to me that what you say is right is right. If the morals that we follow are not absolute, is the sentence: THE MORALS THAT WE FOLLOW ARE NOT ABSOLUTE, absolute?
That sentence doesn't work. We are talking absolute MORALS not absolute statements in general. And it's hard for me to clarify for you unless you ask a specific question. What part of what I say do you want me to try and prove to you is right?
"I have my own values, morals (most of which I get from the Bible) but there is no reason as to why I should have to follow them... "
You said that. That's where it came from. And what has it contributed to our discussion? If we both agree about this why are we continuing to argue over it when we're arguing about so many other things at the same time?
It is not whether or not we can violate it, it is whether or not we can be held accounatable. I know what I do is wrong, because there is something absolute that I can base my morals form and compare
That doesn't change anything. No matter how you derive your morality you still know that you've done wrong by that morality when you violate it. The only difference is where we get it from.
Maybe this is where there is confusion. I don't care where you get your morals from, I care about how you justify it.
I know that morals are absolute, and that is where YOU get your morals from. Form God.
But you believe that we get it from ourselves, that morals are relative. That it doesn't matter what we think is right or wrong, it depends on the society. Yet you cannot justify why one societies morals are better than another, or why it is even worth our time following morals.
Correction: unless you can prove God's existence you only BELIEVE that we both get our morals from God. And your final paragraph presupposes that morals are absolute to begin with. On the grand scale I assess the success of certain moral principles on their results and, in specific cases, motives as well as I explained in the video. That matters to me.
Rape directly violates the desires of the rape victims. That alone is enough for me to disapprove of it. And if they want it or are fine with it, it's not rape to begin with.
Once again, who is to say that the rapist should care. Surviaval of the fittest is all he has to say, and is siding with the laws of nature. Women, young girls/boys, if they are not able to defend themself nor have anyone to defend them, then it is MY RIGHT to exploit them for my happiness/ease
Weighing the two desires when it comes to rape is a no-brainer. The satisfaction of the rapist vs emotional trauma, unwanted pregnancy and the choice as to whether or not to abort. Only a psychopath who is unable to understand such consequences could miscalculate that. Then it becomes not a theological problem but a psychological one.
Who says that we should even care about ones emotional trauma? It is there fault that they could not defend themself against rape, and then later, unable to relieve themself of emotional trauma, because they were to weak.
There is no reason as to why I should care about anyone elses well being, especially if it serves a greater purpose to my survival, and he survival of my offspring.
Empathy makes me care, but i can still choose not to care, any change in social structure can make me not care about ratting out my friendly neighbours for six plus years, let us say, not nazi soldiers.
You are appealing to your emotions/opinions that have been formed by your experiences.
Some people actually believe that empathy hinders the moving forward of human kind.
It doesn't matter what is wrong with your brain, I have a tremendous amount of empathy, but I can still fathom myself choosing to rape or kill, without need. Empathy simply is whether or not you have the stomach to.
I'll explain this as simply as I can. At a hypothetical starting point where there is no law and religion never enters the picture, humans breed and the population grows larger and larger and order can no longer be maintained. The ones who realise this create law to solve the problem. This law then acts as a guideline to others with consequences if they disobey it. No-one is saying it's right or wrong, it's a concept to maintain order.
So... Who decides the 'quantity' of happiness, or whose happiness is better?
In the atheist world, morals are relative to the ones following it. Yet you can't justify WHY you do something and WHY someone else should not do something.
Tell me, How can you justify to a man that going to malasia and sleeping with underage prostitutes is wrong, even though in Malasia, underage prostitution is okay? And only 50 yrs ago, 14/16 year olds were getting married and having sex.
Malaysia: it's not wrong, we only think it's wrong because of any religious and social laws/customs we've grown up with all our lives. Unless the acts actually have a direct negative effect, there is no reason to classify it as wrong. If the underage prostitutes are cool with it and know about STIs (although this is a loose point if no-one knows about STIs there) and the man is ok with it and not going to kill her, the only problem is culturally ingrained and therefore too superficial to matter.
Is hurting someone relative to what they know of 'hurt/s'. Do you honestly believe that underage girls suffer NO damage regardless of whether or not they know what damge is being caused?
If you are specifying a situation where the 14-16 year olds have no power over their circumstances then you should've made this clear. I also didn't say it was wrong, I said it wasn't NECESSARILY wrong. What hurt could be caused from prostitution to all girls under the arbitrary age of 18 that couldn't be caused to older ones? The concerns of family don't count here since we are generalising and using an arbitrary age.
I like the way you derive your morality. Its pretty much the same as the way I do.
However I stole most of my morals from the ten commandment and seven deadly sins....ect
I'm not actually religious. I don;t go to any sort of religious buildings or pray or even consider myself part of any faith. However I do like to take the good parts of the religions and philosophies I have read about. The parts I hold true to myself.
Should we value empathy over our own self interests? At times empathy can actually end up being in our own self interests. But, what if ignoring your empathy could lead to you fulfilling a different desire with little negative consequences? Also, do you have this same empathy for all creatures or mostly humans? Why should we value the lives of humans over other species or should we not? Thanks for the vid.
Where empathy is applicable, that would be used. Where not, fulfilling desires would be more important to me. The two are interchangeable and can work together depending on the situation. Humans would get more empathy simply because they have greater emotional and mental concerns or at least more relevant ones to us but animals wouldn't be disregarded there. This is an on-the-spot reply so don't take it as definite at the moment. I might revisit this.
I like your face close up to the camera
You are beautiful
theRoseofmyheart 8 months ago
@theRoseofmyheart Thank you.
Orygyn 8 months ago
I think I'm gonna make a response to this video...your face is a little close xD lol, but it doesn't bother me:)
SandySweet575 8 months ago
@SandySweet575 A lot of people have said that yeh.
Orygyn 8 months ago
This guy recommended dendrophilian and I watched his videos. That was some of the sickes and vilest shit I've ever seen and heard...I htought orygyn was too smart for such nasty shit like that....
theherdmentality 8 months ago
@theherdmentality The videos are substantial despite the approach he takes. Where is the correlation between intelligence and condemning that approach? He's just having a bit of fun.
Orygyn 8 months ago
@theherdmentality Because you were intelligent enough to notice the same thing in variablast's videos. That his campaign may have merit, but his approach turns people off and is even offensive, in which case hte message gets lost. Variablast makes a lot of noise about a barely relevant issue, he isn't trying to build bridges or cures despite the his black girlfriends in the videos Dendro, on the oher hand is just disgusting, perhaps making scientific points, but overall just gross
theherdmentality 8 months ago
@theherdmentality The difference is dendro isn't pushing an idea. What I told variablast was PR advice to help with his cause, dendro's just making videos and it's up to him how he does it.
Orygyn 8 months ago
ultraviolet is such a horrible movie
HAAAAAAATTTEE 1 year ago
@HAAAAAAATTTEE Probably. I've never seen it, I just got given all those posters you see behind me.
Orygyn 1 year ago
Attempted murder is attempted murder.
Why praise people for ACCIDENTS?
eljagg01 1 year ago
has to be fun to get comments on a video that is months old :D
i feel that if someone is attempting to kill somebody, but saves their life in the process; i would indeed commend them for saving a life, but i would also institute a lighter punishment...possibly 2-3 months of community service or short time in prison.
on the matter of attempting to save their life but killing them instead it is much harder to decide what to do with that...the intent was good but the outcome was not. idk what
APJleader 1 year ago
Nice.
Orygyn 1 year ago
One other thing, could you explain to me what exactly an atheist believes. I know that an atheist doesn't believe in God, but other than that I am not sure on what you believe.
happyhour20 2 years ago
Well that's all there is to it. Any stereotype of an atheist would fail if it described anything beyond that lack of belief in a God. That said, at least on YouTube, most atheists arrive at many of the same conclusions: support for science, social freedoms and varying degrees of distaste for violence. But there are still exceptions and there are many ways to lose faith so this is not necessarily a majority I represented. I hope that helped somewhat.
Orygyn 2 years ago
That's it? From my perspective, that seems a bit empty, and life looses its meaning.
By the way, could you reply to my other comment from a day ago; the one that begins with "No evidence for a creator?".
happyhour20 2 years ago
The reason I didn't reply to that comment was that you didn't give any examples of evidence. You just said that two different people could interpret the same evidence differently and I agree with that. As with the "meaning" part, when someone becomes an atheist, it is not lost. It simply switches from objective to subjective. The perception that they have only one finite life motivates them to make the most of that life.
Orygyn 2 years ago
I thought natural selection focused mainly on genetic traits like which traits aided in the survival of a species; not instincts.
happyhour20 2 years ago
That includes instincts. Although they might not be direct traits, they are still the result of the formation of the brain which is still down to evolution.
Orygyn 2 years ago
This is somewhat off topic, but why is it so difficult for people to be open to the possibility of a creator; that there might be a design behind everything we see and discover; that sciences, such as biology, are the discoveries of the processes set up by a creator?
happyhour20 2 years ago
We are open to it, it's just there's no evidence for that creator. Design is correlation at best. Why propose something that raises more questions than it solves rather than find a naturalistic explanation?
Orygyn 2 years ago
No evidence for a creator? I disagree. Through the many arguments I've had with friends in high school I believe that a creation scientist and an evolution scientist can study the same evidence and say that the evidence supports their beliefs. I think this outcome is based on each scientists' perspective when they examine the evidence. Also, the idea that God created everything means that He did so with a purpose in mind before hand and not by accident.
happyhour20 2 years ago
Wait, some animals eat their own young, others pay little to no attention to their young. Some animals, of the same species, when they meet each other are likely to try to kill each other. Also if there isn't a higher power or God involved then who has the authority to say which behaviors are acceptable or not?
happyhour20 2 years ago
No-one's saying that animals are perfect, we're just saying they have an evolutionary distaste for killing their own species. As for the higher power part, we have the authority, as a collective, to decide what is acceptable or not for the good of the entire community. As I previously stated, we then obey these laws because we recognise the benefit of doing so (and fear the consequences of not).
Orygyn 2 years ago
Question: If you believe that God doesn't exist, and that evolution is the answer; then how do you determine if something is moral/right or immoral/wrong? If everything is here by accident and no higher power was involved then how can anything be moral or immoral to begin with?
Personally, I believe that God created everything, and I am what is considered to be a christian.
happyhour20 2 years ago
In the absence of a divine being to guide our morality, we set guidelines for ourselves (i.e. don't do anything which causes other people pain). This is putting it very simply.
Orygyn 2 years ago
Wait a minute. If God doesn't exist, and we're here as the result of some genetic mutation of an animal, then why would we even bother to consider any guidelines on how to behave in the first place? Don't animals just do whatever they want regardless of how it effects other animals?
happyhour20 2 years ago
That's not the case at all. I think thunderf00t illustrated it best when he showed a clip of piranhas feeding and noted how they don't eat each other. In practice, societies need guidelines such as laws in order to operate and we all observe and understand the benefits of such a society so we choose to obey these laws. In terms of animals doing whatever they want, they do, but, for the most part, they don't want to kill each other. If they did, natural selection would have finished them.
Orygyn 2 years ago
Natural selection is why todays animals are the way they are. They act based on the "instincts" they evolved to have, which give the illusion of laws, which are the large scale result of the restrictions within their own minds. Peoples brains can go beyond this type of thing which is why we need laws or all the people without morality or common sense would be running riot...oh wait...they are.
Lol this is just my opinion, which could change in the next 5 minutes. 'S been fun chatting.
P4ZP47Z 2 years ago
Exactly.
Orygyn 2 years ago
One way of looking at it is considering what behavioural patterns are on average going to be most benificial to humans as a species.
We need rules as a species, even if the idea of morality is irrelevant, to at least attempt to people in general happy, and healthy, so we don't all die out.
Unfortunately people with power tend to be selfish.
P4ZP47Z 2 years ago
Intent is the moral answer in my opinion. The Nazis made huge medical advances that benefit us to this day, the cost was innocent lives. Concequences diminish in the mind in preference to accelerated learning. My morality detests this. Without supernatural ideoligy I truelly feel that morality lies in intent and intent alone.
PrinceBishop3 2 years ago
Very nice. Thanks.
Orygyn 2 years ago
I think that you should neither praise nor punish the person; simply ignore them.
adidado 2 years ago
Sounds fair.
Orygyn 2 years ago
Close talker.
lol
IgnominiouZ 2 years ago
LOL. That's my way.
Orygyn 2 years ago
Orygyn! Favorite Youtube User EVA!
Shavemahassbitch 2 years ago
Thank you.
Orygyn 2 years ago
I think it`s their way of saying "fu.. you". Just say that it`s not very nice to say that to a person, and that they don`t seem very friendly talking like that.
74Charm 2 years ago
Yeh, it is pretty nasty.
Orygyn 2 years ago
Simply because they can`t prove that god exists so they use other available tactics to get people to disbelieve you. You don`t look like a mean person to me! Being atheist doesn`t mean that anyone is a "bad" person. Very religious people mean that if you don`t believe then you are going to hell. Its them who are bad, and not you.
74Charm 2 years ago
Of course atheist have normal feelings!
Religious people will use comments to drag you down, and too make themselves seem better because they value a god. Just because someone values a god doesn`t mean that people who don`t believe in him doesn`t. One of their tactics to get more believers is to use emotional blackmail.
74Charm 2 years ago
I have a question: Do you see yourself as a good person? If so, does it make you angry when you see videos when Ray Comfort (or others) is saying things like Atheists have no morals, and, because Atheists don't follow the Ten Commandments (among other tenets), you're not a good person. Thanks!
fWo 2 years ago
I don't think in terms of good and bad. All I know is that I refrain from causing intentional harm and try to help people as much as possible. When Comfort says stuff like that, he's saying it out of stupidity and the fact that people believe him doesn't bother me. They're on the way out.
Orygyn 2 years ago
Excellent video. My morality comes from empathy, 'If I don't want something done to me, don't do it to other people'
In the 1st example, I think the person should be punished for the intent to kill. Assuming the intent could be proven. Actually, I am not sure the result should be taken into consideration. If they attempted to murder someone, they should be treated as a serious danger.
I hadn't noticed the camera thing. Doesn't bother me at all. Some people have some weird notions.
interimheadcoach 2 years ago
Thanks. That's a fair point about the intent.
Orygyn 2 years ago
Orygyn, thanks a lot for the quote :) I just need to clear something up, so I'll send you a PM :)
dakshinamurti 2 years ago
No problem, I'll sort it out.
Orygyn 2 years ago
nice vid Orygyn. I saw thedefendingchamp's vid as well. I made a vid addressing atheism and morality about a week and a half ago. Morality is derived so many different ways. I'm going to post the revised vid as a response to thedefendingchamp. I would post it as a response to this(your) vid, too, but I can choose only one. If you would like to see it, let me know or check thedefendingchamp's channel.
P.S. The light on your forehead was distracting. hahaha, just kidding.
TheUltimateNihilist 2 years ago
I'll check it out. Thanks.
Orygyn 2 years ago
You'd "tell him off"??
KatRocks333 2 years ago
hey kat.. ;)
FacedPalmedPlanet 2 years ago
If I was in a position too. If I was a bystander I probably wouldn't ever find out let alone care.
Orygyn 2 years ago
I believe that intentions should not be judged in this particular situation. I would consider a life saved a reason to pardon someone. On the flip side, where the intentions are life and death results, well some compinsation should be considered, but definately leniancy. (my spelling and grammar is bad sorry) maybe a nominal fee for the deceased family.
Jkelquedi 2 years ago
Sounds good.
Orygyn 2 years ago
This has turned into one big mess. I can hardly understand anything.
I just feel that postmodern ideas of morality are sooooooooo dangerous. If you can sincerely say that evil is relative to the person perceiving it, is scary.
Because, then I can justify just about anything that I do that YOU may deem evil by saying: Well that is YOUR idea of evil, and the happiness and desires that I violate of my victims, are meaningless simply because they are weaker than I am.
aveyowyns 2 years ago
It's only scary if you honestly believe that there's nothing in place of divine morality for atheists but then what would the law be for? The law steers people in the direction of a cooperative society and then, as their understanding of the law and the world grows, they can identify laws that are counterproductive to that cause and change them to ones which are more productive. Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development explains it better than I can.
Orygyn 2 years ago
Either way, I can make another video on it to clarify a few things if you wish.
Orygyn 2 years ago
clarify what? this guy doesnt make sense...
hallcyon 2 years ago
There are athiests who are much mroe moral than christiand and vice versa. Athiest Morality completely exists.
Alexoneil 2 years ago
Well said.
Orygyn 2 years ago
It is not whether or not you have morals, you just can't justify them
aveyowyns 2 years ago
Sure you can. By saying; I shall not steal this squid from the marketplace, because I personally believe it is wrong, it justifies it to you, and your own sense of justice. Maybe it takes more moral integrity to decide on a course of action as someone who is not a theist. Because they are not looking to a god for moral guidance, and are sure in themselves of the moral high ground.
Alexoneil 2 years ago
So then someone who says: I will steal anything that I like, because it is right, justifies stealing?
You make me laugh. I don't need to be told not to kill, not to steal, not to rape, and there are so many reasons as to why I believe that you don't need the Bible to tell you to do so. The Bible proves this exact same thing. People were being tried for killing, rape before the ten commandments were written.
aveyowyns 2 years ago
It does justify it to them in their mind, correct. Insanity is rife in modern culture.
Alexoneil 2 years ago
Then we agree so what's the problem?
Orygyn 2 years ago
u still online man?
FacedPalmedPlanet 2 years ago
The best possible moral action is the one in which causes the most ammount of happiness...
Who decides what the 'quantity' of happiness is. Hilter believed that killing6 million people would result in happiness.
The suicide bombers thouht that killing two thousand people would result in happiness.
The many rapists think that raping results in happiness.
Not only do all of these groups believe that what they do results in happiness, but it superceeds the happiness of those they hurt.
aveyowyns 2 years ago
There's a couple of points there. First "happiness" refers to everyone's happiness and not just their own. Second, happiness is only part of it. Desires are more important. Third, this is only how I derive my morality. I'm not going to go out and rape someone anytime soon or ever.
Orygyn 2 years ago
SO! What if rape became normal. People rape in war! And it is a very common practice even in the west, so is it okay?
aveyowyns 2 years ago
And what about Hitler and the rest of Germany... Hitler and the rest of Germany felt it was good for EVERYONES happiness if they had rid themselves of Jews, and later blacks, or natives...
But anything can happen, there is no reason, according to your reasoning as to why rape cannot become normalized.
aveyowyns 2 years ago
I've explained about rape. You are assuming that Hitler gets his morality the same way I do but that is simply not true. Remember: "I believe I am acting in accordance with the will of almighty God" (paraphrased). If he was the problem would be caused by failure to accurately assess the desires of others and what makes them happy. My way of judging moral worth can and should only be used by a skeptic with particular principles which is why again I specify that this mindset only applies to me.
Orygyn 2 years ago
But who is to say what makes one happy! That is my point. And who is to say that we should even value another person's happiness?
aveyowyns 2 years ago
OK if you want to argue atheist morality in general that's fine. In terms of happiness, a judgement is made based on the person's ability to understand the things that make people happy. Where that understanding isn't developed enough, the law keeps them in check anyway and their own empathy contributes. That same empathy is why they'd value happiness because they perceive happiness to be positive so they can go from there.
Orygyn 2 years ago
And so what if a person decides to go against all of these things. I have my own values, morals (most of which I get from the Bible) but there is no reason as to why I should have to follow them... Especially if I feel that 'not following' them, serves a greater purpose for ME!
I guess what I mean to say with all of this is: SAYS WHO? You can dance around all you like, but it all comes down to: SAYS WHO? The moment you say is or isn't or must/musn't should/shouldn't: SAYS WHO?
aveyowyns 2 years ago
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE validate to me why your oppinions are valid. Prove to me that what you say is right is right. If the morals that we follow are not absolute, is the sentence: THE MORALS THAT WE FOLLOW ARE NOT ABSOLUTE, absolute?
aveyowyns 2 years ago
That sentence doesn't work. We are talking absolute MORALS not absolute statements in general. And it's hard for me to clarify for you unless you ask a specific question. What part of what I say do you want me to try and prove to you is right?
Orygyn 2 years ago
i don't know what this comment is in refference to.... but I think it is my statement: is the sentence: no morals are absolute, absolute?
If it is that big a deal, then change the word 'sentence' into 'idea'...
Is the idea that aboslute morals do not exist, absolute.
aveyowyns 2 years ago
If a person defies their empathy, law and value judgements, who's to say that someone can't violate their divinely-based code of morality?
Orygyn 2 years ago
EXACTLY!
aveyowyns 2 years ago
So what's your point? By saying that everyone can violate their morality, that contributes nothing to our discussion either way.
Orygyn 2 years ago
Yes it does. You are the one who brought it up... I am sure you stated something like, even Christians can go against their morals.
aveyowyns 2 years ago
"I have my own values, morals (most of which I get from the Bible) but there is no reason as to why I should have to follow them... "
You said that. That's where it came from. And what has it contributed to our discussion? If we both agree about this why are we continuing to argue over it when we're arguing about so many other things at the same time?
Orygyn 2 years ago
Well I guess I was confused... That's the sad thing about these discussions, so hard to follow.
aveyowyns 2 years ago
It is not whether or not we can violate it, it is whether or not we can be held accounatable. I know what I do is wrong, because there is something absolute that I can base my morals form and compare
aveyowyns 2 years ago
That doesn't change anything. No matter how you derive your morality you still know that you've done wrong by that morality when you violate it. The only difference is where we get it from.
Orygyn 2 years ago
Maybe this is where there is confusion. I don't care where you get your morals from, I care about how you justify it.
I know that morals are absolute, and that is where YOU get your morals from. Form God.
But you believe that we get it from ourselves, that morals are relative. That it doesn't matter what we think is right or wrong, it depends on the society. Yet you cannot justify why one societies morals are better than another, or why it is even worth our time following morals.
aveyowyns 2 years ago
Correction: unless you can prove God's existence you only BELIEVE that we both get our morals from God. And your final paragraph presupposes that morals are absolute to begin with. On the grand scale I assess the success of certain moral principles on their results and, in specific cases, motives as well as I explained in the video. That matters to me.
Orygyn 2 years ago
wtf was that? make sense damn it
hallcyon 2 years ago
Rape directly violates the desires of the rape victims. That alone is enough for me to disapprove of it. And if they want it or are fine with it, it's not rape to begin with.
Orygyn 2 years ago
Once again, who is to say that the rapist should care. Surviaval of the fittest is all he has to say, and is siding with the laws of nature. Women, young girls/boys, if they are not able to defend themself nor have anyone to defend them, then it is MY RIGHT to exploit them for my happiness/ease
aveyowyns 2 years ago
But not wanting to be raped directly violates the rapist's desire to rape. Who's desires are worth more.
aveyowyns 2 years ago
Weighing the two desires when it comes to rape is a no-brainer. The satisfaction of the rapist vs emotional trauma, unwanted pregnancy and the choice as to whether or not to abort. Only a psychopath who is unable to understand such consequences could miscalculate that. Then it becomes not a theological problem but a psychological one.
Orygyn 2 years ago
You are not getting it!
Who says that we should even care about ones emotional trauma? It is there fault that they could not defend themself against rape, and then later, unable to relieve themself of emotional trauma, because they were to weak.
There is no reason as to why I should care about anyone elses well being, especially if it serves a greater purpose to my survival, and he survival of my offspring.
aveyowyns 2 years ago
Empathy MAKES you care. You would have to not have empathy not to know that.
Orygyn 2 years ago
Empathy makes me care, but i can still choose not to care, any change in social structure can make me not care about ratting out my friendly neighbours for six plus years, let us say, not nazi soldiers.
aveyowyns 2 years ago
Choose? Choice is psychological conflict.
hallcyon 2 years ago
You are appealing to your emotions/opinions that have been formed by your experiences.
Some people actually believe that empathy hinders the moving forward of human kind.
It doesn't matter what is wrong with your brain, I have a tremendous amount of empathy, but I can still fathom myself choosing to rape or kill, without need. Empathy simply is whether or not you have the stomach to.
aveyowyns 2 years ago
And if that prevents you from doing it, what's the problem? If not, the law contributes.
Orygyn 2 years ago
But we write the law! So the law is still relative to the ones who make it/follow it. It's circular.
The law is right
Who wrote the law?
I did.
So how do you know killing is right?
Because the law says so.
But who wrote the law?
I did..........
aveyowyns 2 years ago
I'll explain this as simply as I can. At a hypothetical starting point where there is no law and religion never enters the picture, humans breed and the population grows larger and larger and order can no longer be maintained. The ones who realise this create law to solve the problem. This law then acts as a guideline to others with consequences if they disobey it. No-one is saying it's right or wrong, it's a concept to maintain order.
Orygyn 2 years ago
A shag is not worth ruining someone's life over. I'm sure the rapist can masturbate his pain away.
Alexoneil 2 years ago
But who is to say that raping should ruins someone's life. You are appealing to your emotions when you state this
aveyowyns 2 years ago
So... Who decides the 'quantity' of happiness, or whose happiness is better?
In the atheist world, morals are relative to the ones following it. Yet you can't justify WHY you do something and WHY someone else should not do something.
Tell me, How can you justify to a man that going to malasia and sleeping with underage prostitutes is wrong, even though in Malasia, underage prostitution is okay? And only 50 yrs ago, 14/16 year olds were getting married and having sex.
aveyowyns 2 years ago
Malaysia: it's not wrong, we only think it's wrong because of any religious and social laws/customs we've grown up with all our lives. Unless the acts actually have a direct negative effect, there is no reason to classify it as wrong. If the underage prostitutes are cool with it and know about STIs (although this is a loose point if no-one knows about STIs there) and the man is ok with it and not going to kill her, the only problem is culturally ingrained and therefore too superficial to matter.
Orygyn 2 years ago
So you don't think that underage prostitution is wrong?!
You really think that 14/16 year olds even have a choice to believe that prostitution is wrong or right?
What about the 10/11/12 year olds?
aveyowyns 2 years ago
Is hurting someone relative to what they know of 'hurt/s'. Do you honestly believe that underage girls suffer NO damage regardless of whether or not they know what damge is being caused?
aveyowyns 2 years ago
If you are specifying a situation where the 14-16 year olds have no power over their circumstances then you should've made this clear. I also didn't say it was wrong, I said it wasn't NECESSARILY wrong. What hurt could be caused from prostitution to all girls under the arbitrary age of 18 that couldn't be caused to older ones? The concerns of family don't count here since we are generalising and using an arbitrary age.
Orygyn 2 years ago
LOL.
Orygyn 2 years ago
I set out to kill, but instead end up saving the life of the intended victim.
should I be punished for the intent because I ended up 'saving' same life I intended to kill? - can I go with that as a template -
FacedPalmedPlanet 2 years ago
Yup that sounds good.
Orygyn 2 years ago
sweet, have 2 scenarios, with morals, 3rd parties & hopefully a happy ending. (hopefully) ;)
FacedPalmedPlanet 2 years ago
Nice. I look forward to it.
Orygyn 2 years ago
I like the way you derive your morality. Its pretty much the same as the way I do.
However I stole most of my morals from the ten commandment and seven deadly sins....ect
I'm not actually religious. I don;t go to any sort of religious buildings or pray or even consider myself part of any faith. However I do like to take the good parts of the religions and philosophies I have read about. The parts I hold true to myself.
FriendOregon 2 years ago
Fair enough, sounds cool. Thanks.
Orygyn 2 years ago
Should we value empathy over our own self interests? At times empathy can actually end up being in our own self interests. But, what if ignoring your empathy could lead to you fulfilling a different desire with little negative consequences? Also, do you have this same empathy for all creatures or mostly humans? Why should we value the lives of humans over other species or should we not? Thanks for the vid.
thedefendingchamp 2 years ago
Where empathy is applicable, that would be used. Where not, fulfilling desires would be more important to me. The two are interchangeable and can work together depending on the situation. Humans would get more empathy simply because they have greater emotional and mental concerns or at least more relevant ones to us but animals wouldn't be disregarded there. This is an on-the-spot reply so don't take it as definite at the moment. I might revisit this.
Orygyn 2 years ago
You should block WeedSmoker777 he's a crazy loser troll with no morals like a typical christian.
spikesmth 2 years ago
Ah it's gluesniffer. Thanks Spike.
Orygyn 2 years ago
Thanks.
Orygyn 2 years ago
xclnt ponder, I will think about this one.. ;)
(uprated your recommended)
chat later man.. 5*s
FacedPalmedPlanet 2 years ago
Thanks, Douglas will be pleased.
Orygyn 2 years ago