Daniel Denntee needs to ask, are there are "consequences" for breaking the laws of physic's. If so, then laws exist, if it's impossible to break a law of physic's then laws still exist. If laws exist, then, an intelligence created them. If laws do not exist, then the universe could not come into existence, since non existence cannot by itself create existence. D'Souza explained how a God can exist outside of time earlier in the debate. Thus showing that God, exists outside of known creation.
Wow, it's almost tragic how badly Dinesh understands Dennett and what is mean by multiple universes. Dan is right that D'Souza doesn't do justice in his own comprehension to the ideas he is trying to refute. (Dan wasn't talking about the "parallel universe" concept, but that our bounded Universe is simply one of many independent universes that could potentially exist within a larger sphere of "physical laws.")
There are some religions without an „intelligent creator“or personal God, like Buddhism for example. It only uses a concept of omnipresent divine energy / „holy spirit“of a sort / Brahman / a field / a force, without (perhaps deliberately) going into discussion about (in)existence of personal God.
I hereby declare that God has spoken to me and he told me that D'Souza must not scream into the microphone! And D'Souza has to obey because it is his God who said so and he cannot prove that it aint so.
What we seen in instances like Pol Pot ans Stalin, was politics and religion colliding in a fight for POWER. Simple as that. If you're of a mind to be a ruthless, all controlling authoritative dictator, you don't want to have to compete with any sort of religion that would subvert that, now would you? So they killed in the name of power, not atheism.
FAIL....on the part of Dinesh and other theists who use this old meme.
Also; Pol Pot, Stalin, and other atheists who happened to be murderous dictators, did their heinous acts in the name of their respective political idea and NOT in the name of atheism itself. That's just ludicrous. It's not like they were running around yelling "I will kill you in the name of no god!" LOL...see how stupid that sounds?
@bigflamer Actually, those guys had a very clear message of atheism. It was very much a part of their cause. If your going to pick fights over issues, at least get your history right.
@lonehunter65 Nope, had nothing to do with atheism, had to do with forcing people to worship the state. The only link is that the guys were atheists, other than that, nothing about their enforcing governments had to do with what atheism actually is. :) Atheism mattered in their governments about as much as the fact that Stalin had a mustache.
@BigLundi Sorry, but you really don't know your history at all. Their purpose was to push their communist agenda. A major tenant of communism, was to make a perfect society with no religion. So they were most definitely killing in the name of atheism.
@lonehunter65 I know my history, you just buy into Dinesh's and other apologetic arguments too much.
Let me demonstrate how your accusation is laughably absurd.
Please draw the logical line between, "I don't believe in gods" and "Nobody must believe in gods, and this is justifiably violently enforceable." WITHOUT adding any new ideas. and philosophies. Go for it. should be fun.
@lonehunter65 Again, draw the logical line. you're making a big assumption that atheism was a central pillar. Draw the logical line between atheism and violently enforcing worship of the state. Draw it, and don't add new philosophical concepts.
@lonehunter65 Please provide me the logical link between atheism and vioently enforcig of state worship, do that, or just stop, you're just embarassing yourself. I'm perfectly educated in the facts, meanwhile you've just swallowed up anti-atheist propaganda.
I'll ask you what Sam Harris asks people that blames bad societies on atheism, "Can you give me an example of a society that was ruined as a direct result of skeptical, open minded, honest inquiry?" I'll bet you can't.
@BigLundi Anyone who actually looks at the history there, knows you are flat out being deceptive. Atheism was a central pillar of every single one of those regimes.
To the second part you said: smh...you just assumed that atheism is 'skeptical, open minded, honest inquiry'. I beg to differ.
@lonehunter65 "Atheism was the central pillar of every one of these regimes" Yet you absolutely REFUSE, to draw the logical ine between, "I don't believe in a god" to "Let's violently enforce state worship."
The deceptive one is you, or whoever you bought that tired old argument from.
My atheism certainly IS "Skeptical, open minded, and honest inquiry" Same with Dennett, Harris, and Dawkins. Call me a liar, but I don't care. It's true.
@BigLundi I'm done here, read a history book or something. It's senseless to argue fact. If you really are in the business of 'honesty inquiry', do some research.
That's not the point. You have basically asserted that anyone who is 'skeptical, open-minded, and (uses) honest inquiry' WILL come to the conclusion of atheism.
Honesty inquiry is a process. Atheism is a position, it CAN be the result of the process, but it is not the process itself. That's absurd.
@lonehunter65 I've read history, and clearly know more than you. You refuse to point out HOW exactly atheism = violent enforcement of state worship. Because...well...you can't.
I never asserted that ANYONE who is skeptical, open minded, and uses honest inquiry will become an atheist, never said it, never even implied it. I'm saying I'm an atheist because of that, and you can't tie that philosophy to any failed country.
Omg, give me a break. D'Souza cannot compare "a car needing a car maker" to there needing to be a maker of the Universe. A car is a man made thing, of course it needs a maker, but look say at.... Plants. They don't really need a maker, they have evolved to the point they can "make" themselves. So... In the very early times (before universe) things evolved into things, which evolved into things, which, eventually, made the conditions right... Damn. I'm out of letters.. Someone please challenge me
Open free discussion sounds fine but when everyone's getting childish and butthurt (because D'Souza's voice beckons this mindset and echoes of countless sass-fights), well that's when daddy has to step in and close the discussion, thank goodness.
"If there is a God, we would have objective morality"
Maybe. But even Christians can't agree on what the "objective" morality actually says. There is no practical difference between a universe with no objective morality and one with objective morality that humans can't agree on.
Dennett completely missed the point of the morality argument. No one is claiming that atheists can't know what is moral. They just have no basis for that morality.
Then he turns around and claims that religious people do bad things, and the other religious people that hold the same beliefs but don't do bad things must answer for them. But when Atheists do things 100 times worse, he doesn't have to answer for any of it. Ridiculous.
@lonehunter65, no one has a basis for morality in the sense that you mean. God can't be the source of *objective* morals because, if morals are 'objective', then God is subject to them as well. So what's YOUR basis for morality? Your belief that God exists? No specific moral code logically follows from that belief alone. The belief that God commands certain behavior? That's unfounded unless you appeal to 'holy books', none of which is entirely moral. So where?
@multard I have a basis for morals in God. God is not 'subject' to the morals. Everything we know as 'good' is just the personality/essence of God. All that we know as 'bad' is what is not included in his personality/essence. So God is not subject to morals, and he did not just make them up. The morals ARE him.
Atheists make up basis for morality because they know it exists, but can't figure out where it comes from, since they rule out God to start with.
@lonehunter65, Your argument that God IS GOODNESS entails that God cannot be GOOD. We determine 'goodness' based on choices. If God IS goodness then he has no moral choices..making him morally neutral. Furthermore, if God is 'not subject to the morals', then morality is relative. What you've argued amounts to there being no absolute morals. You're going to say, 'but God IS the absolute morals.' He can't be. You've already said he's not subject to those morals, meaning they can't be absolute.
@multard I think your missing the point of what I'm saying. When I said "God is not 'subject' to morals", I mean that they were not a standard higher than himself that he was subservient to. (hence the quotation marks) Not that they do not apply to him. God can make choices, and he chooses to make his decisions good. So there is an absolute morality rooted in God. Are you trying to argue that there is NOT an absolute morality?
@lonehunter65 You seem certain that you know what right and wrong is - as if theists have the moral problem all sorted out. Now I ask you. If killing one person could save 10000, would you do it? If raping one person to prevent the rape of many others, would you do it? There are orders in your holy book to massacre, slaughter and enslave people. By putting God into the picture you advanced any further with the moral problem.
@FryderykFChopin Look, we can get into all this theoretically junk or what the bible actually says (in context) if you want, but I would rather get to the heart of the problem:
1.If God exists, we have objective morality. That much is obvious
2.If God does not exist, we don't have objective morality. (If you think otherwise, then please share where this objective morality comes from)
3. We do have objective morality. You might disagree here, but I think deep down you know it.
@lonehunter65 The ontological objective morality is white noise to me because the epistemological moral problems still remain. Even if I were to grant you your argument, you still absolutely no idea what this morality includes. One could make a case that God deems massacring, slaughtering and enslaving people is moral therefore it must be moral.
@FryderykFChopin No, there is not an epistemology problem. Our morals come from God's essence. God's word (bible) tells us what those morals are, but we can still figure them out apart from the bible because they are written on our heart.
Listen, we can talk about all the scriptures that your taking out of context if you want, but I'd rather see where you think objective morality can come from without God.
@lonehunter65 'Written on our heart'. Thats a rather abstract, poetic expression and in no way is it 'objective'. In no way am I taking your scriptures 'out of context'. I take them on face value and do not try to square circle in a bid to sweeten them up the way many Christians like doing. And what matters it? Whatever God does is moral. If he says we should stone children to death then of course, thats a righteous act. The bible is unintelligible in telling you what your morals are.
@lonehunter65 By no means am suggesting that I have the moral problem all worked as you yourself ostensibly purport. On the contrary, I maintain that the problem still stands and that you are no closer to solving the problem as with the rest of us.
@FryderykFChopin LOL, give me a scripture you think is 'immoral' and I'll show how your taking it out of context.
I think morality comes from God's essence, which actually makes sense. Your answer is self-contradicting. You want to say that people like Stalin and Hitler are immoral, but you also want to say that morality is relative! If there is a God, we would have objective morality, and we can actually say that Hitler was immoral (which you already knew, if you were being honest with yourself
@lonehunter65 You can't say Hitler is immoral because he himself believed that his brand of Christianity - his understanding of the 'objective morality' is correct. On every belt buckle of a Nazi soldier read the words Gott mit uns - God is with us. Who are you to say that your interpretation of the scriptures is more correct than his? Your morality is as relative as anybody else. If your morality is so obvious, tell me is it ever ok to take the life of another human being?
@FryderykFChopin Well Hitler was NOT a Christian, he pretended to be one. We can go into that discussion, but its really irrelevant.
Ok so you do follow your ideas all the way through! I'm actually proud of you, your one of the few atheists I have met that follow their beliefs through to the end.
However, I think you do know deep down that what Hitler did WAS wrong. You can throw up your logic screen all you want, but on the inside, you know.
@lonehunter65 What matters it if I think that Hitler was wrong. There are many who think he was right. The objective morality that a religious person might profess to would include what stoning people for adultery, death for apostasy, punishment for breaking the sabbath. You know what, I don't think I want an absolute morality. I would much rather a morality that was thought out, reasoned, argued, discussed and based upon you can almost say intelligent design.
@FryderykFChopin Yeah cause you never asked it. But that's a very broad question. I'll say it is never moral to murder someone.
If morality is relative, then what is the point of it existing? Every action ever made can be justified. Everything would be moral. So what's the point in even believing in it?
@lonehunter65 Never moral to murder someone? what about someone who's TRYING to murder you?
Morality is subjective. This is a fact even in a christian worldview. You can't give me a single moral ought that ISN'T subject to situation and condition.
"God says that X is immoral." would be a statement of this 'objective morality'. To which I say, "What if I want to do X?" to which you say, "Well you go to hell." To which I can easily say, "Well I desire hell, so I ought do X."
Murder is so loosely and unspecifically defined we have things like first, second, and thrid dgree murder, manslaughter, involentary manslaughter, self defense justified killing...
"I ought not murder someone" is most certainly not an absolute moral fact.
@lonehunter65 Great, and before I begin to point out why this isn't absolute, I want to make sure I'm not telling you something you already agree with.
You DO believe "I ought not murder someone, that is, premeditatedly kill another human being" is an absolute moral ought, correct?
@BigLundi Because it's immoral? Not sure how that proves anything.
Honestly, as an unbeliever, I can understand not wanting to follow the 'rules' of Christianity. Paul said the same in his epistle by saying something to the effect of "If Christ didn't resurrect, then we may as well eat, drink, and be merry". Because I am a believer, I am called to obey God. God says not to murder. But the root of the issue is the resurrection of Christ.
@lonehunter65 It's not that I don't WANT to follow the rules of christianity. It's that the rules have to show to have a point. Also, eating, drinking, and being merry aren't exactly banned by christianity, so that makes no sense.
My point is exactly what you demonstrated. Murder is wrong because God says not to murder, according to you. Now, you've already denied the absolution of the moral ought to not murder, because I only ought not murder if I am interested in obeying God according to you.
@lonehunter65 So, aside from that, you say that things are moral, simply because God says so. This makes morality subjective to god.
Which means that IF god were to come out tomorrow and say murder is now ok, it would then be OK, by definition, because, according to you, morals are simply defined as being god's orders.
I disagree, and I think you do too. Even if God were to come out tomorrow and say "You may now murder" doesn't mean it's now moral, does it?
@BigLundi Well now you've completely changed the topic. I'll try to explain that point as best I can.
I'm sure you're familiar with the Euthyphro's Dilemma:
"Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"
This seems to be your argument. But I think there is a third option:
Morality comes from the very essence of God. Morality is define by the person of God. This is kinda hard to explain, check my 2nd comment for an explanation.
So the idea of not murdering someone is just in the essence of God. Morality is not subjective to God, and God is not subjective to morality. They are one and the same. If God did exist as a being whose essence contained murdering as a virtue, our world would be a much different place. Since morality is 'written on our hearts', we would sincerely believe that murdering is good, and this conversation would be much different.
@lonehunter65 Your answer to the Euthyphro Dilemma is a silly one, and It's been gone over why in a lot of videos, but I'll try to summarize it. In essence...your answer...isn't an answer. See, when I ask, "Is something moral because it's commanded by god, or is it moral on its own?" And you say something like, "It's moral because morality is God's essence." Then that just brings up a new version of the same dilemma. I'll explain in the next post.
@lonehunter65 Is honesty, for example, a part of God's nature because honesty is right? Or is honesty right just because it's a part of God's nature? To say the former doesn't answer the question because I can simply ask "Why?" and obliterate the account given. Why is honesty morally better than dishonesty? Well because honesty reflects god's nature and dishonesty doesn't. Yeah, and why is it that god's nature reflects honesty rather than dishonesty? Well because honesty is good...circular. See?
@lonehunter65 To answer the latter simply does as the answer does in the original Euthyphro Dilemma that things are good because god commands them. It renders good to be a meaningless tautology. God's commands are good because they reflect his nature, and his nature is that of goodness...meaning god's commands are simply god's commands. These commands aren't good because, say, they diminish suffering in any way, or make society better...they're simply god's commands, and good by definition alone
@BigLundi I disagree. There is no explanation of God's nature. That's why scripture refers to him as 'I am as I am". There is no answer to this new dilemma you have created. There is no reason why something is a part of God's nature, it just is. The problem is that your question assumes that the moral concept of honesty is a separate object God, when in reality they are one and the same.
@lonehunter65 "I am as I am" Exactly. You've proven my point perfectly. God's nature and morality have been reduced to a meaningless tautology. None of it has anything to do with being nice to people, or bettering society, or increasing health, or diminishing suffering. good is just god's nature, and god's nature is good, and that's IT. You literally cannot go anywhere from there without borrowing from a completely secular worldview in order to define your morals. Good job.
@BigLundi Not at all. It's far from meaningless. It has everything to do with being nice to people, bettering society, increasing health, and diminishing suffering. Because that is the nature of God. If we lived in a world in which those things were not of the nature of God, we would sincerely believe that it is a good thing to be mean to people.
@lonehunter65 Not according to your answer to the Euthyphro Dilemma. Again, you've proven my point. What is good has nothing to do with God whatsoever, and you've demonstrated this.
@BigLundi I haven't 'proven your point' at all. I have consistently said that good comes from the essence of God. I would say that definition constitutes that good has quite a bit to do with God. At least be honest with yourself and admit that that explanation works.
Is honesty good?
Sure. Honesty is a good thing. There is no biblical command of 'though shalt not lie', but it does say to 'not bear false witness'. So yes fairness, truth and honesty are good things.
@lonehunter65 I know you've been consistent, I've been relying on that consistency to prove my point. Now let's see if you can keep it up, if you can't, then you fail, and if you do, then you'll prove my point more.
@BigLundi I've gone over this. Honesty is good because it is a part of the essence of God. It is a part of his character. He reveals his character within his word. In his word he says that honesty is good.
I know I have been consistent, but I have not proven any point of yours that I am aware of. You offered me the Euthyphro Dilemma, and I answered it. Then you baselessly asserted that I had proved your point. I hope this is building to something....
@lonehunter65 Perfect, you've demonstrated that your morality is completely and utterly useless, viciously circular, and even tautological. Proving my point completely, that you haven't answered the Euthyphro Dilemma in any way whatsoever, you've simply defined good in a useless way.
If you don't understand why your answer "It just is" proves that theistic morality is a complete and utter failure, then please ask me to elaborate, though I feel it's rather self evident.
@BigLundi It's not self-evident. You know it's easy to assert that I have said something ridiculous, but I would like to see it backed up. The fact that I even have to ask you to do that is absurd.
@lonehunter65 So in essence, you fee la viciously circular tautology that something is good because it's a part of god's nature, and things a part of god's nature are just good because "they just are" is a perfectly good definition of morals.
If that's the case, you'll never understand what morals really are, or be able to communicate what morals are in an educated manner.
@BigLundi Again, you did a great job of asserting that my beliefs are stupid, but did a very poor job of explaining why.
God exists as a necessary being, and thus has no explanation of his characters. Numbers are also necessary beings. Explain to me why 2 is a greater value than 1.
@lonehunter65 "God is a necessary being" Well that's an outright llie, and completely undemonstrated.
I demonstrated perfectly why your beliefs on morality are stupid. I demonstrated, using YOUR answers, that you didn't answer the question with your answer, first off, you begged for a new one, and secondly, in practice, you can't account in any non tautological fashion why honesty is good. If you can't see why, then you either never will, or there's nothing I can say currently.
@lonehunter65 2 is a greater value than one because we've defined it that way tautologically.
I don't know how many times I have to point out that you self admittedly state that what is good is simply a tautological "It's good because it is." before you get it through to yourself that I've PERFECTLY demonstrated why your definition of good is completely useless and unapplicable.
I can explain why honesty is good without saying "it just is", you can't. It's very simple.
@BigLundi You've proved my point. You've said that 2 is a greater value than 1 because it is. The reason this is, is because numbers exist by necessity, as does God. And again, I say honesty is good because it is within the character of God, not because 'it just is'.
And, lol, come on man. You can't define morality without stealing from a system with a standard of moral perfection (Christianity) or reducing morality to subjectivism, which in turn renders morality as self-illusioned.
@lonehunter65 And you've proven my point. Wherein secular models of morality give REASONS why things are good, your model is simply a tautology, rendering it USELESS, because it only says that things are good, not for any reason other than they are defined that way.
I can easily define morality wihtout stealing it from christianity, because as I've already demonstrated, christian morality is not perfect, it is a tautology. Secular models aren't a tautology, therefore they're better.
@BigLundi I do like how you avoided the numbers question for a second time.
And I wasn't stating that Christian morality is perfect. I said that the Christian system of morality uses a standard of moral perfection to define it's morality.
You've demonstrated nothing. You have asserted plenty. But sure, give it a go, give me your model of morality.
@lonehunter65 I didn't avoid the numbers question, I answered it you silly. Awhile ago.
"I wasn't saying chirstian morality is perfect, just that they use a standard of moral perfection to define its morality" Ok...that's just outright dishonest. Presupposing christianity, you believe they use a standard of moral perfection, meaning you think the morality is perfect. So yes, you were saying that. Besides, how do you know God's the good one? I know the asnwer already, because you just believe.
@BigLundi Your are 100% misunderstanding what I am saying. I am NOT saying that Christianity has a perfect morality. I am saying that Christians define their morality by appealing to a standard of moral perfection. As C.S. Lewis famously said, "You can't tell a curved line, unless you know a straight one." Similarly, Christians define their morals based against an objective standard of moral perfection (aka a straight line). This really shouldn't be a point of contention for us...
@lonehunter65 You are SAYING that Christianity's moral standard is PERFECTION, meaning that what is moral, is, PERFECT, under christian presuppositions. It really shouldn't be a point of contention, I figured it obvious fro mthe start. Presupposing christianity, the standard is, literally, perfect.
@BigLundi I still don't think your getting it. I'll try one more time.
Christianity defines morality by appealing to an objective standard (aka God). We know that something such as murder, is inherently evil because it differs from the standard of God. We identify a curved line (murder) by comparing it to a straight line (God).
@BigLundi If murder is "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another", (as we previously agreed on), explain to me how God murdered.
@lonehunter65 In any case, my definition of morality is "The standard by which we determine what actions diminish suffering and promote the well being and health of society, or, promote suffering and diminish the well being and health of others."
Go ahead, ask my why honesty is good. I gaurantee you I can answer with something FAR more substantive, using my morality, than, "It just is" rendering my morality better than yours. :)
@BigLundi OK, we are getting somewhere. And please don't assert that your morality is better than anybody's before we even start talking about your definition. Also, in bragging that your system of morality is better, you are demonstrating how deficient your morality is. Anyway, here we go:
Answer this: What makes the well-being of people good? What makes suffering bad?
Answer that without appealing to an objective standard of moral perfection.
@lonehunter65 "What makes the well being of people good?" Becaise it is a desirable thing, as accepted by both you, AND me.
"What makes suffering bad?" Because it's an undesirable trait that's acknowledged by you and me. AND, 99 times out of 100, if I can demosntrate that a particular action causes immense suffering, even if you don't agree with my definition, you would stil lsay it's immoral.
Just answered both of those without appealing to an objective perfect moral standard. :D
@BigLundi Why is the well-being of people a desirable thing? Why is suffering an undesirable thing? -
You might want to take that back. If you define morality as what is desirable, you have said that anything desirable, is also moral. Hitler desired to kill jews. Under this system, that is a moral thing to do.
@lonehunter65 Ah, but when desirable things clash with undesirabe things, that's where a cost/benefit analysis can be taken into practice. Hitler did desire to kill the jews, the rest of the world deire that genocide not take place, therefore Hitler was still wrong, desires or not.
I didn't say morals is what is desireable anyhow, so nice strawman.
"Why is well being desirable and suffering undesirable?" Because well-being feels good and helps us thrive, and suffering hurts and doesn't.
@BigLundi You most definitely did say morals are what is desirable. You said that well-being is good, because it is desirable. It logically follows that something is good because it is desirable.
So now you have defined morality as the consensus of the world defines morality. . How do you know that the general consensus of the world is correct? The highest populated country is China. So the most desired thing in the world is probably a world ruled by China. So now that is moral?
@lonehunter65 No, if you ask me why wel being is good, and I say because it is desired, and you ask me why what is desired is good, I would tell you that what is good is what causes us to thrive, we thrive when we are in desirable states therefore, what is desired is what is good, provided it doesn't cause suffering.
I never said that morality is defined by consensus, so you're wrong on that one too. You're one hell of a strawman maker. :)
@lonehunter65 I'm willing to say that that wasn't the best phrasing.
It's not that hitler was indeed objectively wrong, because the rest of the world said so, but that he was wrong, according to the rest of the world. That doesn't make him ABSOLTELY wrong, and it doesn't mean that he was objectively wrong in any and all cases, just that the rest of the world thought he was. that's all.
@BigLundi If you phrased wrong, don't accuse me of making strawmen.
You need to make a decision. Either morality is determined by the consensus of the world, or it is not. It can't be partly determined by that, and partly determined by something else. Give me a straight answer.
@lonehunter65 The fact that you don't understand my answer demonstrates that you have the complete inability to understand any moral model that doesn't appeal to an absolute standard.
I don't give, and nobody ought give, the consensus the right to dictate what is and is not moral. Just because 99% of people ant to enslave the 1% doesn't make slavery good. That's my point with saying "It isn't." Cont'd.
@lonehunter65 However, the fact is, the consensus DO make the laws of society, so they DO have the right to prosecute me in accordance to their laws, even if I find them to be immoral, IF I agree to live in their society. Which is why I included, "It is." in my answer as well. I'm confused as to how you don't understand this very simple concept.
@BigLundi You are trying to construct an entire moral model around a standard that sometimes isn't correct? That's stupid. I hope you recognize that.
And the fact is that unless you have committed suicide (which you probably haven't, since you are reading this), you ARE agreeing to live in the world society. If we are going with consensus dictates morality, it is moral for China to rule the world. The ridiculousness of that proves how unfathomably deluded this moral construct is.
@lonehunter65 "You're trying to build a moral model over a standard that isn't always correct?" Nothing is ALWAYS correct except your god, and even then only be definition. I could sit here and say doing what is desired is always correct, no exceptions if I wanted, but that'd be dishonest. Instead I have a model that can be argued, tweaked, reworked...it can progress, unlike yours. That makes mine superior.
Besides, I already told you consensus doesn't dictate morality.
@lonehunter65 Also I find it comical that you feel MY moral model is deluded, yet yours merely says, "Things are moral just because they are." That's the most deluded a model can get. Sorry, but my model can be argued and tweaked, yours is tautological and impractical. And don't say "You're just asserting that" because I've already had you admit exactly that when you say, "Honesty is moral because it's a part of God's nature ,and God's nature is moral because...it just is."
@lonehunter65 When I ask you why honesty is moral, you say it just is, when you ask me why it's moral I can give reasons, "We prefer to have people be honest with us, and honesty is required in order to be efficient." The mere fact that I can answer the question without appealing to a tautology makes my model demonstrably better than yours.
@BigLundi And you accuse me of making strawmen? I have probably told you 20 or so times now that that is not what I said. Plus, mischaracterizing my beliefs doesn't alter the ridiculousness of yours. I asked you to explain why what we 'prefer' is good. You said the preferred is good if the consensus of the world says its good. Now you have to answer why what the 'consensus of the world' says is good. You are trying to appeal to a higher standard, but...(contd)
@lonehunter65 I haven't mischaracterized your position. I'll put it in YOUR words, yet again. "Honesty is good because it's a part of God's nature. God's nature is that of honesty because it just is."
I didn't say "What we prefer is good IF the consensus says it's good." Never said that.
I don't have to explain why "what the consensus of the world says is good" because I NEVER SAID THAT.
I never said "Consensus makes right." Stop characterizing my argument as what it's not. It's dishonest.
@BigLundi Yeah that's about right. There is a huge difference there.
But that is exactly what you said! Here's a quote:
"Hitler did desire to kill the jews, the rest of the world deire that genocide not take place, therefore Hitler was still wrong, desires or not."
The rest of the world said the genocide shouldn't take place, therefore Hitler is wrong. General consensus dictates morality? Correct? So now explain everything I asked you to.
@lonehunter65 Yes, the rest of the world didn't want Hitler to commit genocide, therefore, IN ACCORDANCE TO THEM, Hitler was wrong. From HITLER'S position? He was in the right, from everyone else's position he was wrong. I didn't infer that because the majority said he's wrong, that alone makes him wrong. It simply means he was wrong to everyone else. And that's a relevant issue.
So now you understand that I'm not saying consnesus makes right, so now come up with new questions.
@BigLundi Congratulations. You just reduced morality to relativism. Under your system, everything is moral to everyone. From my position, I am in the right to rape that woman over there, therefore it is moral for me. See how ridiculous that is?
@lonehunter65 No, I haven't reduced morality to 'relativism'. If my morality WAS 'relatavism' then the strawman you produced, that the consensus makes something moral, then that WOULD be relatavism.
I'm still waiting for you to actually attack my actual moral position. So far you fail over and over.
See, if you say that your morals make it right for you to rape a woman? Then good for you. You are consistent with your morals. And I'm consistent with my morals to stop you from doing it.
@BigLundi How do you define relativism? Because you seem to be giving a textbook definition of it. MY moral construct allows me to rape a woman, but YOURS does not. If morality were not relative and subjective, our moral construct would be one and the same. You are obviously promoting relativism.
I'm drawing tired of your circular arguments, and will probably stop replying soon. If you would like to have a real discussion about it then please message me!
@lonehunter65 Morality is subjective, and that's an unavoidable fact. Moral relativism, however, says that "If a culture says it's right, you can't say they're wrong." Your morals, by the by, are just as subjective as mine.
The part of my morals that's subjective is my definition, but beyond that, I can OBJECTIVELY measure what is right and what is wrong.
I think it's hilarious that you tire of my circular arguments(which I hav yet to give one) when you're the circular one.
@BigLundi You admitted it! Finally, this is what we come to. After time and time of you defending that you could define a moral construct that neither appeal to a higher standard nor reduces morality to subjectivism, you finally give in.
First, you tried to appeal to a higher standard (the consensus of the world), and you correctly realized that this does not work. I applaud you for that. You then chose subjectivism. Glad we could sort this out. It was fun.
@lonehunter65 When I say morality is subjective, I mean it's subjective in the same way that YOUR morality is subjective. Your morality is just as subjective as mine.
I've explained this so many tims, yet you insist on ignoring it. Defining morals is a subjective fiat. But measuring them afterwards is completely objective. You give no method for measuring morals, I do. Hence, my morals are superior to yours.
I'm glad we could settle this. It really was fun. :)
@lonehunter65 Your inability to understand secular morals is not my problem.
The fact of the matter remains: Your morality is nothing more than a viciously circular tautology. You've admitted as much ,and have actualy said you think that's perfectly ok.
In this manner, you've failed horribly at justifying theistic morality, and demonstrated how superior secular morals are. Thanks for that. :)
@BigLundi(page 2) You are trying to appeal to a higher standard, but since you don't believe in a God, you are forced to appeal to an imperfect standard, namely your 'consensus of the world' idea. So now you are forced to explain why what the 'consensus of the world' thinks is inherently good. You are also forced to explain why we should trust an imperfect source. And since the 'consensus of the world' probably thinks China should rule the world, you need to explain how that is moral.
@lonehunter65 You have an inability to see that morals can come WITHOUT a higher authority. So when I say that there exists an authority, but the authority doesn't 'make' things good, you just don't understand, and claim that I appeal to a standard that "If the majority says it's right, it's therefore right." I never said that, stop trying to characterize my position as that.
@lonehunter65 In fact, I SPECIFICALLY said that's not right when I said, "99% of the world could want to enslave the 1%, but the slavery would still be wrong, because it increases the suffering of others and diminishes their health and well being, infringing on their rights and causing them to be unhappy, or less free."
Yet you just completely ignore this. Because you have an inability to see how morals can come without a higher authority.
@BigLundi No, you specifically appealed to a higher authority on your own. You said morality comes from our desires. You said our desires are determined by the consensus of the world. Now in cases where the world was wrong, you refer back to our desires. You see how that is a vicious circle?
I understand that it is VERY difficult to come up with a moral construct that does not appeal to a higher standard, simply because it is not possible without reducing morality to relativism.
@BigLundi First, please no personal attacks. I have restrained myself, you can restrain yourself (p.s. calling me a moron and then misspelling the word 'vicious' after I had already typed it, doesn't do you any favors)
Second, your just proceeding in adding new levels of subjectivity to morality. Now morality is determined by each individual person's desires? So again, you have the problem that Hitler was motivated by his desires, making him moral.
@lonehunter65 "So again, you have the problem that Hitler was motivated by his desires, making him moral."
Nobody are moral in light of their own opinion. Morality doesn't even have meaning unless you are discussing a community of voluntarily interacting agents. In such systems there will be objective facts about what kind of rules of conduct can be agreed upon, given the agents involved. Those types of rules are what we refer to as morality.
@lonehunter65 Such rules will not be is not mere opinion, but will largely be given by the biology of the species involved. Of course, that doesn't mean there is one right set of ways to act, but it does mean that we don't have to be surprised that secular morality works. Nor do we have to be surprised that it's always the winners of wars who are the moral ones. Might clearly makes right, whether it's by divine command or military power. That is amoral reasoning though.
@lonehunter65 When you don't take the opinions, needs and feelings of others into account, like Hitler did not do when he killed the Jews, he was not engaging in moral reasoning. That is an objective fact about that situation. To call him immoral, you'd have to place him inside a larger system and point out that his actions violate the voluntary cooperation requirement of morality and that he therefore does not represent the community, which he would obviously like to do.
@lonehunter65 Presenting morality as being so simple as either completely arbitrary or fascist dictates doesn't get you anywhere, as neither option is even remotely useful for describing things that factually are effective in organizing societies and also are cared deeply about, via appeals to real phenomena like suffering etc, by the people involved.
@lonehunter65 However, since 2 is only greater than 1 by definiton? Guess what? I'm in the position to tell you I'm redefininf both numbers so that 2 is less than 1, and you can't tell me I'm wrong. that's why tautologies are useless.
@lonehunter65 Didn't say what? At no point here have I said anything I regret, I stand behind everything I've said. Christian morality is nothing more than a visciously circular tautology, which you've demonstrated, and admitted. Secular morals are not. Therefore, by default, Secular morals are more useful, and preferred to the uselessness of circular tautology.
why is he so freaking mad? that to me represents insecurity and a clear indication of someone who is so unfortunately attached to believes based on "nothing".
It is still funny to me that people argue the perfection of the universe as a sign of god's existence.. the inverse couldn't be another way because it is THIS way, it doesn't suggest life couldn't have risen out of it in other ways. What a sophomoric philosophical idea.
I literally have to force myself to listen to D'souza's points so I dont seem to be bias, even if its just myself watching. I cant even believe people like him actually exist. Id almost say that ignorance on his level had to have been evolved in some way.
A sheep fighting a tyrannosaur would be more convincing than Dennett pitting himself against D'souza. That was his intellectual burial. Perhaps he should start his debates in a lighter weight-class (Bill O'Reilly show) ... I think Dawkins, though not a philosopher, would score much better debating D'Souza.
@GEDANUS6 You think Dinesh is convincing? A slimball who resorts to ad hominem and ridicule? Then speciously claims he doesn't mean to make fun of them, when the is all he does!
STOP SHOUTING!!!
chris1211zippo186 3 days ago
Daniel Denntee needs to ask, are there are "consequences" for breaking the laws of physic's. If so, then laws exist, if it's impossible to break a law of physic's then laws still exist. If laws exist, then, an intelligence created them. If laws do not exist, then the universe could not come into existence, since non existence cannot by itself create existence. D'Souza explained how a God can exist outside of time earlier in the debate. Thus showing that God, exists outside of known creation.
athaskins 2 weeks ago
Wow, it's almost tragic how badly Dinesh understands Dennett and what is mean by multiple universes. Dan is right that D'Souza doesn't do justice in his own comprehension to the ideas he is trying to refute. (Dan wasn't talking about the "parallel universe" concept, but that our bounded Universe is simply one of many independent universes that could potentially exist within a larger sphere of "physical laws.")
slurslee 1 month ago
Santa.... is that you?
thinkertank1 1 month ago
There are some religions without an „intelligent creator“or personal God, like Buddhism for example. It only uses a concept of omnipresent divine energy / „holy spirit“of a sort / Brahman / a field / a force, without (perhaps deliberately) going into discussion about (in)existence of personal God.
KanchoKomancho 2 months ago
I hereby declare that God has spoken to me and he told me that D'Souza must not scream into the microphone! And D'Souza has to obey because it is his God who said so and he cannot prove that it aint so.
EquinoxIV 2 months ago
What Dinesh lacks in intelligibility he makes up for in VOLUME.
ClumsyRoot 2 months ago in playlist Dinesh D'Souza Debates Daniel Dennett
What we seen in instances like Pol Pot ans Stalin, was politics and religion colliding in a fight for POWER. Simple as that. If you're of a mind to be a ruthless, all controlling authoritative dictator, you don't want to have to compete with any sort of religion that would subvert that, now would you? So they killed in the name of power, not atheism.
FAIL....on the part of Dinesh and other theists who use this old meme.
bigflamer 2 months ago
Also; Pol Pot, Stalin, and other atheists who happened to be murderous dictators, did their heinous acts in the name of their respective political idea and NOT in the name of atheism itself. That's just ludicrous. It's not like they were running around yelling "I will kill you in the name of no god!" LOL...see how stupid that sounds?
bigflamer 2 months ago
@bigflamer Actually, those guys had a very clear message of atheism. It was very much a part of their cause. If your going to pick fights over issues, at least get your history right.
lonehunter65 2 months ago
@lonehunter65 Nope, had nothing to do with atheism, had to do with forcing people to worship the state. The only link is that the guys were atheists, other than that, nothing about their enforcing governments had to do with what atheism actually is. :) Atheism mattered in their governments about as much as the fact that Stalin had a mustache.
BigLundi 2 months ago
@BigLundi Sorry, but you really don't know your history at all. Their purpose was to push their communist agenda. A major tenant of communism, was to make a perfect society with no religion. So they were most definitely killing in the name of atheism.
lonehunter65 2 months ago
@lonehunter65 I know my history, you just buy into Dinesh's and other apologetic arguments too much.
Let me demonstrate how your accusation is laughably absurd.
Please draw the logical line between, "I don't believe in gods" and "Nobody must believe in gods, and this is justifiably violently enforceable." WITHOUT adding any new ideas. and philosophies. Go for it. should be fun.
BigLundi 2 months ago
@BigLundi Your making untrue assumptions. Their campaigns were violent, and atheism was a central pillar of those agendas.
lonehunter65 2 months ago
@lonehunter65 Again, draw the logical line. you're making a big assumption that atheism was a central pillar. Draw the logical line between atheism and violently enforcing worship of the state. Draw it, and don't add new philosophical concepts.
BigLundi 2 months ago
@BigLundi It's not an assumption, it's an historical fact. Please do some research on the history of those regimes before responding again.
lonehunter65 2 months ago
@lonehunter65 Please provide me the logical link between atheism and vioently enforcig of state worship, do that, or just stop, you're just embarassing yourself. I'm perfectly educated in the facts, meanwhile you've just swallowed up anti-atheist propaganda.
I'll ask you what Sam Harris asks people that blames bad societies on atheism, "Can you give me an example of a society that was ruined as a direct result of skeptical, open minded, honest inquiry?" I'll bet you can't.
BigLundi 2 months ago
@BigLundi Anyone who actually looks at the history there, knows you are flat out being deceptive. Atheism was a central pillar of every single one of those regimes.
To the second part you said: smh...you just assumed that atheism is 'skeptical, open minded, honest inquiry'. I beg to differ.
lonehunter65 2 months ago
@lonehunter65 "Atheism was the central pillar of every one of these regimes" Yet you absolutely REFUSE, to draw the logical ine between, "I don't believe in a god" to "Let's violently enforce state worship."
The deceptive one is you, or whoever you bought that tired old argument from.
My atheism certainly IS "Skeptical, open minded, and honest inquiry" Same with Dennett, Harris, and Dawkins. Call me a liar, but I don't care. It's true.
BigLundi 2 months ago
@BigLundi I'm done here, read a history book or something. It's senseless to argue fact. If you really are in the business of 'honesty inquiry', do some research.
That's not the point. You have basically asserted that anyone who is 'skeptical, open-minded, and (uses) honest inquiry' WILL come to the conclusion of atheism.
Honesty inquiry is a process. Atheism is a position, it CAN be the result of the process, but it is not the process itself. That's absurd.
lonehunter65 2 months ago
@lonehunter65 I've read history, and clearly know more than you. You refuse to point out HOW exactly atheism = violent enforcement of state worship. Because...well...you can't.
I never asserted that ANYONE who is skeptical, open minded, and uses honest inquiry will become an atheist, never said it, never even implied it. I'm saying I'm an atheist because of that, and you can't tie that philosophy to any failed country.
BigLundi 2 months ago
Good grief, D'Souza looks every bit like an irrational fanatic. Settle the f**k down Dinesh, LOL
bigflamer 2 months ago
Omg, give me a break. D'Souza cannot compare "a car needing a car maker" to there needing to be a maker of the Universe. A car is a man made thing, of course it needs a maker, but look say at.... Plants. They don't really need a maker, they have evolved to the point they can "make" themselves. So... In the very early times (before universe) things evolved into things, which evolved into things, which, eventually, made the conditions right... Damn. I'm out of letters.. Someone please challenge me
joshgiesbrecht 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dennette is STRUGGLING here. Pitiful
Seigu007 3 months ago
Open free discussion sounds fine but when everyone's getting childish and butthurt (because D'Souza's voice beckons this mindset and echoes of countless sass-fights), well that's when daddy has to step in and close the discussion, thank goodness.
maljamin 3 months ago
Poor Dennett. I am sorry, you have no solid ground. Please do some more study.
realtyofislam 3 months ago
Dennett has all the arguments on his side, but what a horrible debater he is.
fidenful 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"If there is a God, we would have objective morality"
Maybe. But even Christians can't agree on what the "objective" morality actually says. There is no practical difference between a universe with no objective morality and one with objective morality that humans can't agree on.
Springheel01 5 months ago
Dinesh: "if a car requires a car maker and a painting requires a painter then the universe requires a creator. That is all I am saying"
Then all Dinesh is saying is a trite logical fallacy and a demonstration of his own ignorance.
hikermanwa 5 months ago 2
Dennett completely missed the point of the morality argument. No one is claiming that atheists can't know what is moral. They just have no basis for that morality.
Then he turns around and claims that religious people do bad things, and the other religious people that hold the same beliefs but don't do bad things must answer for them. But when Atheists do things 100 times worse, he doesn't have to answer for any of it. Ridiculous.
lonehunter65 6 months ago
@lonehunter65, no one has a basis for morality in the sense that you mean. God can't be the source of *objective* morals because, if morals are 'objective', then God is subject to them as well. So what's YOUR basis for morality? Your belief that God exists? No specific moral code logically follows from that belief alone. The belief that God commands certain behavior? That's unfounded unless you appeal to 'holy books', none of which is entirely moral. So where?
multard 6 months ago
@multard I have a basis for morals in God. God is not 'subject' to the morals. Everything we know as 'good' is just the personality/essence of God. All that we know as 'bad' is what is not included in his personality/essence. So God is not subject to morals, and he did not just make them up. The morals ARE him.
Atheists make up basis for morality because they know it exists, but can't figure out where it comes from, since they rule out God to start with.
lonehunter65 6 months ago
@lonehunter65, Your argument that God IS GOODNESS entails that God cannot be GOOD. We determine 'goodness' based on choices. If God IS goodness then he has no moral choices..making him morally neutral. Furthermore, if God is 'not subject to the morals', then morality is relative. What you've argued amounts to there being no absolute morals. You're going to say, 'but God IS the absolute morals.' He can't be. You've already said he's not subject to those morals, meaning they can't be absolute.
multard 6 months ago
@multard I think your missing the point of what I'm saying. When I said "God is not 'subject' to morals", I mean that they were not a standard higher than himself that he was subservient to. (hence the quotation marks) Not that they do not apply to him. God can make choices, and he chooses to make his decisions good. So there is an absolute morality rooted in God. Are you trying to argue that there is NOT an absolute morality?
lonehunter65 6 months ago
@lonehunter65 So name me a couple of absolute moralities that you can derive from your God.
FryderykFChopin 6 months ago
@FryderykFChopin ummm don't kill. don't rape. is that what you mean?
lonehunter65 5 months ago
@lonehunter65 You seem certain that you know what right and wrong is - as if theists have the moral problem all sorted out. Now I ask you. If killing one person could save 10000, would you do it? If raping one person to prevent the rape of many others, would you do it? There are orders in your holy book to massacre, slaughter and enslave people. By putting God into the picture you advanced any further with the moral problem.
FryderykFChopin 5 months ago
@FryderykFChopin Look, we can get into all this theoretically junk or what the bible actually says (in context) if you want, but I would rather get to the heart of the problem:
1.If God exists, we have objective morality. That much is obvious
2.If God does not exist, we don't have objective morality. (If you think otherwise, then please share where this objective morality comes from)
3. We do have objective morality. You might disagree here, but I think deep down you know it.
lonehunter65 5 months ago
@lonehunter65 The ontological objective morality is white noise to me because the epistemological moral problems still remain. Even if I were to grant you your argument, you still absolutely no idea what this morality includes. One could make a case that God deems massacring, slaughtering and enslaving people is moral therefore it must be moral.
FryderykFChopin 5 months ago
@FryderykFChopin No, there is not an epistemology problem. Our morals come from God's essence. God's word (bible) tells us what those morals are, but we can still figure them out apart from the bible because they are written on our heart.
Listen, we can talk about all the scriptures that your taking out of context if you want, but I'd rather see where you think objective morality can come from without God.
lonehunter65 5 months ago
@lonehunter65 'Written on our heart'. Thats a rather abstract, poetic expression and in no way is it 'objective'. In no way am I taking your scriptures 'out of context'. I take them on face value and do not try to square circle in a bid to sweeten them up the way many Christians like doing. And what matters it? Whatever God does is moral. If he says we should stone children to death then of course, thats a righteous act. The bible is unintelligible in telling you what your morals are.
FryderykFChopin 5 months ago
@lonehunter65 By no means am suggesting that I have the moral problem all worked as you yourself ostensibly purport. On the contrary, I maintain that the problem still stands and that you are no closer to solving the problem as with the rest of us.
FryderykFChopin 5 months ago
@FryderykFChopin LOL, give me a scripture you think is 'immoral' and I'll show how your taking it out of context.
I think morality comes from God's essence, which actually makes sense. Your answer is self-contradicting. You want to say that people like Stalin and Hitler are immoral, but you also want to say that morality is relative! If there is a God, we would have objective morality, and we can actually say that Hitler was immoral (which you already knew, if you were being honest with yourself
lonehunter65 5 months ago
@lonehunter65 You can't say Hitler is immoral because he himself believed that his brand of Christianity - his understanding of the 'objective morality' is correct. On every belt buckle of a Nazi soldier read the words Gott mit uns - God is with us. Who are you to say that your interpretation of the scriptures is more correct than his? Your morality is as relative as anybody else. If your morality is so obvious, tell me is it ever ok to take the life of another human being?
FryderykFChopin 5 months ago
@FryderykFChopin Well Hitler was NOT a Christian, he pretended to be one. We can go into that discussion, but its really irrelevant.
Ok so you do follow your ideas all the way through! I'm actually proud of you, your one of the few atheists I have met that follow their beliefs through to the end.
However, I think you do know deep down that what Hitler did WAS wrong. You can throw up your logic screen all you want, but on the inside, you know.
lonehunter65 5 months ago
@lonehunter65 What matters it if I think that Hitler was wrong. There are many who think he was right. The objective morality that a religious person might profess to would include what stoning people for adultery, death for apostasy, punishment for breaking the sabbath. You know what, I don't think I want an absolute morality. I would much rather a morality that was thought out, reasoned, argued, discussed and based upon you can almost say intelligent design.
FryderykFChopin 5 months ago
@lonehunter65 You still haven't answered a most rudimentary question I put to. Is it ever moral to kill another human being.
FryderykFChopin 5 months ago
@FryderykFChopin Yeah cause you never asked it. But that's a very broad question. I'll say it is never moral to murder someone.
If morality is relative, then what is the point of it existing? Every action ever made can be justified. Everything would be moral. So what's the point in even believing in it?
lonehunter65 5 months ago
@lonehunter65 Never moral to murder someone? what about someone who's TRYING to murder you?
Morality is subjective. This is a fact even in a christian worldview. You can't give me a single moral ought that ISN'T subject to situation and condition.
"God says that X is immoral." would be a statement of this 'objective morality'. To which I say, "What if I want to do X?" to which you say, "Well you go to hell." To which I can easily say, "Well I desire hell, so I ought do X."
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi Killing in defense is not murder.....
No one goes to Hell for 'wanting' to do something.
lonehunter65 3 months ago
@lonehunter65 Define murder then. I gaurantee I can come up with a situation where one ought murder someone.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi And what would that prove? I think we all know what murder means...
lonehunter65 3 months ago
@lonehunter65 No, we don't.
Murder is so loosely and unspecifically defined we have things like first, second, and thrid dgree murder, manslaughter, involentary manslaughter, self defense justified killing...
"I ought not murder someone" is most certainly not an absolute moral fact.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi Murder - The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
lonehunter65 3 months ago
@lonehunter65 Great, and before I begin to point out why this isn't absolute, I want to make sure I'm not telling you something you already agree with.
You DO believe "I ought not murder someone, that is, premeditatedly kill another human being" is an absolute moral ought, correct?
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi Yep. Sorry for the late response though!
lonehunter65 2 months ago
@lonehunter65 Ok, real easy. WHY ought I not premeditatedly kill another human being?
And before you answer, realize that BY answering, you've reduced the ought, to being conditional, and not absolute.
BigLundi 2 months ago
@BigLundi Because it's immoral? Not sure how that proves anything.
Honestly, as an unbeliever, I can understand not wanting to follow the 'rules' of Christianity. Paul said the same in his epistle by saying something to the effect of "If Christ didn't resurrect, then we may as well eat, drink, and be merry". Because I am a believer, I am called to obey God. God says not to murder. But the root of the issue is the resurrection of Christ.
Anyway, what are you getting at?
lonehunter65 2 months ago
@lonehunter65 It's not that I don't WANT to follow the rules of christianity. It's that the rules have to show to have a point. Also, eating, drinking, and being merry aren't exactly banned by christianity, so that makes no sense.
My point is exactly what you demonstrated. Murder is wrong because God says not to murder, according to you. Now, you've already denied the absolution of the moral ought to not murder, because I only ought not murder if I am interested in obeying God according to you.
BigLundi 2 months ago
@lonehunter65 So, aside from that, you say that things are moral, simply because God says so. This makes morality subjective to god.
Which means that IF god were to come out tomorrow and say murder is now ok, it would then be OK, by definition, because, according to you, morals are simply defined as being god's orders.
I disagree, and I think you do too. Even if God were to come out tomorrow and say "You may now murder" doesn't mean it's now moral, does it?
BigLundi 2 months ago
@BigLundi Well now you've completely changed the topic. I'll try to explain that point as best I can.
I'm sure you're familiar with the Euthyphro's Dilemma:
"Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"
This seems to be your argument. But I think there is a third option:
Morality comes from the very essence of God. Morality is define by the person of God. This is kinda hard to explain, check my 2nd comment for an explanation.
lonehunter65 2 months ago
@BigLundi (contd)
So the idea of not murdering someone is just in the essence of God. Morality is not subjective to God, and God is not subjective to morality. They are one and the same. If God did exist as a being whose essence contained murdering as a virtue, our world would be a much different place. Since morality is 'written on our hearts', we would sincerely believe that murdering is good, and this conversation would be much different.
Let me know if this makes sense.
lonehunter65 2 months ago
@lonehunter65 Your answer to the Euthyphro Dilemma is a silly one, and It's been gone over why in a lot of videos, but I'll try to summarize it. In essence...your answer...isn't an answer. See, when I ask, "Is something moral because it's commanded by god, or is it moral on its own?" And you say something like, "It's moral because morality is God's essence." Then that just brings up a new version of the same dilemma. I'll explain in the next post.
BigLundi 2 months ago
@lonehunter65 Is honesty, for example, a part of God's nature because honesty is right? Or is honesty right just because it's a part of God's nature? To say the former doesn't answer the question because I can simply ask "Why?" and obliterate the account given. Why is honesty morally better than dishonesty? Well because honesty reflects god's nature and dishonesty doesn't. Yeah, and why is it that god's nature reflects honesty rather than dishonesty? Well because honesty is good...circular. See?
BigLundi 2 months ago
@lonehunter65 To answer the latter simply does as the answer does in the original Euthyphro Dilemma that things are good because god commands them. It renders good to be a meaningless tautology. God's commands are good because they reflect his nature, and his nature is that of goodness...meaning god's commands are simply god's commands. These commands aren't good because, say, they diminish suffering in any way, or make society better...they're simply god's commands, and good by definition alone
BigLundi 2 months ago
@BigLundi I disagree. There is no explanation of God's nature. That's why scripture refers to him as 'I am as I am". There is no answer to this new dilemma you have created. There is no reason why something is a part of God's nature, it just is. The problem is that your question assumes that the moral concept of honesty is a separate object God, when in reality they are one and the same.
lonehunter65 2 months ago
@lonehunter65 "I am as I am" Exactly. You've proven my point perfectly. God's nature and morality have been reduced to a meaningless tautology. None of it has anything to do with being nice to people, or bettering society, or increasing health, or diminishing suffering. good is just god's nature, and god's nature is good, and that's IT. You literally cannot go anywhere from there without borrowing from a completely secular worldview in order to define your morals. Good job.
BigLundi 2 months ago
@BigLundi Not at all. It's far from meaningless. It has everything to do with being nice to people, bettering society, increasing health, and diminishing suffering. Because that is the nature of God. If we lived in a world in which those things were not of the nature of God, we would sincerely believe that it is a good thing to be mean to people.
lonehunter65 2 months ago
@lonehunter65 Not according to your answer to the Euthyphro Dilemma. Again, you've proven my point. What is good has nothing to do with God whatsoever, and you've demonstrated this.
So let me ask you.
Is honesty good?
BigLundi 2 months ago
@BigLundi I haven't 'proven your point' at all. I have consistently said that good comes from the essence of God. I would say that definition constitutes that good has quite a bit to do with God. At least be honest with yourself and admit that that explanation works.
Is honesty good?
Sure. Honesty is a good thing. There is no biblical command of 'though shalt not lie', but it does say to 'not bear false witness'. So yes fairness, truth and honesty are good things.
lonehunter65 2 months ago
@lonehunter65 I know you've been consistent, I've been relying on that consistency to prove my point. Now let's see if you can keep it up, if you can't, then you fail, and if you do, then you'll prove my point more.
Now. Why is Honesty Good?
BigLundi 2 months ago
@BigLundi I've gone over this. Honesty is good because it is a part of the essence of God. It is a part of his character. He reveals his character within his word. In his word he says that honesty is good.
I know I have been consistent, but I have not proven any point of yours that I am aware of. You offered me the Euthyphro Dilemma, and I answered it. Then you baselessly asserted that I had proved your point. I hope this is building to something....
lonehunter65 2 months ago
@lonehunter65 Why is God's character that of honesty, and not dishonesty?
Answer that, and I'm fairly certain we have finished proving my point.
BigLundi 2 months ago
@BigLundi I've kind of touched on this already. It just is. That's why scripture says "I am that I am". God exists by necessity.
lonehunter65 2 months ago
@lonehunter65 Perfect, you've demonstrated that your morality is completely and utterly useless, viciously circular, and even tautological. Proving my point completely, that you haven't answered the Euthyphro Dilemma in any way whatsoever, you've simply defined good in a useless way.
If you don't understand why your answer "It just is" proves that theistic morality is a complete and utter failure, then please ask me to elaborate, though I feel it's rather self evident.
BigLundi 2 months ago
@BigLundi It's not self-evident. You know it's easy to assert that I have said something ridiculous, but I would like to see it backed up. The fact that I even have to ask you to do that is absurd.
lonehunter65 2 months ago
@lonehunter65 So in essence, you fee la viciously circular tautology that something is good because it's a part of god's nature, and things a part of god's nature are just good because "they just are" is a perfectly good definition of morals.
If that's the case, you'll never understand what morals really are, or be able to communicate what morals are in an educated manner.
BigLundi 2 months ago
@BigLundi Again, you did a great job of asserting that my beliefs are stupid, but did a very poor job of explaining why.
God exists as a necessary being, and thus has no explanation of his characters. Numbers are also necessary beings. Explain to me why 2 is a greater value than 1.
lonehunter65 2 months ago
@lonehunter65 "God is a necessary being" Well that's an outright llie, and completely undemonstrated.
I demonstrated perfectly why your beliefs on morality are stupid. I demonstrated, using YOUR answers, that you didn't answer the question with your answer, first off, you begged for a new one, and secondly, in practice, you can't account in any non tautological fashion why honesty is good. If you can't see why, then you either never will, or there's nothing I can say currently.
BigLundi 2 months ago
@BigLundi No, your not dodging the question. Explain to me why 2 is a greater value than 1.
And once again, great job asserting that you proved something, but poor job explaining why.
lonehunter65 2 months ago
@lonehunter65 2 is a greater value than one because we've defined it that way tautologically.
I don't know how many times I have to point out that you self admittedly state that what is good is simply a tautological "It's good because it is." before you get it through to yourself that I've PERFECTLY demonstrated why your definition of good is completely useless and unapplicable.
I can explain why honesty is good without saying "it just is", you can't. It's very simple.
BigLundi 2 months ago
@BigLundi You've proved my point. You've said that 2 is a greater value than 1 because it is. The reason this is, is because numbers exist by necessity, as does God. And again, I say honesty is good because it is within the character of God, not because 'it just is'.
And, lol, come on man. You can't define morality without stealing from a system with a standard of moral perfection (Christianity) or reducing morality to subjectivism, which in turn renders morality as self-illusioned.
lonehunter65 2 months ago
@lonehunter65 And you've proven my point. Wherein secular models of morality give REASONS why things are good, your model is simply a tautology, rendering it USELESS, because it only says that things are good, not for any reason other than they are defined that way.
I can easily define morality wihtout stealing it from christianity, because as I've already demonstrated, christian morality is not perfect, it is a tautology. Secular models aren't a tautology, therefore they're better.
BigLundi 2 months ago
@BigLundi I do like how you avoided the numbers question for a second time.
And I wasn't stating that Christian morality is perfect. I said that the Christian system of morality uses a standard of moral perfection to define it's morality.
You've demonstrated nothing. You have asserted plenty. But sure, give it a go, give me your model of morality.
lonehunter65 2 months ago
@lonehunter65 I didn't avoid the numbers question, I answered it you silly. Awhile ago.
"I wasn't saying chirstian morality is perfect, just that they use a standard of moral perfection to define its morality" Ok...that's just outright dishonest. Presupposing christianity, you believe they use a standard of moral perfection, meaning you think the morality is perfect. So yes, you were saying that. Besides, how do you know God's the good one? I know the asnwer already, because you just believe.
BigLundi 2 months ago
@BigLundi Your are 100% misunderstanding what I am saying. I am NOT saying that Christianity has a perfect morality. I am saying that Christians define their morality by appealing to a standard of moral perfection. As C.S. Lewis famously said, "You can't tell a curved line, unless you know a straight one." Similarly, Christians define their morals based against an objective standard of moral perfection (aka a straight line). This really shouldn't be a point of contention for us...
lonehunter65 2 months ago
@lonehunter65 You are SAYING that Christianity's moral standard is PERFECTION, meaning that what is moral, is, PERFECT, under christian presuppositions. It really shouldn't be a point of contention, I figured it obvious fro mthe start. Presupposing christianity, the standard is, literally, perfect.
BigLundi 2 months ago
@BigLundi I still don't think your getting it. I'll try one more time.
Christianity defines morality by appealing to an objective standard (aka God). We know that something such as murder, is inherently evil because it differs from the standard of God. We identify a curved line (murder) by comparing it to a straight line (God).
lonehunter65 2 months ago
@lonehunter65 God murders in the bible, so I don't see how that logically follows.
BigLundi 2 months ago
@BigLundi smh....I think you understand what I am saying. That comment was unfactual and incorrect.
lonehunter65 2 months ago
@lonehunter65 totaly factual and correct, unless you think the events depicted in the bible never happened.
God murders people in the bible. This is a fact.
BigLundi 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BigLundi If murder is "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another", (as we previously agreed on), explain to me how God murdered.
lonehunter65 2 months ago
@lonehunter65 In any case, my definition of morality is "The standard by which we determine what actions diminish suffering and promote the well being and health of society, or, promote suffering and diminish the well being and health of others."
Go ahead, ask my why honesty is good. I gaurantee you I can answer with something FAR more substantive, using my morality, than, "It just is" rendering my morality better than yours. :)
BigLundi 2 months ago
@BigLundi OK, we are getting somewhere. And please don't assert that your morality is better than anybody's before we even start talking about your definition. Also, in bragging that your system of morality is better, you are demonstrating how deficient your morality is. Anyway, here we go:
Answer this: What makes the well-being of people good? What makes suffering bad?
Answer that without appealing to an objective standard of moral perfection.
lonehunter65 2 months ago
@lonehunter65 "What makes the well being of people good?" Becaise it is a desirable thing, as accepted by both you, AND me.
"What makes suffering bad?" Because it's an undesirable trait that's acknowledged by you and me. AND, 99 times out of 100, if I can demosntrate that a particular action causes immense suffering, even if you don't agree with my definition, you would stil lsay it's immoral.
Just answered both of those without appealing to an objective perfect moral standard. :D
BigLundi 2 months ago
@BigLundi Why is the well-being of people a desirable thing? Why is suffering an undesirable thing? -
You might want to take that back. If you define morality as what is desirable, you have said that anything desirable, is also moral. Hitler desired to kill jews. Under this system, that is a moral thing to do.
lonehunter65 2 months ago
@lonehunter65 Ah, but when desirable things clash with undesirabe things, that's where a cost/benefit analysis can be taken into practice. Hitler did desire to kill the jews, the rest of the world deire that genocide not take place, therefore Hitler was still wrong, desires or not.
I didn't say morals is what is desireable anyhow, so nice strawman.
"Why is well being desirable and suffering undesirable?" Because well-being feels good and helps us thrive, and suffering hurts and doesn't.
BigLundi 2 months ago
@BigLundi You most definitely did say morals are what is desirable. You said that well-being is good, because it is desirable. It logically follows that something is good because it is desirable.
So now you have defined morality as the consensus of the world defines morality. . How do you know that the general consensus of the world is correct? The highest populated country is China. So the most desired thing in the world is probably a world ruled by China. So now that is moral?
lonehunter65 2 months ago
@lonehunter65 No, if you ask me why wel being is good, and I say because it is desired, and you ask me why what is desired is good, I would tell you that what is good is what causes us to thrive, we thrive when we are in desirable states therefore, what is desired is what is good, provided it doesn't cause suffering.
I never said that morality is defined by consensus, so you're wrong on that one too. You're one hell of a strawman maker. :)
BigLundi 2 months ago
@BigLundi "the rest of the world deire that genocide not take place, therefore Hitler was still wrong" did you say that, yes or no?
If yes, are you willing to take that back?
lonehunter65 2 months ago
@lonehunter65 I'm willing to say that that wasn't the best phrasing.
It's not that hitler was indeed objectively wrong, because the rest of the world said so, but that he was wrong, according to the rest of the world. That doesn't make him ABSOLTELY wrong, and it doesn't mean that he was objectively wrong in any and all cases, just that the rest of the world thought he was. that's all.
BigLundi 2 months ago
@BigLundi If you phrased wrong, don't accuse me of making strawmen.
You need to make a decision. Either morality is determined by the consensus of the world, or it is not. It can't be partly determined by that, and partly determined by something else. Give me a straight answer.
lonehunter65 2 months ago
@lonehunter65 It is and it isn't.
BigLundi 2 months ago
@BigLundi Are you kidding?
If not you have just proved that your concept of morality is an absolute joke.
lonehunter65 2 months ago
@lonehunter65 The fact that you don't understand my answer demonstrates that you have the complete inability to understand any moral model that doesn't appeal to an absolute standard.
I don't give, and nobody ought give, the consensus the right to dictate what is and is not moral. Just because 99% of people ant to enslave the 1% doesn't make slavery good. That's my point with saying "It isn't." Cont'd.
BigLundi 2 months ago
@lonehunter65 However, the fact is, the consensus DO make the laws of society, so they DO have the right to prosecute me in accordance to their laws, even if I find them to be immoral, IF I agree to live in their society. Which is why I included, "It is." in my answer as well. I'm confused as to how you don't understand this very simple concept.
BigLundi 2 months ago
@BigLundi You are trying to construct an entire moral model around a standard that sometimes isn't correct? That's stupid. I hope you recognize that.
And the fact is that unless you have committed suicide (which you probably haven't, since you are reading this), you ARE agreeing to live in the world society. If we are going with consensus dictates morality, it is moral for China to rule the world. The ridiculousness of that proves how unfathomably deluded this moral construct is.
lonehunter65 2 months ago
@lonehunter65 "You're trying to build a moral model over a standard that isn't always correct?" Nothing is ALWAYS correct except your god, and even then only be definition. I could sit here and say doing what is desired is always correct, no exceptions if I wanted, but that'd be dishonest. Instead I have a model that can be argued, tweaked, reworked...it can progress, unlike yours. That makes mine superior.
Besides, I already told you consensus doesn't dictate morality.
BigLundi 2 months ago
@lonehunter65 Also I find it comical that you feel MY moral model is deluded, yet yours merely says, "Things are moral just because they are." That's the most deluded a model can get. Sorry, but my model can be argued and tweaked, yours is tautological and impractical. And don't say "You're just asserting that" because I've already had you admit exactly that when you say, "Honesty is moral because it's a part of God's nature ,and God's nature is moral because...it just is."
BigLundi 2 months ago
@lonehunter65 When I ask you why honesty is moral, you say it just is, when you ask me why it's moral I can give reasons, "We prefer to have people be honest with us, and honesty is required in order to be efficient." The mere fact that I can answer the question without appealing to a tautology makes my model demonstrably better than yours.
BigLundi 2 months ago
@BigLundi And you accuse me of making strawmen? I have probably told you 20 or so times now that that is not what I said. Plus, mischaracterizing my beliefs doesn't alter the ridiculousness of yours. I asked you to explain why what we 'prefer' is good. You said the preferred is good if the consensus of the world says its good. Now you have to answer why what the 'consensus of the world' says is good. You are trying to appeal to a higher standard, but...(contd)
lonehunter65 2 months ago
@lonehunter65 I haven't mischaracterized your position. I'll put it in YOUR words, yet again. "Honesty is good because it's a part of God's nature. God's nature is that of honesty because it just is."
I didn't say "What we prefer is good IF the consensus says it's good." Never said that.
I don't have to explain why "what the consensus of the world says is good" because I NEVER SAID THAT.
I never said "Consensus makes right." Stop characterizing my argument as what it's not. It's dishonest.
BigLundi 2 months ago
@BigLundi Yeah that's about right. There is a huge difference there.
But that is exactly what you said! Here's a quote:
"Hitler did desire to kill the jews, the rest of the world deire that genocide not take place, therefore Hitler was still wrong, desires or not."
The rest of the world said the genocide shouldn't take place, therefore Hitler is wrong. General consensus dictates morality? Correct? So now explain everything I asked you to.
lonehunter65 2 months ago
@lonehunter65 Yes, the rest of the world didn't want Hitler to commit genocide, therefore, IN ACCORDANCE TO THEM, Hitler was wrong. From HITLER'S position? He was in the right, from everyone else's position he was wrong. I didn't infer that because the majority said he's wrong, that alone makes him wrong. It simply means he was wrong to everyone else. And that's a relevant issue.
So now you understand that I'm not saying consnesus makes right, so now come up with new questions.
BigLundi 2 months ago
@BigLundi Congratulations. You just reduced morality to relativism. Under your system, everything is moral to everyone. From my position, I am in the right to rape that woman over there, therefore it is moral for me. See how ridiculous that is?
lonehunter65 2 months ago
@lonehunter65 No, I haven't reduced morality to 'relativism'. If my morality WAS 'relatavism' then the strawman you produced, that the consensus makes something moral, then that WOULD be relatavism.
I'm still waiting for you to actually attack my actual moral position. So far you fail over and over.
See, if you say that your morals make it right for you to rape a woman? Then good for you. You are consistent with your morals. And I'm consistent with my morals to stop you from doing it.
BigLundi 2 months ago
@BigLundi How do you define relativism? Because you seem to be giving a textbook definition of it. MY moral construct allows me to rape a woman, but YOURS does not. If morality were not relative and subjective, our moral construct would be one and the same. You are obviously promoting relativism.
I'm drawing tired of your circular arguments, and will probably stop replying soon. If you would like to have a real discussion about it then please message me!
lonehunter65 2 months ago
@lonehunter65 Morality is subjective, and that's an unavoidable fact. Moral relativism, however, says that "If a culture says it's right, you can't say they're wrong." Your morals, by the by, are just as subjective as mine.
The part of my morals that's subjective is my definition, but beyond that, I can OBJECTIVELY measure what is right and what is wrong.
I think it's hilarious that you tire of my circular arguments(which I hav yet to give one) when you're the circular one.
BigLundi 2 months ago
@BigLundi You admitted it! Finally, this is what we come to. After time and time of you defending that you could define a moral construct that neither appeal to a higher standard nor reduces morality to subjectivism, you finally give in.
First, you tried to appeal to a higher standard (the consensus of the world), and you correctly realized that this does not work. I applaud you for that. You then chose subjectivism. Glad we could sort this out. It was fun.
lonehunter65 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lonehunter65 When I say morality is subjective, I mean it's subjective in the same way that YOUR morality is subjective. Your morality is just as subjective as mine.
I've explained this so many tims, yet you insist on ignoring it. Defining morals is a subjective fiat. But measuring them afterwards is completely objective. You give no method for measuring morals, I do. Hence, my morals are superior to yours.
I'm glad we could settle this. It really was fun. :)
BigLundi 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lonehunter65 Your inability to understand secular morals is not my problem.
The fact of the matter remains: Your morality is nothing more than a viciously circular tautology. You've admitted as much ,and have actualy said you think that's perfectly ok.
In this manner, you've failed horribly at justifying theistic morality, and demonstrated how superior secular morals are. Thanks for that. :)
BigLundi 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lonehunter65 Next time, before you engage in conversation about morals, understand why it is that you don't have a leg to stand on.
watch?v=dWNW-NXEudk
Unlock your mind, your morals are inferior to secular morals. This is the fact of life.
BigLundi 2 months ago
@BigLundi(page 2) You are trying to appeal to a higher standard, but since you don't believe in a God, you are forced to appeal to an imperfect standard, namely your 'consensus of the world' idea. So now you are forced to explain why what the 'consensus of the world' thinks is inherently good. You are also forced to explain why we should trust an imperfect source. And since the 'consensus of the world' probably thinks China should rule the world, you need to explain how that is moral.
lonehunter65 2 months ago
@lonehunter65 You have an inability to see that morals can come WITHOUT a higher authority. So when I say that there exists an authority, but the authority doesn't 'make' things good, you just don't understand, and claim that I appeal to a standard that "If the majority says it's right, it's therefore right." I never said that, stop trying to characterize my position as that.
BigLundi 2 months ago
@lonehunter65 In fact, I SPECIFICALLY said that's not right when I said, "99% of the world could want to enslave the 1%, but the slavery would still be wrong, because it increases the suffering of others and diminishes their health and well being, infringing on their rights and causing them to be unhappy, or less free."
Yet you just completely ignore this. Because you have an inability to see how morals can come without a higher authority.
BigLundi 2 months ago
@BigLundi No, you specifically appealed to a higher authority on your own. You said morality comes from our desires. You said our desires are determined by the consensus of the world. Now in cases where the world was wrong, you refer back to our desires. You see how that is a vicious circle?
I understand that it is VERY difficult to come up with a moral construct that does not appeal to a higher standard, simply because it is not possible without reducing morality to relativism.
lonehunter65 2 months ago
@lonehunter65 No, you imbecile. I said OUR morality come from OUR desires and values.
MY morality comes form MY desires, not everyone else's, though many people's desires, for the most part, appear to mirror mine.
You don't even know what circular reasoning is if you think what you just said is a 'viscious circle'.
Oh, and if morals being a 'viscious circle' makes them wrong, or bad, then since I demonstrated yours is a tautology, that makes yours bad too.
BigLundi 2 months ago
@BigLundi First, please no personal attacks. I have restrained myself, you can restrain yourself (p.s. calling me a moron and then misspelling the word 'vicious' after I had already typed it, doesn't do you any favors)
Second, your just proceeding in adding new levels of subjectivity to morality. Now morality is determined by each individual person's desires? So again, you have the problem that Hitler was motivated by his desires, making him moral.
lonehunter65 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lonehunter65 "So again, you have the problem that Hitler was motivated by his desires, making him moral."
Nobody are moral in light of their own opinion. Morality doesn't even have meaning unless you are discussing a community of voluntarily interacting agents. In such systems there will be objective facts about what kind of rules of conduct can be agreed upon, given the agents involved. Those types of rules are what we refer to as morality.
Gnomefro 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lonehunter65 Such rules will not be is not mere opinion, but will largely be given by the biology of the species involved. Of course, that doesn't mean there is one right set of ways to act, but it does mean that we don't have to be surprised that secular morality works. Nor do we have to be surprised that it's always the winners of wars who are the moral ones. Might clearly makes right, whether it's by divine command or military power. That is amoral reasoning though.
Gnomefro 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lonehunter65 When you don't take the opinions, needs and feelings of others into account, like Hitler did not do when he killed the Jews, he was not engaging in moral reasoning. That is an objective fact about that situation. To call him immoral, you'd have to place him inside a larger system and point out that his actions violate the voluntary cooperation requirement of morality and that he therefore does not represent the community, which he would obviously like to do.
Gnomefro 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lonehunter65 Presenting morality as being so simple as either completely arbitrary or fascist dictates doesn't get you anywhere, as neither option is even remotely useful for describing things that factually are effective in organizing societies and also are cared deeply about, via appeals to real phenomena like suffering etc, by the people involved.
Gnomefro 1 month ago
@lonehunter65 However, since 2 is only greater than 1 by definiton? Guess what? I'm in the position to tell you I'm redefininf both numbers so that 2 is less than 1, and you can't tell me I'm wrong. that's why tautologies are useless.
BigLundi 2 months ago
@BigLundi I'm not sure what utter garbage you are trying to spew out here, but we can just pretend you didn't say it if you want....
lonehunter65 2 months ago
@lonehunter65 Didn't say what? At no point here have I said anything I regret, I stand behind everything I've said. Christian morality is nothing more than a visciously circular tautology, which you've demonstrated, and admitted. Secular morals are not. Therefore, by default, Secular morals are more useful, and preferred to the uselessness of circular tautology.
BigLundi 2 months ago
And Lee Smolin is a pseudo-skeptic. He pretends like he doesn't want there to be a creator, yet everyone he interviews in his novels are theists
Sayaannnnn 7 months ago
Dinesh's speeches are laced with derision and din. Insecurity is a funny thing.
Sayaannnnn 7 months ago
There are so many easier and simpler ways to demonstrate that atheism is dogmatic and metaphysical, he chose the most complicated and dubious one....
ThePhilosorpheus 7 months ago
why is he so freaking mad? that to me represents insecurity and a clear indication of someone who is so unfortunately attached to believes based on "nothing".
It is still funny to me that people argue the perfection of the universe as a sign of god's existence.. the inverse couldn't be another way because it is THIS way, it doesn't suggest life couldn't have risen out of it in other ways. What a sophomoric philosophical idea.
cloudincloudout 7 months ago
I love lamp.
gugaberg123 7 months ago
I don't know why we're yelling!
gugaberg123 7 months ago
Loud Noises!
gugaberg123 7 months ago
dam Dinesh is loud he should stop yelling it really makes him look like a morron or at least weakens his arguments
acewingman 7 months ago
Dinesh's argument in the beginning of this video:
The universe is exactly the way it would have to be in order for the universe to be exactly the way it is.
GBart 7 months ago 2
Dinesh's argument in the beginning of this video:
The universe is exactly the way it would have to be in order for the universe to be exactly the was it is.
GBart 7 months ago
Mr. D´souza, yelling is a sign of knowing that U´ve lost....
Loud sounds has nothing to do with facts! ;)
naglphar 8 months ago
i just realized that the acronym for this title is DDDDD
ihatelucy11 8 months ago
I didn't envy Dennett here -- how do you respond to 10 minutes of D'Souza's hysterical ranting?
waretron 8 months ago
Thank you for posting this, tothesource1.
writersblock26 8 months ago
Dinesh is living proof there is no such thing as intelligent design
az091186 9 months ago
I literally have to force myself to listen to D'souza's points so I dont seem to be bias, even if its just myself watching. I cant even believe people like him actually exist. Id almost say that ignorance on his level had to have been evolved in some way.
SiNFEELIT 9 months ago
I like Dan's come back about morality.
Fishqueen1972 9 months ago
A sheep fighting a tyrannosaur would be more convincing than Dennett pitting himself against D'souza. That was his intellectual burial. Perhaps he should start his debates in a lighter weight-class (Bill O'Reilly show) ... I think Dawkins, though not a philosopher, would score much better debating D'Souza.
GEDANUS6 10 months ago
@GEDANUS6 You think Dinesh is convincing? A slimball who resorts to ad hominem and ridicule? Then speciously claims he doesn't mean to make fun of them, when the is all he does!
disrxt 9 months ago
@GEDANUS6 your an idiot
TreeSmoke1999 8 months ago
Dinesh mocks the infinite when his position needs it more than anyone. He sucks bull sperm.
reinforcedpenisstem 11 months ago 2
Dennett seemed decent in part 1 but seems to be failing in rebuttals.
MabiSayo 11 months ago
@MabiSayo because he can't decide which straw-man argument of D'Souza's to respond to first.
hardinmichael1981 10 months ago
@hardinmichael1981 up up up:)
kemalcs 9 months ago
Dinesh's OJ reference was f-ing absurd...
estevancarlos 11 months ago 16