This guy talking about Satanism made me think why people would choose that. I figured, what if instead of God giving us free will, like Christians think, Satan gave us free will so that we would sin and go to hell and serve him? That seems just as likely to me, but it still doesn't seem likely that either one exists.
It's great that this guy has accepted reason and logic in his life, but the calls that aren't from religious nutjobs just aren't very entertaining. Good for this guy though.
Which is most likely to have occurred, ever?: A talking snake, or flying reindeer? A burning bush that talks, or a man shrinking himself down in size so he can fit inside a chimney? The sun standing still in the sky for a day, or a man delivering toys to billions of children in one night? A woman turning into salt, or elves living at the north pole? A virgin magically getting pregnant without sex, or a giant rabbit hiding eggs in the grass? If you answered "None ever happened", you win!
"all the good things about America like our freedom and our amendments. Our country, despite all the crap going on at the moment, is still conservative."
..Are you suggesting our rights and freedom in America are a "conservative" thing? While different sides of the political spectrum might have different feelings about certain Amendments, the most important virtues of America are neither right nor left.
Any country that goes too far to the right or left becomes oppressive.
@BlackMetalWorld I like the way you think; I'd like to go back in time and have a talk with those desert tribes to see what kind of cactus they were chewin' on and what they were smokin'. Then for those that followed the desert tribes, I'd like to tell them to stop imagining that what the nomads were saying was true and to get their own drugs.
@semiLivedj people are govt ....govt is not a thing but the ideals of the people of the land in a free society ...church does not care about the individual only the belief that must be preserve at all cost .. the laws of govt make is to improve the lifes of the people ideally ...people have different ideas of govt and rules ..so the chosen or forced govt is up to individuals or leadership ..what is a norm for someone it not acceptable to others
@crackthecorn I understand that,and I think thats great about your govt.But the point I think I was gettint to is that if you wanted to not be ruled by a govt.because it was corrupt,you have a back door by being a freeman on the land.Research that term,It gives you a decision to be or not to be a part of the society by just not consenting to it.And its all because of a higher power that they cant over rule.I am an atheist and wish thats how are govt.was.but even voting is prove corrupt.
@BeatleEDs the process of logic is "made up" in the same way that numbers are made up BUT it is still objectively true that 1+1=2 and so on. Any system of logic HAS to accord with logical absolutes in the same way that any number system HAS to make it's symbol for 1, when doubled, equal it's symbol for 2.
@TheOmegajuice - Well, the formal system you mentioned is incomplete and a logical system can not prove a statement is true without referring to an outside system. Its statement are always incomplete. Thus, any rational thought can never penetrate to the final ultimate truth.
@TheOmegajuice - I did not say logic and reason did not exist, I referenced Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem to point out what he proved; Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle – something you have to assume but cannot prove..
@BeatleEDs You referenced it incorrectly. I doesn't say quite what you said. Firstly, it is about mathematical axioms and doesn't necessarily follow with other forms of logic, but that's a small point. It claims that a set of axioms that is capable of proving a certain set of basic facts will be incapable of proving it's own consistency. Conversely if it can prove it's own consistency it will fail to prove all of that set of basic facts.
@BeatleEDs All of that is irrelevant to my point because I do not claim to have a complete set of logical axioms. I am using basic semantic logical reasoning (based on three indubitable logical axioms) to show that 'I know that I know nothing' is self-contradictory. Who cares if, by this method, I cannot prove everything that is true, I'm not trying to!
@BeatleEDs Well broadly my position is this (and I'm sure that you'd get a variant of this answer from those who frequently engage with the debate e.g. the hosts of this show, Dawkins, Dennett, Harris etc.)
The claim that 'There is a God' has failed to meet it's burden of proof, there are no arguments for the existence of a supernatural, conscious being that are both valid and sound (which I consider the minimum characteristics for God i.e. not just 'God is love' or 'God is the universe') cont.
@BeatleEDs The claims about God and religion are ridiculously fragmented and diverse, almost to the point where every single person has there own unique set of beliefs about God. They can't all be right, the only option is that only one is right OR they are all wrong, none of them have any better positive evidence than the others so I believe that they are all wrong. cont.
@BeatleEDs I am open to evidence and reasoning that may support a belief a God but I may never been presented with any piece of evidence that points towards his/her/it's existence.
Nine times out of ten it's 'well how do you explain X without God' and the truth is that God explains nothing at all. (almost) Every religious tenet or claim is presented ad hoc without any kind of cohesion or logical entailment, which is why so many people 'pick and choose' what they want to believe.
Precisely, personal experience and "revelation" is a weak form of evidence to any other party other than possibly to the one who experiences it, and even then that experience needs frist to be filtered through other possible explanations, like some psychological or physiological malfunction.
I think the issue is, human logic may or may not work for God (however, many theists screw this up and say, flat out, that it doesn't work). In your example, the conclusion is simply a possible outcome. There's no reason that a God that doesn't play by human logic 100% of the time would have to always go in the complete opposite direction of our conclusions. I'm an atheist by the way, but this is how the theists I've spoken to expressed it. Quite frankly, I'm still awaiting evidence
@MrUrochordata depends on the people around you. if they are open minded just tell them if the time is right, if not keep it to yourself if you aren't willing to lose loved ones that would disown you if for your beliefs.
@vinegarthomas My entire family is Catholic, as are my close friends; I am not sure how open minded they would be though if I told them. I mean they are by no means "hardcore" but I know my family at least holds their beliefs quite close to them. I don't mean them any disrespect, nor their beliefs but I firmly believe that its just not for me. I am also going to college currently but am back home working for the summer.
@MrUrochordata "I don't mean them any disrespect, nor their beliefs but I firmly believe that its just not for me."
Good luck with that. Worldviews pretty much have the consequence of telling everyone who don't agree with you that they're delusional. So don't kid yourself about it being non-trivial to communicate the above to a theist family. It could work, but, ultimately it's just not an honest statement. A calm and rational rejection, and a firm refusal to engage in drama is probably best.
@MrUrochordata It's probably a good idea to wait till a few days before you're going back to college anyway though. If someone explodes as a result of this, at least they'll have time to cool down while you're not there and you won't have to deal with being around pissed off people all day long.
That's tough one. Maybe you could frame it to them as "this is not for me" (as you wrote below) as opposed to "II think that these beliefs are silly" (which i know you would never say to them anyway). I am sure that they all love you very much and part of them would probably understand your doubt. Isn't there an AE video on youtube about coming out as an theist?
... wrongness of the world or its inhabitatnts can be made, based on something, or nothing, and if your reality is that the whole world is lying to you, but there's tha tone tiny beam of light in form of a divine revelation, or on in the form of an ancient "document", then that's your reality and it isn't really falsifiable.
But the leap from solipsism to that kind of thing, should be clarified to everyone.
Having an actual Bible telling you an alternative "truth", even if it's inconsistent with itself or whatever, and believing that over reality, isn't a completely arbitrary decision based on nothing, it's based on a real element of the real world.
My point being, between the completely honest view of solipsism, and the "normal" standing-on-two-feet acceptance of reality, there are all kinds of assumptions about the wrongness of the...
I couldn't help but smile at the happiness, joy, and wonderment that shone through when Dylan spoke. I am happy for him. He rid his mind of the shackles and is prepared to challenge life head on. I wish him the best of luck and I know he will be a better person because of this decision.
If you have to make up logic to work for a belief then you obviously have an illogical belief. If it's logical then you should be able to apply practical common sense without making any thing up.
@basilsullivan Yeah, it's really frustrating. I've tried having open discussion with people and it always ends one of three ways (or a combination): the other person says, "I don't want to talk about this anymore", "You're wrong, I'm right" or, "I've never actually thought about this before." On a very rare occasion, I'll come across another atheist and we'll see eye to eye. People are so afraid to question. That fear is an extension of the fear religion instills in society to begin with.
@FM897 My Christian friend and I (an atheist) sometimes get into discussions about what she believes and what I believe. One day my friend gets her bible & opens up to the book of Job (one of the most HORRENDOUS stories I've ever read, it insults the meaning of love and compassion on so many levels). As a Christian she STILL struggles with it. And she tells me "My friend, I can understand your skepticism."
Wouldn't it be wonderful if atheists and christians could live side by side this way?
@BastEternal That's a good story! I respect your friend's honesty in that respect. Yes, it would be wonderful if we could cohabitate peacefully, although, I'd prefer if as many people as possible moved away from theistic beliefs.
@bigmike4758 No, worse is those extra long holiday masses where they assume you have nothing better to do but alternate between kneeling and standing for an hour.
Matt is wrong here in stating that a 'personal experience of god' is justification for personal belief. On that basis it would be justifyable to believe that my bedroom is actually on Mars on that basis. The only thing that a personal experience of something has never been demonstrated to exist justifies is further investigation.
there are lots of reasons for such experiences, but cognitive dissonance is probably the most common amongst theists. Effectively subconcious alteration of memories to suit ones beliefs.
I have had a personal experience of meeting my grandfather in the middle of the night though he was in a different country at the time. It felt wonderful, but it was just a dream that spilled over into waking as they sometimes do.
Atheism is just lazy people not wanting to believe in God and Jesus Christ. Atheism is also people not wanting to hear that they sin or things they do are sins. I think asking an atheist to prove atheism is correct or accurate is a big waste of time and energy. God bless
6:16, just to clarify to any of those mistaken, he meant to say slavery is right ! Not sure if anyone caught that, but in case a creationist did, he was mistaken and used wrong instead of right or correct which wasn't his intentional usage of wordage! Come on Matt, your slipping! lol Great vid, love you guys, too much humor in your vids. Love it!
The Church of Satan, and many other satanic groups, view satan as an archtype only. They do not believe satan is a real being. Satan represents certain characteristics they agree with. Other satanic groups view satan as a real being and worship him as their lord. So, not all satanists are theists.
@caposton: That would apply to other non-mainstream religions too; there are Pagans who use archetypes to conceptualize an abstract without believing in the literal existence of the deity. Likewise, there are martial arts that take that approach to Taoism, using it as a conceptual language rather than a belief structure.
@TheOptimistPrime lol most of the ones I've met are also nice people. A lot nicer than Christians who judge everyone but don't take responsibility for it.
A person can't be both a satanist and an atheist. Atheists don't believe in those super magical creatures because there is no evidence for them that can't be explained by any other means.
Don't try to mix atheism with satanism. They are not the same, so don't try to demonize us (pun not intended). Get your facts straight.
@AgentRiot13 LaVeyan Satanists are atheists. They don't actually believe in Satan, they just like what he represents. My facts are straight, thank you.
@AgentRiot13 Take about 2 seconds and look up what a person who follows the satanist religion actually believes. I am an atheist btw, so I'm not demonizing you, I'm just letting you know you're wrong here.
The bald man is an Athiest per se. He speaks more along the lines of Thomas Aquinas; that is, an Agnostic philosophical approach. Here, I am thinking of the idea of sense perception. Also, worthy to note is his acquiescence to a thought outside of the World. The direction of anger is a certain indicator of agnosticism and not of athiesm. It shows there is some human spirit acting within him. That is, his soul has not been totally crushed. His acknowledged smallness is also laudible.
The spirit is our first memory and our last like a gentle wind. Ages ago, a sweet breath tenderly cast the moment when we were most unseen, it spoke our name. A familiar voice in the early morning before the Sun a first flash is made beyond the horizon. In a fog we wander and seek. Some are lost in the whitewash of a midnight blizzard; still others in the red sands of a storm. As the spirit goes out we pass in streak extending to the sky over a vast sea of unknowning.
@ammazzamoro You realize that you can be atheist and agnostic at the same time, right? That's what Matt (The bald man) classifies himself as, and it's what many atheists classify themselves as.
You also realize that claiming that becoming an atheist causes you to become devoid of a soul is a foolish claim, because the soul has never been proven to exist in the first place, right? Further, atheism doesn't 'crush your spirit'. It merely opens your eyes.
Agnosticism and Atheism are incompatible. Where Atheism is a conclusion of thought privative of theos, Agnosticism is privative of knowing. To be formally an Atheist one typically passes through Agnosticism whether or not the a priori are philsophically valid or invalid. Usually Atheism is reached through a principle of intellectual despair that states: I might not know it all but I probably know enough to make a gamble. Agnosticism is questioning and by nature non-static.
Now, we can address what is perceived as an admixture of Atheism and Agnosticism. There is a type called Recent Agnosticism where solemnly suspended judgement becomes outright indifference, first as theos being inscrutable and then followed by outright disbelief rather than attempting to make an honest judgement. It is often manifested as hostility and a plea of insufficient evidence.
@ammazzamoro No, agnosticism and atheism are completely compatible. Atheism and theism deals with what you believe. I believe there is no god. Agnosticism and gnosticism deal with what you know. I do not know for a fact that their is or is not a god, so I'm agnostic. However, since I don't believe in any gods, I'm also an atheist. Atheists do not make a 'gamble' as you put it, and don't go through intellectual despair. We simply don't believe in invisible magical sky daddies.
Yes you are an Agnostic, but put more correctly it appears that you fall into the school of Total Agnosticism; that is, there is no First Principle. It is also known as Self-Refuting Agnosticism; a system that denies even the formula of Arcesilaos: "I do not know; even that I do not know." It is a construct subversive to the idea of reason stating the impossibility of knowing.
Thankfully, human beings are not mathematically machinery. We do not fit well into categories.
@ammazzamoro I wouldn't classify myself that way, simply because while it may be impossible to know most things to an utmost certainty, you can know what you know. That sounds a bit strange, but it might explain it if I said that I DO know that I don't know for a fact if there is a god or not. However, I do not believe in any gods, which classifies me as atheist, according to the definition of one that does not believe in god or gods.
Excellent response. Thank you for your civility. I suppose we may be getting crossed on the word 'Athiest'. Generally speaking, we view an Athiest as someone absolutely and beyond a doubt an irrefutable opponent to the concept of a Transcendent Being. I actually find your response quite invigorating. I had been thinking about your words for a respectable portion of the mid-morning siesta. I see that you believe Experience, and perhaps Knowledge, and/or Wisdom to exist.
@ammazzamoro Thank you. If anything, this conversation will at least be thought provoking and cordial for both of us.
But yes, it's obvious that the definition of atheist is where the disagreement lies. As I have said, my only qualifier for atheist is a disbelief in a god or gods. However, as with my personal belief, I would accept that a god exists if one were to be concretely proven. I would not necessarily worship this being, however, until he justified his lack of action on earth.
You welcome. I like to follow the advice of man of wisdom: Francis Arinze. He says that dialogue is meeting with someone, exchanging greetings and gifts, and recognizing another as worthy of our love.
Perhaps the issue some have is the idea of the transcendent; that which is beyond the material realm. The philosopher recognizes that there is concrete material and intangible material. Concrete would be say a tree or a cloud, etc. Intangible would be feelings or smells, etc.
@ammazzamoro That is an excellent way of putting it, though it doesn't portray the other side of dialog, the more argumentative version. In that, it seems more like a battle then a greeting.
While I agree, I have to point out that there are naturalistic reasons for the supposedly intangible material. Feelings are just chemical reactions occurring in our brain. Smells are merely our brain interpreting stimuli. There is nothing intangible that exists that doesn't have a natural explanation.
Exactly. For us the sense stimuli are something created. In the Spanish we have wonderful word 'naturaleza' that indicates although some thing is a creation, there's always an unknown goodness that was not created but rather is the reflection and/or imprint of the author of that work. Let us view the works of two great artists, a Baroque and an Impressionist. Paintings of Caravaggio employ chiaroscuro whereas Cézanne uses planes of colour. Both are equally dignified.
What if god created religion to weed out the smart and brave people from the rest? Maybe heaven is the reward for the people willing to ask dangerous questions...
Everyone knows that it was really just a bunch of pissed off fundamentalist muslims. Israel is a modern country, with good business sense. They have no reason to attack their best business partner and allies at the economic center of the world with hijacked planes.
Good for you, Dylan. Renouncing one's religion requires courage and honesty since it can often be painful and confusing. The good news is, now you can find out who you really are instead who you were programmed to be - true freedom.
@JazzyJonas indeed....i'm 23 i've been an atheists 4 fyears strong now....no more confusion, no more delusion....I feel more and more liberated everyday especially now that i i;ve admitted to my parents that i;m atheists and they still accept me and treat me no different than before
@antonyhamill Sure you do. Lots of Satanists are atheists. I think you're under the mistaken impression that Satanists actually worship Satan as a deity or something like that. It's more about worshiping yourself actually.
@antonyhamill Hmm... one should really wonder why that is, being that, as Matt once said: Satan even killed less than God himself, according to the bible.
morality is govern by agreement in community what is better for everone why does god tie in with morality we can have it with logic and reason with out a god envolved it not hard to understand or to except.
@wachnathan eh.... Morality isn't "governed by agreement in a community..." This entails that noone could ever be morally justified in doing anything that went against what the dominant "agreement in the community" was. So (to use an overused example for moral discussion) a citizen of Nazi Germany could not be morally justified in standing up against the Nazi party. "governed...by what is better for everyone" again, you're back at the problem of who decides what's better for everyone?
I am constantly referred to this channel yet every time I come I hear arguments that I could have refuted as a 10 year old. You cannot make up your own logic, logic is objective and emotion has nothing to do with it. I am constatnly arguing with Jehova witnesses over the bible but even they know more than the speakers,who make sweeping generalisations If there is not objective morality why fight against slavery, why object ot the holocaust, why not just rape women if you get away with it.
You assume that the alternative to objective morality is no morality at all, and this is clearly false. There are many different types of moral codes and morality has changed throughout history. But the alternative to subjective morality is not no morality, its NO PEOPLE. We would cease to exist as a species if we didnt work together.
If i say 'that action is wrong!' instead of 'i think that action is wrong' i'm just being overwhelmed by the emotion involved in moral decision making
If I say that action is wrong instead of I think that action is wrong I am just being overwhelmed by emotion. That is exactly what Adolf Hitler said when people did not like him killing the Jews.
If Hitler said that it would be in a different context. Hitler, inspired by Nietzsche, would argue that morality itself is for the weak, so he was amoral. Whereas I was arguing that morality is necessary, but that to think that your morality is the only true morality rather than your own personal or cultural view of how we should treat each other is delusional. Seeing morality as subjective doesnt weaken it. I can criticize the holocaust with the same amount of passion that you can
HItler did not kill off Jews because he was amoral. Nietzche was a fan of Darwin. In German cinemas in the 30`s Jews were portrayed as monkeys - backward in evolution. When 60 million people in atheistic communist Russian and 100 million in atheistic communist China they were very much victims of a subjective morality. Jews, christians, Protestants who murdered one another were morally wrong. You cannot say that but I can. Subjective morality is the delusion.
The fact that the killers you mentioned were atheist is not relevant, as they killed in the name of a social ideal, not atheism. The killers I mentioned killed in the name of religion.
But lets not use the example of Hitler, as he was amoral. How would I criticize people who believed that their mass murders were morally justified, for example the catholic and protestant churches during the reformation, or the israelites in the time of moses? If I think morality is subjective shouldnt I just accept that they have a different opinion to me? No! Because I think that their actions were immoral and I dont want people behaving like that
You are confuising yourself. Subjective morality is subjective it is what the person judges his actions to be. If there is no objective morality you have no right to disagree with him or say his actions are `immoral`. That would be an affimation of objective morality.
"That would be an affimation of objective morality."
No it wouldnt. If morality is an idea that exists insides peoples heads, and not some universal absolute truth 'out there', then theres no reason why I cant favour my own ideas over others, because I think mine are better. Eg, I dont claim that we are born with human rights, as human rights are an idea. But I can argue that a world which adheres to the principle of human rights would be a more stable, unified, and pleasant world to live in.
To call someone amoral means that you are denying him the right to subjective ideals. You cannot have your cake and eat it. If thee is not human rights there is not principle on which we can bulld human rights. We are going back to barbarism where might is right.
Amoral people have the right to subjective ideals but if they act on them and the result is deemed dangerous by the majority of people then they will stopped. The phrase 'might is right' is a little tricky because in reality its true, but right doesnt mean objectively right.
If your looking for a foundation for human rights the foundation would still come from inside our heads. Basic empathy, the concept of citizenship, the concept of equality, and the concept of freedom.
So you have empathy, citizenship, equality, freedom all inside your head. Funny I have these same concepts. And everyone else you say has these concepts Do you not think that remarkable? But if there are different comcepts of how these apply we know from history that the minority view is often what you call amoral.
Why is it funny that we have similar views? You live about an hours drive from me. Ever heard of a thing called culture? No not everyone has these views, but the majority do. Far from being remarkable its actually perfectly understandable that over decades or centuries certain ideas spread and become dominant.
But how did they spread? There are many different cultures that evolved seperately, yes, some were barbaric but there was always an idea that some actions were right and some wrong. The idea of right and worng was a universal concept before cultures met. That put humans above other animal species. Their evolutionary process could not be explained in Darwinian terms. We compose and listen to music. we know what beauty is. We appreciate art and science,
Youre right that the ideas of right and wrong were universal to every culture, but as I explained before we need some form of morality to survive. This is pure Darwinism. The cultures with better moral codes tend to last the longest. For example, tribal cultures that value family, respect, and egalitarianism have existed for tens of thousands of years, whereas imperialistic and unequal societies usually have a shelf life of 500 to 1000 years before they implode
Yet thee is no reason why imperialstic and unequal societies should not have triuphed. right always overcomes wrong. But is it Darwinian. Are barbarians really weaker human beings?
Right dosn't always overcome wrong, but a united people is stronger than a divided people, a people who are happy with how they are governed is stronger than a people who are not happy with how they are governed. It used to be that having a stronger army than your nieghbours would keep your society around for longer, but those societies would still eventually collapse if the people were not happy.
Regarding music, art, and beauty I would guess that they carry meaning and help us to communicate feelings that are often difficult to express in words.
Art, music etc I don't think have much evolutionary advantage, however I believe they are a by-product of features that have great evolutionary advantage - language, imagination etc of course there is an advantage to any indiviual who can entertain others, I think it's also part of our drive to understand each other and wanting to be understood by others so we can better work together.
Kevin's answers are pretty much the exact same as I would have given. But I think that the creative arts play a more important role than we realize. If morality and community are necessary to human survival then surely the creative arts are the 'glue' to hold communities together, as they help us to celebrate and reinforce our shared culture (national anthems) losses (funeral songs) life stages (christening and wedding songs) and our personal feelings (lovey dovey stuff)
But are they necessary for human survival? The real flourishing of creative art only took place in modern middle ages. Again it is the individuality that shines out in the composing and creation. All humans do different things. Dogs do not, Apes do not, dolphins do not. Your thoughs are different from mine. There is so much here that cannot just be put down to an evolutionist principle.
"The real flourishing of creative art only took place in modern middle ages" Very debatable. Chinese pottery? Greek sculpture? Celtic metalwork? Egyptian pyramids and mosaics? Aztec jewelry? Not to mention all the lost music we'll never hear.
The fact that humans do and think different things doesnt contradict the evolutionary principle, especially when we remember that these are different means to the same ends. We are highly creative so differences are inevitable.
You are right and perhaps I am tied too much tied to Western culture and do not appreciate what was happening elsewhere. But to what end ae these differences in individuals directed. I am unique in my species, so are you.
I can see what you mean, that some actions seem very far from the basics of survival, like reading novels, or watching films. But most are either useful to us in some way, like I outlined previously, or appeal to instinctive desires, like violence (action films) curiosity (soaps, documentaries) or sex (porn)
The common ends we strive for are happiness and contentment, love and sex, and a feeling of belonging. There are many different ways to achieve them. The creative arts can help us to achieve them. A community of individuals lacking in these feelings would quickly turn into no community at all, just a group of depressed and angry people, completely alienated from each other. Society would break down, chaos would reign. The society would last two generations at the most before it ceased to exist
@tomemery26 Sure, I'll concede, for the sake of the argument, that we have these "common ends" (although I'm not sure how you'd support that assertion). Even so, there is nothing about this fact that implies that someone ought to behave in a way conducive to the attainment of those ends. We might say "fuck this deviant" and lock him up because his behavior didn't fit your hegemonic norms, but at that point your just talking about power not ethics. might doesn't make right.
I'd support that assertation by pointing to the evidence. 'The Naked Ape' by Desmond morris contains a lot.
"there is nothing about this fact that implies that someone ought to behave in a way conducive to the attainment of those ends" They ought to because its in their interest. If they dont then they lose out. Most people go with the former.
I was originally arguing that morality is subjective, but youre treating it as objective, so we might not be able to discuss it properly until we recognise that. Its true that might certainly does make right, but the 'right' i'm referring to here is not necessarily my personal idea of 'right' (ie ethics) or an absolute objective 'right'. I'm referring to the moral consensus within a society that is maintained by either socialization, state coercion, or both.
@tomemery26 Sure, but the problem with that sort of intersubjectivistic view of ethics is that it begs the question. In short, it still doesn't address the real question of why is it wrong to do something that goes against the moral consensus of one's society? Why is THAT the final answer? Furthermore, if the moral consensus within a society is the ultimate source of right and wrong, then it follows that it would be impossible for society to be morally wrong, which I think is problematic.
you're trying to say that an individual ought to do such-and-such because it's in there interest to do so, but again this too i think begs the question about what is valuable. Is suicide morally wrong, then? Or masochism? What about smoking? Drinking alcohol? Caffeine? I'm not sure what you're specific presuppositions about what is "good for us," but you certainly seem to have some. What I'm interested in philosophically is how do YOU know what's good?
My personal subjective opinion is that an act is only morally wrong if it harms other people. It also depends on the context. If you have a family to support and you kill yourself you are causing them harm, so i would say its immoral. But if you are a highly abusive husband and father, then killing yourself might not be such a problem. So, i predict the consequences of an action and decide what will cause harm and what will prevent harm
@tomemery26 sure, sure. But you're still not answering the problem at all. It's easy to just assert that "my personal subjective opinion" about what's morally right and wrong is such-and-such, or even that "society says such-and-such" but, and I state it this way to provoke the deeper question, why ought I to give a shit about what's morally right, if it's purely subjective? How do you justify asserting that some action is truly morally wrong (not merely undesirable) if it's purely subjective?
"why ought I to give a shit about what's morally right, if it's purely subjective?" Now i'm pretty sure you already know the answer to this deep down, but perhaps your religious education has turned morality into something mysterious and dogmatic. Its not, it a practical way for us humans to survive and to make our lives easier. Imagine a world with no morality and then you will quickly see why we prefer morality.
I can flip your other statement around and say its easy just to assert that this is "truly morally right" or thats "truly morally wrong" but, and I state this to provoke the deeper question, why ought I to give a shit about whats morally right? In answering this question you will find the subjectivity of all moral decisions and all moral codes. Explain to me, for example, why it is morally wrong to refrain from rescuing a young child who is drowning in a lake, without using the word 'wrong'.
Morality... That's propably the only issue in which I cannot hold Matt wordings...
Fuchsstern 13 hours ago
I love it when christains use logic built on sand to justify tell me how to live.....Fuck that !
atheistdawn 1 week ago
Wow this is a very good caller. I'm proud to have the same first name as him :)
Moshikashitenai 2 weeks ago
This guy talking about Satanism made me think why people would choose that. I figured, what if instead of God giving us free will, like Christians think, Satan gave us free will so that we would sin and go to hell and serve him? That seems just as likely to me, but it still doesn't seem likely that either one exists.
ridered300 3 weeks ago
It's great that this guy has accepted reason and logic in his life, but the calls that aren't from religious nutjobs just aren't very entertaining. Good for this guy though.
3234718 3 weeks ago
this caller is very well-spoken and rational. Good for him!
CarlSagan6 1 month ago
Which is most likely to have occurred, ever?: A talking snake, or flying reindeer? A burning bush that talks, or a man shrinking himself down in size so he can fit inside a chimney? The sun standing still in the sky for a day, or a man delivering toys to billions of children in one night? A woman turning into salt, or elves living at the north pole? A virgin magically getting pregnant without sex, or a giant rabbit hiding eggs in the grass? If you answered "None ever happened", you win!
politicoochie09 1 month ago 6
This caller is rather intelligent and articulate.
chinopisces 2 months ago 3
@MrCBeliever11
"all the good things about America like our freedom and our amendments. Our country, despite all the crap going on at the moment, is still conservative."
..Are you suggesting our rights and freedom in America are a "conservative" thing? While different sides of the political spectrum might have different feelings about certain Amendments, the most important virtues of America are neither right nor left.
Any country that goes too far to the right or left becomes oppressive.
jimbrown257 5 months ago
i like the part when matt pwns the guy
SquirrelGoneBananas 8 months ago
6:18 ZOMG "if you think slavery is wrong then we have a problem because you're an immoral ass".
ZOMG matt dillahunty supports slavery. GOTCHA!!!!
Love,
ShockOfGod
CntrBrdr 8 months ago
@CntrBrdr sarcasm
cjdragon1988 8 months ago
@BlackMetalWorld I like the way you think; I'd like to go back in time and have a talk with those desert tribes to see what kind of cactus they were chewin' on and what they were smokin'. Then for those that followed the desert tribes, I'd like to tell them to stop imagining that what the nomads were saying was true and to get their own drugs.
rovingdesertfox 8 months ago
420 comments! well... not after this
CatFacedKillers 9 months ago
We need to think in terms of demonstrable evidence informing our ideas of reality.
Really examine the Cosmos, considering all of science's latest concepts, then ask yourself, "Does the god of Abraham actually exist?"
For me. such a god is a absurd creation of savages.
psycotria 9 months ago
@semiLivedj "If we were all atheist,dont you think that the govt.would have no reason to rule our lives as they see fit? "
Are you huffing paint?
moopism 9 months ago
@semiLivedj people are govt ....govt is not a thing but the ideals of the people of the land in a free society ...church does not care about the individual only the belief that must be preserve at all cost .. the laws of govt make is to improve the lifes of the people ideally ...people have different ideas of govt and rules ..so the chosen or forced govt is up to individuals or leadership ..what is a norm for someone it not acceptable to others
crackthecorn 9 months ago
@crackthecorn I understand that,and I think thats great about your govt.But the point I think I was gettint to is that if you wanted to not be ruled by a govt.because it was corrupt,you have a back door by being a freeman on the land.Research that term,It gives you a decision to be or not to be a part of the society by just not consenting to it.And its all because of a higher power that they cant over rule.I am an atheist and wish thats how are govt.was.but even voting is prove corrupt.
semiLivedj 9 months ago
@TheOptimistPrime He did become an atheist. He was raised catholic, then became a theistic satanist, then became an atheist
EmperorZ19 9 months ago
:45 All logic is made up buddy. Including the logics you are using now to justify your atheistic position.
BeatleEDs 9 months ago
@BeatleEDs the process of logic is "made up" in the same way that numbers are made up BUT it is still objectively true that 1+1=2 and so on. Any system of logic HAS to accord with logical absolutes in the same way that any number system HAS to make it's symbol for 1, when doubled, equal it's symbol for 2.
TheOmegajuice 9 months ago
@TheOmegajuice - Well, the formal system you mentioned is incomplete and a logical system can not prove a statement is true without referring to an outside system. Its statement are always incomplete. Thus, any rational thought can never penetrate to the final ultimate truth.
BeatleEDs 9 months ago
@BeatleEDs 'final ultimate truth'???
so 1+1=2 is true but not ultimately true?
How about the law of identity, A=A, this is the most fundamental statement of logic that can possibly be made. How is that this statement incomplete?
Also you do realise the paradox of attempting to rationally argue that rational argument cannot prove anything right?
You are saying 'it is true that we can never know what is true'... which is self-defeating.
TheOmegajuice 9 months ago
@TheOmegajuice - I did not say logic and reason did not exist, I referenced Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem to point out what he proved; Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle – something you have to assume but cannot prove..
BeatleEDs 9 months ago
@BeatleEDs You referenced it incorrectly. I doesn't say quite what you said. Firstly, it is about mathematical axioms and doesn't necessarily follow with other forms of logic, but that's a small point. It claims that a set of axioms that is capable of proving a certain set of basic facts will be incapable of proving it's own consistency. Conversely if it can prove it's own consistency it will fail to prove all of that set of basic facts.
TheOmegajuice 9 months ago
@BeatleEDs All of that is irrelevant to my point because I do not claim to have a complete set of logical axioms. I am using basic semantic logical reasoning (based on three indubitable logical axioms) to show that 'I know that I know nothing' is self-contradictory. Who cares if, by this method, I cannot prove everything that is true, I'm not trying to!
TheOmegajuice 9 months ago
@TheOmegajuice - How can Godels Theorems be irrelevant to logic?
Let start over, can you educate me. What is the reason and logic of atheism. I'm open.
BeatleEDs 9 months ago
@BeatleEDs Well broadly my position is this (and I'm sure that you'd get a variant of this answer from those who frequently engage with the debate e.g. the hosts of this show, Dawkins, Dennett, Harris etc.)
The claim that 'There is a God' has failed to meet it's burden of proof, there are no arguments for the existence of a supernatural, conscious being that are both valid and sound (which I consider the minimum characteristics for God i.e. not just 'God is love' or 'God is the universe') cont.
TheOmegajuice 9 months ago
@BeatleEDs The claims about God and religion are ridiculously fragmented and diverse, almost to the point where every single person has there own unique set of beliefs about God. They can't all be right, the only option is that only one is right OR they are all wrong, none of them have any better positive evidence than the others so I believe that they are all wrong. cont.
TheOmegajuice 9 months ago
@BeatleEDs I am open to evidence and reasoning that may support a belief a God but I may never been presented with any piece of evidence that points towards his/her/it's existence.
Nine times out of ten it's 'well how do you explain X without God' and the truth is that God explains nothing at all. (almost) Every religious tenet or claim is presented ad hoc without any kind of cohesion or logical entailment, which is why so many people 'pick and choose' what they want to believe.
How was that?
TheOmegajuice 9 months ago
All non-nihilists are delusional.
CambridgeHeights 9 months ago
when i think of the christians i think of leave britney alone
swbf2fan2510 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Precisely, personal experience and "revelation" is a weak form of evidence to any other party other than possibly to the one who experiences it, and even then that experience needs frist to be filtered through other possible explanations, like some psychological or physiological malfunction.
JOMO59 9 months ago
Comment removed
JOMO59 9 months ago
Comment removed
JOMO59 9 months ago
Let's say this: If human logic can't work for God becuase he has his own rules, then let's analyze the follwoing premises and conclusion:
"If a person doesn't accept jesus as his saviour it will go to hell"
"I don't accept jesus as my saviour"
"I will go to hell" (conclusion)
Well, that's NOT the correct conclusion becuase i followed human logic. And only God knows how his logic works!
AndrusPr8 10 months ago
@AndrusPr8
I think the issue is, human logic may or may not work for God (however, many theists screw this up and say, flat out, that it doesn't work). In your example, the conclusion is simply a possible outcome. There's no reason that a God that doesn't play by human logic 100% of the time would have to always go in the complete opposite direction of our conclusions. I'm an atheist by the way, but this is how the theists I've spoken to expressed it. Quite frankly, I'm still awaiting evidence
opmike343 9 months ago
What was that evil laugh at the very beginning?
SandBarAndYou 10 months ago
i love this show so much
atimor 10 months ago 23
if there is a god why dosent he put the video down! :D
Stillillgal 10 months ago
Any advice on how to come out of the proverbial "closet" for an atheist :/?
MrUrochordata 10 months ago
@MrUrochordata depends on the people around you. if they are open minded just tell them if the time is right, if not keep it to yourself if you aren't willing to lose loved ones that would disown you if for your beliefs.
xynth101088 10 months ago
@MrUrochordata
Hi- what are your present circumstances? Is your family religious? Your friends?
vinegarthomas 10 months ago
@vinegarthomas My entire family is Catholic, as are my close friends; I am not sure how open minded they would be though if I told them. I mean they are by no means "hardcore" but I know my family at least holds their beliefs quite close to them. I don't mean them any disrespect, nor their beliefs but I firmly believe that its just not for me. I am also going to college currently but am back home working for the summer.
MrUrochordata 10 months ago
@MrUrochordata "I don't mean them any disrespect, nor their beliefs but I firmly believe that its just not for me."
Good luck with that. Worldviews pretty much have the consequence of telling everyone who don't agree with you that they're delusional. So don't kid yourself about it being non-trivial to communicate the above to a theist family. It could work, but, ultimately it's just not an honest statement. A calm and rational rejection, and a firm refusal to engage in drama is probably best.
Gnomefro 10 months ago
@MrUrochordata It's probably a good idea to wait till a few days before you're going back to college anyway though. If someone explodes as a result of this, at least they'll have time to cool down while you're not there and you won't have to deal with being around pissed off people all day long.
Gnomefro 10 months ago
@MrUrochordata
That's tough one. Maybe you could frame it to them as "this is not for me" (as you wrote below) as opposed to "II think that these beliefs are silly" (which i know you would never say to them anyway). I am sure that they all love you very much and part of them would probably understand your doubt. Isn't there an AE video on youtube about coming out as an theist?
vinegarthomas 10 months ago
@Gytrash23
... wrongness of the world or its inhabitatnts can be made, based on something, or nothing, and if your reality is that the whole world is lying to you, but there's tha tone tiny beam of light in form of a divine revelation, or on in the form of an ancient "document", then that's your reality and it isn't really falsifiable.
But the leap from solipsism to that kind of thing, should be clarified to everyone.
twooffour 11 months ago
@Gytrash23
Don't let this discourage you - but you CAN.
Having an actual Bible telling you an alternative "truth", even if it's inconsistent with itself or whatever, and believing that over reality, isn't a completely arbitrary decision based on nothing, it's based on a real element of the real world.
My point being, between the completely honest view of solipsism, and the "normal" standing-on-two-feet acceptance of reality, there are all kinds of assumptions about the wrongness of the...
twooffour 11 months ago
I couldn't help but smile at the happiness, joy, and wonderment that shone through when Dylan spoke. I am happy for him. He rid his mind of the shackles and is prepared to challenge life head on. I wish him the best of luck and I know he will be a better person because of this decision.
digitalintent 11 months ago
hey i came from being a baptist and this video helped me understand what i was feeling at the time alot more, thanks so much atheist expirience =D
w4rr3np34c3 11 months ago
Don seems to be the most gentle, most kind-hearted guy on the show. But maybe he's actually the most evil, I mean c'mon that chuckle......
ManDuderGuy 1 year ago
I like Don's chuckle at the start.
NormanAngle 1 year ago
14 people have had personal experiences that they can't justify to intelligent secular people.
matthewlane 1 year ago
3 cheers for atheism... HAZAR!
ily191 1 year ago
If you have to make up logic to work for a belief then you obviously have an illogical belief. If it's logical then you should be able to apply practical common sense without making any thing up.
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
Well done Dylan. Welcome. I wish more people would take the 5 minutes to question and deduce the absurdity of their religious beliefs.
basilsullivan 1 year ago 4
@basilsullivan Yeah, it's really frustrating. I've tried having open discussion with people and it always ends one of three ways (or a combination): the other person says, "I don't want to talk about this anymore", "You're wrong, I'm right" or, "I've never actually thought about this before." On a very rare occasion, I'll come across another atheist and we'll see eye to eye. People are so afraid to question. That fear is an extension of the fear religion instills in society to begin with.
FM897 1 year ago
@FM897 My Christian friend and I (an atheist) sometimes get into discussions about what she believes and what I believe. One day my friend gets her bible & opens up to the book of Job (one of the most HORRENDOUS stories I've ever read, it insults the meaning of love and compassion on so many levels). As a Christian she STILL struggles with it. And she tells me "My friend, I can understand your skepticism."
Wouldn't it be wonderful if atheists and christians could live side by side this way?
BastEternal 11 months ago
@BastEternal That's a good story! I respect your friend's honesty in that respect. Yes, it would be wonderful if we could cohabitate peacefully, although, I'd prefer if as many people as possible moved away from theistic beliefs.
FM897 11 months ago
Off the air Matt asked the caller for his baby recipes.
KokotTheMonkey 1 year ago
6:16
"if you believe slaver is WRONG i think we have a problem, because i think you are an immoral ass."
lol
snarfalopogus 1 year ago
I am quarter of a century old and I can confidently say that the most boring thing I have ever experienced was Sunday Morning Mass. Amen to that!
bigmike4758 1 year ago 65
@bigmike4758 Fuck Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
cjdragon1988 8 months ago
@bigmike4758 I too was bored when I was a kid in church on Sunday.
Thunderwing88 7 months ago
@bigmike4758 No, worse is those extra long holiday masses where they assume you have nothing better to do but alternate between kneeling and standing for an hour.
Makingnewnamesisdumb 4 months ago
I love when that dude says he was a satanist and the co-host laughs ok. Lol.
sirchompsalot 1 year ago 2
I think this is one of the better clips of this outstanding show
dowhatthouwilt911 1 year ago 2
Yeah, what else do atheists do?
Bagatronic 1 year ago
6:14
"If you believe slaverys wrong then we got a problem, because I think you're an immoral ass"
Slip up???
TheWhiteRabbit1990 1 year ago 2
@TheWhiteRabbit1990 hahaha i heard that to lol
philylennon 1 year ago
"If there is a god he would know exactly what it would take to demonstrate his existence."
Snap!
bangNL94 1 year ago 5
The bible, as a book, is ludicrously stupid.
Religions are all man made.
WahahElectric 1 year ago 39
Matt is wrong here in stating that a 'personal experience of god' is justification for personal belief. On that basis it would be justifyable to believe that my bedroom is actually on Mars on that basis. The only thing that a personal experience of something has never been demonstrated to exist justifies is further investigation.
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist You've had a personal experience that your bedroom is on mars? Explain.
TheRationalRant 1 year ago
@TheRationalRant
there are lots of reasons for such experiences, but cognitive dissonance is probably the most common amongst theists. Effectively subconcious alteration of memories to suit ones beliefs.
I have had a personal experience of meeting my grandfather in the middle of the night though he was in a different country at the time. It felt wonderful, but it was just a dream that spilled over into waking as they sometimes do.
There is also the unburdonning effect of belief
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
at one point during this video. Press pause and hold down your the left arrow key on your keyboard. Now you can play Snake on the the video screen.
VirtualSatyr 1 year ago
Good work there, Don. Way to contribute to the conversation.
maemorri 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Atheism is just lazy people not wanting to believe in God and Jesus Christ. Atheism is also people not wanting to hear that they sin or things they do are sins. I think asking an atheist to prove atheism is correct or accurate is a big waste of time and energy. God bless
Veiled4God 1 year ago
great caller.
Treadsoftly14 1 year ago
6:16, just to clarify to any of those mistaken, he meant to say slavery is right ! Not sure if anyone caught that, but in case a creationist did, he was mistaken and used wrong instead of right or correct which wasn't his intentional usage of wordage! Come on Matt, your slipping! lol Great vid, love you guys, too much humor in your vids. Love it!
strikenetter 1 year ago
Any Satanist would definitively be a theist. He was just very aware of the terms discussed.
JHunterAckerman 1 year ago
@JHunterAckerman
The Church of Satan, and many other satanic groups, view satan as an archtype only. They do not believe satan is a real being. Satan represents certain characteristics they agree with. Other satanic groups view satan as a real being and worship him as their lord. So, not all satanists are theists.
caposton 1 year ago
@caposton: That would apply to other non-mainstream religions too; there are Pagans who use archetypes to conceptualize an abstract without believing in the literal existence of the deity. Likewise, there are martial arts that take that approach to Taoism, using it as a conceptual language rather than a belief structure.
JCLeSinge 1 year ago
You can't make up logic to work for a belief, you are just using logic incorrectly.
biggingeryeti 1 year ago
@TheOptimistPrime lol most of the ones I've met are also nice people. A lot nicer than Christians who judge everyone but don't take responsibility for it.
RedDollShoes 1 year ago
Most of the Satanists I've met, theistic or atheistic, have been really intelligent people.
RedDollShoes 1 year ago
@RedDollShoes
A person can't be both a satanist and an atheist. Atheists don't believe in those super magical creatures because there is no evidence for them that can't be explained by any other means.
Don't try to mix atheism with satanism. They are not the same, so don't try to demonize us (pun not intended). Get your facts straight.
AgentRiot13 1 year ago
@AgentRiot13 LaVeyan Satanists are atheists. They don't actually believe in Satan, they just like what he represents. My facts are straight, thank you.
RedDollShoes 1 year ago
@AgentRiot13 Take about 2 seconds and look up what a person who follows the satanist religion actually believes. I am an atheist btw, so I'm not demonizing you, I'm just letting you know you're wrong here.
RockBanned 1 year ago
Yeah, i looked it up. Sorry for the misguided assumption.
AgentRiot13 1 year ago
A satanist? Give me a break.
By the way, you two debaters below me make me wanna vomit with your politeness.
TharosTheDragon 1 year ago
The bald man is an Athiest per se. He speaks more along the lines of Thomas Aquinas; that is, an Agnostic philosophical approach. Here, I am thinking of the idea of sense perception. Also, worthy to note is his acquiescence to a thought outside of the World. The direction of anger is a certain indicator of agnosticism and not of athiesm. It shows there is some human spirit acting within him. That is, his soul has not been totally crushed. His acknowledged smallness is also laudible.
ammazzamoro 1 year ago
@ammazzamoro
Whar's a human spirit? What's a soul? Where can I get one?
Your words are undoubtedly english, but together I can't perceive any meaning.
The meaning must be very profound. if not a little mystical.
derek24hudson 1 year ago
@derek24hudson
The spirit is our first memory and our last like a gentle wind. Ages ago, a sweet breath tenderly cast the moment when we were most unseen, it spoke our name. A familiar voice in the early morning before the Sun a first flash is made beyond the horizon. In a fog we wander and seek. Some are lost in the whitewash of a midnight blizzard; still others in the red sands of a storm. As the spirit goes out we pass in streak extending to the sky over a vast sea of unknowning.
ammazzamoro 1 year ago
@ammazzamoro You realize that you can be atheist and agnostic at the same time, right? That's what Matt (The bald man) classifies himself as, and it's what many atheists classify themselves as.
You also realize that claiming that becoming an atheist causes you to become devoid of a soul is a foolish claim, because the soul has never been proven to exist in the first place, right? Further, atheism doesn't 'crush your spirit'. It merely opens your eyes.
Acorafication 1 year ago
@Acorafication
Agnosticism and Atheism are incompatible. Where Atheism is a conclusion of thought privative of theos, Agnosticism is privative of knowing. To be formally an Atheist one typically passes through Agnosticism whether or not the a priori are philsophically valid or invalid. Usually Atheism is reached through a principle of intellectual despair that states: I might not know it all but I probably know enough to make a gamble. Agnosticism is questioning and by nature non-static.
ammazzamoro 1 year ago
Now, we can address what is perceived as an admixture of Atheism and Agnosticism. There is a type called Recent Agnosticism where solemnly suspended judgement becomes outright indifference, first as theos being inscrutable and then followed by outright disbelief rather than attempting to make an honest judgement. It is often manifested as hostility and a plea of insufficient evidence.
ammazzamoro 1 year ago
@ammazzamoro No, agnosticism and atheism are completely compatible. Atheism and theism deals with what you believe. I believe there is no god. Agnosticism and gnosticism deal with what you know. I do not know for a fact that their is or is not a god, so I'm agnostic. However, since I don't believe in any gods, I'm also an atheist. Atheists do not make a 'gamble' as you put it, and don't go through intellectual despair. We simply don't believe in invisible magical sky daddies.
Acorafication 1 year ago
@Acorafication
Yes you are an Agnostic, but put more correctly it appears that you fall into the school of Total Agnosticism; that is, there is no First Principle. It is also known as Self-Refuting Agnosticism; a system that denies even the formula of Arcesilaos: "I do not know; even that I do not know." It is a construct subversive to the idea of reason stating the impossibility of knowing.
Thankfully, human beings are not mathematically machinery. We do not fit well into categories.
ammazzamoro 1 year ago
@ammazzamoro I wouldn't classify myself that way, simply because while it may be impossible to know most things to an utmost certainty, you can know what you know. That sounds a bit strange, but it might explain it if I said that I DO know that I don't know for a fact if there is a god or not. However, I do not believe in any gods, which classifies me as atheist, according to the definition of one that does not believe in god or gods.
Acorafication 1 year ago
@Acorafication
Excellent response. Thank you for your civility. I suppose we may be getting crossed on the word 'Athiest'. Generally speaking, we view an Athiest as someone absolutely and beyond a doubt an irrefutable opponent to the concept of a Transcendent Being. I actually find your response quite invigorating. I had been thinking about your words for a respectable portion of the mid-morning siesta. I see that you believe Experience, and perhaps Knowledge, and/or Wisdom to exist.
+++
ammazzamoro 1 year ago
@ammazzamoro Thank you. If anything, this conversation will at least be thought provoking and cordial for both of us.
But yes, it's obvious that the definition of atheist is where the disagreement lies. As I have said, my only qualifier for atheist is a disbelief in a god or gods. However, as with my personal belief, I would accept that a god exists if one were to be concretely proven. I would not necessarily worship this being, however, until he justified his lack of action on earth.
Acorafication 1 year ago
@Acorafication
You welcome. I like to follow the advice of man of wisdom: Francis Arinze. He says that dialogue is meeting with someone, exchanging greetings and gifts, and recognizing another as worthy of our love.
Perhaps the issue some have is the idea of the transcendent; that which is beyond the material realm. The philosopher recognizes that there is concrete material and intangible material. Concrete would be say a tree or a cloud, etc. Intangible would be feelings or smells, etc.
ammazzamoro 1 year ago
@ammazzamoro That is an excellent way of putting it, though it doesn't portray the other side of dialog, the more argumentative version. In that, it seems more like a battle then a greeting.
While I agree, I have to point out that there are naturalistic reasons for the supposedly intangible material. Feelings are just chemical reactions occurring in our brain. Smells are merely our brain interpreting stimuli. There is nothing intangible that exists that doesn't have a natural explanation.
Acorafication 1 year ago
@Acorafication
Exactly. For us the sense stimuli are something created. In the Spanish we have wonderful word 'naturaleza' that indicates although some thing is a creation, there's always an unknown goodness that was not created but rather is the reflection and/or imprint of the author of that work. Let us view the works of two great artists, a Baroque and an Impressionist. Paintings of Caravaggio employ chiaroscuro whereas Cézanne uses planes of colour. Both are equally dignified.
ammazzamoro 1 year ago
my response to Pascal's Wager:
What if god created religion to weed out the smart and brave people from the rest? Maybe heaven is the reward for the people willing to ask dangerous questions...
DefenitionBlack 1 year ago 2
"satanism" according to the satanist bible is atheistic. they are naturalist. but its still a stupid philosophy based on flawed premises.
robertwc82 1 year ago
I can see how and why someone raised Roman Catholic would become a theistic Satanist.
RedDollShoes 1 year ago
Google - Facts not Fairies
Youtube - Millitary knows Israel done 911
eartina 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eartina
"Google - Facts not Fairies
Youtube - Millitary knows Israel done 911 "\
Everyone knows that it was really just a bunch of pissed off fundamentalist muslims. Israel is a modern country, with good business sense. They have no reason to attack their best business partner and allies at the economic center of the world with hijacked planes.
boonw 1 year ago
Good for you, Dylan. Renouncing one's religion requires courage and honesty since it can often be painful and confusing. The good news is, now you can find out who you really are instead who you were programmed to be - true freedom.
JazzyJonas 1 year ago 90
@JazzyJonas indeed....i'm 23 i've been an atheists 4 fyears strong now....no more confusion, no more delusion....I feel more and more liberated everyday especially now that i i;ve admitted to my parents that i;m atheists and they still accept me and treat me no different than before
villainakavicci 1 year ago
@JazzyJonas Superbly stated towards societies robots.
strikenetter 1 year ago
A theistic satanist? You don't see that one on the census form.
antonyhamill 1 year ago 134
@antonyhamill classic!!!
desconocidos27 1 year ago
@antonyhamill true satanists are theists by definition.
hardinmichael1981 1 year ago
@antonyhamill Sure you do. Lots of Satanists are atheists. I think you're under the mistaken impression that Satanists actually worship Satan as a deity or something like that. It's more about worshiping yourself actually.
RockBanned 1 year ago
@antonyhamill Because techincally it's christianity :P Just a different interpretation of the book.
minimized 1 year ago
@antonyhamill I just filled out my census,really wished I'd put that.
megaj1964 11 months ago
@antonyhamill just write it in the 'other' section :)
t1mel1ne 11 months ago
@antonyhamill Hmm... one should really wonder why that is, being that, as Matt once said: Satan even killed less than God himself, according to the bible.
oscaringoliling0 10 months ago
@antonyhamill
That's under the 'Other' category...
Charmolution 9 months ago
Theistic satanist.
That's pretty nuts.
tazer95 1 year ago
morality is govern by agreement in community what is better for everone why does god tie in with morality we can have it with logic and reason with out a god envolved it not hard to understand or to except.
wachnathan 1 year ago
@wachnathan eh.... Morality isn't "governed by agreement in a community..." This entails that noone could ever be morally justified in doing anything that went against what the dominant "agreement in the community" was. So (to use an overused example for moral discussion) a citizen of Nazi Germany could not be morally justified in standing up against the Nazi party. "governed...by what is better for everyone" again, you're back at the problem of who decides what's better for everyone?
grandampersand 1 year ago
Comment removed
grandampersand 1 year ago
"Okey-doke." Lol.
empbac 1 year ago
I am constantly referred to this channel yet every time I come I hear arguments that I could have refuted as a 10 year old. You cannot make up your own logic, logic is objective and emotion has nothing to do with it. I am constatnly arguing with Jehova witnesses over the bible but even they know more than the speakers,who make sweeping generalisations If there is not objective morality why fight against slavery, why object ot the holocaust, why not just rape women if you get away with it.
basingstokeborn 2 years ago
You assume that the alternative to objective morality is no morality at all, and this is clearly false. There are many different types of moral codes and morality has changed throughout history. But the alternative to subjective morality is not no morality, its NO PEOPLE. We would cease to exist as a species if we didnt work together.
If i say 'that action is wrong!' instead of 'i think that action is wrong' i'm just being overwhelmed by the emotion involved in moral decision making
tomemery26 2 years ago
If I say that action is wrong instead of I think that action is wrong I am just being overwhelmed by emotion. That is exactly what Adolf Hitler said when people did not like him killing the Jews.
basingstokeborn 2 years ago
If Hitler said that it would be in a different context. Hitler, inspired by Nietzsche, would argue that morality itself is for the weak, so he was amoral. Whereas I was arguing that morality is necessary, but that to think that your morality is the only true morality rather than your own personal or cultural view of how we should treat each other is delusional. Seeing morality as subjective doesnt weaken it. I can criticize the holocaust with the same amount of passion that you can
tomemery26 2 years ago
HItler did not kill off Jews because he was amoral. Nietzche was a fan of Darwin. In German cinemas in the 30`s Jews were portrayed as monkeys - backward in evolution. When 60 million people in atheistic communist Russian and 100 million in atheistic communist China they were very much victims of a subjective morality. Jews, christians, Protestants who murdered one another were morally wrong. You cannot say that but I can. Subjective morality is the delusion.
basingstokeborn 2 years ago
The fact that the killers you mentioned were atheist is not relevant, as they killed in the name of a social ideal, not atheism. The killers I mentioned killed in the name of religion.
tomemery26 2 years ago
But lets not use the example of Hitler, as he was amoral. How would I criticize people who believed that their mass murders were morally justified, for example the catholic and protestant churches during the reformation, or the israelites in the time of moses? If I think morality is subjective shouldnt I just accept that they have a different opinion to me? No! Because I think that their actions were immoral and I dont want people behaving like that
tomemery26 2 years ago
You are confuising yourself. Subjective morality is subjective it is what the person judges his actions to be. If there is no objective morality you have no right to disagree with him or say his actions are `immoral`. That would be an affimation of objective morality.
basingstokeborn 2 years ago
"That would be an affimation of objective morality."
No it wouldnt. If morality is an idea that exists insides peoples heads, and not some universal absolute truth 'out there', then theres no reason why I cant favour my own ideas over others, because I think mine are better. Eg, I dont claim that we are born with human rights, as human rights are an idea. But I can argue that a world which adheres to the principle of human rights would be a more stable, unified, and pleasant world to live in.
tomemery26 2 years ago
To call someone amoral means that you are denying him the right to subjective ideals. You cannot have your cake and eat it. If thee is not human rights there is not principle on which we can bulld human rights. We are going back to barbarism where might is right.
basingstokeborn 2 years ago
Amoral people have the right to subjective ideals but if they act on them and the result is deemed dangerous by the majority of people then they will stopped. The phrase 'might is right' is a little tricky because in reality its true, but right doesnt mean objectively right.
If your looking for a foundation for human rights the foundation would still come from inside our heads. Basic empathy, the concept of citizenship, the concept of equality, and the concept of freedom.
tomemery26 2 years ago
So you have empathy, citizenship, equality, freedom all inside your head. Funny I have these same concepts. And everyone else you say has these concepts Do you not think that remarkable? But if there are different comcepts of how these apply we know from history that the minority view is often what you call amoral.
basingstokeborn 2 years ago
Why is it funny that we have similar views? You live about an hours drive from me. Ever heard of a thing called culture? No not everyone has these views, but the majority do. Far from being remarkable its actually perfectly understandable that over decades or centuries certain ideas spread and become dominant.
tomemery26 2 years ago
But how did they spread? There are many different cultures that evolved seperately, yes, some were barbaric but there was always an idea that some actions were right and some wrong. The idea of right and worng was a universal concept before cultures met. That put humans above other animal species. Their evolutionary process could not be explained in Darwinian terms. We compose and listen to music. we know what beauty is. We appreciate art and science,
basingstokeborn 2 years ago
Youre right that the ideas of right and wrong were universal to every culture, but as I explained before we need some form of morality to survive. This is pure Darwinism. The cultures with better moral codes tend to last the longest. For example, tribal cultures that value family, respect, and egalitarianism have existed for tens of thousands of years, whereas imperialistic and unequal societies usually have a shelf life of 500 to 1000 years before they implode
tomemery26 2 years ago
Yet thee is no reason why imperialstic and unequal societies should not have triuphed. right always overcomes wrong. But is it Darwinian. Are barbarians really weaker human beings?
basingstokeborn 2 years ago
Right dosn't always overcome wrong, but a united people is stronger than a divided people, a people who are happy with how they are governed is stronger than a people who are not happy with how they are governed. It used to be that having a stronger army than your nieghbours would keep your society around for longer, but those societies would still eventually collapse if the people were not happy.
kevinscales 2 years ago
Regarding music, art, and beauty I would guess that they carry meaning and help us to communicate feelings that are often difficult to express in words.
tomemery26 2 years ago
But we could get on without them. We could still survive as a species - so are the Darwinian.
basingstokeborn 2 years ago
Art, music etc I don't think have much evolutionary advantage, however I believe they are a by-product of features that have great evolutionary advantage - language, imagination etc of course there is an advantage to any indiviual who can entertain others, I think it's also part of our drive to understand each other and wanting to be understood by others so we can better work together.
kevinscales 2 years ago
Kevin's answers are pretty much the exact same as I would have given. But I think that the creative arts play a more important role than we realize. If morality and community are necessary to human survival then surely the creative arts are the 'glue' to hold communities together, as they help us to celebrate and reinforce our shared culture (national anthems) losses (funeral songs) life stages (christening and wedding songs) and our personal feelings (lovey dovey stuff)
tomemery26 2 years ago
But are they necessary for human survival? The real flourishing of creative art only took place in modern middle ages. Again it is the individuality that shines out in the composing and creation. All humans do different things. Dogs do not, Apes do not, dolphins do not. Your thoughs are different from mine. There is so much here that cannot just be put down to an evolutionist principle.
basingstokeborn 2 years ago
"The real flourishing of creative art only took place in modern middle ages" Very debatable. Chinese pottery? Greek sculpture? Celtic metalwork? Egyptian pyramids and mosaics? Aztec jewelry? Not to mention all the lost music we'll never hear.
The fact that humans do and think different things doesnt contradict the evolutionary principle, especially when we remember that these are different means to the same ends. We are highly creative so differences are inevitable.
tomemery26 2 years ago
You are right and perhaps I am tied too much tied to Western culture and do not appreciate what was happening elsewhere. But to what end ae these differences in individuals directed. I am unique in my species, so are you.
basingstokeborn 2 years ago
I can see what you mean, that some actions seem very far from the basics of survival, like reading novels, or watching films. But most are either useful to us in some way, like I outlined previously, or appeal to instinctive desires, like violence (action films) curiosity (soaps, documentaries) or sex (porn)
tomemery26 2 years ago
Useful to us as indiviuduals but not necessary for the survival of the our race.
basingstokeborn 2 years ago
The common ends we strive for are happiness and contentment, love and sex, and a feeling of belonging. There are many different ways to achieve them. The creative arts can help us to achieve them. A community of individuals lacking in these feelings would quickly turn into no community at all, just a group of depressed and angry people, completely alienated from each other. Society would break down, chaos would reign. The society would last two generations at the most before it ceased to exist
tomemery26 2 years ago
@tomemery26 Sure, I'll concede, for the sake of the argument, that we have these "common ends" (although I'm not sure how you'd support that assertion). Even so, there is nothing about this fact that implies that someone ought to behave in a way conducive to the attainment of those ends. We might say "fuck this deviant" and lock him up because his behavior didn't fit your hegemonic norms, but at that point your just talking about power not ethics. might doesn't make right.
grandampersand 1 year ago
@grandampersand
I'd support that assertation by pointing to the evidence. 'The Naked Ape' by Desmond morris contains a lot.
"there is nothing about this fact that implies that someone ought to behave in a way conducive to the attainment of those ends" They ought to because its in their interest. If they dont then they lose out. Most people go with the former.
tomemery26 1 year ago
@grandampersand
I was originally arguing that morality is subjective, but youre treating it as objective, so we might not be able to discuss it properly until we recognise that. Its true that might certainly does make right, but the 'right' i'm referring to here is not necessarily my personal idea of 'right' (ie ethics) or an absolute objective 'right'. I'm referring to the moral consensus within a society that is maintained by either socialization, state coercion, or both.
tomemery26 1 year ago
@tomemery26 Sure, but the problem with that sort of intersubjectivistic view of ethics is that it begs the question. In short, it still doesn't address the real question of why is it wrong to do something that goes against the moral consensus of one's society? Why is THAT the final answer? Furthermore, if the moral consensus within a society is the ultimate source of right and wrong, then it follows that it would be impossible for society to be morally wrong, which I think is problematic.
grandampersand 1 year ago
you're trying to say that an individual ought to do such-and-such because it's in there interest to do so, but again this too i think begs the question about what is valuable. Is suicide morally wrong, then? Or masochism? What about smoking? Drinking alcohol? Caffeine? I'm not sure what you're specific presuppositions about what is "good for us," but you certainly seem to have some. What I'm interested in philosophically is how do YOU know what's good?
grandampersand 1 year ago
My personal subjective opinion is that an act is only morally wrong if it harms other people. It also depends on the context. If you have a family to support and you kill yourself you are causing them harm, so i would say its immoral. But if you are a highly abusive husband and father, then killing yourself might not be such a problem. So, i predict the consequences of an action and decide what will cause harm and what will prevent harm
tomemery26 1 year ago
@tomemery26 sure, sure. But you're still not answering the problem at all. It's easy to just assert that "my personal subjective opinion" about what's morally right and wrong is such-and-such, or even that "society says such-and-such" but, and I state it this way to provoke the deeper question, why ought I to give a shit about what's morally right, if it's purely subjective? How do you justify asserting that some action is truly morally wrong (not merely undesirable) if it's purely subjective?
grandampersand 1 year ago
"why ought I to give a shit about what's morally right, if it's purely subjective?" Now i'm pretty sure you already know the answer to this deep down, but perhaps your religious education has turned morality into something mysterious and dogmatic. Its not, it a practical way for us humans to survive and to make our lives easier. Imagine a world with no morality and then you will quickly see why we prefer morality.
tomemery26 1 year ago
I can flip your other statement around and say its easy just to assert that this is "truly morally right" or thats "truly morally wrong" but, and I state this to provoke the deeper question, why ought I to give a shit about whats morally right? In answering this question you will find the subjectivity of all moral decisions and all moral codes. Explain to me, for example, why it is morally wrong to refrain from rescuing a young child who is drowning in a lake, without using the word 'wrong'.
tomemery26 1 year ago