I don't think this was a bad video, I gave it a thumbs up.
I think what you are saying is the exact same thing that atheists say about how one behaves when no one is looking.
With no consequence/reward system or "instructed" right/wrong system, people will behave the way they would naturally behave. Which demonstrates their TRUE character.
It's most certainly true that you can coerce people's behavior with consequence/reward systems which if set up the way you want, may lead to a decrease..
...in a certain behavior, like murder for example. But as far as true, objective morality is concerned, that shouldn't matter. Jesus looking at a woman with lust is adultry, looking at a man with anger is murder.
Whether you actually do it or not only matters for civilized society, not for the God of the bible.
And biblical instruction of right and wrong, as well as hellish consequences will only effect behavior, not desire, which is what YOUR God supposedly cares about.
I agree that it seems inevitable that a person's ideology will influence their behavior. A person's ideology and their view of the future helps them determine the value of things in the world, and they take action according to their goals, i.e., eternal life in heaven. Perhaps in this sense, religious people are moral functionalists, as well. It seems entirely plausible for large numbers of people to live peacefully and morally, based upon false stories. I wonder if that is good or bad.
So whether we use the words right and wrong or replaced them with other words that has zero effect on the objective truth of something, we use language as a means of communicating what we recognise, just like veryevilpetting is a person that objectively exists independent of what screename that he uses.
Just because we use language to describe things that does not make a difference to the objecive truth about something, it just means we use langauge to express what we recognise, i take it veryevilpettingzoo believes he is the same person if he cancelled his youtube account and started with a new name, would he be a different person behind the screen just because he signed in with a new name? So he could change his screename and still be the same person behind his computer.
His argument seems to be there is no objective right or wrong because this is human language and thus something cannot be right or wrong without human language, But my point is that of course we use give things names but how else will we describe things, just because we use a description that does not change the fact that these things exist, it seems to be sophism to say well because the words "right" and "wrong" are human constructs therefore right and wrong do not exist, cont:
We use a map to describe the territory and we use language to describe the objective right and wrongness of actions, the territory still exists independent of the map and the objective right and wrongness of actions still exists independent of the language that is used to describe them.
We use a map to describe territory, that does not mean that the territory does not objectively exist.
And just like we use a map to describe territory we use language to describe what is objectively right or wrong, just because we use use language that does not mean that objective right or wrong does not exist, something is right or wrong independent of whether we express it or not,cont:
If we all became mute and could not say that we found murder wrong would it then be ok to be a mass murderer?
It is like holding up a teapot and saying this is not really a teapot because the word teapot is being described using language, but just because we give it an object a description and use language to do so that does not mean the object does not objectively exist, cont:
"If you tell moraly foulable creatures there's no right or wrong - what kind of behavior are you going to expect?..."
Well JB, the sticker, "moraly foulable" all by itself implies a standard of some sort doesn't it? Most atheists won't tag their bumper with that kind of jargon in the first place.
That said, what I expect out of someone who doesn't believe there's real right or wrong?.... is nothing.
I'm afraid atheism doesn't have to have an OBJECTIVE morality, it can have a functioning subjective or social morality. Having no objective morality does not mean there is no 'right or wrong'.
Subjective morality still means there *is* no right or wrong. All it demonstrates is that there will be people who partake in what they feel is moral, not that what they are doing *is* moral.
I claim that atheists, unless they have studied it, would say there is objective morality because there just is. This is a naive position, but very real. This atheist would believe she should not commit atrocities because they are objectively wrong. Also, I only need to show one theist who committed atrocities to show a link on that side.
Besides, if you have millions of atheists who never killed anyone, and one sociopath atheist who did, does it show a link to atheism or sociopathy?
Although I do agree with you that it does follow from atheism that there is no objective right or wrong, morals can be constructed by a group of people who agree on them and this may not be happening consciously even.
have to disagree with you this time, John. In all honesty I don't think you can link atheism to atrocity as a definite pattern because there are plenty of moral atheists around. Sure you can in fact have someone commit an atrocity in the name of positive atheism, but this doesn't seem to be a typical pattern and therefore makes no sense to link it indefinately.
@vbfl920 actually now I think about it you do have a point. I know that if I were to become an atheist I would lose a lot of my humility and meekness. I would be drawn to talk about people behind their backs and hold things against those who hurt me (and to be honest sometimes I still do these things, not because I want to, I HATE that stuff because it's not of God , but I fall at times because I'm imperfect) but since I became a christian I have come to like myself much more
@vbfl920 yes I can see how my behaviour would change quite a lot (and I'm not saying I'm perfect, I still sin) but because of the grace of God and His love for me and my love for Him, I chose to humble myself at His feet and hate on that sin and since then I have come to like myself so much more. I can still hardly believe (not as in disbeleif but as in awe) that I am SAVED from damnation!! ME? saved and accepted by God?? I never thought anyone would accept me let alone God!!!! :D
now I'm quite sure I wil NEVER EVER!!! go back to atheism!!! after soaking up the love of God for so long it's far too hard to turn back and I would much rather remain in His beautiful presence : ' }
@Sophiethefembot well If I was to believe that there is no God I would not treat people the same way I do now. I mean I know I'm a sinner and blemished before a perfect God and I still do things that God hates, but mostly out my own weakness. But if I was to become an atheist I would probably start taking out my frustrations about people by talking behind their backs because I would not have God to depend on and talk with about my hurts. I would become bitter and feel insignificant.
I believe it is theism who that equalizes sin and offers no immediate punishment or ramification. It also offers a responsibility escape clause and apparently justifies mass murder and genocide as long as you have the support of your government. Absolutely nothing about not believing in a god is prescriptive of how we should live our life. None of your examples explicitly killed because they didn't believe in a god. Crusades, Salem witch trials, on and on are all because of god belief. You Fail.
1) Your "atheism implies moral relativism and or (which is it?) moral nihilism" isn't demonstrated. Some atheists might hold that view, but I'd wager that many to most don't. It doesn't follow from, nor is it an aspect of, atheism.
2) Is evidence relevant to this? What about looking at the empirical measures of the rates of clearly immoral behavior between atheists and theists? For instance, by U.S. prison data, atheist's crime rate is way below of that of the general population.
It doesn't matter what *some* atheists do, or what view they hold. That's not my point. What I'm saying is that *atheism* makes possible views such as moral subjectivism, relativism, and nihilism. Atheists are the ones who predominantly hold those views.
I mean, how many *theistic* moral nihilists do you know?
So I'd wager that many do, I talk to atheists all the time! And I'm the one *trying* to argue for objective morality and it is *atheists* who give me the most grief about it not being there.
lol - yes, same website. I agree that subjectivism, relativism, and nihilism are overwhelmingly found among atheists (though I've never heard a compelling argument why theism defeats those positions). I grant that almost all theists THINK God's existence does defeat them, and so people holding them are almost always atheists/agnostics. But it's a different thing to say that atheism makes possible those positions (in practice), versus saying atheism implies or affirms those positions.
You might have encountered atheists on YouTube who argue those positions, but the vast majority of the people I know are atheists, and not one of them would say "well, maybe murdering wasn't wrong if you were living in Nazi Germany". Not one of them. hence not one of them is truly a moral relativist or moral nihilist.
I think your experience here is distorted because the Christian notion of what "objective morality" should be taken to mean is often considered flawed by atheists.
Well, are they really saying that such things are wrong independently of us?
I agree that 99% of the time, there are no true relativists and nihilists. Apologists say this all of the time. Veritas has mentioned this numerous times as well.
Perhaps there really is a moral reality that is hard to deny, one that we all realize deep down?
No statement is meaningful "independently of us", because we're the ones who give statements their meanings.
When you speak of a "moral reality" that we "realize deep down", your conceptualization of morality seems similar to a physical property, except invisible but for the mind's intuitions. If so, that's an alien view to me. Morality is by humans and for humans (and other sentients) - but in saying that, I haven't affirmed relativism or nihilism (though I suspect you think I have).
I hold that some moral statements (like "murder is wrong") are true propositions, making morality at least somewhat objective on my account. That doesn't mean that I believe in some bizarre "moral realm" anymore than my affirming that 2+2=4 is a true proposition means that I believe in some bizarre "arithmetic realm". That people CARE about moral evaluations (which fortunately non-psychopaths usually do) is a separate matter from the semantics and arguments used to make such evaluations.
Saying "P is true" is meaningless without humans, since it's humans who give meaning to that statement. The content of what's asserted, as well as the justifications for asserting it, only make sense, only have semantic content, only have meaning, because of human conceptualizations and language.
For these reasons, I disagree with your "If a moral statement is true, it is true independent of us"
I'm gonna be a bit of a jerk and answer with leading questions.
1) I'm curious why you suspect its truth is unclear after noting that morality is by and for humans. How does that observation somehow throw murder's immorality into question?
2) Why do we call murder wrong? What's the REASON? Imagine bashing some random person's skull in with a rock (a horrible image) in a situation that you know you could get away with it. What is it about this action that prompts you to call it wrong?
3) How is ANY statement determined to be true? Why is 2+2=4 true? Why is it a true statement that Obama is the USA's current president?
It's typically split into "true by internal meanings" and "true by (contigent) facts". I don't buy that. I think that distinction breaks down when stressed, and it's more a blend of the two. "A car is not an aircraft carrier" is true, but is it by simple definitions alone, or also some contigent realities about cars and ships beyond the definition?
I've tried to answer several of your questions. I just asked you 3 questions, but you ignored them and returned to your previous line of questioning. I wasn't asking questions to be a jerk. My purpose is that, by your considering them, you'll be in the right frame of mind to understand the explanations that I've given, and will give, to you about how true propositions can arise "despite" (why is that in doubt?) being about human affairs.
Suppose someone calls your car an aircraft carrier. Isn't that person, in fact, wrong? How are humans to decide the matter?
Someone calling murder for sport a moral good is as ridiculous as someone calling a car an aircraft carrier. Neither inspires skepticism or challenges my intuitions about anything. Neither requires God to come and save the day by his mysterious powers of "objectivity making".
Words have meanings, and if you misapply them, you'll produce a statement that's false.
Here's the online Merriam-Webster Dictionary's first definition of "wrong":
"an injurious, unfair, or unjust act : action or conduct inflicting harm without due provocation or just cause".
So this is why "murder is wrong" is a true proposition - because of the meanings of the words. God is not required; this is totally a matter of human language - a complete human construct. It's basically an analytically true proposition, like 2+2=4.
Re: "Humans can't determine that thus true, since Dahmer is also a human who says otherwise."
I assume my response to this is obvious now. Yes, Dahmer can say that. Someone can call your car an aircraft carrier, or say that 2+2=5, or say that the blue sky is red. Any damn fool can say any damn thing. But fools do not OWN the meanings of the words they use! Thus fools say many FALSE things.
Ok, are you saying that because *we* define what *we* think is wrong and because murder just happens to fall into that classification, therefore murder becomes wrong?
Or are you saying that it *is* wrong, regardless of how * we* define what wrong is?
We - via human language - define the meaning of the words "murder", "is", and "wrong". Those definitions, put together according to the proper use of the English language, are what make the statement "murder is wrong" a true proposition.
There is no meaning of "wrong" other than the meaning of "wrong".
For your last question, if "wrong" were redefined to mean an activity done only on Tuesdays, then murder wouldn't be wrong in general. (Only about 1/7 th of murders would be wrong.)
Re: "So basically through use of language, we are defining something into existence, this is what makes it true?"
"Existence" is a slippery word, and it's not clear what you mean by that here. We're making a true proposition "exist"? I'm saying basically that "murder is wrong" follows from the meanings of the words, and that is what makes it a true proposition.
No, it's extremely objective. The standard examples of indisputably objective truths are things like "2+2=4" - and that follows from the meanings of the arithmetic words (symbols) involved. In philosophy a standard example is looking at "a bachelor is an unmarried man". That's again a statement that's quite objectively true, and whose truth follows from its internal meaning.
veryevil seems to be a sophist, of course we use language to communicate that things are right or wrong, that does not mean therefore because we use language that things are not objectively right or wrong, language just allows us to express what we observe, We use a map to describe a location, does that location not objectively exist because we use a map to represent it? cont:
If we all became mute and could not say that we found murder wrong would it then be ok to be a mass murderer?
It is like holding up a teapot and saying this is not really a teapot because the word teapot is being described using language, but just because we give it an object a description and use language to do so that does not mean the object does not objectively exist, cont:
All that needs to be done to refute this is have Jeffrey Dahmer define his morality, according to his parameters.
But this creates problems because so far, you've provided no truth arbiter that decides whose morality is right. That's why morality's truth cannot be dependant upon humans, to *make* it true.
Re: "All that needs to be done to refute this is have Jeffrey Dahmer define his morality"
No. You can't alter a statement's truth by personally redefining the words. If that's tried, the result is an evaluation of a NEW statement. Consider "a car is not an aircraft carrier". Suppose I personally define a car to be an aircraft carrier. Has my act made the original statement false? No. Evaluating it with my bizarre definition means you aren't considering the original statement anymore
Re: "But this creates problems because so far, you've provided no truth arbiter that decides whose morality is right"
You should then be equally concerned that bachelors MIGHT be married women. I mean, someone could assert that they are - and THEN where would you be? Also, "2+2=4" is a total mystery. Who owns the right to say what the symbols "2", "+", "=", and "4" mean?
Your argument fails, because we DO have language which DOES have meaning. No God required.
@vbfl920 "Perhaps there really is a moral reality that is hard to deny, one that we all realize deep down?"
Stefan Molyneux, a philosopher with a great youtube channel, defines atheist morality as Universally Preferable Behavior or UPB_ He uses logic, reason and evidence to disprove moral relativism_ On his website he has a free book called UPB_
Perhaps this is the point of the video: In and of itself, atheism doesn't do anything aside from the claim that God(s) don't exist. But people are liable to run with it in the sense that morality is relative/subjective because there is no true standard on how one ought to act. There are no consequences or inherent conviction for evil; there is no moral law giver. Thus, some (not all) would do whatever pleases them and feel justified in doing so.
Nvm Ignore my comments Robs a bastard and he stole my thunder! ha But yes in order to link Atheism with atrocity or some type of moral appraisal. Then you would have to bridge the Is-Ought Gap. Which you can't do.. So.. Argument over!!
This is such fucking unbelievable bull, that I know for a fact you don't even believe it (or at least you claimed not to several months ago before your precipitous slide into fundamentalism).
I am going to EXPECT a variety of behavior ranging from selfish to altruistic from people who don't believe in an "objective moral framework". Just the same kind of behavior I EXPECT from those who do.
Don't dissemble John, you ARE saying that people will commit atrocities because they are athiest
Whoa, whoa, whoa! What? Atheism is not the statement "there is no right or wrong." I proved there's no link between atheism and prescriptions; that atheism is NOT normative. You're talking about something else in this comment.
And you ASSERT that moral realism is false on the assumption of atheism. You have yet to explain why they're mutually exclusive and, I contend, you can't. Morality could be a feature of the universe like gravity; it could be a logical product. But you say no.
John, John, John. It simply DOES NOT follow that my morality is different that yours "because" I'm an atheist and you are a theist. My morality might be absolutely identical to yours despite our differing opinions about your Puff the Magic Creator. Why is this? Because my morality is not informed by atheism.
Whether YOU think my morality is "justified" or "properly grounded" (whatever that means) is beside the point. I simply do not get my moral values from being unconvinced...
that your special book is anything more than a work of human literature. Whether or not our moralities actually differ is beside the point. They could be identical in spite of our being on different sides of the theological fence. Now, I suppose that someone could *say* that because they are an atheist, they don't think morality exists, but that wouldn't be any kind of atheism I would recognize.
@vbfl920 MY definition of atheism doesn't include any positive beliefs about the world, it is purely negative. Want to know about my positive beliefs? Ask me about them and I'll try to give an account from whence they come. But that account will never refer to my not buying 2000 year old bedtime stories.
Sam, what is your stance on homosexuality, sex before marriage, pornography etc? I'd say our moralities are pretty different. If I became an atheist, many things would change in my behavior. That's because atheism *can* inform behavior. This should be patently obvious after taking note that our moralities differ.
trust me John, there are atheists out there who are every bit a bigoted as you. Why? Because morality IS NOT INFORMED by their lack of belief in the Great Wish Granter in The Sky. You know, the one who breaks old ladies hips so you can get a good deal on a car "just when you needed one"?
What's with the venom man? How am I being a bigot?
Don't you see that for atheism to be linked to a set of behaviors, it doesn't have to *causally* inform your behavior. It doesn't have to specifically tell you what to do...no more than me leaving guns on the counter specifically tells anyone that they ought to pick them up and fire them. Regardless, I am laying the groundwork for the incident to happen.
Your morality is different than mine because you have other factors informing it. Your lack of belief in God *automatically* determines that your morality will differ from mine.
How does me pointing that out to you make me a bigot? And why is it that you refuse to understand this?
Pointing things out doesn't make you a bigot John. Your "stance" on homosexuality makes you a bigot. And there are atheists out there who have precisely the same stance as you, no god needed. I find it incredibly offensive John, that you suppose that you have some insight into my moral values simply because I don't believe in god. I find it offensive that you ARE suggesting that 'atrocities' follow from that lack of belief.
@vbfl920 Atrocity doesn't follow from atheism any more than bigotry follows from theism John. Those things reside in the hearts and minds of men, alongside love, respect and tolerance. That people use a lack of belief in god to justify atrocities is no more an indictment of 'atheism' than that people use a belief in god to justify bigotry is an indictment of theism.
Don't call me a bigot. I resent that. Tell me, what's your stance on father/daughter relationships? Or when men are attracted to children...are you a bigot for spotting a perversion? Than neither am I a bigot for labeling homosexuality a perversion. Sure, it doesn't cause me harm personally. But that's not what defines a perversion Sam.
Right now, it's clear that our moralities are different. Are you telling me that your atheism hasn't the slightest effect on your value system?
And I am not suggesting that atrocities follow from your atheism. I am suggesting that they *can*, as a result of atheism informing your views.
Sam if you tell morally fallible humans that as a result of atheism, there is no right and wrong, do you not have enough street sense to know that such a statement *can* influence behavior?
You just don't seem interested in the possibility that the ideas and methods which lead to atheism also lead to these views and not atheism itself, eh? Nice. Let's ignore as many possibilities, arguments, and flaws in our own reasoning as we have to to contend that a non-normative belief is somehow responsible for someone's misdeeds.
What exactly do you *mean* when you say that something is "morally wrong"? If you were to say, "molesting a child is wrong", what exactly are you describing ABOUT the act of molesting a child, by calling it "wrong"? What MAKES a given act morally wrong?
(Saying, "It's wrong because we shouldn't do it," would be a non-answer to this question. What about it MAKES it something we shouldn't do?)
Well, since I've got you here. Thanks for the tag. Coming up with interesting lies was easy enough but I am friggin' stumped for interesting truths :-/
Now I don't know if you said this or not Rob, maybe Johns just Strawmaning you. But I wouldn't necessarily agree that behavior can not be derived from what "IS" the case. Behavior could be a perfect example of what is the case when looking into Environmental influences or effects of behavior due to chemical imbalances or if you subscribe to Evolutionary Psychology which would argue for Psy-adaptations or inherent traits. Basically the Nature side of the Nat/Nurture argument. Idk!
That's not what I'm trying to answer in this video. All I'm trying to show is how ideas about how the world is *can* influence behavior. ie, the statement "there is no right or wrong" can and does influence behavior. The link is possible.
@vbfl920 I know it's not what you're answering, but I'm asking because as an observer, I find it extremely pertinent to the conversation you are having with Rob.
Tentatively though, I sort of agree with Hume that you can't reason yourself into value statements. Reason does not lead you to identifying what's moral. I don't think you can reason out why murder is wrong other than it just is the case that it's wrong. You either see it for what it is, accept it or reject it.
How it would compare to the state of affairs we call "good". I'm not so sure that anything really makes something wrong other than the act deviates and rebels against a state of affairs we call good.
@vbfl920 We're getting somewhere.... sort of. But it only pushes the question back:
What would you look for in a state of affairs in order to diagnose it as "good"? What do you *mean* when you call a state of affairs "good"? What is it ABOUT a state of affairs that *makes* it "good"?
If the only way to diagnose a deed as "wrong" is to compare it to a "good" state of affairs, you need to know what a "good state of affairs" looks like, and what it means. Otherwise, you have no moral basis.
No I just have an iPhone. My laptop is on a sabbatical. You can call me if you want. I offered the same to AHughman08 cause he invited me to skype, I just can't do it. He never got back with me about it.
Scott it's noteworthy for me to say that *you* are one of the atheists who argues against moral norms. Indeed, it follows from atheism that a universe that holds no way that things ought to be, that there is no way humans ought to behave.
You have consistently conflated two ideas; you roundly assert that "there is no god" is effectively the statement "there is no way things ought to be." You have yet to justify this relationship, so far you have ignored your responsibility to to do so.
And you're STILL failing to see the central point: the whole of the argument is this- the you cannot get an "OUGHT" from an "IS NOT." Atheism is an "IS NOT" and it is not, in any way, an "OUGHT."
Yes, atheism is chock full of *is nots*. And that's precisely the problem, Rob.
Because those *is nots* are what lay the groundwork for cultivating and informing behavior. What atheism says *is* the case, is what creates the problem. You act like this is an issue for me.
Under atheism, there *is not* an objective morality that we are all bound to. Tell me this idea doesn't influence behavior.
Oh, but this IS a problem for you; YOU are asserting a definite relationship between atheism and moral realism and you haven't a thing to support the relationship other than the difficulty you suffer in trying to conceive it being otherwise (woopty-fuckin-doo).
Is/ought. How much longer you gonna ignore it? Is/ought. Is. Ought.
Is.
Ought.
Is...
and then...
Ought.
Bridge the gap for me. Because, uh... you haven't yet.
Oh- and- once you do manage to get an OUGHT from an IS NOT, don't forget that you still have your work ahead of you in establishing that holding atheism as a culpable idea is not trivial and irrelevant in light of all the other ideas equally or more responsible... you know, all the other ideas that don't run afoul of your cherished beliefs and which you don't feel compelled to decry as related. K? Cause that one's still waitin' for your attention.
I think you're right on this. In fact it's more than just an abstract thought experiment, Jeffery Dahmer in a 1994 dateline interview said this "‘If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway."
Hey, Rob. I watched your whole video. For the most part I think it's pretty right on, however what I think Atheism does in relation to atrocities like dahmer is that it lays the ground work for the justification of ones denial of moral standards and duties. I take a fairly mild approach to this, Because I do not think Atheism causes bad moral behavior, it just brings rational justification for acts that would otherwise be "immoral".
I don't see how you can agree with any of it and contend atheism lays the groundwork... there is a logical disconnect between what IS the case (and what is NOT the case) and what OUGHT to be the case, therefore, atheism is A) culpable, but trivially so on the grounds that an infinite set of other ideas are as well or B) not culpable due to the is/ought fallacy.
And this is a genuine dichotomy. There is no third option.
I get the Is/Ought distinction, there is no "ought to do X" that flows out of Atheism but there is no "prohibitions to do X "( Where X is any behavior). This can be causally connected with behavior because one may (And does) choose to or choose not to follow a certain desires based on beliefs about the world. With Dahmer's mental life (I desire to do X) and his beliefs about the world (X is not prohibited sense God does not exist) and so he decided to follow his desires.
And it doesn't even have to be cannabalism. It could be uncontrollable infidelity. I desire very strongly to sleep with women. It is hard for me to stay faithful to my wife. But I do so to honor God and my marriage. There is no God. Thus there really is no prohibition to commit adultery. Now it is *really* hard to control my desires and stay faithful to my wife.
Exactly, my beliefs about the world (Theism in this case) informs my personal behavior every day. If I were to reject Theism next week and adopt Atheism then my beliefs about moral duties would change and would do things that I now reject as wrong (Like rejecting inappropriate sexual thoughts ect.) It is the very LACK of moral framework that influences my behavior on Atheism so the is ought distinction is bypassed completely here.
I hope you can see the picture here, It's going from the framework of (Certain X's are wrong) to (There are no prohibitions for any X's) It is the lack of prohibition and our rational faculties in decision making to choose X, when we otherwise would not have is it were true that (I ought not do X). Can you see how this directly informs our behavior? Not by an ought but by an is of Atheism.
It is all about the *is'* of atheism which lays the groundwork for behavior. We are already morally fallible creatures. All you have to do is tell prone to reckless behavior that there *is* no right or wrong, there *is* no way you ought to behave, and it becomes highly likely that you will see behaviors change under that new framework of how the world *is*.
Wile I agree that Behavior is an example of what "IS" the case. Still Atheism has no effect on behavior because it is a conclusion. Behavior acts as a response to stimulus, from either environmental influences, Changes in the Brains apparatus, or the sub consciousness. Atheism is simply a rational conclusion and nothing to do with behavioral aspects.
Also Dalmer was a bible thumping Creationist Christian! haha There is a video on Youtube of him saying that.
5) leaving your guns unlocked might result in death, but we hold you responsible not for the FACT that they were unlocked, but because we think you OUGHT to have locked them up. If your children killed themselves (god forbid) would you hold yourself responsible simply because it is true to say you left the guns unlocked, or because, valuing your children's lives, you feel you OUGHT to have taken precautions?
4) Your analogies fail on the ground that they are, ultimately, appeals to consequence: locking your door would only have been advantageous, it would not have prevented theft. It is a FACT that leaving your door unlocked makes your property more accessible; it is a FACT that insurance companies demand and expect you to protect it to some degree; in conjunction with these facts, your VALUE for your property and reimbursement form the prescription: "lock your door." (see 2.)
The only thing I was demonstrating to you was culpability for an incident even though it *isn't* the *cause* of the incident. The cause of the incident, as you would argue, is the burglars predilection for theft. I think I've demonstrated that there are more elements involved in the actual incidence other than the burglars' tendencies.
Ok, but that gets us back to distributing the blame across myriad facts- cause effect relationships, the entire set of circumstantial facts, and the infinite set of negative descriptions that fail to forbid a behavior... I mean, my disbelief in unicorns doesn't forbid behavior, I suppose it's to blame too, isn't it? Making it all of trivial importance.
And yet... a disbelief in god is the only one anyone wants to lay the blame on.
There is one specific act that lays the *groundwork* for an incident in which children pick up guns.
That act is me leaving the guns on the counter. It doesn't cause them to fire the weapons, but it can be linked to the incident of them firing the weapons.
What makes atheism a *specific* player in all of this is that it speaks directly to the status of our actions , that there is no right or wrong actions.
No. It. Doesn't. Atheism is disbelief in god; it is not moral realism, nor anti-realism, nor a belief in the healing power of pickle juice. If you want to insist there is a moral entailment, parse it out.
PAY ATTENTION! I agree with the statement: "In a universe where there is *no*way things ought to be, there is *no* way in which anyone ought to behave." Ya got that? I never disagreed with it.
That is NOT what I've asked you to parse. Reread the comment you're responding to, for christ's sake. How does the statement "there is no god" ENTAIL, necessarily, the statement, "there is no way things ought to be." There are two distinct ideas and you're insisting a definite relationship.
Now, do I really need to hold your hand and walk you through this? Here's a diagram that will help illustrate:
Atheism = a universe that has no intent whatsoever = a universe where there is no way things ought to be = a universe where there is no way *we* ought to behave
You mean I literally had to walk you through that? You couldn't figure out what follows on your own?
A universe that has no intent whatsoever is the *same* as a universe where is no way things ought to be.
Now, right in the middle of this set of facts, are you really going to say that all of a sudden it magically appears that there *IS* a way in which we ought to behave??
@RobTheMonk8 Rob, don't dispair. I experience this with John all the time. I end up having to repeat myself over and over and over, while John pretends that I didn't just say whatever I just said. It's VERY frustrating. But that's John's M.O.
That definite relationship is one of mutual exclusivity. You have repeatedly asserted that there can be no objective morality in a godless universe, that is a declaration of a definite relationship. That is, the ideas are connected by some fundamental idea at the root of each of them such that the truth of one positively forbids the truth of the other, as a matter of negation.
You have not demonstrated that. And, in fact, you CANNOT. One is purely descriptive, the other normative.
1) The is/ought fallacy is the focus of my argument.
2) I never once said atheism is not causal; I said that it was not normative. A fact can be a "cause" for a person's action, but only in conjunction with a value.
3) If you require an example of an atheist moral realist, go talk to the guy, Khuno, who was chiming in on our exchange.
@vbfl920 Right, it equals subjective right and wrong. That is not the same as moral nihilism.
When you say you are an atheist, it says absolutely nothing about your stance on morality.
Now if you want to say that there is a link between subjective morality and atrocities, that's another story, but I'd have to argue that the qualifiers of that statement would apply equally to theism. Belief in an objective morality leads to it just as much if not more than belief in the subjective.
Atheism doesn't say there is no right or wrong. That's the point. You can be an atheist and believe that, but you can also be an atheist and believe that there is such a thing.
We don't have to and I don't contend that it's the case- I am NOT a moral realist. But moral realism is not irreconcilable with atheism. They are two independent ideas. YOU are asserting they have a definite relationship- that they are mutually exclusive. I contend that they have no relationship... and the onus is on ME to demonstrate that? Uh, no... you've got that turned around.
Appeal to ignorance again? "I don't know that moral realism is possible in a godless universe, therefore it's impossible."
I can't demonstrate moral realism, PERIOD. With or without god.
Can you demonstrate moral realism given god? And- remember- you can't just define your way out of the problem.
I mean that moral realism is not mutually exclusive with the notion of a godless universe. And if it IS irreconcilable, I fail to see how a universe WITH god isn't equally so.
I don't think this was a bad video, I gave it a thumbs up.
I think what you are saying is the exact same thing that atheists say about how one behaves when no one is looking.
With no consequence/reward system or "instructed" right/wrong system, people will behave the way they would naturally behave. Which demonstrates their TRUE character.
It's most certainly true that you can coerce people's behavior with consequence/reward systems which if set up the way you want, may lead to a decrease..
DickJohnson3434 1 year ago
...in a certain behavior, like murder for example. But as far as true, objective morality is concerned, that shouldn't matter. Jesus looking at a woman with lust is adultry, looking at a man with anger is murder.
Whether you actually do it or not only matters for civilized society, not for the God of the bible.
And biblical instruction of right and wrong, as well as hellish consequences will only effect behavior, not desire, which is what YOUR God supposedly cares about.
DickJohnson3434 1 year ago
@DickJohnson3434
Thank you Dick!
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
I hope you also read part two of my comment...
Good video.
DickJohnson3434 1 year ago
Really cool video John. GREAT analogoies.
tyrantslayer999 1 year ago
@vbfl920
I agree that it seems inevitable that a person's ideology will influence their behavior. A person's ideology and their view of the future helps them determine the value of things in the world, and they take action according to their goals, i.e., eternal life in heaven. Perhaps in this sense, religious people are moral functionalists, as well. It seems entirely plausible for large numbers of people to live peacefully and morally, based upon false stories. I wonder if that is good or bad.
h0tsex0r 1 year ago
So whether we use the words right and wrong or replaced them with other words that has zero effect on the objective truth of something, we use language as a means of communicating what we recognise, just like veryevilpetting is a person that objectively exists independent of what screename that he uses.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
Just because we use language to describe things that does not make a difference to the objecive truth about something, it just means we use langauge to express what we recognise, i take it veryevilpettingzoo believes he is the same person if he cancelled his youtube account and started with a new name, would he be a different person behind the screen just because he signed in with a new name? So he could change his screename and still be the same person behind his computer.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
His argument seems to be there is no objective right or wrong because this is human language and thus something cannot be right or wrong without human language, But my point is that of course we use give things names but how else will we describe things, just because we use a description that does not change the fact that these things exist, it seems to be sophism to say well because the words "right" and "wrong" are human constructs therefore right and wrong do not exist, cont:
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
We use a map to describe the territory and we use language to describe the objective right and wrongness of actions, the territory still exists independent of the map and the objective right and wrongness of actions still exists independent of the language that is used to describe them.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
We use a map to describe territory, that does not mean that the territory does not objectively exist.
And just like we use a map to describe territory we use language to describe what is objectively right or wrong, just because we use use language that does not mean that objective right or wrong does not exist, something is right or wrong independent of whether we express it or not,cont:
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vbfl920
If we all became mute and could not say that we found murder wrong would it then be ok to be a mass murderer?
It is like holding up a teapot and saying this is not really a teapot because the word teapot is being described using language, but just because we give it an object a description and use language to do so that does not mean the object does not objectively exist, cont:
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
What's your beef with Rob?
cguevara12 1 year ago
"If you tell moraly foulable creatures there's no right or wrong - what kind of behavior are you going to expect?..."
Well JB, the sticker, "moraly foulable" all by itself implies a standard of some sort doesn't it? Most atheists won't tag their bumper with that kind of jargon in the first place.
That said, what I expect out of someone who doesn't believe there's real right or wrong?.... is nothing.
But a-whole-lota-somethin' is usually what I get.
Add Implication Here:
justchemicalz 1 year ago
I'm afraid atheism doesn't have to have an OBJECTIVE morality, it can have a functioning subjective or social morality. Having no objective morality does not mean there is no 'right or wrong'.
alexkidd3d 1 year ago
@alexkidd3d
Subjective morality still means there *is* no right or wrong. All it demonstrates is that there will be people who partake in what they feel is moral, not that what they are doing *is* moral.
vbfl920 1 year ago
I claim that atheists, unless they have studied it, would say there is objective morality because there just is. This is a naive position, but very real. This atheist would believe she should not commit atrocities because they are objectively wrong. Also, I only need to show one theist who committed atrocities to show a link on that side.
Besides, if you have millions of atheists who never killed anyone, and one sociopath atheist who did, does it show a link to atheism or sociopathy?
ManicEightBall 1 year ago
Although I do agree with you that it does follow from atheism that there is no objective right or wrong, morals can be constructed by a group of people who agree on them and this may not be happening consciously even.
Sophiethefembot 1 year ago
have to disagree with you this time, John. In all honesty I don't think you can link atheism to atrocity as a definite pattern because there are plenty of moral atheists around. Sure you can in fact have someone commit an atrocity in the name of positive atheism, but this doesn't seem to be a typical pattern and therefore makes no sense to link it indefinately.
Sophiethefembot 1 year ago
@Sophiethefembot
Not a prob Miss Sophie. Robs video is entitled theimpossible link.
I argue that atheism *can* and *does* influence morality.
Case in point?
Is your morality like that of a Youtube atheist?
Why not?
So if I can be shown that atheism *possibly* influences morality, then it can be shown that atheism can be linked to different sorts of behavior.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920 actually now I think about it you do have a point. I know that if I were to become an atheist I would lose a lot of my humility and meekness. I would be drawn to talk about people behind their backs and hold things against those who hurt me (and to be honest sometimes I still do these things, not because I want to, I HATE that stuff because it's not of God , but I fall at times because I'm imperfect) but since I became a christian I have come to like myself much more
Sophiethefembot 1 year ago
@Sophiethefembot
To help you understand how atheism influences behavior:
Imagine that you or Veritas48 became atheists, God forbid.
What ways do you think your behavior would change?
Or would you say that your atheism wouldn't even have the slightest affect on your behavior?
Now if it *can* have an affect on your behavior, then the link isn't impossible.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920 yes I can see how my behaviour would change quite a lot (and I'm not saying I'm perfect, I still sin) but because of the grace of God and His love for me and my love for Him, I chose to humble myself at His feet and hate on that sin and since then I have come to like myself so much more. I can still hardly believe (not as in disbeleif but as in awe) that I am SAVED from damnation!! ME? saved and accepted by God?? I never thought anyone would accept me let alone God!!!! :D
Sophiethefembot 1 year ago
now I'm quite sure I wil NEVER EVER!!! go back to atheism!!! after soaking up the love of God for so long it's far too hard to turn back and I would much rather remain in His beautiful presence : ' }
Sophiethefembot 1 year ago
@Sophiethefembot well If I was to believe that there is no God I would not treat people the same way I do now. I mean I know I'm a sinner and blemished before a perfect God and I still do things that God hates, but mostly out my own weakness. But if I was to become an atheist I would probably start taking out my frustrations about people by talking behind their backs because I would not have God to depend on and talk with about my hurts. I would become bitter and feel insignificant.
Sophiethefembot 1 year ago
I believe it is theism who that equalizes sin and offers no immediate punishment or ramification. It also offers a responsibility escape clause and apparently justifies mass murder and genocide as long as you have the support of your government. Absolutely nothing about not believing in a god is prescriptive of how we should live our life. None of your examples explicitly killed because they didn't believe in a god. Crusades, Salem witch trials, on and on are all because of god belief. You Fail.
southmcl 1 year ago
1) Your "atheism implies moral relativism and or (which is it?) moral nihilism" isn't demonstrated. Some atheists might hold that view, but I'd wager that many to most don't. It doesn't follow from, nor is it an aspect of, atheism.
2) Is evidence relevant to this? What about looking at the empirical measures of the rates of clearly immoral behavior between atheists and theists? For instance, by U.S. prison data, atheist's crime rate is way below of that of the general population.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
It doesn't matter what *some* atheists do, or what view they hold. That's not my point. What I'm saying is that *atheism* makes possible views such as moral subjectivism, relativism, and nihilism. Atheists are the ones who predominantly hold those views.
I mean, how many *theistic* moral nihilists do you know?
vbfl920 1 year ago
So I'd wager that many do, I talk to atheists all the time! And I'm the one *trying* to argue for objective morality and it is *atheists* who give me the most grief about it not being there.
Are you on the same web-site as me??
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
lol - yes, same website. I agree that subjectivism, relativism, and nihilism are overwhelmingly found among atheists (though I've never heard a compelling argument why theism defeats those positions). I grant that almost all theists THINK God's existence does defeat them, and so people holding them are almost always atheists/agnostics. But it's a different thing to say that atheism makes possible those positions (in practice), versus saying atheism implies or affirms those positions.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
Lol Id say that as a result of atheism, those positions are affirmed by default, and are most likely are put into practice.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
You might have encountered atheists on YouTube who argue those positions, but the vast majority of the people I know are atheists, and not one of them would say "well, maybe murdering wasn't wrong if you were living in Nazi Germany". Not one of them. hence not one of them is truly a moral relativist or moral nihilist.
I think your experience here is distorted because the Christian notion of what "objective morality" should be taken to mean is often considered flawed by atheists.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
I've heard you argue this, and disagree with you AS YOU PUT IT. But that does not make me a moral relativist or nihilist.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
Well, are they really saying that such things are wrong independently of us?
I agree that 99% of the time, there are no true relativists and nihilists. Apologists say this all of the time. Veritas has mentioned this numerous times as well.
Perhaps there really is a moral reality that is hard to deny, one that we all realize deep down?
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
No statement is meaningful "independently of us", because we're the ones who give statements their meanings.
When you speak of a "moral reality" that we "realize deep down", your conceptualization of morality seems similar to a physical property, except invisible but for the mind's intuitions. If so, that's an alien view to me. Morality is by humans and for humans (and other sentients) - but in saying that, I haven't affirmed relativism or nihilism (though I suspect you think I have).
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
I hold that some moral statements (like "murder is wrong") are true propositions, making morality at least somewhat objective on my account. That doesn't mean that I believe in some bizarre "moral realm" anymore than my affirming that 2+2=4 is a true proposition means that I believe in some bizarre "arithmetic realm". That people CARE about moral evaluations (which fortunately non-psychopaths usually do) is a separate matter from the semantics and arguments used to make such evaluations.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
"No statement is meaningful independently of us..."
"I hold that some moral statements (like "murder is wrong") are true propositions...."
Ok, so which is it?
If a moral statement is true, it is true independent of us so.....?
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
Which is it?
It's both.
Saying "P is true" is meaningless without humans, since it's humans who give meaning to that statement. The content of what's asserted, as well as the justifications for asserting it, only make sense, only have semantic content, only have meaning, because of human conceptualizations and language.
For these reasons, I disagree with your "If a moral statement is true, it is true independent of us"
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
Ok, if morality is by humans and for humans, how then does your statement "murder is wrong" become true?
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
I'm gonna be a bit of a jerk and answer with leading questions.
1) I'm curious why you suspect its truth is unclear after noting that morality is by and for humans. How does that observation somehow throw murder's immorality into question?
2) Why do we call murder wrong? What's the REASON? Imagine bashing some random person's skull in with a rock (a horrible image) in a situation that you know you could get away with it. What is it about this action that prompts you to call it wrong?
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
3) How is ANY statement determined to be true? Why is 2+2=4 true? Why is it a true statement that Obama is the USA's current president?
It's typically split into "true by internal meanings" and "true by (contigent) facts". I don't buy that. I think that distinction breaks down when stressed, and it's more a blend of the two. "A car is not an aircraft carrier" is true, but is it by simple definitions alone, or also some contigent realities about cars and ships beyond the definition?
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
Ok, you're still convoluting things.
You say:
1. Morality is by humans and for humans.
2. "Murder is wrong" is morally true.
Ok, you and Jefferey Dahmer are *both* humans. He says it's alright to kill. You say it isn't.
Who's right??
Says *what*?
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
I've tried to answer several of your questions. I just asked you 3 questions, but you ignored them and returned to your previous line of questioning. I wasn't asking questions to be a jerk. My purpose is that, by your considering them, you'll be in the right frame of mind to understand the explanations that I've given, and will give, to you about how true propositions can arise "despite" (why is that in doubt?) being about human affairs.
So I'd like you to answer my questions first.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
Ok, I'm doing my best here.
You are totally showing that 2+2=4. It makes sense when you say that.
But you aren't showing that Jeffrey Dahmer's idea that "murdering people is good", is as a fact, wrong.
Humans can't determine that thus true, since Dahmer is also a human who says otherwise.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
Suppose someone calls your car an aircraft carrier. Isn't that person, in fact, wrong? How are humans to decide the matter?
Someone calling murder for sport a moral good is as ridiculous as someone calling a car an aircraft carrier. Neither inspires skepticism or challenges my intuitions about anything. Neither requires God to come and save the day by his mysterious powers of "objectivity making".
Words have meanings, and if you misapply them, you'll produce a statement that's false.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
Here's the online Merriam-Webster Dictionary's first definition of "wrong":
"an injurious, unfair, or unjust act : action or conduct inflicting harm without due provocation or just cause".
So this is why "murder is wrong" is a true proposition - because of the meanings of the words. God is not required; this is totally a matter of human language - a complete human construct. It's basically an analytically true proposition, like 2+2=4.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(cont)
Re: "Humans can't determine that thus true, since Dahmer is also a human who says otherwise."
I assume my response to this is obvious now. Yes, Dahmer can say that. Someone can call your car an aircraft carrier, or say that 2+2=5, or say that the blue sky is red. Any damn fool can say any damn thing. But fools do not OWN the meanings of the words they use! Thus fools say many FALSE things.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
Ok, are you saying that because *we* define what *we* think is wrong and because murder just happens to fall into that classification, therefore murder becomes wrong?
Or are you saying that it *is* wrong, regardless of how * we* define what wrong is?
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
We - via human language - define the meaning of the words "murder", "is", and "wrong". Those definitions, put together according to the proper use of the English language, are what make the statement "murder is wrong" a true proposition.
There is no meaning of "wrong" other than the meaning of "wrong".
For your last question, if "wrong" were redefined to mean an activity done only on Tuesdays, then murder wouldn't be wrong in general. (Only about 1/7 th of murders would be wrong.)
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
So basically through use of language, we are defining something into existence, this is what makes it true?
That's not very objective. That's almost like the Ontological Argument for the existence of objective morals, where we define morality into existence.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
Re: "So basically through use of language, we are defining something into existence, this is what makes it true?"
"Existence" is a slippery word, and it's not clear what you mean by that here. We're making a true proposition "exist"? I'm saying basically that "murder is wrong" follows from the meanings of the words, and that is what makes it a true proposition.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
Re: "That's not very objective."
No, it's extremely objective. The standard examples of indisputably objective truths are things like "2+2=4" - and that follows from the meanings of the arithmetic words (symbols) involved. In philosophy a standard example is looking at "a bachelor is an unmarried man". That's again a statement that's quite objectively true, and whose truth follows from its internal meaning.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@vbfl920
veryevil seems to be a sophist, of course we use language to communicate that things are right or wrong, that does not mean therefore because we use language that things are not objectively right or wrong, language just allows us to express what we observe, We use a map to describe a location, does that location not objectively exist because we use a map to represent it? cont:
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@vbfl920
If we all became mute and could not say that we found murder wrong would it then be ok to be a mass murderer?
It is like holding up a teapot and saying this is not really a teapot because the word teapot is being described using language, but just because we give it an object a description and use language to do so that does not mean the object does not objectively exist, cont:
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
All that needs to be done to refute this is have Jeffrey Dahmer define his morality, according to his parameters.
But this creates problems because so far, you've provided no truth arbiter that decides whose morality is right. That's why morality's truth cannot be dependant upon humans, to *make* it true.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
Re: "All that needs to be done to refute this is have Jeffrey Dahmer define his morality"
No. You can't alter a statement's truth by personally redefining the words. If that's tried, the result is an evaluation of a NEW statement. Consider "a car is not an aircraft carrier". Suppose I personally define a car to be an aircraft carrier. Has my act made the original statement false? No. Evaluating it with my bizarre definition means you aren't considering the original statement anymore
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
Re: "But this creates problems because so far, you've provided no truth arbiter that decides whose morality is right"
You should then be equally concerned that bachelors MIGHT be married women. I mean, someone could assert that they are - and THEN where would you be? Also, "2+2=4" is a total mystery. Who owns the right to say what the symbols "2", "+", "=", and "4" mean?
Your argument fails, because we DO have language which DOES have meaning. No God required.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
I'd like you to go argue Fat German Bastard about this.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
One of my earliest comment discssions on YouTube was with FGB about this on his video "My problem with atheist morality".
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vbfl920 "Perhaps there really is a moral reality that is hard to deny, one that we all realize deep down?"
Stefan Molyneux, a philosopher with a great youtube channel, defines atheist morality as Universally Preferable Behavior or UPB_ He uses logic, reason and evidence to disprove moral relativism_ On his website he has a free book called UPB_
evandonghue2 6 months ago
Perhaps this is the point of the video: In and of itself, atheism doesn't do anything aside from the claim that God(s) don't exist. But people are liable to run with it in the sense that morality is relative/subjective because there is no true standard on how one ought to act. There are no consequences or inherent conviction for evil; there is no moral law giver. Thus, some (not all) would do whatever pleases them and feel justified in doing so.
seinfan9 1 year ago
Nvm Ignore my comments Robs a bastard and he stole my thunder! ha But yes in order to link Atheism with atrocity or some type of moral appraisal. Then you would have to bridge the Is-Ought Gap. Which you can't do.. So.. Argument over!!
bananabread119 1 year ago
John,
This is such fucking unbelievable bull, that I know for a fact you don't even believe it (or at least you claimed not to several months ago before your precipitous slide into fundamentalism).
I am going to EXPECT a variety of behavior ranging from selfish to altruistic from people who don't believe in an "objective moral framework". Just the same kind of behavior I EXPECT from those who do.
Don't dissemble John, you ARE saying that people will commit atrocities because they are athiest
sammcalpine 1 year ago
@sammcalpine
Sam, all I am attempting to do is show that it *is* possible to
demonstrate a link between the statement that "there is no right and wrong" and behaviors that can be influenced by the statement.
Rob says it's impossible.
No it's not.
( I think it follows from atheism that there is no objective morality)
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
Whoa, whoa, whoa! What? Atheism is not the statement "there is no right or wrong." I proved there's no link between atheism and prescriptions; that atheism is NOT normative. You're talking about something else in this comment.
And you ASSERT that moral realism is false on the assumption of atheism. You have yet to explain why they're mutually exclusive and, I contend, you can't. Morality could be a feature of the universe like gravity; it could be a logical product. But you say no.
RobTheMonk8 1 year ago
@sammcalpine
What I am saying is that atheism *can* inform and influence morality.
Case in point?
Your morality is different from mine.
Why?
I'm a theist and you're an atheist.
There's the proverbial "impossible" link
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
John, John, John. It simply DOES NOT follow that my morality is different that yours "because" I'm an atheist and you are a theist. My morality might be absolutely identical to yours despite our differing opinions about your Puff the Magic Creator. Why is this? Because my morality is not informed by atheism.
Whether YOU think my morality is "justified" or "properly grounded" (whatever that means) is beside the point. I simply do not get my moral values from being unconvinced...
sammcalpine 1 year ago
@vbfl920
that your special book is anything more than a work of human literature. Whether or not our moralities actually differ is beside the point. They could be identical in spite of our being on different sides of the theological fence. Now, I suppose that someone could *say* that because they are an atheist, they don't think morality exists, but that wouldn't be any kind of atheism I would recognize.
sammcalpine 1 year ago
@vbfl920 MY definition of atheism doesn't include any positive beliefs about the world, it is purely negative. Want to know about my positive beliefs? Ask me about them and I'll try to give an account from whence they come. But that account will never refer to my not buying 2000 year old bedtime stories.
sammcalpine 1 year ago
@sammcalpine
Sam, what is your stance on homosexuality, sex before marriage, pornography etc? I'd say our moralities are pretty different. If I became an atheist, many things would change in my behavior. That's because atheism *can* inform behavior. This should be patently obvious after taking note that our moralities differ.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
trust me John, there are atheists out there who are every bit a bigoted as you. Why? Because morality IS NOT INFORMED by their lack of belief in the Great Wish Granter in The Sky. You know, the one who breaks old ladies hips so you can get a good deal on a car "just when you needed one"?
sammcalpine 1 year ago
@sammcalpine
What's with the venom man? How am I being a bigot?
Don't you see that for atheism to be linked to a set of behaviors, it doesn't have to *causally* inform your behavior. It doesn't have to specifically tell you what to do...no more than me leaving guns on the counter specifically tells anyone that they ought to pick them up and fire them. Regardless, I am laying the groundwork for the incident to happen.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@sammcalpine
Your morality is different than mine because you have other factors informing it. Your lack of belief in God *automatically* determines that your morality will differ from mine.
How does me pointing that out to you make me a bigot? And why is it that you refuse to understand this?
Love you Sam I am.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
Pointing things out doesn't make you a bigot John. Your "stance" on homosexuality makes you a bigot. And there are atheists out there who have precisely the same stance as you, no god needed. I find it incredibly offensive John, that you suppose that you have some insight into my moral values simply because I don't believe in god. I find it offensive that you ARE suggesting that 'atrocities' follow from that lack of belief.
sammcalpine 1 year ago
@vbfl920 Atrocity doesn't follow from atheism any more than bigotry follows from theism John. Those things reside in the hearts and minds of men, alongside love, respect and tolerance. That people use a lack of belief in god to justify atrocities is no more an indictment of 'atheism' than that people use a belief in god to justify bigotry is an indictment of theism.
sammcalpine 1 year ago
@sammcalpine
Don't call me a bigot. I resent that. Tell me, what's your stance on father/daughter relationships? Or when men are attracted to children...are you a bigot for spotting a perversion? Than neither am I a bigot for labeling homosexuality a perversion. Sure, it doesn't cause me harm personally. But that's not what defines a perversion Sam.
Right now, it's clear that our moralities are different. Are you telling me that your atheism hasn't the slightest effect on your value system?
vbfl920 1 year ago
@sammcalpine
And I am not suggesting that atrocities follow from your atheism. I am suggesting that they *can*, as a result of atheism informing your views.
Sam if you tell morally fallible humans that as a result of atheism, there is no right and wrong, do you not have enough street sense to know that such a statement *can* influence behavior?
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
Not non-trivially. Still ignoring that point, eh?
RobTheMonk8 1 year ago
@sammcalpine
So this leads me to a question:
Are *our* moral values different?
Why, what makes this so? Atheism/theism plays no part in how you see the world, thereby *informing* you of what you will value?
I'm sorry to offend, but it's the truth.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@sammcalpine
Let me also ask you this:
Let's say that Veritas48, or even I became an atheist in the next 48 hours.
Do you *not* think our behavior will change ?
Do you *not* think what we value will change?
Come on man.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
You just don't seem interested in the possibility that the ideas and methods which lead to atheism also lead to these views and not atheism itself, eh? Nice. Let's ignore as many possibilities, arguments, and flaws in our own reasoning as we have to to contend that a non-normative belief is somehow responsible for someone's misdeeds.
RobTheMonk8 1 year ago
Hey John, question:
What exactly do you *mean* when you say that something is "morally wrong"? If you were to say, "molesting a child is wrong", what exactly are you describing ABOUT the act of molesting a child, by calling it "wrong"? What MAKES a given act morally wrong?
(Saying, "It's wrong because we shouldn't do it," would be a non-answer to this question. What about it MAKES it something we shouldn't do?)
TheoreticalBullshit 1 year ago
@TheoreticalBullshit
Well, since I've got you here. Thanks for the tag. Coming up with interesting lies was easy enough but I am friggin' stumped for interesting truths :-/
RobTheMonk8 1 year ago
@RobTheMonk8
Now I don't know if you said this or not Rob, maybe Johns just Strawmaning you. But I wouldn't necessarily agree that behavior can not be derived from what "IS" the case. Behavior could be a perfect example of what is the case when looking into Environmental influences or effects of behavior due to chemical imbalances or if you subscribe to Evolutionary Psychology which would argue for Psy-adaptations or inherent traits. Basically the Nature side of the Nat/Nurture argument. Idk!
bananabread119 1 year ago
@TheoreticalBullshit
That's not what I'm trying to answer in this video. All I'm trying to show is how ideas about how the world is *can* influence behavior. ie, the statement "there is no right or wrong" can and does influence behavior. The link is possible.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920 I know it's not what you're answering, but I'm asking because as an observer, I find it extremely pertinent to the conversation you are having with Rob.
TheoreticalBullshit 1 year ago
@TheoreticalBullshit
To answer your question:
Tentatively though, I sort of agree with Hume that you can't reason yourself into value statements. Reason does not lead you to identifying what's moral. I don't think you can reason out why murder is wrong other than it just is the case that it's wrong. You either see it for what it is, accept it or reject it.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920 But that's not an answer to the question. If you don't know WHY or HOW something is wrong, how can you possibly know THAT it is wrong?
How do you identify "morally wrong" actions? What specifically are you describing about a deed when you are calling it "wrong"?
This isn't about reasoning. It's about meaning. I just want to know what you *mean*, when you say "rape is wrong".
TheoreticalBullshit 1 year ago
@vbfl920 ...Put another way, what aspects of a deed would you need to examine in order to diagnose whether it is morally wrong or not?
TheoreticalBullshit 1 year ago
@TheoreticalBullshit
How it would compare to the state of affairs we call "good". I'm not so sure that anything really makes something wrong other than the act deviates and rebels against a state of affairs we call good.
How is this pertinent Scott?
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920 We're getting somewhere.... sort of. But it only pushes the question back:
What would you look for in a state of affairs in order to diagnose it as "good"? What do you *mean* when you call a state of affairs "good"? What is it ABOUT a state of affairs that *makes* it "good"?
If the only way to diagnose a deed as "wrong" is to compare it to a "good" state of affairs, you need to know what a "good state of affairs" looks like, and what it means. Otherwise, you have no moral basis.
TheoreticalBullshit 1 year ago
@vbfl920 By the way, are you on Skype?
TheoreticalBullshit 1 year ago
@TheoreticalBullshit
No I just have an iPhone. My laptop is on a sabbatical. You can call me if you want. I offered the same to AHughman08 cause he invited me to skype, I just can't do it. He never got back with me about it.
Scott it's noteworthy for me to say that *you* are one of the atheists who argues against moral norms. Indeed, it follows from atheism that a universe that holds no way that things ought to be, that there is no way humans ought to behave.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
You have consistently conflated two ideas; you roundly assert that "there is no god" is effectively the statement "there is no way things ought to be." You have yet to justify this relationship, so far you have ignored your responsibility to to do so.
RobTheMonk8 1 year ago
Comment removed
bananabread119 1 year ago
Comment removed
bananabread119 1 year ago
HOLY SHIT!! JOHNNY!!!
bananabread119 1 year ago
You demonstrate that you never chat on FB anymore..lol jk homeboy. Hope all is well.. Good to see you on here again.. WJC!
Weallfart 1 year ago
And you're STILL failing to see the central point: the whole of the argument is this- the you cannot get an "OUGHT" from an "IS NOT." Atheism is an "IS NOT" and it is not, in any way, an "OUGHT."
RobTheMonk8 1 year ago
@RobTheMonk8
Yes, atheism is chock full of *is nots*. And that's precisely the problem, Rob.
Because those *is nots* are what lay the groundwork for cultivating and informing behavior. What atheism says *is* the case, is what creates the problem. You act like this is an issue for me.
Under atheism, there *is not* an objective morality that we are all bound to. Tell me this idea doesn't influence behavior.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
Oh, but this IS a problem for you; YOU are asserting a definite relationship between atheism and moral realism and you haven't a thing to support the relationship other than the difficulty you suffer in trying to conceive it being otherwise (woopty-fuckin-doo).
Is/ought. How much longer you gonna ignore it? Is/ought. Is. Ought.
Is.
Ought.
Is...
and then...
Ought.
Bridge the gap for me. Because, uh... you haven't yet.
RobTheMonk8 1 year ago
@RobTheMonk8
Oh- and- once you do manage to get an OUGHT from an IS NOT, don't forget that you still have your work ahead of you in establishing that holding atheism as a culpable idea is not trivial and irrelevant in light of all the other ideas equally or more responsible... you know, all the other ideas that don't run afoul of your cherished beliefs and which you don't feel compelled to decry as related. K? Cause that one's still waitin' for your attention.
RobTheMonk8 1 year ago
I think you're right on this. In fact it's more than just an abstract thought experiment, Jeffery Dahmer in a 1994 dateline interview said this "‘If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway."
You should watch the Bio on him, it's crazy.
-Matt
95TurboSol 1 year ago
@95TurboSol
See my video- the one to which this is a response- to see how Dahmer's testimony means nothing.
RobTheMonk8 1 year ago
@RobTheMonk8
Hey, Rob. I watched your whole video. For the most part I think it's pretty right on, however what I think Atheism does in relation to atrocities like dahmer is that it lays the ground work for the justification of ones denial of moral standards and duties. I take a fairly mild approach to this, Because I do not think Atheism causes bad moral behavior, it just brings rational justification for acts that would otherwise be "immoral".
-Matt
95TurboSol 1 year ago
@95TurboSol
I don't see how you can agree with any of it and contend atheism lays the groundwork... there is a logical disconnect between what IS the case (and what is NOT the case) and what OUGHT to be the case, therefore, atheism is A) culpable, but trivially so on the grounds that an infinite set of other ideas are as well or B) not culpable due to the is/ought fallacy.
And this is a genuine dichotomy. There is no third option.
RobTheMonk8 1 year ago
I get the Is/Ought distinction, there is no "ought to do X" that flows out of Atheism but there is no "prohibitions to do X "( Where X is any behavior). This can be causally connected with behavior because one may (And does) choose to or choose not to follow a certain desires based on beliefs about the world. With Dahmer's mental life (I desire to do X) and his beliefs about the world (X is not prohibited sense God does not exist) and so he decided to follow his desires.
95TurboSol 1 year ago
@95TurboSol
Thank you TurboSol.
And it doesn't even have to be cannabalism. It could be uncontrollable infidelity. I desire very strongly to sleep with women. It is hard for me to stay faithful to my wife. But I do so to honor God and my marriage. There is no God. Thus there really is no prohibition to commit adultery. Now it is *really* hard to control my desires and stay faithful to my wife.
Just an example.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
Exactly, my beliefs about the world (Theism in this case) informs my personal behavior every day. If I were to reject Theism next week and adopt Atheism then my beliefs about moral duties would change and would do things that I now reject as wrong (Like rejecting inappropriate sexual thoughts ect.) It is the very LACK of moral framework that influences my behavior on Atheism so the is ought distinction is bypassed completely here.
95TurboSol 1 year ago
I hope you can see the picture here, It's going from the framework of (Certain X's are wrong) to (There are no prohibitions for any X's) It is the lack of prohibition and our rational faculties in decision making to choose X, when we otherwise would not have is it were true that (I ought not do X). Can you see how this directly informs our behavior? Not by an ought but by an is of Atheism.
-Matt
95TurboSol 1 year ago
@95TurboSol
Holy crap, somebody gets it! Thank you Matt!
It is all about the *is'* of atheism which lays the groundwork for behavior. We are already morally fallible creatures. All you have to do is tell prone to reckless behavior that there *is* no right or wrong, there *is* no way you ought to behave, and it becomes highly likely that you will see behaviors change under that new framework of how the world *is*.
You got it bro!
vbfl920 1 year ago
@95TurboSol
Wile I agree that Behavior is an example of what "IS" the case. Still Atheism has no effect on behavior because it is a conclusion. Behavior acts as a response to stimulus, from either environmental influences, Changes in the Brains apparatus, or the sub consciousness. Atheism is simply a rational conclusion and nothing to do with behavioral aspects.
Also Dalmer was a bible thumping Creationist Christian! haha There is a video on Youtube of him saying that.
bananabread119 1 year ago
5) leaving your guns unlocked might result in death, but we hold you responsible not for the FACT that they were unlocked, but because we think you OUGHT to have locked them up. If your children killed themselves (god forbid) would you hold yourself responsible simply because it is true to say you left the guns unlocked, or because, valuing your children's lives, you feel you OUGHT to have taken precautions?
RobTheMonk8 1 year ago
4) Your analogies fail on the ground that they are, ultimately, appeals to consequence: locking your door would only have been advantageous, it would not have prevented theft. It is a FACT that leaving your door unlocked makes your property more accessible; it is a FACT that insurance companies demand and expect you to protect it to some degree; in conjunction with these facts, your VALUE for your property and reimbursement form the prescription: "lock your door." (see 2.)
RobTheMonk8 1 year ago
@RobTheMonk8
The only thing I was demonstrating to you was culpability for an incident even though it *isn't* the *cause* of the incident. The cause of the incident, as you would argue, is the burglars predilection for theft. I think I've demonstrated that there are more elements involved in the actual incidence other than the burglars' tendencies.
That's all I wanted to show you.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
Ok, but that gets us back to distributing the blame across myriad facts- cause effect relationships, the entire set of circumstantial facts, and the infinite set of negative descriptions that fail to forbid a behavior... I mean, my disbelief in unicorns doesn't forbid behavior, I suppose it's to blame too, isn't it? Making it all of trivial importance.
And yet... a disbelief in god is the only one anyone wants to lay the blame on.
You have yet to address this.
RobTheMonk8 1 year ago
@RobTheMonk8
There is one specific act that lays the *groundwork* for an incident in which children pick up guns.
That act is me leaving the guns on the counter. It doesn't cause them to fire the weapons, but it can be linked to the incident of them firing the weapons.
What makes atheism a *specific* player in all of this is that it speaks directly to the status of our actions , that there is no right or wrong actions.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
No. It. Doesn't. Atheism is disbelief in god; it is not moral realism, nor anti-realism, nor a belief in the healing power of pickle juice. If you want to insist there is a moral entailment, parse it out.
RobTheMonk8 1 year ago
@RobTheMonk8
Here's how it follows. Listen this time:
Ready?
In a universe where there is *no*way things ought to be, there is *no* way in which anyone ought to behave.
I've parsed this out to you 60 or so times now.
Or are you going to be incoherent and tell me that there *is* a way things ought to be even though atheism entails non-design?
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
PAY ATTENTION! I agree with the statement: "In a universe where there is *no*way things ought to be, there is *no* way in which anyone ought to behave." Ya got that? I never disagreed with it.
That is NOT what I've asked you to parse. Reread the comment you're responding to, for christ's sake. How does the statement "there is no god" ENTAIL, necessarily, the statement, "there is no way things ought to be." There are two distinct ideas and you're insisting a definite relationship.
RobTheMonk8 1 year ago
@RobTheMonk8
Ok you agree with my first statement.
Now, do I really need to hold your hand and walk you through this? Here's a diagram that will help illustrate:
Atheism = a universe that has no intent whatsoever = a universe where there is no way things ought to be = a universe where there is no way *we* ought to behave
You mean I literally had to walk you through that? You couldn't figure out what follows on your own?
vbfl920 1 year ago
@RobTheMonk8
Ok in saying that:
A universe that has no intent whatsoever is the *same* as a universe where is no way things ought to be.
Now, right in the middle of this set of facts, are you really going to say that all of a sudden it magically appears that there *IS* a way in which we ought to behave??
Why would there be??
vbfl920 1 year ago
Character limit is PISSING me off. Will respond via PM.
RobTheMonk8 1 year ago
@RobTheMonk8
Rob base, do a video response or email me. I can't check my PM's on
my iPhone for some stupid reason.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
Will facebook it to you. Not gonna make a video response because it be a feckin' re-post (insert scowly face emoticon)
RobTheMonk8 1 year ago
@RobTheMonk8
No prob broski, that'll work.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@RobTheMonk8 Rob, don't dispair. I experience this with John all the time. I end up having to repeat myself over and over and over, while John pretends that I didn't just say whatever I just said. It's VERY frustrating. But that's John's M.O.
TheoreticalBullshit 1 year ago
@TheoreticalBullshit
If I didn't kinda like him, I'd have murdered him with piranhas- parcel post- because we live in a godless universe and that sorta shit's allowed.
RobTheMonk8 1 year ago
That definite relationship is one of mutual exclusivity. You have repeatedly asserted that there can be no objective morality in a godless universe, that is a declaration of a definite relationship. That is, the ideas are connected by some fundamental idea at the root of each of them such that the truth of one positively forbids the truth of the other, as a matter of negation.
You have not demonstrated that. And, in fact, you CANNOT. One is purely descriptive, the other normative.
RobTheMonk8 1 year ago
1) The is/ought fallacy is the focus of my argument.
2) I never once said atheism is not causal; I said that it was not normative. A fact can be a "cause" for a person's action, but only in conjunction with a value.
3) If you require an example of an atheist moral realist, go talk to the guy, Khuno, who was chiming in on our exchange.
RobTheMonk8 1 year ago
There doesn't have to be objective morality in order for someone to believe in right or wrong. Subjective morality does not equal no morality.
HonestDiscussioner 1 year ago
@HonestDiscussioner
Subjective morality = No objective right or wrong
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920 Right, it equals subjective right and wrong. That is not the same as moral nihilism.
When you say you are an atheist, it says absolutely nothing about your stance on morality.
Now if you want to say that there is a link between subjective morality and atrocities, that's another story, but I'd have to argue that the qualifiers of that statement would apply equally to theism. Belief in an objective morality leads to it just as much if not more than belief in the subjective.
HonestDiscussioner 1 year ago
Atheism doesn't say there is no right or wrong. That's the point. You can be an atheist and believe that, but you can also be an atheist and believe that there is such a thing.
HonestDiscussioner 1 year ago
@HonestDiscussioner
Demonstrate that there is an objective morality given atheism.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
We don't have to and I don't contend that it's the case- I am NOT a moral realist. But moral realism is not irreconcilable with atheism. They are two independent ideas. YOU are asserting they have a definite relationship- that they are mutually exclusive. I contend that they have no relationship... and the onus is on ME to demonstrate that? Uh, no... you've got that turned around.
RobTheMonk8 1 year ago
@RobTheMonk8
Ok, fine.
Then demonstrate to me how it *is* the case given atheism. How is moral realism actually the case in a universe devoid of any way we ought to behave.
What does it even mean for you to say the two aren't irreconcilable when you can't demonstrate that moral realism *is* the case, given atheism.
I don't think for one minute it is.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
Appeal to ignorance again? "I don't know that moral realism is possible in a godless universe, therefore it's impossible."
I can't demonstrate moral realism, PERIOD. With or without god.
Can you demonstrate moral realism given god? And- remember- you can't just define your way out of the problem.
I mean that moral realism is not mutually exclusive with the notion of a godless universe. And if it IS irreconcilable, I fail to see how a universe WITH god isn't equally so.
RobTheMonk8 1 year ago
@RobTheMonk8
No, it's not an appeal to
ignorance. It's incoherent for you to suggest it.
So, in a universe that is devoid of a way for humans to behave, there *is* a way for humans to behave?
That makes no sense Rob.
It's so incoherent I don't think it's possible for you to demonstrate it.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
If it's incoherent, it would produce some contradiction, yes? So... where is that contradiction?
"So, in a universe that is devoid of a way for humans to behave, there *is* a way for humans to behave?"
Uh, yes, that IS incoherent... and not at all what I said.
Do you stickam, aim, anything? Because this is getting frustrating.
RobTheMonk8 1 year ago