You are obviously referring to New Age Christians, and I say this because you are defending your position by pointing things that you see New Age Christians do, and I mean those who go to churches on Sundays etc.. I am a Bible believing Christian and I can guaranty you that I dont fit in any of the 7 points you touch upon, so if I was you I would rectify the title of this video and point your finger to the right type of people. You are deceiving others by confusing true Christianity with New Age
If you have no fear of demons etc..then why don't you try to conjure them up? If they don't exist, then you have nothing to worry about. "Insanity is condemnation prior to investigation". If you give an excuse for not doing so then you are copping out. I really don't want you to do this but if it will help save your soul, then it is very important. You seem like a savvy individual. If you are serious about your beliefs, you will do whatever it takes to prove your "theory". Conjure up a demon.
How I love our religion, Deism. We don't have to pray, worship, read scripture or sacrifice lambs because of superstition. We choose to do things how we want. We don't have a complicated religion, we have the best religion in the world.
Dude, this venue is not proper for a thourough discussion on morality. Still, to say that it is subjective justifies any and all heinous crimes that have ever been and will be comitted. Maybe you weren't listening to yourself when you said it. Think again.
If you don't understand the concept of subjectivity of morality you have no place arguing with someone about it.
Anti-Gay legislature is subjective morality. Claiming that the eating of shellfish or pork is an abomination is subjective morality.
Morality is a construct of the mob, decided by numbers, not by reason.
There is no place for morality or morality law in a world where you can simply evaluate whether the impact of an action infringes the rights of someone else.
Morality is entirely subjective and has always varied from culture to culture, religion to religion and even person to person. What you think is wrong does not necessarily coincide with what anyone else thinks is wrong. Vegans think eating beef is murder, christians think gays are wrong, many think prostitution is wrong, or drugs, yet others fight to legalize them. Morality is always and will be always subjective because people will always have their own ideas of what is right and wrong.
I actually agree with what you're saying ... not the philosophical consequences. That is, just because some people and peoples have sought to basterdize the concept or morality, does not make the concept itself subjective. What's wrong is wrong. Just because the Mayans thought human sacrifice was moral,and proceeded to murder a large quantity of their citzens, does not murder moral.
There are plenty of occasions when murder is moral, like in defense of a child. The morality of a soldier's actions are subjectively determined depending on how his country feels about the person being killed. All morality is subjective and situational. What about killing someone you honestly believe is going to kill you but is actually innocent? You still knowingly murdered but there was no malicious intent. Morality will always be a grey area, you can set guidelines but it's a judgement call.
The instances you give are not murder. Now, if you believe killing someone is immoral, that is up for argument. I do not believe it is in any of the instances you gave.
Again, the concept remains, I believe, resolute. That people and peoples do something else with the concept does not change the concept itself. That is like saying the end justifies the means.
Also ... the post frlom "dedillo6o" is my post. Please don't reply to him.
Murder is killing with intent (ie not an accident). Self defense doesn't negate murder, it's just a justification for it. You are arguing semantics and your own personal beliefs/opinions (ie subjective). Some believe that killing of any form, even of insects is wrong, others believe different degrees of magnitude and circumstance, all subjective.
Tell that to a pacifist or a Gian. You show your arrogance and ignorance of other people's beliefs by your blanket statements and insulting language. You aren't arguing subjectively or philosophically, you are arguing badly and I'm done with you.
praying or meditating a couple of times a day can be good for your heart from a physiologcally point of view. SO does physical excercise. If the doctor advises you to do some physical excercise or meditatioin and you do it because it is good for your health, would you not be a freethinker??.
Prayer and meditation are simply concentration exercises, you would gain the same benefit from playing a children's matching game. Saying prayer is beneficial to your mind is like saying it's beneficial to your knees because they get exercise from all the kneeling.
Yes. I sometimes meditate as a stress-relief excercise. Of course, I recognize it for what it is. I have no illusions about (or need for) any of the New Age woo. I can get the benefits without all that.
I sometimes wonder if the same might be done for religion. Can we get all the benefits, the community, fellowship and charity drives, without having to believe any dogma?
Since it's been done many times, obviously it can. All of the benefits of religion exist all around us without it and there are many organizations that provide all of them and more without it. There is no reason to have religion, it provides no benefit that can't be had elsewhere and its pitfalls are beyond counting, the entire proposition is insane.
Deistpaladin. I am curious about your thoughts on morality. You have it, but how can you explain it scientifically? Morality is the only thing that I have come across that lends to the idea of a creator. I have seen arguments that morals assist in the procreation of the species, but I find the evidence to be lacking.
Isn't morality just a set of guidelines that a given group of people makes about what actions are commonly wanted and unwanted based on their shared needs and desires and altruism? I don't see why it can't be explained scientifically. Where's the magic?
Altruism is what is selected for through evolutionarry means.
But when it comes down to actually establishing moral guidelines, philosophy is truly where the debate is waged. Various schools tend to define what is right and wrong in different ways.
For instance, utilitarianism defines what is right as what brings the most good to the most people. Sacrificing one to save a thousand can be considered moral under these guidelines, though there are variant forms with different positions.
How to go about achieving fairness can certainly be debated about due to unforeseen cause and effect and too many variables to reasonably calculate. If everything was crystal clear we would have one clear objective morality.
The variance in guidelines is due to human shortcomings.
There is no such thing as "objective morality" by definition.
"Objective" would imply that it can be measured, that there might be units of morality that can be plugged into a spreadsheet. Morality is a concept that involves judgment. The very fact we use terms like "moral judgment" indicates that we all know it is subjective.
Every "judgment" a person makes is the result of countless factors of cause and effect. No such thing as free will. Subjective morality is just a place holder for objective, because we can't unravel a perfect system, yet. Obj-morality may not exist by definition, but could exist one day, and there is an universal benefit for working towards it IMO.
The idea that what's right to one person may be wrong to another, and can never be reconciled, is nothing short of an appeal to ignorance.
Right, and I fully agree that absolute objective morality is impossible, as everything we hold to be objective still rest on our subjective view of reality.
I enjoy watching your serene confidence, and your ability to dispense with the wicked desert gods and yet retain the idea of a deity. I don't understand deism, I confess, but I do appreciate that you can be spiritual without being artificially separate and judgmental. Best regards for the "festive period."
I'm not afraid of Homosexuals. I also think that not having any loyalty to a particular mass delusion allows for a wide range of topics to be discussed and jokes to be made. Whereas if I did subscribe to a mass delusion I would most likely be constrained in terms of what I would feel comfortable discussing or making light of. So a Christian, a Jew and a Muslim walk into a bar ...
Loved both the video and the decor, that's one fantastic looking room! I actually assumed that there would be few if any Deistic video's kicking around on YouTube, it's nice to be proved wrong.
You defined one aspect of morality as "leaving the world better off than you found it" or something of the sort, just out of curiosity do you think not making any attempt to make the world a better place, but still following the other two rules of morality, makes a person in any way immoral?
A very good question. I've given that topic some thought since making that video.
I'm starting to think of the rule you mention in Maslow-like fashion. Morality begins with the basics, a commitment to honesty, respect and responsibility, and graduates to the next level which would be trying to make a positive difference.
The reason I am thankful to be a freethinker is that I do not have to desperately scramble to resolve the conflicting ideologies of a holy book in order to create a consistent one. Whenever I was a Christian I was constantly flip-flopping from one theological position (i.e. Calvinism) to another (i.e. Arminianism). There is nothing greater to be thankful for than the peace of mind achieved with acquiring a consistent belief system.
Interesting points. I grew up with a friend who was a devout Baptist from the word go, who tried to convince me at the tender age of 6 that I would burn in hell unless I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal savior. Sounded pretty ludicrous to me at 6, sounds even more ludicrous to me now at 43. As far as I am concerned, if there is nothing beyond this life, I am good with that. I'd rather spend my time making a difference in the here and now instead of worrying about the hereafter.
Empathy is the quality whereby we imagine ourselves in another ones shoes what it is like to be that person (or animal) and experience what that person is experiencing. And it's more than just imagining it, it's actually feeling it which is where the expression I feel your pain comes from. The reason that I believe morality is impossible without empathy is that I cannot imagine what possible value any morality could have if it is not ultimately based on empathy. One love.
Most attempts to explain morality do derive from a sense of empathy. From Jesus' Golden Rule, Mill's Social Contract or Rawl's Veil of Ignorance, we have different expressions of this basic idea.
Bentham did something a little different when he spoke of the Pleasure Principle which may answer your question. Here morality was not based on an appeal to empathy but an almost businesslike pleasure maximization for the universe.
John your Quote " Third thing is that i live for this life,in this world, and it's kinda of nice believing in some sort of after life, i am sure that it's really comforting"
Now Mr Deist or freethinker explain to us what's exactly your concept of after life?
I remember as a child, being forced to attend church services every sunday.. all my non religious friends would be out playing and having fun ... i'd be stuck in a church ,praying to a god that secretly, i didn't believe in. Never once has God revealed himself to me, .. even in my darkest moments. .. and i have had some very dark moments in my life. You are like a breath of fresh Air on a mountain top DeistPaladin.
Well..tell us about your concept of " There's no heaven nor there's a hell, it's all about hoping there will be one..Do you believe there's NONE? if so tell us about the Deism idea of after life.
Memory is stored in the brain and accessed through it. If the brain becomes damaged, through injury or illness, memories may be lost. It's like a hard drive that's damaged.
This is not what "I believe". This is what we know and observe.
If memory is lost when the brain is damaged, what makes you hope that memory can survive the utter destruction of the brain at death?
This is not the right answer...you are talking about a memory damage due illness or injury,that's fine! acceptable story, we all know that but whats your explanation as deist to what's happen later on ( AFTER LIFE) ? that was my question, you dig it? Sallam
No need to explain how dreams work. This is understood by the science of neurology. They've studied how the brain works during REM stages of sleep, when you "dream". What's left for me to explain?
look i am not talking about the mechanism and how the brain function during dreams at sleep, i am talking about why would a people suffer nightmares and enjoy dreams? why some are great good dreams and some are nightmares like hell. it's clear that the 2 stages are reflecting people life and events,. why it's not all sweet dreams or all are hell? you dig it? sallam
I don't need to know about the mechanism and the functions of the brain while dreaming. i am talking about why there's a nightmares and sweet dreams? why there's suffering and enjoyments (hell and heaven) displayed by a sleeping brain? do dreams and nightmares reflect issues related the human's daily life activities,events and deeds while the brain is a wake? what's the link between real life and nightmares and dreams. you dig it? Sallam
There's a lot more to it than just that, but it's a good enough summary for YouTube comments. 500 characters isn't enough to go into the details of dreaming.
Still, it's worth noting that sleep phases are cyclical; you can get from 2 to 4 unique REM states (dreams) in one night. We just perceive them as a unified dream because our mind thinks narratively, stringing them together into a coherent whole. (In reality, they're about as sensical as a Monty Python episode, minus Cleese at the desk.)
True, and I apologize for over-simplifying. It even occurred to me as I posted that I was doing so. My mother was a psychologist and would have probably chuckled at my one sentence summary of what a doctoral thesis might be inadequate to fully explore.
well suffering in nightmares has it both psychological and physiological as well as enjoyment in dreams...yes desire and anxieties both reflected in dreams and nightmares,it has to be good little lesson of what's heaven and hell, when the brain sleeps. you dig it. sallam
Benghazison: A dream / nightmare "has to be good little lesson of what's heaven and hell, when the brain sleeps"
Insubstantial, subjectively defined, based on subconscious (irrational) illustrations of sensations, and ultimately a human construct, being a figment of imaginations?
Yeah, I can buy that.
There is a way the world is. Really REALLY wishing otherwise, drawing parallels between your fantasy and reality, doesn't change things.If I write a story where Rome never fell, Rome still fell.
Look...it's as easy as this,when the brain sleeps and having dreams and nightmares there's a suffering in nightmares and enjoyment in dreams, is there suffering and enjoyment while the brain sleeping or not? please short answer yes or no? thanks and Sallam
You claimed that dreams and nightmares were essentially previews of heaven and hell, respectively. Now you are moving the goalposts to merely say that dreams and nightmares are enjoyment and suffering.
Unless, logically, you assert that any joy is heaven and any suffering is hell, your argument fails. If you make that assertion, you have to substantiate it with evidence - and there is no evidence for heaven or hell, so the argument fails there too.
Indeed, even as a deist, I'll say there's no need to invoke the supernatural when a natural explanation will do just fine. Dreams can be understood at the level of the physical brain and the study of the personality.
I just ask because I hear some states are more religious than others, so I wondered what you were up against in the state you are in, Is Kentucky conservative?
Kentucky is so "red" (conservative), most pres. candidates never even bother to visit unless it's a layover on their campaign trail. If the Dems could raise Washington and Lincoln from the graves and run them on their ticket, they still would lose my state. There's a church on every corner and an anti-abortion billboard on every interstate.
I'll check with lulu to see if they ship overseas. You might try to order from them and see.
Thats tuff, im lucky in New Zealand, weir really liberal, simialar to Eurpe I guess, there are alot of Churches still but no one goes to them, abortions a non issue here, as far as I can remember iv only seen one anti abortion sign here.
ok thanks for checking, im currently reading Dawkins new one.
So Mr deist.whats your explanation to the state of sleeping brain? Dreams and nightmares! people enjoy dreams and they suffer nightmares. so when humans sleep he/she would go through 2 stages,either hell or heaven? suffering and enjoyment.why there's suffering and enjoyment when the brain is resting (sleeping). let see how deism would solve this dilemma of After Life? sallam
Because that is the point he has reached so far in his life. Deists, Agnostics, Atheists, Pantheists, we are all free thinkers out for the same goal. That is the problem with "New Atheism" it's just as dogmatic than any other organized religion.
P.S. Why are you a "Deist" and not an "Atheist".....
I'm sure you have been asked that a million times, and probably have a video explaining this..If so, please copy/past the link, or let me know when you have time...:)
I used to have a good friend that was a wiccan. I told her "well, show me something!" She said "it doesn't work like that". Sound familiar? I said well then what you have is a fun hobby, and that's it. She got a bit offended, but its the damn truth.
I am thankful that I get to listen to you and some of the other freethinking Youtube pioneers. Before I started to listen to people like you, I thought that I was the one missing something, but now realize they are.
Funny how while reading George Orwell's 1984 in school, children are never asked where they think he got his ideas from (they're not directly told either)... despite that being a large part of the study of authors and their technique. (which you do for other authors)
when you read Edgar Allen Poe's works you're often told that his dark style likely came from his unfortunate life.... etc... etc...
o what a fun experiment it would be to mention this in a classroom.... what fun what fun.
No, Orwell didn't work for either MI 5 or 6. In fact both groups kept files on Orwell and considered him a potentially dangerous subversive. Wells too was a democratic socialist whom British spies watched.
Wow bearpaw72, but that's a very deluded question. If you take religion, dogma, and fairy tales, you wind up with neither god nor an afterlife either. Perhaps you should worship C'thulhu ?
One thing though... saying you're "thankful" implies someone to thank. In this case I don't think there is anyone. Perhaps the word "happy" would be more appropriate.
Yeah, well, at 40 I consider myself fortunate to still have any hair on the top of my head at all. Given what my father looked like at this age, I got lucky.
Baldness is inherited from the female line (it's X-related).
That brings me to one of my chief reasons -- my desire for understanding is not subverted by the need for illogical pseudo-justifications of emotionally-motivated counterfactual beliefs.
@Jenny: Yeah, that's what I was just thinking. I don't think that any religious people do that. Back when my family went to church, we gave like $1 a week.
For someone making $40,000/year, that would mean you give around $750 per week if it's 10%!
I was first shocked when I read your comment, but then I realized there was a 0 too much.
It's actually about $75.
Still I find this an quite high price to pay, especially taking into account that God doesn't seem to spend very much of that money.
I also find funny how the same people that give $75 a week to the church tend to be so reluctant to pay the same amount to the State, which need the money for solving REAL problems.
Most do. In the mormon church, a 10% tax is required to keep your temple card (so you can get married in the temple for free, get sealed, take part in temple ceremonies, etc.)
The term "wonderful" is fairly synonymous with miraculous, rooted from the German word "Wunder", meaning "miracle". For the deist, life and the natural universe ARE the miracle, as well as the sole basis for our spirituality.
The message is we don't need parting waters or virgin births. The natural universe is enough.
John, thank you for underscoring one of the benefits of rational thinking, that is seldom highlighted. People always talk about rational thinking in terms of scientific advancements, or allowing us to have greater freedoms in life, or allowing us to discover new truths about the universe. What is often not mentioned is the liberating effect that rationality can have on us, by breaking the bonds of fear, that have far too long now bound humanity. Great job!
hehe. I learned a word from Hitchens regarding the point you raised: "invigilation."
What you missed: The POSITIVE things. The opportunities to believe in GREATER magic than the magic of religion: things like evolution, a universe unimaginably VAST in time and space, colossal forces that we DON'T understand, but probably WILL some day. The very plausible idea that there is OTHER life out there, maybe VERY different from us, which may have VERY interesting things to tell us someday...
I think by moral nihilism he means amorality, that there is no right or wrong. This is the topic of video #2 that I'd promised regarding the TAG argument.
There are numerous ways you can argue from morality without invoking some sort of divine judge. One is the Bentham pleasure-principle approach. Another is Mill's social contract. A variation is Rawl's "Veil of Ignorance" to evaluate matters of social justice.
Bottom line: Godwillsit isn't any more satisfying than Goddidit.
so they're practical. what do you say to someone who has no concern for his well being? Does the "pleasure principle" or "social contract" not apply to them? Well if certain individuals are exempted from these moral absolutes, then what value is any set of morals?
Are you suggesting that someone who is suicidal wouldn't be covered under any of these concepts of morality? I think Bentham might have something to say on this, since the loss of the suicidal person would be to the grieving friends and relatives.
Migkillertwo: Any social animal that acts to sabotage its kin (on an individual or group level) is actively damaging the infrastructure it needs to survive. Thus, one would expect (over time) that mechanisms for dealing with sociopathic individuals would be developed (such as ostracism or capital punishment).
We see this sort of behaviour in all social animals, from ants to piranhas to lions to wolves to monkeys... and in us (for example, the social contract). Does morality apply to non-humans?
The value of morality is the function of human civilization and the greatest promotion of the well-being of our fellow sentient beings. We are community animals that depend on one another to survive. What other value should you attribute to morality?
The problem of induction only implies that our *understanding* of the laws of nature needs updating. It says nothing about the laws themselves changing (that is, when Newton showed celestial and terrestrial motion were due to the same force, gravity didn't change - we just understood it differently). Furthermore, unless a new theory explains all the observations the old one did, it isn't adopted.
You call this inconvenient. I call it error-correcting.
no no no, I think you need to read Hume (and panineau) a little more closely. The problem of induction very much so implies that we can't be sure that the laws of nature will not, at some time in the future, change.
Iif you're operating off of Hume (I associate the problem of induction more with Popper and similar philosophers of science rather than traditional philosophies; I misunderstood your reference), and if the laws of physics themselves change some time in the future, an error-correcting method can and will detect the change and adjust our understanding accordingly.
Such a method is called "science". You may have heard of it.
How on earth this particular response to the problem of induction so popular?
That we would observe such changes in the laws of nature doesn't solve the problem one iota. The problem is the question How we know they will not change. If we dont know that they will not change, then science becomes a worthless past time.
"If we dont know that they will not change, then science becomes a worthless past time."
you could not be more wrong, and your comment shows some ignorance about what science actually is. science is the METHOD that we used in order to find out what we found out about the universe so far.
IF the laws of physics WOULD change over time, we would find out about it sooner or later by doing science. and then we would come up with scientific theories, or revise old ones, to explain it.
kurtilein3, to say that science is a reliable method for gathering knoweldge is to make a fuck-ton of assumptions about the natural world, chief among them is the uniformity of nature. If a box rolled into my room, you would surely agree that the most rational, scientific answer would be that the ball rolled in from another room. But that assumes that balls can't just come into existence. Who's to say that the laws of nature didn't change just before the ball came a-rolling into my room?
migkillertwo: "Who's to say that the laws of nature didn't change just before the ball came a-rolling into my room? "
only common sense can tell you that. either you have it, or you dont. at the moment, your arguments imply that you should be too stupid to get anything done in life. your arguments imply that you hope for ball-shaped breads that roll into your room instead of going to get some if you are hungry. assume that there is one reality and that it exists, or be doomed.
if yes, then you do not believe what you are proclaiming here, because you bet your life, your physical existence in this universe, on science while entering the airplane. you assumed that the laws of nature used to design the airplane before you entered it would be the same after takeoff.
you just want to make yourself look clever by raising seemingly difficult problems, which then require long explanations, but in the end you do look stupid.
"you assumed that the laws of nature used to design the airplane before you entered it would be the same after takeoff."
exactly! But the problem is that I CAN'T JUSTIFY THAT ASSUMPTION WITH PAST EXPERIENCE! Sure, we can assume the uniformity of nature, but that doesn't make the uniformity of nature rational. If someone actually doubted the uniformity of nature, You could not say "well I just assume it, therefore its rational".
Migkiller: "You could not say 'well I just assume it, therefore its rational'"
The irony of hearing this from a Christian is hilarious. You do exactly this with your peculiar view of God and scripture.
For the record, since science doesn't deal in absolute certainty, the simple idea of a confidence interval is enough for us to bypass the worst of the problem of induction, at least so far as practical applications are concerned, while still understanding we'll never know for sure.
"exactly! But the problem is that I CAN'T JUSTIFY THAT ASSUMPTION WITH PAST EXPERIENCE!"
i can justify it. ive been on airplanes several times. i know how many people use airpanes successfully. i know the laws of nature behind it.
if you cannot justify it, then thats your problem. but i can tell you that people that really "believe" the bullshit that you promote here are unable to successfully interact with their environment, they need constant care and stay like children until they die.
Moral nihilism and ethical nihilism are synonymous. Ethics and morality are synonymous. Morality is what we ought to do, and ethics is simply the formal study of morality.
what is the difference between "ethics" and 'morality'. I've never heard any working philosopher try to divorce the two, its usually people like you on youtube who try to divorce them.
you assume tjhat ethics and morality are the same, but you are wrong. ethical rules are not necessarily universal, they work this way: you understand that they make sense, then you apply them to yourself, and then you can reason with others that dont follow them.
moral laws are given from above / outside / elsewhere. because you know that everyone should follow them, even if you yourself dont, you can complain about others breaking them while breaking them yourself.
second comment to migkillertwo about ethics/morality:
the human rights would be ethics, because people used reason in order to arrive at them, and tried hard to use rules that can be reasoned for. we know humans did it.
the ten commandents would be morality. it doesnt matter if some of them dont make sense. they spread because they supposedly come from GOD, not because the individual rules and/or the whole set of rules are convincing on their own.
You are obviously referring to New Age Christians, and I say this because you are defending your position by pointing things that you see New Age Christians do, and I mean those who go to churches on Sundays etc.. I am a Bible believing Christian and I can guaranty you that I dont fit in any of the 7 points you touch upon, so if I was you I would rectify the title of this video and point your finger to the right type of people. You are deceiving others by confusing true Christianity with New Age
squaredeyeball 1 month ago in playlist More videos from DeistPaladin
Brilliantly said.. I couldnt agree more :)
sacrednic 6 months ago
If you have no fear of demons etc..then why don't you try to conjure them up? If they don't exist, then you have nothing to worry about. "Insanity is condemnation prior to investigation". If you give an excuse for not doing so then you are copping out. I really don't want you to do this but if it will help save your soul, then it is very important. You seem like a savvy individual. If you are serious about your beliefs, you will do whatever it takes to prove your "theory". Conjure up a demon.
bheadh 6 months ago
Comment removed
darkSLAYERS95 9 months ago
i hate all imaginary god...
darkSLAYERS95 9 months ago
I like your take on things! ( ;
keepruvthknight 1 year ago
Wow that's a lot of blue!
BRITinKY 1 year ago
shit i'd be more scared of a supernova then a demon.
bboyloco3 1 year ago
Priceless! Sleep in on sundays!
KSH2006 2 years ago
Real isn't real because I don't feel it, is that what you're saying?
early2it 2 years ago
@early2it "demonstrable" would probably be a better word.
idreamtofflight 11 months ago
How I love our religion, Deism. We don't have to pray, worship, read scripture or sacrifice lambs because of superstition. We choose to do things how we want. We don't have a complicated religion, we have the best religion in the world.
TheVodkaHaze 2 years ago 6
I am thankful to be a Free Thinker because it annoys my enemies.
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much" - Oscar Wilde
Tiwaking 2 years ago
Thanks for posting.agree with every word Cheers !
fluxgenerator 2 years ago
Dude, this venue is not proper for a thourough discussion on morality. Still, to say that it is subjective justifies any and all heinous crimes that have ever been and will be comitted. Maybe you weren't listening to yourself when you said it. Think again.
FreethinkerChronicle 2 years ago
If you don't understand the concept of subjectivity of morality you have no place arguing with someone about it.
Anti-Gay legislature is subjective morality. Claiming that the eating of shellfish or pork is an abomination is subjective morality.
Morality is a construct of the mob, decided by numbers, not by reason.
There is no place for morality or morality law in a world where you can simply evaluate whether the impact of an action infringes the rights of someone else.
ReasonIsMySword 2 years ago
Yes I understand the concept fully. Again, this is not the venue for discussion and to discuss here suggests that u don't understand the concept.
I agree, anti-gay laws are subjective. Legislating morality has been done for many years. Still, morality in of itself is not a subjective concept.
FreethinkerChronicle 2 years ago
Morality is entirely subjective and has always varied from culture to culture, religion to religion and even person to person. What you think is wrong does not necessarily coincide with what anyone else thinks is wrong. Vegans think eating beef is murder, christians think gays are wrong, many think prostitution is wrong, or drugs, yet others fight to legalize them. Morality is always and will be always subjective because people will always have their own ideas of what is right and wrong.
FlyingFree333 2 years ago
I actually agree with what you're saying ... not the philosophical consequences. That is, just because some people and peoples have sought to basterdize the concept or morality, does not make the concept itself subjective. What's wrong is wrong. Just because the Mayans thought human sacrifice was moral,and proceeded to murder a large quantity of their citzens, does not murder moral.
cedillo6o 2 years ago
There are plenty of occasions when murder is moral, like in defense of a child. The morality of a soldier's actions are subjectively determined depending on how his country feels about the person being killed. All morality is subjective and situational. What about killing someone you honestly believe is going to kill you but is actually innocent? You still knowingly murdered but there was no malicious intent. Morality will always be a grey area, you can set guidelines but it's a judgement call.
FlyingFree333 2 years ago
The instances you give are not murder. Now, if you believe killing someone is immoral, that is up for argument. I do not believe it is in any of the instances you gave.
Again, the concept remains, I believe, resolute. That people and peoples do something else with the concept does not change the concept itself. That is like saying the end justifies the means.
Also ... the post frlom "dedillo6o" is my post. Please don't reply to him.
FreethinkerChronicle 2 years ago
Murder is killing with intent (ie not an accident). Self defense doesn't negate murder, it's just a justification for it. You are arguing semantics and your own personal beliefs/opinions (ie subjective). Some believe that killing of any form, even of insects is wrong, others believe different degrees of magnitude and circumstance, all subjective.
FlyingFree333 2 years ago
OK ... now you're being bratty ... to say that to kill in self-defense is immoral is justy silly.
I'm not arguing subjectively. I'm arguing philosophically.
FreethinkerChronicle 2 years ago
Tell that to a pacifist or a Gian. You show your arrogance and ignorance of other people's beliefs by your blanket statements and insulting language. You aren't arguing subjectively or philosophically, you are arguing badly and I'm done with you.
FlyingFree333 2 years ago
praying or meditating a couple of times a day can be good for your heart from a physiologcally point of view. SO does physical excercise. If the doctor advises you to do some physical excercise or meditatioin and you do it because it is good for your health, would you not be a freethinker??.
SuperOpenminded 2 years ago
Prayer and meditation are simply concentration exercises, you would gain the same benefit from playing a children's matching game. Saying prayer is beneficial to your mind is like saying it's beneficial to your knees because they get exercise from all the kneeling.
FlyingFree333 2 years ago
Yes. I sometimes meditate as a stress-relief excercise. Of course, I recognize it for what it is. I have no illusions about (or need for) any of the New Age woo. I can get the benefits without all that.
I sometimes wonder if the same might be done for religion. Can we get all the benefits, the community, fellowship and charity drives, without having to believe any dogma?
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Since it's been done many times, obviously it can. All of the benefits of religion exist all around us without it and there are many organizations that provide all of them and more without it. There is no reason to have religion, it provides no benefit that can't be had elsewhere and its pitfalls are beyond counting, the entire proposition is insane.
FlyingFree333 2 years ago
So part of your morality standards you derive from your culture. Would that be arbitrary??/
SuperOpenminded 2 years ago
1:11 " Like I can't eat certain kinds of meat"
do you eat dog meat? IS it moral to eat dog meat acccording to you??
In Thailand e.g. dog meat is ok to eat according to their culture. It is not man's best friend. It is just like lamb to them.
SuperOpenminded 2 years ago
Okay. So we've covered everything under the sun on morality. I guess, what I meant to ask is, why do we feel guilt, sympathy, etc...
If I were to kill a man for a billion dollars, I would be financially set. It should be time for celebration, yet I would still feel guilty.
wartornpanda 2 years ago
I may not be a deist, but this guy has his arguments and together. Kudos man
seeingglass86 2 years ago
Deistpaladin. I am curious about your thoughts on morality. You have it, but how can you explain it scientifically? Morality is the only thing that I have come across that lends to the idea of a creator. I have seen arguments that morals assist in the procreation of the species, but I find the evidence to be lacking.
wartornpanda 2 years ago
Morality can't be explained scientifically. It's the domain of philosophy.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago 4
well that completely depends on how morality is defined
excandersham 2 years ago 2
Isn't morality just a set of guidelines that a given group of people makes about what actions are commonly wanted and unwanted based on their shared needs and desires and altruism? I don't see why it can't be explained scientifically. Where's the magic?
xXAkridXx 2 years ago
Altruism is what is selected for through evolutionarry means.
But when it comes down to actually establishing moral guidelines, philosophy is truly where the debate is waged. Various schools tend to define what is right and wrong in different ways.
For instance, utilitarianism defines what is right as what brings the most good to the most people. Sacrificing one to save a thousand can be considered moral under these guidelines, though there are variant forms with different positions.
ISDP1337 2 years ago
How to go about achieving fairness can certainly be debated about due to unforeseen cause and effect and too many variables to reasonably calculate. If everything was crystal clear we would have one clear objective morality.
The variance in guidelines is due to human shortcomings.
xXAkridXx 2 years ago
There is no such thing as "objective morality" by definition.
"Objective" would imply that it can be measured, that there might be units of morality that can be plugged into a spreadsheet. Morality is a concept that involves judgment. The very fact we use terms like "moral judgment" indicates that we all know it is subjective.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Every "judgment" a person makes is the result of countless factors of cause and effect. No such thing as free will. Subjective morality is just a place holder for objective, because we can't unravel a perfect system, yet. Obj-morality may not exist by definition, but could exist one day, and there is an universal benefit for working towards it IMO.
The idea that what's right to one person may be wrong to another, and can never be reconciled, is nothing short of an appeal to ignorance.
xXAkridXx 2 years ago
Well, there isn't such a thing as "Absolute" Objective Morality.
Every code of conduct or philosophy made by humans is objective.
An example that might be somewhat close to absolute morality is the limits of our moral plasticity as determined by our genetic code.
But even that isn't absolute, because it changes, however slowly.
sciencemile 2 years ago
Right, and I fully agree that absolute objective morality is impossible, as everything we hold to be objective still rest on our subjective view of reality.
xXAkridXx 2 years ago
I enjoy watching your serene confidence, and your ability to dispense with the wicked desert gods and yet retain the idea of a deity. I don't understand deism, I confess, but I do appreciate that you can be spiritual without being artificially separate and judgmental. Best regards for the "festive period."
Largo64 2 years ago
Do you really consider yourself as a free thinker? & If so do you have a logical reason for your belief in a creator?
yellowkrux 2 years ago
I'm not afraid of Homosexuals. I also think that not having any loyalty to a particular mass delusion allows for a wide range of topics to be discussed and jokes to be made. Whereas if I did subscribe to a mass delusion I would most likely be constrained in terms of what I would feel comfortable discussing or making light of. So a Christian, a Jew and a Muslim walk into a bar ...
ThawtProcess 2 years ago
Loved both the video and the decor, that's one fantastic looking room! I actually assumed that there would be few if any Deistic video's kicking around on YouTube, it's nice to be proved wrong.
Corsican153 2 years ago
You defined one aspect of morality as "leaving the world better off than you found it" or something of the sort, just out of curiosity do you think not making any attempt to make the world a better place, but still following the other two rules of morality, makes a person in any way immoral?
theycallmebobFOO 2 years ago
A very good question. I've given that topic some thought since making that video.
I'm starting to think of the rule you mention in Maslow-like fashion. Morality begins with the basics, a commitment to honesty, respect and responsibility, and graduates to the next level which would be trying to make a positive difference.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
I'm thankful that my shirt doesn't match the color of my walls.... and for family.
z2153 2 years ago
Hey, don't knock it. When the fundies come around looking for me to burn me at the stake, I just line up against the wall and remain VERY STILL... ;)
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Come on, when are you going to re-upload the rest of your old videos? :-(
Akatam0t0ma 2 years ago
Working on it. I tried to upload last night but had connection problems.
It's my new video on the TAG argument but I'll be uploading older ones as well.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
I hated the idea of being a slave. If there were a god, I would feel like a slave.
juliecranford 2 years ago
Very good video.
I am thankful that I don't have to "Christmas Shop."
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 2 years ago
The reason I am thankful to be a freethinker is that I do not have to desperately scramble to resolve the conflicting ideologies of a holy book in order to create a consistent one. Whenever I was a Christian I was constantly flip-flopping from one theological position (i.e. Calvinism) to another (i.e. Arminianism). There is nothing greater to be thankful for than the peace of mind achieved with acquiring a consistent belief system.
reprise92 2 years ago
Interesting points. I grew up with a friend who was a devout Baptist from the word go, who tried to convince me at the tender age of 6 that I would burn in hell unless I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal savior. Sounded pretty ludicrous to me at 6, sounds even more ludicrous to me now at 43. As far as I am concerned, if there is nothing beyond this life, I am good with that. I'd rather spend my time making a difference in the here and now instead of worrying about the hereafter.
MarkRosengarten 2 years ago
Empathy is the quality whereby we imagine ourselves in another ones shoes what it is like to be that person (or animal) and experience what that person is experiencing. And it's more than just imagining it, it's actually feeling it which is where the expression I feel your pain comes from. The reason that I believe morality is impossible without empathy is that I cannot imagine what possible value any morality could have if it is not ultimately based on empathy. One love.
speciesamused 2 years ago
Most attempts to explain morality do derive from a sense of empathy. From Jesus' Golden Rule, Mill's Social Contract or Rawl's Veil of Ignorance, we have different expressions of this basic idea.
Bentham did something a little different when he spoke of the Pleasure Principle which may answer your question. Here morality was not based on an appeal to empathy but an almost businesslike pleasure maximization for the universe.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
John your Quote " Third thing is that i live for this life,in this world, and it's kinda of nice believing in some sort of after life, i am sure that it's really comforting"
Now Mr Deist or freethinker explain to us what's exactly your concept of after life?
Benghazison 2 years ago
I hope there is one. That would be nice.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
I remember as a child, being forced to attend church services every sunday.. all my non religious friends would be out playing and having fun ... i'd be stuck in a church ,praying to a god that secretly, i didn't believe in. Never once has God revealed himself to me, .. even in my darkest moments. .. and i have had some very dark moments in my life. You are like a breath of fresh Air on a mountain top DeistPaladin.
bonnie43uk 2 years ago
Well..tell us about your concept of " There's no heaven nor there's a hell, it's all about hoping there will be one..Do you believe there's NONE? if so tell us about the Deism idea of after life.
Benghazison 2 years ago
I can prove there's no Heaven or Hell.
Memory is stored in the brain and accessed through it. If the brain becomes damaged, through injury or illness, memories may be lost. It's like a hard drive that's damaged.
This is not what "I believe". This is what we know and observe.
If memory is lost when the brain is damaged, what makes you hope that memory can survive the utter destruction of the brain at death?
Heaven and Hell can't possibly exist.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
This is not the right answer...you are talking about a memory damage due illness or injury,that's fine! acceptable story, we all know that but whats your explanation as deist to what's happen later on ( AFTER LIFE) ? that was my question, you dig it? Sallam
Benghazison 2 years ago
OK, let me break it down for you...
Brain damage = memory loss.
Death = total destruction of brain.
Total destruction > damage.
Now you do the math. If damage = memory loss than total destruction = ...?
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
There are many different degrees and stages of brain damage cases. Death as The Italians say is" UN' ALTRA STORIA ".
There's something called Dreams? it happen when the brain is resting..so what's your explanation? it's not a damaged nor dead brain.
let see what Deism can come up with?
Sallam
Benghazison 2 years ago
No need to explain how dreams work. This is understood by the science of neurology. They've studied how the brain works during REM stages of sleep, when you "dream". What's left for me to explain?
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
look i am not talking about the mechanism and how the brain function during dreams at sleep, i am talking about why would a people suffer nightmares and enjoy dreams? why some are great good dreams and some are nightmares like hell. it's clear that the 2 stages are reflecting people life and events,. why it's not all sweet dreams or all are hell? you dig it? sallam
Benghazison 2 years ago
I don't need to know about the mechanism and the functions of the brain while dreaming. i am talking about why there's a nightmares and sweet dreams? why there's suffering and enjoyments (hell and heaven) displayed by a sleeping brain? do dreams and nightmares reflect issues related the human's daily life activities,events and deeds while the brain is a wake? what's the link between real life and nightmares and dreams. you dig it? Sallam
Benghazison 2 years ago
You mean psychologically rather than physiologically?
Fine, there's been much research there too. Nightmares relate to anxieties while dreams are reflections of desires.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
There's a lot more to it than just that, but it's a good enough summary for YouTube comments. 500 characters isn't enough to go into the details of dreaming.
Still, it's worth noting that sleep phases are cyclical; you can get from 2 to 4 unique REM states (dreams) in one night. We just perceive them as a unified dream because our mind thinks narratively, stringing them together into a coherent whole. (In reality, they're about as sensical as a Monty Python episode, minus Cleese at the desk.)
TempestStormwind 2 years ago
True, and I apologize for over-simplifying. It even occurred to me as I posted that I was doing so. My mother was a psychologist and would have probably chuckled at my one sentence summary of what a doctoral thesis might be inadequate to fully explore.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
well suffering in nightmares has it both psychological and physiological as well as enjoyment in dreams...yes desire and anxieties both reflected in dreams and nightmares,it has to be good little lesson of what's heaven and hell, when the brain sleeps. you dig it. sallam
Benghazison 2 years ago
Benghazison: A dream / nightmare "has to be good little lesson of what's heaven and hell, when the brain sleeps"
Insubstantial, subjectively defined, based on subconscious (irrational) illustrations of sensations, and ultimately a human construct, being a figment of imaginations?
Yeah, I can buy that.
There is a way the world is. Really REALLY wishing otherwise, drawing parallels between your fantasy and reality, doesn't change things.If I write a story where Rome never fell, Rome still fell.
TempestStormwind 2 years ago
Look...it's as easy as this,when the brain sleeps and having dreams and nightmares there's a suffering in nightmares and enjoyment in dreams, is there suffering and enjoyment while the brain sleeping or not? please short answer yes or no? thanks and Sallam
Benghazison 2 years ago
False equivalence.
You claimed that dreams and nightmares were essentially previews of heaven and hell, respectively. Now you are moving the goalposts to merely say that dreams and nightmares are enjoyment and suffering.
Unless, logically, you assert that any joy is heaven and any suffering is hell, your argument fails. If you make that assertion, you have to substantiate it with evidence - and there is no evidence for heaven or hell, so the argument fails there too.
Peace - and free thought.
TempestStormwind 2 years ago
Indeed, even as a deist, I'll say there's no need to invoke the supernatural when a natural explanation will do just fine. Dreams can be understood at the level of the physical brain and the study of the personality.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Deist? How so? I don't quite get the term DeistPaladin.
jvictorthegreat 2 years ago
Sorry, what don't you understand?
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
out of couriosity, what state in the US are you in?
DanielThomasVideos 2 years ago
Kentucky. Are you familiar with our famous horse race? I have more of an Indiana accent since I live on the border.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Yea the Kentucky Derby?
I just ask because I hear some states are more religious than others, so I wondered what you were up against in the state you are in, Is Kentucky conservative?
Is your book available in NZ?
DanielThomasVideos 2 years ago
Kentucky is so "red" (conservative), most pres. candidates never even bother to visit unless it's a layover on their campaign trail. If the Dems could raise Washington and Lincoln from the graves and run them on their ticket, they still would lose my state. There's a church on every corner and an anti-abortion billboard on every interstate.
I'll check with lulu to see if they ship overseas. You might try to order from them and see.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Thats tuff, im lucky in New Zealand, weir really liberal, simialar to Eurpe I guess, there are alot of Churches still but no one goes to them, abortions a non issue here, as far as I can remember iv only seen one anti abortion sign here.
ok thanks for checking, im currently reading Dawkins new one.
DanielThomasVideos 2 years ago
@DeistPaladin Sorry! English is my second language. Your videos are great. Keep the great job.
jvictorthegreat 1 year ago
So Mr deist.whats your explanation to the state of sleeping brain? Dreams and nightmares! people enjoy dreams and they suffer nightmares. so when humans sleep he/she would go through 2 stages,either hell or heaven? suffering and enjoyment.why there's suffering and enjoyment when the brain is resting (sleeping). let see how deism would solve this dilemma of After Life? sallam
Benghazison 2 years ago
Because that is the point he has reached so far in his life. Deists, Agnostics, Atheists, Pantheists, we are all free thinkers out for the same goal. That is the problem with "New Atheism" it's just as dogmatic than any other organized religion.
Adam213666 2 years ago
I would like to know why you are a deist. There is no more evidence for deism than there is for Christiantity.
christo930 2 years ago
I always enjoy your thoughts so much here Sir.
MasterMark123 2 years ago
Nice :)
Nysswald 2 years ago
Lovely
AuntieDiluvian 2 years ago
I thought your Easter speech was absolutely incredible, Do you have one for the Christmas season?
psilynt1 2 years ago
That blue shirt is camouflage in your room.
FlowCell 2 years ago
Well that was a nice slice.
HAPPY THANKSGIVING.
God likes honesty and realism.
Larsinger58 2 years ago
As always, great vid...Keep them coming.....
P.S. Why are you a "Deist" and not an "Atheist".....
I'm sure you have been asked that a million times, and probably have a video explaining this..If so, please copy/past the link, or let me know when you have time...:)
samsonl310 2 years ago
I used to have a good friend that was a wiccan. I told her "well, show me something!" She said "it doesn't work like that". Sound familiar? I said well then what you have is a fun hobby, and that's it. She got a bit offended, but its the damn truth.
fa272 2 years ago
I am thankful that I get to listen to you and some of the other freethinking Youtube pioneers. Before I started to listen to people like you, I thought that I was the one missing something, but now realize they are.
biggregg5 2 years ago
Funny how while reading George Orwell's 1984 in school, children are never asked where they think he got his ideas from (they're not directly told either)... despite that being a large part of the study of authors and their technique. (which you do for other authors)
when you read Edgar Allen Poe's works you're often told that his dark style likely came from his unfortunate life.... etc... etc...
o what a fun experiment it would be to mention this in a classroom.... what fun what fun.
kukulza 2 years ago
Orwell worked for british intelligence as did Wells.They were not lucky.
lipoicacid 2 years ago
No, Orwell didn't work for either MI 5 or 6. In fact both groups kept files on Orwell and considered him a potentially dangerous subversive. Wells too was a democratic socialist whom British spies watched.
formless777 2 years ago
But what if I believe in a god and an afterlife WITHOUT any need for religion or dogma or fairytales?
bearpaw72 2 years ago
Wow bearpaw72, but that's a very deluded question. If you take religion, dogma, and fairy tales, you wind up with neither god nor an afterlife either. Perhaps you should worship C'thulhu ?
formless777 2 years ago
Nice video and I agree with your sentiments.
One thing though... saying you're "thankful" implies someone to thank. In this case I don't think there is anyone. Perhaps the word "happy" would be more appropriate.
???
warren52nz 2 years ago
What do you call 1000 rabbits hopping backwards......a receding hairline.
(Looks right at him)
myjizzureye 2 years ago
What do you call a immature, jealous little girl?
theowarner 2 years ago
ignoring the obnoxious intent of this message...
it is a rather funny (albeit harsh) joke...
kukulza 2 years ago
Yeah, well, at 40 I consider myself fortunate to still have any hair on the top of my head at all. Given what my father looked like at this age, I got lucky.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Baldness is inherited from the female line (it's X-related).
That brings me to one of my chief reasons -- my desire for understanding is not subverted by the need for illogical pseudo-justifications of emotionally-motivated counterfactual beliefs.
pareidolian 2 years ago
I am thinkful that: 1) I don't have to read - understand and defend a magic book like the koran or bible. The King James version is a bitch to read.
2) I don't need to make up reasons to justify the talking snake and virgin birth.
3) I don't have to watch Fox News or the 700 club to reinforce my beliefs.
4) I can have to believe in a deity that I don't think is an idoit. I am free to use reason in believing in god.
5) I am not bound to goat herder fables as science.
Cuffsmaster 2 years ago
I am thankful that as a Deist I don't have to go knock on doors like a Jahovah's Witness or Mormon.
I am thankful that I can enjoy John's Utube videos and his book without feeling he smacked by faith.
Cuffsmaster 2 years ago
Do religious people in America really give 10% of their income to the church??????
JennyFarlopez 2 years ago
@Jenny: Yeah, that's what I was just thinking. I don't think that any religious people do that. Back when my family went to church, we gave like $1 a week.
For someone making $40,000/year, that would mean you give around $750 per week if it's 10%!
Rationalific 2 years ago
I know an old guy who's very religious and who intends to leave his money to the church instead of leaving it to his 3 children who are all Atheists.
I think that's pretty disgraceful.
warren52nz 2 years ago
The money won't be worth much soon anyway.If he had left a water reservior then I would be pissed.
lipoicacid 2 years ago
I was first shocked when I read your comment, but then I realized there was a 0 too much.
It's actually about $75.
Still I find this an quite high price to pay, especially taking into account that God doesn't seem to spend very much of that money.
I also find funny how the same people that give $75 a week to the church tend to be so reluctant to pay the same amount to the State, which need the money for solving REAL problems.
JennyFarlopez 2 years ago
@Jenny: That's right. My bad. There was an extra zero there!
Rationalific 2 years ago
Most do. In the mormon church, a 10% tax is required to keep your temple card (so you can get married in the temple for free, get sealed, take part in temple ceremonies, etc.)
appleguy77 2 years ago
Ah, the land of the free and the home of the craziest religions.
JennyFarlopez 2 years ago
Thanks and very timely - not only for Thanksgiving but also for Eid al-Adha :)
discussislam 2 years ago
Excellent points as usual, but I have to say I see a bit of a contradiction in the first slide.
"Because life and the natural universe are wonderful enough", and yet you're a deist. Does not compute.
EdwardHowton 2 years ago
The term "wonderful" is fairly synonymous with miraculous, rooted from the German word "Wunder", meaning "miracle". For the deist, life and the natural universe ARE the miracle, as well as the sole basis for our spirituality.
The message is we don't need parting waters or virgin births. The natural universe is enough.
It's my newer, shorter intro to future videos.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Excellent encapsulation there, John.
1140Cecile 2 years ago
Thank the maker...of the Turkey Dinner, that is ;)
sciencemile 2 years ago
Happy Thanksgiving John and too little green Cthulhu.
:)
Atheistprimate 2 years ago
John, thank you for underscoring one of the benefits of rational thinking, that is seldom highlighted. People always talk about rational thinking in terms of scientific advancements, or allowing us to have greater freedoms in life, or allowing us to discover new truths about the universe. What is often not mentioned is the liberating effect that rationality can have on us, by breaking the bonds of fear, that have far too long now bound humanity. Great job!
alphacause 2 years ago
thankful to have you john, and all your fine work, and i love that last line.
freethinker3161 2 years ago
John, I'm thankful for your enlightening and inspirational videos.
bluespiral58 2 years ago
what are your thoughts on the new debate :
harris ,dennett,hitchens VS boteach ,dinesh and taleb ?
harris seemed to recite whole lines from one of his books.
10sodot 2 years ago
Well, why wouldn't he use his tried and true arguments that he had already in a stilistically well manner?
TomSFox 2 years ago
John You bum you stole my line - "Save 10% and Sleep Late on Sundays"
Still love ya - I am thankful for you & your channel.
Have a Great Day Everyone !
ThirdProverb 2 years ago
Thanks man :)
cubandude1982 2 years ago
I'm thankful because of people like you who make great realistic videos all the time. =D
quisqueyatv 2 years ago 2
Thank you for your videos, DiestPaladin.
DancingSifaka 2 years ago 2
Supernatural =/= Superstition
PHANTOMFIREX 2 years ago
GREAT message
lynchmobb2000 2 years ago
hehe. I learned a word from Hitchens regarding the point you raised: "invigilation."
What you missed: The POSITIVE things. The opportunities to believe in GREATER magic than the magic of religion: things like evolution, a universe unimaginably VAST in time and space, colossal forces that we DON'T understand, but probably WILL some day. The very plausible idea that there is OTHER life out there, maybe VERY different from us, which may have VERY interesting things to tell us someday...
GetMeThere1 2 years ago
An excellent and concise summary - 5 stars.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
"I Dont have to worry about evil spirits"
True, but you would have to worry about the laws of nature changing cuz of that inconvenient little problem of induction.
"Trying to do what I can to leave this world better off"
Say John, what if I challenged that? How would you use your naturalism to defend against moral nihilism?
migkillertwo 2 years ago
What is moral nihilism?
PlainsofWar 2 years ago
the idea that there are no such things as "right" or "wrong" or "good" or "bad".
Basically, it states that morality does not exist.
migkillertwo 2 years ago
Ah. I heard that before. Not by that name. But I heard of that idea.
PlainsofWar 2 years ago
I think by moral nihilism he means amorality, that there is no right or wrong. This is the topic of video #2 that I'd promised regarding the TAG argument.
There are numerous ways you can argue from morality without invoking some sort of divine judge. One is the Bentham pleasure-principle approach. Another is Mill's social contract. A variation is Rawl's "Veil of Ignorance" to evaluate matters of social justice.
Bottom line: Godwillsit isn't any more satisfying than Goddidit.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Lol. Thanks for tellin' me that. (^_^).
Keep on slayin', oh mighty Paladin. Lol.
PlainsofWar 2 years ago
so they're practical. what do you say to someone who has no concern for his well being? Does the "pleasure principle" or "social contract" not apply to them? Well if certain individuals are exempted from these moral absolutes, then what value is any set of morals?
migkillertwo 2 years ago
Are you suggesting that someone who is suicidal wouldn't be covered under any of these concepts of morality? I think Bentham might have something to say on this, since the loss of the suicidal person would be to the grieving friends and relatives.
No man is an island.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Well, I have never even begun to understand how belief in a being that has not a shred of evidence of it's existence can possibly give you morality.
biggregg5 2 years ago
Daddy made the rules [morality] at home.Without daddy you had chaos.Religious types believe humanity needs the ultimate daddy to provide order.
lipoicacid 2 years ago
Migkillertwo: Any social animal that acts to sabotage its kin (on an individual or group level) is actively damaging the infrastructure it needs to survive. Thus, one would expect (over time) that mechanisms for dealing with sociopathic individuals would be developed (such as ostracism or capital punishment).
We see this sort of behaviour in all social animals, from ants to piranhas to lions to wolves to monkeys... and in us (for example, the social contract). Does morality apply to non-humans?
TempestStormwind 2 years ago
And therefore morality?
migkillertwo 2 years ago
The value of morality is the function of human civilization and the greatest promotion of the well-being of our fellow sentient beings. We are community animals that depend on one another to survive. What other value should you attribute to morality?
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
The problem of induction only implies that our *understanding* of the laws of nature needs updating. It says nothing about the laws themselves changing (that is, when Newton showed celestial and terrestrial motion were due to the same force, gravity didn't change - we just understood it differently). Furthermore, unless a new theory explains all the observations the old one did, it isn't adopted.
You call this inconvenient. I call it error-correcting.
TempestStormwind 2 years ago
no no no, I think you need to read Hume (and panineau) a little more closely. The problem of induction very much so implies that we can't be sure that the laws of nature will not, at some time in the future, change.
migkillertwo 2 years ago
Iif you're operating off of Hume (I associate the problem of induction more with Popper and similar philosophers of science rather than traditional philosophies; I misunderstood your reference), and if the laws of physics themselves change some time in the future, an error-correcting method can and will detect the change and adjust our understanding accordingly.
Such a method is called "science". You may have heard of it.
TempestStormwind 2 years ago
How on earth this particular response to the problem of induction so popular?
That we would observe such changes in the laws of nature doesn't solve the problem one iota. The problem is the question How we know they will not change. If we dont know that they will not change, then science becomes a worthless past time.
migkillertwo 2 years ago
"If we dont know that they will not change, then science becomes a worthless past time."
you could not be more wrong, and your comment shows some ignorance about what science actually is. science is the METHOD that we used in order to find out what we found out about the universe so far.
IF the laws of physics WOULD change over time, we would find out about it sooner or later by doing science. and then we would come up with scientific theories, or revise old ones, to explain it.
kurtilein3 2 years ago 3
kurtilein3, to say that science is a reliable method for gathering knoweldge is to make a fuck-ton of assumptions about the natural world, chief among them is the uniformity of nature. If a box rolled into my room, you would surely agree that the most rational, scientific answer would be that the ball rolled in from another room. But that assumes that balls can't just come into existence. Who's to say that the laws of nature didn't change just before the ball came a-rolling into my room?
migkillertwo 2 years ago
migkillertwo: "Who's to say that the laws of nature didn't change just before the ball came a-rolling into my room? "
only common sense can tell you that. either you have it, or you dont. at the moment, your arguments imply that you should be too stupid to get anything done in life. your arguments imply that you hope for ball-shaped breads that roll into your room instead of going to get some if you are hungry. assume that there is one reality and that it exists, or be doomed.
kurtilein3 2 years ago
migkillertwo:
have you ever entered an airplane?
if yes, then you do not believe what you are proclaiming here, because you bet your life, your physical existence in this universe, on science while entering the airplane. you assumed that the laws of nature used to design the airplane before you entered it would be the same after takeoff.
you just want to make yourself look clever by raising seemingly difficult problems, which then require long explanations, but in the end you do look stupid.
kurtilein3 2 years ago 4
"you assumed that the laws of nature used to design the airplane before you entered it would be the same after takeoff."
exactly! But the problem is that I CAN'T JUSTIFY THAT ASSUMPTION WITH PAST EXPERIENCE! Sure, we can assume the uniformity of nature, but that doesn't make the uniformity of nature rational. If someone actually doubted the uniformity of nature, You could not say "well I just assume it, therefore its rational".
migkillertwo 2 years ago
Migkiller: "You could not say 'well I just assume it, therefore its rational'"
The irony of hearing this from a Christian is hilarious. You do exactly this with your peculiar view of God and scripture.
For the record, since science doesn't deal in absolute certainty, the simple idea of a confidence interval is enough for us to bypass the worst of the problem of induction, at least so far as practical applications are concerned, while still understanding we'll never know for sure.
TempestStormwind 2 years ago
"exactly! But the problem is that I CAN'T JUSTIFY THAT ASSUMPTION WITH PAST EXPERIENCE!"
i can justify it. ive been on airplanes several times. i know how many people use airpanes successfully. i know the laws of nature behind it.
if you cannot justify it, then thats your problem. but i can tell you that people that really "believe" the bullshit that you promote here are unable to successfully interact with their environment, they need constant care and stay like children until they die.
kurtilein3 2 years ago
@ migkillertwo
What's wrong with moral nihilists? I'm a moral nihilist and I think murder is 100% morally justifiable. Is there something wrong with that?
Now ETHICAL nihilists - those are the folks you have to watch out for. They're scary.
aridchicken 2 years ago
Moral nihilism and ethical nihilism are synonymous. Ethics and morality are synonymous. Morality is what we ought to do, and ethics is simply the formal study of morality.
migkillertwo 2 years ago
Migkiller: (Ethics = morality.)
I have an angry philosophy department holding on line two for you.
TempestStormwind 2 years ago
what is the difference between "ethics" and 'morality'. I've never heard any working philosopher try to divorce the two, its usually people like you on youtube who try to divorce them.
migkillertwo 2 years ago
migkillertwo:
you assume tjhat ethics and morality are the same, but you are wrong. ethical rules are not necessarily universal, they work this way: you understand that they make sense, then you apply them to yourself, and then you can reason with others that dont follow them.
moral laws are given from above / outside / elsewhere. because you know that everyone should follow them, even if you yourself dont, you can complain about others breaking them while breaking them yourself.
kurtilein3 2 years ago
@kurtilein3
I'm still not seeing the difference.
migkillertwo 2 years ago
second comment to migkillertwo about ethics/morality:
the human rights would be ethics, because people used reason in order to arrive at them, and tried hard to use rules that can be reasoned for. we know humans did it.
the ten commandents would be morality. it doesnt matter if some of them dont make sense. they spread because they supposedly come from GOD, not because the individual rules and/or the whole set of rules are convincing on their own.
do you now see the difference?
kurtilein3 2 years ago