You can't honestly believe what you're saying. I mean, really, have you ever opened a textbook? We're a social species, that is where morality comes from. We work together for the greater good of the group. Way back when we were tribal, individual tribes didn't care for each other. It was not a crime to kill another tribe. Then they learned that tribes become stronger when two merge. This line of thought flows to society.
If you can't see the logic in that, you've got no place in this debate.
@Davin404 Would you agree that eugenics would be greater for the human species based on that it is "we work together for the greater good of the group?" Define what is the greater good? Are you talking about subjective morality or objective morality or even if morality exists at all? Have we with technology and Tranhumism evolved past morality of humans?
There is a better video than this, -Nihilism vs secular humanism- , that is a more coherent explanation in the description of the video.
@joelarnda Greater good = Least amount of harm to all as whole. It's that simple. We, as a species, understand the benefit from working together. Think of the komodo dragon. This species is known to eat it's young and attack others of it's species. As a result, the species has learned to look out for itself. They avoid others unless absolutely necessary. We have examples of species who act without such morals, and the result is clean cut. Social species have similar morals, anti-social do not.
@Davin404 Whoaa hold on there! Your comparing reptiles to humans for social comparisons? And you don't see how illogical this is? Also, it is rather disturbing to hear "it's that simple", what the heck are they teaching in schools today make erroneous comparisons and oversimplification of complex systems and formulating such nonsense.
Have you had a course in comparitive anatomy? Lets talk about the "structure/function relationship" and compare the neuroanatomy of a komodo to a human.
@Davin404 Greater good = Least amount of harm to all as a whole.
1. Show empirical proof that this is "good".
2. So if 5 sick people needed a different set of organs, and one healthy person happened to have all 5 organs that matched, we should clearly kill him and give the 5 people their health.
3. And what of people who are born "deficient" and will absorb more from society than they can contribute? Involuntary euthanasia?
@Davin404 That is evolutionary biology, not morality. Morality is by definition a set of behaviours one ought to follow, not a set of behaviours which simply exist.
By your definition, a man who sees an ideal female who will provide good genes for his children should plant his seed in her - with or without her consent - as this is evolved behaviour.
Physics has many terms that are indefinable and commonly used. Some of the terms have been around for millenia and even with 100's of years with the scientific method in place are still indefinable to this day.
Terms like space, time, and mass. Then taking these indefinable terms and making equations like F=ma.
If we can not define some of the most basic things in science, what makes you think something that is more complex than the physical universe would be definable?
As far as is, is concerned. I was hoping for you to ask to define the word is is. The famous answer to that would have been the Bill Clinton's response ".. It depends on what the meaning of is is." :-)
I also just saw your other response. Logic is immaterial because it is an abstract. If we go back 13.7 Billion years ago- 5 did not exist, logic did not exist, math does not exist- What laws would a universe follow without a human brain? This logic of yours is most absurd, don't you think
You must define what nihilism to you because it really does not fit with Secular humanism. There is no justice or ethics- it's all artificial constructs and attempting to make any in such a world without meaning or purpose is delusional and serves only as opiate for being conciously aware. There is no moral accountability or justice for a nihilism, that is why Secular Humanism is laughable if you were truly a nihilist.
I agreed with nihilism when I was in undergrad- I progressed past that
I fail to see how nihilism and secular humanism do not contradict each other. I have never heard of that combination without a conflict in logic. Maybe you can explain this discrepency or how you reconcile secular humanism from nihilism.
"Morality is inextricably linked with intentionality/agency" yes, in most cases human intentionality/agency. "Therefore trancendental morality cannot exist without god" aside from being a complete non sequitur, you've failed to define both "trancendental" morality and "god". That's like saying you can't have coconut flavored morality without unicorns. (NO ONE CARES)
Your definition of trancendental facts applies to ALL facts and thus, is useless. In fact this in entire video is incoherent and useless. One object behaving morally toward another is not meaningless to those objects and the other objects that it affects, which could very well be all of them in some way. If a human is an object, is your deity something else? what then? and don't think you can just make something up because I don't know the definition of "object".
@kyebean You missed a major point. If we live in a material world, then all things are material. If all things are material then anything immaterial is irreleavant. Do you agree or disagreee with this statement?
Science only tests what is emperical and qualitative. I will lend the openess to naturalistic observation (this is subjective to interpretation) -because of observer bias-
What is a friendship? Relationship? Family? Neighbor? or Loved one? and be scientific and material?
@joelarnda I disagree. We do live in a "material world", but that doesn't mean we can't make up concepts that are not strictly a part of the world. Morality for instance, relates to the physical world and it springs from our physical brains, but you can't point to an object and say that is morality.
It's simpler and more accurate to say that science tests perception. The problem is that when an idea fails the test so miserably, people like to say that the test somehow doesn't apply to it.
@kyebean I love the phrase "that dosen't mean we can't maket up conceptss that ........"
you prove my point. I love it :-) Try as hard as you can. You are a Nihilist if you accept atheism- otherwisee you are logically deluding yourself with things that are immaterial :-)
@joelarnda I already told you that I AM an existential and moral nihilist, however, I am not an epistemological nihilist. Obviously you aren't paying attention and I doubt you would understand even if you were.
@kyebean Good to hear your logically consistent and not a secular humanist. I had a few drinks last night, so my responses were not up to par and apologize for them. I wish you the best on your endeavors and in life. God bless
@joelarnda lol thank you for admitting that. Might explain several conversations I've had with theists... It's ok, I was entertained by them and it sounds like you were having fun too :) Sorry to tell you, but I AM in fact a secular humanist. Maybe we're using different definitions of nihilism, what I meant was that I don't believe values are objective. That is consistent with secular humanism in that I advocate ethics and justice even if I know the values they're based on are not objective.
@kyebean I think we were using different definitions of nihilism. You are consistent with saying morality is subjective when discussing secular humanism. In most cases secular humanism and theism adopt the same values on human life and humanitarian issues in general.
Eugenics is an example of where secular humanists can debate both sides of the coin for what is morally right. The subjectivity here is "Moral relativism". The Holocaust is a reminder that it is a reality and not a theory.
@joelarnda not only morality, but all values, are ALWAYS ultimately subjective. Agreed upon moral systems, tenants and structures, are objective WITHIN the context of their constituency. Please cite a secular humanist who advocates forced human selective breeding. Again, secular humanism is simply valuing humanity as a whole and advocating for healthy human society through ethics and justice. How is that at all similar to moral relativism?
@kyebean This is still a very lively issue. "Forced human selective breeding" this is occuring currently today. And other the auspices of what is good for humanity- Population control is a better way to word it. It is done on a globalized level.
China is one country that performs this, they control how many children a couple can have, and if your an elite with money you can reproduce all you want without penalty. They have morally come to the conclusion that it is the best for humanity
@joelarnda Eugenics and population control are not at all the same thing. What global organization is carrying out worldwide population control? The idea that the Chinese government has a secular humanist agenda is downright laughable. Nothing you're saying has anything to do with secular humanism.
@kyebean Eugenics will never come back in the form it did in the 20th century in germany and the world is permanently tarnished because it was from its infancey not to intended to be coercive. That is just paraphrasing Julian Huxley. Much of his work is still alive and experiencing a resurgence with newer technologies in the form of Transhumanism.
As far as Secular Humanism, I am actually an advocate but recognize its faults and limitations mainly that is subjective and based on norms.
@joelarnda The Nazi government never went deep into the science and subtleties of eugenics, their eugenic method was basically crude genocide. Sadly that already has come back plenty of times, it was there since the dawn of humanity, and it will likely continue for a very long time. I don't think the world is permanently tarnished, humanity and life in general are amazingly resilient.
Why do you consider subjectivity and norms to be faults? Do you advocate an alternative to secular humanism?
@kyebean Julian Huxley - what I meant to say was that he said the word "eugenics" was tarnished because from it's conception it was not meant to be coercive. Enough so that when said today most people think of the Nazis. Huxley basically said it would take time and basically to repackage it again when the thoughts are open to it again.
Nazi government was more interested in making money and imperialism than science- they only used science and religions as tools and not for ideals.
@joelarnda Yes, I agree with that. New initiatives for human genetic selection don't necessarily need to use the word "eugenics" in fact I would almost guarantee that anyone proposing that wouldn't unless they were completely incompetent politically.
I'd be interested in hearing your answers to my previous questions about secular humanism.
@kyebean So now back to the question I'll ask again. How are you a nihilist and a secular humanist at the same time? Is there not a logical contradiction between the 2 and how do you reconcile this?
Why do you consider subjectivity and norms not a limitation or fault? I think that is a rhetorical question that does not need an explanation in the field of science.
As I said before I do advocate secular humanism. I also advocate other alternatives as well to have a compilation.
@joelarnda I already explained that, I'll quote what I said: "Maybe we're using different definitions of nihilism, what I meant was that I don't believe values are objective. That is consistent with secular humanism in that I advocate ethics and justice even if I know the values they're based on are not objective." Like I've said many times, ALL values are subjective by definition, therefore ALL value systems are based on subjective principles. Those principles are norms. What alternatives?
@kyebean If your a nihilist. Why have norms? Why have values- that are immaterial, and flawed by subjectivity? It's a material world with only the laws of physics, physiology and nature dictating events. Anything else is just subjective neuronal impulses subjectively interpreting meaningless things- emotions are just biological impulses.
I think you claim to be a nihilist, but have cognitive dissonance unable to accept life as meaningless- and delude yourself with Secular humanism.
@joelarnda Why have values? really? I think you could answer that yourself if you thought about it for a second. There would be no point to living at all without values. It's our nature to have values. Just as subjectivity and immateriality are the nature of values. That's like saying why have a child that is flawed by needing to breath and eat. I do not believe life is meaningless. The meaning of a life is determined by the individual living it. What position do you take?
@kyebean If you are a nihilist, there is no secular humanism alternative or principles because they themselves are artificial constructs that again are immaterial- you would only be further deluding your self by trying to construct things devoid of meaning.
When you see the immaterial world as more than just the material then you are stepping outside the realm of nihilism. To even consider secular humanism any othe immaterial alternative, you have to reject nilism to be logically consistent.
@kyebean You never defined what nihilism is to you. You dodge the question again and again and now instead resort to a cop out line of "Fine, I don't fit into your personal definition of nihilism" It's not my definition and all I am asking is if you are logically consistent by any definition of nihilism.
This is a common problem some people run into with nihilism, by all definitions (nothing personal). Prove me wrong if there is such a thing.
@joelarnda I've answered this again and again, I'll quote once more: "Maybe we're using different definitions of nihilism, what I meant was that I don't believe values are objective. That is consistent with secular humanism in that I advocate ethics and justice even if I know the values they're based on are not objective." That tells you what I meant when I said I was a nihilist and how that IS consistent with secular humanism.
@kyebean. Define what nihilism is to you? From what you have said so far is "what I meant was that I don't beleive values are objective"
I don't think you can walk into any academic room and say "I don't beleive valuse are objective" and have anybody guess that this is a definition of nihilism. Just because you don't beleive values are objective does not qualify you as a nihilist. Your just a secular humanist because you put value on humans.
@joelarnda It's my understanding that the subjectivity of values is basically the core belief of moral and existential nihilism, but you may be right that the academic definition goes further than that and in that context I suppose I am not a nihilist. What is your understanding of the definition?
You brought up the subject of nihilism by saying you can't be a logical atheist without being a nihilist. I think you're an atheist, so you must be a nihilist and also a secular humanist????
@kyebean Your half way there with your definition but stop short. Moral relativism is the subjectivity of values- your definition fits this perfectly. A moral relativist can make ethical decisions, judgements and subjectively assign values to such things as humans. Or maybe even Moral universalism depending on how deep you want to look at it. This is where the train stops and you can be a secular humanist and be logically consistent in believieng it
@joelarnda are you an atheist? if yes, let me point out that you said: "secular humanism is inconsistent- only nihilists are the intellectually honest atheists when it comes to morality." So you must be a nihilist. Then you said: "As I said before I do advocate secular humanism." So you advocate nihilism and secular humanism while simultaneously arguing that your own positions are inconsistent and incompatible.
@kyebean 1/2 As I said before, I subscribed to nihilism for a time in undergraduate. After having all my beleifs dismantled through evidence presented in Biology, chemistry, and psychology classes. I began to see the world as materialism only and nihilism is it's end logical conclusion.
One of the compelling things for me to change my position was physics, math, and Logic. "Logic consists of rules and laws that are unchanging, universal, and immaterial" Math follows the same rules too
@kyebean 2/2 With using Math, logic, and other things that are immaterial and applying it to the material and marrying the two as in physics impressed me. Having a formula like F=MA (that is immaterial) and applying it to the material world made perfect sense.
Living in an immaterial world and applying it to the material is when I could no longer be an atheist or even an agnostic.
Trying to test for a God in a material world is equivalent to testing for infinite in a material world.
@kyebean . Taking out of context aren't we?? You use logic don't you--- It's immaterial
The Language of god is seen in nature through the material world by the natural laws we observe, and also the immaterial through logic, math, physics and touching into metaphyics. It is in the immaterial that we see bonds, friendships, love and understanding of empathy- To discover all the complexities of the universe both material and immaterial world is the search for describing into being what God is
@joelarnda Actually, on the deepest layer, logic is a set of physical processes taking place in our "material" brains. This is not yet fully understood by neurology, but we know it happens.
I don't consider your response a DEFINITION of "God". Imagine you're writing a dictionary of all the vocabulary you use, and you are writing YOUR entry for the word "God". Something like "God: all the complexities of the universe"
@kyebean Logic by definition is immaterial- like it or not- that's what it is unless you would like to redefine it for the world and write a book on it. As far as what is happening in the brain, it would only make sense that it follows the rules and laws of logic just like everying else does. That is exactly the point of marrying the immaterial with the material in formulas like F=MA or the speed of light and the language of math- although immaterial they can apply just as much to the material
@joelarnda I just explained to you how logic is AT LEAST partly material, you haven't debunked my claim, you've simply denied it. Here is the first dictionary definition I found "Logic: Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity" You think that reasoning isn't a process of our physical brain?
@kyebean Do you use math? Do you use logic? Do you believe the universe is finite? I would like to here your to hear your answer to all 3 questions-in any order you like
@joelarnda Of course I use math and logic. I don't have a belief regarding whether the universe is finite, because we don't currently have any way of gathering evidence beyond the limitations of EM radiation reaching our system. If I had to choose, I would guess it's finite, because we don't have a verified example of anything that is infinite and thus don't know if the concept is even possible in reality.
@kyebean Do you really believe the universe is finite? Is there anything to show what happens at the end of it? Do we just fall off like many had thought would happen to the earth before 1500 just because we would fall off? I guess the end of the universe is your working hypothesis and infinity is mine.
If your only open to what we know, then we are denying what is outside of what we know that has not been discovered yet. Much like the Western civilization before 1500
@joelarnda you just don't listen do you? I JUST SAID: "I don't have a belief regarding whether the universe is finite, because we don't currently have any way of gathering evidence beyond the limitations of EM radiation reaching our system." Why would you assume I'm only open to "what we know"? I've said nothing to suggest that. "IS"? that is your definition of the word "God"? I can only hope you're joking.
@kyebean After I get an answer from the 3 questions I asked, I will give my definition of God or any of the other names you would like to call it deity, source, or whatever new lables they have for it.
@joelarnda Okay, I've answered your questions. I'm asking you what YOU believe, with words of YOUR choice. What do you mean when you say the word "God" to me? What does that word represent? Please keep in mind what I said about defining it in a clear dictionary style.
@kyebean You never defined what nihilism is to you. You dodge the question again and again and now instead resort to a cop out line of "Fine, I don't fit into your personal definition of nihilism" It's not my definition and all I am asking is if you are logically consistent by any definition of nihilism.
This is a common problem some people run into with nihilism, by all definitions (nothing personal). Prove me wrong if there is such a thing.
@joelarnda friendship is a social bond, usually distinct from familial and sexual relationships. A relationship is a connection of some kind, between humans it often means a close bond involving sharing. Family are genetically closely related individuals, they often share resources and support eachother, in modern society it's an important financial unit. A neighbor is a person residing in close proximity. A loved one is an especially intimate friend, often a family member or sexual partner.
@kyebean It is a hard reality to deal with. Logically answer the question intstead of answering with insults and judgements like a dogmatic christian. It is reality if you accept the locial tenents of an atheists. Your response is a perfect example of denilal:-)
@joelarnda Your question relied on two premises, the first was completely false. The second was incoherent and irrelevant. Therefore I can't answer your question until you clarify/rephrase. What do you mean by "it"? "locial" "tenents" "an atheists" and "denilal" are not part of the English language. Try again.
@joelarnda "IT is a hard reality to deal with... IT is reality if you accept...." how am I supposed to know what noun that pronoun represents in your statement, you used it very much out of context. So what reality are you referring to when you say "It"?
@kyebean Thanks again for proving my point :-) Try hard as you want with wemantic and word you will drive your self made with reality. You have already done as such withou ever advancing your arguerment or stating a solid positions. It is why it is laughable as many have tried :-) Pliase try againg I need another!!!!!!!!!
@joelarnda What point of yours have I proven? I haven't even heard a coherent argument from you, we can't get anywhere if you can't manage to clearly state your position. I'm asking you very simple, clear, direct, relevant questions and you are completely ignoring them. I can only conclude that you don't have the ability to answer and are throwing out all these red herrings to divert attention. Also, I think your keyboard is broken, maybe get a new one.
@kyebean As I said before, I am an advocate of secular humanism and see it as a good thing. So do not get me wrong, I am glad to hear that we are in the same camp. I just fail to see a logical consistency between Nihilism (by any definition) with secular humanism.
That is why my first comment on this page was taking a nihilistic aproach- secular humanism is just as laughable as theism.
Either way, Have a good weekend and a good laugh. Take care
The funny thing is that atheists and theists derive their morality/purpose/oughts from the same exact source, it's just that theists like to dress it up with mythology in a ridiculous attempt to make themselves seem superior and give them a sense of community. If you can't figure out what source I'm talking about, here it is: biological instincts and modern society.
@kyebean secular humanism is inconsistent- only nihilists are the intellectually honest atheists when it comes to morality. That is the big joke of secular humanism, as hard as one tries to make ethics from it- it is an empty shell with nothingness at its core. People who choose an empty philosophy can try as hard as they can to delude themselves of reality.
The nihilist would ask who is crazier the secular humanist or the theist. At least the theist is hedging their bets with Pascal
@joelarnda You seem very interested in judging philosophies, what I'm interested in is what position YOU take. You assert that secular humanism is an empty shell with nothing at it's core, without even pretending to justify your claim. Am I supposed to just take you at your word? sorry, putting my faith in random people on the internet hasn't worked out so good in the past. The core of secular humanism is valuing humanity. It's not an epistemological position, it's simply a value like any other.
@kyebean It's not judging other philosophies, it's called logical deducement. If you explore David Hume and follow pure logic- (not what one wants to have)- secular humanism fails with moral relativism (values).
Nihilism is atheism at its end logical end conclusion, Secular Humanism only exists when it deludes itself from the end logical conclusion by trying to define values (things that are immaterial). To accept atheism as such you have to accept what comes with it and thats nihilism.
@joelarnda I am an atheist and I am a moral and existential nihilist, but it is absolutely false that Atheism necessarily leads to nihilism. There are all kinds of appeals to objective values besides theistic ones, and they are all equally false. Don't confuse moral and existential nihilism with epistemological nihilism. Humanism is not objective and doesn't try to be, thus it doesn't fail. It's a subjective value system, like ALL other value systems.
@kyebean Eugenics! You can take both sides as you want as a humanist as far as what is the greater good for humanity. You can justify both sides as which is the greater good. Both sides have been taken and followed through. Like it or not define what is the greater good for humannity by who's terms: yours, mine, or someone elses? People believed in the "Final Solution: for humantiy, and many agreed- Like it or not- Relative Morality is grossly inconsistent. Morality + values are immaterial!
@joelarnda you'll have to rephrase your question with better grammar. "Relative Morality" is grossly inconsistent? If you meant to capitalize that, I don't know what you're referring to. If you didn't, of course it is inconsistent, by definition, why should morality be consistent when we are always receiving new data and coming to new understandings. Killing a person is wrong with no reason, killing a person is right to save a million other people. Obviously they're immaterial, so what?
So therefore because of this disparity in innate perception of right and wrong, for societies to exist successfully (which could not perhaps, be said of most African countries) there must be a way to standardize morality and ethical codes. As there are differences in what people perceive as right and wrong, those who are unable to innately understand ethics require religion as a way to justify laws, governance and ethics. If someone doesn't care about the society around them why not kill?
So therefore there MUST be something to strengthen this. To say that we have inbuilt ''consciences" is to ignore billions of examples that contradict this. For example I give you Africa. There is no need to go into the countless and horrifying atrocities that are perpetrated there almost every minute of everyday - either visit or read a newspaper from time to time. So I would put it to you that we do not ''all'' have inbuilt good natures and sense of good and evil.
To use the sociological argument alone that it is bad to kill someone because it damages society law and order etc may be acceptable to the logician, but falls down when the idea of war is introduced, ie it is acceptable to kill those from other communities to protect your own. This then introduces the problem that if it is perceived to be good for society then it is OK. Crime and Punishment might also be refereed to for another twist in the fragility of this premise as Raskolnikov finds out.
Religion simply 'justifies' social morality. Sociopaths, for example, while not accepting society's ethical codes (as they cannot empathize and see others as only objects) they will, to a great extent respond if these are vindicated by a greater power or religious figure, ie the omnipotent god. What reasons other than sociological ones, can be made for not committing what we consider acts of felony or evil.
Your brakes "ought to stop" your car, and in the same way, we ought not to do things because a god says so? You really can't think of any other reason to possibly not do certain actions? Let's say you burn an entire town's food supply. You can't possibly think of ANY reasons why you oughtn't do such a thing? I'm sure the townsfolk will find plenty, regardless of the local religion!
You don't necessarily need god/s to tell you whether certain actions are frowned upon.
I'm an atheist. I find it funny that when he actually gets down to talking about morality, he talks about genocide. When I think about morality, I'm thinking about holding a door open at the coffee shop, or standing up when an old lady gets on the bus. Genocides and Holocausts don't belong in a descussion about morality.
um...one question, how can morals be dependent on god? (or as i'd rather say, the notion of god) if morals were dependent because of a notion of god then he could command ANYTHING to be moral. so he could command rape, murder, stealing, and things like them to be moral. so explain how people couldn't come up with morals without the notion of god. morals are independent of the notion of god.
Nihilism is an absence of meaning. Even I want to believe there is someone tending the light at the end of the tunnel. The freaky truth may be that, even if there is, that person tending the light is not some all powerful enduring forever Thing. Maybe it's just someone else who was here before me. Therefore, each generation passes the torch of purpose and meaning, shining a light into the darkness, defying the encroachment of nihilistic beings, but not requiring a god to do this.
It isn't that a secular humanist worldview can't have prescriptive facts, it just can't have objective, transcendental prescriptive facts. This is because morality is a relative concept, derived from how a stable population, as a whole, acts. Anything that falls outside this social norm is considered immoral. If moral were objective, we couldn't have morality outside of specific absolute, black and white situations.
To be moral, one need only have a predefine framework upon which to decide what is moral, or not. This is poses no grave risk to the vast majority of atheists. I for example define good as actions which have a detrimental, or neutral consequence for the actor, and benefit the recipient, and evil, as actions which have a positive or neutral consequence for the actor, and harm the recipient. This in no way requires any form of belief about gods.
Morality doesn't have to be transcendental to be real. While Atheism posits that the only transcendental facts are descriptive doesn't mean that there is no such thing as morality. It only means that it is not transcendental; it is derived from lower processes. For example, it is a prescriptive, non-transcendental fact that I should help/care for my family. It derives from my own emotions. My moral relationship to my family is based off of this fact. I don't see any problem here.
Morality is just a way of survival. No need for god, just a natural way of learning how to live in peace, and thereby survive.
Bonobo's start making love to eachother when there are social tenses in a group, we fight or talk.
First we fight. We learn that fighting isn't the right solution, because it comes with even more problems. So for the next time we say, dont fight and harm others, but talk. So as a logical next step to what we have observed before we now prescribe to talk and not fight.
I can't figure out what is right or wrong unless the bible tells me. Should I kill my girlfriend? (checks bible) No, Deuteronomy says not to. Should I beat the shit out of her just for the hell of it? (checks bible) Seems like that's okay.
Man, I don't know how atheists can figure out this stuff if they aren't taking orders from God.
first off, even if he's not a christian in the "modern sense" i.e. agreeing with migkillertwo on every theological issue ever, donexodus is atleast, at the verry least a deist.
secondoff prescriptive things in your sense are descriptive also, as in " universe a and virtual universe b were created by god c. their convergence, creating universe ab, have a 100% chance please god c" couldn't an atheist, with equal verasity say" universe ab's existence would please me"
your citation of those two philosophers doesn't prove anthying other than breaking down of certain metaethical premises, that ethics are physical properties or that they can't be derrived from facts, which you'll ever find anyone arguing with. that ethics ought to be transcendental is one you pulled right out of the hat. your back-handed scoff at rand is obscure. you make unaccountable assumption that actions have intrinsic ehtical value, which doesn't prove or disprove anything she ever said.
in short, you are dwelling on a mountain of pressupositions. your devine-comand theory falls apart by it's own strength since the content of god's command is determined by subjectively fetishizing one supposed revelation over thousands of others if you insist that reason is impotent when it comes to ethics.
Migkillertwo, you may be a theist for all I know (and that seems to be the case), but don't listen to these shallow humanists. I agree with a lot of humanist doctrine, but nothing about humanism makes it objective or into some binding imperitave.
I would say that morals don't exist, are unnecessary, and are emotional at their core. But atheists make the same mistake as theists when saying, "morality exists, so just deal with it!"
There are many people in this world who don't believe in God (or any dieties), but we do not harm others. How about the priests who commit sexual abuse? I bet you they believe in God, it does nothing to make them more moral. In fact, very often, those who are too hung up on morality, those who wants to prescribe to others their standards of morality, fail to realise others who do not share their beliefs can be moral, and can be more moral than they are.
Instead of using bible as a standard, I find having empathy is usually enough to live a "moral" life. I don't wanna getting killed, so I know others most likely wont want to be killed either. What do I do? I don't kill people. See, no need for god.
If you really need god to tell you not to kill people or other destructive things to yourself and other people.... seriously, seek some help.
And don't bother with absolute morality, doesn't exist, never did, never will.
Your argument is painfully facile. By your reasoning anything that creates and promotes prescriptive statements is the creator of morality. Society has done this since before god was even dreamed into being.Therefore, by your own argument, humans are the creators of morality.
Moreover you seem to forget that every religion has prescriptive statements, many written before the christian god.
I think you need to read more of Hume's work.
For your sake, I hope Don doesn't waste his time with you.
I see where you're going, but I fundamentally disagree with you.
By your definition of the word transcendental (facts which are true regardless of what anyone thinks) I think you develop more problems than solutions.
I don't personally know any theists that would see eye to eye on ALL moral issues. I think that most theists have have different interpretations of morality, even within the same religion.
I don't think there is a "transcendental morality" that fits your definition.
Nietzsche never taught that morality cannot exist without God, and no respectable philosopher would. Even Nietzsche, who was utterly opposed to Christian slave morality (as he called it) had his own moral ideals. Everyone has values.
True, absolute morality is abolished by atheism. Thank God. Absolute morality is a horrible blight on humanity, one of the ultimate rational mistakes anyone could possibly make.
The way I see it, as an atheist, I can be angry if someone hurts me, and since I know that being hurt is bad, I can be angry if someone hurts someone else, too.
You know, that whole "Do unto others" thing that's actually not Christian-derived.
On the other hand, Christians who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, and the perfect morality of God MUST condone massacres throughout history, as well as the infinite torturous burning of otherwise good people but non-Christians in Hell now.
"Christianity was from the beginning, essentially and fundamentally, lifes nausea and disgust with life, merely concealed behind, masked by, dressed up as, faith in another: or better life. Hatred of the world, condemnations of the passions, fear of beauty and sensuality, a beyond invented the better to slander this life, at bottom a craving for the nothing, for the end, for respite, for the sabbath of sabbaths ~ Friedrich Nietzsche
There is something else that could have prescriptively created morality. They are organisms called Humans, Non existant supernatural beings had nothing to do with it.
Can't be a moral realist and a secular atheist at the same time? Really? Transendental are things that are true, and you argue that objects can't have morality? Throwing around semantics doesn't make you right. You commit the ultimate fallacy.
Why does God solve the problem? Because you have the premise that he already exists this is false. You have some pretty serious circular reasoning.
"It's not true that one can be an atheist and morale realist at the same time."
So you're saying that the second someone doesn't believe in any of the gods on this planet, they suddenly have no concept of morals? Also, just because morals are subjective doesn't mean we don't care about morals.
very well put. You should check out Hamza Tzortzis and Adam Deen. These guys use these very arguements in debates against humanist secular views for the existence of God. Ofcourse, even though they are muslim, like me, they are debating as theists in most cases.
I'm fairly certain you have confused an atheist with a materialist (or a naturalist?). I'm hard pushed to imagine a materialist who is not also an atheist but I know plenty of atheists who aren't materialists.
Your depiction of moral nihilism is also a bit of a caricature.
At no point do you say how any of this has anything to do with secular humanism. I cant help but feel you need to make clear who your arguments are aimed at.
Finally, you begin with a "No true Scotsman" fallacy. Really?
Ok, wait a sec, im a subscriber, but the Joker...a secular humanist? That is just a silly thing to say, its like the time some conservatives did the exact same thing to a picture of Obama. The joker is deffinatly not a humanist, humanists are people who see the ultimate good in humanity and what they can achieve, the joker sees humanity as disguisting and vile, they are completly the opposite things! This is a complete mis-representation, its asif someone accused Reagan of being a commy.
@migkillertwo NO, The Joker is an Anarchist. Nihimism, Anarchy and Humanism are all completely contradictory ideas that have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with each other.
@migkillertwo OK, you got me there. I just looked up Nihilism in the dictionary and it actially mentions Anarchy.
Still, WTF makes you think Humanism has anything in common with Nihilism? You yourself say that Nihilism denies human values or the value of Human life. Do I even need to mention how much that contradicts Humanism?
@migkillertwo You SPECIFICALLY said it was "More than apropriate" to use an Anarchis/Nihilist image when making a video TITLED "Another video on secular humanism".
The very fact that there's a single difference between one philosophy held by Atheists and nanother philosophy held by Atheists contradicts your whole idea that Atheism automatically leads to one paticular philosophy, or even any.
Frankly, I pitty the kind of brain that gets ALL of its beliefs from one thing.
#1, "Atheism" is a LACK OF BELIEF you tool! a LACK OF BELIEF can't be true or false. That would require "Atheism" to be an actual statement about reality, rather than a discription of people who simply don't believe something.
#2, If I don't know what "modus tollens and modus ponens" are, then explain to me how they can have anything to do whith what I believe.
#3, I just double checked. Nihimism isn't a statement about Reality either. It's a rejection of Authority and stuff.
Atheism is, simply, completely, totally and with no other baggage or shades of meaning: "Does NOT believe in a God, gods or other Supernatural Authority." Period. Fini. End. Full Stop. That's it. This has nothing whatsoever to do with morality, ethics, evolution, cosmology or any form of physical or natural science.
What you define as right and wrong is simplistic. Oughts, is or shoulds are not relavent here.
This video demonstrates that you don't get what atheism is... still. It is simply a LACK of belief in God... Just like you don't believe in Buddah, or Shiva or Thor, or Zues... Atheists don't believe in God... its really that simple.. its not a 'world view'.
And wtf is Moral Realism? how are you using it here?
All you're doing here is setting up your own little litmus test and saying atheists fail it.
Morals are a set of social norms and behaviors developed over time... not from any god.
Altruism can be distinguished from feelings of loyalty and duty
Altruism focuses on a motivation to help others or a want to do good without reward, while duty focuses on a moral obligation towards a specific individual (for example, God or a king)
So we're agreeing that genocide is morally wrong? You said that genocide "has a property of being wrong."
In addition to 1 Samuel 15:1-3, there are plenty other examples of the "righteous" wiping out populations, smashing babies on rocks, slashing pregnant bellies...
Civilized humans (and other animals) have been able to resist any urge to slash pregnant bellies. Only religious zealots have a book telling them when it's okay to do it! Vague prescription, though...
You ripped this off someone else. I've read this word for word somewhere.
Clel0005 4 months ago in playlist More videos from migkillertwo
"It's not true that one can be logically consistent and be an atheist and moral realist at the same time."
It's not true that one can be logically consistent and be a moral realist or a theist.
TatsujinSan 5 months ago
You can't honestly believe what you're saying. I mean, really, have you ever opened a textbook? We're a social species, that is where morality comes from. We work together for the greater good of the group. Way back when we were tribal, individual tribes didn't care for each other. It was not a crime to kill another tribe. Then they learned that tribes become stronger when two merge. This line of thought flows to society.
If you can't see the logic in that, you've got no place in this debate.
Davin404 5 months ago
@Davin404 Would you agree that eugenics would be greater for the human species based on that it is "we work together for the greater good of the group?" Define what is the greater good? Are you talking about subjective morality or objective morality or even if morality exists at all? Have we with technology and Tranhumism evolved past morality of humans?
There is a better video than this, -Nihilism vs secular humanism- , that is a more coherent explanation in the description of the video.
joelarnda 5 months ago
@joelarnda Greater good = Least amount of harm to all as whole. It's that simple. We, as a species, understand the benefit from working together. Think of the komodo dragon. This species is known to eat it's young and attack others of it's species. As a result, the species has learned to look out for itself. They avoid others unless absolutely necessary. We have examples of species who act without such morals, and the result is clean cut. Social species have similar morals, anti-social do not.
Davin404 5 months ago
@Davin404 Whoaa hold on there! Your comparing reptiles to humans for social comparisons? And you don't see how illogical this is? Also, it is rather disturbing to hear "it's that simple", what the heck are they teaching in schools today make erroneous comparisons and oversimplification of complex systems and formulating such nonsense.
Have you had a course in comparitive anatomy? Lets talk about the "structure/function relationship" and compare the neuroanatomy of a komodo to a human.
joelarnda 5 months ago
@Davin404 Greater good = Least amount of harm to all as a whole.
1. Show empirical proof that this is "good".
2. So if 5 sick people needed a different set of organs, and one healthy person happened to have all 5 organs that matched, we should clearly kill him and give the 5 people their health.
3. And what of people who are born "deficient" and will absorb more from society than they can contribute? Involuntary euthanasia?
Gorzakk 4 weeks ago
@Davin404 That is evolutionary biology, not morality. Morality is by definition a set of behaviours one ought to follow, not a set of behaviours which simply exist.
By your definition, a man who sees an ideal female who will provide good genes for his children should plant his seed in her - with or without her consent - as this is evolved behaviour.
Gorzakk 4 weeks ago
Physics has many terms that are indefinable and commonly used. Some of the terms have been around for millenia and even with 100's of years with the scientific method in place are still indefinable to this day.
Terms like space, time, and mass. Then taking these indefinable terms and making equations like F=ma.
If we can not define some of the most basic things in science, what makes you think something that is more complex than the physical universe would be definable?
joelarnda 5 months ago
As far as is, is concerned. I was hoping for you to ask to define the word is is. The famous answer to that would have been the Bill Clinton's response ".. It depends on what the meaning of is is." :-)
I also just saw your other response. Logic is immaterial because it is an abstract. If we go back 13.7 Billion years ago- 5 did not exist, logic did not exist, math does not exist- What laws would a universe follow without a human brain? This logic of yours is most absurd, don't you think
joelarnda 5 months ago
You must define what nihilism to you because it really does not fit with Secular humanism. There is no justice or ethics- it's all artificial constructs and attempting to make any in such a world without meaning or purpose is delusional and serves only as opiate for being conciously aware. There is no moral accountability or justice for a nihilism, that is why Secular Humanism is laughable if you were truly a nihilist.
I agreed with nihilism when I was in undergrad- I progressed past that
joelarnda 5 months ago
I fail to see how nihilism and secular humanism do not contradict each other. I have never heard of that combination without a conflict in logic. Maybe you can explain this discrepency or how you reconcile secular humanism from nihilism.
joelarnda 5 months ago
You started the any word to what is is. Logically you have have failed to answer my original response to your laim response.
Why are you not a nihilst
What makes humanism differnent? waiing :-)
joelarnda 6 months ago
God is unnecessary for morality to exist. The existence of morality is best explained by biological evolution.
But FAITH is necessary to believe that something is not subjectively
morally wrong. Emphasis on the subjective.
WarmongerWW3 8 months ago
Just stating that something is true doesn't cut it... I do not buy your arguments.
drstrangelove09 8 months ago
im glad don exodus is'nt a christian anymore.
SuperSkepticism 8 months ago
"Morality is inextricably linked with intentionality/agency" yes, in most cases human intentionality/agency. "Therefore trancendental morality cannot exist without god" aside from being a complete non sequitur, you've failed to define both "trancendental" morality and "god". That's like saying you can't have coconut flavored morality without unicorns. (NO ONE CARES)
kyebean 10 months ago
Your definition of trancendental facts applies to ALL facts and thus, is useless. In fact this in entire video is incoherent and useless. One object behaving morally toward another is not meaningless to those objects and the other objects that it affects, which could very well be all of them in some way. If a human is an object, is your deity something else? what then? and don't think you can just make something up because I don't know the definition of "object".
kyebean 10 months ago
@kyebean You missed a major point. If we live in a material world, then all things are material. If all things are material then anything immaterial is irreleavant. Do you agree or disagreee with this statement?
Science only tests what is emperical and qualitative. I will lend the openess to naturalistic observation (this is subjective to interpretation) -because of observer bias-
What is a friendship? Relationship? Family? Neighbor? or Loved one? and be scientific and material?
joelarnda 6 months ago
@joelarnda I disagree. We do live in a "material world", but that doesn't mean we can't make up concepts that are not strictly a part of the world. Morality for instance, relates to the physical world and it springs from our physical brains, but you can't point to an object and say that is morality.
It's simpler and more accurate to say that science tests perception. The problem is that when an idea fails the test so miserably, people like to say that the test somehow doesn't apply to it.
kyebean 6 months ago
@kyebean I love the phrase "that dosen't mean we can't maket up conceptss that ........"
you prove my point. I love it :-) Try as hard as you can. You are a Nihilist if you accept atheism- otherwisee you are logically deluding yourself with things that are immaterial :-)
joelarnda 6 months ago
@joelarnda I already told you that I AM an existential and moral nihilist, however, I am not an epistemological nihilist. Obviously you aren't paying attention and I doubt you would understand even if you were.
kyebean 6 months ago
@kyebean Good to hear your logically consistent and not a secular humanist. I had a few drinks last night, so my responses were not up to par and apologize for them. I wish you the best on your endeavors and in life. God bless
joelarnda 6 months ago
@joelarnda lol thank you for admitting that. Might explain several conversations I've had with theists... It's ok, I was entertained by them and it sounds like you were having fun too :) Sorry to tell you, but I AM in fact a secular humanist. Maybe we're using different definitions of nihilism, what I meant was that I don't believe values are objective. That is consistent with secular humanism in that I advocate ethics and justice even if I know the values they're based on are not objective.
kyebean 6 months ago
@kyebean I think we were using different definitions of nihilism. You are consistent with saying morality is subjective when discussing secular humanism. In most cases secular humanism and theism adopt the same values on human life and humanitarian issues in general.
Eugenics is an example of where secular humanists can debate both sides of the coin for what is morally right. The subjectivity here is "Moral relativism". The Holocaust is a reminder that it is a reality and not a theory.
joelarnda 6 months ago
@joelarnda not only morality, but all values, are ALWAYS ultimately subjective. Agreed upon moral systems, tenants and structures, are objective WITHIN the context of their constituency. Please cite a secular humanist who advocates forced human selective breeding. Again, secular humanism is simply valuing humanity as a whole and advocating for healthy human society through ethics and justice. How is that at all similar to moral relativism?
kyebean 5 months ago
@kyebean This is still a very lively issue. "Forced human selective breeding" this is occuring currently today. And other the auspices of what is good for humanity- Population control is a better way to word it. It is done on a globalized level.
China is one country that performs this, they control how many children a couple can have, and if your an elite with money you can reproduce all you want without penalty. They have morally come to the conclusion that it is the best for humanity
joelarnda 5 months ago
@joelarnda Eugenics and population control are not at all the same thing. What global organization is carrying out worldwide population control? The idea that the Chinese government has a secular humanist agenda is downright laughable. Nothing you're saying has anything to do with secular humanism.
kyebean 5 months ago
@kyebean Eugenics will never come back in the form it did in the 20th century in germany and the world is permanently tarnished because it was from its infancey not to intended to be coercive. That is just paraphrasing Julian Huxley. Much of his work is still alive and experiencing a resurgence with newer technologies in the form of Transhumanism.
As far as Secular Humanism, I am actually an advocate but recognize its faults and limitations mainly that is subjective and based on norms.
joelarnda 5 months ago
@joelarnda The Nazi government never went deep into the science and subtleties of eugenics, their eugenic method was basically crude genocide. Sadly that already has come back plenty of times, it was there since the dawn of humanity, and it will likely continue for a very long time. I don't think the world is permanently tarnished, humanity and life in general are amazingly resilient.
Why do you consider subjectivity and norms to be faults? Do you advocate an alternative to secular humanism?
kyebean 5 months ago
@kyebean Julian Huxley - what I meant to say was that he said the word "eugenics" was tarnished because from it's conception it was not meant to be coercive. Enough so that when said today most people think of the Nazis. Huxley basically said it would take time and basically to repackage it again when the thoughts are open to it again.
Nazi government was more interested in making money and imperialism than science- they only used science and religions as tools and not for ideals.
joelarnda 5 months ago
@joelarnda Yes, I agree with that. New initiatives for human genetic selection don't necessarily need to use the word "eugenics" in fact I would almost guarantee that anyone proposing that wouldn't unless they were completely incompetent politically.
I'd be interested in hearing your answers to my previous questions about secular humanism.
kyebean 5 months ago
@kyebean So now back to the question I'll ask again. How are you a nihilist and a secular humanist at the same time? Is there not a logical contradiction between the 2 and how do you reconcile this?
Why do you consider subjectivity and norms not a limitation or fault? I think that is a rhetorical question that does not need an explanation in the field of science.
As I said before I do advocate secular humanism. I also advocate other alternatives as well to have a compilation.
joelarnda 5 months ago
@joelarnda I already explained that, I'll quote what I said: "Maybe we're using different definitions of nihilism, what I meant was that I don't believe values are objective. That is consistent with secular humanism in that I advocate ethics and justice even if I know the values they're based on are not objective." Like I've said many times, ALL values are subjective by definition, therefore ALL value systems are based on subjective principles. Those principles are norms. What alternatives?
kyebean 5 months ago
@kyebean If your a nihilist. Why have norms? Why have values- that are immaterial, and flawed by subjectivity? It's a material world with only the laws of physics, physiology and nature dictating events. Anything else is just subjective neuronal impulses subjectively interpreting meaningless things- emotions are just biological impulses.
I think you claim to be a nihilist, but have cognitive dissonance unable to accept life as meaningless- and delude yourself with Secular humanism.
joelarnda 5 months ago
@joelarnda Why have values? really? I think you could answer that yourself if you thought about it for a second. There would be no point to living at all without values. It's our nature to have values. Just as subjectivity and immateriality are the nature of values. That's like saying why have a child that is flawed by needing to breath and eat. I do not believe life is meaningless. The meaning of a life is determined by the individual living it. What position do you take?
kyebean 5 months ago
@kyebean If you are a nihilist, there is no secular humanism alternative or principles because they themselves are artificial constructs that again are immaterial- you would only be further deluding your self by trying to construct things devoid of meaning.
When you see the immaterial world as more than just the material then you are stepping outside the realm of nihilism. To even consider secular humanism any othe immaterial alternative, you have to reject nilism to be logically consistent.
joelarnda 5 months ago
@joelarnda Fine, I don't fit into your personal definition of nihilism.
kyebean 5 months ago
@kyebean You never defined what nihilism is to you. You dodge the question again and again and now instead resort to a cop out line of "Fine, I don't fit into your personal definition of nihilism" It's not my definition and all I am asking is if you are logically consistent by any definition of nihilism.
This is a common problem some people run into with nihilism, by all definitions (nothing personal). Prove me wrong if there is such a thing.
Seems like you might be finished answering
joelarnda 5 months ago
@joelarnda I've answered this again and again, I'll quote once more: "Maybe we're using different definitions of nihilism, what I meant was that I don't believe values are objective. That is consistent with secular humanism in that I advocate ethics and justice even if I know the values they're based on are not objective." That tells you what I meant when I said I was a nihilist and how that IS consistent with secular humanism.
kyebean 5 months ago
@kyebean. Define what nihilism is to you? From what you have said so far is "what I meant was that I don't beleive values are objective"
I don't think you can walk into any academic room and say "I don't beleive valuse are objective" and have anybody guess that this is a definition of nihilism. Just because you don't beleive values are objective does not qualify you as a nihilist. Your just a secular humanist because you put value on humans.
There is nothing wrong with that.
joelarnda 5 months ago
@joelarnda It's my understanding that the subjectivity of values is basically the core belief of moral and existential nihilism, but you may be right that the academic definition goes further than that and in that context I suppose I am not a nihilist. What is your understanding of the definition?
You brought up the subject of nihilism by saying you can't be a logical atheist without being a nihilist. I think you're an atheist, so you must be a nihilist and also a secular humanist????
kyebean 5 months ago
Comment removed
kyebean 5 months ago
@kyebean Your half way there with your definition but stop short. Moral relativism is the subjectivity of values- your definition fits this perfectly. A moral relativist can make ethical decisions, judgements and subjectively assign values to such things as humans. Or maybe even Moral universalism depending on how deep you want to look at it. This is where the train stops and you can be a secular humanist and be logically consistent in believieng it
Nihilism, has moral skepticism at best.
joelarnda 5 months ago
@joelarnda are you an atheist? if yes, let me point out that you said: "secular humanism is inconsistent- only nihilists are the intellectually honest atheists when it comes to morality." So you must be a nihilist. Then you said: "As I said before I do advocate secular humanism." So you advocate nihilism and secular humanism while simultaneously arguing that your own positions are inconsistent and incompatible.
kyebean 5 months ago
@kyebean 1/2 As I said before, I subscribed to nihilism for a time in undergraduate. After having all my beleifs dismantled through evidence presented in Biology, chemistry, and psychology classes. I began to see the world as materialism only and nihilism is it's end logical conclusion.
One of the compelling things for me to change my position was physics, math, and Logic. "Logic consists of rules and laws that are unchanging, universal, and immaterial" Math follows the same rules too
joelarnda 5 months ago
@kyebean 2/2 With using Math, logic, and other things that are immaterial and applying it to the material and marrying the two as in physics impressed me. Having a formula like F=MA (that is immaterial) and applying it to the material world made perfect sense.
Living in an immaterial world and applying it to the material is when I could no longer be an atheist or even an agnostic.
Trying to test for a God in a material world is equivalent to testing for infinite in a material world.
joelarnda 5 months ago
@joelarnda You live in an immaterial world?? I was under the impression that I was talking to a physical human sitting at a physical computer.
How does the conclusion that a certain deity exists logically follow from anything you're saying?
Define "God".
kyebean 5 months ago
@kyebean Test for infinite.
joelarnda 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@joelarnda "Test for infinite." How does that answer my question? Also, WTF does it mean?
kyebean 5 months ago
@kyebean . Taking out of context aren't we?? You use logic don't you--- It's immaterial
The Language of god is seen in nature through the material world by the natural laws we observe, and also the immaterial through logic, math, physics and touching into metaphyics. It is in the immaterial that we see bonds, friendships, love and understanding of empathy- To discover all the complexities of the universe both material and immaterial world is the search for describing into being what God is
joelarnda 5 months ago
@joelarnda Actually, on the deepest layer, logic is a set of physical processes taking place in our "material" brains. This is not yet fully understood by neurology, but we know it happens.
I don't consider your response a DEFINITION of "God". Imagine you're writing a dictionary of all the vocabulary you use, and you are writing YOUR entry for the word "God". Something like "God: all the complexities of the universe"
kyebean 5 months ago
@kyebean Logic by definition is immaterial- like it or not- that's what it is unless you would like to redefine it for the world and write a book on it. As far as what is happening in the brain, it would only make sense that it follows the rules and laws of logic just like everying else does. That is exactly the point of marrying the immaterial with the material in formulas like F=MA or the speed of light and the language of math- although immaterial they can apply just as much to the material
joelarnda 5 months ago
@joelarnda I just explained to you how logic is AT LEAST partly material, you haven't debunked my claim, you've simply denied it. Here is the first dictionary definition I found "Logic: Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity" You think that reasoning isn't a process of our physical brain?
kyebean 5 months ago
Comment removed
kyebean 5 months ago
Comment removed
kyebean 5 months ago
Comment removed
kyebean 5 months ago
Comment removed
kyebean 5 months ago
Comment removed
kyebean 5 months ago
Comment removed
kyebean 5 months ago
Comment removed
kyebean 5 months ago
Comment removed
kyebean 5 months ago
@kyebean youtube fucking sucks, sorry about all the duplicates.
kyebean 5 months ago
@kyebean Do you use math? Do you use logic? Do you believe the universe is finite? I would like to here your to hear your answer to all 3 questions-in any order you like
joelarnda 5 months ago
@joelarnda Of course I use math and logic. I don't have a belief regarding whether the universe is finite, because we don't currently have any way of gathering evidence beyond the limitations of EM radiation reaching our system. If I had to choose, I would guess it's finite, because we don't have a verified example of anything that is infinite and thus don't know if the concept is even possible in reality.
kyebean 5 months ago
@kyebean Do you really believe the universe is finite? Is there anything to show what happens at the end of it? Do we just fall off like many had thought would happen to the earth before 1500 just because we would fall off? I guess the end of the universe is your working hypothesis and infinity is mine.
If your only open to what we know, then we are denying what is outside of what we know that has not been discovered yet. Much like the Western civilization before 1500
Oh yeah- God= IS
joelarnda 5 months ago
@joelarnda you just don't listen do you? I JUST SAID: "I don't have a belief regarding whether the universe is finite, because we don't currently have any way of gathering evidence beyond the limitations of EM radiation reaching our system." Why would you assume I'm only open to "what we know"? I've said nothing to suggest that. "IS"? that is your definition of the word "God"? I can only hope you're joking.
kyebean 5 months ago
@kyebean After I get an answer from the 3 questions I asked, I will give my definition of God or any of the other names you would like to call it deity, source, or whatever new lables they have for it.
joelarnda 5 months ago
@joelarnda Okay, I've answered your questions. I'm asking you what YOU believe, with words of YOUR choice. What do you mean when you say the word "God" to me? What does that word represent? Please keep in mind what I said about defining it in a clear dictionary style.
kyebean 5 months ago
@kyebean Define time?
joelarnda 5 months ago
@joelarnda WTF are you on about?? are you really that incapable of answering a question?
kyebean 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kyebean You never defined what nihilism is to you. You dodge the question again and again and now instead resort to a cop out line of "Fine, I don't fit into your personal definition of nihilism" It's not my definition and all I am asking is if you are logically consistent by any definition of nihilism.
This is a common problem some people run into with nihilism, by all definitions (nothing personal). Prove me wrong if there is such a thing.
Seems like you might be finished answering
joelarnda 5 months ago
@joelarnda friendship is a social bond, usually distinct from familial and sexual relationships. A relationship is a connection of some kind, between humans it often means a close bond involving sharing. Family are genetically closely related individuals, they often share resources and support eachother, in modern society it's an important financial unit. A neighbor is a person residing in close proximity. A loved one is an especially intimate friend, often a family member or sexual partner.
kyebean 6 months ago
@kyebean If the bond serve no "financial purpose" or socials needs to progess then what material use does it serve?
joelarnda 6 months ago
@joelarnda I just said it DOES serve a financial purpose. "socials need to progress" wtf does that mean? are you off your meds?
kyebean 6 months ago
@kyebean It is a hard reality to deal with. Logically answer the question intstead of answering with insults and judgements like a dogmatic christian. It is reality if you accept the locial tenents of an atheists. Your response is a perfect example of denilal:-)
joelarnda 6 months ago
@joelarnda Your question relied on two premises, the first was completely false. The second was incoherent and irrelevant. Therefore I can't answer your question until you clarify/rephrase. What do you mean by "it"? "locial" "tenents" "an atheists" and "denilal" are not part of the English language. Try again.
kyebean 6 months ago
@kyebean You sound like the former president of the United States with "what is the definition of is?'
An absurdity to linguistics and obvious evasive way to avoid a simplisctic question!
joelarnda 6 months ago
@joelarnda "IT is a hard reality to deal with... IT is reality if you accept...." how am I supposed to know what noun that pronoun represents in your statement, you used it very much out of context. So what reality are you referring to when you say "It"?
kyebean 6 months ago
@kyebean Thanks again for proving my point :-) Try hard as you want with wemantic and word you will drive your self made with reality. You have already done as such withou ever advancing your arguerment or stating a solid positions. It is why it is laughable as many have tried :-) Pliase try againg I need another!!!!!!!!!
joelarnda 6 months ago
@joelarnda What point of yours have I proven? I haven't even heard a coherent argument from you, we can't get anywhere if you can't manage to clearly state your position. I'm asking you very simple, clear, direct, relevant questions and you are completely ignoring them. I can only conclude that you don't have the ability to answer and are throwing out all these red herrings to divert attention. Also, I think your keyboard is broken, maybe get a new one.
kyebean 6 months ago
@kyebean As I said before, I am an advocate of secular humanism and see it as a good thing. So do not get me wrong, I am glad to hear that we are in the same camp. I just fail to see a logical consistency between Nihilism (by any definition) with secular humanism.
That is why my first comment on this page was taking a nihilistic aproach- secular humanism is just as laughable as theism.
Either way, Have a good weekend and a good laugh. Take care
joelarnda 5 months ago
The funny thing is that atheists and theists derive their morality/purpose/oughts from the same exact source, it's just that theists like to dress it up with mythology in a ridiculous attempt to make themselves seem superior and give them a sense of community. If you can't figure out what source I'm talking about, here it is: biological instincts and modern society.
kyebean 10 months ago
@kyebean secular humanism is inconsistent- only nihilists are the intellectually honest atheists when it comes to morality. That is the big joke of secular humanism, as hard as one tries to make ethics from it- it is an empty shell with nothingness at its core. People who choose an empty philosophy can try as hard as they can to delude themselves of reality.
The nihilist would ask who is crazier the secular humanist or the theist. At least the theist is hedging their bets with Pascal
joelarnda 6 months ago
@joelarnda You seem very interested in judging philosophies, what I'm interested in is what position YOU take. You assert that secular humanism is an empty shell with nothing at it's core, without even pretending to justify your claim. Am I supposed to just take you at your word? sorry, putting my faith in random people on the internet hasn't worked out so good in the past. The core of secular humanism is valuing humanity. It's not an epistemological position, it's simply a value like any other.
kyebean 6 months ago
@kyebean It's not judging other philosophies, it's called logical deducement. If you explore David Hume and follow pure logic- (not what one wants to have)- secular humanism fails with moral relativism (values).
Nihilism is atheism at its end logical end conclusion, Secular Humanism only exists when it deludes itself from the end logical conclusion by trying to define values (things that are immaterial). To accept atheism as such you have to accept what comes with it and thats nihilism.
joelarnda 6 months ago
@joelarnda I am an atheist and I am a moral and existential nihilist, but it is absolutely false that Atheism necessarily leads to nihilism. There are all kinds of appeals to objective values besides theistic ones, and they are all equally false. Don't confuse moral and existential nihilism with epistemological nihilism. Humanism is not objective and doesn't try to be, thus it doesn't fail. It's a subjective value system, like ALL other value systems.
kyebean 6 months ago
@kyebean Eugenics! You can take both sides as you want as a humanist as far as what is the greater good for humanity. You can justify both sides as which is the greater good. Both sides have been taken and followed through. Like it or not define what is the greater good for humannity by who's terms: yours, mine, or someone elses? People believed in the "Final Solution: for humantiy, and many agreed- Like it or not- Relative Morality is grossly inconsistent. Morality + values are immaterial!
joelarnda 6 months ago
@joelarnda you'll have to rephrase your question with better grammar. "Relative Morality" is grossly inconsistent? If you meant to capitalize that, I don't know what you're referring to. If you didn't, of course it is inconsistent, by definition, why should morality be consistent when we are always receiving new data and coming to new understandings. Killing a person is wrong with no reason, killing a person is right to save a million other people. Obviously they're immaterial, so what?
kyebean 6 months ago
Spiritual retribution is far more persuasive than social punishment.
kapfreebird 1 year ago
@kapfreebird To the mentally defective.
kyebean 10 months ago
So therefore because of this disparity in innate perception of right and wrong, for societies to exist successfully (which could not perhaps, be said of most African countries) there must be a way to standardize morality and ethical codes. As there are differences in what people perceive as right and wrong, those who are unable to innately understand ethics require religion as a way to justify laws, governance and ethics. If someone doesn't care about the society around them why not kill?
kapfreebird 1 year ago
So therefore there MUST be something to strengthen this. To say that we have inbuilt ''consciences" is to ignore billions of examples that contradict this. For example I give you Africa. There is no need to go into the countless and horrifying atrocities that are perpetrated there almost every minute of everyday - either visit or read a newspaper from time to time. So I would put it to you that we do not ''all'' have inbuilt good natures and sense of good and evil.
kapfreebird 1 year ago
To use the sociological argument alone that it is bad to kill someone because it damages society law and order etc may be acceptable to the logician, but falls down when the idea of war is introduced, ie it is acceptable to kill those from other communities to protect your own. This then introduces the problem that if it is perceived to be good for society then it is OK. Crime and Punishment might also be refereed to for another twist in the fragility of this premise as Raskolnikov finds out.
kapfreebird 1 year ago
Religion simply 'justifies' social morality. Sociopaths, for example, while not accepting society's ethical codes (as they cannot empathize and see others as only objects) they will, to a great extent respond if these are vindicated by a greater power or religious figure, ie the omnipotent god. What reasons other than sociological ones, can be made for not committing what we consider acts of felony or evil.
kapfreebird 1 year ago
Your brakes "ought to stop" your car, and in the same way, we ought not to do things because a god says so? You really can't think of any other reason to possibly not do certain actions? Let's say you burn an entire town's food supply. You can't possibly think of ANY reasons why you oughtn't do such a thing? I'm sure the townsfolk will find plenty, regardless of the local religion!
You don't necessarily need god/s to tell you whether certain actions are frowned upon.
SmallGreenPlanetoid 1 year ago
I'm an atheist. I find it funny that when he actually gets down to talking about morality, he talks about genocide. When I think about morality, I'm thinking about holding a door open at the coffee shop, or standing up when an old lady gets on the bus. Genocides and Holocausts don't belong in a descussion about morality.
MrBadham 1 year ago
do you think that nihilism is dangerous?
sum1unxpected 1 year ago
um...one question, how can morals be dependent on god? (or as i'd rather say, the notion of god) if morals were dependent because of a notion of god then he could command ANYTHING to be moral. so he could command rape, murder, stealing, and things like them to be moral. so explain how people couldn't come up with morals without the notion of god. morals are independent of the notion of god.
chikapiss 1 year ago
Responding to the claim: "Atheism" =No belief in god(s)
"Atheism" =/= belief in the absence of god(s)"
Theism=E(evidence) + X(proposition) = "A" (theism)
Atheism=E(evidence) + Non X(proposition)= "Non A"(the negation of theism)
Common atheistic claim= X(no belief, no evidence, absence of evidence,E(0)) + X(god, gods) = Non A (atheism)
rephrase, E(0) + X = Non A, it's completely CIRCULAR, if we assume this position.
4IDHero 1 year ago
Nihilism is an absence of meaning. Even I want to believe there is someone tending the light at the end of the tunnel. The freaky truth may be that, even if there is, that person tending the light is not some all powerful enduring forever Thing. Maybe it's just someone else who was here before me. Therefore, each generation passes the torch of purpose and meaning, shining a light into the darkness, defying the encroachment of nihilistic beings, but not requiring a god to do this.
xoxoguydebord 1 year ago
It isn't that a secular humanist worldview can't have prescriptive facts, it just can't have objective, transcendental prescriptive facts. This is because morality is a relative concept, derived from how a stable population, as a whole, acts. Anything that falls outside this social norm is considered immoral. If moral were objective, we couldn't have morality outside of specific absolute, black and white situations.
theneonfire 1 year ago
The greatest thing about this video, is that while looking at the suggestion videos, I noticed one of them is called "Why are Atheists So Boring?"
Kind of ironic, given the situation...
Your video sucks.
chadd990 1 year ago
Sorry, but the stupidity of your so called arguments completely baffles me.
Tiwaz1337 1 year ago
To be moral, one need only have a predefine framework upon which to decide what is moral, or not. This is poses no grave risk to the vast majority of atheists. I for example define good as actions which have a detrimental, or neutral consequence for the actor, and benefit the recipient, and evil, as actions which have a positive or neutral consequence for the actor, and harm the recipient. This in no way requires any form of belief about gods.
mordinvan 1 year ago
Morality doesn't have to be transcendental to be real. While Atheism posits that the only transcendental facts are descriptive doesn't mean that there is no such thing as morality. It only means that it is not transcendental; it is derived from lower processes. For example, it is a prescriptive, non-transcendental fact that I should help/care for my family. It derives from my own emotions. My moral relationship to my family is based off of this fact. I don't see any problem here.
Skyler827 1 year ago
60 to 240 hmmm
facelessone86 1 year ago
Secular humanism is not atheism. Many atheists are sucular humanists, but not all are. Nor is atheism nihilism.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
Morality is just a way of survival. No need for god, just a natural way of learning how to live in peace, and thereby survive.
Bonobo's start making love to eachother when there are social tenses in a group, we fight or talk.
First we fight. We learn that fighting isn't the right solution, because it comes with even more problems. So for the next time we say, dont fight and harm others, but talk. So as a logical next step to what we have observed before we now prescribe to talk and not fight.
Benedict0s 1 year ago
I can't figure out what is right or wrong unless the bible tells me. Should I kill my girlfriend? (checks bible) No, Deuteronomy says not to. Should I beat the shit out of her just for the hell of it? (checks bible) Seems like that's okay.
Man, I don't know how atheists can figure out this stuff if they aren't taking orders from God.
jimbrown257 1 year ago 6
first off, even if he's not a christian in the "modern sense" i.e. agreeing with migkillertwo on every theological issue ever, donexodus is atleast, at the verry least a deist.
secondoff prescriptive things in your sense are descriptive also, as in " universe a and virtual universe b were created by god c. their convergence, creating universe ab, have a 100% chance please god c" couldn't an atheist, with equal verasity say" universe ab's existence would please me"
arachnophile01 1 year ago
your citation of those two philosophers doesn't prove anthying other than breaking down of certain metaethical premises, that ethics are physical properties or that they can't be derrived from facts, which you'll ever find anyone arguing with. that ethics ought to be transcendental is one you pulled right out of the hat. your back-handed scoff at rand is obscure. you make unaccountable assumption that actions have intrinsic ehtical value, which doesn't prove or disprove anything she ever said.
fede2 1 year ago
in short, you are dwelling on a mountain of pressupositions. your devine-comand theory falls apart by it's own strength since the content of god's command is determined by subjectively fetishizing one supposed revelation over thousands of others if you insist that reason is impotent when it comes to ethics.
fede2 1 year ago
Migkillertwo, you may be a theist for all I know (and that seems to be the case), but don't listen to these shallow humanists. I agree with a lot of humanist doctrine, but nothing about humanism makes it objective or into some binding imperitave.
I would say that morals don't exist, are unnecessary, and are emotional at their core. But atheists make the same mistake as theists when saying, "morality exists, so just deal with it!"
AtheistAltar 1 year ago
Great vid dude!
tpsisokayiguess 1 year ago
What you did to Nietzsche is simply distastefull. Read him, before you smear him.
Even though it might demand some intellect of you...
TheAmazingSatirist 1 year ago
There are many people in this world who don't believe in God (or any dieties), but we do not harm others. How about the priests who commit sexual abuse? I bet you they believe in God, it does nothing to make them more moral. In fact, very often, those who are too hung up on morality, those who wants to prescribe to others their standards of morality, fail to realise others who do not share their beliefs can be moral, and can be more moral than they are.
wugui77 1 year ago
Instead of using bible as a standard, I find having empathy is usually enough to live a "moral" life. I don't wanna getting killed, so I know others most likely wont want to be killed either. What do I do? I don't kill people. See, no need for god.
If you really need god to tell you not to kill people or other destructive things to yourself and other people.... seriously, seek some help.
And don't bother with absolute morality, doesn't exist, never did, never will.
kk207 1 year ago
Funny you mention genocide. That was commanded by God a few times in the Old testament,
cperez1000 1 year ago
@cperez1000
more than just in old testament, look at the book of revelation, see what this all loving god has in store for humanity.
kk207 1 year ago
This is a very very sloppy argument.
BillyNeverDies 1 year ago
DonExodus is agnostic. He even says so in the video info tab of 'Common Misconceptions...'
jesse1018 1 year ago
"Some atheists can be moral." ?
Fuck you sir!
What a bigoted thing to say.
LordNapalm 1 year ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
ur arguments are bullshit. compatibilism is true! accept the facts, Natzi.
grandslam841 2 years ago
Du er en gud forbannet idiot.
morkedager 2 years ago 3
You've never read a word of Nietzsche in your life have you?
adrenacrumb 2 years ago 28
Your argument is painfully facile. By your reasoning anything that creates and promotes prescriptive statements is the creator of morality. Society has done this since before god was even dreamed into being.Therefore, by your own argument, humans are the creators of morality.
Moreover you seem to forget that every religion has prescriptive statements, many written before the christian god.
I think you need to read more of Hume's work.
For your sake, I hope Don doesn't waste his time with you.
VoxVeritasVita 2 years ago 7
How to derive an ought from an is:
P1 The fire IS hot.
P2 Humans don't like to feel pain.
C, Atheist prescription: Don't put your hand in the fire.
With sufficient premises and reason one CAN derive an ought from an is.
There are no prescriptions against slavery, misogyny, infanticide or child abuse in the Bible. On the contrary, these are condoned.
No god needed.
awatson945 2 years ago 5
"SOME atheists"? There is evidence that theists are less moral.
awatson945 2 years ago
I see where you're going, but I fundamentally disagree with you.
By your definition of the word transcendental (facts which are true regardless of what anyone thinks) I think you develop more problems than solutions.
I don't personally know any theists that would see eye to eye on ALL moral issues. I think that most theists have have different interpretations of morality, even within the same religion.
I don't think there is a "transcendental morality" that fits your definition.
addictionsun 2 years ago
Nietzsche never taught that morality cannot exist without God, and no respectable philosopher would. Even Nietzsche, who was utterly opposed to Christian slave morality (as he called it) had his own moral ideals. Everyone has values.
True, absolute morality is abolished by atheism. Thank God. Absolute morality is a horrible blight on humanity, one of the ultimate rational mistakes anyone could possibly make.
notthecheatr 2 years ago 4
The way I see it, as an atheist, I can be angry if someone hurts me, and since I know that being hurt is bad, I can be angry if someone hurts someone else, too.
You know, that whole "Do unto others" thing that's actually not Christian-derived.
On the other hand, Christians who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, and the perfect morality of God MUST condone massacres throughout history, as well as the infinite torturous burning of otherwise good people but non-Christians in Hell now.
Rationalific 2 years ago 5
Nietzsche was twice the man you'll ever be!
"Christianity was from the beginning, essentially and fundamentally, lifes nausea and disgust with life, merely concealed behind, masked by, dressed up as, faith in another: or better life. Hatred of the world, condemnations of the passions, fear of beauty and sensuality, a beyond invented the better to slander this life, at bottom a craving for the nothing, for the end, for respite, for the sabbath of sabbaths ~ Friedrich Nietzsche
danieljliversLXXXIX 2 years ago 8
This "intentionality" you describe, the "some sort of agent"--which in no way, by the way, suggest an Abrahamic God--is the mind.
StAndAl0neCompl3x 2 years ago
There is something else that could have prescriptively created morality. They are organisms called Humans, Non existant supernatural beings had nothing to do with it.
shandorejunk 2 years ago
Can't be a moral realist and a secular atheist at the same time? Really? Transendental are things that are true, and you argue that objects can't have morality? Throwing around semantics doesn't make you right. You commit the ultimate fallacy.
Why does God solve the problem? Because you have the premise that he already exists this is false. You have some pretty serious circular reasoning.
shandorejunk 2 years ago
"It's not true that one can be an atheist and morale realist at the same time."
So you're saying that the second someone doesn't believe in any of the gods on this planet, they suddenly have no concept of morals? Also, just because morals are subjective doesn't mean we don't care about morals.
MortalTodd 2 years ago
This video is absolutely brutal. My I.Q has suffered for having endured it.
Wiggam666 2 years ago 3
very well put. You should check out Hamza Tzortzis and Adam Deen. These guys use these very arguements in debates against humanist secular views for the existence of God. Ofcourse, even though they are muslim, like me, they are debating as theists in most cases.
MumbhaiMBBS 2 years ago
You should get someone with charisma to read your words for your next video.
MrFumbleoh 2 years ago
moral realist?
Is there anything in the bible against peeing on a baby?
If god peed on a baby would it be evil?
Who is the moral realist now?
AAL 2 years ago 4
I'm fairly certain you have confused an atheist with a materialist (or a naturalist?). I'm hard pushed to imagine a materialist who is not also an atheist but I know plenty of atheists who aren't materialists.
Your depiction of moral nihilism is also a bit of a caricature.
At no point do you say how any of this has anything to do with secular humanism. I cant help but feel you need to make clear who your arguments are aimed at.
Finally, you begin with a "No true Scotsman" fallacy. Really?
nanoduckling 2 years ago
Ok, wait a sec, im a subscriber, but the Joker...a secular humanist? That is just a silly thing to say, its like the time some conservatives did the exact same thing to a picture of Obama. The joker is deffinatly not a humanist, humanists are people who see the ultimate good in humanity and what they can achieve, the joker sees humanity as disguisting and vile, they are completly the opposite things! This is a complete mis-representation, its asif someone accused Reagan of being a commy.
Erech01 2 years ago
@Erech01
The joker is a nihilist, just like Nietzsche. This is a nihilist critique (though I'm not a nihilist) of secular humanism.
migkillertwo 2 years ago
@migkillertwo NO, The Joker is an Anarchist. Nihimism, Anarchy and Humanism are all completely contradictory ideas that have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with each other.
dechha1981 2 years ago 3
@dechha1981
How are anarchism and nihilism contradictory?
migkillertwo 2 years ago
@migkillertwo OK, you got me there. I just looked up Nihilism in the dictionary and it actially mentions Anarchy.
Still, WTF makes you think Humanism has anything in common with Nihilism? You yourself say that Nihilism denies human values or the value of Human life. Do I even need to mention how much that contradicts Humanism?
dechha1981 2 years ago
@dechha1981 deccha, it has nothing to do with humanism. It is anethema to humanism. THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT OF USING THE NIETZSCHE JOKER!
migkillertwo 2 years ago
@migkillertwo You SPECIFICALLY said it was "More than apropriate" to use an Anarchis/Nihilist image when making a video TITLED "Another video on secular humanism".
The very fact that there's a single difference between one philosophy held by Atheists and nanother philosophy held by Atheists contradicts your whole idea that Atheism automatically leads to one paticular philosophy, or even any.
Frankly, I pitty the kind of brain that gets ALL of its beliefs from one thing.
dechha1981 2 years ago 7
@deccha, learn about something called modus tollens and modus ponens.
If atheism is true, then nihilism is true.
migkillertwo 2 years ago
#1, "Atheism" is a LACK OF BELIEF you tool! a LACK OF BELIEF can't be true or false. That would require "Atheism" to be an actual statement about reality, rather than a discription of people who simply don't believe something.
#2, If I don't know what "modus tollens and modus ponens" are, then explain to me how they can have anything to do whith what I believe.
#3, I just double checked. Nihimism isn't a statement about Reality either. It's a rejection of Authority and stuff.
dechha1981 2 years ago 13
@dechha1981
1: Atheism is the negation of theism. A (which means not)-Theos (which means God). "Atheism"=No God
2: Modus tollens: If P, then Q. Not Q, Therefore not P. Modus ponens: If P then Q, P, therefore Q
3: You idiot! Nihilism is a way of approaching truth claims which denies them outright!
migkillertwo 2 years ago
@migkillertwo
"Atheism is the negation of theism"
Atheism is the rejection of theism.
A (which means not)
Theos (which means god(s)).
-Ism (which means belief)
"Atheism" =No belief in god(s)
"Atheism" =/= belief in the absence of god(s)
MisterGibs 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MisterGibs "A (which means not)
Theos (which means god(s)).
-Ism (which means belief)
"Atheism" =No belief in god(s)
"Atheism" =/= belief in the absence of god(s)"
Theism=X(proposition) + E(evidence) = X (theism)
so atheism should be...
Atheism= X(proposition) + E(evidence) = Non X(the negation of theism)
You claim= X(no belief, no evidence, absence of evidence) + X(atheism) = X(atheism) The latter is completely circular, as compared to the former.
4IDHero 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MisterGibs "A (which means not)
Theos (which means god(s)).
-Ism (which means belief)
"Atheism" =No belief in god(s)
"Atheism" =/= belief in the absence of god(s)"
Theism=X(proposition) + E(evidence) = X (theism)
so atheism should be...
Atheism= X(proposition) + E(evidence) = Non X(the negation of theism)
You claim= X(no belief, no evidence, absence of evidence) + X(atheism) = X(atheism) The latter is completely circular, as compared to the former.
4IDHero 1 year ago
Atheism is, simply, completely, totally and with no other baggage or shades of meaning: "Does NOT believe in a God, gods or other Supernatural Authority." Period. Fini. End. Full Stop. That's it. This has nothing whatsoever to do with morality, ethics, evolution, cosmology or any form of physical or natural science.
What you define as right and wrong is simplistic. Oughts, is or shoulds are not relavent here.
That's why DonExodus will not debate you, imo.
RyuDarragh 2 years ago 4
dude, YOU are not "really" a christian.
ooolikujy 2 years ago
This video demonstrates that you don't get what atheism is... still. It is simply a LACK of belief in God... Just like you don't believe in Buddah, or Shiva or Thor, or Zues... Atheists don't believe in God... its really that simple.. its not a 'world view'.
And wtf is Moral Realism? how are you using it here?
All you're doing here is setting up your own little litmus test and saying atheists fail it.
Morals are a set of social norms and behaviors developed over time... not from any god.
TZ3k 2 years ago 4
"Genocide is wrong..."
Except Yahweh commands it I guess...
Altruism can be distinguished from feelings of loyalty and duty
Altruism focuses on a motivation to help others or a want to do good without reward, while duty focuses on a moral obligation towards a specific individual (for example, God or a king)
DeletedDelusion 2 years ago 2
So we're agreeing that genocide is morally wrong? You said that genocide "has a property of being wrong."
In addition to 1 Samuel 15:1-3, there are plenty other examples of the "righteous" wiping out populations, smashing babies on rocks, slashing pregnant bellies...
Civilized humans (and other animals) have been able to resist any urge to slash pregnant bellies. Only religious zealots have a book telling them when it's okay to do it! Vague prescription, though...
TheHogTieChamp 2 years ago
shurch of his uploads for "thoughts on creationism" no vidos found has he taken it down and when do you know is it mirrod anywere
hens0w 2 years ago