Discovering Religion: Ep 22 - Moral Absolutes and The Motivation to be Moral (2 of 2)

[cynt123able]

Thats an odd thing to say religion has been changed by human hands. Since it was invented by humans to begin with.

[Liteuponlite]

from my research it seems that atheism is also a religion but without God. There belief is "There is no God and do what thy wills as long as it doesnt hurt another being" Atheist have there religous leaders such as Dawkins and Hitchens that they follow blindly. Many parts in this video are bias and inaccurate the part about homosexuality being determined before birth was funny.We all know Hitler used propagandar. Religion in most cases hase been changed by human hands.Have an open heart & mind..

[DiscoveringReligion]

@Liteuponlite

Atheism is not a religion. Atheism isn't even a philosophy. However, if you want to talk about Secular Humanism as a philosophy then fine, let's talk. Atheism is simply a lack of belief -- a rejection of theistic claims, nothing more, nothing less. BTW, homosexuality is not a choice. I am a physician and I have studied the physiology of homosexuality in detail . If it were a choice then sexuality would be a choice for everyone. I've never made the decision to be straight, have you?

[bryankorth]

@DiscoveringReligion keep it up!stay eloquent and reasoned. From my vantage it sure seems as if america is choosing ignorance and hate over intelligent well thought out policy. I would like to rip this series and compile it on dvd to give people who I think may see in your content the answers to some of the more troubling parts of religion that is off limits for them to ask of clergy but just is not right to follow.

[porropedro]

@Liteuponlite As someone who does not believe in the theistic traditions, stories, or laws of any religion I can tell you why I am not a practitioner of a religion and what my idea of religion is. I believe in logic and science, and that is not a religion because it is a fluid idea. We do not follow the intellectual giants blindly, they must propose a hypothesis, run an experiment to support it... and then others have to be able to reproduce that experiment. As new ideas come, science evolves...

[porropedro]

cont...

I do think religion was important for it was our first attempt at almost every field of study. Science is the best attempt to explain the world around us using the evidence we have available. Religion told us how the world was created, why natural events and illness occurred, and what happens to us after death; it involved astrology, mathematics, and even politics. But once written down, the ideas could not change and we now follow rules set by a people barely out of the stone age.

[rpk58]

@Liteuponlite Atheism is simply a rejection of the idea of God or Gods. Buddhism is often called an atheistic religion because it rejects the idea of a creator God. The earliest Hindu scripts refer to atheism, only to call atheists fools, but the point is that the idea of atheism is as old or even older  than theism. I became an atheist at a very young age, and I hadnt heard about Dawkins or Hitchens. Calling these people leaders whom atheists follow blindly shows that you have a lot to learn.

[MrOttopants]

Loved all your videos.  Thanks, man.

[lypse14]

I stayed up all night to watch your videos..at the moment, I'm tired as fuck, but it was well worth it. I love the organization and narration of this series, and I feel like I learned something new with each video, even if I was very familiar with the subject matter. I look forward to the rest of your videos.

[TBat87]

Watched every one and loved them. Thank you for taking the time to make these quality videos. Look forward to any more additions to this series.

[EnnoiaBlog]

@DiscoveringReligion If we had a famine of biblical proportions, where we could only feed 1/50th of the number being fed today... You think your 'secular morality' would do anything better? Have you seen the old show called Logan's Run? They had a secular moral system -- once you reached a certain age, your government-issued crystal changes color. And then it's your turn to go to the circle of rebirth -- to carousel. You'll get zapped into non-being, and be reborn.

[DiscoveringReligion]

@EnnoiaBlog

Yes, I have seen that movie, but again that is not how secular morality works, as I have described in my video. It is never moral to murder someone against their will, just because the majority decides it is their time to die. Refer to my other comments below.

[MrOttopants]

@EnnoiaBlog That's a movie. It is not real life. Dystopian futures are imagined based on the current understanding of the existing power structure.

It was written at a time when computers were in their infancy. That book was written in response to the new computer generation, the increase in population due to medical advances, and the issues surrounding young people and authority.

If I were you, I'd bring up Brave New World. You'd have to read it first.

[EnnoiaBlog]

The idea of Morality being something that changes, through time, is interesting. In theory, this sort of democratic understanding of morality would permit 51% of the people to kill the other 49% of the people. And we'd have no right to morally condemn such a society. Maybe they'd do it on battlefields. Or maybe through some lottery system. Such distinctions would be meaningless, anyhow -- since it doesn't matter what we think of it now. Who are we to judge them?

[DiscoveringReligion]

@EnnoiaBlog

What you described about 51% of the population democratically voting to murder the other 49% is not how secular morality works. Moral values can indeed change over time, but they cannot do so in a way that would violate personal autonomy or the well-being of society. Cold-blooded murder can never be moral, even if the majority decides to legalize it, for cold-blooded murder violates the autonomy of the person getting killed.

[DiscoveringReligion]

@DR

But some moral values can change over time. Imagine a country that views a non-addictive, carcinogenic, mild-altering substance to be acceptable for its citizens to ingest. A vote is taken and the majority agrees to legalize the drug, in order to preserve personal autonomy. However, 50 years later cancer is rampant among all drug-users. Thus the drug is voted to be outlawed, for societal well-being is now more important than preserving the autonomy of those who recreationally take the drug.

[DiscoveringReligion]

@DiscoveringReligion

In my example we see society's perception on the morality of ingesting a drug has changed, but always w/in the confined of "secular morality". Sometimes a fine-line must be walked b/w the preservation of autonomy and the well-being of society, which is perfectly exemplified in the repeal of prohibition in the 1920s. The morality of certain actions and behaviors can change, but such actions can never allow for a violation of personal autonomy or the well-being of society.

[jaekae8]

What a great series!

[bigstuff2005]

does Charlie who's voting against the 3 judges(6:28) know that the majority of people who commit murders are believers of god? so why didn't their belief stop them from murdering in the first place? the bad behavior he's referring to already exist...particullarly amongst Religion/Spiritual believers.

[ReverendWyrm]

@ 6:34 "...if homosexual marriage is OK then why can't I have a harem?" As long as everyone participating in this kind of polyamorous relationship is a willing and consenting adult I see no reason that you shouldn't be allowed to have a harem or multiple spouses. It's no different that having multiple boy/girlfriends but the government doesn't make dating more than one person illegal. In fact I would venture that the only reason polygamy is illegal is to prevent massive tax breaks.

[8698gil]

For people to say that homosexuality is a choice is ridiculous. Practicing homosexuality is a choice, but the orientation itself is not.  If it were really a choice, I don't think too many people would choose it, considering the amount of prejudice and bigotry they have to endure throughout their lives. Its much easier to be mainstream. I don't believe that there is anything wrong with practicing homosexuality between consenting adults.

[Bludgeonier]

It is saddening to see how many religions take the absolute morality of God approach. Of over 200 flavors of theistic beliefs I've taken the time to read up on, only 5 encourage secular thought and morality. Buddhism, Native American's Great Spirit, Shamanism, Wicca, and Druidism.

What is common among them? Life itself, being sacred and minimising suffering among your fellows.

If all religions would follow similar paths, and allowed for updates and referendum, I wouldn't have issues with them.

[niinja2]

@Bludgeonier

its ironic that for some reason you treat "secular morality " as something that everybody should follow, and you object other people that they are the ones that take the path of "absolute morality"?

why is this "secular morality " THE morality to be followed. If moral relativism is true then any theist can say its saddening how many people refuse to follow their kind of morality...

its not a "theist" problem, its everybody's problem

[Quiestre]

7:35 silent hill music? if so, you sir are offically awesome!

[sidharth0384]

I think Moral Absolutism is absurd, because s/he who projects or promotes it never provides/presents any kind of reasoning to back it up, but rather enforces it with coercive methods without any reasoning. About Marriage, I think Marriage by itself is a Social Construct, so we as a part of the society must adapt to the improvements in our Scientific Understanding which will be beneficial as a whole to the society. Let me know what do you think, if I am wrong on anything or everything !!!

[MrRr1024]

It's impossible for a Religious Person to have any morals at all, because

The GOD Morality Dilemma

1. Can god change the worshiping method/rules/morality or anything for his followers to follow at any time? (Yes/No)

2. Do you believe your gods word absolute? (Yes/No)

3. If god orders you to kill your own child, will you? (Yes/No)

As proof that god will, does and can force his followers to murder Brothers, Family and Friends is in Exodus 32:26-29

[doonaroona]

Just finished the series as it is so far, great stuff! Very informative with lots to digest but your skills in narration keep me watching. Thank you for not letting my efforts in procrastination get in the way of education. Cannot wait for the next instalment!

[xdassinx]

Great series! Just found it a few days ago. The arguments are outstanding. It's amazing there are any theists left.

[tech2841]

You would have to include hitlers concept of god, because it sets what was morally right to hitler. During the time there were a few research groups that were trying to disprove christianity and also revert to a pagan form of religion. Also the reason they didn't go against the catholic church was due to the fact they knew it was to big of an oppent for them to fight since they were fighting a three sided war. (physcially).

[SpecterWSA]

@discoveringreligion your videos are a cure for the plague of idiocy. Not to ride your dick or anything but your voice helps alot too as its soothing like morgan freeman or something too bad more werent "blessed" with such a perk ahaha

[WarmWeatherGuy]

At 5:50 you say that by knowing that being gay is not a choice we should allow gay marriage. Are you saying that if it WAS a choice then they should not be allowed to marry?

Please watch ZJ's video

YouTube channel name is ZJemptv

Uploaded April 10, 2009

It doesn't matter if being gay is a choice

/watch?v=Z_hNwNScw1I

[DiscoveringReligion]

@WarmWeatherGuy

That was in refutation to the common theistic claim. But if it is a choice the question turns to whether marriage is a right or a privilege? If it's a privilege, then no. Nothing says the Gov. HAS to let you marry, just like noting says you have the right to drive a car. But, marriage has long been considered a civil right. The Gov. provides certain financial/legal benefits w/ marriage all legal citizens have a right to enjoy. Two consenting adults must have the right to marry.

[EnnoiaBlog]

@DiscoveringReligion The courts have determined that the Government can intervene to PREVENT marriages. If you attempt to marry your sister or brother, as the case may be -- society can prevent that, up to X generations out (first or second cousins?). In that case, society is protecting itself from a harm (whether real or perceived). There is nothing threatening about two gay men being allowed to marry.  The very nature of the union excludes making babies.

[MrOttopants]

@EnnoiaBlog those are about health and stability.  If you wish to deny two adults the ability to enter into a contract with one another, and if you are basing it on religious reasoning, then you have transgressed the secular boundaries of the US government.

[Rhythmicons]

Thanks for the reply. Nice to chat with you.

Hmmm, paying money for protection...is that not Racketeering?

I thought that most of our Federal Tax dollars go to paying interest on the money that is printed and that the majority of our taxes don't go to what we think they go for.

My point is that it was almost as if you ruled out a large percentage of the homosexual population by stipulating they be taxpayers.

Im just nitpicking though.

Thanks for the chat, and mad props to your vision.

Eric

[Rhythmicons]

I guess though the real issue is marriage, and by the time they are old enough to get married they are taypayers. My point speaks to the whole mindset of prejudice against all homosexuals, and how it is pervasive and almost PC to bully gays. Since gays encompass a demographic outside of the boundaries of consenting age, I thought at the time the usage of the word taxpayers excluded a lot of legit citizens.

The rights are given to us by the "creator" right, not just taypayers. hahaha

[Rhythmicons]

The ONLY thing that I take issue with in your entire series, is one sentance so far...

5:56 "Therefore the United States should afford gays the same rights as every other TAXPAYING American citizen.."

Children, who do not pay taxes, still have the benefits of full citizenship and protection under the law (minus the ability to vote or purchase guns). Im just curious as to why you emphisized taxpayers. Otherwise I absolutely love this series, and want t on DVD when it is finished.

[DiscoveringReligion]

@Rhythmicons

I'll clarify. The State is required to do many things for its citizens in the way of protection from enemies, infrastructure like roads, etc. But more importantly, the State is supposed to protect and ensure our liberties. In return for all of this "protection", we pay taxes -- this is required of every working, lawful citizen. However, gay lawful tax-paying citizens are being denied their rights and liberties by the State merely because of how they are born. = Discrimination.

[deltaxcd]

@tewster

I think there is no difference between what we said about opinions.

"and your subjective moral compass in only valid while you masturbate by yourself..."

isn't that exactly same statement same what I was trying to prove in this long discussion?

[deltaxcd]

@tewster

what you say has nothing to do with logic. yes for practical reasons it is desirable to brainwash people into belief that something is forbidden but that does not make it true.

Morality has nothing to do with fighting, I do not kill people because I have empathy, not because my morality dissalow that. I can't force others to be same as me.

[tewster]

@deltaxcd you know what, i dont even know why I'd entertain your ineptitude. done

[deltaxcd]

@tewster

Discussion is not about practical application if morality, it is plain logic if morality is subjective it is completely private.

So, by pure logic and nothing more, if i think that something is ok then it is ok for me, you may think otherwise but your opinion is not worth more than mine.

[deltaxcd]

Argument that Hitler disregarded desire to live of Jewish people and that was immoral is invalid.

We disregard desire to live of many domestic animals while slaughtering them for food and do not give same rights to primates even if they share 98% of DNA with us.

If you proclaim Jews as another animals you get full moral rights to exterminate them. just as you have moral right to do medical experiments with monkeys.

[DiscoveringReligion]

@deltaxcd

I never said we should do harmful experiments to apes. But domesticated animals don't equal human beings. We decide to eat animals based on their functionality and their intelligence. We don't eat dogs because they've been breed as pets and they are smart. But animals like cows and chickens are stupid and are used as food. You don't kill humans because they are sentient beings equal to yourself. The members of the human species are equal, you don't have the right to kill your equal.

[deltaxcd]

@DiscoveringReligion

You are using same logic as Hitler. To justify what you do to animals you declare them not equal to human beings, by choosing some arbitrary difference. However instead of intelligence I am free to choose skin color or shape of skull just like Hitler did.

You need some objective factor to define who is equal and who is not equal to you.

[DiscoveringReligion]

@deltaxcd

You want an objective standard, how about science? Genetics objectively tells us that all humans can interbreed with one another, we are all the same species, and the way we look has no bearing on genetic superiority. So what's your objective standard? The Bible? Does the Bible say not to eat meat? I'd LOVE to know how you justify your vegan agenda through the Bible. Where in the Bible does it say not to perform experiments on animals? Where does YOUR morality come from?

[deltaxcd]

@DiscoveringReligion

I think I will write PM to you about morality.

Now about genetic, if you choose ability to interbreed then it means if some another sentient race (which is even more intelligent than we are) will come to earth it will be morally right to eat them or use as pets, because we cant interbreed.

If you do not support that conclusion, ability to interbreed cant be used as factor to define equality.

[DiscoveringReligion]

@deltaxcd

Why do you skew everything I say? The example of interbreeding shows that HUMANS are the SAME and it would not be acceptable to kill other humans, case closed. If you want to then talk about a smarter race of aliens you cannot use the genetic similarity between humans as evidence we can kill aliens. If the alien race comes in peace and does not wish to be killed, then we must not kill them, because they are sentient beings with autonomy. But if they attack us, then we can kill them.

[deltaxcd]

@DiscoveringReligion

I am not arguing if all humans are same I was asking how do you select who must have same rights as you and who has no rights. ( that includes everything not just human species)

And most important, how do you justify selection of that parameter in objective way.

[DiscoveringReligion]

@deltaxcd

As I said before, it's based on intelligence. But honestly, I don't see anything wrong with eating any kind of animal, so long as they are killed humanely. Humans are at the top of the food chain, as long as the animal has been taken care of throughout its life or hunted in a humane way, like shot with a gun and not trapped, then we can eat them. That's the way of nature, it's been like this for hundreds of thousands of years. What is your problem with eating meat? Are you a vegan?

[DiscoveringReligion]

@DiscoveringReligion

Although we eat animals, they still have rights. They should not be made to suffer, they need clean and safe living conditions, healthy food, not be experimented on in cruel ways, and if and when they must die it should be done with as little pain as possible. We need animals to live. If we didn't have the ability to perform experiments on animals we wouldn't be able to treat many disease, like diabetes. We must treat them fairly, but we can still use them as needed.

[deltaxcd]

@DiscoveringReligion

I do not care about animals neither I object eating them. I just use that as example to prove that you are wrong when you say that science can disprove Hitlers theory.

Hitler just redefined definition if human and that makes his actions as moral as when you eat animals.

it is futile to use logic or reasoning to prove morality. if you do that you just become immoral because you are trying to trick others that your beliefs are objective.

[DiscoveringReligion]

@deltaxcd

Science is objective and informs our moral reasoning. For example, take incest. We objectively know through the science that birth defects are produced in offspring whose parents do not have wide genetic variation between them, such as brothers and sisters or first cousins. The science of cognitive development shows us that children are not mentally developed enough to consent to sex, thus the age of consent is set at 16 or 18. Without science, upon what basis do you form such laws?

[deltaxcd]

@DiscoveringReligion

Do you really believe what you say?

Yes, incest has danger of birth defects but we have contraception and non incest couples with extreme possibility of birth defects, so that argument is void.

Also there is no scientific proof that may define universal age of consent or else that age would be equal everywhere.

These laws have nothing to do with science, you just select some law you want to pass then find some proof to convince others to obey your opinion.

[deltaxcd]

@deltaxcd

Only honest way to justify any law is to declare it as your opinion and provide adequate reward or punishment for obedience.

Punishments and rewards are expensive so it is best to enforce only these opinions that are really useful to you and easy to enforce.

Passing law of gay prosecution will cost much, while prosecuting murder is very profitable, this is what defines if law is useful or not.

[DiscoveringReligion]

@deltaxcd

I am afraid I do not understand your stance on morality. This whole time you have been pressing me for objective ways to define a moral standard, then you tell me the "Only honest way to justify any law is to declare it as your opinion and provide adequate reward or punishment for obedience." If Hitler provided an "adequate reward" for obedience to his "opinion" that we must kill Jews, then by your definition of morality how could you convince Hitler that his "opinion" is immoral?

[DiscoveringReligion]

@DR

I believe what I say. Throughout history people have engaged in incest and sex with pre-teens. Now that we have contraception should incest be legal? The reason it's not is because the law is still based on science. The possibility of pregnancy remains, even though contraception is used. Age of consent is not the same for every country because not everyone accepts the science due to cultural or religious reasons. Just like some Middle Eastern countries outlaw alcohol for religious reasons.

[DiscoveringReligion]

@deltaxcd

You didn't answer my question. If Hitler provided an "adequate reward" for obedience to his "opinion" that we must kill Jews, would Hitler be moral and could you prove him otherwise?

[deltaxcd]

@DiscoveringReligion

Your question is wrong.

I only can answer if actions of Hitler were lawful but not if they were moral.

I did not ever said that punishments or rewards have something to do with morality. These are required to make others to obey you.

Your mistake is that you try to derive law from morality, while you should keep your morality only for judging your own actions.

[DiscoveringReligion]

@deltaxcd

You cannot derive law from morality? You need to define your terms! What is law? What is morality? Then explain whether murder is immoral or just unlawful, and why it CANNOT be both.

[deltaxcd]

@DiscoveringReligion

law is common rules you need to obey to live in some society, morality is your own personal rule set.

murder can be lawful or unlawful and moral or immoral independently

If i declare that my moral code allows murder then murder is completely moral for me. If i declare that murder is immoral for me but still kill someone then I am immoral.

State may pass laws when murder is lawful in some cases ( Binladen for example).

It is just like in previous discussion about adultery.

[DiscoveringReligion]

@deltaxcd

I suggest you read up on morality, start with Sam Harris' "The Moral Landscape". Your conception of morality is warped. You said, "If i declare that my moral code allows murder then murder is completely moral for me." Not it's not! Morals are not arbitrary. Everyone has the right to autonomy via the Golden Rule. Murder is not equal to adultery. Murder is a violation of autonomy. Adultery is the violation of trust. This debate is pointless, you don't understand what youre talking about.

[deltaxcd]

@DiscoveringReligion

You are contradicting yourself if you say so:

first you need to prove that "Everyone has the right to autonomy".

And even if we agree on that statement then enforcing your subjective moral code to anyone else is still violation of autonomy.

According to golden rule if I don't mind to be murdered or even want to be killed, then i can murder anyone else or it is even my duty to murder people.

So it is completely compatible to what i said.

[DiscoveringReligion]

@deltaxcd

This is one of the most pointless debates I've had. Do you even understand what autonomy means? I wouldn't be enforcing anything on anyone, for they have autonomy as well. And you can't just murder someone because you want to die, the other person has autonomy you fucking idiot. You have no clue what the fuck these words mean. This is your morality ---> "If i declare that my moral code allows murder then murder is completely moral for me." That's fucking retarded.

[deltaxcd]

@DiscoveringReligion

You constantly say many statements that appear obvious but they still have no proof even sound stupid. It looks like debate with theist.

It may sound retarded but it is right.

if morality is subjective then it is private for everyone. If it is objective it is global.

If you do not prove that morality is objective what I said is absolutely true.

Subjective things by definition are private.

[DiscoveringReligion]

@deltaxcd

"If i declare that my moral code allows murder then murder is completely moral for me." <--- This is the point where you've lost touch with reality. All I can say is it's fucking scary. You seem to have a real difficultly understanding these concepts. On the other video it took hours before you finally understood the difference between eating meat and committing adultery. I simply don't have the patience to hold your hand through the quagmire that is your moral ineptitude. Goodbye.

[deltaxcd]

@DiscoveringReligion

Yes, it is scary but it is truth. You just refuse to accept that in a same way like you had difficulty to accept that god is not real.

Well, I hope one day you will understand it just like me because some time ago I also was like you in that matter then another user on YouTube explained to me in similar way.

Jut use more logic and you will come to same conclusion.

[tewster]

@DiscoveringReligion LOL I dont think he may understand a quagmire is a soft, mixed up area, similar to a marsh...

[niinja2]

@DiscoveringReligion

"It is impossible to know with any certainty what those moral absolutes are"

so when you call this man morally inept this is your subjective morality?

"Hitlers actions were wrong because he violated secular morality"

So secular morality is objective or absolute morality?

Your not consistent within a movie, you relativised everything else but your own view.

You did the thing for which you criticized theists, you said "my morality is right, all of you are wrong".

[scotttebben]

The religion of Christianity is founded upon Yahweh's totalitarian authority. This all to human contrived theist authority demands worship and obedience under threat of eternal damnation. This forced ultimatum is called "free will" by Christian doctrine. Morality is a non authoritarian concept and a rational stance agreed upon by the society and culture in which it evolved. Christianity polarizes humanity and has always been a blight on civilization.

[SpecterWSA]

If hitler woulda let a jew control his money he would have owned the planet. How come no one gets the best parts of all races together, itd be a tough army to face. Speed of the blacks, work ethic of mexicans, production power of asians finances of arabs and the snakey lies of the white devil lol, i smell sitcom

[OptimalElement]

And many theists accuse atheism of Hitler... tut tut tut

[1955RodHot]

You continue to do excellent work. And thank you for illustrating how Hitler- always the whipping boy for fundies who preach about God-given morality- often invoked God as his inspiration. Given the number of times God encouraged his followers to commit genocide against their enemies in the Bible, it is not difficult to see where Hitler got the idea that he was justified in his actions from a religious standpoint.

[ahmology]

Wait science did say that homosexuality is achieved when born . I need citation cause my girl friend keeps saying no it isn't its a psychopathology or environmentally pressured.

I you have a reputable source please share it with me, anyone.

[DiscoveringReligion]

@ahmology

I'll try to look it up, but this info is widely known in medicine. Study human development in the fields of embryology and endocrinology, the answers are found there. The short version is that it's a hormone imbalance in the womb that results in altered brain chemistry, causing same sex attraction. Elevated estrogen and testosterone levels in utero are also responsible for certain types of cognitive development and the length of your 3rd and 4th digits. PM me if you want more info.

[xorthan]

I personally know a lot of Christians who are willing to change their interpretation of God's law.

Just so you know.

[Mindslave1985]

Loving your work

[Berelore]

I had always thought that when people said "objective morality" that it was to mean there are things that are objectively right and wrong regardless of what the current culture/society believed. For example, slavery was always wrong bible or no bible institutionalized and widely accepted or not.

I also think it's dangerous to suggest morality has much if anything to do with how people feel. Morality generally comes down to the interaction of the use of force, contracts, and rights.

[DiscoveringReligion]

@Berelore

As I said in Episode 20, there are parts of secular morality that are subjective and objective. We subjectively value our freedom to do and say what we want, while respecting the autonomy of others, but it is objectively true that a society flourishes best when the freedoms we subjectively value are preserved. There are objective truths like don't kill or steal, but then there are subjective laws based on social consensus, such as age of consent, the legality of marijuana, and so on.

[Manifestatheist]

Great video! It's funny how theists will use the term "objective morals" GIVEN by their god(s). But when cornered into how they know what those are even when they contradict the holy text, they talk about god's morality written on our hearts. Yet, if you read the holy text--god's character does not mesh with even their own standard, let alone society in general.

[George4943]

If god is omnipotent then what he wants he can will to happen and it just does.

Not "doing god's will" is impossible. "Thy Will be done" a tautology.

Every single theist in a leadership position must believe that he is "doing [his] god's will." Evidence: If he wanted me not to be leader I would not be. I am, so he wants it.

If there is an objective morality it cannot be orders from a god.

Morality must be "Whose feelings matter." And continuing having feelings at all matters most.

[flexbrat]

religions are so sick ! time these fantasies must go ! this is what is holding human progress back , let this fantasy crap go ! NO DONT BELIEVE IN ANY GOD FANTASY ! FORGET THAT STUPID CRAP WAKE UP !

[flexbrat]

religions are so sick ! time these fantasies must go ! this is what is holding human progress back , let this fantasy crap go !

[AXSofHFDS]

hilter might have believed in aliens...i think his god was an alien o.o



[drbarry00]

epic.



[SEThatered]

looks like hitler was a Creotard too.

[dookiecheez]

While I do think Hitler was a firm believer in God, and most likely believed Christian dogma as well--I don't think it would change much of anything if he were merely a dedicated liar. The fact would still remain that religion, specifically Christianity, was the key tool which made people, many of whom were otherwise good people who felt the same compassion and sympathy we all feel, do terrible things.

[GreyLabyrinthine]

Why is it that fundies like WLC always go "if there ain't no afterlife, there ain't no real consequences and no real accountability"? We're accountable for all of our actions and defaults /today/. Doesn't that count? If I cut my legs of right now, wouldn't that *really* matter to me, regardless of god? People have to live with themselves all their lives. Their actions don't matter on a cosmic scale, but they matter to us anyway.

Great videos. Very thought-provoking.

[jestrrr101]

This video was a nice treat for Halloween! =)

[wakeangel2001]

technically there's nothing wrong with a harem, as long as all the women consent to the being in it and are free to do what they want and can leave any time. Of course, if the girls are kept in the harem like slaves THAT'S not equitable to gay marriage at all, since it isn't a consenting pact. The same goes for shooting someone, since the other party isn't consenting it's NOT like a marriage at all.

[rhyfelur]

Why couldn't morality be a product of natural selection? We evolved as a social species, as our brain developed we experimented with various forms of social behavior. People that adapted the most beneficial behaviors survived and carried them forward. Those behaviors became part of our "human nature". That would explain both cross-cultural morality and cultural moral divergence.It would also answer the moral accountability question. We are accountable to our own nature. Just a thought.

[genobahamut1337]

Wow... That scene toward the end with the bulldozer pushing those dead bodies into that large hole... That had to be the most disturbing thing I've ever seen...

[derek24hudson]

Adolf always strikes me as a reincarnation of jahweh,

[getdafuqouttahere]

Excellent video!

[GlucoseAddict]

Great video. I love the series! Keep them coming!

[l337pwnage]

Actually, you can have a harem, you just can't marry them, just like gays....o...wait....

[Dardedar1]

This video is very well done and I plan to play it for our Freethinker group. However, I encourage you to read this article by historian Richard Carrier which shows that these assertions about Hitler "plotting to overthrow" Christianity or being opposed to it, are based upon bogus quotes:

"On the Trail of Bogus Quotes"

ffrf. org/legacy/fttoday/2002/nov02/­carrier[dot]php

See about 130 of Hitler's comments on religion, here:

fayfreethinkers. com/forums/viewtopic[dot]php?f­=3&t=6632

[litemup67]

What a brilliantly composed video.

[bonnie43uk]

If it wasn't for Hitler I wouldn't have been born, so in a way I'm grateful to him.

But for WWII ,It's highly improbable that my father would have met my mother.

He was a teenager in a tiny Ukrainian village, she was a teenager in a little village in Gloucestershire England, the war brought them together and they produced me.

[javaskin]

@bonnie43uk If it wasn't for Hitler I wouldn't have been born, so in a way I'm grateful to him.

Think about it: Hitler probably wanted to kill both of your parents, especially one coming from an "inferior race". How can you be grateful to him not succeeding with his plans?

[bonnie43uk]

@javaskin As i say, if it wasn't for him, I wouldnt be here. ( chances are neither would you) I'm in no way condoning his evil actions, I'm just saying events conspired in such a way that i was able to be born. Like a forest fire that destroys all before it, new growth emerges.

[fdasherv]

@bonnie43uk So Hitler was solely responsible for your birth? Do you have any concept whatever of the probabilities involved? Why don't you thank Churchill and Stalin while you're at it? How about the train operator who was late or the lady who took the seat at Victoria Station that your mother intended to sit in? Maybe you should thank the German bomb maker who produced a faulty detonator that spared your mom's life that one night. Tiny minds like yours always astound me. No offense.

[DiscoveringReligion]

@fdasherv

I think he just means Hitler was responsible for the war -- without the war, and all subsequent events that followed, his parents would have never meet. It's not like Hitler knew his parents and introduced the two! Bonnie was just remarking how sometimes there are events so large they change the destiny of the entire world. Without Hitler perhaps none of us would be here today. My grandparents hurried to get married because of the war, without that pressure maybe they never would have.

[fdasherv]

@DiscoveringReligion Well then, heil Hitler indeed. Then you should also thank the Austrian maid who didn't drown Hitler's illegitimately born father at birth. No Hitler's father, no Hitler, no you, right? Do you see where this insanity leads? Why do you neglect to thank every minuscule thread of circumstantial history? I doubt Hitler's rush to war was responsible for your grandparents meeting in the first place. And what of their parents? Any unturned corner might have precluded their meeting.

[DiscoveringReligion]

@fdasherv

Heil Hitler? No one is saying he was justified. But you could go all the way back to the primordial ooze. If just one of your ancestors hadn't been fast enough to escape predation, strong enough to reach reproductive age, and pretty enough to find a mate, you wouldn't exist. It's astounding all the random circumstances that must have occurred to result in you. We're all truly fortunate. So tell me, how does acknowledging this fact justify Hitler's actions? I fail to see your logic.

[fdasherv]

@DiscoveringReligion I don't suggest anyone is revering Hitler's actions (anyone here, that is).

"It's astounding all the random circumstances that must have occurred to result in you."

That's exactly my point. Whether major (the Third Reich) or minor (turning a street corner), no one could possibly trace the series of events leading to the birth of a particular person. It's useless to try.

[DiscoveringReligion]

@fdasherv

I definitely understand what you're saying. There could have been many other, smaller factors at play that contributed to the course of his parents meeting, but if there had never been the War his parents certainly would have never met. It might be a pointless exercise, but it is fascinating to imagine all the events that took place to result in you. I just finished "A Short History of Nearly Everything" and the book's intro discusses this subject. It's really an amazing introduction.

[fdasherv]

@DiscoveringReligion Now that IS a coincidence! I just ordered that book yesterday! I read his 'I'm a Stranger Here Myself' last year. I'll now look forward to his take on this subject in his introduction. But, I still maintain that drawing the bullseye around the spent arrow is ass-backwards. If chance failed to culminate with you, you wouldn't be around to discuss it, while someone else might. I may as well say this planet was designed with me in mind. We know how that goes.

[DiscoveringReligion]

@DiscoveringReligion

It's funny. When I was a little kid I wanted to be a grownup so bad that I asked my mother why she didn't have me earlier. She said, if that happened I wouldn't have been the child, it would be a different sperm and egg and a different child would be in my place. I, as I am now, would have never existed. Feeling fortunate certain events occurred that caused your existence is different than claiming the events are justified because they caused your existence.

[bonnie43uk]

@fdasherv Where do i say Hitler was solely responsible for my birth? yes, you are exactly right, many many many actions resulted in me being here, Hitler was most definatly one of them. I absolutly am aware of the mind boggling cause and effect situations that got me here. Thats the amazing thing, I am incredibly lucky to be here. Hitler was just one tiny tiny miniscule cog in me being born, but nevertheless, he played his part. So, i reiterate, I am grateful to him in a way. Bill Bryson rocks!

[fdasherv]

@bonnie43uk See what happens when I don't have my evening tea?

[ShadowPa1adin]

"We need Moral Absolutes to tell someone like Hitler that he is wrong for committing genocide. Let's use the standard that allowed the children of Israel to commit genocide in the Bible."

[ThoseGamerguyz]

lol no sir hitler would have found there is no such thing as race there are no subsets for we are all the same species great video there guy.

[colourmegone]

Hitler did think his racial theories were scientific fact. His ideology is redolent of early scientific racial theories that were used to justify the genocide of native Americans, the opium and slave trades, and the entire European imperial project. The scientific insights about race you refer to are relatively modern.

Does it matter what Hitler's beliefs were, although I'm convinced he was a believing Catholic, when the vast majority of his supporters would classify themselves as Christians?

[dookiecheez]

@colourmegone

Nitpick: They may have been paraded about as scientific, but there was little if anything scientific about them. Their methods for example, were not primarily the scientific method. I consider them, and what Nazi's called science that they used to justified their actions to be as much science, as Intelligent Design.

[colourmegone]

@dookiecheez You are an ignoramus. Hitler's race theories were the conclusions of many respected scientists. The Pioneer Foundation continues to operate and promotes scientific racism. One of its premier researchers was H J Eysenck, who died in 1997. Ironically he was a German Jew and suffered under Nazi oppression. Such theories were only debunked by the discovery of DNA and the successful mapping of the human genome.

[dookiecheez]

@colourmegone

"Hitler's race theories were the conclusions of many respected scientists"

Then name them.

The discovery of dna, and human genome mapping, while important were not required for a scientific rejection of hitler's unscientific race theories. If you want to try and defend them as scientific to that period of history, please share with us their scientific basis. What were the methods used, the evidence, the legitimate papers, etc...

[DiscoveringReligion]

@colourmegone

Just like Creationists twist evidence of evolution to support their preconceived notions of divine creation, so too did Hitler twist science to support his preconceived notions of racial superiority. Ultimately, it did not matter what the science showed, for Hitler would have skewed it to support his theological beliefs that he was performing the will of God by killing the Jews. He plans were set in "Mein Kampf" far before he ever found the erroneous science to convince others.

[colourmegone]

@DiscoveringReligion I rest my case on the facts. Scientific support for racism still exists and was considered mainstream throughout a great deal of its history. Hitler was not an original philosophical thinker, he tinkered together ideas from Gobineau, Lamarck and even Darwin although neither Darwin nor Lamarck were racist and Gobineau was not an anti-Semite. Hitler was a political genius who told people what they wanted to hear in a clearly and plausibly.

[DiscoveringReligion]

@colourmegone

Hitler was a genius, and his ulterior motives weren't going to get sidetracked by something like scientific evidence. I stated if Hitler had rejected the notion he was following God's will and only went by the cold hard facts (without skewing them), there is no basis to support the Aryan race is genetically superior to any other, or the Jews are genetically inferior to any other. Such a conclusion can only be reached by skewing evidence to correspond with one's preconceived racism.

[colourmegone]

@DiscoveringReligion Evidence of the superiority of White Europeans to other races was apparent AT THE TIME (sorry about the caps). European imperial philosophy was based on it. The British were perhaps a bit less blameworthy as they saw themselves as spreading civilization, other countries were only interested exploiting "inferior" races. Hitler took this idea and identified the "purest" W E race as the Aryans and that the purest Aryans were the Germans.

[colourmegone]

The point I'm really trying to make is that Hitler didn't twist science to fit his ideas, the ideas he championed permeated European and US culture. Anti-Semitism was a commonplace, along the notion of racial superiority based on Gobineau's philosophy of the nation state as race. This is how most people thought at the time, including many scientists. Unfortunately many people still think this way.

[DiscoveringReligion]

@colourmegone

You appear to be more knowledgeable than I, so I'll default to you. But I'm curious as to whether the widespread antisemitism might have influenced these scientists' findings? DNA's structure wasn't discovered until 1953, so how could they tell at a genetic level what is "superior"? It seems purely speculative. Hitler wanted Aryans to be superior, and German Aryans to be the best of the best. Therefore, suddenly, they were! What hard evidence did Hitler have to support this?

[colourmegone]

@DiscoveringReligion Ah, the point! Obviously none at all, but then neither did anyone else. Anti-Semitism was rife in Christian Europe and its bona fides were well established. Let me quote Archbishop Siliceo of Toledo (1547), "It is said and it is considered to be true, that the principal heretics of Germany, who have destroyed all that nation and have introduced great heresies, are descendants of the Jews". This was still the opinion of many Europeans.

[colourmegone]

But for the main scientific thrust for racism see the excellent Wikipedia article entitled "Scientific Racism". I recommend you pay particular attention to the section "Racial theories in physical anthropology, 1850-1918" and you will see the sorts of theories and their supporting evidence that Hitler would have been aware of, most probably through popular right wing literature.

[skywize]

I think it is fairly simple. If you require a moral dictator than you are either insane, fundamentally immoral, or simply too stupid to figure it out for yourself. Growing up a Catholic, I thought that, although Hitler didn't understand the bible, he was a true believer and did what he did out of reverence for his god. When I read the bible for the first time, I realized he was following his bible fairly well, and the bible itself was at fault.

[BoyKissBoy]

It would be interesting to delve deeper into the idea of absolute morality in the cases of other dictators, like Stalin and Mao. People like Ben Stein love to point to them and say they were immoral because they were atheists, which is of course BS. But perhaps the societies they ruled became atrocious because the leader's moral was regarded and enforced as being absolute?

[DemiImp]

Honestly, I believe it's ok to have a harem as long as the women are treated respectfully. If multiple women love a man and they're all ok with the man loving multiple women, then there's nothing wrong with it.

As much as I'd like multiple women, I wouldn't be happy for my girlfriend to have multiple men. So, I'm quite faithful :)

[Raithial]

@DemiImp I absolutely agree with that statement, though I would like to add that in this case I would be the one uncomfortable with multiple women in my house-hold. Multiple men is allright, since I don't percieve them as a threat to her loyalty.

[DemiImp]

Some religious people claim that you cant trust science because it changes all the time. However, how can you trust religion when it's morals change all the time? How many times did God command people to break the 10 commandments?

[wil7vin]

great video just like all your other great video's :) keep up the good work

[ForYeensSake]

It is so easy to see who's right and who's lying. Check who cites his sources. If doubt, check the sources.

[MoveOrder]

Odd that Christians in the U.S. think it's wrong to kill, considering all executions they carry out each year.

Is it wrong to steal an apple if you are starving to death?

We in the protected West can hardly have any idea about the difficult (moral) decisions other countries wrestle with daily.

Strangely, you never get to hear an example of an absolute moral truth from a believer.

[Aucry]

Great work as per usual.

[MrAntice]

Great argument against absolute morality going in these vid's. your videos always causes me to stop and think, and that is good.

As understanding of morality increases one does encounter a problem though. one needs to construct a framework of ideas against witch to compare actions in order to be able to decide what is right and wrong.

while simple actions such as killing are easy to value based solely on instinctual understanding, there are many much harder questions to witch one need to answer.

[MrAntice]

@MrAntice My personal take on morality is one based on the ideas of utility, but even here one encounters logical errors that can lead down what one would realize should be a wrong answer. Is morality in reality solely ruled by instinct? or is it possible to actually create a fail-safe moral code trough logic and deduction?

These questions always come to mind whenever i spend time thinking about morality. I do wonder what others think about secular moral ideas.

[mrx0066600]

Thank you for making such a fair video on this topic.

[karikon11]

wonderfull

[managarm1349]

best theist argument for the moral superiority of (insert whatever wanky religion): Without my god, we´d all be going nuts, stealing raping and killing each other.

It takes half a lobotomiced monkey to understand why thats a completely immoral concept.

[karakzanreal]

Great video

[Arcus2658]

As usual, love your videos. Keep doing what you're doing.