Morality in general is decided on a social level, even 'Christian Morality' is subject to change depending on the prevailing views of the time.
Any morality that christianity gives us can be found in social laws from virtually any period. If we take a representative set of non-religious laws from the Biblical period (& before), we find that they are similar to the 10 commandments
It's an error to think religion is the source of morality, rather than the society in which that religion is based.
Christians, and religious people in general, are morons, first they think they own morality, and they can't even FOLLOW THEIR OWN MORALITY. Then they think that the present message of christianity, "love everyone", always have been the message. That is moronic, the old christians and the old testament clearly shows how different modern lost christians are to their way of thinking.
Atheist morality is different for every Atheist. You can no label atheists the same way you can label Mormons or Catholics, and just like any Mormon or Catholic there will be minor deviations from the general golden rule which is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". This rule, contrary to Christian opinion, has existed long before Jesus, and was a key factor in our development as a species. The golden rule allowed us to work cohesively and develop technology etc. over the years.
Thorzon, thank you again for your video, and being an excellent host. I'm sorry you have to deal with kyber stalking you so regularly. From a closed mind he lashes out at the world, seeking to roll over people like a tank with his world view. As useful as it has been to understand his mindset, I'm afraid there's no profit or benefit in sight for him. As we discussed, how long do you throw seed to ground made of stone? Take care Thorzon, and thanks again.
Kyber, you have no real interest in knowledge, you only enjoy slamming your fist at people. If they squish, yay for you, if not, you keep pounding and pounding, waiting for them to yeild. Forcing you to not do this, would be an abridgement of your free will.
There's a difference. An Atheist can not be an Agnostic, because the atheist asserts that they know there is no god (or at least believes there is no god). The Agnostic, simply does not know for certain. Unless you're talking about people who aren't using english properly.
It has to do with absolute truth, that is there whether you know it or not, whether you have a name for it or not, and an atomic bomb, acting out the conversion of E=MC^2 will crisp you whether you'd discovered the formula or not.
Actually, I do understand rationality, and when people take assumptions as true, say, that capitalism is evil and must be destroyed, it becomes rational for them to slay what they consider to be capitalists. Marx did not base this on feelings, he developed his own logical framework (with faulty assumptions).
Atheism has it's own unscientific assertions in declaring that there can not be, or is no God. It is a faith. Not the same as Agnoticism saying "don't know for sure, or not convinced".
Who claimed that anyone "knows" (Scientifically) that a god existed? That's not the context of this discussion. I'm talking about the rational impliciations of believing that there is, or is not, a supreme sovereign being over all creation. Not the same thing. The proving of the truth of which side is reality, is not within scientific reach at this time.
Your characterization of Hitler as a theist is offensive. He used rhetoric for persuasion (like any polititcian) but in his writings he is clearly anti-theist. Nazi and Marxist philosophy ARE rational if they take certain things to be true. Like Atheism.
Now, a god is not required by any outside force to behave a certain way. The only thing to bind its actions, are it's own judgements and precepts. As I said, IF it choses to remain consistent, then all of it's actions will be consistent.
You're saying that plants dont grow with fibonacci sequences? You're saying that stars and atomic bombs don't work in accordance with E=MC^2? Now I begin to debate your rationality.
Mass murder of "non believers" is a human thing and is not specifically related to religion. Marxist states engage in wholesale slaughter to acheive ideological purity. The recent school/mall shooters have been uniformly anti-christian.
A God's choices are only random if it makes random choices. If it chose to be consistent, it is not random, and then its choices are no longer arbitrary. IF its creations will not follow it's judgements however, their actions become arbitrary
Your comment makes no sense. E=MC^2 is truth. It is part of the structure of the universe. A truth that did not require humans to discover it. Now, it doesn't neccessarily have to have the letter E representing energy if that's what you mean, but the mathematical structure is truth.
The morality is not arbitrary unless the entity in question is arbitrary. Your definition is backwards. Take humans out of the equation for a moment.
If the supreme soverign calls something Good, it is Good. It is defined so because there are none to challenge it, all are subject to it. It has total power, and defines as it wills. Now, in the context of such a being, there is a universal right and wrong. Without such a being, any person is their own "god" at war with every other "god".
I have synesthesia. If you could only see what Bach looks like on a good organ. The symetry, patterns and perfection, its indescribable.
So, leaving the realm of Atheism, because it can not accept a "divine mandate": Morality is whatever that supreme sovereign says it is. Morality is then defined by the nature/character of that entity.
Mathematics is not a human invention (though we do observe it). The phythagorean theorem is truth. It doesn't matter if humans noticed it or not, it would still be truth. Plants grow in fibonacci sequences without the need of humans to invent the theory.
Personally, I find a world where nothing matters except to my limited transitory neurons ireconcilable with truths such as mathematics, music, and morality. I therefore accept the only context where these have a rational meaning, which is in the context of a supreme soverign over all creation from which these truths come.
For me, it seems more sensible. Thank you for sharing your viewpoint.
Why should they be concerned with the drawbacks for those around them? Other than perhaps some chemical reactions in a few cells of tissue (feelings). How is guilt any different from other neurological discomfort which can be ignored at will.
And you have failed to understand the significants of John chapter 8.
Kyber, I have no intention of debating Christian Philosophy with you because you've already demonstrated that you lack the unbaiased study, and the genuine interest to really understand it beyond a caricature or stereotype, it would serve no purpose.
Now, anything further substantive to offer on the question on what basis an Atheist can meaningfully criticize the morals of another, if morals are not universal?
By the way, the bible is very clear that Christians are under no obligation to "stone misbehaving children", and in fact, would be in error to do so. The book John Chapter 8 contains this. You should understand the philosophy you making accusations about.
What does this have to do with the merits of my personal view? I am not discussing the theistic world view here. That's the point you seem to be missing. I'm talking about the logical ramifications of an Atheistic world view. Now, since you appear to accept an atheistic world view, it's only natural that you would insist the moral codes of others have no greater basis than your own. But if morality can be anything at any time, on what basis to you criticize the moral codes of others?
You continue to talk about Atheism only in terms of your distain with Christianity. None of my comments are talking about Christianity, or the bible but you keep bringing them up. This is illogical.
You do however seem to agree with my assertion, that without deference to a God (atheism) individuals define morality in their own unique terms. Thus, as I said, the Morality of an Atheist is whatever that particular Atheist decides it is at any particular time. There is no other basis.
Right, but the topic here is "what is atheist morality" not "why atheists are just as kool as christians". In an atheistic perspective, there is no God, thus no sin, so I'm rather puzzled why you're bringing that into the discussion trying to understand "Atheist Morality".
Do you have a differening definition of how morality can be defined in the absence of a supreme sovereign over humanity you'd like to discuss?
I agree that it's negative, but it's true. It's one of the reasons I find atheism (especially Secular Humanism and Positive Atheism) so unconvincing, even delusional.
That passage in Matthew 5 precisely PROVES my point. Jesus did NOT come to destroy the law, but to fulfill (complete) it. It was what it was for its time, but Jesus' time is new. It was for the Jews, I am not a Jew.
Heaven is NOT obtained by keeping God's commandments. See my video "What's Up With Christians?" if you really want to know what God requires for entrance into heaven.
As I said, please know the Bible before you start making claims. The 10 virgins were not to be married to that bridegroom, there were effectively "bridesmaids" from the way I understand old Jewish marriage customs. Plus:
"Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife...." 1 Timothy 3:2
I am also neither a Jew, nor a person wishing to live under 4000 year old Jewish laws (Not that the age of the laws really has anything to do with it). I am a follower of Jesus Christ.
Kyber, surely you know what adultery is and the fact that the Bible teaches against it. This will sound harsh, but I mean it in all sincerity, if this is the extent to which you understand the Bible, please go read it and study it for yourself further before making comments about that it teaches.
Morality in general is decided on a social level, even 'Christian Morality' is subject to change depending on the prevailing views of the time.
Any morality that christianity gives us can be found in social laws from virtually any period. If we take a representative set of non-religious laws from the Biblical period (& before), we find that they are similar to the 10 commandments
It's an error to think religion is the source of morality, rather than the society in which that religion is based.
AsDeadAsDillinger 6 months ago
Christians, and religious people in general, are morons, first they think they own morality, and they can't even FOLLOW THEIR OWN MORALITY. Then they think that the present message of christianity, "love everyone", always have been the message. That is moronic, the old christians and the old testament clearly shows how different modern lost christians are to their way of thinking.
Imhornydadcomeinside 1 year ago
Atheist morality is different for every Atheist. You can no label atheists the same way you can label Mormons or Catholics, and just like any Mormon or Catholic there will be minor deviations from the general golden rule which is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". This rule, contrary to Christian opinion, has existed long before Jesus, and was a key factor in our development as a species. The golden rule allowed us to work cohesively and develop technology etc. over the years.
Cr8zyCanuck 3 years ago
Thorzon, thank you again for your video, and being an excellent host. I'm sorry you have to deal with kyber stalking you so regularly. From a closed mind he lashes out at the world, seeking to roll over people like a tank with his world view. As useful as it has been to understand his mindset, I'm afraid there's no profit or benefit in sight for him. As we discussed, how long do you throw seed to ground made of stone? Take care Thorzon, and thanks again.
xagcx 3 years ago
Kyber, you have no real interest in knowledge, you only enjoy slamming your fist at people. If they squish, yay for you, if not, you keep pounding and pounding, waiting for them to yeild. Forcing you to not do this, would be an abridgement of your free will.
xagcx 3 years ago
If the only data one has indicates a certain point of view, is it not rational to act on that data?
xagcx 3 years ago
My appologies, I thought you were talking about a being enslaving all to it's will, never giving people the choice between morality and immorality.
xagcx 3 years ago
Atheism = without god (or "no god").
Agnostic = without knowledge
There's a difference. An Atheist can not be an Agnostic, because the atheist asserts that they know there is no god (or at least believes there is no god). The Agnostic, simply does not know for certain. Unless you're talking about people who aren't using english properly.
xagcx 3 years ago
It has to do with absolute truth, that is there whether you know it or not, whether you have a name for it or not, and an atomic bomb, acting out the conversion of E=MC^2 will crisp you whether you'd discovered the formula or not.
xagcx 3 years ago
Actually, I do understand rationality, and when people take assumptions as true, say, that capitalism is evil and must be destroyed, it becomes rational for them to slay what they consider to be capitalists. Marx did not base this on feelings, he developed his own logical framework (with faulty assumptions).
Atheism has it's own unscientific assertions in declaring that there can not be, or is no God. It is a faith. Not the same as Agnoticism saying "don't know for sure, or not convinced".
xagcx 3 years ago
I dunno, getting hit by an atom bomb seems like a pretty good demonstration of an objective truth to me.
xagcx 3 years ago
If it were an enslaver yes, but not if it were just and loving, is the argument.
xagcx 3 years ago
Probably not. They probably don't want to be badgered to death until they agree with you :)
xagcx 3 years ago
Who claimed that anyone "knows" (Scientifically) that a god existed? That's not the context of this discussion. I'm talking about the rational impliciations of believing that there is, or is not, a supreme sovereign being over all creation. Not the same thing. The proving of the truth of which side is reality, is not within scientific reach at this time.
xagcx 3 years ago
Your characterization of Hitler as a theist is offensive. He used rhetoric for persuasion (like any polititcian) but in his writings he is clearly anti-theist. Nazi and Marxist philosophy ARE rational if they take certain things to be true. Like Atheism.
Now, a god is not required by any outside force to behave a certain way. The only thing to bind its actions, are it's own judgements and precepts. As I said, IF it choses to remain consistent, then all of it's actions will be consistent.
xagcx 3 years ago
You're saying that plants dont grow with fibonacci sequences? You're saying that stars and atomic bombs don't work in accordance with E=MC^2? Now I begin to debate your rationality.
xagcx 3 years ago
Tacos? Hotdogs? You make no sense.
xagcx 3 years ago
Mass murder of "non believers" is a human thing and is not specifically related to religion. Marxist states engage in wholesale slaughter to acheive ideological purity. The recent school/mall shooters have been uniformly anti-christian.
A God's choices are only random if it makes random choices. If it chose to be consistent, it is not random, and then its choices are no longer arbitrary. IF its creations will not follow it's judgements however, their actions become arbitrary
xagcx 3 years ago
Your comment makes no sense. E=MC^2 is truth. It is part of the structure of the universe. A truth that did not require humans to discover it. Now, it doesn't neccessarily have to have the letter E representing energy if that's what you mean, but the mathematical structure is truth.
xagcx 3 years ago
That's where humanity continues to debate to this day. If there were consensus on this issue, you would have only one "religion".
xagcx 3 years ago
The morality is not arbitrary unless the entity in question is arbitrary. Your definition is backwards. Take humans out of the equation for a moment.
If the supreme soverign calls something Good, it is Good. It is defined so because there are none to challenge it, all are subject to it. It has total power, and defines as it wills. Now, in the context of such a being, there is a universal right and wrong. Without such a being, any person is their own "god" at war with every other "god".
xagcx 3 years ago
Exactly, the natural laws (which are mathematical) exist whether humans comprehend them or not.
xagcx 3 years ago
I have synesthesia. If you could only see what Bach looks like on a good organ. The symetry, patterns and perfection, its indescribable.
So, leaving the realm of Atheism, because it can not accept a "divine mandate": Morality is whatever that supreme sovereign says it is. Morality is then defined by the nature/character of that entity.
xagcx 3 years ago
Mathematics is not a human invention (though we do observe it). The phythagorean theorem is truth. It doesn't matter if humans noticed it or not, it would still be truth. Plants grow in fibonacci sequences without the need of humans to invent the theory.
xagcx 3 years ago
Fair enough. And it's an appreciable sentiment.
Personally, I find a world where nothing matters except to my limited transitory neurons ireconcilable with truths such as mathematics, music, and morality. I therefore accept the only context where these have a rational meaning, which is in the context of a supreme soverign over all creation from which these truths come.
For me, it seems more sensible. Thank you for sharing your viewpoint.
xagcx 3 years ago
Thank you for being more honest about your views by the way.
xagcx 3 years ago
Why should they be concerned with the drawbacks for those around them? Other than perhaps some chemical reactions in a few cells of tissue (feelings). How is guilt any different from other neurological discomfort which can be ignored at will.
xagcx 3 years ago
And you have failed to understand the significants of John chapter 8.
Kyber, I have no intention of debating Christian Philosophy with you because you've already demonstrated that you lack the unbaiased study, and the genuine interest to really understand it beyond a caricature or stereotype, it would serve no purpose.
Now, anything further substantive to offer on the question on what basis an Atheist can meaningfully criticize the morals of another, if morals are not universal?
xagcx 3 years ago
By the way, the bible is very clear that Christians are under no obligation to "stone misbehaving children", and in fact, would be in error to do so. The book John Chapter 8 contains this. You should understand the philosophy you making accusations about.
xagcx 3 years ago
What does this have to do with the merits of my personal view? I am not discussing the theistic world view here. That's the point you seem to be missing. I'm talking about the logical ramifications of an Atheistic world view. Now, since you appear to accept an atheistic world view, it's only natural that you would insist the moral codes of others have no greater basis than your own. But if morality can be anything at any time, on what basis to you criticize the moral codes of others?
xagcx 3 years ago
"But if morality can be anything at any time, on what basis to you criticize the moral codes of others?"
An extremely excellent point xagcx.
Thorzon 3 years ago
You continue to talk about Atheism only in terms of your distain with Christianity. None of my comments are talking about Christianity, or the bible but you keep bringing them up. This is illogical.
You do however seem to agree with my assertion, that without deference to a God (atheism) individuals define morality in their own unique terms. Thus, as I said, the Morality of an Atheist is whatever that particular Atheist decides it is at any particular time. There is no other basis.
xagcx 3 years ago
Right, but the topic here is "what is atheist morality" not "why atheists are just as kool as christians". In an atheistic perspective, there is no God, thus no sin, so I'm rather puzzled why you're bringing that into the discussion trying to understand "Atheist Morality".
Do you have a differening definition of how morality can be defined in the absence of a supreme sovereign over humanity you'd like to discuss?
xagcx 3 years ago
What on earth are you rambling about? What does Christianity have to do with Atheist Morality?
xagcx 3 years ago
What is atheist morality? Whatever any particular atheist decides it is on a given day or afternoon. No other definition is rational under atheism.
xagcx 3 years ago
You and I would definitely agree on that point. Although, too me that's a negative, not a plus. :)
Thorzon 3 years ago
I agree that it's negative, but it's true. It's one of the reasons I find atheism (especially Secular Humanism and Positive Atheism) so unconvincing, even delusional.
xagcx 3 years ago
That passage in Matthew 5 precisely PROVES my point. Jesus did NOT come to destroy the law, but to fulfill (complete) it. It was what it was for its time, but Jesus' time is new. It was for the Jews, I am not a Jew.
Heaven is NOT obtained by keeping God's commandments. See my video "What's Up With Christians?" if you really want to know what God requires for entrance into heaven.
watch?v=aa_wMoAw17w
Thorzon 3 years ago
As I said, please know the Bible before you start making claims. The 10 virgins were not to be married to that bridegroom, there were effectively "bridesmaids" from the way I understand old Jewish marriage customs. Plus:
"Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife...." 1 Timothy 3:2
I am also neither a Jew, nor a person wishing to live under 4000 year old Jewish laws (Not that the age of the laws really has anything to do with it). I am a follower of Jesus Christ.
Thorzon 3 years ago
Thanks for the response. I'll be considering it.
Sarahon06 3 years ago 2
Kyber, surely you know what adultery is and the fact that the Bible teaches against it. This will sound harsh, but I mean it in all sincerity, if this is the extent to which you understand the Bible, please go read it and study it for yourself further before making comments about that it teaches.
Thorzon 3 years ago