Theres no problem with morality in the atheist comunity , morality is a process of evolution ,culture and the developement of the human brain , simple as that. Prove that God exists and maybe you will have a point . Morality is not objective , is subjective , and changes in different cultures all around the world.
I think that some atheists don't try to prove the existance of right and wrong, but trust that their moral compass is adequate (along with regular soul searching). They choose atheism over religion because while religion claims to have proof of right and wrong, through god, so many religious people act so rudely to other people. Cristians have done things from anti gay anti minority actions to crusades and the inquisition. The KKK is a christian group. It makes this argument moot.
The KKK is a Christian group??? What's Christian about them exactly? I mean 'Christian' means a 'follower of Christ' so what teachings of Jesus are they demonstrating in their actions exactly? That makes the word meaningless. Not everyone who claims to be part of a religion, or culture or political group etc. necessarily does. People like that use religions etc. to hide behind.
Also - Christians behaving inconsistenly does not damage this argument at all. This argument is not about the existential moral superiority of theist over non-theists since that would only be anecdotal evidence at best. So that would not be making any kind of case. This argument is about the philosophical foundations of the moral system.
I know what is moral because humans as a whole have reached a general consensus about many areas, even if most of us disagree about a lot of specifics. Fundamentally; we all agree that rape and murder are wrong. That's reason enough for me to agree. Plus there is the consequentialist argument that I wouldn't wish to live in a world where rape and murder were considered okay; because I don't want to be raped and murdered (or even one or the other individually, for that matter!).
Why do you think there is objective reality? I think violence is bad the same way I think fast food is bad. It depends on the circumstances. I may feel perfectly justified hurting or maybe even killing someone who was trying to kill me, just as I would feel perfectly justified eating junk food when if there was nothing else to eat. The history and psychology seem to agree with me. Also why would it make a difference to me if there was an objective reality. How would it effect my life?
Our morals are inherent, our great ancestors practiced altruism simply because members operating by themselves in self interest would die, and so came the human social order to police the ideas of altruism. Morality was pioneered well before the innovation of farming but minds far more primitive than ours. And it should go on the record that none of it was attributed to a higher intelligence.
Your ancestors also raped, had turf wars, murdered over food, did anything in order to survive, practiced what we would call tribalism and often in totalitarian regimes and yet I don't see you advocating these things. The point is you want to pick and choose what stays and what goes so the question remains! On what basis do the good things stay and the bad things go?
@TheCartesianTheist yes, some of us outgrew that, it was far more functional for society to abide one-another for the greater good. By the way rape, turf wars, bigamy, murder and genocide were all condoned by the God of the Old Testament, from which Judaism, Christianity and Islam originate. If anyone is cherry picking, it's them.
Well, for one - it's not a good argument to say you feel other people get to cherry pick so why not you. Secondly, it's not considered a good argument in philosophy to make a right out of what is functional. Thirdly, the notion of functional is subjective as well. Most of the atheistic mass-murderers of the 20th century thought they were being very efficient and beneficial to society. PS. Where's rape "condoned" in the OT?
@TheCartesianTheist well for one religious people are following a doctrine that doesn't change. It's not supposed to, as a person declaring faith in a certain prophet you are required to follow all of its teachings. Cherry picking is required to justify your actions and not condemn them. Science and objectivism doesn't do that.
"well for one religious people are following a doctrine that doesn't change."
Actually that's not true. Even north American fundies don't endorse all 613 laws of the OT. In fact, I don't think there's a fundie group who accept even 50% of them to my knowledge. Most Christian theologians have accepted that there is a progressive revelation of God throughout history which culminates in Jesus. There are also clear laws in the OT which are contextual.
@TheCartesianTheist Science and objectivism see the truth as objective. Reason and rationality as the basis of any decent person's actions and thoughts. Scientists are not priests, laboratories and lecture halls are not churches, science is not religion, Darwin was not a prophet. There is no cherry picking, only hypothetical conjecture and observation, which gives an individual much more understanding of life than faith does.
This is a common misunderstanding of objective ethics. People often think that in order for something to be objectively right it has to be so in all circumastances. For example, someone could be morally objective about abortion by saying that it is wrong in some circumastances but right in, perhaps one exception [eg. rape]. They would still be proposing an objective morality about abortion because they are still saying it is always wrong in some circumstances
Reason is a good place to start on many issues but, unlike logic, there appears to be a problem with ethics. The problem is that philosophers don't agree on what the correct moral theory is and how that applies to ethical situations. They are all very reasonable people but should the consideration be the emotions [Hume] or just reason [Kant] or the Virtues [Aristotle] or is it all illusory? Very rational people disagree.
Observation is great for telling you what is there. Observation is lousy at telling you the value of the thing. And that's what we're talking about here. It's why most philosophers reject Sam Harris's naive view that ethics can be extrapolated from observations. Observations tell us nothing about the value of something and neither do they tell us about 'oughts'. They only tell us what is.
Specific moral norms are brought about by culture. Culture is brought about by the necessity for social creatures to develop mechanism for group thought and emotional and procedural communication. This is best describe by evolution. This is why wolves and people have pack mentality an empathy, but bullfrogs eat their own young. Morality is a best fit behavioural practice for the reality of your environment.
Your ancestors also raped, had turf wars, murdered over food, did anything in order to survive, practiced what we would call tribalism and often in totalitarian regimes and yet I don't see you advocating these things. The point is you want to pick and choose what stays and what goes so the question remains! On what basis do the good things stay and the bad things go?
If you believe that forcing a woman to marry her rapist and having multiple wives is morally good, your morals are relative to God whether you like it or not. If you don't think so, your morals are relative to your time and/or culture and its obvious you haven't read the Bible in its entirety.
@TheCartesianTheist Good is whatever is positive for the human race and the world. Bad is anything that has negative effects. Of course things aren't always black and white, but through reasoning we are able to navigate through even the grey areas.
"Good is whatever is positive for the human race and the world. Bad is anything that has negative effects."
Okay. I hear your opinion here but I don't see how that statement can be foundational to any objective set of ethics. Unless, of course, you're simply wanting to be allowed to assume it without justification? I mean, why pick out just the human race? How about saying "whatever is positive for the world" and not commit speciesism?
@TheCartesianTheist If by objective set of ethics you mean 'set in stone' laws that stay the same through every situation then my statement wouldn't serve as a foundation. It's only a way of distinguishing between right and wrong. If you're looking for an objective reason for people to be moral it's simply fairness. If you want to be treated well, then you have to treat others well. Of course it's not limited to our species. It's just that there are moral issues limited to us
Okay now you're asserting that the undermining foundation for good and evil is fairness. Only problem with that is everyone has their own subjective notion of what "fair" is!! A child thinks it's unfair when they are not permitted to buy a toy everytime they go past a shop. A rich person thinks their higher tax rate is unfair. Some Westerners don't think the north/south divide is unfair! So your foundation is still stuck in a word which is interpreted in thousands of ways.
@TheCartesianTheist The fact that people have different opinions about what is fair doesn't make it subjective. In every situation there is an option that doesn't undermine one of the parties involved. Obviously no one will get everything their own way. That's why reasoning is so important. We don't always instinctively know what's fair. Also remember that biblical laws can also be interpreted in different ways, but I think you would agree that it's objective.
deciding whether something is wrong is not even the right question. The question is whether we want something in society. Most people (excluding the Catholic church and Penn St alumni) have decided child rape is not something we want, so we choose to punish it. By declaring the need for a higher power you havent created it. It doesnt exist because an argument wants it to be. In reality, one of the most damaging statements to a 'moral' construct is attributed to Jesus: 'Turn the other Cheek'
Fair enough, but if you want real answers you have to ask the next question;
'Why is what society deems, moral?' You also made the point "child rape is not something we want" and I agree but that tells us we don't want children to be raped that doesn't tell us rape of any kind is really wrong. You can't get an ought from an is.
I was responding to dataDyne6 but like this comment I wrote over the YT name so It probibly looks like I'm responding to the vid. But sorry I'm not I agree with it.
@lxAgnosticxl ?? Are you stating that information cannot bring obligation because it itself is inanimate? If that is what you are saying, all obligations based on books... (inanimate information derived from them) should also be obsolete then. If I'm off, please try to explain further. And the answer to your question is quite long, and it will breed many more questions. It will require multiple responses, would you like me to answer your question? (from an Atheist's perspective)
No I'm not, when reading or looking at info there is a mind involved it is not inanimate it gives the obligation. my point was simply that without God you can't have an objective morality. Information itself comes from minds. G.K. Chesterton put it rather poetically when he said "A Russian philosopher denounces a policeman for killing a peasant and in his other writtings proves the peasent should have killed himself ,A scientist goes to a political meeting & says .....
@lxAgnosticxl I didn't state that morals are derived from, or exist within inanimate beings/matter, although they do at times influence the animate.
One still can argue objective morals without God, because almost all morals (regardless if they help their own cause) are derived from the same basic necessities. The objective (good) can be that which is proven to promote the most basic universal cultural goals. Regardless, "Objective" morals are relative in nature.
Moral values are self-evident. Any child can make a calculation of the most good for the most people plus the environment. The reason why the morals weren't self-evident for the most of our history is, unsurprisingly, ideology. Ideologies, including religions say what is right and wrong without any justification. Atheism does not come with morality, each atheist builds their own. And so do believers, for Yahweh is a vile character and his morals would get you in jail.
@TheCartesianTheist "moral epistemology but moral ontology," wtf. MiracleWitness is saying "Moral values are self-evident" this allready shows that atheistic moral problem does not exist!
MW may well be saying that but his job is to come up with some reasons which are very strong and rational in support of the assertion. And my point to which you swore at was simply that this video is not about how we come to have morals but how we ground our morals. Philosophers draw a distinction there and it's important to note I'm only doing the latter and not the former.
so which version of morality is the objective morality which all other morality is derived from? the truth is that this idea of an objective and ideal morality is in fact no different from socrates suggestion that because we perceive beauty there must be a pure ideal beauty from which our conception is derived. the truth is a bit more nuanced and complicated than that. it was sound thinking at the time. it is now outdated.
that's not to say we can escape or 'control' our own morality, i do agree with you that it is inherent in human beings. it's both an emotional response to reality and a regulatory mechanism for behavior. there's good evolutionary reasoning for why this would be beneficial. but there's no one universal standard of right and wrong. since humans are social creatures our moral values are likewise subject to fluctuate with social pressure based on the character of said society.
objective morality would support the notion of god were objective morality to be justifiable or demonstrable itself, which it is not.
morality changes with social context. some of the OT laws would undoubtedly be viewed as 'wrong' by most contemporary thinkers. likewise, honor killings are seen as wrong in the west, yet in some muslim circles it is the actions of the woman which is truly wrong. once again, social context.
objectively, there is no such thing as a moral law. morality is a subjective invention conjured up by subjective minds.
we invented morals, because we are alive and morality is only relevant to living, feeling things.
and im sick of hearing religious idiots who say things like homosexuality or prostitution or masturbation are immoral. those things dont have a thing to do with morality, those are behaviors, not morals.
@UnluckyGambler Why should I believe your story about morality being an invention conjured up by subjective minds? I study ancient history (when i can) and the facts contradict your baseless story. The earliest written records (of nearly any culture) show they already have a massive presumption of morality assigned from god, heaven, external authorities. We do not find series of 'invention' before that. So what is your crap story based on? Your imagination?
@TheRightOffensive u may study history, but i studied philosophy. history tells us facts, but doesnt tell us theories. philosophy on the other hand, back by other scientific fields, support my theory. science also explains why all those different ancient cultures have religion, and silly little ignorant humans back then of course attributed to what they perceive to be moral to the will of their gods.
as for "series of 'inventions' before that", do u mean morals dont exist before humans? false!
@UnluckyGambler Nothing you said even made sense. It was 'nonsense'. You don't even know what or 'how' to discuss this. Let me explain this again: You made a claim for history and there is NOTHING in any historical evidence for your fake claim. Not only that - history or 'the facts' tell you nearly the OPPOSITE. Please shut up, stop talking, stop 'asserting' fake crap you made up in your own immature mind. Go home and get your shinebox instead.
@TheRightOffensive history has nothing to do with this. this is a scientific matter. if u knew anything about psychology or neurology or evolution u would (or should) understand why morality is subjective.
if u think morality existed before the arrival of sentient beings, then ur pretty much saying a rock knows right from wrong.
if u think objective morals exist and is put there by god, then ur just another religious nutjob and this is all a waste of bits.
Stop. This formula you've got is ruining your life. I know you really need to defend this idea that you've been indoctrinated with, it's so important to you. We all have this fear. I tried every way to hold onto what others told me was the truth... but it's just not true. I know you will feel lost without this thing, this super personal guiding force. It's an illusion. You need to let it go.
You could do something real with your life instead. Defending this lie... for who? for what?
@TheCartesianTheist the bible agrees with killing none belivers with plunder rape murder more than one wife bashing small chieldren against rocks
you can't say that the bible is the way to go with morale when it also has some really horrible acts
and lets not forget hell the whole concept is morally bankrupt if you are okay with someone being tortured for all eternity then i must say that makes youa pretty twisted person with a moral that needs to be questioned
And vegetarianism is not a "grey area" as the video says. It is the belief that some people have that hot dogs are literally murder. Slavery is also not a "grey area" to most people, nor is sexism.
Obviously, this teacher didn't teach everyone the same things, since people the world over believe in greatly varying versions of "objective" moraltiy.
A brief list of things that some people feel are immoral that the Bible does not condemn
- Killing animals for food (Being a vegetarian)
- The death penalty
- Slavery
- A male leading his family
Are the people who believe these things just wrong? After all, if there was an objective morality, nobody would ever feel bad about eating meat.
Okay - let's just take slavery as one example then. First of all I want you to define what you mean by slavery and then I want you to quote me verbatim on how the Bible advocates the slavery you speak of.
[For now I will grant you the luxury of being able to assume objective ethics by the way - which you have to assume if you're suggesting your ethics are better than anyone elses. Just keep in mind you have not shown you can demonstrate this yet.]
Your mistake is granting me "the luxury of being able to assume objective ethics". My comment was intended to provide examples of the how people can't agree on objective morality, not prove that slavery, or anything else was objectively wrong.
You seem to be one of those "Bible slavery is peachy" guys. Biblical slavery would not be tolerated by people today. If you were a foreign slave or a POW, it was as bad as American slavery.
The mere phenomenon of people disagreeing does not mean something cannot be objectively the case. It's clearly true that the earth is not flat but not all people agree [sadly]. It's clearly the case that the law of non-contradiction must be a route to truth but not everyone agrees [sadly]. Examples of disagreement don't constitute evidence of moral subjectivity. Objective ethics is the idea that some things are morally wrong no matter what people think.
I'm actually one of those - don't make naive historical anachronisms kind of guys. And if you want to suggest that what happened even in the OT is analogous to 'American' slavery as practiced and endorsed by your agnostic, deist and atheist founding fathers over there in the good old US of A then let's see the case being made please.
Let me point out of retarded what you just said is. Apparently, when it is convenient, the founding fathers were mostly atheists. Strike one for TheCartesianTheist. The Founders were mostly Christian, so to say the practice was endorsed by the "agnostic, deist, and atheist" founders is pathetic and stupid. Read a book.
Of those present at the convention, 49 were protestants and 3 were Catholics. Yes, some of them were deist or anti-clerical, but that doesn't reflects on secularism in any significant way.
After all, the slaves were being bought by Christians. The Bible was used to argue for slavery (and sexism) for decades. I don't know what this has to do with the original point I brought up, though.
@someonenobodycares oh i just wanted to bring up that the founding fathers were secularists mostly, which they were, i dont know the details but richard dawkins said it so it must be true. ;D
i didnt read ur long argument so idk what the original points were. yes, i agree the bible is to blame for slavery and all kinds of discriminating bigotry.
@someonenobodycares agreed. they just believed in not involving religion in running a country. jefferson and washington and others hated christianity. they were probly mostly deists. kinda makes ya sick of hearing people calling this a christian nation doesnt it? ;]
To address your red herring about Biblical slavery:
1. There was slavery for life
2. You could beat the slaves
3. Conjugal slavery
Yes, its not identical to American slavery, so perhaps I was wrong to compare it in that way. It is still morally reprehensible to most people in both of our countries.
while i think the terms objective and subjective can be useful,sometimes they can be used in a way that simply muddles the issue.certain facets of ethics can be either/or,depending on how it's approached
i don't see how that response to the euthypro dillemna is adequate.couldn't one simply ask,"are god's characteristics good because god has them,or does he have them because they are good?"the issue is what makes something good.simply asserting god's nature is good doesn't answer that question
While I do think there is an objective morality, there is no reason to assume that a god was responsible. Our actions have an impact on those around us. Since different behaviors in different situations lead to different outcomes we can make a hierarchy where some behaviors are better than others. The standard we base them on can be along the lines of what leads to the greatest human well being. By studying what the effects of behaviors are we can find a best way of behaving and call it morality
You do realize that the only refutation I need to your argument that we have a "built in sense of objective morality" is the picture of Stalin you put up. If we had a built in sense, then why would Stalin and his followers think that the deaths they caused were justified. The fact of the matter is that our morals are informed by our culture. I think forcing a woman to wear a burqa is immoral. In Iraq forcing a woman to wear one is the only moral thing they can do.
A theistic belief, especially christianity (culture relevance) cannot be considered moral when it's adherents will do anything as long as they think god told them to. The old testament is a running commentary of crimes against humanity still justified by christains today. I don't reject your religion because I want to be immoral with impunity, I reject your religion because I am a moral person.
@TheCartesianTheist "To be reasonable about morality the atheist needs to demonstrate that they have a sufficient reason for some things being right and others wrong." How about the fact that some actions are (overall) demonstrably detrimental to either individuals or society as whole?
I mean let me put it this way, if all morality is is "God's will" (that's divine command theory, what God says goes, pain/happiness don't matter), and God doesn't exist, then what exactly are you worried about?
I'd just like to state however that objective morals are in no way a problem for atheists, simply because they don't exist. Morals are subjective they are a function of our empathic drive without subjectivity of morals, they would cease to be moral at all. The immorality comes when you claim that things are rigidly set in stone and completely black and white, it has a retarding effect on the processes by which we associate with one another and one of the key aspects of what makes us human.
"The argument is not about whether atheists can be moral per se. Any theist who suggest atheists are immoral is plain stupid and needs to meet some atheists. Atheists can be very moral people. "
Thats more of a concession i've come to expect form the religious so thank-you.
What on earth is an "evolutionary imperative"? Sure sounds impressive. And why have you put 'evil' in quotation marks? And how are there "imperatives" when you also want morality to be "fluid and evanescent"?
@TheCartesianTheist An evolutionary imperative is a response to external stimuli, ususally sexual, food related, or social (for species such as ours which have complex social orders). "Evil" is quotaed because it is perceived as evil by those who consider it evil, but not by those who do not, thus it is subjective. As for the imperatives themselves, they are not dependent upon morals, merely survival of one's self and progeny. Are all morals identical to those of Abraham?
Ahhh - so "evil" is completely subjective then? Like "beauty" - it lies only in the eye of the beholder? So some people could call you "evil" and there's nothing you can retort in reply since it's all about subjective perception. So they are subjectively "right" that you are to them and you are right that you're not "evil" according to yourself?
Why accept anything at all as an "imperative" then? Surely those are subjective too?
@TheCartesianTheist Is this intended to be your "Gotcha" moment? Yes, others can call me evil, and I have done things that, to them, would be considered evil. I personally do not ascribe to a sence of good or evil. There is no right or wrong, only pissed me off or did not piss me off. Imperatives, too, are subjective, indeed. They are necessary to the one who views them as an imperative, but may be trivial to another.
Why does it matter? Before was not the "gotcha" moment. This is the gotcha moment. Any moral subjectivist would admit that I can subjectively think someone is lying and this would not bother them in the slightest since it's subjective. They would not be bothered because they either don't think they lied or they don't care about lying - even subjectively. But what a moral subjectivist never does is ask for evidence that a lie was told because it implies objective standards.
@TheCartesianTheist It would appear you are applying an absolute to a "moral subjectivist," which is categorically absurd. Also, you seem to believe that my subjective notions inculdes indifference to my person, which would just be inhuman. I care what others may think, even if it may not bother me. I am sentient; I am Human. That is scientific fact, not a philosophical argument, and I appreciate intelligent debate and ask you to think about the absurdity of a moral absolute.
However, I'm not doing this for a "gotcha" moment believe it or not. I'm trying to get you to think about the absurdity of moral subjectivism. Sorry - it's late here. Got to sleep. Night.
Furthermore, there is no need for me to outline why Biblical slavery is wrong.
Imagine if some legislature was trying to be passed that would allow us to own foreigners for life (but it's not like we can kill them, just smack them). Everyone would view this as immoral, so already, without delving into the more offensive parts of Biblical slavery, I have shown that the better part of the world disagrees with the social norm of the Israelites.
You are hanging out at Johnny's house. His father has asked him to play nice and not to hit or harm you, because that would be wrong.
You are hanging out at Johnny's house. He does not want you to harm him, so he has decided not to harm you.
Every social grouping whether we speak of Lions, Wolves, Primates, tends not to harm within its own community because that would have a negative impact on its progression.
"Every social grouping whether we speak of Lions, Wolves, Primates, tends not to harm within its own community because that would have a negative impact on its progression."
Great - thank you for that observation. However, that tells us nothing about the rightness or wrongness of ANY action but only some pragmatic fitting with a concept such as survival. You have not even got us to subjective rights and wrongs with that!
@TheCartesianTheist Right and wrong are a subjective idea based on personal beliefs. The concept of good and evil is also subjective. An action does not have a positive or negative connotation associated with it, that is applied by the person reviewing said action. Everything you are arguing is within the realm of subjective and therefore cannot have a definitive answer. The only place you will find finite answers are from a bronze-age text, or the followers of such.
Fantastic. You have just articulated one of the main reasons I cannot adhere to any form of atheism. Because you cannot consistently be an atheist and hold to objective morality. Since you cannot even say that torturing a child for the fun of it is absolutely wrong but is only a subjective dislike your worldview takes a serious blow. If you cannot see that then that further indicates the irrationality of the atheist.
@TheCartesianTheist I would actually tent to agree to you on this point. Life is hard when my existence hangs in the balance of every other individual agreeing to a common goal or "law". It is a precarious and dangerous world we live in. Though on a positive note, it is a relative low percentile that does not feel the need to follow these "mostly-understood" standards or "Laws", and they are labeled sociopaths (between 1-5%).
Now you appear to be trying to dodge the question of whether you really are a moral objectivist or a moral subjectivist. You made posts where you make it look like you're claiming to be both of those things within 30 minutes of each other. Either you just changed you mind OR your hedging your bets, or you're completely irrational. Can you let us know which it is?
@TheCartesianTheist The fact of the matter is, regardless of what I would give you as far as sociol-ecological interaction and reason for a "sense" of morality, I cannot supersede your predisposition to rely on something that cannot be logically verified. Really your incessant requirement of information or proof might as well be a mobius-loop. Site for me some sources of how The Bible is a good foundation for morality. Perhaps in the slaughter of men, women, and children?
"I could give you loads of good reasons why there might be objective morality but I'm not going to because you might just be able to respond to them rationally and I don't want that so what I'll do is pretend that you'll be unable to grasp them whilst not telling you what they are as cover for my bluf!"
And then you comment about the Bible reveals that you're probably NOT a moral subjectivist after all!! ;)
@TheCartesianTheist That's almost the polar opposite of what I just said. Don't get me wrong, I think you are a rational thinking individual, and you seem very intelligent. However I also have witnessed your interaction with others and sufficed to say, you are wearing blinders when it comes to religion. I don't think the bible is entirely filled with masochism and slaughter of innocents, but I would also say it is not devoid of it.
Sorry but you cannot accuse someone of not being rational in one aspect of their thinking UNLESS you can DEMONSTRATE the claim. If you don't demonstrate it then that is a classic example of an ad hominem and I know you would agree that's not a rational attack to make on someone.
Give me ONE example of an innocent person being put to death by the commend of God from ANYWHERE in the Bible. Keep in mind that you have the burden of showing them innocent.
@TheCartesianTheist (Samuel 15:3), you are saying to me that not one, woman, man, or child was innocent? That seems entirely impossible, for the babes to be dashed from the wombs of the mothers, the child could not yet have committed any sin, and is therefore innocent.
You don't seem to have grasped the point here. In order to DEMONSTRATE that innocent people were killed you have to give evidence that one of them actually was innocent. Asking me if I think one of them was innocent is an appeal to ignorance not an appeal to knowledge. It's therefore an argument from a gap in knowledge rather than based on something we know which makes it very weak. God, however, should he exist knows all there is to know about these people.
@TheCartesianTheist Conversely, you cannot prove they were not innocent, and though you attempt to assign the burden of proof on me, we are discussing a historical text, and one thing you cannot deny is that history is recorded by the victor. I will full well admit that I cannot prove one of them innocent, but if there are infants killed, they are entirely innocent, and they are being judged on the actions of their parents.
But I don't have to prove that every single one of them were not. In any hypothesis in science or philosophy the test is not verification but falsification. So you are accusing me of not meeting a requirement that philosophers and scientists agree cannot be met. To substantiate your view of innocence that only works assuming atheist presuppositions [such as that there exists no-one who can see everything they will do].
@TheCartesianTheist I appreciate your passion on the subject, though I tire of your simple yet belittling statements that "I don't understand." I was a baptist Christian for many years of my life, and I can attest to your indomitable certainty. If you took one day out of your life and truly questioned what you have believed, you would have the very foundation of your beliefs shaken. Far be it from me to actually think you will. Thanks for our debate.
Again an ad hominem attack now. I would be willing to bet that I have read far more atheist philosophical works than you have and could talk about them in much greater lengths without needing to go off to wikipedia than most atheists on this planet. I have questioned my beliefs every time I read Hume, Nietzsche, Darwin, Mill, Sartre, Rorty, Russell, Martin, Ruse, Everitt, Dennett, Dawkins, Harris... and can tell you how as well.
The problem with this argument is that religion must be based on revelation, either through authoritative texts or divine appearance. The problem is that revelation depends on interpretation. If we interpret god's "morality" as good we have made a moral judgement based on something other than what we are interpreting. So what moral basis are you using to judge god's "morality" as good?
i just don't believe in your Santa/God. I don't have to and you can't make me. All this reasoning makes no difference since you christians always put assumptions into it anywa.y
God is good (by definition), but when asked to define good (and excepting circular reasoning), all you are left with is either your own subjective notion of good, or an admittance that you cannot know what good is. The former leaves you unable to argue against the morality of anyone else (or their God). The latter makes both the word "good" and the foundation of a morality from God entirely meaningless.
This is why every attempt at creating a foundation of morality based on religion fails.
Another facepalm. No wonder you have no subscribers after nearly three years on YT. No-one takes you seriously and now we know why. I recommend an extremely easy introduction to theology - you know - the idiots guide. ;)
@TheCartesianTheist I have no subscribers because I never bother making comments on youtube, due to the massive amount of stupid. I made an exception to this policy today. It's interesting that you go for the personal attack, rather than responding to the argument. Perhaps I did make a mistake today.
You have no argument worthy of rebuttal. Nothing a tiny introductory book on the subject could not sort out for you anyway! I don't see how my job is to educate the completely ignorant? If you want to know go do some research for yourself.
@TheCartesianTheist I think you are just projecting, it was a perfectly good argument which I have never heard a satisfactory answer to. So you insult him, send him to look something up without a source and project your own ignorance.
Saying that the example of goodness is a person is not a circular claim per se. Only when it's articulated badly. And that can be done to any argument. eg. 'What is good is what I think. What I think is good is good.'
@TheCartesianTheist Metaethical options: 1.) What is right is commanded by god because god's nature is intrinsically good. 2.) What is right is what can be objectively perceived by our moral sense. 3.) What is right is what would be preferred by a hypothetical impartial omniscient spectator. 4.) What is right is the result of hypothetical fair contract consented to by equals. It doesn't seem like the first option has a decisive advantage in grounding objective morality.
If that's so then I think you should make a video pointing out the equally sure footing of any of the others you best like. Then let me know and I'll let you know why I disagree. Unless, of course, you convince me in which case I'll abandon any moral argument for God's existence.
The flaw in reasoning in this video is the huge assumption that your imaginary sky wizard friends actually exist. You're fucked until you can offer and reasonable evidence that they do exist. Until then let's just replace the concept of your God in this video with Magic Unicorns and watch the video again.
Relatively speaking, it's also rare in human society for serial "murderers" to arise when you consider how large our population is and how few of them exist.
The point is, there's no moral "problem" with Atheism and even if your argument is that Atheists can't explain right/wrong, it still doesn't prove that there's a creator.
@TVOham However, it would prove that many atheists are illogical when they act as if some acts are inherently right or wrong, which the majority do. You'll find very few like Joel Marks who admit that the only logical thing to believe is that all acts are amoral. Most atheists don't like this though since then they can't act self-righteous about things and pretend their personal morals are "better."
Nobody is pretending that their personal morals are better, but if we want to have that discussion we can. .21% of prisoners in America are Atheist. Religion has been the direct cause of wars/genocides/atrocities. You people act as if this is a common occurrence among Atheists (that we act better) and it's absolutely untrue. It's just ad hom. How does it prove that some Atheists are illogical by the way? You can't make a claim and then not support it.
right and wrong are both relative. There is no debate or "problem" among Atheists. There's an evolutionary explanation for why we don't murder each other and it's for the same reason that you don't see creatures in the animal kingdom killing each other. Yes, they will fight for mates and sometimes fight over territory (sound familiar?), but very rarely do you ever encounter a species that deliberately murders others.
@Thecartesiantheist what you think by saying god says thus and such is wrong, therefore it is, accounts for anything other than might makes right? As I said many times before your welcome to debate me on skype on this and other issues. Unless ofcourse you just wanna keep making arbitrary assertions behind your keyboard where it's nice and safe ; )
@TheCartesianTheist Atheism as you know and miss represent is a lack of belief in gods, and a lack of belief doesnt need to account for anything. Your god belief doesnt account for morality either!
i've noticed when i'm weed eating my eyes will blink shut before i percieve rocks coming at them and they protect them that way...the brain would react way to slow for this to happen by itself and can't perceive a threat without the brain telling them it's a threat. this is my definition for the mind. if we could exist off the mind alone we would have superhuman reflexes reacting to things before they happen so that we in effect prevent them from happening.
The other problem is: when it comes to the argument that a God is a necessary foundation of morality and that this is a good reason to be a theist, what is the practical distinction between a real God and one who exists only as a concept of perfect morality? Your "philosophical grounding" is an argument from degree.
In fact, you may not realize this, but my definition is your solution to the Euthyphro Dilemma. "Is it good because it maximizes benefit and minimizes suffering, or does it maximize benefit and minimize suffering because it's good?" The answer is that there is no causal relationship because they are the same thing.
Additionally your solution is useless because it translates into, "It's good because Good said so." In other words, "The basis of morality is the basis of morality."
""The basis of morality is the basis of morality.""
Ever heard of tautologies? You really have nothing mate. You know nothing about ethics and the fact that you keep missing the point here is getting extremely annoying now. This is where Matt Dillahunty hangs up the phone on stupid theists so why shouldn't I? You cannot reason with unreasonable people.
""It's good because Good said so.""
What?!? I never said that. Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic strawman.
@TheCartesianTheist That was my point! God is the basis of morality; hence, by your definition of God (as inseparable from moral truth), the basis of morality is the basis of morality. You've redefined God into a tautological form.
@TheCartesianTheist Hello. Thank you for bringing discussions of meta-ethics into the youtube world. I wanted to add some clarity to the frustration some of the watchers may have with your solution to the Euth. Dilemma. The objects of morality can include actions, rules, intentions, and virtue/character. You appear to have interpreted ED to ask, "Are the rules right because god commanded them, or did god command them because they are right."
@TheCartesianTheist You then bypass the dilemma by saying the the rules are right because they were commanded by a god who has a perfectly good character. However this just shifts the dilemma from rules to virtues. For us to say that god has a perfectly good character and have it be non-tautological, we would need some sort of independent secular virtue ethics to provide a standard with which we could evaluate god's character.
We are highly evolved intelligent social mammals. Empathy is instinctive and necessry, love is instinctive and necessary, hate is also instinctive when we face competition an scarcity, but thankfully with have the means to cooperate and do without that one.
You have misunderstood the issue at hand here. This is not about what motivates us to perform certain actions. This is about what philosophical justification there is for thinking that some things are objectively wrong.
@TheCartesianTheist Excepting crimes directed at God (blasphemy, hubris, heresy), is there any evil act under any form of theistic morality that would NOT be evil under any form of secular morality?
To clarify, my current view is that religion hijacked principles of secular morality, not the other way round.
Your view is historically upside down I'm afraid. Even Greek ethics was not secular. Secular ethics is a very recent thing and very much inspired by theistic ethics I'm afraid to tell you. However, that fact does not discredit secular ethics - but it does end your ridiculous notion that secular ethics got "hijacked".
@TheCartesianTheist It's only upside-down in a limited time-frame. Atheism predates theism, hence secular standards of behavior predate theistic ones.
@TheCartesianTheist Why? God is a positive claim. Therefore, someone thought of the idea. Before that, no one had.
But if you really insist: chimps, who demonstrate a code of behavior based on such principles as survival, the mating instinct, the need for material resources and personal satisfaction; to the degree that they employ punishments, social gender roles, and a concept of social hierarchy. They can even employ deception and understand some semiotic concepts and plan for future events.
"God is a positive claim. Therefore, someone thought of the idea. Before that, no one had."
So? What are you implying by saying this exactly?
Animals also rape - I notice you leave that out. And that's the problem. You're just picking and choosing what to take from the animal kingdom. That shows you have a meta-ethics already in place which you're not admitting to for some reason.
@TheCartesianTheist What I'm implying is that morality predates a concept of God. Hence, a concept of God is not a requisite of morality.
I'm perfectly aware animals also rape. Chimps will also war with rival tribes. Some species commit cannibalism. So what? I never passed any judgment on their behavioral code. This is merely to demonstrate that non-humans also hold moral concepts. There's no meta-ethics at work.
@TheCartesianTheist Yes, it tells you that YouTube comments have a word count limit.
I'm not arguing that humans hold moral concepts. I'm arguing that moral concepts precede a concept of God, and that objective moral standards therefore do not necessarily proceed from such a concept.
What's wrong with my earlier definition, by the way? How is it inconsistent with "true" morality?
You cannot possibly demonstrate that moral concepts preceded the concept of God. But even if you could demonstrate this it's not about moral concepts as such. As I already pointed out - it's about the philosophical justification of objective morality that matters here. How you cannot understand this by now is beyond me.
The christian moral problem; see the bible.
ahhninjadragon 2 hours ago
Theres no problem with morality in the atheist comunity , morality is a process of evolution ,culture and the developement of the human brain , simple as that. Prove that God exists and maybe you will have a point . Morality is not objective , is subjective , and changes in different cultures all around the world.
EdyMar77 19 hours ago
the maker of this video is retarded
rlt34 2 days ago
@rlt34
Thanks for your intellectual contribution to the discussion.
TheCartesianTheist 2 days ago
I think that some atheists don't try to prove the existance of right and wrong, but trust that their moral compass is adequate (along with regular soul searching). They choose atheism over religion because while religion claims to have proof of right and wrong, through god, so many religious people act so rudely to other people. Cristians have done things from anti gay anti minority actions to crusades and the inquisition. The KKK is a christian group. It makes this argument moot.
jim121254 3 days ago
@jim121254
The KKK is a Christian group??? What's Christian about them exactly? I mean 'Christian' means a 'follower of Christ' so what teachings of Jesus are they demonstrating in their actions exactly? That makes the word meaningless. Not everyone who claims to be part of a religion, or culture or political group etc. necessarily does. People like that use religions etc. to hide behind.
TheCartesianTheist 3 days ago
@jim121254
Also - Christians behaving inconsistenly does not damage this argument at all. This argument is not about the existential moral superiority of theist over non-theists since that would only be anecdotal evidence at best. So that would not be making any kind of case. This argument is about the philosophical foundations of the moral system.
TheCartesianTheist 3 days ago
I know what is moral because humans as a whole have reached a general consensus about many areas, even if most of us disagree about a lot of specifics. Fundamentally; we all agree that rape and murder are wrong. That's reason enough for me to agree. Plus there is the consequentialist argument that I wouldn't wish to live in a world where rape and murder were considered okay; because I don't want to be raped and murdered (or even one or the other individually, for that matter!).
DrChalkwithering 4 days ago
@DrChalkwithering
The logical fallacy you just committed is called argumentum ad populum. Now take your troll account elsewhere thank you.
TheCartesianTheist 4 days ago
Why do you think there is objective reality? I think violence is bad the same way I think fast food is bad. It depends on the circumstances. I may feel perfectly justified hurting or maybe even killing someone who was trying to kill me, just as I would feel perfectly justified eating junk food when if there was nothing else to eat. The history and psychology seem to agree with me. Also why would it make a difference to me if there was an objective reality. How would it effect my life?
hcheyne 4 days ago
Our morals are inherent, our great ancestors practiced altruism simply because members operating by themselves in self interest would die, and so came the human social order to police the ideas of altruism. Morality was pioneered well before the innovation of farming but minds far more primitive than ours. And it should go on the record that none of it was attributed to a higher intelligence.
WarriorOfWriters 4 days ago
@WarriorOfWriters
Your ancestors also raped, had turf wars, murdered over food, did anything in order to survive, practiced what we would call tribalism and often in totalitarian regimes and yet I don't see you advocating these things. The point is you want to pick and choose what stays and what goes so the question remains! On what basis do the good things stay and the bad things go?
TheCartesianTheist 4 days ago
@TheCartesianTheist yes, some of us outgrew that, it was far more functional for society to abide one-another for the greater good. By the way rape, turf wars, bigamy, murder and genocide were all condoned by the God of the Old Testament, from which Judaism, Christianity and Islam originate. If anyone is cherry picking, it's them.
WarriorOfWriters 3 days ago
@WarriorOfWriters
Well, for one - it's not a good argument to say you feel other people get to cherry pick so why not you. Secondly, it's not considered a good argument in philosophy to make a right out of what is functional. Thirdly, the notion of functional is subjective as well. Most of the atheistic mass-murderers of the 20th century thought they were being very efficient and beneficial to society. PS. Where's rape "condoned" in the OT?
TheCartesianTheist 3 days ago
@TheCartesianTheist well for one religious people are following a doctrine that doesn't change. It's not supposed to, as a person declaring faith in a certain prophet you are required to follow all of its teachings. Cherry picking is required to justify your actions and not condemn them. Science and objectivism doesn't do that.
WarriorOfWriters 2 days ago
@WarriorOfWriters
"well for one religious people are following a doctrine that doesn't change."
Actually that's not true. Even north American fundies don't endorse all 613 laws of the OT. In fact, I don't think there's a fundie group who accept even 50% of them to my knowledge. Most Christian theologians have accepted that there is a progressive revelation of God throughout history which culminates in Jesus. There are also clear laws in the OT which are contextual.
TheCartesianTheist 2 days ago
@TheCartesianTheist Science and objectivism see the truth as objective. Reason and rationality as the basis of any decent person's actions and thoughts. Scientists are not priests, laboratories and lecture halls are not churches, science is not religion, Darwin was not a prophet. There is no cherry picking, only hypothetical conjecture and observation, which gives an individual much more understanding of life than faith does.
WarriorOfWriters 2 days ago
@WarriorOfWriters
This is a common misunderstanding of objective ethics. People often think that in order for something to be objectively right it has to be so in all circumastances. For example, someone could be morally objective about abortion by saying that it is wrong in some circumastances but right in, perhaps one exception [eg. rape]. They would still be proposing an objective morality about abortion because they are still saying it is always wrong in some circumstances
TheCartesianTheist 2 days ago
@WarriorOfWriters
Reason is a good place to start on many issues but, unlike logic, there appears to be a problem with ethics. The problem is that philosophers don't agree on what the correct moral theory is and how that applies to ethical situations. They are all very reasonable people but should the consideration be the emotions [Hume] or just reason [Kant] or the Virtues [Aristotle] or is it all illusory? Very rational people disagree.
TheCartesianTheist 2 days ago
@WarriorOfWriters
Observation is great for telling you what is there. Observation is lousy at telling you the value of the thing. And that's what we're talking about here. It's why most philosophers reject Sam Harris's naive view that ethics can be extrapolated from observations. Observations tell us nothing about the value of something and neither do they tell us about 'oughts'. They only tell us what is.
TheCartesianTheist 2 days ago
Specific moral norms are brought about by culture. Culture is brought about by the necessity for social creatures to develop mechanism for group thought and emotional and procedural communication. This is best describe by evolution. This is why wolves and people have pack mentality an empathy, but bullfrogs eat their own young. Morality is a best fit behavioural practice for the reality of your environment.
hcheyne 4 days ago
@hcheyne
Your ancestors also raped, had turf wars, murdered over food, did anything in order to survive, practiced what we would call tribalism and often in totalitarian regimes and yet I don't see you advocating these things. The point is you want to pick and choose what stays and what goes so the question remains! On what basis do the good things stay and the bad things go?
TheCartesianTheist 4 days ago
If you believe that forcing a woman to marry her rapist and having multiple wives is morally good, your morals are relative to God whether you like it or not. If you don't think so, your morals are relative to your time and/or culture and its obvious you haven't read the Bible in its entirety.
dataDyne6 5 days ago
Secular morals are based on good and bad, religious morals are based on pointless moral absolutes.
18booma 1 week ago
@18booma
And what are "good" and "bad"?
TheCartesianTheist 1 week ago
@TheCartesianTheist Good is whatever is positive for the human race and the world. Bad is anything that has negative effects. Of course things aren't always black and white, but through reasoning we are able to navigate through even the grey areas.
18booma 6 days ago
@18booma
"Good is whatever is positive for the human race and the world. Bad is anything that has negative effects."
Okay. I hear your opinion here but I don't see how that statement can be foundational to any objective set of ethics. Unless, of course, you're simply wanting to be allowed to assume it without justification? I mean, why pick out just the human race? How about saying "whatever is positive for the world" and not commit speciesism?
TheCartesianTheist 6 days ago
@TheCartesianTheist If by objective set of ethics you mean 'set in stone' laws that stay the same through every situation then my statement wouldn't serve as a foundation. It's only a way of distinguishing between right and wrong. If you're looking for an objective reason for people to be moral it's simply fairness. If you want to be treated well, then you have to treat others well. Of course it's not limited to our species. It's just that there are moral issues limited to us
18booma 6 days ago
@18booma
Okay now you're asserting that the undermining foundation for good and evil is fairness. Only problem with that is everyone has their own subjective notion of what "fair" is!! A child thinks it's unfair when they are not permitted to buy a toy everytime they go past a shop. A rich person thinks their higher tax rate is unfair. Some Westerners don't think the north/south divide is unfair! So your foundation is still stuck in a word which is interpreted in thousands of ways.
TheCartesianTheist 5 days ago
@TheCartesianTheist The fact that people have different opinions about what is fair doesn't make it subjective. In every situation there is an option that doesn't undermine one of the parties involved. Obviously no one will get everything their own way. That's why reasoning is so important. We don't always instinctively know what's fair. Also remember that biblical laws can also be interpreted in different ways, but I think you would agree that it's objective.
18booma 5 days ago
deciding whether something is wrong is not even the right question. The question is whether we want something in society. Most people (excluding the Catholic church and Penn St alumni) have decided child rape is not something we want, so we choose to punish it. By declaring the need for a higher power you havent created it. It doesnt exist because an argument wants it to be. In reality, one of the most damaging statements to a 'moral' construct is attributed to Jesus: 'Turn the other Cheek'
funcpl2741054 1 week ago
@funcpl2741054
Fair enough, but if you want real answers you have to ask the next question;
'Why is what society deems, moral?' You also made the point "child rape is not something we want" and I agree but that tells us we don't want children to be raped that doesn't tell us rape of any kind is really wrong. You can't get an ought from an is.
lxAgnosticxl 1 week ago
@lxAgnosticxl By understanding the foundations of "oughts" and their intended purposes it is very possible to get an "ought" from an "is".
dataDyne6 4 days ago
An obligation cannot be founded from an inanimate thing, understanding it's foundation gets you no closer e.g. why is Child rape wrong?
lxAgnosticxl 4 days ago
@lxAgnosticxl
"An obligation cannot be founded from an inanimate thing..."
That's quite an assertion! How did you come to know that?
What material thing founds moral obligation then?
TheCartesianTheist 4 days ago
I'm not saying it can't be found in something non-material , what I'm trying to say is that Objective morality can't just exist.
lxAgnosticxl 4 days ago
In other words you can't find morality in empty space.
lxAgnosticxl 4 days ago
@lxAgnosticxl
But I'm not claiming "objective morality can just exist" myself!?
TheCartesianTheist 4 days ago
I was responding to dataDyne6 but like this comment I wrote over the YT name so It probibly looks like I'm responding to the vid. But sorry I'm not I agree with it.
lxAgnosticxl 4 days ago
I mean probably , it saves letter because you only get like 200 , which is just sily.
lxAgnosticxl 4 days ago
@lxAgnosticxl ?? Are you stating that information cannot bring obligation because it itself is inanimate? If that is what you are saying, all obligations based on books... (inanimate information derived from them) should also be obsolete then. If I'm off, please try to explain further. And the answer to your question is quite long, and it will breed many more questions. It will require multiple responses, would you like me to answer your question? (from an Atheist's perspective)
dataDyne6 3 days ago
@dataDyne6
No I'm not, when reading or looking at info there is a mind involved it is not inanimate it gives the obligation. my point was simply that without God you can't have an objective morality. Information itself comes from minds. G.K. Chesterton put it rather poetically when he said "A Russian philosopher denounces a policeman for killing a peasant and in his other writtings proves the peasent should have killed himself ,A scientist goes to a political meeting & says .....
lxAgnosticxl 2 days ago
~dataDyne6
..... & says we treat natives like beasts ad goes to a Scientific meeting & proves that we are beasts."
What he was trying to say is without this Objective standard (which can't exist without a mind {i.e. god} ) Why is wrong to commit 'evil'.
lxAgnosticxl 2 days ago
@lxAgnosticxl I didn't state that morals are derived from, or exist within inanimate beings/matter, although they do at times influence the animate.
One still can argue objective morals without God, because almost all morals (regardless if they help their own cause) are derived from the same basic necessities. The objective (good) can be that which is proven to promote the most basic universal cultural goals. Regardless, "Objective" morals are relative in nature.
dataDyne6 11 minutes ago
Moral values are self-evident. Any child can make a calculation of the most good for the most people plus the environment. The reason why the morals weren't self-evident for the most of our history is, unsurprisingly, ideology. Ideologies, including religions say what is right and wrong without any justification. Atheism does not come with morality, each atheist builds their own. And so do believers, for Yahweh is a vile character and his morals would get you in jail.
MiracleWitness 1 week ago
@MiracleWitness
You have confused the issue here. This is not about moral epistemology but moral ontology.
TheCartesianTheist 1 week ago
@TheCartesianTheist "moral epistemology but moral ontology," wtf. MiracleWitness is saying "Moral values are self-evident" this allready shows that atheistic moral problem does not exist!
ray4ix 1 week ago
@ray4ix
A Gunner doing moral philosophy? Really? ;)
MW may well be saying that but his job is to come up with some reasons which are very strong and rational in support of the assertion. And my point to which you swore at was simply that this video is not about how we come to have morals but how we ground our morals. Philosophers draw a distinction there and it's important to note I'm only doing the latter and not the former.
TheCartesianTheist 1 week ago
I always did love the music in your vids CT. Glad to see you back. You were missed.
theocratickingdom30 1 week ago
@theocratickingdom30
Thanks!
TheCartesianTheist 1 week ago
so which version of morality is the objective morality which all other morality is derived from? the truth is that this idea of an objective and ideal morality is in fact no different from socrates suggestion that because we perceive beauty there must be a pure ideal beauty from which our conception is derived. the truth is a bit more nuanced and complicated than that. it was sound thinking at the time. it is now outdated.
reggiejax 2 weeks ago
that's not to say we can escape or 'control' our own morality, i do agree with you that it is inherent in human beings. it's both an emotional response to reality and a regulatory mechanism for behavior. there's good evolutionary reasoning for why this would be beneficial. but there's no one universal standard of right and wrong. since humans are social creatures our moral values are likewise subject to fluctuate with social pressure based on the character of said society.
reggiejax 2 weeks ago
objective morality would support the notion of god were objective morality to be justifiable or demonstrable itself, which it is not.
morality changes with social context. some of the OT laws would undoubtedly be viewed as 'wrong' by most contemporary thinkers. likewise, honor killings are seen as wrong in the west, yet in some muslim circles it is the actions of the woman which is truly wrong. once again, social context.
reggiejax 2 weeks ago
objectively, there is no such thing as a moral law. morality is a subjective invention conjured up by subjective minds.
we invented morals, because we are alive and morality is only relevant to living, feeling things.
and im sick of hearing religious idiots who say things like homosexuality or prostitution or masturbation are immoral. those things dont have a thing to do with morality, those are behaviors, not morals.
UnluckyGambler 2 weeks ago
@UnluckyGambler Why should I believe your story about morality being an invention conjured up by subjective minds? I study ancient history (when i can) and the facts contradict your baseless story. The earliest written records (of nearly any culture) show they already have a massive presumption of morality assigned from god, heaven, external authorities. We do not find series of 'invention' before that. So what is your crap story based on? Your imagination?
TheRightOffensive 2 weeks ago
@TheRightOffensive u may study history, but i studied philosophy. history tells us facts, but doesnt tell us theories. philosophy on the other hand, back by other scientific fields, support my theory. science also explains why all those different ancient cultures have religion, and silly little ignorant humans back then of course attributed to what they perceive to be moral to the will of their gods.
as for "series of 'inventions' before that", do u mean morals dont exist before humans? false!
UnluckyGambler 2 weeks ago
@UnluckyGambler Nothing you said even made sense. It was 'nonsense'. You don't even know what or 'how' to discuss this. Let me explain this again: You made a claim for history and there is NOTHING in any historical evidence for your fake claim. Not only that - history or 'the facts' tell you nearly the OPPOSITE. Please shut up, stop talking, stop 'asserting' fake crap you made up in your own immature mind. Go home and get your shinebox instead.
TheRightOffensive 1 week ago
@TheRightOffensive history has nothing to do with this. this is a scientific matter. if u knew anything about psychology or neurology or evolution u would (or should) understand why morality is subjective.
if u think morality existed before the arrival of sentient beings, then ur pretty much saying a rock knows right from wrong.
if u think objective morals exist and is put there by god, then ur just another religious nutjob and this is all a waste of bits.
UnluckyGambler 1 week ago
Stop. This formula you've got is ruining your life. I know you really need to defend this idea that you've been indoctrinated with, it's so important to you. We all have this fear. I tried every way to hold onto what others told me was the truth... but it's just not true. I know you will feel lost without this thing, this super personal guiding force. It's an illusion. You need to let it go.
You could do something real with your life instead. Defending this lie... for who? for what?
Callirgos1 2 weeks ago
its ironic that religions, while knowing nothing about the philosophy behind morality, claims to be the foundation of morality.
UnluckyGambler 2 weeks ago
@UnluckyGambler
What is ironic is just how wrong you are about everything you said.
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist u need to learn what irony means.
UnluckyGambler 2 weeks ago
athiesm is not a moral guide book don't know anybody who claims that if you claim that your an idiot and i truely mean that.
now you ask where do i get my morals well my parents people around me my own personel experiences and so on
yes the bible has some parts wich would make the world a better place but the negative parts far outnumber the possetive parts
but christians cant have it both way you cant have some good parts but say the bad parts are taking out of context cant have it both ways
pailmaster 2 weeks ago
@pailmaster
1. No-one is asking 'atheism' to provide a moral rulebook.
2. This is not a question of moral epistemology but of moral ontology.
3. Too obtuse to respond to - be more specific.
4. Same point as 3.
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist the bible agrees with killing none belivers with plunder rape murder more than one wife bashing small chieldren against rocks
you can't say that the bible is the way to go with morale when it also has some really horrible acts
and lets not forget hell the whole concept is morally bankrupt if you are okay with someone being tortured for all eternity then i must say that makes youa pretty twisted person with a moral that needs to be questioned
pailmaster 2 weeks ago
Your first paragraph in this description is testimony of complete insanity. Have fun
Callirgos1 2 weeks ago
@Callirgos1
Funny how you simply assert and give no evidence!
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
And vegetarianism is not a "grey area" as the video says. It is the belief that some people have that hot dogs are literally murder. Slavery is also not a "grey area" to most people, nor is sexism.
someonenobodycares 2 weeks ago
Obviously, this teacher didn't teach everyone the same things, since people the world over believe in greatly varying versions of "objective" moraltiy.
A brief list of things that some people feel are immoral that the Bible does not condemn
- Killing animals for food (Being a vegetarian)
- The death penalty
- Slavery
- A male leading his family
Are the people who believe these things just wrong? After all, if there was an objective morality, nobody would ever feel bad about eating meat.
someonenobodycares 2 weeks ago
@someonenobodycares
Okay - let's just take slavery as one example then. First of all I want you to define what you mean by slavery and then I want you to quote me verbatim on how the Bible advocates the slavery you speak of.
[For now I will grant you the luxury of being able to assume objective ethics by the way - which you have to assume if you're suggesting your ethics are better than anyone elses. Just keep in mind you have not shown you can demonstrate this yet.]
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist
Your mistake is granting me "the luxury of being able to assume objective ethics". My comment was intended to provide examples of the how people can't agree on objective morality, not prove that slavery, or anything else was objectively wrong.
You seem to be one of those "Bible slavery is peachy" guys. Biblical slavery would not be tolerated by people today. If you were a foreign slave or a POW, it was as bad as American slavery.
someonenobodycares 2 weeks ago
@someonenobodycares
The mere phenomenon of people disagreeing does not mean something cannot be objectively the case. It's clearly true that the earth is not flat but not all people agree [sadly]. It's clearly the case that the law of non-contradiction must be a route to truth but not everyone agrees [sadly]. Examples of disagreement don't constitute evidence of moral subjectivity. Objective ethics is the idea that some things are morally wrong no matter what people think.
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
@someonenobodycares
I'm actually one of those - don't make naive historical anachronisms kind of guys. And if you want to suggest that what happened even in the OT is analogous to 'American' slavery as practiced and endorsed by your agnostic, deist and atheist founding fathers over there in the good old US of A then let's see the case being made please.
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist
Let me point out of retarded what you just said is. Apparently, when it is convenient, the founding fathers were mostly atheists. Strike one for TheCartesianTheist. The Founders were mostly Christian, so to say the practice was endorsed by the "agnostic, deist, and atheist" founders is pathetic and stupid. Read a book.
someonenobodycares 2 weeks ago
@someonenobodycares the founding fathers were mostly secularists.
UnluckyGambler 2 weeks ago
@UnluckyGambler
Of those present at the convention, 49 were protestants and 3 were Catholics. Yes, some of them were deist or anti-clerical, but that doesn't reflects on secularism in any significant way.
After all, the slaves were being bought by Christians. The Bible was used to argue for slavery (and sexism) for decades. I don't know what this has to do with the original point I brought up, though.
someonenobodycares 2 weeks ago
@someonenobodycares oh i just wanted to bring up that the founding fathers were secularists mostly, which they were, i dont know the details but richard dawkins said it so it must be true. ;D
i didnt read ur long argument so idk what the original points were. yes, i agree the bible is to blame for slavery and all kinds of discriminating bigotry.
UnluckyGambler 2 weeks ago
@UnluckyGambler
Sorry for the slavery rant. I thought you were someone else.
Anyway, secularism doesn't necessarily amount to atheism or agnosticism.
someonenobodycares 1 week ago
@someonenobodycares agreed. they just believed in not involving religion in running a country. jefferson and washington and others hated christianity. they were probly mostly deists. kinda makes ya sick of hearing people calling this a christian nation doesnt it? ;]
UnluckyGambler 1 week ago
@UnluckyGambler
Even the Christians at the convention knew it wasn't a Christian nation. Anyone who is still touting that nonsense needs to buy a clue.
someonenobodycares 1 week ago
@TheCartesianTheist
To address your red herring about Biblical slavery:
1. There was slavery for life
2. You could beat the slaves
3. Conjugal slavery
Yes, its not identical to American slavery, so perhaps I was wrong to compare it in that way. It is still morally reprehensible to most people in both of our countries.
someonenobodycares 2 weeks ago
while i think the terms objective and subjective can be useful,sometimes they can be used in a way that simply muddles the issue.certain facets of ethics can be either/or,depending on how it's approached
i don't see how that response to the euthypro dillemna is adequate.couldn't one simply ask,"are god's characteristics good because god has them,or does he have them because they are good?"the issue is what makes something good.simply asserting god's nature is good doesn't answer that question
mebe84 2 weeks ago
While I do think there is an objective morality, there is no reason to assume that a god was responsible. Our actions have an impact on those around us. Since different behaviors in different situations lead to different outcomes we can make a hierarchy where some behaviors are better than others. The standard we base them on can be along the lines of what leads to the greatest human well being. By studying what the effects of behaviors are we can find a best way of behaving and call it morality
dontcare68 2 weeks ago
You do realize that the only refutation I need to your argument that we have a "built in sense of objective morality" is the picture of Stalin you put up. If we had a built in sense, then why would Stalin and his followers think that the deaths they caused were justified. The fact of the matter is that our morals are informed by our culture. I think forcing a woman to wear a burqa is immoral. In Iraq forcing a woman to wear one is the only moral thing they can do.
dontcare68 2 weeks ago
A theistic belief, especially christianity (culture relevance) cannot be considered moral when it's adherents will do anything as long as they think god told them to. The old testament is a running commentary of crimes against humanity still justified by christains today. I don't reject your religion because I want to be immoral with impunity, I reject your religion because I am a moral person.
ptango101 2 weeks ago 2
@TheCartesianTheist "To be reasonable about morality the atheist needs to demonstrate that they have a sufficient reason for some things being right and others wrong." How about the fact that some actions are (overall) demonstrably detrimental to either individuals or society as whole?
I mean let me put it this way, if all morality is is "God's will" (that's divine command theory, what God says goes, pain/happiness don't matter), and God doesn't exist, then what exactly are you worried about?
DogmasDemise 2 weeks ago
I'd just like to state however that objective morals are in no way a problem for atheists, simply because they don't exist. Morals are subjective they are a function of our empathic drive without subjectivity of morals, they would cease to be moral at all. The immorality comes when you claim that things are rigidly set in stone and completely black and white, it has a retarding effect on the processes by which we associate with one another and one of the key aspects of what makes us human.
MrPyrulen 2 weeks ago
"The argument is not about whether atheists can be moral per se. Any theist who suggest atheists are immoral is plain stupid and needs to meet some atheists. Atheists can be very moral people. "
Thats more of a concession i've come to expect form the religious so thank-you.
MrPyrulen 2 weeks ago
@ODaemienE
What on earth is an "evolutionary imperative"? Sure sounds impressive. And why have you put 'evil' in quotation marks? And how are there "imperatives" when you also want morality to be "fluid and evanescent"?
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist An evolutionary imperative is a response to external stimuli, ususally sexual, food related, or social (for species such as ours which have complex social orders). "Evil" is quotaed because it is perceived as evil by those who consider it evil, but not by those who do not, thus it is subjective. As for the imperatives themselves, they are not dependent upon morals, merely survival of one's self and progeny. Are all morals identical to those of Abraham?
ODaemienE 2 weeks ago
@ODaemienE
Ahhh - so "evil" is completely subjective then? Like "beauty" - it lies only in the eye of the beholder? So some people could call you "evil" and there's nothing you can retort in reply since it's all about subjective perception. So they are subjectively "right" that you are to them and you are right that you're not "evil" according to yourself?
Why accept anything at all as an "imperative" then? Surely those are subjective too?
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist Is this intended to be your "Gotcha" moment? Yes, others can call me evil, and I have done things that, to them, would be considered evil. I personally do not ascribe to a sence of good or evil. There is no right or wrong, only pissed me off or did not piss me off. Imperatives, too, are subjective, indeed. They are necessary to the one who views them as an imperative, but may be trivial to another.
ODaemienE 2 weeks ago
@ODaemienE
Well then you've proven yourself to be a liar and there's no point in talking to liars.
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist Where? When? Actually asking, I can't find it.
ODaemienE 2 weeks ago
@ODaemienE
Why does it matter? Before was not the "gotcha" moment. This is the gotcha moment. Any moral subjectivist would admit that I can subjectively think someone is lying and this would not bother them in the slightest since it's subjective. They would not be bothered because they either don't think they lied or they don't care about lying - even subjectively. But what a moral subjectivist never does is ask for evidence that a lie was told because it implies objective standards.
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist It would appear you are applying an absolute to a "moral subjectivist," which is categorically absurd. Also, you seem to believe that my subjective notions inculdes indifference to my person, which would just be inhuman. I care what others may think, even if it may not bother me. I am sentient; I am Human. That is scientific fact, not a philosophical argument, and I appreciate intelligent debate and ask you to think about the absurdity of a moral absolute.
ODaemienE 2 weeks ago
@ODaemienE
However, I'm not doing this for a "gotcha" moment believe it or not. I'm trying to get you to think about the absurdity of moral subjectivism. Sorry - it's late here. Got to sleep. Night.
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist
Furthermore, there is no need for me to outline why Biblical slavery is wrong.
Imagine if some legislature was trying to be passed that would allow us to own foreigners for life (but it's not like we can kill them, just smack them). Everyone would view this as immoral, so already, without delving into the more offensive parts of Biblical slavery, I have shown that the better part of the world disagrees with the social norm of the Israelites.
someonenobodycares 2 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist I am going to give a oversimplified analogy:
You are hanging out at Johnny's house. His father has asked him to play nice and not to hit or harm you, because that would be wrong.
You are hanging out at Johnny's house. He does not want you to harm him, so he has decided not to harm you.
Every social grouping whether we speak of Lions, Wolves, Primates, tends not to harm within its own community because that would have a negative impact on its progression.
TheGODAcronym 2 weeks ago
@TheGODAcronym
"Every social grouping whether we speak of Lions, Wolves, Primates, tends not to harm within its own community because that would have a negative impact on its progression."
Great - thank you for that observation. However, that tells us nothing about the rightness or wrongness of ANY action but only some pragmatic fitting with a concept such as survival. You have not even got us to subjective rights and wrongs with that!
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist Right and wrong are a subjective idea based on personal beliefs. The concept of good and evil is also subjective. An action does not have a positive or negative connotation associated with it, that is applied by the person reviewing said action. Everything you are arguing is within the realm of subjective and therefore cannot have a definitive answer. The only place you will find finite answers are from a bronze-age text, or the followers of such.
TheGODAcronym 2 weeks ago
@TheGODAcronym
Fantastic. You have just articulated one of the main reasons I cannot adhere to any form of atheism. Because you cannot consistently be an atheist and hold to objective morality. Since you cannot even say that torturing a child for the fun of it is absolutely wrong but is only a subjective dislike your worldview takes a serious blow. If you cannot see that then that further indicates the irrationality of the atheist.
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist I would actually tent to agree to you on this point. Life is hard when my existence hangs in the balance of every other individual agreeing to a common goal or "law". It is a precarious and dangerous world we live in. Though on a positive note, it is a relative low percentile that does not feel the need to follow these "mostly-understood" standards or "Laws", and they are labeled sociopaths (between 1-5%).
TheGODAcronym 2 weeks ago
@TheGODAcronym
Now you appear to be trying to dodge the question of whether you really are a moral objectivist or a moral subjectivist. You made posts where you make it look like you're claiming to be both of those things within 30 minutes of each other. Either you just changed you mind OR your hedging your bets, or you're completely irrational. Can you let us know which it is?
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist The fact of the matter is, regardless of what I would give you as far as sociol-ecological interaction and reason for a "sense" of morality, I cannot supersede your predisposition to rely on something that cannot be logically verified. Really your incessant requirement of information or proof might as well be a mobius-loop. Site for me some sources of how The Bible is a good foundation for morality. Perhaps in the slaughter of men, women, and children?
TheGODAcronym 2 weeks ago
@TheGODAcronym
Translated into plain speech that sounds like:
"I could give you loads of good reasons why there might be objective morality but I'm not going to because you might just be able to respond to them rationally and I don't want that so what I'll do is pretend that you'll be unable to grasp them whilst not telling you what they are as cover for my bluf!"
And then you comment about the Bible reveals that you're probably NOT a moral subjectivist after all!! ;)
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist That's almost the polar opposite of what I just said. Don't get me wrong, I think you are a rational thinking individual, and you seem very intelligent. However I also have witnessed your interaction with others and sufficed to say, you are wearing blinders when it comes to religion. I don't think the bible is entirely filled with masochism and slaughter of innocents, but I would also say it is not devoid of it.
TheGODAcronym 2 weeks ago
@TheGODAcronym
Sorry but you cannot accuse someone of not being rational in one aspect of their thinking UNLESS you can DEMONSTRATE the claim. If you don't demonstrate it then that is a classic example of an ad hominem and I know you would agree that's not a rational attack to make on someone.
Give me ONE example of an innocent person being put to death by the commend of God from ANYWHERE in the Bible. Keep in mind that you have the burden of showing them innocent.
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist (Samuel 15:3), you are saying to me that not one, woman, man, or child was innocent? That seems entirely impossible, for the babes to be dashed from the wombs of the mothers, the child could not yet have committed any sin, and is therefore innocent.
TheGODAcronym 2 weeks ago
Pardon I may have combined two verses, but the point remains.
TheGODAcronym 2 weeks ago
@TheGODAcronym
You don't seem to have grasped the point here. In order to DEMONSTRATE that innocent people were killed you have to give evidence that one of them actually was innocent. Asking me if I think one of them was innocent is an appeal to ignorance not an appeal to knowledge. It's therefore an argument from a gap in knowledge rather than based on something we know which makes it very weak. God, however, should he exist knows all there is to know about these people.
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist Conversely, you cannot prove they were not innocent, and though you attempt to assign the burden of proof on me, we are discussing a historical text, and one thing you cannot deny is that history is recorded by the victor. I will full well admit that I cannot prove one of them innocent, but if there are infants killed, they are entirely innocent, and they are being judged on the actions of their parents.
TheGODAcronym 2 weeks ago
@TheGODAcronym
But I don't have to prove that every single one of them were not. In any hypothesis in science or philosophy the test is not verification but falsification. So you are accusing me of not meeting a requirement that philosophers and scientists agree cannot be met. To substantiate your view of innocence that only works assuming atheist presuppositions [such as that there exists no-one who can see everything they will do].
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist I appreciate your passion on the subject, though I tire of your simple yet belittling statements that "I don't understand." I was a baptist Christian for many years of my life, and I can attest to your indomitable certainty. If you took one day out of your life and truly questioned what you have believed, you would have the very foundation of your beliefs shaken. Far be it from me to actually think you will. Thanks for our debate.
TheGODAcronym 2 weeks ago
@TheGODAcronym
Again an ad hominem attack now. I would be willing to bet that I have read far more atheist philosophical works than you have and could talk about them in much greater lengths without needing to go off to wikipedia than most atheists on this planet. I have questioned my beliefs every time I read Hume, Nietzsche, Darwin, Mill, Sartre, Rorty, Russell, Martin, Ruse, Everitt, Dennett, Dawkins, Harris... and can tell you how as well.
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
The problem with this argument is that religion must be based on revelation, either through authoritative texts or divine appearance. The problem is that revelation depends on interpretation. If we interpret god's "morality" as good we have made a moral judgement based on something other than what we are interpreting. So what moral basis are you using to judge god's "morality" as good?
VeritasLuxMea100 2 weeks ago
i just don't believe in your Santa/God. I don't have to and you can't make me. All this reasoning makes no difference since you christians always put assumptions into it anywa.y
beastshawnee 2 weeks ago
God is good (by definition), but when asked to define good (and excepting circular reasoning), all you are left with is either your own subjective notion of good, or an admittance that you cannot know what good is. The former leaves you unable to argue against the morality of anyone else (or their God). The latter makes both the word "good" and the foundation of a morality from God entirely meaningless.
This is why every attempt at creating a foundation of morality based on religion fails.
littlepieceofwall 3 weeks ago
@littlepieceofwall
Another facepalm. No wonder you have no subscribers after nearly three years on YT. No-one takes you seriously and now we know why. I recommend an extremely easy introduction to theology - you know - the idiots guide. ;)
TheCartesianTheist 3 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist I have no subscribers because I never bother making comments on youtube, due to the massive amount of stupid. I made an exception to this policy today. It's interesting that you go for the personal attack, rather than responding to the argument. Perhaps I did make a mistake today.
littlepieceofwall 3 weeks ago
@littlepieceofwall
You have no argument worthy of rebuttal. Nothing a tiny introductory book on the subject could not sort out for you anyway! I don't see how my job is to educate the completely ignorant? If you want to know go do some research for yourself.
TheCartesianTheist 3 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist I think you are just projecting, it was a perfectly good argument which I have never heard a satisfactory answer to. So you insult him, send him to look something up without a source and project your own ignorance.
imconfusednow 2 weeks ago
@imconfusednow
Saying that the example of goodness is a person is not a circular claim per se. Only when it's articulated badly. And that can be done to any argument. eg. 'What is good is what I think. What I think is good is good.'
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist Metaethical options: 1.) What is right is commanded by god because god's nature is intrinsically good. 2.) What is right is what can be objectively perceived by our moral sense. 3.) What is right is what would be preferred by a hypothetical impartial omniscient spectator. 4.) What is right is the result of hypothetical fair contract consented to by equals. It doesn't seem like the first option has a decisive advantage in grounding objective morality.
ranting55 2 weeks ago
@ranting55
If that's so then I think you should make a video pointing out the equally sure footing of any of the others you best like. Then let me know and I'll let you know why I disagree. Unless, of course, you convince me in which case I'll abandon any moral argument for God's existence.
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
@littlepieceofwall Ignore that idiot. I think they way you put the argument above is the best I have seen it put.
imconfusednow 2 weeks ago
The flaw in reasoning in this video is the huge assumption that your imaginary sky wizard friends actually exist. You're fucked until you can offer and reasonable evidence that they do exist. Until then let's just replace the concept of your God in this video with Magic Unicorns and watch the video again.
bigboy45454545 4 weeks ago
Relatively speaking, it's also rare in human society for serial "murderers" to arise when you consider how large our population is and how few of them exist.
The point is, there's no moral "problem" with Atheism and even if your argument is that Atheists can't explain right/wrong, it still doesn't prove that there's a creator.
TVOham 4 weeks ago
@TVOham However, it would prove that many atheists are illogical when they act as if some acts are inherently right or wrong, which the majority do. You'll find very few like Joel Marks who admit that the only logical thing to believe is that all acts are amoral. Most atheists don't like this though since then they can't act self-righteous about things and pretend their personal morals are "better."
Fleefles 4 weeks ago
@Fleefles
Nobody is pretending that their personal morals are better, but if we want to have that discussion we can. .21% of prisoners in America are Atheist. Religion has been the direct cause of wars/genocides/atrocities. You people act as if this is a common occurrence among Atheists (that we act better) and it's absolutely untrue. It's just ad hom. How does it prove that some Atheists are illogical by the way? You can't make a claim and then not support it.
TVOham 3 weeks ago
Moral "problem"?
Honestly, I know of no such problem.
right and wrong are both relative. There is no debate or "problem" among Atheists. There's an evolutionary explanation for why we don't murder each other and it's for the same reason that you don't see creatures in the animal kingdom killing each other. Yes, they will fight for mates and sometimes fight over territory (sound familiar?), but very rarely do you ever encounter a species that deliberately murders others.
TVOham 4 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist What part of "that was a message from OpeAirAtheist" did you not understand???
MasterMysterion 1 month ago
@MasterMysterion
I'm sorry but your level of English is too poor to be trolling my videos. Find someone else and waste their time little fella. ;)
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
@thecartesiantheist that was a message from OpenAirAtheist. I don't know why he wastes time with intellectually dishonest scum! -like you ;- )
MasterMysterion 1 month ago
@Thecartesiantheist what you think by saying god says thus and such is wrong, therefore it is, accounts for anything other than might makes right? As I said many times before your welcome to debate me on skype on this and other issues. Unless ofcourse you just wanna keep making arbitrary assertions behind your keyboard where it's nice and safe ; )
MasterMysterion 1 month ago
@MasterMysterion
Why can't you make a point here instead of demanding I waste my time with you on Skype?
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
@TheCartesianTheist Atheism as you know and miss represent is a lack of belief in gods, and a lack of belief doesnt need to account for anything. Your god belief doesnt account for morality either!
MasterMysterion 1 month ago
i've noticed when i'm weed eating my eyes will blink shut before i percieve rocks coming at them and they protect them that way...the brain would react way to slow for this to happen by itself and can't perceive a threat without the brain telling them it's a threat. this is my definition for the mind. if we could exist off the mind alone we would have superhuman reflexes reacting to things before they happen so that we in effect prevent them from happening.
DarkJoker7 1 month ago
The other problem is: when it comes to the argument that a God is a necessary foundation of morality and that this is a good reason to be a theist, what is the practical distinction between a real God and one who exists only as a concept of perfect morality? Your "philosophical grounding" is an argument from degree.
YaleBreaker 1 month ago
In fact, you may not realize this, but my definition is your solution to the Euthyphro Dilemma. "Is it good because it maximizes benefit and minimizes suffering, or does it maximize benefit and minimize suffering because it's good?" The answer is that there is no causal relationship because they are the same thing.
Additionally your solution is useless because it translates into, "It's good because Good said so." In other words, "The basis of morality is the basis of morality."
YaleBreaker 1 month ago
@YaleBreaker
""The basis of morality is the basis of morality.""
Ever heard of tautologies? You really have nothing mate. You know nothing about ethics and the fact that you keep missing the point here is getting extremely annoying now. This is where Matt Dillahunty hangs up the phone on stupid theists so why shouldn't I? You cannot reason with unreasonable people.
""It's good because Good said so.""
What?!? I never said that. Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic strawman.
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
@TheCartesianTheist That was my point! God is the basis of morality; hence, by your definition of God (as inseparable from moral truth), the basis of morality is the basis of morality. You've redefined God into a tautological form.
YaleBreaker 1 month ago
@TheCartesianTheist Hello. Thank you for bringing discussions of meta-ethics into the youtube world. I wanted to add some clarity to the frustration some of the watchers may have with your solution to the Euth. Dilemma. The objects of morality can include actions, rules, intentions, and virtue/character. You appear to have interpreted ED to ask, "Are the rules right because god commanded them, or did god command them because they are right."
ranting55 3 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist You then bypass the dilemma by saying the the rules are right because they were commanded by a god who has a perfectly good character. However this just shifts the dilemma from rules to virtues. For us to say that god has a perfectly good character and have it be non-tautological, we would need some sort of independent secular virtue ethics to provide a standard with which we could evaluate god's character.
ranting55 3 weeks ago
We are highly evolved intelligent social mammals. Empathy is instinctive and necessry, love is instinctive and necessary, hate is also instinctive when we face competition an scarcity, but thankfully with have the means to cooperate and do without that one.
JohnnyKidder 1 month ago
@JohnnyKidder
You have misunderstood the issue at hand here. This is not about what motivates us to perform certain actions. This is about what philosophical justification there is for thinking that some things are objectively wrong.
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
Morality is a code of behavior intended to maximize benefit and minimize suffering.
Hey, no mention of God. Guess I solved the problem of morality.
YaleBreaker 1 month ago
@YaleBreaker
I love the hubris but you've not read Hume closely enough I'm afraid.
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
@TheCartesianTheist All right - can you give me one example of a moral evil that not be classed as "evil" under that definition?
YaleBreaker 1 month ago
@YaleBreaker
"All right - can you give me one example of a moral evil that not be classed as "evil" under that definition?"
The sentence is not constructed corrently and therefore it's hard to understand what you're asking. Can you clarify please?
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
@TheCartesianTheist Excepting crimes directed at God (blasphemy, hubris, heresy), is there any evil act under any form of theistic morality that would NOT be evil under any form of secular morality?
To clarify, my current view is that religion hijacked principles of secular morality, not the other way round.
YaleBreaker 1 month ago
@YaleBreaker
Your view is historically upside down I'm afraid. Even Greek ethics was not secular. Secular ethics is a very recent thing and very much inspired by theistic ethics I'm afraid to tell you. However, that fact does not discredit secular ethics - but it does end your ridiculous notion that secular ethics got "hijacked".
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
@TheCartesianTheist It's only upside-down in a limited time-frame. Atheism predates theism, hence secular standards of behavior predate theistic ones.
YaleBreaker 1 month ago
@YaleBreaker
Show me a secular culture predating the ancient Egyptians and Babylonians then...
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
@TheCartesianTheist Why? God is a positive claim. Therefore, someone thought of the idea. Before that, no one had.
But if you really insist: chimps, who demonstrate a code of behavior based on such principles as survival, the mating instinct, the need for material resources and personal satisfaction; to the degree that they employ punishments, social gender roles, and a concept of social hierarchy. They can even employ deception and understand some semiotic concepts and plan for future events.
YaleBreaker 1 month ago
@YaleBreaker
"God is a positive claim. Therefore, someone thought of the idea. Before that, no one had."
So? What are you implying by saying this exactly?
Animals also rape - I notice you leave that out. And that's the problem. You're just picking and choosing what to take from the animal kingdom. That shows you have a meta-ethics already in place which you're not admitting to for some reason.
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
@TheCartesianTheist What I'm implying is that morality predates a concept of God. Hence, a concept of God is not a requisite of morality.
I'm perfectly aware animals also rape. Chimps will also war with rival tribes. Some species commit cannibalism. So what? I never passed any judgment on their behavioral code. This is merely to demonstrate that non-humans also hold moral concepts. There's no meta-ethics at work.
YaleBreaker 1 month ago
@YaleBreaker
Ah but now you're not calling it "secular" morality anymore and that's telling.
That humans hold moral concepts is not the issue here though. The question is the philosophical justification of objective moral standards.
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
@TheCartesianTheist Yes, it tells you that YouTube comments have a word count limit.
I'm not arguing that humans hold moral concepts. I'm arguing that moral concepts precede a concept of God, and that objective moral standards therefore do not necessarily proceed from such a concept.
What's wrong with my earlier definition, by the way? How is it inconsistent with "true" morality?
YaleBreaker 1 month ago
@YaleBreaker
You cannot possibly demonstrate that moral concepts preceded the concept of God. But even if you could demonstrate this it's not about moral concepts as such. As I already pointed out - it's about the philosophical justification of objective morality that matters here. How you cannot understand this by now is beyond me.
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago