Penalty for RAPE was MARRIAGE? Hooooly shit. You mean to say someone could like rape a woman and get MARRIED to her and RAPE her until he's done with her then leave her? (We all know thats possible since bible is very sexist) that is some sick shit.
@GoblinXXX That's cause the victim in rape wasn't the girl, but the girls father. Being raped means he can't get her married and receive a sweet dowry. The rapist must pay the victim back for damaging his goods. To assume the girl is the victim is wrong, because that would mean she's a real person and God knows women don't count as real people.
another ass brained video where you clearly show how retarded and illogical you are. should be killed. it's clear that you are illogical. and for this you should be killed.
@MarkusLMC29 Anything short killing this person is wrong. The guy is completely immoral, and he's trying to say he is morality. The guy is completely illogical, and he's trying to say he is logical. These are evident. IT's simply true. He knows he's a liar. he's ok with that, but he should be killed for that. It's true.
That's right dogma never changes, 1st and 2nd Maccabees just happen to spontaneously combust when placed into some bibles and that's why they've been omitted.
Nice, "anything that cannot change is a deviation". True word.
In the days that I still somewhat held a god concept, I thought of god as everywhere and in every human being. My path is the path and I never really understood why some believers didn't reflect or think.
But surely I wondered of so far of any religion, that no religion would embrace me. I still like to pick and chose.
You always manage to get right to the heart of it. It's almost like idolatry isn't it? Sacrificing lives to a principle which is held as having a higher importance than people.
It is not true at all that you do not a sacrificed animal. Except in the rare case of a holocaust (complete burning), all of the animal is eaten or used. In more than 99% of cases, only the thigh bones and some excess fat are actually offered to the god.
I've been thinking about this stuff for some time, and I've been wondering why so many religious people seem so obsessed with sexuality - or suppressing it.
In that regard, I think there's certainly more to it than just outdated doctrine, but psychology plays a huge part, too.
Religious 'morality' has nothing to do with morality, it's about doing as your told. Religion serves a function for authority, and authority always wishes to maintain the status quo.
no, morality is evolutionary in nature, How else do you explain animals morality (animals tat live in packs like wolves or meercats who don't kill or rape each other)
look up evolutionary sociology
also, many can be morally ideal without religious intervention. i am one of them.
Im not doubting the mechanisms for behavior we all have but even those are subjective for their are still killers in our society and they evolved the ability to kill for whatever reason while others are less capable. What I am talking about is this prescriptive nonsense people often spout about how "You shouldnt do X or you should do Y, there is not reason to listen to that garbage, we are animals floating on a rock in space.
eequalsfb, is prescribing behavior to people based on his emotions.
"Im not doubting the mechanisms for behavior we all have but even those are subjective for their are still killers in our society"
Sociopaths, from what I seem to recall, are just without empathy. You don't claim that having a triple set of chromosomes is not bad because some people are born that way, do you?.
We call morality, except for the added nonsense from the religious, that which benefits the entire group with impartiality.
I could kill everyone I come across whenever I felt like it, but in the long run, because I'm a member of a social species, that would not do me any good and would end up being detrimental to me since our strength is our numbers.
Just like in economics, we can determine there is a "best" option, in that case most efficient use of resources, the "best" option for us is to try and get along, and those rules of thumb which further that goal we call morality.
Not everyone benefits from group all activities and not everyone values them even when they do. Suppose that their is morality and its not just personal preference, what good is it? All it does is cause people to point fingers and say "your'e immoral". So what?
If you want to call morality biology fine but why not just call it personal preference? If you are not prescribing some type of behavior to someone then its just biology. Morality is religious in nature because (typically) what happens is people push their personal preferences on to others. Not everyone has a problem with murder and theft, some do. See, its just an opinion and there is no objective to be followed.
you confuse me on that one. To claim it is religion, then personal preference, are contradictory. Yea, everything is personal preference, but to claim it is religious in nature implies that without religion we would have a faulty or lack of morality. Plus religion is so not personal preference but following the teachings of your god without a choice in the matter for fear of hell.
I claim it is biological because it was how good behavior was rewarded in pack-animals. good morals=pack survival
I am not presenting a false dichotomy with morality saying that there is either religion or depravity. I am merely saying that religion is control and that control is a version of morality that did come about through biology (so by your definition of morality religion IS moral). AND that there is a difference between a person acting in a giving way or protecting others because of a inner desire and a person prescribing that action to them by way of moral language and guilt, that the religionofit
now you doube back from your claim that morality is religious by saying "ok so it had biological roots"
I will agree, "religion is moral" but morality is not religious (a lion is a cat, but a cat is not a lion)
cause and efect,. religion instilled a fear to be good but that desire to be good was set in stone by our evolution through time as a social and pack animal.
b.Prescribing behavior to another is religious in nature for it is simply control seeking typically using guilt, violence etc.
If you want to say morality is human tendencies fine but why not call it what it is and say its human action? How humans behave is a fact and you cannot derive a prescription from a fact. If that were the case I could say that since most people like ice cream you HAVE TOO like it or be immoral.
"All it does is cause people to point fingers and say "your'e immoral". So what?"
No, it causes a more cohesive social environment, and as explained before we depend on that social environment, no matter who we are. You depend on it just as much as I do, whether you like it or not, since we both live in areas where economic (just psychology on a large scale) forces are present. While most of our attempts to maintain it are ineffective, that is a problem with our current attempts.
No, the way people deal with each other is one thing but saying a person is immoral is pointless. What does that do but harbor religion and prescribe duty or behavior? Look, if you want to define morality as biology/human action fine but why not just say human action since not all humans agree on what morality is? Thats my whole point is that you are trying to say that humans act universally but its obvious that the morality in Iraq is different to US. So you tell me who is immoral US or Iraq?
"you are trying to say that humans act universally"
I'm not saying there is any universal overarching morality. There will be a good number of overlaps, in a number of situations, but over all since societies function differently then the ways of going about maintaining social cohesion will be different.
That being said, this isn't to say "Whatever the society wants to do is okay".
Group coherence and collective good can be a great way of defending brutal regimes, religious persecution etc. Some people think its ok to steal from the "rich" others think that its not. Suicide bombers bomb because they are protecting the tribe they are apart of. Both of these things are perfectly normal in society and can easily be "Moral", altruistic, of the "greater good" and evolutionary etc. All you are doing is pointing at the bits of evolution you prefer and calling it morality.
well no, blowing oneself up is by no means evolutionarily beneficial. DNA can't survive TNT
Violence is everywhere in nature, and yes our evolution probably did install a "be better than all other creatures" switch, but these tribes that support mass killing would have wiped out all nearby tribes and reduced the local gene pool.
you could also point out that religious followers killed those that disagreed, and slaughtered entire cultures. Far worse.
But the tribe with the most "altruistic" members carried on so that is why it is beneficial. Why else would that be the case in so many parts of nature? Bacteria does this same thing.
you can't apply animal psychology to bacteria, no brain or conscious behavior
they protect the young or apply a utilitarian philosophy when confronted with danger
young: animals with parental instincts will risk life for the young as that is how they have developed, but with the aim that the young have a better chance of continuing the species (longer to reproduce etc)
util: if i die to protect my herd of 5, then go me! one life for the protection of 5 is easy in animal philosophy.
first, our actions are different to animals so will use both definitions
immoral: stealing.
*bio: bad genes earned as it wont supply food, simply redistributes among the pack. Packs share anyway, but stealing from rival packs in basic animal lives is ok as they are rivals
*modern: it is unfair for those that have genuinely earned it, and if everyone stole then no productivity. better if stealing is discouraged for the greater good.
You prescribe values based on facts. Stealing is obviously beneficial otherwise it would not exist. Many animals/people steal and it works, what do you think the bail-outs were and what about when a predator takes eggs from prey? And you feel like a person should not be stolen from if they 'genuinely earn it" sounds like your are imposing values on things, why should we agree with your arbitrary definition of "earnings" or that the outcome of it is 'moral"?
*bio: allows the whole pack to survive on food and allows babies to get nutrients they need while they cant fend for themselves.
*modern: it provides a feeling of good to know others less well off are helped, we don't like to see others in pain as we are empathetic, it also reeps some rewards (religious promise, thought of looking like a better person)
NOt everyone gives a shit about others. So again you are stating an evolutionary fact and trying to prescribe it as value. Fact do not equal values. Some people are born without less empathy than others are they immoral? Some are also born with the ability to kill and rape for the sheer fun of it is this moral now?
to add to the bombing idea, they kill themselves in the name of a religious ideology against other cultures, when in fact the danger is quite different to a predator walking into the nest.
they blow themselves up attacking a chosen enemy, and do it with the belief they will be rewarded. Animals will only give their life as a last resort, knowing the sacrifice is final and for the good of others.
If there are so many examples of this then why are there not more "normal" people blowing up?
THere is no difference. These people are protecting their people from a foreign invader that is breaking down their culture. Its the same mechanism in animals as us. "NOrmal' I don't know what you mean by that but I will gues that you mean well adnjusted people. Most of the suicide bombers are well off, well adjusted and intelligent people. Look it up, the panty bombers father had a multi-million dollar home, the bomber spoke english well and had an education.
but the invasion of their culture does not require them to blow themselves up, and i guarantee without the religious fanatics egging them on past their own natural desires and the promise of paradise after death, they would not do it.
blowing oneself up is not a normal action, it is a fanatics forced action.
and if the action is normal then why is it not more common? go to a non-fanatic culture and say "i think the suicide bombers had a point", i think i know the result.
You are merely saying that rarity means something is not normal. We are the only animals on the planet who have internet are we somehow not normal? Thats a word with little meaning.
And no matter what you want to say about the motives of suicide bombers it is still biological because culture is evolutionary. Nothing can go against evolution so whatever the motive its there none the less.
actually you know what, you claim that blowing yourself up and killing innocent people to protect your religious-infected culture is normal and justified.
you are a sick individual and i am now ending this conversation.
I didn't say 'justified" or 'normal' YOU used those words to try and get me to accept your version of morality and those words are relative in every way. You getting emotional in this debate tells me allot. All I claimed is that they are facts.
"Group coherence and collective good can be a great way of defending brutal regimes, religious persecution etc." & "Suicide bombers bomb because they are protecting the tribe they are apart of."
Often it is also the first option selected, despite having other means to achieve their goals.
"of the "greater good" and evolutionary etc."
Granted, they may be trying to achieve a "greater good", but the route taken might not be the most beneficial.
"All you are doing is pointing at the bits of evolution you prefer and calling it morality."
You said morality was inherently a religious concept. It's not. In every set of rules which has had the label put on it "moral", for any reason, it has always been to increase social cohesion. Irrational? Possibly, mayhaps probably. It's not "religious" in nature, though, unless we're using different definitions of "religious".
"it does not prove that morality is anything more than personal preference."
On a large part, it is. I don't want to be hurt, so I afford that to other people. That's completely based on personal preference.The fact of the matter is "morality" is not a religious concept, and when applied appropriately it has benefit.
Moral: Voluntarily giving to others (conditions may apply). It helps them, which will allow them to better contribute back.
Immoral: Murder (conditions may apply). It doesn't.
"Why should someone listen and values what you do?"
They don't have to. I'll generally leave someone alone on moral issues until they start directly messing with me, or someone else. Even then, I won't generally start doing anything more than try to get away from them, or try convincing them to stop. I'm not advocating a universal "I'm right, you're wrong" moral view, I'm just saying morality does have a place outside religion.
Fair enough. But I still don't see why you call human action morality and not just human action. Calling it morality suggests that there is some duty to fulfill or that there is an immoral action. But clearly there isn't and even if there is a moral code everyone should follow it would negate itself the moment people began to enforce it because morality must be a choice and not acting to deter retaliation. Not sure we disagree as much as previously thought but......
I don't think you see the real nature of animal sacrifice. We kill and eat animals anyway. The ritual of sacrifice is intended to show them honor and respect. As it is now now, the whole process is completely dehumanized, done by machines far away from our consciousness; the animals brutalized in truly horrifying ways.
HConstantine "The ritual of sacrifice is intended to show them honor and respect."
Not in the bible. It was supposed to be a lesson in empathy. The animal was suffering for your sins. It wasn't about honor and respect for animals, it was done to make you feel bad for causing the animals death.
eequalsfb, great video. Any moral system, which does not have, at its core, a consideration of the earthly consequences it has to the human beings involved is purely arbritrary.
I take illegal drugs now and then (mostly now), and I have had to defend myslef before of accusations or immorality. Drug use, and consensual sex, have fuck all to do with morality, and all to do with societal conventions.
I was going to include a bit about victimless crime laws but it ended up on the editing room floor. I tend to ramble when I am trying to make a point. I agree 100% though.
It really comes down to understanding what morality is, isn't it? It's a system of rules that work towards a certain goal.
Our goals may differ.
For most rational people, this goal will be, indeed, preventing harm. For most Christians, however, the goal will be to get into heaven and avoid hell.
The two may or may not intersect, it really comes down to what lengths you're willing to go against your basic instincts to get your reservation in the happy-ever-afterlife.
I'm curious as to when religion thought that it had an exclusive monopoly on morality? It is often the religious that are caught doing the most immoral things. Where I'm from, catholic priest is a synonym for pedofile.
Religion is a hijacker by nature. That's why God always claims monopoly on doing all the weird an unexplainable things: fire, lighting, diseases, creation of the universe...
The thing is, just fantasizing doesn't remove the harm. I'm not just talking about physical harm, but psychological harm also results in being forced, even when fantasized about. Find an example where the harm is literally removed that's still immoral :).
I get the core of what the video is saying, but it's probably too sweeping a generalisation. But the examples in the video are ones that I go along with.
The mentally retarded person is still harmed, so no go on that. As for parking in a "mom zone", when no moms are around, well, you could also be signalling that it's ok to do so to others. At the very least you're building a habit of doing it yourself. Still, any potential harm would be rather minor, so any immorality would be equally minor.
I'm pretty sure the video's stance on "no harm, no immorality" stands, but by all means try to think up counterexamples ;).
well take sex for instance, most of the concern is on stds and pregnancy, but if there were no diseases and people could could have sex and only get pregnant when they wanted to, then what would be the harm in sex?
also then the question posed after that should be why do these diseases exist in the first place, there is no reason for them to exist
You mean no beneficial reason for them to exist? Not to us certainly. But there is no beneficial reason for us to exist except to our parasites and diseases.
I think it's pretty straight forward. Once harm is eliminated, one can make no claims that an act is immoral without appealing to magical consequences. Christians have been using this tactic for a while. Faced with the evidence that homosexual behavior between two consenting adults harms no one, they make the case that it leads to damnation, a made-up magical consequence.
Ding Dong Fallwells dead now its your turn Pat
baxtar1963 8 months ago
Props for the Mel Brooks inclusions. "History of the World Part 1" and "Robin Hood: Men in Tights". 2 very funny movies.
lautz73 10 months ago
Penalty for RAPE was MARRIAGE? Hooooly shit. You mean to say someone could like rape a woman and get MARRIED to her and RAPE her until he's done with her then leave her? (We all know thats possible since bible is very sexist) that is some sick shit.
geniusjas87 10 months ago
@geniusjas87 LEAVE HER? God no, that'd be IMMORAL! The rapist had to stay with his victim (I mean, wife) forever.
GoblinXXX 8 months ago
@GoblinXXX I like how you added the word immoral. Classic..
FreeFromWar 8 months ago
@FreeFromWar It's amusing how few religious people now seem to recall that divorce is forbidden in the bible, too/
GoblinXXX 8 months ago
@GoblinXXX That's cause the victim in rape wasn't the girl, but the girls father. Being raped means he can't get her married and receive a sweet dowry. The rapist must pay the victim back for damaging his goods. To assume the girl is the victim is wrong, because that would mean she's a real person and God knows women don't count as real people.
Cenamark2 1 month ago
another ass brained video where you clearly show how retarded and illogical you are. should be killed. it's clear that you are illogical. and for this you should be killed.
nVei06 1 year ago
@nVei06 that's really moral right there. yup.
MarkusLMC29 1 year ago
@MarkusLMC29 Anything short killing this person is wrong. The guy is completely immoral, and he's trying to say he is morality. The guy is completely illogical, and he's trying to say he is logical. These are evident. IT's simply true. He knows he's a liar. he's ok with that, but he should be killed for that. It's true.
bil900y 1 year ago
@bil900y I'm calling trolls. No one is that intentionally stupid. Fare thee well, I'll not waste any more of my time with you.
MarkusLMC29 1 year ago
That's right dogma never changes, 1st and 2nd Maccabees just happen to spontaneously combust when placed into some bibles and that's why they've been omitted.
acidsniper 2 years ago
Very well put - thank you!
discussislam 2 years ago
Nice, "anything that cannot change is a deviation". True word.
In the days that I still somewhat held a god concept, I thought of god as everywhere and in every human being. My path is the path and I never really understood why some believers didn't reflect or think.
But surely I wondered of so far of any religion, that no religion would embrace me. I still like to pick and chose.
ContinuumXT 2 years ago
You always manage to get right to the heart of it. It's almost like idolatry isn't it? Sacrificing lives to a principle which is held as having a higher importance than people.
AbbeyNormal 2 years ago
Too bad for the Girl at 1:53, She is hot but much crazier then the standard female sample.
M1ST3RHYDE 2 years ago
It is not true at all that you do not a sacrificed animal. Except in the rare case of a holocaust (complete burning), all of the animal is eaten or used. In more than 99% of cases, only the thigh bones and some excess fat are actually offered to the god.
HConstantine 2 years ago
excellent job....clear and concise
93kmm 2 years ago
Thanks. Your comment was clear and concise too. Not bad.
There I go rattling on again.
; )
eequalsfb 2 years ago
I love your videos, eequalsfb. They do not appear often enough in my inbox. Will you please rectify this? Thank you.
Happy New Year! :-)
fiusux12 2 years ago
I'll work on it. : )
eequalsfb 2 years ago
Excellent points.
I've been thinking about this stuff for some time, and I've been wondering why so many religious people seem so obsessed with sexuality - or suppressing it.
In that regard, I think there's certainly more to it than just outdated doctrine, but psychology plays a huge part, too.
Gnug215 2 years ago
Agreed.
eequalsfb 2 years ago
10 '* good one DF
invisibletime 2 years ago
I tried to subscribe, but found that I was already sub'd. :O
sputnikowns 2 years ago
Religious 'morality' has nothing to do with morality, it's about doing as your told. Religion serves a function for authority, and authority always wishes to maintain the status quo.
embracedestruction 2 years ago 2
Morality is religious in nature. All morality is, is a personal preference.
UcanbeGOD 2 years ago
no, morality is evolutionary in nature, How else do you explain animals morality (animals tat live in packs like wolves or meercats who don't kill or rape each other)
look up evolutionary sociology
also, many can be morally ideal without religious intervention. i am one of them.
mortuus8 2 years ago 2
Im not doubting the mechanisms for behavior we all have but even those are subjective for their are still killers in our society and they evolved the ability to kill for whatever reason while others are less capable. What I am talking about is this prescriptive nonsense people often spout about how "You shouldnt do X or you should do Y, there is not reason to listen to that garbage, we are animals floating on a rock in space.
eequalsfb, is prescribing behavior to people based on his emotions.
UcanbeGOD 2 years ago
"Im not doubting the mechanisms for behavior we all have but even those are subjective for their are still killers in our society"
Sociopaths, from what I seem to recall, are just without empathy. You don't claim that having a triple set of chromosomes is not bad because some people are born that way, do you?.
We call morality, except for the added nonsense from the religious, that which benefits the entire group with impartiality.
Cyrathil 2 years ago
I could kill everyone I come across whenever I felt like it, but in the long run, because I'm a member of a social species, that would not do me any good and would end up being detrimental to me since our strength is our numbers.
Just like in economics, we can determine there is a "best" option, in that case most efficient use of resources, the "best" option for us is to try and get along, and those rules of thumb which further that goal we call morality.
Cyrathil 2 years ago
Not everyone benefits from group all activities and not everyone values them even when they do. Suppose that their is morality and its not just personal preference, what good is it? All it does is cause people to point fingers and say "your'e immoral". So what?
UcanbeGOD 2 years ago
the group will shun them to promote self preservation (of the group)
in tribes/packs this means banishing them
in society this means locking them up or exporting them.
back to the point, how is morality religious?
mortuus8 2 years ago
If you want to call morality biology fine but why not just call it personal preference? If you are not prescribing some type of behavior to someone then its just biology. Morality is religious in nature because (typically) what happens is people push their personal preferences on to others. Not everyone has a problem with murder and theft, some do. See, its just an opinion and there is no objective to be followed.
UcanbeGOD 2 years ago
you confuse me on that one. To claim it is religion, then personal preference, are contradictory. Yea, everything is personal preference, but to claim it is religious in nature implies that without religion we would have a faulty or lack of morality. Plus religion is so not personal preference but following the teachings of your god without a choice in the matter for fear of hell.
I claim it is biological because it was how good behavior was rewarded in pack-animals. good morals=pack survival
mortuus8 2 years ago
I am not presenting a false dichotomy with morality saying that there is either religion or depravity. I am merely saying that religion is control and that control is a version of morality that did come about through biology (so by your definition of morality religion IS moral). AND that there is a difference between a person acting in a giving way or protecting others because of a inner desire and a person prescribing that action to them by way of moral language and guilt, that the religionofit
UcanbeGOD 2 years ago
now you doube back from your claim that morality is religious by saying "ok so it had biological roots"
I will agree, "religion is moral" but morality is not religious (a lion is a cat, but a cat is not a lion)
cause and efect,. religion instilled a fear to be good but that desire to be good was set in stone by our evolution through time as a social and pack animal.
mortuus8 2 years ago
Here is my whole argument:
a.Evolution and behavior are facts not morality.
b.Prescribing behavior to another is religious in nature for it is simply control seeking typically using guilt, violence etc.
If you want to say morality is human tendencies fine but why not call it what it is and say its human action? How humans behave is a fact and you cannot derive a prescription from a fact. If that were the case I could say that since most people like ice cream you HAVE TOO like it or be immoral.
UcanbeGOD 2 years ago
"All it does is cause people to point fingers and say "your'e immoral". So what?"
No, it causes a more cohesive social environment, and as explained before we depend on that social environment, no matter who we are. You depend on it just as much as I do, whether you like it or not, since we both live in areas where economic (just psychology on a large scale) forces are present. While most of our attempts to maintain it are ineffective, that is a problem with our current attempts.
Cyrathil 2 years ago
No, the way people deal with each other is one thing but saying a person is immoral is pointless. What does that do but harbor religion and prescribe duty or behavior? Look, if you want to define morality as biology/human action fine but why not just say human action since not all humans agree on what morality is? Thats my whole point is that you are trying to say that humans act universally but its obvious that the morality in Iraq is different to US. So you tell me who is immoral US or Iraq?
UcanbeGOD 2 years ago
"So you tell me who is immoral US or Iraq?"
Neither, without having been to Iraq, from what I do know we in the U.S. are about as "moral" as they.
Cyrathil 2 years ago
"you are trying to say that humans act universally"
I'm not saying there is any universal overarching morality. There will be a good number of overlaps, in a number of situations, but over all since societies function differently then the ways of going about maintaining social cohesion will be different.
That being said, this isn't to say "Whatever the society wants to do is okay".
"but saying a person is immoral is pointless"
Just saying it is pointless, definitely.
Cyrathil 2 years ago
Group coherence and collective good can be a great way of defending brutal regimes, religious persecution etc. Some people think its ok to steal from the "rich" others think that its not. Suicide bombers bomb because they are protecting the tribe they are apart of. Both of these things are perfectly normal in society and can easily be "Moral", altruistic, of the "greater good" and evolutionary etc. All you are doing is pointing at the bits of evolution you prefer and calling it morality.
UcanbeGOD 2 years ago
well no, blowing oneself up is by no means evolutionarily beneficial. DNA can't survive TNT
Violence is everywhere in nature, and yes our evolution probably did install a "be better than all other creatures" switch, but these tribes that support mass killing would have wiped out all nearby tribes and reduced the local gene pool.
you could also point out that religious followers killed those that disagreed, and slaughtered entire cultures. Far worse.
mortuus8 2 years ago
But the tribe with the most "altruistic" members carried on so that is why it is beneficial. Why else would that be the case in so many parts of nature? Bacteria does this same thing.
UcanbeGOD 2 years ago
you can't apply animal psychology to bacteria, no brain or conscious behavior
they protect the young or apply a utilitarian philosophy when confronted with danger
young: animals with parental instincts will risk life for the young as that is how they have developed, but with the aim that the young have a better chance of continuing the species (longer to reproduce etc)
util: if i die to protect my herd of 5, then go me! one life for the protection of 5 is easy in animal philosophy.
mortuus8 2 years ago
Give me 2 things
An immoral action/why?
A moral action/why?
UcanbeGOD 2 years ago
first, our actions are different to animals so will use both definitions
immoral: stealing.
*bio: bad genes earned as it wont supply food, simply redistributes among the pack. Packs share anyway, but stealing from rival packs in basic animal lives is ok as they are rivals
*modern: it is unfair for those that have genuinely earned it, and if everyone stole then no productivity. better if stealing is discouraged for the greater good.
mortuus8 2 years ago
You prescribe values based on facts. Stealing is obviously beneficial otherwise it would not exist. Many animals/people steal and it works, what do you think the bail-outs were and what about when a predator takes eggs from prey? And you feel like a person should not be stolen from if they 'genuinely earn it" sounds like your are imposing values on things, why should we agree with your arbitrary definition of "earnings" or that the outcome of it is 'moral"?
You cannot derive an ought from an is.
UcanbeGOD 2 years ago
moral: sharing
*bio: allows the whole pack to survive on food and allows babies to get nutrients they need while they cant fend for themselves.
*modern: it provides a feeling of good to know others less well off are helped, we don't like to see others in pain as we are empathetic, it also reeps some rewards (religious promise, thought of looking like a better person)
mortuus8 2 years ago
NOt everyone gives a shit about others. So again you are stating an evolutionary fact and trying to prescribe it as value. Fact do not equal values. Some people are born without less empathy than others are they immoral? Some are also born with the ability to kill and rape for the sheer fun of it is this moral now?
UcanbeGOD 2 years ago
to add to the bombing idea, they kill themselves in the name of a religious ideology against other cultures, when in fact the danger is quite different to a predator walking into the nest.
they blow themselves up attacking a chosen enemy, and do it with the belief they will be rewarded. Animals will only give their life as a last resort, knowing the sacrifice is final and for the good of others.
If there are so many examples of this then why are there not more "normal" people blowing up?
mortuus8 2 years ago
You fail to answer my questions.
THere is no difference. These people are protecting their people from a foreign invader that is breaking down their culture. Its the same mechanism in animals as us. "NOrmal' I don't know what you mean by that but I will gues that you mean well adnjusted people. Most of the suicide bombers are well off, well adjusted and intelligent people. Look it up, the panty bombers father had a multi-million dollar home, the bomber spoke english well and had an education.
UcanbeGOD 2 years ago
but the invasion of their culture does not require them to blow themselves up, and i guarantee without the religious fanatics egging them on past their own natural desires and the promise of paradise after death, they would not do it.
blowing oneself up is not a normal action, it is a fanatics forced action.
and if the action is normal then why is it not more common? go to a non-fanatic culture and say "i think the suicide bombers had a point", i think i know the result.
mortuus8 2 years ago
You are merely saying that rarity means something is not normal. We are the only animals on the planet who have internet are we somehow not normal? Thats a word with little meaning.
And no matter what you want to say about the motives of suicide bombers it is still biological because culture is evolutionary. Nothing can go against evolution so whatever the motive its there none the less.
UcanbeGOD 2 years ago
actually you know what, you claim that blowing yourself up and killing innocent people to protect your religious-infected culture is normal and justified.
you are a sick individual and i am now ending this conversation.
good day.
mortuus8 2 years ago
I didn't say 'justified" or 'normal' YOU used those words to try and get me to accept your version of morality and those words are relative in every way. You getting emotional in this debate tells me allot. All I claimed is that they are facts.
UcanbeGOD 2 years ago
"Group coherence and collective good can be a great way of defending brutal regimes, religious persecution etc." & "Suicide bombers bomb because they are protecting the tribe they are apart of."
Often it is also the first option selected, despite having other means to achieve their goals.
"of the "greater good" and evolutionary etc."
Granted, they may be trying to achieve a "greater good", but the route taken might not be the most beneficial.
Cyrathil 2 years ago
"All you are doing is pointing at the bits of evolution you prefer and calling it morality."
You said morality was inherently a religious concept. It's not. In every set of rules which has had the label put on it "moral", for any reason, it has always been to increase social cohesion. Irrational? Possibly, mayhaps probably. It's not "religious" in nature, though, unless we're using different definitions of "religious".
Cyrathil 2 years ago
What you have said here is true but it does not prove that morality is anything more than personal preference.
Give me an example of a moral and immoral action and why it is moral/immoral.
UcanbeGOD 2 years ago
"it does not prove that morality is anything more than personal preference."
On a large part, it is. I don't want to be hurt, so I afford that to other people. That's completely based on personal preference.The fact of the matter is "morality" is not a religious concept, and when applied appropriately it has benefit.
Moral: Voluntarily giving to others (conditions may apply). It helps them, which will allow them to better contribute back.
Immoral: Murder (conditions may apply). It doesn't.
Cyrathil 2 years ago
But you are putting your values in it. Why should someone listen and values what you do? Not everyone values charity or cares if another is hurt.
UcanbeGOD 2 years ago
"Why should someone listen and values what you do?"
They don't have to. I'll generally leave someone alone on moral issues until they start directly messing with me, or someone else. Even then, I won't generally start doing anything more than try to get away from them, or try convincing them to stop. I'm not advocating a universal "I'm right, you're wrong" moral view, I'm just saying morality does have a place outside religion.
Cyrathil 2 years ago
Fair enough. But I still don't see why you call human action morality and not just human action. Calling it morality suggests that there is some duty to fulfill or that there is an immoral action. But clearly there isn't and even if there is a moral code everyone should follow it would negate itself the moment people began to enforce it because morality must be a choice and not acting to deter retaliation. Not sure we disagree as much as previously thought but......
UcanbeGOD 2 years ago
Yay for miracle grow. Maybe thats how it got its name.
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
Hm.
eequalsfb 2 years ago
happy new year to you, too
ibstrd 2 years ago
Good video!
Sciferas77 2 years ago
In case anyone has forgotten where morality comes from: it comes from the social evolution of prehistoric cooperative human tribes.
Tribes that practiced the golden rule, and did not kill thy neighbor, etc, survived more than tribes that didn't.
Some ppl seem to think that there was no morality until it was dispensed from a holy book.
Elvisdogg 2 years ago 9
Well done.
agnosticsalvation 2 years ago
Indeed!
Flyborg 2 years ago
I don't think you see the real nature of animal sacrifice. We kill and eat animals anyway. The ritual of sacrifice is intended to show them honor and respect. As it is now now, the whole process is completely dehumanized, done by machines far away from our consciousness; the animals brutalized in truly horrifying ways.
HConstantine 2 years ago
HConstantine "The ritual of sacrifice is intended to show them honor and respect."
Not in the bible. It was supposed to be a lesson in empathy. The animal was suffering for your sins. It wasn't about honor and respect for animals, it was done to make you feel bad for causing the animals death.
justintempler 2 years ago
It isn't a 'sacrifice' if you eat the animal. Sacrifice is wastage by definition.
eequalsfb 2 years ago
eequalsfb, great video. Any moral system, which does not have, at its core, a consideration of the earthly consequences it has to the human beings involved is purely arbritrary.
alphacause 2 years ago
Well said.
eequalsfb 2 years ago
It's also true that the highest rates of anal sex among teens are seen in those who have made "abstinence" pledges.
'Cuz they think that only the vagina counts in said pledge. And therefore, feel it's perfectly OK to buttfuck for Jesus.
middlekk 2 years ago 3
Christianity is the only thing that makes gay kids have sex with the opposite sex while at the same time pushing straight kids toward sodomy.
mrkurt13 2 years ago 8
hehehe
eequalsfb 2 years ago
I take illegal drugs now and then (mostly now), and I have had to defend myslef before of accusations or immorality. Drug use, and consensual sex, have fuck all to do with morality, and all to do with societal conventions.
revjimbob 2 years ago
I was going to include a bit about victimless crime laws but it ended up on the editing room floor. I tend to ramble when I am trying to make a point. I agree 100% though.
eequalsfb 2 years ago
It really comes down to understanding what morality is, isn't it? It's a system of rules that work towards a certain goal.
Our goals may differ.
For most rational people, this goal will be, indeed, preventing harm. For most Christians, however, the goal will be to get into heaven and avoid hell.
The two may or may not intersect, it really comes down to what lengths you're willing to go against your basic instincts to get your reservation in the happy-ever-afterlife.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
True.
eequalsfb 2 years ago
I'm curious as to when religion thought that it had an exclusive monopoly on morality? It is often the religious that are caught doing the most immoral things. Where I'm from, catholic priest is a synonym for pedofile.
Raptor302 2 years ago
when? always. The very nature of religion is that it presents itself as the most moral system, rejecting other religions as immoral.
Ch35h1r3C47 2 years ago
Religion is a hijacker by nature. That's why God always claims monopoly on doing all the weird an unexplainable things: fire, lighting, diseases, creation of the universe...
SexyMelon 2 years ago
Catholic Priest.
An anagram will tell all.
GnosticDjinn 2 years ago
LOL.
eequalsfb 2 years ago
How to know if a choice is moral.
Mentally total the amount of help it would bring, and subtract the amount of harm it would bring.
Then compare that with other totals, to figure out which option is the best...
TheReasonWhyGuy 2 years ago
"If the harm is neutralized shouldn't the immorality also be neutralized?"
Hmmm...can't say that I could answer that question without quite a bit of thought. Thanks for giving me something to think about.
JaguarJ0nes 2 years ago
I'd have to share your confusion. Although I love the video's moral, I can't say I concur with the above quote.
You could say that it wouldn't be rape, if a woman who fantasised about rape, was raped. (needs work)
aiyic 2 years ago
The thing is, just fantasizing doesn't remove the harm. I'm not just talking about physical harm, but psychological harm also results in being forced, even when fantasized about. Find an example where the harm is literally removed that's still immoral :).
NoAntecessor 2 years ago
Raping someone mentally retarded? I don't know. I'm just riffing here. (needs work)
Parking in a 'mom zone', when no moms are around?
I get the core of what the video is saying, but it's probably too sweeping a generalisation. But the examples in the video are ones that I go along with.
aiyic 2 years ago
The mentally retarded person is still harmed, so no go on that. As for parking in a "mom zone", when no moms are around, well, you could also be signalling that it's ok to do so to others. At the very least you're building a habit of doing it yourself. Still, any potential harm would be rather minor, so any immorality would be equally minor.
I'm pretty sure the video's stance on "no harm, no immorality" stands, but by all means try to think up counterexamples ;).
NoAntecessor 2 years ago
well take sex for instance, most of the concern is on stds and pregnancy, but if there were no diseases and people could could have sex and only get pregnant when they wanted to, then what would be the harm in sex?
also then the question posed after that should be why do these diseases exist in the first place, there is no reason for them to exist
nightmoon11 2 years ago
the diseases are their own reason to exist, there is a niche in which life can persist and spread and std's fill this niche.
Ch35h1r3C47 2 years ago
i meant beneficial
nightmoon11 2 years ago
You mean no beneficial reason for them to exist? Not to us certainly. But there is no beneficial reason for us to exist except to our parasites and diseases.
It is beneficial to them to exist.
Ch35h1r3C47 2 years ago
I think it's pretty straight forward. Once harm is eliminated, one can make no claims that an act is immoral without appealing to magical consequences. Christians have been using this tactic for a while. Faced with the evidence that homosexual behavior between two consenting adults harms no one, they make the case that it leads to damnation, a made-up magical consequence.
h8uall66 2 years ago 2
Great job man, and welcome back. Love your work, thanks for crankin out another one!
darrrkstarrr1969 2 years ago
Thank YOU.
eequalsfb 2 years ago
This video was sort of .. over my head.
I guess that's what I get for multi-tasking :/
EmberflyLayouts 2 years ago