At the the end of the day, morality is a choice. Whether we are moral or not has little to do with our religiosity or lack thereof. There are moral believers and non-believers, as well as IMmoral believers and non-believers. And if you honestly think there would be no reason to choose morality without god, it says far more about you than any atheist.
Religious people don't like to think about it, but there is NO absolute standard of morality. All religion does is give people a FALSE sense of absolution - a feeling that their mores are set in stone. How, then, do we define what is right and wrong? Through discussion, reason, observation of the human condition, a desire for social stability, natural conscience, etc. Religious morality was born of such efforts, and now, we can do so again - this time without superstition.
It's kind of funny. Atheists aren't immoral, yet theists say we are. Theists love to tell us what they think we do, because we have no religious guidelines. But what basis do these people have? Only one: Their own experience. Their own 'what would I do without god' idea's. In other words, THEY would do those immoral things if they had no god. God is the only thing stopping them. Yet we, without god, whom don't do those things anyway, are the immoral ones?
You cannot tell anyone to obey your moral code if you invented it or it arose from your "social evolution". There is no force behind your moral code other than your military ability to force it on others. Ergo, you have no moral code just your group's law. Try telling that to the Chi-Coms, lol. Subjective and contrived moral codes ARE LAWS not morals. You need a transcendent moral code in order to have moral authority. For that, you need a transcendent moral authority above all men!
@ChristianVoice08 You know this on what grounds?Even so so what? He is a being of metaphysical superiorty.. so what. the morals he gives us are still subjective because it is up to his mind.Just because man is finite doesn't mean the concept isn't still the same.
And yes in most cases it(murder) is.point behind the question?
God came in the flesh, Jesus of nazareth. He healed the sick and raised the dead to prove His power over the natural universe. He was publicly executed and then raised Himself from the dead to prove His power over death itself, that He IS God. He ascended into the sky in front of a great crowd of witnesses proving gravity had no power over Him.
@ChristianVoice08 again, how do you know that?what proof is there? what study? And what utter bullock. That premise has been addresses at how meaningless it all is. Sacrifing yourself to yourself to appease yourself is not a sacrifice, it is a loophole. And the notion of the whole thing is crazy and illogical.
And murder in most cases is wrong because they usually acts of cruelty, as humans we are social and empathize and know how it hurts.
@ChristianVoice08 it seems like all you are going to do is go down a how line of whys. For that very reason is why they are subjective.
As i said before(to answer the question) it goes against of sense of empathy for each other.Over time we learn that from people... you know... the ones who are in control.
Why is something that merely effects a neuro-chemical response that is frankly a chemically induced illusion, empathy, wrong? Empathy is just a chemically induced mental state nothing more in your world view. So, why would a neuro-chemical response prove that anything is wrong?
@ChristianVoice08 1. it isn't an illusion The chemicals in your brain are real with real effects by which have benefited man
2.It doesn't prove anything!!! Nor does it have to, but it does have rational reasons behind it.
Are you trying to imply that empathy should be ignored as a mere illusion?Because it shouldn't, the fact is is that we are emotional/social creatures and act on those.
1. I chemicals are real, the cerebral perception of them is ILLUSION! Just the way your brain interprets a NC signal!
2. Nothing is proved except a neurotransmitter was released in the brain in response to a sensory input from the ears or eyes.
QUIT CHANGING THE SUBJECT! WHY IS MURDER WRONG? You can't say it's because of empathy, that is a subjective emotional response (PROOF! SS officers splattered baby brains on walls AND LAUGHED WITHOUT EMPATHY!) You're saying that was OK!
CONT - You're saying that the SS Officer who splattered the baby's head on the wall at the death camp was not committing murder because HE FELT NO EMPATHY! his brain DID NOT interpret the sensory data of the people crying and being killed as wrong and felt no remorse or empathy. According to that "reasoning and rationale" (YOUR WORDS), the act of murder is not wrong in any culture where they lack empathy or where they consider it RIGHTEOUS! You can't have it both ways.
@sailornaruto39 and a reaction to a chemical is not an illusion.If you smoke something and see stuff that isn't there that is an illusion, but part of the brain is feeling, it is suppose to happen, you know natural brain activity
The entire argument fails based on a false premise. Premise 1 & 2 is not true. ALL animals DO NOT have to form groups. All animals DO NOT need to work together to survive. On the contrary, social groups of humans make predation easier. Humans have no need to form groups to survive. They can rob and kill societies and their members in order to survive. Ergo, they need not comply with societal moral codes. Still, to claim morality of a group can be imposed on the dissenter is daft. CONT
But that implies morality is in fact objective. Morality is not just encoded in our genes, it's not just community instinct, that's reducing it QUITE a lot. While it does cover the origins of morality relatively well, it does not fully explain its functions.
What is wrong with suggesting that morality is subjective?
Only Christian morality is absolute and unchanging, as God dictates morality. The reason is that God obeys his own rules, and those rules are hard-wired into Man's conscience. Atheistic, Communist amd islamic morality are as malleable as necessary to fit the needs. Conscience is just another name for that "hard-wiring" or programming. To deny that and to claim the conscience for some other causation is a trick of the devil, or of men's pride.
So...anyone who can't reproduce or no one wants to reproduce with can just die in a fire? Sweet, no more fat chicks. The problem is that we have derived moralities not strictly based on survival alone, and not solely for species expansion. Pure compassion for Terry Shiavo, who had no means to "scratch the back" of anyone still moved many to tears. From whence comes this? Fear of judgment or retribution from others? Fear does not constitute morality.
@Wyldwulf You forget that people who can't reproduce are already in that fire since they can't reproduce, that is the ultimate goal of your existance, even if the existance itself is more important since you can't reproduce if you are not alive.
Morality is based on social codes, it can include anything from cannibalism and racial purity, social codes change but all is dependent on order and stability since the group, "the pack", will only shrink in power/ prosperity in unstable times.
Good points. You wont convince them though their heads have been up their arses far too long. I think they are afraid to think for themselves pretty sad really.
This does not give a detailed enough answer- needs to go into the WHY. Genes do not work at a societal level, they work at the level of genes. So, genes for "protecting those who look like me" (ie family) would spread. The fact that we don't murder our kin is merely extended and expanded as social groups get bigger, since the genes don't really know who is actually carrying copies of them. Simply saying that genes make us protect humanity/earth is a gross oversimplification, and misleading.
@lukeyboy5 "Genes do not work at a societal level, they work at the level of genes."
No that's wrong. Look at hamsters, or other less social species. They meet to mate, and the rest of the time they fight. The mother kicks the pups out as early as 1 month. Rats on the other hand are very social, which is one reason people prefer them as pets to hamsters (although hamsters are just cuter, I mean, come on). The same goes for humans. It's in our genes for women to be attached to their children,
@lukeyboy5 to nurse them, to care for them. If our genes were different, like certain species that eat their young or hamsters that can't stand the sight of each other, we would not have the social structures we have today, like family, or huge buildings that house 1000 people in them like in japan or NYC.
thank you this summed up what i think about morals.. i am an atheist too.. im still shocked people are religious and justifying it in this day and age.
i agree with alot of this , apart from your er...comments about theism...i agree that morality is natural and in built into all human beings..and that we natrally want to be treated with respect and love...
but i ask you this...who has been the most imoral peoples in history?...i would argue that the pagan and non theists have..and thats not a bias statement ...its fact...
by the way..i am not a scientist...or a university student...all i have is logic...
Crusades. Inquisition. Holy wars. Murder of abortion doctors. Witch hunts. Lying about the efficacy of condoms (thus furthering the spreading of AIDS). Terrorism. Creationism. Children dying because their parents pray instead of seeking medical attention. Children dying because their parents deny them blood transfusions. Children being murdered for having the wrong hair colour or for being albinos.
Sorry, but theism seems to be pretty immoral from where I'm standing.
By all means, let's look at WWI and WWII. Both the German Emperor in WWI and Hitler were Christians. And frankly, the emperors of old didn't act differently when they converted to Christianity, so I fail to see your point.
Again, you claim that pagans and non-theists are the most immoral people in history. I'd like to see you present evidence for that.
come on...i dont mind at all that you are atheist..
but lets not be difficult just for the sake of being difficult. ..hitler was an occultest..and ww1 an2 were not about religion..so if your going to talk about religion or those supposed "examples" of religion..at least find some religious people..and even if you do..i GAURANTEE,,.. the pagan and polytheist nations of old will out do them in imorality hands down..you want proof.?.you want me to list it.?..i think you know already..
for a moral atheist , it is frightening how far from the truth you are willing to go to get your bias hatred for religion heard...you claim now that ww1&2 were fought for religious reasons..?
i have never heard so much crap in my life..this shows that you are not interest in the truth..
even the so called holy wars or crusades were not about religion , but about econimics, resourses and land..and of course religion is used as a label, and a tool to get recruits in war.. not much has changed..
@CapnOrdinary the world would be a filthy place if it was 100% atheist, all you guys want is evidence and proof and what ever you think all science are proofs but its still a THEORY im a doctor i study science and we all know that. if u sit on ur computer all day with no job thinking everyone is wrong but ur self,
maybe it is because you are an athiest , that you have no clue about what a real theist is or beleives..this is why you gave hitler as an example of a christian.....
but like i said..you may list maybe a handful of incidents of imoral behaviour in the name of "religion"... but lets not go point fingers outside that box ...because then your argument falls flat on its face...
You might also want to look up the term "no true scotsman fallacy". Hitler was a Catholic, whether you agree with his interpretation of that particular superstition or not.
and forget about me listing "evidence" for my claim..if you claim to know anything about history, the majoriy and the bloodiest wars were fought by atheist or secular or non abrahamic faiths...i dont need to proove that..
if you really are in doubt..(which i dont think you are ..just denial...) then maybe you should familliarise your self with history again..
The ss German uniforms said on them? "Got mit uns", which means "god with us". Hitler corresponded with the pope, who gave his blessing to the death camps. Mao and Stalin were personal cults, which actually qualifies as religion. on the other hand, the inquisition has been murdering people for a very long time, and it is still alive and well today. the catholic church never ended the office of inquisition.
you don't have to be dumb to believe in god, but is sure helps.
Confucianism and taoism are examples of secular morality. They are better than abrahmic religion. Because they deal with hapiness and personal satisfaction not simply moral rules.
Earlier I pointed out that other traits such as learning, basic reasoning and even planning (among wolves to take down prey) are indeed present in animals. I would also like to add communication between these animals.
If this is not attributed to some form of intelligence what is it then that would explain such behavior?
This post will be somewhat off topic just trying to save face a bit =P
I just looked up the definitions of Intellect and Intelligence on online dictionaries and they tend to vary a bit but many seem to give similar definitions
Intellect : The ability to learn and reason; the capacity for knowledge and understanding.
Intelligence : The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge. The faculty of thought and reason.
So my statements may have not been far off, but lets not debate linguistics lol
So what this video tells me is that, in theory if one did not care about the survival of the species he could kill trillions of people and it still wouldn't matter.
Absolute atheist morals are immoral in their absoluteness. Murder is almost always wrong (99.99999% of the time) but if we want to be balanced we should always have doubt. If a virus is spreading and you can save 1,000,000 people by killing the carrier then murder could be morally sound. This decision should not be taken lightly but if you are unable to make it you have weakness in your morals. Be adaptable and don't take things to an absolute extreme.
If the objective (and universal) moral good is the survival of our species as a whole (not as individuals), this is the same as saying that we ought to prescribe laws in the interest of meeting that goal.
Anyone who takes this position is obligated to regard, not just actions that effect others, but actions that effect others, but actions that effect individuals that may hinder this universal good. (con't)
Under this model we are obliged to regard as immoral, not only actions that effect the net survival of the species such as murder; but also actions that effect the individuals ability to pass on their genes such as contraceptives, cigarettes, contact sports, etc. (con't)
We are likewise obligated to not regard actions that have no effect one way or the other on the survival of the species as a whole as immoral such as slavery or racism. (so long as other races are simply considered inferior, not worthy of violence or death.) (con't)
Under this model slave labor may not be considered immoral so long as the slaves are allowed to reproduce. Likewise, what we normally call rape must be viewed as a moral good, as it allows for the highest possible transmission of our genes, and the highest possibility for those genes to perpetuate them selves. (con't)
You are right to say that we don't derive our morality from religion (we don't). But stating that the perpetuation of our species is a universal and objective good is equally wrong, and just as appalling.
Just my thoughts on the matter, this is inconsistency probably the result of our evolved intelligence
Back in the days where man was primal, such barbaric methods like survival of the fittest and relentless procreation were probably practical back then, as we consider it practical in animal behavior today
But now advent of innovations, technology and civilization. We've struck a paradigm shift where physical perfection is no longer of paramount importance (con't)
We have started to become victims of our own success by disrupting the natural balance of the world
I theorize that we evolved intelligence not only to make our species more successful but also to better cope with the consequences
To preserve our society and success of our own species it becomes necessary to slow down the birth rate to avoid overpopulation, contrary to our primal instincts, as well as encourage free flow of ideas for our intellectual evolution and maintain order in our society
To sum it up I think we are still attempting to do what is best for our species, and by evolving intelligence we have begun to suppress some of our primal instincts that have become obsolete in achieving our goals.
That is a verry odd statement. If the intellect is the result of evolution (which I don't think it is) then it did not evolve "in order to do" anything.
Secondly; as man is the only intellectual animal; I'm not sure that we can draw parallels between the function of the intellect, and the function of any other behavior in brute animal society
The human brain was a result of evolution, and it is what gives us our ability of higher intellect. Hence people who suffer brain damage lose some of their mental ability.
Animals do have different levels on intelligence, some Chimpanzees in the wild for example have learned to use and create simple tools like sharp rocks by breaking them against each other.
This knowledge is passed from the parent to the child by teaching, in much the same way early man did.
the word intellect and intelligence are not the same; The intellect refers to the ability to comprehend universal concepts; an ability that only man possesses.
Sorry I guess I should brush up on some of the technical definitions if I got it wrong.
Nonetheless regarding Chimpanzees their use of tools and then teaching this to their young, it does suggest that they have the ability to comprehend the concept of tool making and its usefulness.
We're now off topic, but that's okay because I think we'll both find this one interesting.
Chimpanzees 'make' tools, only human beings fasion them. The reason for that (to the best of our knowledge at present) it that non human animals are limited to that which they can percieve.
The intellect is the ability to form universal concepts.
A universal is (for exmple) Car, Boat, Boy, Dog. words which reffer to 'any' car, 'any' boat, 'any' boy, 'any' dog.
To aprehend a certain class or kind of thingm, and what each thing is like (quotations on the following critical point) "Even when there is no perceptual example to be had".
To the best of our current knowledge; man is the only animal capable of doing this.
Now; this intellectual power (I think) is not a function of the brain; that is, I think that the brain is a 'necessary' but not 'sufficient' condition for conceptual thought. (con't)
The reason I think that is because we take in the world through our senses; and there are ONLY particulars in the world (this tree or that, this branch or that).
If there are only particulars in the world, then there are only particulars in the brain.
If there are only particulars in the brain, then the brain can not be responsible for apprehending universals.
Regarding the Chimps, its safe to say they understand that all rocks (of that particular type that's breakable) can be made into a useful tool
Another example can be Wolves hunting in packs they're coordinated cooperation and strategy in taking down large prey has many parallels with early humans teamwork in taking down large game
To suggest that such parallels are mere coincidence and not driven by a common intelligence seems somewhat of a stretch
As for universal concepts without direct examples, some animals learn to identify specific coloration in certain species of frogs or insects that warn of toxicity
They in turn become cautious when encountering other animals of similar appearance even if it hasn't been tasted yet, hence some animals have developed the same coloration as defensive mechanisms
I urge you to look up the social brain hypothesis by Robin Dunbar it may be more detailed than what I can provide here on youtube
The reaction to certain colors in nature is instinctive, not intellectual. We have the same kinds of reactions to certain immages, sounds, smells, etc.
To the degree than animals remember certain colored frogs and avoid them, this is certainly the case; what the animal does not comprrehend is the certain class or kind of thing that is "frogs". they comprehend only that (when perceputally present) they ought to be avoided.,
There's really no way to really dive into the brain of animals or ask them to find out whether or not they classify other species they encounter, so I won't bother trying to debate that point lol
Here's what we do know though
Intelligence : The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge. The faculty of thought and reason.
The animal sees a species of frog and through experience learns that it is poisonous.
It recalls that knowledge in future encounters and understands enough not to eat it
Its far from our level of intelligence nonetheless the basics are there, and they get more complex and advanced in mammals that exist in social groups.
Intelligence is an umbrella term used to describe a property of the mind that encompasses many related abilities, such as the capacities to reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn. There are several ways to define intelligence. However there is no agreement on which traits define the phenomenon of intelligence agreed upon by a majority across the various concerned disciplines.
I don't see any reason to make that assumption given the current state of scientific knowledge.
the human intellect is contrary to what the brain does; IE: the apprehention of universals.
The aprehention of such is not a step up from the grat apes, it is radically different from every other animal on the planet,
You're not wrong to say that it may be the brain its self; it may be; but so far I have seen nothing to demonstrate that that is the case, and evidence to the contrary.
I draw my conclusions from the fact that the brain facilitates thinking and that damaging it can affect ones level of intelligence, memories or even ability to form coherent thought.
Granted we do not yet fully understand how the brain functions. So I am lacking in evidence to make the direct assertion that this is the case.
On the other hand I am curious as to what evidence is it you see, that contradicts that it is the brain responsible for intelligence.
I didn't say that the brain wasn't responsible for intelligence; it surely is. I said that it is not a sufficient condition for 'intellectual' thought: IE The ability to aprehend universal concepts.
The evidence that I see that contradicts the notion that the brain its self is sufficient for intellectual though it that everything we pwecieve with our senses is particular; and thuss everything in the brain is particular. (con't)
You and I (for example) can not imagine trinangle as such, unless it is of some shape size and color; in order to 'think' triangle we are not using an organ that opperates from sensory particulars.
I'm sorry I'm having trouble understanding your point of view, there appears to be a leap in your logic and I do not see how you make the direct connection to reality.
From my understanding particulars seem to be the basis of your evidence, however particulars in this instance is philosophical.
Do you have any evidence to support your conclusions that is concrete and not abstract?
I don't know what you mean by particulars being philosophical; and I don't know what you mean by "concrete" as opposed to "abstract" evidence.
Human beings are in fact (to the best of our knowledge) the only conceptual animals; and our concepts are in fact universal in character; which is contrary to what the brain opperates from.
An abstract is something which does not exist at any particular time or place, but rather exists as a type of thing (in this case as an idea)
This is opposed to something concrete which exists and is measurable
You emphasize that animals cannot classify things or think beyond that which they can perceive, yet I have yet to see any concrete evidence to suggest this is so
Short of diving into their brains and direct communication both of w/c are not possible, how did you come to that conclusion
If you recall earlier, I bumped into a similar wall, when I was arguing that the brain was responsible for intelligence, but eventually had to concede that I could not bring up any concrete evidence of brain mechanics that would lead to our individual thoughts so my point was half proven at best
You stated however that you had evidence that contradicted my idea, but so far it seems that your ideas are even more speculative (pure theoretical reason) than mine was
I provided documented animal social behavior that exhibited parallels with human intelligence. Such as in Wolves from which I drew upon my ideas.
You then reason on what goes on inside their brains lacks the ability to classify and think beyond perception, but I don't see from what concrete evidence you draw upon this conclusion
Even at the very least do wolves not classify those of their clan from wolves of another? Or predator from prey? and plan coordination?
The example you gave does not demonstrate that the behavior of wolves is parallel or comparable to human intellectual endeavors.
Again, there is absolutly no evidence that animals are intellectual; to put it another way, Man is the only ANTI-intellectual animal; there is no evidence that dolphins are anti-intellectual or that wolves, pigs or horses are either.
Wolves do not classify anything; their pack behavior, and discrimination between their group and others is entirely instinctive.
The distinction being made here is not being made by me; there isn't a single biologist that argues that animals are conceptual; there ARE those who argue that we arent either, but not the former.
there isn't a single biologist that argues that animals are conceptual is a double edged argument
There are many biologists who argue animals are intelligent
As far as I can tell you define intelligence by the ability to conceptualize, yet I have not seen any definition of intelligence, in commonly found dictionaries that consider it a prerequisite to intelligence.
Intelligence is generally defined as ones ability to learn and apply what is learned
that animals do not conceptualize is not a theory. Animals in fact have never been seen to conceptualize. there is no evidence that they do; and there is evidence that they don't (IE; ANTI-intellectualism has never been observed in animal behavior)
"and there is evidence that they don't (IE; ANTI-intellectualism has never been observed in animal behavior) "
My problem with this explanation is that it claims evidence based on the lack of observation of that which is unobservable.
Unless there is indeed a way to see what goes on within brain directly to its thoughts, and if this was possible we would have likely been able to conclude the origins of human intelligence without side tracking to wether or not it was a result of evolution
I already conceded that I cannot directly assert that animals are intellectual, my conclusions are speculation based on circumstantial evidence at best.
However you don't even seem to have any evidence. That no biologist has said animals can conceptualize, doesn't mean they don't think they do or have any proof that they don't.
Do you have a reference to a study that shows animals cannot conceptualize? Simply saying that no biologist has brought it up doesn't mean much.
From what I understand of particulars that statement is incorrect.
Redness, for example, is not a particular, because it is abstract and multiply-instantiated (my bicycle, this apple, and that woman's hair are all red). And color is indeed something that our sense can perceive.
We do percieve colors; we do not percieve "redNESS" as such. We can 'think' redness, but we can not imagine or percieve it.
For another example, you and I can not imagine a triangle unless it is of some shape size and color, but we can THINK triangle (or Triangularity) without it being of any shape size or color. Animals can not do the latter, and nor (I think) can the brain.
Mathew 7:12: "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." (Jesus)
Amazing that through science, you came to the same conclusion that Jesus was preaching then. There are a lot more amazing connections that I would be willing to share between Science and Christianity.
and what is odd is that we have an extreme need that there be an objective purpose, that our reasons for behaving morally extend to something other than survival
He's explained why we naturally have morals. I've heard this before.
I'd like to hear more discussion about why we should continue to be moral, though.
It seems like it all leads down to opinions, like the one that our species should be continued, becuase we feel like it should, and for no further reason.
If physical reality is all which exists, there are no objective moral values. We have selfish reasons to behave morally, but don't claim that they're objectively good when they're not.
You're right, there no objective reasons to be moral. I am good to people around me because I want others to treat me right and because it feels too. I don't need more reason than that.
You made an unsupported jump in your reasoning, that from individual genes desiring to propogate, and a necessity for us to support our whole species.
Indeed, in nature, we see the opposite. A creature does not behave for the good of all like creatures, but for the reproduction with a chosen mate of its own genes, or at best, the survival of its tribe or herd. No deer acts in any way for the good of *all deer*.
It is not at all clear why I shouldn't kill a man to mate with his female.
Indeed, the reasoning in this whole film was sporatically consistent. It would wax clear for a time, then JUMP to a non sequitur, and then proceed reasonably from there.
For instance, the final attack on religious morality, ending with a photo of the bible, seemed absurd to me, for the Golden Rule was (half) of the reduction of the whole Old Law given by Christ, and contains in itself what at least Christians believe to be the sum of religious morals.
While it illustrates very well the idea of a poor jump in reasoning, the "and" in the first sentence of my first post should read as "to". This should clear matters up.
Also, I should be of a mind to say that you've pretty much made homosexuality immoral in your little scheme, as, if the basis for my morality is to be propogation of my genes, I should use my reproductive organs to their fullest reproductive potential.
Some atheists have done their homework, gone through the intellectual arguments for and against the existence of God, and arrived at a thoughtful atheistic position but many have no real understanding of what Christianity is.
For anyone who wants to learn more about the other side of the debate, my channel has some info that you might find interesting.
I completely disagree that morals are innate and I disagree that morals come only from modern religion. There was a revolutionary idea that came from Jesus (the man) that completely changed the moral paradigm. Ask yourself why wars of conquest are considered immoral - when did this idea start? If anything, natural selection favors immorality - promiscuity, rape, violence- this produces offspring - the basis of evolution. Most morals are the result of man DENYING his animal instincts,
in species that live in groups/societies (humans for example), groups that don't kill/steal from/do bad things to each other, and instead help each other, are more likely to survive and pass on their genetics to a new generation that will do the same. this trend will continue until it reaches a point where the vast majority of the members of that species tend to help each other instead of hurting each other (there will always be exceptions though murderers etc.). this is obvious.
"until it reaches a point where the vast majority of the members of that species tend to help each other instead of hurting "
until - implying we're not there yet.
Right, we haven't reached that level of evolution. Therefor, we have created morals through reason (and God) - that is not evolution and you admit so much in your argument.
Who is has the most moral conviction, the athiest that does good things because they are good. Or the Religious person that only does good because they are frightened of being punished by a god. Quiet please if you think being bullied into doing good is somehow more morally correct.
Atheists DO have morals, its called the LAW. - Not really, morals and laws are two different things. For example laws can still be immoral, or event subjectively immoral. For example, in law, it gave white men the right to own slaves. Is that morally correct? No. Sorry.
@cooleb Leviticus 25:44-46 (New International Version) 44 " 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
@cooleb Exodus 21:2-6 (New International Version) 2 "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.
@cooleb Exodus 21:7-11 (New International Version)
"If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, [a] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter.
@cooleb Exodus 21:20-21 (New International Version) 20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
@cooleb Ephesians 6:5 (New International Version) 5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
@darkhumanoid Slavery thousands of years ago was different. People would often sell themselves into slavery. The Bible does not condemn slavery, nor does it promote it, but it says how to treat your slaves. BTW most slaves were freed after 6 years of service. Most were also prisoners of war. Also, don't read the king johns version of The Bible. That is a shitty version.
@keinaan12345 The bible is written by mortal men in a vera old era, that's why the book can be very confusing and foreign to the modern western man, because the morality and society has changed, realise.
1 Timothy 6:1-2 (New International Version) 1All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered. 2Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are the things you are to teach and urge on them.
@compsciguy The God Delusion is a very poorly argued book. Dawkins is a biologist, not a philosopher; he doesn't know how to write or argue philosophy. Philosophy relies heavily on logic. So, I do not believe someone is uninformed if they haven't read a bad book by a narcissistic man that argues like "No! You're wrong!" instead of arguing why they're wrong.
Fear is not a valid basis for goodness christians if anything less moral on hte basis that thay supposedly only act i a moral way because they fear god.
Whats nobel in that?!
If you externalize you moral sense into god then you also allow yourself loopholes like confession.
we atheists are judged by ourself and can only turn to ourselves and those we hur for forgivness.
I consider myself an atheist, and my religion teacher often (Catholic school) hints that atheists are evil. IThough I have note expressed my views to him, I still find it insulting when he insinuates that I'm a terrible pereson and can't be good, that I'm ignorant, and atheism causes most of the world's problems. This cheered me up. I don't like the moral codes in religions because they don't inspire actaully goodness, only the fear of God or antoher's wrath. Great video, thanks for making it.
I agree. I think it is much more moral to be good because you want to be, rather than through fear of punishment in Hell etc.
e.g. if you asked someone "Why don't you murder people?" i would much rather that thtey said "because it would be immoral, cause grief, and take life from a human being" rather than "because the bible said not to."
Bowser, religionists use their morals to judge their religion, not the other way around. This is why Christians ignore all the nasty bits in the Bible. If they were using the Bible for their morality, they would still be stoning people to death. The fact that they aren't illustrates that morality is independent of religion. The need for the religious to make lies to prop up their own beliefs is one of many reasons why their beliefs are false.
Atheism and agnostism are stupid and pointless labels. Why does not jumping to ridiculous conclusions about about things we dont undersand yet deserve a label? its neutral and natural, its how you are born before some morons rape your birth rights and turn you into a littlle christian, muslim or jew.
why wont everyone just have the courage to admit to themselves despite their peer pressure that religion has nothing necessarily to do with belief in 'god', but is in fact that blank knowledge, expolited by bastards so they can blackmail people into evil systematic worship and dogma, blackmailing them to worship their own characterisation of god (their own psyche), becuase it makes them powerful though other peoples trauma. its psychological abuse, and the contaminated will help to mask it.
Its a device for people to abuse others and has been directily or indirectly responsible for the vast majority of bloodshed in homosapian history. they get theyre views on the outer limits of human knowledge like they get their coffee from starbucks. they cant be bothered to think for themselves so they whore themselves out to the system
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
If it wasn't religion it would be wars for conquest - you really think religious wars have killed more people than non-religious? I doubt it. WW2 killed 60 million - not religious. Do you have some evidence?
And what a wonderful moral example the god Yahweh sets. Like when he wiped out the whole human race during the time of Noah? Not to mention the many times he committed or commanded genocide. What about all the natural disasters, pestilence, stoning, burning, torture, slavery he commanded. And lets not forget god's celestial ovens (what a wonderful act of love) to roast billions of people eternally for believing the wrong religion. It's all reliably there in the bible for you to read.
I defer to your superior knowledge of the bible good sir. What was I thinking? Of course; god never killed off the human race during the time Noah, just animals right? Nor did she command Joshua to destroy city upon city. And I must have been dreaming when I read in Revelations that god will violently slaughter all the earth's non-christian population and then send them to his ovens.
And thank you for setting the record straight about Stalin's genocide. I'm sure his atheism was the reason.
At the the end of the day, morality is a choice. Whether we are moral or not has little to do with our religiosity or lack thereof. There are moral believers and non-believers, as well as IMmoral believers and non-believers. And if you honestly think there would be no reason to choose morality without god, it says far more about you than any atheist.
Ashiman12 2 months ago
Religious people don't like to think about it, but there is NO absolute standard of morality. All religion does is give people a FALSE sense of absolution - a feeling that their mores are set in stone. How, then, do we define what is right and wrong? Through discussion, reason, observation of the human condition, a desire for social stability, natural conscience, etc. Religious morality was born of such efforts, and now, we can do so again - this time without superstition.
Ashiman12 2 months ago
Oh really? Fortunately we can count on genetic variability and corporate psychopaths like me are laughing at your Absolute Morality based on biology.
WarmongerWW3 3 months ago
This logic is deeply flawed.
42mada 4 months ago
It's kind of funny. Atheists aren't immoral, yet theists say we are. Theists love to tell us what they think we do, because we have no religious guidelines. But what basis do these people have? Only one: Their own experience. Their own 'what would I do without god' idea's. In other words, THEY would do those immoral things if they had no god. God is the only thing stopping them. Yet we, without god, whom don't do those things anyway, are the immoral ones?
Sanquinity 5 months ago 2
@Sanquinity Very well said.
pumrel 1 month ago
TYPO
On first post, CORRECTION, "Premises 1 & 2 ARE false not "is".
ChristianVoice08 6 months ago
CONT
You cannot tell anyone to obey your moral code if you invented it or it arose from your "social evolution". There is no force behind your moral code other than your military ability to force it on others. Ergo, you have no moral code just your group's law. Try telling that to the Chi-Coms, lol. Subjective and contrived moral codes ARE LAWS not morals. You need a transcendent moral code in order to have moral authority. For that, you need a transcendent moral authority above all men!
ChristianVoice08 6 months ago
@ChristianVoice08 morals from god are no different than morals from man.
The former is only a matter of might makes right.
"There is no force behind your moral code"
yes there is, it is called humanity, people aren't most ppl have a sense of empathy you know
sailornaruto39 6 months ago
@sailornaruto39
FALSE. God is not finite like man. He is not equal to us. Ergo, His law is not equal or the same of ours.
Now about your claims, Is murder wrong?
ChristianVoice08 6 months ago
@ChristianVoice08 You know this on what grounds?Even so so what? He is a being of metaphysical superiorty.. so what. the morals he gives us are still subjective because it is up to his mind.Just because man is finite doesn't mean the concept isn't still the same.
And yes in most cases it(murder) is.point behind the question?
sailornaruto39 6 months ago
@sailornaruto39
By definition. False. False.
Why is murder wrong?
ChristianVoice08 6 months ago
@ChristianVoice08 even entertaining the baseless assertion that there is/was a creator, how would we know?
Since he/she/it/them haven't made themselves evident
sailornaruto39 6 months ago
@sailornaruto39
God came in the flesh, Jesus of nazareth. He healed the sick and raised the dead to prove His power over the natural universe. He was publicly executed and then raised Himself from the dead to prove His power over death itself, that He IS God. He ascended into the sky in front of a great crowd of witnesses proving gravity had no power over Him.
WHY IS MURDER WRONG?
ChristianVoice08 6 months ago
@ChristianVoice08 again, how do you know that?what proof is there? what study? And what utter bullock. That premise has been addresses at how meaningless it all is. Sacrifing yourself to yourself to appease yourself is not a sacrifice, it is a loophole. And the notion of the whole thing is crazy and illogical.
And murder in most cases is wrong because they usually acts of cruelty, as humans we are social and empathize and know how it hurts.
sailornaruto39 6 months ago
@sailornaruto39
Why is it wrong to be cruel?
ChristianVoice08 6 months ago
@ChristianVoice08 it seems like all you are going to do is go down a how line of whys. For that very reason is why they are subjective.
As i said before(to answer the question) it goes against of sense of empathy for each other.Over time we learn that from people... you know... the ones who are in control.
sailornaruto39 6 months ago
@sailornaruto39
Why is something that merely effects a neuro-chemical response that is frankly a chemically induced illusion, empathy, wrong? Empathy is just a chemically induced mental state nothing more in your world view. So, why would a neuro-chemical response prove that anything is wrong?
ChristianVoice08 6 months ago
@ChristianVoice08 1. it isn't an illusion The chemicals in your brain are real with real effects by which have benefited man
2.It doesn't prove anything!!! Nor does it have to, but it does have rational reasons behind it.
Are you trying to imply that empathy should be ignored as a mere illusion?Because it shouldn't, the fact is is that we are emotional/social creatures and act on those.
sailornaruto39 6 months ago
@sailornaruto39
1. I chemicals are real, the cerebral perception of them is ILLUSION! Just the way your brain interprets a NC signal!
2. Nothing is proved except a neurotransmitter was released in the brain in response to a sensory input from the ears or eyes.
QUIT CHANGING THE SUBJECT! WHY IS MURDER WRONG? You can't say it's because of empathy, that is a subjective emotional response (PROOF! SS officers splattered baby brains on walls AND LAUGHED WITHOUT EMPATHY!) You're saying that was OK!
ChristianVoice08 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ChristianVoice08 "QUIT CHANGING THE SUBJECT"
i haven't
"that is a subjective emotional response"
my point exactly an emotional response with logical basis such as if we let this slide then offing our young would kill us all off.
sailornaruto39 6 months ago
@sailornaruto39
CONT - You're saying that the SS Officer who splattered the baby's head on the wall at the death camp was not committing murder because HE FELT NO EMPATHY! his brain DID NOT interpret the sensory data of the people crying and being killed as wrong and felt no remorse or empathy. According to that "reasoning and rationale" (YOUR WORDS), the act of murder is not wrong in any culture where they lack empathy or where they consider it RIGHTEOUS! You can't have it both ways.
ChristianVoice08 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ChristianVoice08 "his brain DID NOT interpret the sensory data of the people crying and being killed as wrong and felt no remorse or empathy"
and that is what we call a sociopath,something very unfavorable in most societies
" the act of murder is not wrong in any culture where they lack empathy or where they consider it RIGHTEOUS!"
i see. In there fucked up culture it would be fine,but in a slightly more functional society like the U.S, that is fucked up.
sailornaruto39 6 months ago
@sailornaruto39 and a reaction to a chemical is not an illusion.If you smoke something and see stuff that isn't there that is an illusion, but part of the brain is feeling, it is suppose to happen, you know natural brain activity
sailornaruto39 6 months ago
The entire argument fails based on a false premise. Premise 1 & 2 is not true. ALL animals DO NOT have to form groups. All animals DO NOT need to work together to survive. On the contrary, social groups of humans make predation easier. Humans have no need to form groups to survive. They can rob and kill societies and their members in order to survive. Ergo, they need not comply with societal moral codes. Still, to claim morality of a group can be imposed on the dissenter is daft. CONT
ChristianVoice08 6 months ago
Emergency Supplies sent by ONE Christian Group to Japan after the earthquake and Tsunami?
92 TONS
Emergency Supplies sent by ALL ATHIESTS Groups to Japan after the Earthquake and Tsunami?
0
TELL ME AGAIN HOW "MORAL" ATHIESTS ARE???????????
badge717 10 months ago
But that implies morality is in fact objective. Morality is not just encoded in our genes, it's not just community instinct, that's reducing it QUITE a lot. While it does cover the origins of morality relatively well, it does not fully explain its functions.
What is wrong with suggesting that morality is subjective?
LessthanJake14 10 months ago
Fuck yeah! Tell it like it is!
Airgutter87 11 months ago
Only Christian morality is absolute and unchanging, as God dictates morality. The reason is that God obeys his own rules, and those rules are hard-wired into Man's conscience. Atheistic, Communist amd islamic morality are as malleable as necessary to fit the needs. Conscience is just another name for that "hard-wiring" or programming. To deny that and to claim the conscience for some other causation is a trick of the devil, or of men's pride.
thegreatfearblog 1 year ago
@thegreatfearblog
Islamic morals change to fit the needs? Ugh....I guess we can throw the Qu"ran right out the window then, hugh?
compsciguy 11 months ago
@compsciguy That's a great idea!
thegreatfearblog 11 months ago
hehe sounds funny
jahblessing11 1 year ago
So...anyone who can't reproduce or no one wants to reproduce with can just die in a fire? Sweet, no more fat chicks. The problem is that we have derived moralities not strictly based on survival alone, and not solely for species expansion. Pure compassion for Terry Shiavo, who had no means to "scratch the back" of anyone still moved many to tears. From whence comes this? Fear of judgment or retribution from others? Fear does not constitute morality.
Wyldwulf 1 year ago
@Wyldwulf You forget that people who can't reproduce are already in that fire since they can't reproduce, that is the ultimate goal of your existance, even if the existance itself is more important since you can't reproduce if you are not alive.
Morality is based on social codes, it can include anything from cannibalism and racial purity, social codes change but all is dependent on order and stability since the group, "the pack", will only shrink in power/ prosperity in unstable times.
Imhornydadcomeinside 1 year ago
Theists, listen up. Watch and listen to this vid at least once a day until you get it.
Exceptional explanation.
lc237 1 year ago
Try searching for "theist moral" in youtube! Apparently YouTube have never heard of such a thing^_^
Jostedalsosten 1 year ago
Well explained video.
Ramshobraja 1 year ago
Good points. You wont convince them though their heads have been up their arses far too long. I think they are afraid to think for themselves pretty sad really.
markthebong 1 year ago
This does not give a detailed enough answer- needs to go into the WHY. Genes do not work at a societal level, they work at the level of genes. So, genes for "protecting those who look like me" (ie family) would spread. The fact that we don't murder our kin is merely extended and expanded as social groups get bigger, since the genes don't really know who is actually carrying copies of them. Simply saying that genes make us protect humanity/earth is a gross oversimplification, and misleading.
lukeyboy5 1 year ago
@lukeyboy5 "Genes do not work at a societal level, they work at the level of genes."
No that's wrong. Look at hamsters, or other less social species. They meet to mate, and the rest of the time they fight. The mother kicks the pups out as early as 1 month. Rats on the other hand are very social, which is one reason people prefer them as pets to hamsters (although hamsters are just cuter, I mean, come on). The same goes for humans. It's in our genes for women to be attached to their children,
humanistheart 1 year ago
@lukeyboy5 to nurse them, to care for them. If our genes were different, like certain species that eat their young or hamsters that can't stand the sight of each other, we would not have the social structures we have today, like family, or huge buildings that house 1000 people in them like in japan or NYC.
humanistheart 1 year ago
@lukeyboy5 Although you're right that if just left at genes that would be an oversimplification.
humanistheart 1 year ago
You made perfect sense. Thank you for owning my friends in 2nd grade logic,
RXD237 1 year ago
thank you this summed up what i think about morals.. i am an atheist too.. im still shocked people are religious and justifying it in this day and age.
JayArpeggios 1 year ago
Evolution supplies all that is needed for the development
of codes of conduct that preserve and facilitate
survival and co-operation,
which is precisely what these "laws" do.
Such sensitivities in no way support any particular god.
In fact, as Christians believe that their most heinous acts
will be magically vanished and forgotten via human sacrifice,
they actually have very little incentive to act in a moral manner.
Hmmm..
That just might explain a hell of a lot.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
i agree with alot of this , apart from your er...comments about theism...i agree that morality is natural and in built into all human beings..and that we natrally want to be treated with respect and love...
but i ask you this...who has been the most imoral peoples in history?...i would argue that the pagan and non theists have..and thats not a bias statement ...its fact...
by the way..i am not a scientist...or a university student...all i have is logic...
peace to all..
onebludz 1 year ago
Crusades. Inquisition. Holy wars. Murder of abortion doctors. Witch hunts. Lying about the efficacy of condoms (thus furthering the spreading of AIDS). Terrorism. Creationism. Children dying because their parents pray instead of seeking medical attention. Children dying because their parents deny them blood transfusions. Children being murdered for having the wrong hair colour or for being albinos.
Sorry, but theism seems to be pretty immoral from where I'm standing.
CapnOrdinary 1 year ago
yes ..many things done by christianity, or people who are supposed to represent christianity..they are the main culprits you point out..
but will you point out the things done by the pagan emperors of old..? world war 1&2?..
i think you will find that if you wish to point fingers..you are missing the bigger portion of wrong doing to human kind...by far....lets be honest..
onebludz 1 year ago
By all means, let's look at WWI and WWII. Both the German Emperor in WWI and Hitler were Christians. And frankly, the emperors of old didn't act differently when they converted to Christianity, so I fail to see your point.
Again, you claim that pagans and non-theists are the most immoral people in history. I'd like to see you present evidence for that.
CapnOrdinary 1 year ago
come on...i dont mind at all that you are atheist..
but lets not be difficult just for the sake of being difficult. ..hitler was an occultest..and ww1 an2 were not about religion..so if your going to talk about religion or those supposed "examples" of religion..at least find some religious people..and even if you do..i GAURANTEE,,.. the pagan and polytheist nations of old will out do them in imorality hands down..you want proof.?.you want me to list it.?..i think you know already..
onebludz 1 year ago
Hitler was a Catholic. The whole concept of anti-semitism is inherently Christian in nature. Read the Gospel of John if you don't believe that.
And while I agree that neither WWI or WWII were fought for religious reasons, they WERE fought by religious people.
And to me, it makes zero difference if they're Pagan or Christian, it's all variants of the same superstition.
I have yet to see you even try to present evidence for your claim. But I guess that shouldn't surprise me.
CapnOrdinary 1 year ago
for a moral atheist , it is frightening how far from the truth you are willing to go to get your bias hatred for religion heard...you claim now that ww1&2 were fought for religious reasons..?
i have never heard so much crap in my life..this shows that you are not interest in the truth..
even the so called holy wars or crusades were not about religion , but about econimics, resourses and land..and of course religion is used as a label, and a tool to get recruits in war.. not much has changed..
onebludz 1 year ago
Look, if you're not even willing to read what I actually wrote, then I can't help you.
CapnOrdinary 1 year ago
@CapnOrdinary the world would be a filthy place if it was 100% atheist, all you guys want is evidence and proof and what ever you think all science are proofs but its still a THEORY im a doctor i study science and we all know that. if u sit on ur computer all day with no job thinking everyone is wrong but ur self,
cooleb 1 year ago
maybe it is because you are an athiest , that you have no clue about what a real theist is or beleives..this is why you gave hitler as an example of a christian.....
but like i said..you may list maybe a handful of incidents of imoral behaviour in the name of "religion"... but lets not go point fingers outside that box ...because then your argument falls flat on its face...
no offence..
onebludz 1 year ago
You might also want to look up the term "no true scotsman fallacy". Hitler was a Catholic, whether you agree with his interpretation of that particular superstition or not.
CapnOrdinary 1 year ago
LOL.!!!!
hitler was a catholic...!!!
anyway forget about that argument...
and forget about me listing "evidence" for my claim..if you claim to know anything about history, the majoriy and the bloodiest wars were fought by atheist or secular or non abrahamic faiths...i dont need to proove that..
if you really are in doubt..(which i dont think you are ..just denial...) then maybe you should familliarise your self with history again..
onebludz 1 year ago
Once again, name your examples. Neither WWI or WWII were fought by atheists or secularists, so you're going to have to try again.
I'm tired of running in circles with you. Evidence or GTFO.
CapnOrdinary 1 year ago
you know what...who are you telling to gtfo?
your right you cant help me..or yourself because your lost mate..
ww1&2 were not fought for religious reasons but by religious people..?
what are you smoking mate?...
onebludz 1 year ago
if you want to stop running round in circles...know the truth...
put that crack down...pick up a history book that goes back more than a few hundred years...
and be honest with your self...
the atheists i know would laugh at your claims.. i suppose you think america is a christian country too?...
anyway...
who am i to burst your bubble,,,?
its yours...you live in it..
have a nice life...
peace..
onebludz 1 year ago
Yeah, you know what, buh-bye. - Blocked -
CapnOrdinary 1 year ago
@onebludz Because we all know the older a book is, the more reliable it gets, right? *rolls eyes*
grimordwow 1 year ago
@onebludz // wow, i've never heard the term "atheist" war... holy war does ring a bell
wokkitout 1 year ago
@onebludz
The ss German uniforms said on them? "Got mit uns", which means "god with us". Hitler corresponded with the pope, who gave his blessing to the death camps. Mao and Stalin were personal cults, which actually qualifies as religion. on the other hand, the inquisition has been murdering people for a very long time, and it is still alive and well today. the catholic church never ended the office of inquisition.
you don't have to be dumb to believe in god, but is sure helps.
4me2cclearly 1 year ago
Confucianism and taoism are examples of secular morality. They are better than abrahmic religion. Because they deal with hapiness and personal satisfaction not simply moral rules.
Ramshobraja 2 years ago
I apologize if the last comments seem confrontational, it was not meant to be, I am truly just curious in understanding your point of view.
How it is you differentiate between for example
A wolf classifying individual clan members in terms of social hierarchy.
Or wether it is simply following some chemical instinct inbedded in its brain and not at all a form of intelligence.
On what basis do you make that distinction?
repivz00 2 years ago
And one more question if I may? :)
Earlier I pointed out that other traits such as learning, basic reasoning and even planning (among wolves to take down prey) are indeed present in animals. I would also like to add communication between these animals.
If this is not attributed to some form of intelligence what is it then that would explain such behavior?
repivz00 2 years ago
To your last question;
Those are all properly explained by the brain.
standinstann 2 years ago
This post will be somewhat off topic just trying to save face a bit =P
I just looked up the definitions of Intellect and Intelligence on online dictionaries and they tend to vary a bit but many seem to give similar definitions
Intellect : The ability to learn and reason; the capacity for knowledge and understanding.
Intelligence : The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge. The faculty of thought and reason.
So my statements may have not been far off, but lets not debate linguistics lol
repivz00 2 years ago
So what this video tells me is that, in theory if one did not care about the survival of the species he could kill trillions of people and it still wouldn't matter.
Radiodragonofdoom 2 years ago
Absolute atheist morals are immoral in their absoluteness. Murder is almost always wrong (99.99999% of the time) but if we want to be balanced we should always have doubt. If a virus is spreading and you can save 1,000,000 people by killing the carrier then murder could be morally sound. This decision should not be taken lightly but if you are unable to make it you have weakness in your morals. Be adaptable and don't take things to an absolute extreme.
2Jax 2 years ago 5
If the objective (and universal) moral good is the survival of our species as a whole (not as individuals), this is the same as saying that we ought to prescribe laws in the interest of meeting that goal.
Anyone who takes this position is obligated to regard, not just actions that effect others, but actions that effect others, but actions that effect individuals that may hinder this universal good. (con't)
standinstann 2 years ago
Under this model we are obliged to regard as immoral, not only actions that effect the net survival of the species such as murder; but also actions that effect the individuals ability to pass on their genes such as contraceptives, cigarettes, contact sports, etc. (con't)
standinstann 2 years ago
We are likewise obligated to not regard actions that have no effect one way or the other on the survival of the species as a whole as immoral such as slavery or racism. (so long as other races are simply considered inferior, not worthy of violence or death.) (con't)
standinstann 2 years ago
Under this model slave labor may not be considered immoral so long as the slaves are allowed to reproduce. Likewise, what we normally call rape must be viewed as a moral good, as it allows for the highest possible transmission of our genes, and the highest possibility for those genes to perpetuate them selves. (con't)
standinstann 2 years ago
You are right to say that we don't derive our morality from religion (we don't). But stating that the perpetuation of our species is a universal and objective good is equally wrong, and just as appalling.
standinstann 2 years ago
Just my thoughts on the matter, this is inconsistency probably the result of our evolved intelligence
Back in the days where man was primal, such barbaric methods like survival of the fittest and relentless procreation were probably practical back then, as we consider it practical in animal behavior today
But now advent of innovations, technology and civilization. We've struck a paradigm shift where physical perfection is no longer of paramount importance (con't)
repivz00 2 years ago
We have started to become victims of our own success by disrupting the natural balance of the world
I theorize that we evolved intelligence not only to make our species more successful but also to better cope with the consequences
To preserve our society and success of our own species it becomes necessary to slow down the birth rate to avoid overpopulation, contrary to our primal instincts, as well as encourage free flow of ideas for our intellectual evolution and maintain order in our society
repivz00 2 years ago
To sum it up I think we are still attempting to do what is best for our species, and by evolving intelligence we have begun to suppress some of our primal instincts that have become obsolete in achieving our goals.
repivz00 2 years ago
That is a verry odd statement. If the intellect is the result of evolution (which I don't think it is) then it did not evolve "in order to do" anything.
Secondly; as man is the only intellectual animal; I'm not sure that we can draw parallels between the function of the intellect, and the function of any other behavior in brute animal society
standinstann 2 years ago
The human brain was a result of evolution, and it is what gives us our ability of higher intellect. Hence people who suffer brain damage lose some of their mental ability.
Animals do have different levels on intelligence, some Chimpanzees in the wild for example have learned to use and create simple tools like sharp rocks by breaking them against each other.
This knowledge is passed from the parent to the child by teaching, in much the same way early man did.
repivz00 2 years ago
the word intellect and intelligence are not the same; The intellect refers to the ability to comprehend universal concepts; an ability that only man possesses.
standinstann 2 years ago
Sorry I guess I should brush up on some of the technical definitions if I got it wrong.
Nonetheless regarding Chimpanzees their use of tools and then teaching this to their young, it does suggest that they have the ability to comprehend the concept of tool making and its usefulness.
repivz00 2 years ago
We're now off topic, but that's okay because I think we'll both find this one interesting.
Chimpanzees 'make' tools, only human beings fasion them. The reason for that (to the best of our knowledge at present) it that non human animals are limited to that which they can percieve.
The intellect is the ability to form universal concepts.
A universal is (for exmple) Car, Boat, Boy, Dog. words which reffer to 'any' car, 'any' boat, 'any' boy, 'any' dog.
(con't)
standinstann 2 years ago
(con't)
To aprehend a certain class or kind of thingm, and what each thing is like (quotations on the following critical point) "Even when there is no perceptual example to be had".
To the best of our current knowledge; man is the only animal capable of doing this.
Now; this intellectual power (I think) is not a function of the brain; that is, I think that the brain is a 'necessary' but not 'sufficient' condition for conceptual thought. (con't)
standinstann 2 years ago
(con't)
The reason I think that is because we take in the world through our senses; and there are ONLY particulars in the world (this tree or that, this branch or that).
If there are only particulars in the world, then there are only particulars in the brain.
If there are only particulars in the brain, then the brain can not be responsible for apprehending universals.
(fin)
standinstann 2 years ago
Regarding the Chimps, its safe to say they understand that all rocks (of that particular type that's breakable) can be made into a useful tool
Another example can be Wolves hunting in packs they're coordinated cooperation and strategy in taking down large prey has many parallels with early humans teamwork in taking down large game
To suggest that such parallels are mere coincidence and not driven by a common intelligence seems somewhat of a stretch
repivz00 2 years ago
As for universal concepts without direct examples, some animals learn to identify specific coloration in certain species of frogs or insects that warn of toxicity
They in turn become cautious when encountering other animals of similar appearance even if it hasn't been tasted yet, hence some animals have developed the same coloration as defensive mechanisms
I urge you to look up the social brain hypothesis by Robin Dunbar it may be more detailed than what I can provide here on youtube
repivz00 2 years ago
The reaction to certain colors in nature is instinctive, not intellectual. We have the same kinds of reactions to certain immages, sounds, smells, etc.
To the degree than animals remember certain colored frogs and avoid them, this is certainly the case; what the animal does not comprrehend is the certain class or kind of thing that is "frogs". they comprehend only that (when perceputally present) they ought to be avoided.,
standinstann 2 years ago
There's really no way to really dive into the brain of animals or ask them to find out whether or not they classify other species they encounter, so I won't bother trying to debate that point lol
Here's what we do know though
Intelligence : The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge. The faculty of thought and reason.
The animal sees a species of frog and through experience learns that it is poisonous.
It recalls that knowledge in future encounters and understands enough not to eat it
repivz00 2 years ago
Its far from our level of intelligence nonetheless the basics are there, and they get more complex and advanced in mammals that exist in social groups.
repivz00 2 years ago
Well further browsing I found this :
Intelligence is an umbrella term used to describe a property of the mind that encompasses many related abilities, such as the capacities to reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn. There are several ways to define intelligence. However there is no agreement on which traits define the phenomenon of intelligence agreed upon by a majority across the various concerned disciplines.
repivz00 2 years ago
So perhaps classification, in depth comprehension and analysis are levels of intelligence that have not yet evolved in most earlier species.
Still many of the other traits such as learning, basic reasoning and even planning (among wolves to take down prey) are indeed present in animals.
They probably just haven't developed the brain capacity to reach our level.
repivz00 2 years ago
I don't see any reason to make that assumption given the current state of scientific knowledge.
the human intellect is contrary to what the brain does; IE: the apprehention of universals.
The aprehention of such is not a step up from the grat apes, it is radically different from every other animal on the planet,
You're not wrong to say that it may be the brain its self; it may be; but so far I have seen nothing to demonstrate that that is the case, and evidence to the contrary.
standinstann 2 years ago
I draw my conclusions from the fact that the brain facilitates thinking and that damaging it can affect ones level of intelligence, memories or even ability to form coherent thought.
Granted we do not yet fully understand how the brain functions. So I am lacking in evidence to make the direct assertion that this is the case.
On the other hand I am curious as to what evidence is it you see, that contradicts that it is the brain responsible for intelligence.
repivz00 2 years ago
I didn't say that the brain wasn't responsible for intelligence; it surely is. I said that it is not a sufficient condition for 'intellectual' thought: IE The ability to aprehend universal concepts.
The evidence that I see that contradicts the notion that the brain its self is sufficient for intellectual though it that everything we pwecieve with our senses is particular; and thuss everything in the brain is particular. (con't)
standinstann 2 years ago
You and I (for example) can not imagine trinangle as such, unless it is of some shape size and color; in order to 'think' triangle we are not using an organ that opperates from sensory particulars.
standinstann 2 years ago
I'm sorry I'm having trouble understanding your point of view, there appears to be a leap in your logic and I do not see how you make the direct connection to reality.
From my understanding particulars seem to be the basis of your evidence, however particulars in this instance is philosophical.
Do you have any evidence to support your conclusions that is concrete and not abstract?
repivz00 2 years ago
I don't know what you mean by particulars being philosophical; and I don't know what you mean by "concrete" as opposed to "abstract" evidence.
Human beings are in fact (to the best of our knowledge) the only conceptual animals; and our concepts are in fact universal in character; which is contrary to what the brain opperates from.
standinstann 2 years ago
An abstract is something which does not exist at any particular time or place, but rather exists as a type of thing (in this case as an idea)
This is opposed to something concrete which exists and is measurable
You emphasize that animals cannot classify things or think beyond that which they can perceive, yet I have yet to see any concrete evidence to suggest this is so
Short of diving into their brains and direct communication both of w/c are not possible, how did you come to that conclusion
repivz00 2 years ago
If you recall earlier, I bumped into a similar wall, when I was arguing that the brain was responsible for intelligence, but eventually had to concede that I could not bring up any concrete evidence of brain mechanics that would lead to our individual thoughts so my point was half proven at best
You stated however that you had evidence that contradicted my idea, but so far it seems that your ideas are even more speculative (pure theoretical reason) than mine was
repivz00 2 years ago
I provided documented animal social behavior that exhibited parallels with human intelligence. Such as in Wolves from which I drew upon my ideas.
You then reason on what goes on inside their brains lacks the ability to classify and think beyond perception, but I don't see from what concrete evidence you draw upon this conclusion
Even at the very least do wolves not classify those of their clan from wolves of another? Or predator from prey? and plan coordination?
If not, how do you prove this?
repivz00 2 years ago
The example you gave does not demonstrate that the behavior of wolves is parallel or comparable to human intellectual endeavors.
Again, there is absolutly no evidence that animals are intellectual; to put it another way, Man is the only ANTI-intellectual animal; there is no evidence that dolphins are anti-intellectual or that wolves, pigs or horses are either.
(con't)
standinstann 2 years ago
Wolves do not classify anything; their pack behavior, and discrimination between their group and others is entirely instinctive.
The distinction being made here is not being made by me; there isn't a single biologist that argues that animals are conceptual; there ARE those who argue that we arent either, but not the former.
standinstann 2 years ago
there isn't a single biologist that argues that animals are conceptual is a double edged argument
There are many biologists who argue animals are intelligent
As far as I can tell you define intelligence by the ability to conceptualize, yet I have not seen any definition of intelligence, in commonly found dictionaries that consider it a prerequisite to intelligence.
Intelligence is generally defined as ones ability to learn and apply what is learned
repivz00 2 years ago
Or at least a reference to a known biologist who puts his theory on the table that these social animals cannot conceptualize?
repivz00 2 years ago
that animals do not conceptualize is not a theory. Animals in fact have never been seen to conceptualize. there is no evidence that they do; and there is evidence that they don't (IE; ANTI-intellectualism has never been observed in animal behavior)
standinstann 2 years ago
Well unless we've developed some manner of ESP it doesn't surprise me that we have never seen animals conceptualize thoughts in their heads
I speculate from similarities between human and animal behavior that they "might" have that ability
And while I admit my speculation may be refutable, your counter-argument appears to have even less basis than my proposal
I don't fully understand your reference to anti-intellectualism, but it appears to once again be an abstract concept
repivz00 2 years ago
"and there is evidence that they don't (IE; ANTI-intellectualism has never been observed in animal behavior) "
My problem with this explanation is that it claims evidence based on the lack of observation of that which is unobservable.
Unless there is indeed a way to see what goes on within brain directly to its thoughts, and if this was possible we would have likely been able to conclude the origins of human intelligence without side tracking to wether or not it was a result of evolution
repivz00 2 years ago
I already conceded that I cannot directly assert that animals are intellectual, my conclusions are speculation based on circumstantial evidence at best.
However you don't even seem to have any evidence. That no biologist has said animals can conceptualize, doesn't mean they don't think they do or have any proof that they don't.
Do you have a reference to a study that shows animals cannot conceptualize? Simply saying that no biologist has brought it up doesn't mean much.
repivz00 2 years ago
From what I understand of particulars that statement is incorrect.
Redness, for example, is not a particular, because it is abstract and multiply-instantiated (my bicycle, this apple, and that woman's hair are all red). And color is indeed something that our sense can perceive.
repivz00 2 years ago
We do percieve colors; we do not percieve "redNESS" as such. We can 'think' redness, but we can not imagine or percieve it.
For another example, you and I can not imagine a triangle unless it is of some shape size and color, but we can THINK triangle (or Triangularity) without it being of any shape size or color. Animals can not do the latter, and nor (I think) can the brain.
standinstann 2 years ago
This video is laughable. It does NOTHING to prove that objective morals exist in an atheistic worldview. What a load of bullshit!
awesomewelles90 2 years ago
Absolute objective atheistic moral standards don't exist.
jnwaco 2 years ago 8
Leave the good morals for the Catholics.
This isn't in God's salvation plan.
vrghiks 2 years ago
Good Atheists go to hell and burn for eternity and BAD Christians go to heaven,
Religion impedes one's ability to empathize and without empathy morality exists only by threat, Christianity provides that threat.
A dog that doesn't bite, only because it will get beaten, is not a good dog.
Does this mean that Christianity has a lot of bad dogs.
Atheists are good for the sake of being good. Doen't that make them better?
AntEyeTheist 2 years ago 3
The Golden Rule is biblical.
Mathew 7:12: "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." (Jesus)
Amazing that through science, you came to the same conclusion that Jesus was preaching then. There are a lot more amazing connections that I would be willing to share between Science and Christianity.
closertograce 2 years ago
and what is odd is that we have an extreme need that there be an objective purpose, that our reasons for behaving morally extend to something other than survival
IveBeenBrainwashed 2 years ago
Poor argument. Please don't draw illogical conclusions and present as fact.
evil6twin 2 years ago
He's explained why we naturally have morals. I've heard this before.
I'd like to hear more discussion about why we should continue to be moral, though.
It seems like it all leads down to opinions, like the one that our species should be continued, becuase we feel like it should, and for no further reason.
If physical reality is all which exists, there are no objective moral values. We have selfish reasons to behave morally, but don't claim that they're objectively good when they're not.
IveBeenBrainwashed 2 years ago
You're right, there no objective reasons to be moral. I am good to people around me because I want others to treat me right and because it feels too. I don't need more reason than that.
tubetib 2 years ago 3
That's fine but doesn't it bother you that you cannot say that rape is (objectively) wrong?
awesomewelles90 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Question: Why is the kettle boiling?
Atheist answer: Because the water's been heated to 100 degrees centigrade resulting in a change in state from liquid to gas.
Christian answer: Because I want to have some tea.
For more about how Atheists and Christians interpret evidence very differently, check out my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
You made an unsupported jump in your reasoning, that from individual genes desiring to propogate, and a necessity for us to support our whole species.
Indeed, in nature, we see the opposite. A creature does not behave for the good of all like creatures, but for the reproduction with a chosen mate of its own genes, or at best, the survival of its tribe or herd. No deer acts in any way for the good of *all deer*.
It is not at all clear why I shouldn't kill a man to mate with his female.
NihilNominis 2 years ago
Indeed, the reasoning in this whole film was sporatically consistent. It would wax clear for a time, then JUMP to a non sequitur, and then proceed reasonably from there.
For instance, the final attack on religious morality, ending with a photo of the bible, seemed absurd to me, for the Golden Rule was (half) of the reduction of the whole Old Law given by Christ, and contains in itself what at least Christians believe to be the sum of religious morals.
You champion this and decry them? ?!
NihilNominis 2 years ago
While it illustrates very well the idea of a poor jump in reasoning, the "and" in the first sentence of my first post should read as "to". This should clear matters up.
NihilNominis 2 years ago
Also, I should be of a mind to say that you've pretty much made homosexuality immoral in your little scheme, as, if the basis for my morality is to be propogation of my genes, I should use my reproductive organs to their fullest reproductive potential.
NihilNominis 2 years ago
Some atheists have done their homework, gone through the intellectual arguments for and against the existence of God, and arrived at a thoughtful atheistic position but many have no real understanding of what Christianity is.
For anyone who wants to learn more about the other side of the debate, my channel has some info that you might find interesting.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Abortion, euthanasia, single parent families, materialism..... some great contributions from the secualr humanists.
jdcremin 2 years ago
you forgot about all medical and scientfic acheivment they come from a secular source to.
TrueMetis 2 years ago
I completely disagree that morals are innate and I disagree that morals come only from modern religion. There was a revolutionary idea that came from Jesus (the man) that completely changed the moral paradigm. Ask yourself why wars of conquest are considered immoral - when did this idea start? If anything, natural selection favors immorality - promiscuity, rape, violence- this produces offspring - the basis of evolution. Most morals are the result of man DENYING his animal instincts,
jdcremin 2 years ago
in species that live in groups/societies (humans for example), groups that don't kill/steal from/do bad things to each other, and instead help each other, are more likely to survive and pass on their genetics to a new generation that will do the same. this trend will continue until it reaches a point where the vast majority of the members of that species tend to help each other instead of hurting each other (there will always be exceptions though murderers etc.). this is obvious.
hakesho 2 years ago
"until it reaches a point where the vast majority of the members of that species tend to help each other instead of hurting "
until - implying we're not there yet.
Right, we haven't reached that level of evolution. Therefor, we have created morals through reason (and God) - that is not evolution and you admit so much in your argument.
jdcremin 2 years ago
um, no... thats not what until means.
there are other problems with your argument but i'm too lazy/don't care enough to point them all out.
hakesho 2 years ago
Weak
jdcremin 2 years ago
thats not what until means either, try again.
hakesho 2 years ago
Who is has the most moral conviction, the athiest that does good things because they are good. Or the Religious person that only does good because they are frightened of being punished by a god. Quiet please if you think being bullied into doing good is somehow more morally correct.
mattyabsley 2 years ago 7
Atheists DO have morals, its called the LAW.
CoolKidX85 2 years ago
Atheists DO have morals, its called the LAW. - Not really, morals and laws are two different things. For example laws can still be immoral, or event subjectively immoral. For example, in law, it gave white men the right to own slaves. Is that morally correct? No. Sorry.
mattyabsley 2 years ago
I suppose back then it was "morally correct". But morality changes as the social paradigm shifts.
SistemaKaoso 2 years ago
Is it morally correct to stone children for cursing their parents?
Penguinz13989 2 years ago
the bible was in favor of slavery actually.
darkhumanoid 2 years ago 7
@darkhumanoid omg, actual retards.. show me were ? please show me IN the bibal were is it writen.. fucking atheists
cooleb 1 year ago
@cooleb lol, You ignorant bastard. read the fucking bible prick.
darkhumanoid 1 year ago
@cooleb Leviticus 25:44-46 (New International Version) 44 " 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
darkhumanoid 1 year ago
@cooleb Exodus 21:2-6 (New International Version) 2 "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.
darkhumanoid 1 year ago
@cooleb Exodus 21:7-11 (New International Version)
"If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, [a] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter.
darkhumanoid 1 year ago
@cooleb Exodus 21:20-21 (New International Version) 20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
darkhumanoid 1 year ago
@cooleb Ephesians 6:5 (New International Version) 5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
darkhumanoid 1 year ago
@darkhumanoid Slavery thousands of years ago was different. People would often sell themselves into slavery. The Bible does not condemn slavery, nor does it promote it, but it says how to treat your slaves. BTW most slaves were freed after 6 years of service. Most were also prisoners of war. Also, don't read the king johns version of The Bible. That is a shitty version.
keinaan12345 1 year ago
@keinaan12345 The bible is written by mortal men in a vera old era, that's why the book can be very confusing and foreign to the modern western man, because the morality and society has changed, realise.
Imhornydadcomeinside 1 year ago
1 Timothy 6:1-2 (New International Version) 1All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered. 2Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are the things you are to teach and urge on them.
darkhumanoid 1 year ago
@cooleb Now.. A christian who has never read the bibie = an actual retard
darkhumanoid 1 year ago
@darkhumanoid
Now...an atheist who has never read The God Delusion or The Atheist Bible. an actual uninformed atheist!
compsciguy 11 months ago
@compsciguy The God Delusion is a very poorly argued book. Dawkins is a biologist, not a philosopher; he doesn't know how to write or argue philosophy. Philosophy relies heavily on logic. So, I do not believe someone is uninformed if they haven't read a bad book by a narcissistic man that argues like "No! You're wrong!" instead of arguing why they're wrong.
jimmray 9 months ago
Great video.
Fear is not a valid basis for goodness christians if anything less moral on hte basis that thay supposedly only act i a moral way because they fear god.
Whats nobel in that?!
If you externalize you moral sense into god then you also allow yourself loopholes like confession.
we atheists are judged by ourself and can only turn to ourselves and those we hur for forgivness.
God is not there to bail us out.
so no easy short cuts.
ZerqTM 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God is the creator of Morality not Mankind. If you want take a look at my video Morality without God.
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
Your video is full of fallacies.
dbes02 2 years ago
I consider myself an atheist, and my religion teacher often (Catholic school) hints that atheists are evil. IThough I have note expressed my views to him, I still find it insulting when he insinuates that I'm a terrible pereson and can't be good, that I'm ignorant, and atheism causes most of the world's problems. This cheered me up. I don't like the moral codes in religions because they don't inspire actaully goodness, only the fear of God or antoher's wrath. Great video, thanks for making it.
bowser10144 2 years ago 3
I agree. I think it is much more moral to be good because you want to be, rather than through fear of punishment in Hell etc.
e.g. if you asked someone "Why don't you murder people?" i would much rather that thtey said "because it would be immoral, cause grief, and take life from a human being" rather than "because the bible said not to."
samwelln 2 years ago 4
Bowser, religionists use their morals to judge their religion, not the other way around. This is why Christians ignore all the nasty bits in the Bible. If they were using the Bible for their morality, they would still be stoning people to death. The fact that they aren't illustrates that morality is independent of religion. The need for the religious to make lies to prop up their own beliefs is one of many reasons why their beliefs are false.
seathanaich 2 years ago
Comment removed
JonahTorn 2 years ago
Atheism and agnostism are stupid and pointless labels. Why does not jumping to ridiculous conclusions about about things we dont undersand yet deserve a label? its neutral and natural, its how you are born before some morons rape your birth rights and turn you into a littlle christian, muslim or jew.
fluentinsound 2 years ago
why wont everyone just have the courage to admit to themselves despite their peer pressure that religion has nothing necessarily to do with belief in 'god', but is in fact that blank knowledge, expolited by bastards so they can blackmail people into evil systematic worship and dogma, blackmailing them to worship their own characterisation of god (their own psyche), becuase it makes them powerful though other peoples trauma. its psychological abuse, and the contaminated will help to mask it.
fluentinsound 2 years ago
Its a device for people to abuse others and has been directily or indirectly responsible for the vast majority of bloodshed in homosapian history. they get theyre views on the outer limits of human knowledge like they get their coffee from starbucks. they cant be bothered to think for themselves so they whore themselves out to the system
fluentinsound 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If it wasn't religion it would be wars for conquest - you really think religious wars have killed more people than non-religious? I doubt it. WW2 killed 60 million - not religious. Do you have some evidence?
jdcremin 2 years ago
And what a wonderful moral example the god Yahweh sets. Like when he wiped out the whole human race during the time of Noah? Not to mention the many times he committed or commanded genocide. What about all the natural disasters, pestilence, stoning, burning, torture, slavery he commanded. And lets not forget god's celestial ovens (what a wonderful act of love) to roast billions of people eternally for believing the wrong religion. It's all reliably there in the bible for you to read.
sweetsweatyfeet 2 years ago 2
That's a real nice list of bible myths; do you have anything that actually happened? Like maybe Stalin's genocide of 7 million? Anything?
jdcremin 2 years ago
I defer to your superior knowledge of the bible good sir. What was I thinking? Of course; god never killed off the human race during the time Noah, just animals right? Nor did she command Joshua to destroy city upon city. And I must have been dreaming when I read in Revelations that god will violently slaughter all the earth's non-christian population and then send them to his ovens.
And thank you for setting the record straight about Stalin's genocide. I'm sure his atheism was the reason.
sweetsweatyfeet 2 years ago 3