That was worth watching all the way through. That comparison to the aluminum ruler in the last minute was priceless, and I will be sure to use that myself.
It's amazing; I understand every point and every word you say in your videos, but I have to keep pausing for the information overload to sink in. If I made videos like this I'd need to either memorize my lines or use a teleprompter (though I admit I probably wouldn't think of half of your rebuttals).
You sir, are my 12 inch standard for what I aspire to be as an atheist who cares about truth and wants to fight against enemies of reason. Thank you for existing. :)
Try dealing with patients dying from Terminal Illnesses for over 30 years, and then come back and post your response. Even though their religious beliefs have no bearing on my life, it obviously has bearing in their lives. Should I as a practitioner try to take that away from them? As John Lennon said, "Whatever gets you through the night, is alright." You're like the Westboro Baptist Church of Atheism. Show up at a funeral with a sign "God is Bullshit" see how that goes over for you.
You're no great sage. Your videos, within themselves are filled with random crap that has nothing to do with anything. I'm not sure who appointed you as the Chairperson of the Atheist Marketing Organization, but whomever it was made a poor selection. You live your life. I live mine. Others live theirs. Live and Let Live is a universal value that should be embraced by everyone. You trying to convince people otherwise only serves to make you look the fool.
@DrThanatology "Live and Let Live is a universal value that should be embraced by everyone." maybe it would be a good idea o watch the vidoe before commenting on it?
P.S. you have no idea what Buddhism or tolerance even are. dumbass
@DrThanatology Live and let live is right but when children around the world are being lied to by dirty old virgins who also rape them we have a serious problem. Let's say live and let live unless the other person is doing something evil then fucking gut the bastards. watch some of the jesus camp videos!!!
Dude. The 'Theoretical' needs to be left out of your YouTube Channel name. It is strictly Bullshit. You ramble words that have no real validity in any argument you make, but it seems that you think since you can continue to ramble over and over makes it somehow credible. It doesn't. I'm a Buddhist, Buddhism is a philosophy not a religion. Personally, I may disagree with many formal religions, or atheists, but I believe in Tolerance. Your videos show no tolerance for people that have beliefs
@DrThanatology Buddhism is not a philosophy. Just because many Buddhists were philosophers, it doesn't make Buddhism a philosophy. In all honestly, Christianity has by far the richest history of philosophy and Christianity is not a philosophy. And just because you don't get what TBS is saying, doesn't mean he's not saying anything.
Epydemic might be referring objective hardwiring with such examples as neuropsychological condition such as Hemispatial neglect. Here you will see a person who reports being unable to see or interpret a side of their visual field. They will look at 2 pictures of house and e.g., only see the left half of the house and for some reason prefers the house not on fire in the non-interpreted field. Or the dif. speed of neg. conditioning to rabbits and snakes. All irrelevant to the argument pure.
I hope Ken Corday gives you work next year. It'd be great to see you on my show :) AND your vids are up there with Dennet, Hitchens, and Harris for me. Solid stuff.
Man both of em are hellah smart :D sweet ! but im kinda gotten lost in the mid of the video ( Smart words = me going to that special place MEW Mew + big fluffy kitty = it's so fluffy im gonna die
@creepyoldman2 The judge analogy demonstrates that your morals and the judge's, while different, are still consistent. Even if you have your own set of morals, you do not have any MORAL objection to the judge's ability to administer punishment. As I already showed with the adultery example; it's moral for a man to have sex with his wife, it would be immoral for another man to have sex with her. Here, what is considered moral for each man is different. Do they necessarily follow different morals?
@creepyoldman2 This is the last time I'm running through this for you, at this point you're either trolling or you're just not going to get it. How realistic the game is or is not is irrelevant because the CONCEPT BEING ILLUSTRATED is the infatuation with something that's NOT REAL. It doesn't matter if it's a totally virtual world, if it's a product of our imagination, or if it's a story from a book. The idea is that we give more value to the artificial than to what's real.
I guess I'm a bit confused as to why you could say "God's actions if applied to humans.." when God isn't human. That is of course besides Christ. If you wanted to make a comparison between humans and God, you would necessarily have to use Christ as your example. For the same reason we don't apply "human" morals to animals, you can't apply "God's" morals to humans.
@hughdiock Immoral is immoral, whether you are human or a god. If you kill someone and you are not defending someone, it is wrong. I would think this is an extremely simple concept. I learned it as a child. The god of the bible needs to learn the most basic of moral codes we all were taught as children.
@skywize So when animals kill eachother it is "immoral"? Of course it's not. Why? Because we don't hold them to the same "moral" standards. I would think this is an extrememly simple concept. I learned this as a child.
@hughdiock We don't hold animals to any moral standard at all because they have none, just as a rock has none. Human beings evolved from animals. Our brains evolved. We developed speech and empathy. When someone is hurt, or we hurt them, we can feel that we have done so. This is why, when our tribes grew to societies, we developed laws and punishment. Now we know that hurting someone may come back to bite us back. Animals don't have or require this as they haven't evolved to this stage.
Is abortion immoral? What about the death penalty? Are you trying to argue objective morality and thus arguing FOR the existence of God? Or have you not thought this whole thing through?
@hughdiock There is no objective morality, there is simply logic, pure and simple. How many people have you killed today? People don't go around killing people 'just cus', it doesn't work like that. Although MANY MANY people have been killed for your loving benevolent god. Abortion is not immoral because of the potential life ahead of the fetus. The death penalty is not immoral because it keeps murderers from doing their thing. Plain simple logic. It does not take a genius to understand this.
@hughdiock Sorry, I respond to alot of these things at once... anyway... Prisons are crap. You stick violent scary people in the same building as some fool who gets caught with drugs and the druggie comes out just as much an addict,...and violent and scary. Plus, he's learned some new tricks. The abortion bit, I worded that quite badly, but it's a redundant subject anyway, since people won't agree regardless of science and fact.
yes, every once in a blue moon you get a pointless killing. It happens, but it's rare. People kill for reasons like money, jealousy and self defense. MOST killers are not serial killers. There are very few of those. As for the difference between objective and subjective, it depends on logic, nothing else. It is bad to kill BECAUSE it harms. Bashing your hand with a hammer is bad BECAUSE you will break your bones. Objective morality is not based on 'because' and thus does not exist.
@creepyoldman2 The video game analogy is valid, you're just focusing on peripheral details. I could just as easily use the idea of The Matrix to highlight the same concept. How realistic and vivid the game is or is not is irrelevant. As for the judge example, you're just wrong. What you and the judge are allowed to do isn't different because of some moral inconsistency, it's because you're not a judge. Just like how it's not wrong for you to have sex with your wife, but it is for another man.
@creepyoldman2 Any analogy that you use is going to differ from the real life situation in some way, unless you're using the exact situation in question. Even if you assume that the child has been plugged into the game for their entire life, the main point of the analogy is the same. As for the judge analogy. If you live in the U.S. and you break the law and get caught, regardless of whether or not you totally follow your own moral code, you still suffer the consequences.
@creepyoldman2 Are you forgetting the video? The judge analogy? There's an example right there. If we're talking about the christian god, then yes, we're talking about a god that's supposed to "know best." If you want to debate whether or not he actually does, that's a different discussion. My response to TBS that he missed the point is still valid. If you believe that a judge who's been to law school should be able to administer punishment, why not a theoretically all-knowing, all-loving god?
@creepyoldman2 Again, you're falling right into the example of the child valuing the game too highly. Essentially your argument equates to the child saying that if the parent doesn't care about the game, they don't love the child. In reality, the parent is trying to get the child to focus on more important things. It's not a matter of might at all. If you believe that this life is all there is, thus should be valued, then god would be considered immoral. But you wouldn't believe in god anyway.
@creepyoldman2 That first part of your statement is pretty close to what I've been saying. TBS is trying to demonstrate that an omni-benevolent could not exist by showing evidence that the one in the bible doesn't value human life. What I'm saying is that if there is a god, he wouldn't need to value our lives on earth to be moral. As for feeling guilty, there are times when it's appropriate for a person to feel like they've done something wrong.
@creepyoldman2 It's not that we are a video game to god. It's the possibility that we think too highly of ourselves and our lives. Like a child acting as if video games are real life. Besides, if there was a god that had created the whole universe, controlling events infinitely small and large, what would make you think he would be obligated to think so highly of us? Our refusal to believe in him would be like a single cell of mold refusing to believe in the piece of fruit it was growing on.
I just figured out what celebrity you look like, Ryan Reynolds. I know that dosen't have anything to do with what your talking about but that's been erking me ever since I first started watching your video.
@creepyoldman2 And by the way, believing in an afterlife does not require that you presuppose one. The bible presents the idea of an afterlife, the reader can choose whether or not to believe it.
@creepyoldman2 That's the idea, you have to be ok with the fact that your life on earth isn't all that important. Think about it this way, you're a parent and your kid is playing video games instead of cleaning his room as instructed. You unplug the game and tell him to clean his room. He freaks out as he doesn't see why he should have to clean his room and you've just KILLED his game character. Is the parent cruel because they don't value the video game character as much as the actual room?
TBS missed the point of the judge analogy. Do you believe that a judge who has gone through law school and a career as a lawyer, has the right to sentence people to incarceration or execution? If that idea does not strike you as immoral, then the Christian God can decide to distribute punishment upon people and still be entirely moral. Also just because humans inherently value human life, doesn't mean that's what god values. If theres something better after this life, then it can still be moral.
@travesham Um... no. and BTW none of that makes their decisions moral or immoral, their decision is simply an amoral *application* (as in the practice) of common law, the consequences of which may be moral or immoral. And in reality are moral in some cases, and unfortunately immoral in many others, consequences of which the judge despite being guilty of never suffers, right or wrong that simple is the up and downside for being any type of leader, but/b/c his mistakes *are* burdened by society.
@jackalsocoke The analogy illustrates a difference in values. Just because the parent does not value the video game character as much as the child, does not mean that the parent is less moral than the child. The idea is that the child doesn't understand that there are more important things than the game. Just like how we, as humans, do not understand that there are more important things than our individual lives. Therefore God, as the parent, could still be moral and not value human life.
A really important book to consider in all theological debates is a book by Julian Jaynes called "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind". A well researched book documenting the development of introspection in humans with the decline of a god's authority in out actions. The heard voices of a God are not supernatural but just an evolutionary hangover from our previous selves as purely instinctive automatons in which a voice is literally heard in the brain.
This will sound totally stupid but I was flipping through chanels, and saw you on the bold and the beautiful and you were a software/computer guy??? Are you an actor??? Sorry I don't watch TV that much, like 2 hours a week maybe. I totally flip out and told my family I subscribe to your chanel. Sorry I didn't watch the whole show on TV cause I had to go to class that night :(
"it doesn't say maul and killed, just mauled." OH, well nevermind then. nothing wrong with kids being mauled by bears for calling someone names. Christianity is evil.
I would also point out that what is "necessary" is also subjective. There are still cultures that practice sacrifice, they view it as necessary to their lives, we do not. Even within Western Culture there are groups which find "disrespect" grounds for killing, necessarily.
Hey Scott. Appreciate ya. About the Bear story. I think a deeper reading is necessary because there are principles not directly mentioned here, and one that is NOT. The account does NOT say that God sent the bears (which perceived a threat BTW). What this account speaks to is the fact that ISRAELI parents were NOT bringing up children in the way they should go (corrupted theocracy). These little half-pagans were full of contempt (that they got from who, do you suppose)? See also Neh 13:22-31
I sure hope your view is in the minority. If not, we may be in deep doodoo!
I thought TBS's dismantling of Epydemic2020's argument was no less than brilliant.
At the same time, I can't help seeing Epydemic2020's version of "42 children and the 2 bears" story, as being a bit disingenuous, at the very least!
Three years ago when I 1st studied this story, I looked up the words in my Interlinear Hebrew bible and found the same thing TBS did (kids). So why didn't Epydemic2020?
@ThePrimordialAtom Despite the rather circumlocutious way in which he makes his point, he is still correct to say, in short, that we don't have objective values. Nothing has its own intrinsic value. We each place our own unique values on things, thus making values inherently subjective.
@ivasenko48 Couldn't agree with you more. He does arrive at his points in a circumlocutory manner, but I enjoy his videos I enjoy his incredible articulation, and his intelligence. So, if he comes about in circumlocutory manner, it is still interesting.
Good video. I didn't see your other vids about morality so I may have missed something about your position, but still a question:
1. Would you say that your take on morality has a solipsistic tone to it?
2. Agree or disagree. The constitution of the U.S.A. is based on the assumption that there are objective moral values. If there aren't any objective moral values what would be the reason for thinking of such a concept in the first place? Human weakness, power of few or something else?
@BoteAMVCreator As for 1. I don't believe he is, or that it comes close to qualifying, as, correct me if I am wrong, he's not contending that there are no objective facts, just no objective values, that value inherently is a term which requires a valuer is a condition that exists empirically in a purely subjective state.
2. No, nor does *natural right* actually come from, or depend on, metaphysical supreme beings, simply, just the state in which things exists. Most of the founders were deist.
Deist tended to trend towards the thought that we were created by a God that either didn't care at all about us, mostly this was the case, or one that was 'immature,' 'stupid,' or even 'evil.' It's later that you find more and more theistic proponents pushing for a re-visioning of natural right into 'God' (as in a Christian God bestowed upon us the *ought, not the *condition of existing in a nature that functioned in that favor, huge huge difference) they've purposely confuse them.
Seems like epydemic is a presuppositionalist theist. Don't fall for that trap...and that's all it is: a trap. Oy...just know that atheism and moral realism are entirely consistent.
I do NOT understand why this channel has not been given more respect and notoriety within the powerful circles of academia or rationalists.
The only plausible theory I see is the insecurity of the "geeky gatekeepers" of academia feeling threatened by the "cute" and "popular guy" speaking and representing truth better than they ever could.
Perhaps, it's simply their insecurities that prevent them from seriously listening to or mentally engaging the objective value of his videos.
@InternalCompass I doubt everything you just said. I do think it's hilarious that a layman has such a grasp of heavy intellectual subjects, though. TBS definitely supports my argument for education reform.
@Sabohaque You can "doubt" all you want, but I invite you and your "heavyweight" superior judgment to provide the rest of us "lightweights" a better example of a multimedia spokesperson that can better BRIDGE the gap between the ivory tower academics and the unwashed "laymen".
@InternalCompass Oh, so when you quote "heavyweight" and "lightweight," you're dintinguishing that... those are your words? Even though you also used quotes to represent what I said. Sorry dude, but I don't see how that's clear communication. Then again, I never went to asshole school, I had to settle with public education. And the fact that all you saw when you looked at my channel was sog's subscription to me shows "clearly" how much of a presumptuous cock you are.
@Sabohaque Ouch...Your reply was a bit harsh but 100% worth it, because that was f'ing hilarious. I have to give credit where credit is due even if I'm the target. The sog thing was my poor attempt at humor after 1 too many beers.
I hope we can agree that the world would be a better place if TBS's channel had greater exposure. And for the record, I only attended "asshole school" senior year and my "presumptuous cock'ness" is intermittent at best.
Cultural Ethical Relativism does not work..No killing your daughter is murder anywhere...We can not say that it is right for them but not for us because human life is valuable and killing people is not acceptable especially if they didnt do anything...
@Godshoulddie Conceding there are objective moral values does not mean you become a theist either. Many atheists attempt to ground morality in something else other than God, but that's a debate for another time.
And one more thing...you're a better insulter than debater.
@Godshoulddie to be true, it requires an objectively true axiom of morality is relative. And around we go...
And it's not in your best interest as an atheist to even subscribe to this sophomoric ideology. If moral relativism is true, then that Problem of Evil you guys love is totally null and void and also you could never have a legitimate reason to be angry with "dishonest Creationist tactics."
And lastly, no one is an actual subjectivist. Everyone has called something objectively wrong.
@Godshoulddie that mean murder and rape aren't objectively wrong even if there are people who do it and feel totally justified do so? Of course not. The same applies with your rebuttal. Even if people disagree on an issue, morality is not automatically subjective. It's a logical fallacy. You're equating descriptive behavior with a prescriptive enterprise. In other words, you're trying to weigh something with a yard stick.
Moreover, moral subjectivism is logically incoherent. For it to be
@Godshoulddie Then let me clarify. Your definition of torture seems to be incredibly broad. Things like circumcision or even braces are torture even if they're done for medical reasons. I'm arguing that ritualistically cutting off body parts by definition is not torture. Remember, I said for fun.
But for the sake of charity, even if I conceded that Islam/Ashura and ritualistically self-mutilation was torture, that by no means makes morality subjective. People rape and murder all the time. Does
The individual I posted that comment to did not attempt to eliminate possible intentions God could have had (instead just conceded them) and did not make the case that God's intentions "seems perfectly evident from scripture". He was indeed making an argument from ignorance by claiming ignorance of God's intentions and still concluding God was malevolent.
@Epydemic2020 Okay, that's fine. I was just covering my bases and anticipating your response. If you do maintain that God's intention can be known from scripture, then you should agree that it's fairly obvious God sent the bears as punishment. (I don't see how this is terribly controversial in the first place, unless someone were arguing ad hoc so as to save their view from falsification.)
@Epydemic2020 "He was indeed making an argument from ignorance by claiming ignorance of God's intentions and still concluding God was malevolent."
Well, the thing is, we are always fundamentally ignorant of other agent's intentions and still consider it unproblematic to attribute malevolence to them if their actions seem to indicate this. The problem with your view is that any action could be performed for some greater good. You don't even bat an eye at the murder of 42 children.
@Epydemic2020 There's a great parody of your position floating around on the net where you're presented with a situation where you see a man wielding a knife attacking a little schoolgirl and you're supposed to select one of several actions. One of which is "Doing nothing, because God works in mysterious ways and it's best not to interfere".
That's where you end up. No observation you make could be ruled out to be in the class of divinely commanded paths to greater goods.
Can you clarify one bit from 6:02-6:12 for me. You talk about how I will hold a contradictory position with you on say, the objective value of human life.
Didn't you say that you failed to recognize any objective value at all? It doesn't seem to me to be the case that you recognize contradictory obj values to me.. but rather that you simply don't see recognize anything at all.
@Epydemic2020 The point is that I would make a mutually exclusive claim about the objectivity of certain values. You claim to "know" a priori that human life is objectively valuable (for example), and I would claim to know a priori that human life is *not* objectively valuable.
But that's just one example. Others might affirm the objective value of certain qualities or things that you wouldn't. A Wiccan could claim to know, a priori, that trees are intrinsically valuable. Who's right?
Would you really argue that a Wiccan might claim trees are valuable a priori? Why would it have to be a Wiccan in particular? If the beliefs are in any way related to being Wiccan then its a posteriori.
@Epydemic2020 No I wouldn't argue that. It's just a hypothetical example. I don't know what Wiccans believe, other than that they have a profound respect for nature. It could easily be the case, however, that someone is a Wiccan precisely BECAUSE they "recognize" intrinsic value in trees, etc... which would not be any more a posteriori than your own contentions about objective value.
@Epydemic2020 "The greatest joy for a man is to defeat his enemies, to drive them before him, to take from them all they possess, to see those they love in tears, to ride their horses, and to hold their wives and daughters in his arms."
@Epydemic2020 As the matter of fact yes. On the other hand Genghis Khan is considered as the father of a nation. Mongols still says that they are children of Genghis Khan. They have airports, streets, schools named after him. He does considered as an honorable and moral man. I wonder how that fits into your "objective moral value" theory. Would not be an "objective moral value" something that everybody accepts? Do you think Jesus and Ghengis Khan thinks the same way about their enemies?
That was a clever way to present the argument from disagreement. I will cover that general argument in my upcoming response to TBS. Keep in mind that I am arguing for objective morality on the basis of innate knowledge of a realm of what we perceive to be obj moral truths.
Nothing about my view entails universal moral agreement on all issues, implies that people will not enjoy immoral things, or implies that culture cannot taint our moral conclusions.
@Epydemic2020 Cool, looking forward to see the video. Good if you let us know how can someone/anyone distinguish between obj. moral truths and culture dependent subj. moral truths. Also why does morality needs an objective basis at all, knowing that civilizations flourished (even the western one for several millenia ) with morality we consider now immoral (but only for the last 200 years or so).
@Epydemic2020 It sounds like you will be arguing for a model of reality which, if true, would be indistinguishable from its alternatives. It seems unfalsifiable and entirely ad hoc.
It would be cool if you could show how this is not the case in your video.
I would say that both morals and success looks as if they are both subjective, but the truth is subjective world views just do not work. I wish they did because that would make things easier, but if subjective morality was true then Martin Luther King Jr, Ghandi, Pascal and many others would be immoral, which is obviously not true. Furthermore, if it were put into affect than we would never even be able to question our beliefs about ethics in the first place.
Hello man... I remember that you wanted to get to know about Islam a little bit. If you still do, please watch this whole lecture /watch?v=qVQ1BWqjTjs . His name is Dr. Jeffrey Lang. This guy is a catholic-turned-atheist-turned-muslim.So I'll think you'll better understand what Islam is about, from his point of view...
Also, a naturalist account of ethical realism would take into account both the fact/value- is/ought distinction, and the open question argument. And we can take into account the disparity in ethical understanding between people like we would any other ability...some people are more athletic than others, smarter, better at social interact...and, some people are just born more ethical than others.
Hmmm. Objectively, pursuing a certain set of values produces outcomes that are objectively better for the people who pursue them. Since this is beyond the mere opinion of people, and doesn't change subject to individual beliefs or values, it doesn't seem subjective...
So, I'd been planning about a four part series on anti-realist ethics... and you have, by now, completely stolen my thunder, you cheeky bastard :-D Fair play, you made it better than I would have.
I think I'll make an addendum video in response to Epy, though, because there some other points I'd make... mostly because I'm thorough to the point pedantry.
Careless use of the terms "subjective" and "objective" also leads to odd views in metaphysics, and odd views in epistemology. In other words, if you're careless about how you handle the concepts of subjectivity and objectivity, you can end up saying there's no such thing as morality, reality, or truth!
Weren't you in that movie with the swords and the chopping and then X man ...yeah you were that guy who played Dead Pool riiiight :P ...well you look like him!!
Great Video. On his claim that we shouldn't expect to know what God's intentions are, you might want to look into Stephen Maizen's papers "Skeptical Theism and Moral Obligation" and "Ordinary Morality Implies Atheism." The papers argue that if we don't know why God allows evil but assume that he always has a good reasons to, then how can we have a moral obligation to prevent evil?
@Godshoulddie textbook example of the naturalistic fallacy. You can't derive an ought from an is. This was made popular by ATHEISTIC philosopher David Hume, so this isn't theist mumbo-jumbo that I'm spewing. In fact, TBS is a moral objectivist and many other atheists hold to this too.
Yes Christians can agree on what is in the Bible. There are 66 books that are compatible and they are what we call the canon. There is a reason they are there because they are compatible! You are referring to the Apocrypha which is not compatible with the canon of scripture so they were declared to not have been the word of God but of man, someone who was making crap up. You should get off of YouTube right now, according to you Martin Luther King Jr is immoral...go read a book.
You're response here is a strawman. I said "Torturing babies FOR FUN," emphasis on fun. These practices, as macabre as they sound, are not done maliciously and according to these cultures, these practices aren't torturous.
And even if I concede this to you, disagreement on what is moral again does not mean objective morality is debunk. This is true by its definition. Things are right or wrong regardless of what people think or do.
well this is awful. I spend my time nonreciprocating on AP courses...by watching philosophical argument....just,wow.
I do enjoy all your videos! You're a very enlightened person, and you argue things in ways i didn't imagine-and with composure at that!
IronAnimation 6 days ago
This guy would be an excellent public figure; articulates an argument so gracefully that it's impressive and very persuasive.
RequiemFear 2 weeks ago
@RequiemFear if he became a political, i would be truly terrified.There is no way i'ed be able to hold a varied opinion.
IronAnimation 6 days ago
Hahahaha! Another great rebuttal. Although I have to say, not the caliber of opposition you should be refuting.
gnuman05 2 weeks ago
That was worth watching all the way through. That comparison to the aluminum ruler in the last minute was priceless, and I will be sure to use that myself.
Starcrash6984 1 month ago
It's amazing; I understand every point and every word you say in your videos, but I have to keep pausing for the information overload to sink in. If I made videos like this I'd need to either memorize my lines or use a teleprompter (though I admit I probably wouldn't think of half of your rebuttals).
TwistedLemniscate 2 months ago 4
You look like Dane cook.
But less of a douche bag.
lobum 5 months ago
@lobum half dane cook, half ryan renolds is what ive always thought
514millertime 2 months ago 7
@514millertime Definately, now that you say it...
lobum 1 month ago
You sir, are my 12 inch standard for what I aspire to be as an atheist who cares about truth and wants to fight against enemies of reason. Thank you for existing. :)
msuders 7 months ago
@msuders
"I aspire to be as an atheist who cares about truth"
You don't care about truth? Well typical Atheist!
(ps. I'm an atheist and just kidding, like my quote mining??? :D)
truckcompany 5 months ago
You, sir, make a fine teacher. This was an enjoyable video.
RichardRoy2 7 months ago
To the first point, have you ever heard on Jung's collective unconscious and archetypes?
pfranks44 7 months ago
You are so goof it hurts
Artifactorfiction 8 months ago
@Artifactorfiction ...what the hell are you talking about?
NathanEmanuelS 7 months ago
@NathanEmanuelS HaHa - A typo - I meant Good
Artifactorfiction 7 months ago
@Artifactorfiction Oh, sorry. Meant to respond to DrThanatology.
NathanEmanuelS 7 months ago
Try dealing with patients dying from Terminal Illnesses for over 30 years, and then come back and post your response. Even though their religious beliefs have no bearing on my life, it obviously has bearing in their lives. Should I as a practitioner try to take that away from them? As John Lennon said, "Whatever gets you through the night, is alright." You're like the Westboro Baptist Church of Atheism. Show up at a funeral with a sign "God is Bullshit" see how that goes over for you.
DrThanatology 8 months ago
@DrThanatology But that's not what he's doing you fucking moron. He's putting videos on YouTube. There's a difference. Fuck off.
HorrorIllogium 8 months ago
You're no great sage. Your videos, within themselves are filled with random crap that has nothing to do with anything. I'm not sure who appointed you as the Chairperson of the Atheist Marketing Organization, but whomever it was made a poor selection. You live your life. I live mine. Others live theirs. Live and Let Live is a universal value that should be embraced by everyone. You trying to convince people otherwise only serves to make you look the fool.
DrThanatology 8 months ago
@DrThanatology "Live and Let Live is a universal value that should be embraced by everyone." maybe it would be a good idea o watch the vidoe before commenting on it?
P.S. you have no idea what Buddhism or tolerance even are. dumbass
AllenQuatermain2de 8 months ago
@DrThanatology Live and let live is right but when children around the world are being lied to by dirty old virgins who also rape them we have a serious problem. Let's say live and let live unless the other person is doing something evil then fucking gut the bastards. watch some of the jesus camp videos!!!
JAMES31186 7 months ago
Dude. The 'Theoretical' needs to be left out of your YouTube Channel name. It is strictly Bullshit. You ramble words that have no real validity in any argument you make, but it seems that you think since you can continue to ramble over and over makes it somehow credible. It doesn't. I'm a Buddhist, Buddhism is a philosophy not a religion. Personally, I may disagree with many formal religions, or atheists, but I believe in Tolerance. Your videos show no tolerance for people that have beliefs
DrThanatology 8 months ago in playlist TheoreticalBullshit list
@DrThanatology Buddhism is not a philosophy. Just because many Buddhists were philosophers, it doesn't make Buddhism a philosophy. In all honestly, Christianity has by far the richest history of philosophy and Christianity is not a philosophy. And just because you don't get what TBS is saying, doesn't mean he's not saying anything.
ExSaint1379 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I just uploaded a new video with theoretical and scientific arguments for atheism! Come see it!
WillToNihilsm 9 months ago
You should seriously host a podcast!
OnlyTbone 9 months ago
I have no idea what you guys are saying use smaller words hahaha
Twinbladel1 9 months ago
ALOOMINNAM
You people.
nosensetoitatall 9 months ago
Your videos are so damn good!
Musabre 9 months ago
btw, your voice sounds like that guy from "Bones"
Brandt761 9 months ago
Gladiator, gladiator!
Because sending people to kill each other is entertaining, right.
anttibra 9 months ago
What if God is actually just God of the Bears, and those bears were starving? Then killing all those kids would be ok. :P
TheCelticNinja 9 months ago
I'm so sick of religious people using Hitler as proof that a certain god exists, thinnest argument ever
TheJDorian 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheJDorian Reductio ad hitlerum!
dhadfield91 9 months ago
Scott! Where the fuck have you dissapeared to? Make more vids. Or I'll have stamp my feet in protest, cry like a little grilie man, and...and....
MAKE MORE VIDS!
Domzdream 9 months ago
Okay TBULLSHIT, WHERE THE HELL HAVE YOU BEEN!!?????!!??
Jason29n 10 months ago
Great point on the relationship of qualities to the subject
TheMindsmack 10 months ago
Epydemic might be referring objective hardwiring with such examples as neuropsychological condition such as Hemispatial neglect. Here you will see a person who reports being unable to see or interpret a side of their visual field. They will look at 2 pictures of house and e.g., only see the left half of the house and for some reason prefers the house not on fire in the non-interpreted field. Or the dif. speed of neg. conditioning to rabbits and snakes. All irrelevant to the argument pure.
MumsBallet 10 months ago
I hope Ken Corday gives you work next year. It'd be great to see you on my show :) AND your vids are up there with Dennet, Hitchens, and Harris for me. Solid stuff.
mangomonkeys7 10 months ago
Man both of em are hellah smart :D sweet ! but im kinda gotten lost in the mid of the video ( Smart words = me going to that special place MEW Mew + big fluffy kitty = it's so fluffy im gonna die
mceltv 11 months ago
You've got a voice for radio. Get on it.
ZeDingoBlag 11 months ago
@ZeDingoBlag He is an actor already. he is in a popular soap opera.
FanBoy2113 11 months ago
@FanBoy2113 Really...this guys an actor?
nosajj12345 9 months ago
@FanBoy2113 Which one?
secular555 9 months ago
SHUT UP!! x
cerchi 11 months ago
Comment removed
ifinoxonifi 1 year ago
This video gave me a full on honesty 8D
spearoflonginus 1 year ago
The biblical god did lie. Many times in the bible. So does that mean he isn't the standard of morality now?
HellhathnoFury711 1 year ago
HELLO BEN AFFLECK
GrottoFace 1 year ago
@creepyoldman2 The judge analogy demonstrates that your morals and the judge's, while different, are still consistent. Even if you have your own set of morals, you do not have any MORAL objection to the judge's ability to administer punishment. As I already showed with the adultery example; it's moral for a man to have sex with his wife, it would be immoral for another man to have sex with her. Here, what is considered moral for each man is different. Do they necessarily follow different morals?
travesham 1 year ago
@creepyoldman2 This is the last time I'm running through this for you, at this point you're either trolling or you're just not going to get it. How realistic the game is or is not is irrelevant because the CONCEPT BEING ILLUSTRATED is the infatuation with something that's NOT REAL. It doesn't matter if it's a totally virtual world, if it's a product of our imagination, or if it's a story from a book. The idea is that we give more value to the artificial than to what's real.
travesham 1 year ago
I guess I'm a bit confused as to why you could say "God's actions if applied to humans.." when God isn't human. That is of course besides Christ. If you wanted to make a comparison between humans and God, you would necessarily have to use Christ as your example. For the same reason we don't apply "human" morals to animals, you can't apply "God's" morals to humans.
hughdiock 1 year ago
@hughdiock Immoral is immoral, whether you are human or a god. If you kill someone and you are not defending someone, it is wrong. I would think this is an extremely simple concept. I learned it as a child. The god of the bible needs to learn the most basic of moral codes we all were taught as children.
skywize 1 year ago
@skywize So when animals kill eachother it is "immoral"? Of course it's not. Why? Because we don't hold them to the same "moral" standards. I would think this is an extrememly simple concept. I learned this as a child.
hughdiock 1 year ago
@hughdiock We don't hold animals to any moral standard at all because they have none, just as a rock has none. Human beings evolved from animals. Our brains evolved. We developed speech and empathy. When someone is hurt, or we hurt them, we can feel that we have done so. This is why, when our tribes grew to societies, we developed laws and punishment. Now we know that hurting someone may come back to bite us back. Animals don't have or require this as they haven't evolved to this stage.
skywize 1 year ago
@skywize "immoral is Immoral....."
Is abortion immoral? What about the death penalty? Are you trying to argue objective morality and thus arguing FOR the existence of God? Or have you not thought this whole thing through?
hughdiock 1 year ago
@hughdiock There is no objective morality, there is simply logic, pure and simple. How many people have you killed today? People don't go around killing people 'just cus', it doesn't work like that. Although MANY MANY people have been killed for your loving benevolent god. Abortion is not immoral because of the potential life ahead of the fetus. The death penalty is not immoral because it keeps murderers from doing their thing. Plain simple logic. It does not take a genius to understand this.
skywize 1 year ago
@skywize I find it quite amusing that you preach logic so vehemently in your comment and contradict yourself at the same time.
"people don't go around killing people 'just cause", it doesn't work like that"
You've obviously never left your parents house.
"Abortion is not immoral because of the potential life ahead of the fetus"
I don't even know what that means.
"The death penalty is not immoral because it keeps murderers from doing their thing"
Ever heard of prison?
hughdiock 1 year ago
@skywize Secondly, I'd love to know who you assume my "loving and benevolent God" is.........I don't remember mentioning that
hughdiock 1 year ago
@skywize *crickets* *crickets*
hughdiock 1 year ago
@hughdiock Sorry, I respond to alot of these things at once... anyway... Prisons are crap. You stick violent scary people in the same building as some fool who gets caught with drugs and the druggie comes out just as much an addict,...and violent and scary. Plus, he's learned some new tricks. The abortion bit, I worded that quite badly, but it's a redundant subject anyway, since people won't agree regardless of science and fact.
skywize 1 year ago
yes, every once in a blue moon you get a pointless killing. It happens, but it's rare. People kill for reasons like money, jealousy and self defense. MOST killers are not serial killers. There are very few of those. As for the difference between objective and subjective, it depends on logic, nothing else. It is bad to kill BECAUSE it harms. Bashing your hand with a hammer is bad BECAUSE you will break your bones. Objective morality is not based on 'because' and thus does not exist.
skywize 1 year ago
@creepyoldman2 The video game analogy is valid, you're just focusing on peripheral details. I could just as easily use the idea of The Matrix to highlight the same concept. How realistic and vivid the game is or is not is irrelevant. As for the judge example, you're just wrong. What you and the judge are allowed to do isn't different because of some moral inconsistency, it's because you're not a judge. Just like how it's not wrong for you to have sex with your wife, but it is for another man.
travesham 1 year ago
@creepyoldman2 Any analogy that you use is going to differ from the real life situation in some way, unless you're using the exact situation in question. Even if you assume that the child has been plugged into the game for their entire life, the main point of the analogy is the same. As for the judge analogy. If you live in the U.S. and you break the law and get caught, regardless of whether or not you totally follow your own moral code, you still suffer the consequences.
travesham 1 year ago
@creepyoldman2 Are you forgetting the video? The judge analogy? There's an example right there. If we're talking about the christian god, then yes, we're talking about a god that's supposed to "know best." If you want to debate whether or not he actually does, that's a different discussion. My response to TBS that he missed the point is still valid. If you believe that a judge who's been to law school should be able to administer punishment, why not a theoretically all-knowing, all-loving god?
travesham 1 year ago
@creepyoldman2 Again, you're falling right into the example of the child valuing the game too highly. Essentially your argument equates to the child saying that if the parent doesn't care about the game, they don't love the child. In reality, the parent is trying to get the child to focus on more important things. It's not a matter of might at all. If you believe that this life is all there is, thus should be valued, then god would be considered immoral. But you wouldn't believe in god anyway.
travesham 1 year ago
@creepyoldman2 That first part of your statement is pretty close to what I've been saying. TBS is trying to demonstrate that an omni-benevolent could not exist by showing evidence that the one in the bible doesn't value human life. What I'm saying is that if there is a god, he wouldn't need to value our lives on earth to be moral. As for feeling guilty, there are times when it's appropriate for a person to feel like they've done something wrong.
travesham 1 year ago
@creepyoldman2 It's not that we are a video game to god. It's the possibility that we think too highly of ourselves and our lives. Like a child acting as if video games are real life. Besides, if there was a god that had created the whole universe, controlling events infinitely small and large, what would make you think he would be obligated to think so highly of us? Our refusal to believe in him would be like a single cell of mold refusing to believe in the piece of fruit it was growing on.
travesham 1 year ago
You guys should just make out. :)
sanethoughtspreader 1 year ago
damn
you're smart as fuck bra.
and you dont look like a nerd at all.
you could be a male model (no homo)
chazden 1 year ago
Well, you have become quite the attractive man.
tifroc 1 year ago
I just figured out what celebrity you look like, Ryan Reynolds. I know that dosen't have anything to do with what your talking about but that's been erking me ever since I first started watching your video.
Grate video, by the way.
Disthron 1 year ago
Not being a dick, but can we conceive of better names than John and Jane Doe?
paleomike8 1 year ago
@creepyoldman2 And by the way, believing in an afterlife does not require that you presuppose one. The bible presents the idea of an afterlife, the reader can choose whether or not to believe it.
travesham 1 year ago
@creepyoldman2 That's the idea, you have to be ok with the fact that your life on earth isn't all that important. Think about it this way, you're a parent and your kid is playing video games instead of cleaning his room as instructed. You unplug the game and tell him to clean his room. He freaks out as he doesn't see why he should have to clean his room and you've just KILLED his game character. Is the parent cruel because they don't value the video game character as much as the actual room?
travesham 1 year ago
But what if 42 brutally murdered children IS the greater good that God was working towards?
HA! Didn't think of that one, did you, smart guy?
unforgivn81 1 year ago
So for how long has Ben Affleck been posting videos on YouTube?
GrottoFace 1 year ago
TBS missed the point of the judge analogy. Do you believe that a judge who has gone through law school and a career as a lawyer, has the right to sentence people to incarceration or execution? If that idea does not strike you as immoral, then the Christian God can decide to distribute punishment upon people and still be entirely moral. Also just because humans inherently value human life, doesn't mean that's what god values. If theres something better after this life, then it can still be moral.
travesham 1 year ago
@travesham Um... no. and BTW none of that makes their decisions moral or immoral, their decision is simply an amoral *application* (as in the practice) of common law, the consequences of which may be moral or immoral. And in reality are moral in some cases, and unfortunately immoral in many others, consequences of which the judge despite being guilty of never suffers, right or wrong that simple is the up and downside for being any type of leader, but/b/c his mistakes *are* burdened by society.
jackalsocoke 1 year ago
@jackalsocoke The analogy illustrates a difference in values. Just because the parent does not value the video game character as much as the child, does not mean that the parent is less moral than the child. The idea is that the child doesn't understand that there are more important things than the game. Just like how we, as humans, do not understand that there are more important things than our individual lives. Therefore God, as the parent, could still be moral and not value human life.
travesham 1 year ago
Just adding a comment to let you know I appreciate your videos. :3
Bobbiethejean 1 year ago
A really important book to consider in all theological debates is a book by Julian Jaynes called "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind". A well researched book documenting the development of introspection in humans with the decline of a god's authority in out actions. The heard voices of a God are not supernatural but just an evolutionary hangover from our previous selves as purely instinctive automatons in which a voice is literally heard in the brain.
cornsockgabz 1 year ago
I love having text in the vids
ShinobiBoiX 1 year ago
This will sound totally stupid but I was flipping through chanels, and saw you on the bold and the beautiful and you were a software/computer guy??? Are you an actor??? Sorry I don't watch TV that much, like 2 hours a week maybe. I totally flip out and told my family I subscribe to your chanel. Sorry I didn't watch the whole show on TV cause I had to go to class that night :(
dangyent 1 year ago
"it doesn't say maul and killed, just mauled." OH, well nevermind then. nothing wrong with kids being mauled by bears for calling someone names. Christianity is evil.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
I would also point out that what is "necessary" is also subjective. There are still cultures that practice sacrifice, they view it as necessary to their lives, we do not. Even within Western Culture there are groups which find "disrespect" grounds for killing, necessarily.
MissMochibon 1 year ago
Hey Scott. Appreciate ya. About the Bear story. I think a deeper reading is necessary because there are principles not directly mentioned here, and one that is NOT. The account does NOT say that God sent the bears (which perceived a threat BTW). What this account speaks to is the fact that ISRAELI parents were NOT bringing up children in the way they should go (corrupted theocracy). These little half-pagans were full of contempt (that they got from who, do you suppose)? See also Neh 13:22-31
g0ysorg 1 year ago
ThePrimordialAtom
I sure hope your view is in the minority. If not, we may be in deep doodoo!
I thought TBS's dismantling of Epydemic2020's argument was no less than brilliant.
At the same time, I can't help seeing Epydemic2020's version of "42 children and the 2 bears" story, as being a bit disingenuous, at the very least!
Three years ago when I 1st studied this story, I looked up the words in my Interlinear Hebrew bible and found the same thing TBS did (kids). So why didn't Epydemic2020?
Cootabux 1 year ago
@ThePrimordialAtom Despite the rather circumlocutious way in which he makes his point, he is still correct to say, in short, that we don't have objective values. Nothing has its own intrinsic value. We each place our own unique values on things, thus making values inherently subjective.
ivasenko48 1 year ago
@ivasenko48 Couldn't agree with you more. He does arrive at his points in a circumlocutory manner, but I enjoy his videos I enjoy his incredible articulation, and his intelligence. So, if he comes about in circumlocutory manner, it is still interesting.
tahoemack 1 year ago
@ThePrimordialAtom Could you please make this statement a bit less meaningless?
FurieMan 1 year ago
I finally finished my response. I just posted it as a response.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
Fantastic! Flawlessly argued.
laraesque 1 year ago
Ending was epic. Very epic.
Nicely done.
Phyrexious 1 year ago
Dude! just saw you on Switched, I thought you did pretty well with the dancing considering, enjoying the vids, keep up the good work! :D
axel151 1 year ago
Good video. I didn't see your other vids about morality so I may have missed something about your position, but still a question:
1. Would you say that your take on morality has a solipsistic tone to it?
2. Agree or disagree. The constitution of the U.S.A. is based on the assumption that there are objective moral values. If there aren't any objective moral values what would be the reason for thinking of such a concept in the first place? Human weakness, power of few or something else?
BoteAMVCreator 1 year ago
@BoteAMVCreator As for 1. I don't believe he is, or that it comes close to qualifying, as, correct me if I am wrong, he's not contending that there are no objective facts, just no objective values, that value inherently is a term which requires a valuer is a condition that exists empirically in a purely subjective state.
2. No, nor does *natural right* actually come from, or depend on, metaphysical supreme beings, simply, just the state in which things exists. Most of the founders were deist.
jackalsocoke 1 year ago
Deist tended to trend towards the thought that we were created by a God that either didn't care at all about us, mostly this was the case, or one that was 'immature,' 'stupid,' or even 'evil.' It's later that you find more and more theistic proponents pushing for a re-visioning of natural right into 'God' (as in a Christian God bestowed upon us the *ought, not the *condition of existing in a nature that functioned in that favor, huge huge difference) they've purposely confuse them.
jackalsocoke 1 year ago
Blam! Shot like a duck in a barrel. Or is that fish. Wait...no....badgers. Oh, whatever....
Well done Scott, in any case.
Domzdream 1 year ago
Seems like epydemic is a presuppositionalist theist. Don't fall for that trap...and that's all it is: a trap. Oy...just know that atheism and moral realism are entirely consistent.
KhunoII 1 year ago
Great ruler analogy at the end.
EpistemicFusion 1 year ago
Comment removed
mikeyman211 1 year ago
I do NOT understand why this channel has not been given more respect and notoriety within the powerful circles of academia or rationalists.
The only plausible theory I see is the insecurity of the "geeky gatekeepers" of academia feeling threatened by the "cute" and "popular guy" speaking and representing truth better than they ever could.
Perhaps, it's simply their insecurities that prevent them from seriously listening to or mentally engaging the objective value of his videos.
InternalCompass 1 year ago
@InternalCompass I doubt everything you just said. I do think it's hilarious that a layman has such a grasp of heavy intellectual subjects, though. TBS definitely supports my argument for education reform.
Sabohaque 1 year ago
@Sabohaque You can "doubt" all you want, but I invite you and your "heavyweight" superior judgment to provide the rest of us "lightweights" a better example of a multimedia spokesperson that can better BRIDGE the gap between the ivory tower academics and the unwashed "laymen".
InternalCompass 1 year ago
@InternalCompass lol chill out, bro. All I said was that I doubted your conspiracy theory.
P.S. Abusing quotation marks doesn't make you look like an intellectual.
Sabohaque 1 year ago
@Sabohaque umm, I never suggested any conspiracy, and I'm not an intellectual.
I merely suggested the possibility of predictable human reactions in the pattern we've all observed over and over again.
I'm just the layman that has an uncanny ability to discover underecognized genius.
My use of quotation marks is my unapologetic way of clear communication to delineate "your" words from "mine".
Oh! sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm already "lol chill bro"!!!
InternalCompass 1 year ago
@InternalCompass Oh, so when you quote "heavyweight" and "lightweight," you're dintinguishing that... those are your words? Even though you also used quotes to represent what I said. Sorry dude, but I don't see how that's clear communication. Then again, I never went to asshole school, I had to settle with public education. And the fact that all you saw when you looked at my channel was sog's subscription to me shows "clearly" how much of a presumptuous cock you are.
Sabohaque 1 year ago
@Sabohaque Ouch...Your reply was a bit harsh but 100% worth it, because that was f'ing hilarious. I have to give credit where credit is due even if I'm the target. The sog thing was my poor attempt at humor after 1 too many beers.
I hope we can agree that the world would be a better place if TBS's channel had greater exposure. And for the record, I only attended "asshole school" senior year and my "presumptuous cock'ness" is intermittent at best.
Hat's off to you, that was hilarious - Peace
InternalCompass 1 year ago
Comment removed
InternalCompass 1 year ago
Comment removed
InternalCompass 1 year ago
very damn good
QuestionsHelp 1 year ago
@Godshoulddie
Cultural Ethical Relativism does not work..No killing your daughter is murder anywhere...We can not say that it is right for them but not for us because human life is valuable and killing people is not acceptable especially if they didnt do anything...
ItsSolaFide 1 year ago
@Godshoulddie
No that would mean that the people who disagree are IMMORAL!
ItsSolaFide 1 year ago
@Godshoulddie Conceding there are objective moral values does not mean you become a theist either. Many atheists attempt to ground morality in something else other than God, but that's a debate for another time.
And one more thing...you're a better insulter than debater.
ToriesPolishBoy 1 year ago
@Godshoulddie to be true, it requires an objectively true axiom of morality is relative. And around we go...
And it's not in your best interest as an atheist to even subscribe to this sophomoric ideology. If moral relativism is true, then that Problem of Evil you guys love is totally null and void and also you could never have a legitimate reason to be angry with "dishonest Creationist tactics."
And lastly, no one is an actual subjectivist. Everyone has called something objectively wrong.
ToriesPolishBoy 1 year ago
@Godshoulddie that mean murder and rape aren't objectively wrong even if there are people who do it and feel totally justified do so? Of course not. The same applies with your rebuttal. Even if people disagree on an issue, morality is not automatically subjective. It's a logical fallacy. You're equating descriptive behavior with a prescriptive enterprise. In other words, you're trying to weigh something with a yard stick.
Moreover, moral subjectivism is logically incoherent. For it to be
ToriesPolishBoy 1 year ago
@Godshoulddie Then let me clarify. Your definition of torture seems to be incredibly broad. Things like circumcision or even braces are torture even if they're done for medical reasons. I'm arguing that ritualistically cutting off body parts by definition is not torture. Remember, I said for fun.
But for the sake of charity, even if I conceded that Islam/Ashura and ritualistically self-mutilation was torture, that by no means makes morality subjective. People rape and murder all the time. Does
ToriesPolishBoy 1 year ago
I think you accidentally strawmanned me at 14:12.
The individual I posted that comment to did not attempt to eliminate possible intentions God could have had (instead just conceded them) and did not make the case that God's intentions "seems perfectly evident from scripture". He was indeed making an argument from ignorance by claiming ignorance of God's intentions and still concluding God was malevolent.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 Okay, that's fine. I was just covering my bases and anticipating your response. If you do maintain that God's intention can be known from scripture, then you should agree that it's fairly obvious God sent the bears as punishment. (I don't see how this is terribly controversial in the first place, unless someone were arguing ad hoc so as to save their view from falsification.)
TheoreticalBullshit 1 year ago
@TheoreticalBullshit
Obviously I don't agree, but I will explain why in the video response.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 "He was indeed making an argument from ignorance by claiming ignorance of God's intentions and still concluding God was malevolent."
Well, the thing is, we are always fundamentally ignorant of other agent's intentions and still consider it unproblematic to attribute malevolence to them if their actions seem to indicate this. The problem with your view is that any action could be performed for some greater good. You don't even bat an eye at the murder of 42 children.
Gnomefro 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 There's a great parody of your position floating around on the net where you're presented with a situation where you see a man wielding a knife attacking a little schoolgirl and you're supposed to select one of several actions. One of which is "Doing nothing, because God works in mysterious ways and it's best not to interfere".
That's where you end up. No observation you make could be ruled out to be in the class of divinely commanded paths to greater goods.
Gnomefro 1 year ago
Can you clarify one bit from 6:02-6:12 for me. You talk about how I will hold a contradictory position with you on say, the objective value of human life.
Didn't you say that you failed to recognize any objective value at all? It doesn't seem to me to be the case that you recognize contradictory obj values to me.. but rather that you simply don't see recognize anything at all.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 The point is that I would make a mutually exclusive claim about the objectivity of certain values. You claim to "know" a priori that human life is objectively valuable (for example), and I would claim to know a priori that human life is *not* objectively valuable.
But that's just one example. Others might affirm the objective value of certain qualities or things that you wouldn't. A Wiccan could claim to know, a priori, that trees are intrinsically valuable. Who's right?
TheoreticalBullshit 1 year ago
@TheoreticalBullshit
Would you really argue that a Wiccan might claim trees are valuable a priori? Why would it have to be a Wiccan in particular? If the beliefs are in any way related to being Wiccan then its a posteriori.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 No I wouldn't argue that. It's just a hypothetical example. I don't know what Wiccans believe, other than that they have a profound respect for nature. It could easily be the case, however, that someone is a Wiccan precisely BECAUSE they "recognize" intrinsic value in trees, etc... which would not be any more a posteriori than your own contentions about objective value.
TheoreticalBullshit 1 year ago 12
@TheoreticalBullshit Hello. Did you saw the lecture I sent you..?? How was it..??
macforfun006 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 If I were you at this point I would just recognize that I made mistakes and move on.
BouyertheDestroyer 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 "The greatest joy for a man is to defeat his enemies, to drive them before him, to take from them all they possess, to see those they love in tears, to ride their horses, and to hold their wives and daughters in his arms."
adamkoncz 1 year ago
@adamkoncz
Random creepy Genghis Khan quote?
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 As the matter of fact yes. On the other hand Genghis Khan is considered as the father of a nation. Mongols still says that they are children of Genghis Khan. They have airports, streets, schools named after him. He does considered as an honorable and moral man. I wonder how that fits into your "objective moral value" theory. Would not be an "objective moral value" something that everybody accepts? Do you think Jesus and Ghengis Khan thinks the same way about their enemies?
adamkoncz 1 year ago
@adamkoncz
That was a clever way to present the argument from disagreement. I will cover that general argument in my upcoming response to TBS. Keep in mind that I am arguing for objective morality on the basis of innate knowledge of a realm of what we perceive to be obj moral truths.
Nothing about my view entails universal moral agreement on all issues, implies that people will not enjoy immoral things, or implies that culture cannot taint our moral conclusions.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 Cool, looking forward to see the video. Good if you let us know how can someone/anyone distinguish between obj. moral truths and culture dependent subj. moral truths. Also why does morality needs an objective basis at all, knowing that civilizations flourished (even the western one for several millenia ) with morality we consider now immoral (but only for the last 200 years or so).
adamkoncz 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 It sounds like you will be arguing for a model of reality which, if true, would be indistinguishable from its alternatives. It seems unfalsifiable and entirely ad hoc.
It would be cool if you could show how this is not the case in your video.
TheoreticalBullshit 1 year ago 19
@TheoreticalBullshit Have you read Sam Harris' new book "The Moral Landscape"?
Unikraken 1 year ago
Comment removed
themanfromerf 11 months ago
Comment removed
themanfromerf 11 months ago
Comment removed
themanfromerf 11 months ago
Comment removed
themanfromerf 11 months ago
Comment removed
themanfromerf 11 months ago
Comment removed
themanfromerf 11 months ago
Comment removed
themanfromerf 11 months ago
@Godshoulddie
I would say that both morals and success looks as if they are both subjective, but the truth is subjective world views just do not work. I wish they did because that would make things easier, but if subjective morality was true then Martin Luther King Jr, Ghandi, Pascal and many others would be immoral, which is obviously not true. Furthermore, if it were put into affect than we would never even be able to question our beliefs about ethics in the first place.
ItsSolaFide 1 year ago
Killing for entertainment, what about gladiatorial combat in Rome? Dueling in America in the early years could get spectators.
zarkoff45 1 year ago
Hello man... I remember that you wanted to get to know about Islam a little bit. If you still do, please watch this whole lecture /watch?v=qVQ1BWqjTjs . His name is Dr. Jeffrey Lang. This guy is a catholic-turned-atheist-turned-muslim.So I'll think you'll better understand what Islam is about, from his point of view...
Cheers.;)
macforfun006 1 year ago
@macforfun006 and plz do tell me how did you find it...!
macforfun006 1 year ago
Another serious beat-down. Good job TB!
unicyclepeon 1 year ago
Also, a naturalist account of ethical realism would take into account both the fact/value- is/ought distinction, and the open question argument. And we can take into account the disparity in ethical understanding between people like we would any other ability...some people are more athletic than others, smarter, better at social interact...and, some people are just born more ethical than others.
KhunoII 1 year ago
Hmmm. Objectively, pursuing a certain set of values produces outcomes that are objectively better for the people who pursue them. Since this is beyond the mere opinion of people, and doesn't change subject to individual beliefs or values, it doesn't seem subjective...
KhunoII 1 year ago
So, I'd been planning about a four part series on anti-realist ethics... and you have, by now, completely stolen my thunder, you cheeky bastard :-D Fair play, you made it better than I would have.
I think I'll make an addendum video in response to Epy, though, because there some other points I'd make... mostly because I'm thorough to the point pedantry.
RobTheMonk8 1 year ago
I like your ideas so much that I'd almost go and watch some of the shows you're in! Keep it up! ..and the acting too!
deconvertedguy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Godshoulddie
KJV=NJKV=ESV=NLT=NIV...I can go on and on and on...
ItsSolaFide 1 year ago
Well said.
Chadeyes4 1 year ago
Owned
DJNoKnow 1 year ago
SICK BURN! (Virtual high five)
poisonivymotive 1 year ago
I still wish people would get worked up about the fig tree story... both theists and atheists never seem to think it's a problem.
I vote for an analysis of the fig tree!
stefanlittle 1 year ago
This link should help you. instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/subjective_objective.html~~~
nsingleton1 1 year ago
Careless use of the terms "subjective" and "objective" also leads to odd views in metaphysics, and odd views in epistemology. In other words, if you're careless about how you handle the concepts of subjectivity and objectivity, you can end up saying there's no such thing as morality, reality, or truth!
nsingleton1 1 year ago
Weren't you in that movie with the swords and the chopping and then X man ...yeah you were that guy who played Dead Pool riiiight :P ...well you look like him!!
rawrberrys 1 year ago
love your videos. you are a cutie and have some great views. i do miss you on one life to live though. come back. it isnt the same without skyler!
hiphopfan4life 1 year ago
great video!
sebd2507 1 year ago
Great Video. On his claim that we shouldn't expect to know what God's intentions are, you might want to look into Stephen Maizen's papers "Skeptical Theism and Moral Obligation" and "Ordinary Morality Implies Atheism." The papers argue that if we don't know why God allows evil but assume that he always has a good reasons to, then how can we have a moral obligation to prevent evil?
yhkeyui 1 year ago
@Godshoulddie textbook example of the naturalistic fallacy. You can't derive an ought from an is. This was made popular by ATHEISTIC philosopher David Hume, so this isn't theist mumbo-jumbo that I'm spewing. In fact, TBS is a moral objectivist and many other atheists hold to this too.
ToriesPolishBoy 1 year ago
@Godshoulddie
Yes Christians can agree on what is in the Bible. There are 66 books that are compatible and they are what we call the canon. There is a reason they are there because they are compatible! You are referring to the Apocrypha which is not compatible with the canon of scripture so they were declared to not have been the word of God but of man, someone who was making crap up. You should get off of YouTube right now, according to you Martin Luther King Jr is immoral...go read a book.
ItsSolaFide 1 year ago
@Godshoulddie
You're response here is a strawman. I said "Torturing babies FOR FUN," emphasis on fun. These practices, as macabre as they sound, are not done maliciously and according to these cultures, these practices aren't torturous.
And even if I concede this to you, disagreement on what is moral again does not mean objective morality is debunk. This is true by its definition. Things are right or wrong regardless of what people think or do.
Your appeal to other people's actions is a
ToriesPolishBoy 1 year ago