I'm sorry, everyone. As a Theist, I have nothing to say in regards to God existing, or anything of the sort. But as a philosopher, it is exceedingly easy for me to see that Dawkins has absolutely no clue as to what he is talking about. Russel and Sarte made it waaaaay further in thoughts about Morality than I think Dawkins ever will.
most children can feel what is right and wrong (unless they've been ruined by adults) without reading any books. belief will never improve our lot, and materialist science won't either. Consciousness and empathy are the human rational mature foundations of a better society. imo !
@MyDutchOven i think that answer was worth thrown into dustbin sir, It is actually equal as attacking others when u have no answer to support your points.
Absolute morality does not exist. Isn't it funny how "morality" ALWAYS has altruistic inclinations to it? Helping "others", taking "others" into consideration, doing unto "others." We have to help each other, otherwise we would perish as a species. SO, it's not morality. There is always a jagged line when looking into morality.
Golden Rule based morality leads to absolute rules if you "axiomize" the rules. For example, slavery of a certain people is absolutely wrong because it leads to a contradiction after generalizing "I can choose to enslave any arbitrary people" this means that the enslaver can be enslaved (contradicting the definition of slavery). Categorical Imperative.
@aoeu256 I'm confused. Is this in reference to something I said? Indeed, I normally say that "The Golden Rule is only as good as the person practicing it." Typically we often use the "GR" when we are referring to moral, ethical, and kind deeds. It's when we refer to immoral, horrific, unethical deeds that the "GR" falls apart. Kant's Categorical Imperative tried to do it better by universalizing ethical dispositions.
wtf? it seems to me like absolute morality doesn't exist, instead morality comes across as something of a social illusion. i feel like there is a certain disposition for people to feel more strongly about certain subjects, like killing or stealing, but it strikes me as difficult to see something as absolutely right or wrong. it is difficult to imagine right and wrong without the existence of human beings, it just seems to me like there are so many more things to explain from an absolute POV.
@savedbyjesusblood Yes. The reasonable, kind hearted Mr. Dawkins wants to redifine morality in terms of help others and preventing unecessary suffering, rather than spurious morality based on the writings on unscrupulous, megalomaniacal self proclaimed "holy" men of thousands of years ago...
@savedbyjesusblood Richard Dawkins is not a Pagan you retard , he is an Atheist & if you had listened then you would have heard him say that in the Secular society that we live in we discus what laws that we all want to live by through a rational, democratic process. This why we no longer stone people, some of us have moved on from the Dark Ages.
@ACCSESS247 Now, this is a very stupid answer of dawkins. I am amazed that a man of such an age would pass such stupid comments. The problem is, who is going to define What morality is? Killing animals so that you can get some food is morality? Why kill plants and animals if u talking about Morality.... U have to follow the principles set by God otherwise a Robber is morally good because he is robbing for himself , so he and his family can exist in better environment.
@badpanda84 Bible is being infiltrated and written by Human hands much. And so what is wrong in, if u don't repent u going to hell? sounds like Good God to me giving u opportunity not to go to hell but in this world if u murder a person u must get punishment <3
@ACCSESS247 You actually do not stone people but u love to rape women e.g Open up FBI.ORG and check out 2010 Rape Statistics.85K women raped. Oh Lord, My God. I wonder is there any woman in USA who is not raped lol. And that is just 2010 report. In 2009 u had 90k Rapes. Showing morality? Is that what you call "Moved on from The Dark Ages"
@ThePenguinColonel , If it was an argument then I could have reasoned or discussed something, but what you need is a doctor. I think there are psychiatrists who help those people who feel reasonless hatred for murdering innocent civilians. I am only replying to you because your comment is directed towards me, and by the way I am not an Arab, I am living in Europe.
@ThePenguinColonel , oh, but as far as I knew jewish also came from the middle east that you hate so much. So, you are so against reason, thoughts, discussions and Richard Dawkins that you even worship jews. I wonder how atheists would see that.
@ThePenguinColonel , Once again that proves your blindness and naivety and also proves your reasonless hatred for civilians, children based on geographical location. But I wonder how the inventor of algorithm, chemistry, physics, mathematics, medical science etc all Muslim came from Middle East. Like, Avicenna, al-Khwārizmī, Al-Jabr and hundreds other, including many polymaths, but anyway, your comment is irrelevant to the video topic.
@ThePenguinColonel, But tell me something, why eventually the latest law and science is following the things that are written in Quran from thousands of years ago? Like the latest secular countries starting (in last hundred years) to give women inheritance, marriage, voting etc. rights as mentioned in Quran 1400 years ago and practiced since then. Like the barrier between waters was discovered in 1962, which is mentioned in Quran 1400 years ago and many other such examples.
@ThePenguinColonel , Haha, yeah, if you are the example of intelligence of our time then we really need to worry. Who wrote Quran can be easily proven with normal reasoning. This is what I said that the people didn't read Quran shouldn't comment about it. Why do they still teach Pythagorean theorem in the schools? Isn't that ancient and too primitive for your intelligence? You don’t want to learn that either, do you? Just because time changed, truth wouldn't change with it.
Abu Dawud 2150, also Muslim 3433), Bukhari 34:432), (Sahih Muslim 3371), Ibn Ishaq/Hisham/Hisham 693), and Sahin Muslim 4345) to start. Yeah, your prophet was a douche-bag. Sorry to break it to you, man. Or are you just being dishonest? Taqiyya allows muslims to lie for their faith. Either way, everyone knows that Mohammad was a mass-murdering, rapist, barbarian. You're not fooling anyone. We know all the stories.
@caposton , I didn't notice your comment before because you didn't post it as reply. All your false allegations are hugely misdirecting. I have pdf versions of Bukhari and Muslim, I checked your references very well and none of your statements are true. Those who want to verify, they can verify. Who are you trying to fool? Those who can read your lies, they can also read the truth, from true sources. Since the limitation of characters I will put the rest of the comment separately.
that while he was sitting with Allah's Apostle he said, "O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interrupt us?" The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.
@caposton, My comment was on Quran, that's the highest authority and most authentic. Mohammad (pbuh) can not go against any teachings of Quran, he followed Quran perfectly, and all the things you mentioned goes against Quran, so surely they are false. Let me clarify a few points. In your comment you mentioned "Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri", why listen to him? The stupid things that you are claiming to be hadith are not authentic and not true, they are narrated by stupid random people.
@caposton , And Mohammad (pbuh) is the greatest leader in the history to have the highest number of followers. He was the kindest person known to mankind, and the allegations are completely false, no evidence. There's a whole research on his life style, deeds and teachings called "hadith" based on millions of historical evidence, and he is mentioned in Bible and other religious books. The person that almost every religion acknowledges to be the best human and prophet was a bad person?
@caposton , And most of the 10 points you mentioned are completely false. He did not allow slavery, it was a culture at that time, he enforced rights for the salves so they are not oppressed. Mohammad led military campaigns in self defense and to protect his people. You will not find any military campaign where he declared a war for no reason. Mohammad never killed any captive. A guy was even punished for injuring a captive. He is the first one to enforce rights for the captives.
You don't know the hadiths. It is clear that Muslim men could forcibly have sex with, without marrying, female war captives after their first menstraul cycle. They used coitus interruptus, pulling the penis out before ejaculation, to prevent a pregnancy. They did this so they could sell the woman to another man who could also rape her. The muslim man only had to marry her if she became pregnant. Also, muslim men raped these women while their husbands were held captive.
@caposton , Firstly, you are lying without understanding. I know the hadith; you should read the authentic ones instead of the made-up ones. I clearly said Quran prohibits Muslims from doing those things; it prohibits men to even touch war captives and commands to secure them. Quran prohibits having sex with under aged girls. Aisha was the virgin wife of Mohammad (pbuh), try searching a bit before being a moron like that. And Mohammad (pbuh) never violated any of the laws of Quran.
@caposton ,That's why we follow him as messenger. He didn't do anything that Quran does not permit. The criterion to find out about the accuracy of Hadith is to use Quran, because Quran is the furkan, if any Hadith goes against Quran then it is automatically invalidated. Quran is the highest authority in Islam. So it is easily viewable that the things you are repeatedly claiming all are invalid and false. Because of the limit here it is not a suitable for quotations and explanations.
@caposton , There was rarely any non-muslims in his area at that time that he could have taxed heavily, but still he never taxed muslims and non-muslims differently. Mohammad never had sex with a 9 year old total bullshit falsehood. These are against Quran, and he was not. About jinn also, again you are believing what some random guy is telling about Mohammad, you have to see the authenticity properly, all your allegations are either completely false or misinterpreted or inaccurate.
Do a wikipedia search on "Jizya". It will explain its use and where in the hadiths it can be found. Historically Jizya has been used as a way to make "the people of the book" feel subjugated. Also search "Aisha". She went to live with Mohammad when she was 6 and he had sex with her when she was 9. He "fondled", took baths with her, and "played" with her before she was 9. The qoute about Jinn living in peoples nose is only one of many hadiths that show mohammad for the moron he was.
@caposton , But I have a question, why are you bringing what Mohammad (pbuh) did or didn't? It's irrelevant. In the video Dawkins said something assuming all the religions are the same, and I said Islam is not like that, Quran teaches the things that are scientifically provable, and stable even after "reasoned", "thought-out" and "discussed". Quran is logically explainable. Instead of talking about that you are talking about some falsehood about Mohammad (pbuh), totally out of context.
@caposton , If you want to blindly believe in atheism then I have no problem, but if you want to learn the truth, then you should look into all the theories and reasons. And Quran is the richest source of such knowledge. If you have confusions then you can ask, and I would gladly explain. But surely the things that you are claiming are not part of Quran therefore not a part of Hadith and not a part of Islam.
oh yeah, this was after they confronted Mohammad about raping the women in front of their husbands - Muhammad said the women now belonged to them and they could. Nice guy that muhammad, right?
Straight from Stephen Hawking himself- There is no such thing as perfect, or absolute. Therefore it's up to US, through TRIAL and ERROR, to find the best out of a set of moral rules and laws.
Dawkins depart from the false premise, that adultery is good. where as it isn't. he makes false inductions rendering his argument fallacious. Dawkins is wrong...because he does substantiate his premises he assumes premises. He has long been held a materialism advocate for some group.
...and the motives are always of the follwoing: greed, nihilsm, hedonism. all of which are the least candidates for deriving what morals should mean. you always gonna find those who argue against established norms, realities, and truths, by twisting, bypassing, manipulating facts and underminng the essense of morality for the betterment of society. something of absue to democracy. and that in itself is short of moral.
Morals are not absolute. The same action can be "good" in one context, "bad" in another, "neutral" in yet another, and with varying degrees. The problem with relative morality is that humans are fallible, and as we refine our notions of morality, it is inevitable that mistakes will be made. The solution is not to adopt an absolute morality based on scripture or whatever else, but to have the courage to admit the limitations of our judgments and be ready to change them when we err.
One can kill a human life and accept it in his own right as moral, maybe in the case somebody crosses my property and i want to feel safe, but is that sufficient pretext to end a human life. the answer is no, there is absolute morality and on the other side of the spectrum there is nihilism and selfishness, absolute morality leaves no reason to rationalize around selfishness.
@warrior4just there are no absolute morals. your example doesn't make sense. any action, no matter how "bad" it is, can be justified and made to be the morally correct choice. to understand why, you should read up on bentham, kant and mill just for starters.
My tool is Logic as in mathematical/Philosophical sense, i an equipped to rationalize and come up with my own argument and not rely on others" Bentham" for forming mine. until u learn about logic u'll know that anything that undermines positivity towards existance, is immoral. Nihilism in the sense is immoral becoz it subjects to rule established not by common but by the essense of normality is.
@warrior4just you want to talk about morality and ethics on one hand, yet you dismiss what some of the great ethical philosophers wrote without having read them. it's not a weakness to seek out and recognize the wisdom of others, it is a strength.
also, i've spent the past 7 years studying philosophy. maybe i missed something important, but i don't see how you can connect logic, existence and morality in the way you described. can you explain this connection please?
sure i'd dismiss most of them if they fail to consider when they exclude other logical premises "possible explanations" in their arguments. many of them base their argument based on their solely perceived western notions, while they probably have little grasp of other notions and how those possible premises lead to different results on society "with respect to morality that is".
After reading many topics from science and epistimology in matters like morality, origin, psycho-social evolutionism, and materialism. Ugly pattern appears or so to my understanding, although truths are incontrevertible, they becomes subject to portrayal of politics and the dynamics governed by higher bidders. when it comes to morality there soemthings that are undeniably wrong, yet u gonna alwys find deviants who argue the essence of what's been established...contned
we are defined by what we are, what we have been, our facts, observations, & premises are based on our history, we define truth by that which that enables us to what defines us. questioning, arguing against, undermining our definition on how society should operate jeoperdizes the facts and in doing so we may as well redefine for everyone who comes with a demand. as Ronald Regan once said "Liberalism is disease, logic and rational is the cure".
@warrior4just rubbish. anyone who claims that questioning and arguing definitions undermines the "truth" is veering toward censorship. if nobody ever questioned our notions of right and wrong, women wouldn't have the right to vote and slavery would still be sanctioned.
as for your other point, that some actions are unquestionably morally right or wrong, name one and i'll show you how it can be made to be morally ambiguous.
i think u misunderstood, when i said questioning i refer to breaking the established law.
the examples is raping u, taking u property just because u look weaker, cheating of all sorts, bribery. all those if u think they are ambiguous than u utterly arn't thinker, and this is not an ad-hominem. this simply ur incapacity of grasping the polonged effects of those, in another an ignorant. now when i say those examples i say they become morally acceptable. do the simulation.
@warrior4just here is a simple hypothetical thought experiment to show how morals can be ambiguous.
rape: a man with a nuclear bomb threatens to blow up the city of new york. he says he will do it unless you personally go out and rape someone. you cannot explain it to the person you are raping, you simply have to do it, or millions will die. is it still wrong to rape? would it be wrong to refuse?
also, have you heard of the "switch track" scenario? this is basic stuff.
u can't be serious with this example, morals aren't built on circumstancial irrational situations. I'd not rape but would emulate the situation, on the pretext that the man at hand is deranged. Is this intentional ? no. the whole event calls for extreme survival measures with which rational is to be used. the rape isn't justified when intentional. when proven intentional it is immoral. here do urself a favor, and sit down reflect and compose ur argument.
To compose an honest opinion is to use logical premises and use logical deduction/induction to in order to arrive at an argument that u urself is content with. but it appears that for the sake of argument is u attempt at going around and manipulating ideas in order to refute good case for morals. all u do is twist just because u want to. this is apparent from the way u think.
@warrior4just i guess you just don't have the mental capacity to keep on track. as it is, i can barely understand your posts. anyway, it's not my job to educate you. have a nice day.
WTF, he he...what's ur point in the first place, moral subjectivsm has beel long and easily debunked. moral objectivism is a must and exists, within it, there are absolutes. So in essence, there are absolute morals. And because u can't understand, i suspect in ur regard, it takes critical thinking to realize that morals cannot be subjective or ambiguous as u call it..
@warrior4 your responses are incoherent. you keep saying you read this, read that, know this, know that, but you haven't given any real argument. it's just gibberish. repeating a claim over and over does not make it so.
instead of reading blog posts, i suggest you go out and actually educate yourself. based on the quality of your writing it is clear you haven't gone beyond high school.
If you refer to animals to derive morals we human are going to self-oblirate. Morals are intrinsic and inherent in the deep spiritual sense. crossing that barriers leaves you subject to amygdala's impulses and few use of ur pre-frontal cortex. If Morals aren't set with rule to preserve the betterment of society not individuals, there is no limit how creative u can live a pseudo life on the pretext that a lifestyle.
Look at every single nice thing written in a religious book and you will find it was simply bastardized from older, reasoned philosophies.
On the contrary, the most creative descriptions in the bible are ones of suffering, hell and the utter misery you will endure if you don't do what they say.
Very well said but very wrongly said, based on totally wrong information. The maturity of civilization that we today have is NOT based on secular arguments or reasoning. And the every bit of knowledge from Quran is actually arguably and reasonably acceptable. The stable and certain part of the morality practiced today is derived from religious knowledge. Quran is sable even after thoughtful reasoning. Ignoring the broad set of knowledge is a naive way to reach absolute morality.
@aazhbd lol...I would have been beheaded because I abandoned Islam. According to your Islamic (Sharia) law. Now it's pretty obvious my head is still intact, for I'm writing this reply aren't I? Yeah, cool morals buddy :P
@Haseeebo , That's why I said that people who doesn't know about Islam should not claim that they know anything about morality in anyway. You don't even know what you are talking about, where does it says that you would be beheaded if you change your religion from Islam? NOWHERE, practiced nowhere. If you betray and work against your country then even any country's law says that your punishment is death, so does Islam, working against Islam is apostasy, not changing your religion.
Mohammad in the hadiths also allowed his followers to rape the female war captives. You see, Mohammad's men wanted to rape the women and then sell them. They didn't want them to get pregnant so they asked Mohammad if coitus interruptus (pulling out) was all right. What would the moral response be? Did Mohammad scold his men and show mercy on the women? The answer is no. Mohammad said, "what is destined to exist will exist." So Mohammad was immoral and an idiot.
@caposton, First of all, in my comment I was talking about Quran, not Hadith. Secondly, can you show me some proof of what you are attributing to Mohammad (pbuh)? There's no proof. On the other hand, both Quran is the oldest manuscript of women rights, it prohibits all sort of raping or abusing, talks about the property share for women, and also war time moral behavior and respecting the women. You want to claim that Mohammad (pbuh) preached against Quran? You are just lying.
@aazhbd It's a shame that youdidn't listen to what Mr. Dawkins said. He just quoted Hadith and Quranic injunctions that are IMMORAL. He just cited Biblical intruction that is IMMORAL. How do you think we got to morality if the "stable" as you say Quranic instruction is contradicted by our morals? We don't think it's acceptable to lash adulterer's. We dont' find it acceptable to burn, hang, slit the throat of homosexuals. We DON'T think slashing into the penis's and clitoris's of children is good
@XforeverlongingX , I have replied, in your next comment. But also let me mention that children cannot do adultery and Islam never mentioned or supported any of bullshit punishment that you claimed. Why are you misguiding and deceiving people by saying this falsehood? You don't know anything about morality or Islam; you didn't even listen to what Mr. Dawkin's said. If you propagate falsehood to deceive others then you are starting it by deceiving yourself.
@XforeverlongingX , It indicates that you didn't listen to Mr. Dawkin; he didn't care about what you think is moral but according to him, "reasoned", "thought out" and "discussed". Nowhere in Quran said that lashing on genitals or burn, hang, slit and all those bullshit allegations that you mentioned in your comment. Adultery is a crime and Quran speaks about the punishment in 24:2, 100 lashes only, nothing more; even many secular laws has more cruel punishment against it.
@DrSpooglemon, First, let me clarify that I'm not looking for anyone's acceptance. Everyone has their own right to live it in their own way, if you don't want to follow the truth, up to you, as written in Quran 109:6. And secondly, Bible contains thousands of errors and contradiction Quran does not contain any, not even one. Quran invites reason, knowledge, discussion, assures freedom, definitely it is most favorable. Those who read Quran with understanding have realized that.
No contradictions in the Quran eh? You know you aren't allowed to lie right? What's the punishment exactly?
96:2 says man was created from blood, 15:26 says from clay, 3:59 says from dust and 19:67 says that man was created ex nihilo, from no earlier substance.
@Quintinohthree, You are misinterpreting the Quranic verses. I have a science book, in one place it says that water is created with Hydrogen and in another place it is said that water is created with oxygen, oh, isn't that a contradiction? Nowhere in Quran has it said about ex-nihilo or anything like that. In 19:67, says the God created human into something when he was nothing. The God has given us the ability which we didn't have, it’s said in the same way.
@Quintinohthree, [continued] In 96:2, it says that man is created from "Alaqa" which means "clinging substance" or a clot which is right if you look at the Embryo in a mother's womb you will see that it looks like a "clinging substance". There are various translations online, try reading them instead of making one up own your own. Lying about the meaning of some verses won't prove anything. None of the 4 verses are in contradiction in anyway.
@Quintinohthree, I did not lie and I don't have to take it from a liar like you. Show me where did I lie? I just unveiled your lie and jeopardized your attempt to misguide. I don't have a problem to reply to any number of misconceptions about Quran that you want me to clarify, but if my clarification was not good enough for you then at least you should give a reason. I challenge you to reply to every single one if you can put forward, you won't be able to lie yourself out.
@Quintinohthree, About Quran 79:27-30 and 41:9-12, in both places heaven was created first. In 41:11 it is written that "Then He directed Himself to the heaven..." it was possible to direct towards heaven after creating earth because it existed. In 41:12 the heaven gets divided into 7 admins, which was also possible because heaven existed before earth. Either you have a totally crap translation or you are making these translations up. In either case you should learn better.
@Quintinohthree, You need is good translations to see the real meaning, there is one online in quranDOTcom, that have very less errors. In 35:1 it doesn't say that Allah is omnipotent, it says "Allah is over all things competent". And Allah can't do everything (e.g. He can't lie) but He can create anything. More about it in 112:1-4. Allah can't have son as in 6:101. In 39:4 clarified that He never chosen to have a son. Choosing and begetting a child is different. He did neither.
@Quintinohthree, Yes that is right. He can't have children, "...He could have chosen from what He creates whatever He willed..." as in 39:4, but he can not father a son in anyway. So, there's no problem.
So he could have a son, even though he doesn't, and he can't have a son at all? Now that's a contradiction, and you've admitted it. But I'll give you some more:
In 2:132 Abraham tells Jacob already had the right religion and therefore was a Muslim, in 7:143 Moses himself says he's the first Muslim, in 39:12 Muhammad says he's the first Muslim.
@Quintinohthree, No, I said that He couldn't have, but he could have chosen, there is a difference of fathering a son and choosing a son. He can't father a son, but could have chosen. And once again, see the good translation. Mohammad (pbuh) was the first muslim of the people around him as mentioned "among you" in the verse. Same goes with Moses (pbuh). The first Muslim was Adam (pbuh), and all the prophets followed the same Allah and the same message.
So he could have chosen but even then he couldn't have? That would make sense.
Moses didn't say he was the first of true believers among the people he was with, he only said he was the first of true believers, which would be false if Jacob was a true believer.
@Quintinohthree, He could have chosen, but choosing doesn't makes a son begotten. Besides choosing a son is a different meaning of son. And read the context of what Moses (pbuh) was saying, he was approving that he is being a Muslim, in context the first one of the people there. All the verses before was going on about how the people of his time was doing, and the 143 verse was in the same context.
@Quintinohthree, What's the problem, can't you read english? I have heard better arguments, these are so lame. In 5:72, it is clearly mentioned that you won't be forgiven only if you associate anyone with Allah, claim that there is anyone who can be compared with one God, not every Christian believe that. Some people believe bad things, but not all of them. Nowhere it says that Christians would go to hell. Anyone who would read them would understand.
@Quintinohthree, As you should be able to read it in those verses, that only situation unpardonable is when someone associates anyone with the ONE true creator. It is easy, if anyone don't associate anyone with Allah, then other things might be pardoned by fair judgement by the God. In chapter 103, also says what you need to do to not to be in loss. What is said is said clearly, and you are just trying to get misinterpreted words approved. The verses are stright forward on this.
@aazhbd let me reply in the same intellectual vein as you have posted: a;oijfe;oajd;lkmavkl ;fjvliwauh ilua sndlfjsblk uhfalsiudhfliasb nflksndvlkjsaoiewh
@Singebuggercat , yeah, I guess close minded people like you won't understand my previous comment, it might have appeared the same way. Anyway, tschüss.
@aazhbd Is it really? So killing apostates who reject your perfect book (which is profoundly uninspired), and realize that the prophet was actually for profit, who swindled a whole bunch of people are fit to be killed? Yeah that's moral. No I'll take my secular morality. The men of the enlightenment may not have been perfect. Some, like your islamist peers did own slaves, but they gave us a framework to solve problems. In contrast, your side says, we have everything we need, no discussion.
@Newenlightenmentnow, See, this is the problem with you guys, you are talking without knowing anything. You didn't read Quran, didn't even read my previous comments. You are rejecting Quran based on what some morons and politicians have to lie about it without checking if they really exist. I have already replied to those false allegations in previous comments. And where does Quran say that "no discussion" needed? In my last comment also I said that Quran invites discussion.
Why would you want an absolute of anything it gives you no room for manouveur dawkins is right you have to cherry pick your way through the bible to find anything to could be considered moral in todays day and age
And of course religious people have taken part in the movement toward empathy and civilization. Not religion's "leaders", who simply threaten punishment for disobedience. Today's 'moderated' official religions are the result of those "leaders" bowing to probably millions of small acts of defiance. What's good in and moral about religious people exists in spite of religion, not because of it. Atheism is a nonbelief in gods. Morality's a whole other thing.
I don't know I am trying to find it out - but the secular/humanist idea isn't a very good explaination to me. If there is a maker I would prefer to follow his laws. I imagine the 10 commandments is a good place to start. But atm I'm still figuring it all out..:P
@Belegaer If you really think the ten commandments is the best source for morality, then you've obviously never read any other scripture. Take Jainism for example. The jains preach a doctrine of utter non-violence. They have no text advocating violence and intolerance, unlike the christian bible.
Imagine this. Absolute morality is so subjective. The Koran might be right, the Bible, the Torah take your pick. Now, youre right, we atheists may not have absolute moral truths, AND YET WE ACT MORALLY ANYWAY. Nothing stops us, nothing impedes us. To give up the illusion of religion is not to give up morality. And yes, PEDOphilia could be deemed right in 5000 years, but what insane thought makes you think that that will happen?
"So there are no absolute moral truths in athiesm?" True
"Thats not very comforting." So what, it's true.
"Paedophilia is wrong now - but in 5000 years it could be right?" I very much doubt it. However in theory it could be true. However 200 years ago slavery was considered morally virtuous. Even the bible sanctioned it.
@Belegaer Around 1400 years ago paedophillia was ok for the Prophet Mohammad (piss be upon him) when he married a 6 year old girl so presumably ok for Muslims back then, but today it's not ok?
I can say that anything is absolutley moral or immoral through choice. I make the choices, If I make the wrong choice society has LAWS.
@Belegaer Around 1400 years ago paedophillia was ok for the Prophet Mohammad (piss be upon him) when he married a 6 year old girl so presumably ok for Muslims back then, but today it's not ok?
I can say that anything is absolutley moral or immoral through choice. I make the choices, If I make the wrong choice society has LAWS in the same way gods have LAWS.
@Belegaer Not necessarily, but it used to be right, DESPITE religious influence. Absolute morality is false and never happened. The moral Zeitgeist is obvious and universal. It's not about comfort, it's about doing what is right. Why don't you snuggle up in your snuggie and read the bible to comfort and soothe your feeble mind.
@Belegaer If pedophiles were for whatever reason accepted 5000 years from now then yes it would be. Just like how slavery was accepted for the past 4000+ years, and God condoned it.
hahaha. This reminds me of the scene in downfall when Hitler takes off his glasses and start raving about. search for "Hitler finds out" if you don't get the reference
First thing dawkins does is attack the bible and avoids the question. The question was not where does religious people get there absolutes from, the question was where does atheist gets there's.. If he believes in absolutes,then he should give an account why and how it came to be, if not, give arguments against it. I would love to see him give a speech without attacking the bible. Stay in the lab and not answer philosophical questions!
@chrismac1980 I think that was his point: that morality is, in fact, relative to the culture and the time expressing it, and not absolute.
The question, as stated, wasn't where atheists get their absolute morality (as the questioner denied an atheist absolute here), but by what justification can they decide right from wrong. And Dawkins' answer is our reasoned, thought-out discussion.
I agree that he attacks the Bible, but it IS a major source of "absolute morality."
@crabbieappleton I am sorry for my comment, after listening again, you are correct. I just don't like the fact that he attacks the bible to support his claims. I think he would be more convincing if he lay off the bible, and have reasoned thought - out discussion like he claims, to support his position..
@SirWinstonChurchill For some, yeah. I find that morality always seems to imply altruism. If I were to say that I am a moral man because I brush my teeth every night, go to the gym 5 days a week, and watch what I eat, I would be looked at strangely. A "moral" action must imply YOU, or someone other than me. Because when we think of someone else, we can't help but think of ourselves first.
@SirWinstonChurchill i agree. But why must you say, "...you or anyone else?" How come you are not part of the equasion? I do not think altruism is obtainable, so i hope your responce was not intended to be indifferent, because we seem to be of one mind.
Maybe your reference to altruism wasn't clear to me... There are certain codewords often used by the leftist filth that can be used inadvertently by others... I react to them violently nevertheless...
In addition, know that there is no such thing as an orthodox atheist. There are so many fakes out there who are nothing more than pathetic reverse xtians and they are all too willing to cower before their Islamist master as dhimmis... I want to bury them in the same hole...
I agree with DavidPirtle: Why must morality be "absolute"? Humans undoubtedly benefit by adhering to certain basic moral principles, but there are almost always exceptions to those rules--occasionally, lying or killing or stealing is the RIGHT thing to do. The world is a complex place, and very often an unyielding moral code will lead to quite immoral behavior.
Besides, how do we determine what those "absolute" moral values are? There is no consensus, even within individual religions.
This is very well stated. I don't understand why some religious people are terrified about the non-existence of absolute morality. Our morality has evolved (meaning changed over time) as our culture has changed. Morality has always been a mixture of our instincts (what some scientists call our 'monkey morality') and cultural debate.
All that religious people are really saying is "it's right because God said so." That's not morality. That's just following orders.
@DavidPirtle I'm not scared of relative morality. I oppose relative morality because it is nonsensical. It is based on the idea of relative truth. However, truth cannot be non-absolute logically speaking because the idea is self-refuting. If I ask you if it is true that truth is relative. Your answer, both either yes or no, proves absolute truth exists. Absolute truth is the only logical conclusion and is not self-refuting. Absolute truth is the foundation for absolute morality.
@HiDefJesus You make absolutely no sense. Everything you said is written directly through the prism of subjectivity. I have been taking philosophy for a few years as a minor and what you are saying is pseudo-intellectual. It's so "God-of-the-gaps-ish." You're basically saying that if someone says that truth is relative, no matter what they say, you will still advocate that there is absolute morality. Of course you will, you're a slave to the idea of dividends in the form of an afterlife.
@Skepgnostic If you're minoring in philosophy than you must be failing. God of the gaps refers to a view of God as existing in the "gaps" or aspects of reality that are currently unexplained by scientific knowledge. I brought up a philosophical argument that was sound and valid. Not even close to being GOG-ish. I, too, have taken quite few philosophy classes. Truth cannot be logically subjective. What if my truth contradicts your truth? Truth, by the very definition, cannot have contradictions.
@HiDefJesus God of the gaps is a colloquial term and you are correct, it follows logic like "well we don't know what caused the big bang and it had to have been caused by something intelligent, therefore, God exists." This is what your saying about absolute morality.
Question: if you were hiding Ann Frank in your attic and Hitler came knocking on your door, asking if you are hiding any Jews, what would you say?
I'm sorry, everyone. As a Theist, I have nothing to say in regards to God existing, or anything of the sort. But as a philosopher, it is exceedingly easy for me to see that Dawkins has absolutely no clue as to what he is talking about. Russel and Sarte made it waaaaay further in thoughts about Morality than I think Dawkins ever will.
watchthefaithrain 1 month ago
Dawkins didn't answer the question lol
Hoogz20 2 months ago
@MyDutchOven
Your just to dumb to think of one because you are narrow minded.
schotnaus 3 months ago
most children can feel what is right and wrong (unless they've been ruined by adults) without reading any books. belief will never improve our lot, and materialist science won't either. Consciousness and empathy are the human rational mature foundations of a better society. imo !
typist73 4 months ago
What an absolutly fantastic answer...There is just no come back to it what so ever....Complete Genius
MyDutchOven 4 months ago
@MyDutchOven i think that answer was worth thrown into dustbin sir, It is actually equal as attacking others when u have no answer to support your points.
flexpape 2 months ago
Believe it or not Ayn Rand would fall in love with Dawkins if she was alive to see this.
antinominianist 5 months ago
MMM, Dawkins. It's tasty, AND good for you! XD
Singebuggercat 5 months ago
@ThePenguinColonel
I knew you were a bigot but a liar too?
Quintinohthree 6 months ago
@ThePenguinColone I hope all will unite to wipe scum like YOU from the face of this planet. I eagerly await the day...
DrSpooglemon 6 months ago
Absolute morality does not exist. Isn't it funny how "morality" ALWAYS has altruistic inclinations to it? Helping "others", taking "others" into consideration, doing unto "others." We have to help each other, otherwise we would perish as a species. SO, it's not morality. There is always a jagged line when looking into morality.
Skepgnostic 6 months ago
@Skepgnostic U justify the sayings of Dawkins? U think he said things right? bear in mind the points i have raised in my other comments :)
flexpape 2 months ago
@Skepgnostic
Golden Rule based morality leads to absolute rules if you "axiomize" the rules. For example, slavery of a certain people is absolutely wrong because it leads to a contradiction after generalizing "I can choose to enslave any arbitrary people" this means that the enslaver can be enslaved (contradicting the definition of slavery). Categorical Imperative.
aoeu256 3 weeks ago
@aoeu256 But Kant is a deontologist, and deontology has a lukewarm absolute morality inclination to it.
Skepgnostic 3 weeks ago
@aoeu256 I'm confused. Is this in reference to something I said? Indeed, I normally say that "The Golden Rule is only as good as the person practicing it." Typically we often use the "GR" when we are referring to moral, ethical, and kind deeds. It's when we refer to immoral, horrific, unethical deeds that the "GR" falls apart. Kant's Categorical Imperative tried to do it better by universalizing ethical dispositions.
Skepgnostic 3 weeks ago
@ThePenguinColonel
"[A]rabs are...the least evolved of all animals."
If you know even a little bit about evolution you know that statement can not make any sense.
Quintinohthree 6 months ago
wtf? it seems to me like absolute morality doesn't exist, instead morality comes across as something of a social illusion. i feel like there is a certain disposition for people to feel more strongly about certain subjects, like killing or stealing, but it strikes me as difficult to see something as absolutely right or wrong. it is difficult to imagine right and wrong without the existence of human beings, it just seems to me like there are so many more things to explain from an absolute POV.
NoPantsPartyPR 6 months ago
In other words, pagan Richard Dawkins wants to make up his own rules to suit himself.
savedbyjesusblood 7 months ago
@savedbyjesusblood Clearly you do not know what the difference between a pagan and an atheist is...
Skepgnostic 6 months ago 17
@savedbyjesusblood Yes. The reasonable, kind hearted Mr. Dawkins wants to redifine morality in terms of help others and preventing unecessary suffering, rather than spurious morality based on the writings on unscrupulous, megalomaniacal self proclaimed "holy" men of thousands of years ago...
DrSpooglemon 6 months ago
@savedbyjesusblood Richard Dawkins is not a Pagan you retard , he is an Atheist & if you had listened then you would have heard him say that in the Secular society that we live in we discus what laws that we all want to live by through a rational, democratic process. This why we no longer stone people, some of us have moved on from the Dark Ages.
ACCSESS247 3 months ago
@ACCSESS247 Now, this is a very stupid answer of dawkins. I am amazed that a man of such an age would pass such stupid comments. The problem is, who is going to define What morality is? Killing animals so that you can get some food is morality? Why kill plants and animals if u talking about Morality.... U have to follow the principles set by God otherwise a Robber is morally good because he is robbing for himself , so he and his family can exist in better environment.
flexpape 2 months ago
@flexpape ".... U have to follow the principles set by God otherwise a Robber is morally good because he is robbing for himself "
Actually according to the bible he is not worse that a child molestor or a murder..
After all they are both sinner and unless they repent they are both going to hell
badpanda84 1 month ago
@badpanda84 Bible is being infiltrated and written by Human hands much. And so what is wrong in, if u don't repent u going to hell? sounds like Good God to me giving u opportunity not to go to hell but in this world if u murder a person u must get punishment <3
flexpape 1 month ago
@ACCSESS247 You actually do not stone people but u love to rape women e.g Open up FBI.ORG and check out 2010 Rape Statistics.85K women raped. Oh Lord, My God. I wonder is there any woman in USA who is not raped lol. And that is just 2010 report. In 2009 u had 90k Rapes. Showing morality? Is that what you call "Moved on from The Dark Ages"
flexpape 2 months ago
@savedbyjesusblood
lol...coming by someone who thinks he was saved by Jesus blood...how disgusting is that?
TheKenTerry 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheKenTerry "and the blood of Jesus Christ is Son cleanseth us from all sin." 1 John 1:7.
savedbyjesusblood 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@savedbyjesusblood
"In other words, pagan Richard Dawkins wants to make up his own rules to suit himself."
LOL as opposed to the Pope making up his own rules and then claiming its "God's will"
badpanda84 1 month ago
@ThePenguinColonel , If it was an argument then I could have reasoned or discussed something, but what you need is a doctor. I think there are psychiatrists who help those people who feel reasonless hatred for murdering innocent civilians. I am only replying to you because your comment is directed towards me, and by the way I am not an Arab, I am living in Europe.
aazhbd 7 months ago 3
@ThePenguinColonel , oh, but as far as I knew jewish also came from the middle east that you hate so much. So, you are so against reason, thoughts, discussions and Richard Dawkins that you even worship jews. I wonder how atheists would see that.
aazhbd 7 months ago 2
Comment removed
aazhbd 7 months ago 3
@ThePenguinColonel , Once again that proves your blindness and naivety and also proves your reasonless hatred for civilians, children based on geographical location. But I wonder how the inventor of algorithm, chemistry, physics, mathematics, medical science etc all Muslim came from Middle East. Like, Avicenna, al-Khwārizmī, Al-Jabr and hundreds other, including many polymaths, but anyway, your comment is irrelevant to the video topic.
aazhbd 7 months ago 2
@ThePenguinColonel, But tell me something, why eventually the latest law and science is following the things that are written in Quran from thousands of years ago? Like the latest secular countries starting (in last hundred years) to give women inheritance, marriage, voting etc. rights as mentioned in Quran 1400 years ago and practiced since then. Like the barrier between waters was discovered in 1962, which is mentioned in Quran 1400 years ago and many other such examples.
aazhbd 7 months ago
@ThePenguinColonel , Haha, yeah, if you are the example of intelligence of our time then we really need to worry. Who wrote Quran can be easily proven with normal reasoning. This is what I said that the people didn't read Quran shouldn't comment about it. Why do they still teach Pythagorean theorem in the schools? Isn't that ancient and too primitive for your intelligence? You don’t want to learn that either, do you? Just because time changed, truth wouldn't change with it.
aazhbd 7 months ago
Abu Dawud 2150, also Muslim 3433), Bukhari 34:432), (Sahih Muslim 3371), Ibn Ishaq/Hisham/Hisham 693), and Sahin Muslim 4345) to start. Yeah, your prophet was a douche-bag. Sorry to break it to you, man. Or are you just being dishonest? Taqiyya allows muslims to lie for their faith. Either way, everyone knows that Mohammad was a mass-murdering, rapist, barbarian. You're not fooling anyone. We know all the stories.
caposton 7 months ago
@caposton , I didn't notice your comment before because you didn't post it as reply. All your false allegations are hugely misdirecting. I have pdf versions of Bukhari and Muslim, I checked your references very well and none of your statements are true. Those who want to verify, they can verify. Who are you trying to fool? Those who can read your lies, they can also read the truth, from true sources. Since the limitation of characters I will put the rest of the comment separately.
aazhbd 7 months ago
@aazhbd
Volume 3, Book 34, Number 432:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
that while he was sitting with Allah's Apostle he said, "O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interrupt us?" The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.
caposton 7 months ago
@caposton, My comment was on Quran, that's the highest authority and most authentic. Mohammad (pbuh) can not go against any teachings of Quran, he followed Quran perfectly, and all the things you mentioned goes against Quran, so surely they are false. Let me clarify a few points. In your comment you mentioned "Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri", why listen to him? The stupid things that you are claiming to be hadith are not authentic and not true, they are narrated by stupid random people.
aazhbd 7 months ago
@caposton , And Mohammad (pbuh) is the greatest leader in the history to have the highest number of followers. He was the kindest person known to mankind, and the allegations are completely false, no evidence. There's a whole research on his life style, deeds and teachings called "hadith" based on millions of historical evidence, and he is mentioned in Bible and other religious books. The person that almost every religion acknowledges to be the best human and prophet was a bad person?
aazhbd 7 months ago
@aazhbd
Everything I said came from hadith - I even quoted where. Whether you want to believe it or not is up to you.
1. Mohammad allowed his followers to rape women.
2. Mohammad allowed slavery
3. Mohammad led military campaigns
4. Mohammad killed captives after they surrendered
5. Mohammad heavily taxed captive Christians and Jews and gave pagans an ultimatum - convert or die
6. Mohammad had sex with a 9 year old - he was a pedophile
7. Mohammad said stupid shit (i.e.Jinn live in the nose
caposton 7 months ago
@caposton
8. Mohammad robbed caravans and kidnapped people for money
9. Mohammad assassinated his political rivals and anyone who insulted him
10. Mohammad used torture
Mohammad did a whole lot more too. He was a bad guy - not a blessing to humanity
caposton 7 months ago
@caposton , And most of the 10 points you mentioned are completely false. He did not allow slavery, it was a culture at that time, he enforced rights for the salves so they are not oppressed. Mohammad led military campaigns in self defense and to protect his people. You will not find any military campaign where he declared a war for no reason. Mohammad never killed any captive. A guy was even punished for injuring a captive. He is the first one to enforce rights for the captives.
aazhbd 7 months ago
@aazhbd
You don't know the hadiths. It is clear that Muslim men could forcibly have sex with, without marrying, female war captives after their first menstraul cycle. They used coitus interruptus, pulling the penis out before ejaculation, to prevent a pregnancy. They did this so they could sell the woman to another man who could also rape her. The muslim man only had to marry her if she became pregnant. Also, muslim men raped these women while their husbands were held captive.
caposton 7 months ago
@caposton , Firstly, you are lying without understanding. I know the hadith; you should read the authentic ones instead of the made-up ones. I clearly said Quran prohibits Muslims from doing those things; it prohibits men to even touch war captives and commands to secure them. Quran prohibits having sex with under aged girls. Aisha was the virgin wife of Mohammad (pbuh), try searching a bit before being a moron like that. And Mohammad (pbuh) never violated any of the laws of Quran.
aazhbd 7 months ago 2
@caposton ,That's why we follow him as messenger. He didn't do anything that Quran does not permit. The criterion to find out about the accuracy of Hadith is to use Quran, because Quran is the furkan, if any Hadith goes against Quran then it is automatically invalidated. Quran is the highest authority in Islam. So it is easily viewable that the things you are repeatedly claiming all are invalid and false. Because of the limit here it is not a suitable for quotations and explanations.
aazhbd 7 months ago 2
@caposton , There was rarely any non-muslims in his area at that time that he could have taxed heavily, but still he never taxed muslims and non-muslims differently. Mohammad never had sex with a 9 year old total bullshit falsehood. These are against Quran, and he was not. About jinn also, again you are believing what some random guy is telling about Mohammad, you have to see the authenticity properly, all your allegations are either completely false or misinterpreted or inaccurate.
aazhbd 7 months ago
@aazhbd
Do a wikipedia search on "Jizya". It will explain its use and where in the hadiths it can be found. Historically Jizya has been used as a way to make "the people of the book" feel subjugated. Also search "Aisha". She went to live with Mohammad when she was 6 and he had sex with her when she was 9. He "fondled", took baths with her, and "played" with her before she was 9. The qoute about Jinn living in peoples nose is only one of many hadiths that show mohammad for the moron he was.
caposton 7 months ago
@caposton , But I have a question, why are you bringing what Mohammad (pbuh) did or didn't? It's irrelevant. In the video Dawkins said something assuming all the religions are the same, and I said Islam is not like that, Quran teaches the things that are scientifically provable, and stable even after "reasoned", "thought-out" and "discussed". Quran is logically explainable. Instead of talking about that you are talking about some falsehood about Mohammad (pbuh), totally out of context.
aazhbd 7 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@caposton , If you want to blindly believe in atheism then I have no problem, but if you want to learn the truth, then you should look into all the theories and reasons. And Quran is the richest source of such knowledge. If you have confusions then you can ask, and I would gladly explain. But surely the things that you are claiming are not part of Quran therefore not a part of Hadith and not a part of Islam.
aazhbd 7 months ago 2
Comment removed
aazhbd 7 months ago 2
oh yeah, this was after they confronted Mohammad about raping the women in front of their husbands - Muhammad said the women now belonged to them and they could. Nice guy that muhammad, right?
caposton 7 months ago
Straight from Stephen Hawking himself- There is no such thing as perfect, or absolute. Therefore it's up to US, through TRIAL and ERROR, to find the best out of a set of moral rules and laws.
BloodyGuru 8 months ago
BRAVO best answer ever from Mr dawkins
Johnandvanessa 8 months ago
Dawkins depart from the false premise, that adultery is good. where as it isn't. he makes false inductions rendering his argument fallacious. Dawkins is wrong...because he does substantiate his premises he assumes premises. He has long been held a materialism advocate for some group.
warrior4just 8 months ago
...and the motives are always of the follwoing: greed, nihilsm, hedonism. all of which are the least candidates for deriving what morals should mean. you always gonna find those who argue against established norms, realities, and truths, by twisting, bypassing, manipulating facts and underminng the essense of morality for the betterment of society. something of absue to democracy. and that in itself is short of moral.
warrior4just 8 months ago
fantastic response, go Dawkins!
MrJayman91 8 months ago
Absolutely the best "Morality" rebutal on youtube
felipealvarez1982 9 months ago
Morals are not absolute. The same action can be "good" in one context, "bad" in another, "neutral" in yet another, and with varying degrees. The problem with relative morality is that humans are fallible, and as we refine our notions of morality, it is inevitable that mistakes will be made. The solution is not to adopt an absolute morality based on scripture or whatever else, but to have the courage to admit the limitations of our judgments and be ready to change them when we err.
playadominical 9 months ago
@playadominical
One can kill a human life and accept it in his own right as moral, maybe in the case somebody crosses my property and i want to feel safe, but is that sufficient pretext to end a human life. the answer is no, there is absolute morality and on the other side of the spectrum there is nihilism and selfishness, absolute morality leaves no reason to rationalize around selfishness.
warrior4just 8 months ago
@warrior4just there are no absolute morals. your example doesn't make sense. any action, no matter how "bad" it is, can be justified and made to be the morally correct choice. to understand why, you should read up on bentham, kant and mill just for starters.
playadominical 8 months ago
@playadominical
My tool is Logic as in mathematical/Philosophical sense, i an equipped to rationalize and come up with my own argument and not rely on others" Bentham" for forming mine. until u learn about logic u'll know that anything that undermines positivity towards existance, is immoral. Nihilism in the sense is immoral becoz it subjects to rule established not by common but by the essense of normality is.
warrior4just 8 months ago
@warrior4just you want to talk about morality and ethics on one hand, yet you dismiss what some of the great ethical philosophers wrote without having read them. it's not a weakness to seek out and recognize the wisdom of others, it is a strength.
also, i've spent the past 7 years studying philosophy. maybe i missed something important, but i don't see how you can connect logic, existence and morality in the way you described. can you explain this connection please?
playadominical 8 months ago
@playadominical
sure i'd dismiss most of them if they fail to consider when they exclude other logical premises "possible explanations" in their arguments. many of them base their argument based on their solely perceived western notions, while they probably have little grasp of other notions and how those possible premises lead to different results on society "with respect to morality that is".
warrior4just 8 months ago
@playadominical
After reading many topics from science and epistimology in matters like morality, origin, psycho-social evolutionism, and materialism. Ugly pattern appears or so to my understanding, although truths are incontrevertible, they becomes subject to portrayal of politics and the dynamics governed by higher bidders. when it comes to morality there soemthings that are undeniably wrong, yet u gonna alwys find deviants who argue the essence of what's been established...contned
warrior4just 8 months ago
@playadominical
we are defined by what we are, what we have been, our facts, observations, & premises are based on our history, we define truth by that which that enables us to what defines us. questioning, arguing against, undermining our definition on how society should operate jeoperdizes the facts and in doing so we may as well redefine for everyone who comes with a demand. as Ronald Regan once said "Liberalism is disease, logic and rational is the cure".
warrior4just 8 months ago
@warrior4just rubbish. anyone who claims that questioning and arguing definitions undermines the "truth" is veering toward censorship. if nobody ever questioned our notions of right and wrong, women wouldn't have the right to vote and slavery would still be sanctioned.
as for your other point, that some actions are unquestionably morally right or wrong, name one and i'll show you how it can be made to be morally ambiguous.
playadominical 8 months ago
@playadominical
i think u misunderstood, when i said questioning i refer to breaking the established law.
the examples is raping u, taking u property just because u look weaker, cheating of all sorts, bribery. all those if u think they are ambiguous than u utterly arn't thinker, and this is not an ad-hominem. this simply ur incapacity of grasping the polonged effects of those, in another an ignorant. now when i say those examples i say they become morally acceptable. do the simulation.
warrior4just 8 months ago
@warrior4just here is a simple hypothetical thought experiment to show how morals can be ambiguous.
rape: a man with a nuclear bomb threatens to blow up the city of new york. he says he will do it unless you personally go out and rape someone. you cannot explain it to the person you are raping, you simply have to do it, or millions will die. is it still wrong to rape? would it be wrong to refuse?
also, have you heard of the "switch track" scenario? this is basic stuff.
playadominical 8 months ago
u can't be serious with this example, morals aren't built on circumstancial irrational situations. I'd not rape but would emulate the situation, on the pretext that the man at hand is deranged. Is this intentional ? no. the whole event calls for extreme survival measures with which rational is to be used. the rape isn't justified when intentional. when proven intentional it is immoral. here do urself a favor, and sit down reflect and compose ur argument.
warrior4just 8 months ago
@playadominical
To compose an honest opinion is to use logical premises and use logical deduction/induction to in order to arrive at an argument that u urself is content with. but it appears that for the sake of argument is u attempt at going around and manipulating ideas in order to refute good case for morals. all u do is twist just because u want to. this is apparent from the way u think.
warrior4just 8 months ago
@warrior4just i guess you just don't have the mental capacity to keep on track. as it is, i can barely understand your posts. anyway, it's not my job to educate you. have a nice day.
playadominical 8 months ago
@playadominical
WTF, he he...what's ur point in the first place, moral subjectivsm has beel long and easily debunked. moral objectivism is a must and exists, within it, there are absolutes. So in essence, there are absolute morals. And because u can't understand, i suspect in ur regard, it takes critical thinking to realize that morals cannot be subjective or ambiguous as u call it..
warrior4just 8 months ago
@warrior4 your responses are incoherent. you keep saying you read this, read that, know this, know that, but you haven't given any real argument. it's just gibberish. repeating a claim over and over does not make it so.
instead of reading blog posts, i suggest you go out and actually educate yourself. based on the quality of your writing it is clear you haven't gone beyond high school.
i'm done!
playadominical 8 months ago
@playadominical
he he he, oright tard...not much brain horsepower left i guess.
warrior4just 8 months ago
@warrior4just and please don't say stuff like "u utterly arn't thinker", it just makes you look ridiculous.
playadominical 8 months ago
@playadominical
If you refer to animals to derive morals we human are going to self-oblirate. Morals are intrinsic and inherent in the deep spiritual sense. crossing that barriers leaves you subject to amygdala's impulses and few use of ur pre-frontal cortex. If Morals aren't set with rule to preserve the betterment of society not individuals, there is no limit how creative u can live a pseudo life on the pretext that a lifestyle.
warrior4just 8 months ago
Look at every single nice thing written in a religious book and you will find it was simply bastardized from older, reasoned philosophies.
On the contrary, the most creative descriptions in the bible are ones of suffering, hell and the utter misery you will endure if you don't do what they say.
aljasm 9 months ago
Very well said but very wrongly said, based on totally wrong information. The maturity of civilization that we today have is NOT based on secular arguments or reasoning. And the every bit of knowledge from Quran is actually arguably and reasonably acceptable. The stable and certain part of the morality practiced today is derived from religious knowledge. Quran is sable even after thoughtful reasoning. Ignoring the broad set of knowledge is a naive way to reach absolute morality.
aazhbd 10 months ago
@aazhbd Yeah...because the Islamic world is the pinnacle for equality, morality, and Solidarity.
Skepgnostic 10 months ago 27
@aazhbd Allah was created by humans, my friend. Not the other way around.
GluttonForSex 9 months ago
@GluttonForSex
u can't prove it, so u r at best an agnostic.
warrior4just 8 months ago
@aazhbd lol...I would have been beheaded because I abandoned Islam. According to your Islamic (Sharia) law. Now it's pretty obvious my head is still intact, for I'm writing this reply aren't I? Yeah, cool morals buddy :P
Haseeebo 8 months ago
@Haseeebo , That's why I said that people who doesn't know about Islam should not claim that they know anything about morality in anyway. You don't even know what you are talking about, where does it says that you would be beheaded if you change your religion from Islam? NOWHERE, practiced nowhere. If you betray and work against your country then even any country's law says that your punishment is death, so does Islam, working against Islam is apostasy, not changing your religion.
aazhbd 8 months ago 5
@aazhbd
Mohammad in the hadiths also allowed his followers to rape the female war captives. You see, Mohammad's men wanted to rape the women and then sell them. They didn't want them to get pregnant so they asked Mohammad if coitus interruptus (pulling out) was all right. What would the moral response be? Did Mohammad scold his men and show mercy on the women? The answer is no. Mohammad said, "what is destined to exist will exist." So Mohammad was immoral and an idiot.
caposton 7 months ago
@caposton, First of all, in my comment I was talking about Quran, not Hadith. Secondly, can you show me some proof of what you are attributing to Mohammad (pbuh)? There's no proof. On the other hand, both Quran is the oldest manuscript of women rights, it prohibits all sort of raping or abusing, talks about the property share for women, and also war time moral behavior and respecting the women. You want to claim that Mohammad (pbuh) preached against Quran? You are just lying.
aazhbd 7 months ago 2
@aazhbd It's a shame that youdidn't listen to what Mr. Dawkins said. He just quoted Hadith and Quranic injunctions that are IMMORAL. He just cited Biblical intruction that is IMMORAL. How do you think we got to morality if the "stable" as you say Quranic instruction is contradicted by our morals? We don't think it's acceptable to lash adulterer's. We dont' find it acceptable to burn, hang, slit the throat of homosexuals. We DON'T think slashing into the penis's and clitoris's of children is good
XforeverlongingX 7 months ago
@XforeverlongingX , I have replied, in your next comment. But also let me mention that children cannot do adultery and Islam never mentioned or supported any of bullshit punishment that you claimed. Why are you misguiding and deceiving people by saying this falsehood? You don't know anything about morality or Islam; you didn't even listen to what Mr. Dawkin's said. If you propagate falsehood to deceive others then you are starting it by deceiving yourself.
aazhbd 7 months ago
@aazhbd The lashing in public for adultery is IN the Quran by the way.
XforeverlongingX 7 months ago
@XforeverlongingX , It indicates that you didn't listen to Mr. Dawkin; he didn't care about what you think is moral but according to him, "reasoned", "thought out" and "discussed". Nowhere in Quran said that lashing on genitals or burn, hang, slit and all those bullshit allegations that you mentioned in your comment. Adultery is a crime and Quran speaks about the punishment in 24:2, 100 lashes only, nothing more; even many secular laws has more cruel punishment against it.
aazhbd 7 months ago
@aazhbd The Qu'uran is no more favourable than the bible. If you honestly think you will find acceptance for such an argument here all I can say is;
Wrong fucking tree...
DrSpooglemon 6 months ago
@DrSpooglemon, First, let me clarify that I'm not looking for anyone's acceptance. Everyone has their own right to live it in their own way, if you don't want to follow the truth, up to you, as written in Quran 109:6. And secondly, Bible contains thousands of errors and contradiction Quran does not contain any, not even one. Quran invites reason, knowledge, discussion, assures freedom, definitely it is most favorable. Those who read Quran with understanding have realized that.
aazhbd 6 months ago
@aazhbd
No contradictions in the Quran eh? You know you aren't allowed to lie right? What's the punishment exactly?
96:2 says man was created from blood, 15:26 says from clay, 3:59 says from dust and 19:67 says that man was created ex nihilo, from no earlier substance.
2 and 3 can be excused but not any others.
Quintinohthree 6 months ago
@Quintinohthree, You are misinterpreting the Quranic verses. I have a science book, in one place it says that water is created with Hydrogen and in another place it is said that water is created with oxygen, oh, isn't that a contradiction? Nowhere in Quran has it said about ex-nihilo or anything like that. In 19:67, says the God created human into something when he was nothing. The God has given us the ability which we didn't have, it’s said in the same way.
aazhbd 6 months ago
@Quintinohthree, [continued] In 96:2, it says that man is created from "Alaqa" which means "clinging substance" or a clot which is right if you look at the Embryo in a mother's womb you will see that it looks like a "clinging substance". There are various translations online, try reading them instead of making one up own your own. Lying about the meaning of some verses won't prove anything. None of the 4 verses are in contradiction in anyway.
aazhbd 6 months ago
@aazhbd
I see you'll lie yourself out of this but no problem, I'll get you another contradiction.
79:27-30 says the heavens were created first, 2:29 and 41:9-12 say no, it's the earth.
I have quite the list. There must be one at the very least that you can't get around.
Quintinohthree 6 months ago
@Quintinohthree, I did not lie and I don't have to take it from a liar like you. Show me where did I lie? I just unveiled your lie and jeopardized your attempt to misguide. I don't have a problem to reply to any number of misconceptions about Quran that you want me to clarify, but if my clarification was not good enough for you then at least you should give a reason. I challenge you to reply to every single one if you can put forward, you won't be able to lie yourself out.
aazhbd 6 months ago
@Quintinohthree, About Quran 79:27-30 and 41:9-12, in both places heaven was created first. In 41:11 it is written that "Then He directed Himself to the heaven..." it was possible to direct towards heaven after creating earth because it existed. In 41:12 the heaven gets divided into 7 admins, which was also possible because heaven existed before earth. Either you have a totally crap translation or you are making these translations up. In either case you should learn better.
aazhbd 6 months ago
@aazhbd
Mybe you didn't lie, maybe you did. You know it for yourself. Anyway, another contradiction is on its way.
35:1 says Allah is omnipotent, can do everything, 6:100-101 says clearly that Allah can't have a child.
The latter is also in contradiction to 39:4 which says that Allah can have a son if he so chooses.
Quintinohthree 6 months ago
@Quintinohthree, You need is good translations to see the real meaning, there is one online in quranDOTcom, that have very less errors. In 35:1 it doesn't say that Allah is omnipotent, it says "Allah is over all things competent". And Allah can't do everything (e.g. He can't lie) but He can create anything. More about it in 112:1-4. Allah can't have son as in 6:101. In 39:4 clarified that He never chosen to have a son. Choosing and begetting a child is different. He did neither.
aazhbd 6 months ago
@aazhbd
6:100-101 ends with the rethorical question "how can he" implying that it is impossible.
Quintinohthree 6 months ago
@Quintinohthree, Yes that is right. He can't have children, "...He could have chosen from what He creates whatever He willed..." as in 39:4, but he can not father a son in anyway. So, there's no problem.
aazhbd 6 months ago
@aazhbd
So he could have a son, even though he doesn't, and he can't have a son at all? Now that's a contradiction, and you've admitted it. But I'll give you some more:
In 2:132 Abraham tells Jacob already had the right religion and therefore was a Muslim, in 7:143 Moses himself says he's the first Muslim, in 39:12 Muhammad says he's the first Muslim.
So who is it?
Quintinohthree 6 months ago
@Quintinohthree, No, I said that He couldn't have, but he could have chosen, there is a difference of fathering a son and choosing a son. He can't father a son, but could have chosen. And once again, see the good translation. Mohammad (pbuh) was the first muslim of the people around him as mentioned "among you" in the verse. Same goes with Moses (pbuh). The first Muslim was Adam (pbuh), and all the prophets followed the same Allah and the same message.
aazhbd 6 months ago
@aazhbd
So he could have chosen but even then he couldn't have? That would make sense.
Moses didn't say he was the first of true believers among the people he was with, he only said he was the first of true believers, which would be false if Jacob was a true believer.
Quintinohthree 6 months ago
@Quintinohthree, He could have chosen, but choosing doesn't makes a son begotten. Besides choosing a son is a different meaning of son. And read the context of what Moses (pbuh) was saying, he was approving that he is being a Muslim, in context the first one of the people there. All the verses before was going on about how the people of his time was doing, and the 143 verse was in the same context.
aazhbd 6 months ago
@aazhbd
Another then, can you get around this one: 5:72 says all Christians will go to hell, 2:62 says under some circumstances they won't.
Quintinohthree 6 months ago
@Quintinohthree, What's the problem, can't you read english? I have heard better arguments, these are so lame. In 5:72, it is clearly mentioned that you won't be forgiven only if you associate anyone with Allah, claim that there is anyone who can be compared with one God, not every Christian believe that. Some people believe bad things, but not all of them. Nowhere it says that Christians would go to hell. Anyone who would read them would understand.
aazhbd 6 months ago
@aazhbd
So wait, all people who believe that Christ the son of Mary is Allah will go to hell, and yet Christians can reach heaven by doing good?
Quintinohthree 6 months ago
@Quintinohthree, As you should be able to read it in those verses, that only situation unpardonable is when someone associates anyone with the ONE true creator. It is easy, if anyone don't associate anyone with Allah, then other things might be pardoned by fair judgement by the God. In chapter 103, also says what you need to do to not to be in loss. What is said is said clearly, and you are just trying to get misinterpreted words approved. The verses are stright forward on this.
aazhbd 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aazhbd let me reply in the same intellectual vein as you have posted: a;oijfe;oajd;lkmavkl ;fjvliwauh ilua sndlfjsblk uhfalsiudhfliasb nflksndvlkjsaoiewh
Singebuggercat 5 months ago
@Singebuggercat , yeah, I guess close minded people like you won't understand my previous comment, it might have appeared the same way. Anyway, tschüss.
aazhbd 5 months ago
@aazhbd Is it really? So killing apostates who reject your perfect book (which is profoundly uninspired), and realize that the prophet was actually for profit, who swindled a whole bunch of people are fit to be killed? Yeah that's moral. No I'll take my secular morality. The men of the enlightenment may not have been perfect. Some, like your islamist peers did own slaves, but they gave us a framework to solve problems. In contrast, your side says, we have everything we need, no discussion.
Newenlightenmentnow 6 months ago
@Newenlightenmentnow, See, this is the problem with you guys, you are talking without knowing anything. You didn't read Quran, didn't even read my previous comments. You are rejecting Quran based on what some morons and politicians have to lie about it without checking if they really exist. I have already replied to those false allegations in previous comments. And where does Quran say that "no discussion" needed? In my last comment also I said that Quran invites discussion.
aazhbd 6 months ago
Try Secular Humanism. it's like a reasonable morality without need for a God.
11115384 10 months ago
I think I have a word which accurately describes what happened here:
OWNED
ksthebest 11 months ago
What's so moral about following orders blindly?
BlckSbthMan 11 months ago
Brilliantly put by Dawkins
peachybeach 1 year ago 2
Why would you want an absolute of anything it gives you no room for manouveur dawkins is right you have to cherry pick your way through the bible to find anything to could be considered moral in todays day and age
FCMillwall81 1 year ago
And of course religious people have taken part in the movement toward empathy and civilization. Not religion's "leaders", who simply threaten punishment for disobedience. Today's 'moderated' official religions are the result of those "leaders" bowing to probably millions of small acts of defiance. What's good in and moral about religious people exists in spite of religion, not because of it. Atheism is a nonbelief in gods. Morality's a whole other thing.
wunwuntew 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So there are no absolute moral truths in athiesm?
Thats not very comforting.
Paedophilia is wrong now - but in 5000 years it could be right? Thats what this moral relativism is all about.
Belegaer 1 year ago
@Belegaer Because "comfort" is what created the metaphysical universe....
What is your idea of absolute moral truth?
Skepgnostic 1 year ago 10
@Skepgnostic
I don't know I am trying to find it out - but the secular/humanist idea isn't a very good explaination to me. If there is a maker I would prefer to follow his laws. I imagine the 10 commandments is a good place to start. But atm I'm still figuring it all out..:P
Belegaer 1 year ago
@Belegaer If you really think the ten commandments is the best source for morality, then you've obviously never read any other scripture. Take Jainism for example. The jains preach a doctrine of utter non-violence. They have no text advocating violence and intolerance, unlike the christian bible.
ThatGuyWhoSucksBoobz 1 year ago
@Skepgnostic well put.
mellettolag 1 year ago
@Belegaer No, the argument here is morality comes from discussion, reason etc. ..Has clearly nothing to do with relativism..
Paedophilia is not likely to be reasoned/discussed/argued as being normal in the feature.
quinto34 1 year ago
@Belegaer REASONED, THOUGHT-OUT, DISCUSSED
Get it?
shkeni 1 year ago 2
@Belegaer
Imagine this. Absolute morality is so subjective. The Koran might be right, the Bible, the Torah take your pick. Now, youre right, we atheists may not have absolute moral truths, AND YET WE ACT MORALLY ANYWAY. Nothing stops us, nothing impedes us. To give up the illusion of religion is not to give up morality. And yes, PEDOphilia could be deemed right in 5000 years, but what insane thought makes you think that that will happen?
Patriots09ist 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Belegaer
"So there are no absolute moral truths in athiesm?" True
"Thats not very comforting." So what, it's true.
"Paedophilia is wrong now - but in 5000 years it could be right?" I very much doubt it. However in theory it could be true. However 200 years ago slavery was considered morally virtuous. Even the bible sanctioned it.
UrukEngineer 1 year ago
@Belegaer Around 1400 years ago paedophillia was ok for the Prophet Mohammad (piss be upon him) when he married a 6 year old girl so presumably ok for Muslims back then, but today it's not ok?
I can say that anything is absolutley moral or immoral through choice. I make the choices, If I make the wrong choice society has LAWS.
leffehoegaarden 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Belegaer Around 1400 years ago paedophillia was ok for the Prophet Mohammad (piss be upon him) when he married a 6 year old girl so presumably ok for Muslims back then, but today it's not ok?
I can say that anything is absolutley moral or immoral through choice. I make the choices, If I make the wrong choice society has LAWS in the same way gods have LAWS.
leffehoegaarden 1 year ago
@Belegaer What the fuck are you on about
samkerstens1991 1 year ago
@Belegaer Not necessarily, but it used to be right, DESPITE religious influence. Absolute morality is false and never happened. The moral Zeitgeist is obvious and universal. It's not about comfort, it's about doing what is right. Why don't you snuggle up in your snuggie and read the bible to comfort and soothe your feeble mind.
BillHicks420 11 months ago
@Belegaer Technically, wasn't paedophilia accepted about 2000 years ago?
Samuelwhatshisface 11 months ago
@Samuelwhatshisface Indeed it was, and even before that.
robtul12 10 months ago
@Belegaer
Torturing people is wrong now -- but 6000 years ago it could be right? That's what moral absolutism is all about.
rkyeun 9 months ago
@Belegaer If pedophiles were for whatever reason accepted 5000 years from now then yes it would be. Just like how slavery was accepted for the past 4000+ years, and God condoned it.
:) How's that for absolute morality?
Haseeebo 8 months ago
@Haseeebo Please do not comment on that comment i made 7 months ago. I get a comment on it every single week, LEAVE ME ALONE ;-)
Belegaer 8 months ago
@Belegaer Shouldn't have made such a stupid comment then :D
The beauty of public forums...everyone can see he stupidity one posts on the interwebs!!!! rawr.
Haseeebo 8 months ago
hahaha. This reminds me of the scene in downfall when Hitler takes off his glasses and start raving about. search for "Hitler finds out" if you don't get the reference
ChalleFoV3 1 year ago
He did good! :)
Zookeeper1983 1 year ago
beautiful.
MrTonyInchpractice 1 year ago
Has someone actually given an example of absolute morality? It's a great phrase, but, when applied, morality seems awfully contextual.
crabbieappleton 1 year ago
First thing dawkins does is attack the bible and avoids the question. The question was not where does religious people get there absolutes from, the question was where does atheist gets there's.. If he believes in absolutes,then he should give an account why and how it came to be, if not, give arguments against it. I would love to see him give a speech without attacking the bible. Stay in the lab and not answer philosophical questions!
chrismac1980 1 year ago
@chrismac1980 I believe he did answer the question: morality comes from our reasoned, thought-out discussion.
crabbieappleton 1 year ago
@crabbieappleton That's relative and not absolute. Like I said he didn't answer the question..
chrismac1980 1 year ago
@chrismac1980 I think that was his point: that morality is, in fact, relative to the culture and the time expressing it, and not absolute.
The question, as stated, wasn't where atheists get their absolute morality (as the questioner denied an atheist absolute here), but by what justification can they decide right from wrong. And Dawkins' answer is our reasoned, thought-out discussion.
I agree that he attacks the Bible, but it IS a major source of "absolute morality."
crabbieappleton 1 year ago
@crabbieappleton I am sorry for my comment, after listening again, you are correct. I just don't like the fact that he attacks the bible to support his claims. I think he would be more convincing if he lay off the bible, and have reasoned thought - out discussion like he claims, to support his position..
chrismac1980 1 year ago
Morality and all of those associated ideals are rooted entirely in a presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.
Dawkins couldn't get a clue if he changed his name to Colonel Mustard.
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
@SirWinstonChurchill For some, yeah. I find that morality always seems to imply altruism. If I were to say that I am a moral man because I brush my teeth every night, go to the gym 5 days a week, and watch what I eat, I would be looked at strangely. A "moral" action must imply YOU, or someone other than me. Because when we think of someone else, we can't help but think of ourselves first.
Skepgnostic 1 year ago
@Skepgnostic
"Altruism" is just another sanctified excuse for you or anyone else to pass the collection plate at gunpoint for the god of communism...
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
@SirWinstonChurchill i agree. But why must you say, "...you or anyone else?" How come you are not part of the equasion? I do not think altruism is obtainable, so i hope your responce was not intended to be indifferent, because we seem to be of one mind.
Skepgnostic 1 year ago
@Skepgnostic
Maybe your reference to altruism wasn't clear to me... There are certain codewords often used by the leftist filth that can be used inadvertently by others... I react to them violently nevertheless...
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
@Skepgnostic
In addition, know that there is no such thing as an orthodox atheist. There are so many fakes out there who are nothing more than pathetic reverse xtians and they are all too willing to cower before their Islamist master as dhimmis... I want to bury them in the same hole...
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
Love it!
anetchi 1 year ago
I agree with DavidPirtle: Why must morality be "absolute"? Humans undoubtedly benefit by adhering to certain basic moral principles, but there are almost always exceptions to those rules--occasionally, lying or killing or stealing is the RIGHT thing to do. The world is a complex place, and very often an unyielding moral code will lead to quite immoral behavior.
Besides, how do we determine what those "absolute" moral values are? There is no consensus, even within individual religions.
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago 16
This is very well stated. I don't understand why some religious people are terrified about the non-existence of absolute morality. Our morality has evolved (meaning changed over time) as our culture has changed. Morality has always been a mixture of our instincts (what some scientists call our 'monkey morality') and cultural debate.
All that religious people are really saying is "it's right because God said so." That's not morality. That's just following orders.
DavidPirtle 1 year ago 22
@DavidPirtle I'm not scared of relative morality. I oppose relative morality because it is nonsensical. It is based on the idea of relative truth. However, truth cannot be non-absolute logically speaking because the idea is self-refuting. If I ask you if it is true that truth is relative. Your answer, both either yes or no, proves absolute truth exists. Absolute truth is the only logical conclusion and is not self-refuting. Absolute truth is the foundation for absolute morality.
HiDefJesus 1 year ago
@HiDefJesus You make absolutely no sense. Everything you said is written directly through the prism of subjectivity. I have been taking philosophy for a few years as a minor and what you are saying is pseudo-intellectual. It's so "God-of-the-gaps-ish." You're basically saying that if someone says that truth is relative, no matter what they say, you will still advocate that there is absolute morality. Of course you will, you're a slave to the idea of dividends in the form of an afterlife.
Skepgnostic 1 year ago
@Skepgnostic If you're minoring in philosophy than you must be failing. God of the gaps refers to a view of God as existing in the "gaps" or aspects of reality that are currently unexplained by scientific knowledge. I brought up a philosophical argument that was sound and valid. Not even close to being GOG-ish. I, too, have taken quite few philosophy classes. Truth cannot be logically subjective. What if my truth contradicts your truth? Truth, by the very definition, cannot have contradictions.
HiDefJesus 1 year ago
@HiDefJesus God of the gaps is a colloquial term and you are correct, it follows logic like "well we don't know what caused the big bang and it had to have been caused by something intelligent, therefore, God exists." This is what your saying about absolute morality.
Question: if you were hiding Ann Frank in your attic and Hitler came knocking on your door, asking if you are hiding any Jews, what would you say?
Skepgnostic 1 year ago