how an atheist know what is moral. Are consequences of an act important? Always minimize both actual and potential suffering; always maximize both actual and potential happiness.
evolutionary principals, the brain awards what is good for us, and gives pain when it is not. Usually not just for you but for the spices. we take care of cute things. use emotions, calculate possible outcomes from there and chose what is best for you, the ones closest to you and then the others.
Nice to see you almost doing a logical fallacy about morals and athiest.
Also, what are you even talking about in these? Also, you do appeal to ridicule!, I can see why he left as you are not even getting into what your saying. So what is your point in these videos?
That without god, we are nothing? what? How can you use these type of arguments in anything really? Perhaps one. make one video so he can responde to it, not 3 at once. 2. make what you are tlaking about known.
My official diagnosis: I have 5 years tenure of study in this topic. You have no apparent experience at all. If you're arguing from the point of philosophy, I have the right to use VALID and SOUND philosophical concepts (such as Descartes) to defeat your point.
Until you abandon these pathetic "arts" based studies and have some medicine and other applied sciences under your belt, I can't respect your opinion on this.
Oo, goody, I think you've finally earned your video response. I will happily fuck you up considering I am not in an arts program, nor is this class I'm taking "Reason and Responsibility" an "arts" based class. Oh and mind you this person is a doctor with a medicine background.
This person? What were your grades in biology, psychology, medical law and ethics, earth science, world religions, medical terminology *and* pathology? Mine were all solid A grades. Honestly I don't care what you philosophize. I can tell this kid is working really hard at being as delusional as possible. He will grow up to regret this wasted time in theology.
It does because it contradicts one of the premises (hence making it unsound). The argument may be valid, yet it is not sound.
Morality is "philosophically interesting" because there are numerous situations where there is NO objective morality to make a decision. It is entirely up to your judgment and reason, which is typically different for each person.
I will provide hypothetical situations of great "philosophical interest" for you to prove it.
"The Trolley Problem"
"The Prisoners' Dilemma"
The Rock-Climber Dilemma
This case you are attached to an end of a rope with one or more people behind you, also there are at least two other above you. Should you cut yourself loose or hang on to yield the death of all.
Extreme, but "philosophically interesting" (A term from James Joyce's 232 Philosophy Lecture)
People disagree about the general principles or criteria that govern the concept's application in some cases beyond theses as well. These cases can be known as philosophically interesting.
actually the prisoners dillema doesnt belong between the others, the prisoner dillema actual shows that that that the dominate stratedy is not what would it appear to be by analysis of the concept because it can be shown that cooperation is a better strategy when the concept is used in multiple human interactions.
Im not a moral objectivist but the only sort of "objective" sense of morality is actually build in by natural selection due to prisonerdillema like situations in nature
That fundy would be me simply because we do not need Theist capital to provide for morality. Morality has been around millennia before your religion (and mine) have ever existed.
Comptech, you're really misunderstanding my argument to an impressive degree. it doesn't matter one iota that morals have been around long before theism.
Comptech, morals have been there for millenia but the understanding of morals have not. People have moral intuitions about the objective values but cannot explain their source unless they assume monotheism.
You can follow your moral intuitions if you are an atheist, but at a price of your worldview not being consistent. It creates a contradiction because just because you base your decision on sentiment and not argument.
Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, Cicero, and numerous ancient philosophers of ancient times before the "mainstream" Christianity of Judaism,
Monotheism in no way at all dictated "understanding" of morals. These were addressed by the Hellenistic, Platonic, and philosophers of the like before Christianity even had a pray of being heard, in the days when it was a cult rather than a religion.
Their systems were rather vague and unfinished, this is why there are elements of them in monotheism (at least judeo-christian) but the systems themselves are not used in practice.
I suspect monotheism is simply platonism taken to its conclusions.
You miss the point. The idea is that there seems to be objective morality, a natural morality inside us. One need to not believe in God for this to be the case, but if there is not a God than this natural law morality is not really objective or authoritative. It is merely an instinct.
how an atheist know what is moral. Are consequences of an act important? Always minimize both actual and potential suffering; always maximize both actual and potential happiness.
Ishta5 3 years ago
alright. so why is it good to reduce suffering and increase pleasure?
migkillertwo 3 years ago
evolutionary principals, the brain awards what is good for us, and gives pain when it is not. Usually not just for you but for the spices. we take care of cute things. use emotions, calculate possible outcomes from there and chose what is best for you, the ones closest to you and then the others.
Ishta5 3 years ago
I don't think this guy is a very good debater.
Apologist325 3 years ago
ShwaTard
TheIrrationalAtheist 3 years ago
You might want to look into natural law morality a little bit. I have seen some very clear explanations of our since of morality.
poetsonghotmail 3 years ago
Nice to see you almost doing a logical fallacy about morals and athiest.
Also, what are you even talking about in these? Also, you do appeal to ridicule!, I can see why he left as you are not even getting into what your saying. So what is your point in these videos?
That without god, we are nothing? what? How can you use these type of arguments in anything really? Perhaps one. make one video so he can responde to it, not 3 at once. 2. make what you are tlaking about known.
Krensharpaw 3 years ago
refuting his videos was like shooting candy from a baby in barrel wasnt it?
Knowntje 3 years ago
"mind/body dualism"
No such thing! The mind is a product of the brain. Period. No philosophical crapola, just reality.
bamboo4tameshigiri 3 years ago
Can computers have mind in the future?
MarcinP2 3 years ago
Easy on the insults man.
CooFrank 3 years ago 2
The irrational atheist has some great ammo doesn't it!?
mikecampochiaro 3 years ago
one of the best books I ever read
migkillertwo 3 years ago
My official diagnosis: You are delusional.
bamboo4tameshigiri 3 years ago
My official diagnosis: I have 5 years tenure of study in this topic. You have no apparent experience at all. If you're arguing from the point of philosophy, I have the right to use VALID and SOUND philosophical concepts (such as Descartes) to defeat your point.
If I were delusional. . . Then I've already won.
Comptech224 3 years ago 2
i want you to debate migkiller, now that would be entertaining.
StreetlightEagle 3 years ago
It may occur, but I'm glad you'd think it would be interesting. Anyhow, thanks for the comment ^_^
Comptech224 3 years ago
Until you abandon these pathetic "arts" based studies and have some medicine and other applied sciences under your belt, I can't respect your opinion on this.
bamboo4tameshigiri 3 years ago
Oo, goody, I think you've finally earned your video response. I will happily fuck you up considering I am not in an arts program, nor is this class I'm taking "Reason and Responsibility" an "arts" based class. Oh and mind you this person is a doctor with a medicine background.
I feel ready to undo you entirely.
Comptech224 3 years ago
This person? What were your grades in biology, psychology, medical law and ethics, earth science, world religions, medical terminology *and* pathology? Mine were all solid A grades. Honestly I don't care what you philosophize. I can tell this kid is working really hard at being as delusional as possible. He will grow up to regret this wasted time in theology.
bamboo4tameshigiri 3 years ago
Oh, I left out Anatomy and Physiology, another A.
bamboo4tameshigiri 3 years ago
hey that was mine
"ivory tower of idiocy"
Theologica37 3 years ago
and I stole it! MWAHAAHAHAHAHA!
migkillertwo 3 years ago
It does because it contradicts one of the premises (hence making it unsound). The argument may be valid, yet it is not sound.
Morality is "philosophically interesting" because there are numerous situations where there is NO objective morality to make a decision. It is entirely up to your judgment and reason, which is typically different for each person.
Comptech224 3 years ago 3
you need to provide something beyond assertions to back that up comptech.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
I will provide hypothetical situations of great "philosophical interest" for you to prove it.
"The Trolley Problem"
"The Prisoners' Dilemma"
The Rock-Climber Dilemma
This case you are attached to an end of a rope with one or more people behind you, also there are at least two other above you. Should you cut yourself loose or hang on to yield the death of all.
Extreme, but "philosophically interesting" (A term from James Joyce's 232 Philosophy Lecture)
Comptech224 3 years ago
People disagree about the general principles or criteria that govern the concept's application in some cases beyond theses as well. These cases can be known as philosophically interesting.
Comptech224 3 years ago 2
actually the prisoners dillema doesnt belong between the others, the prisoner dillema actual shows that that that the dominate stratedy is not what would it appear to be by analysis of the concept because it can be shown that cooperation is a better strategy when the concept is used in multiple human interactions.
Im not a moral objectivist but the only sort of "objective" sense of morality is actually build in by natural selection due to prisonerdillema like situations in nature
Knowntje 3 years ago
Nicely done Comptech.
i went to give you a thumbs up but accidentally gave you the opposite, sorry lol
StreetlightEagle 3 years ago
yo r u going to aaron's stickam session?
thoseofmiddlearth 3 years ago
hit the nail right on the head
dammit X(, some fundy keeps downrating my videos without actually watching them.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
That fundy would be me simply because we do not need Theist capital to provide for morality. Morality has been around millennia before your religion (and mine) have ever existed.
So there ^_^
Comptech224 3 years ago
Comptech, you're really misunderstanding my argument to an impressive degree. it doesn't matter one iota that morals have been around long before theism.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
I was not referring to your argument, I was referring to jrsbarker in this instance. Sorry for the mix up.
Comptech224 3 years ago
"it doesn't matter one iota that morals have been around long before theism."
How are you not completely contradicting yourself here?
bamboo4tameshigiri 3 years ago
Comptech, morals have been there for millenia but the understanding of morals have not. People have moral intuitions about the objective values but cannot explain their source unless they assume monotheism.
You can follow your moral intuitions if you are an atheist, but at a price of your worldview not being consistent. It creates a contradiction because just because you base your decision on sentiment and not argument.
MarcinP2 3 years ago
Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, Cicero, and numerous ancient philosophers of ancient times before the "mainstream" Christianity of Judaism,
Monotheism in no way at all dictated "understanding" of morals. These were addressed by the Hellenistic, Platonic, and philosophers of the like before Christianity even had a pray of being heard, in the days when it was a cult rather than a religion.
Comptech224 3 years ago
Their systems were rather vague and unfinished, this is why there are elements of them in monotheism (at least judeo-christian) but the systems themselves are not used in practice.
I suspect monotheism is simply platonism taken to its conclusions.
MarcinP2 3 years ago
You miss the point. The idea is that there seems to be objective morality, a natural morality inside us. One need to not believe in God for this to be the case, but if there is not a God than this natural law morality is not really objective or authoritative. It is merely an instinct.
poetsonghotmail 3 years ago