I think there is a confusion between "morality" and "ethics". The recognition of any absolute "right and wrong" scale certainly leads down the path to a recognition of an outside source for the distinction. That's the morality scale. However, simply understanding and acting within a sense of "fairness", recognizing harm as a net negative, does not take us down that path and is as natural as understanding the drive for procreation or the reaction of a mother to her baby. It's instinctual.
Sam Harris' book "The Moral Landscape" is worth a read. He makes the case that science is capable of determining human values by studying the well being of humans and animals. This won't produce an absolute set of rights and wrongs but it will make more sense than justifying or discovering supposed morality by reading an ancient book.
too bad our species HAVE historically mutilated and killed babies - Aztecs, Inca, Babylonians and many early cultures did just that so, unfortunately, your example doesn't work.
Thanks for the reply. I definitely agree with you on that one. Personally, I think I need to emphasize a lot more of point two as well, since that is the most complex and crucial part from my stand point.
how much suffering is the result of human evil rather than the absence of gods love. even some large scale natural disasters could have been averted if man was prepared to invest rescourses in doing so. its only by knowing true pain that we can experince real joy. without the threat of suffering we humans could not learn to exersisi responsoblity towards one another. if god intervened to avert all pain, our human world could not function . pain is a necessary part of our existence.
I recon religion and language are social constructs superimposed over a basic spectrum of behavioural or psychological predispositions towards behaviours that work best in social groups. Natural sectional is the reason all religions are essentially so simular; religion is a by-product of naturally selected mechanisms otherwise useful for survival. Religion is an accident or a mis-firing of such mechanisms; like the moth that flies into the flame (Re: God Delusion, R. Dawkins).
At least you're being intellectually honest by giving up true morality, though. Most atheists aren't. But please be willing to accept the consequences.
With such big brains, if we can recognize that true morality doesn't really exist, we'll be able to reckon a number of, what I would call, very bad things.
And please, don't be a person who relies on "for the betterment of the species" because with our big brains, we know that that is a pretty meaningless statement at the end of the day.
Yes, I know what it is. I'm not saying that there will inevitably be a point where people will stop acting "moral." I'm just saying that most people do not approach morality with that theory in mind. They approach morality thinking that things are inherently right or wrong. If you suddenly switched that on everyone, I fear there would be consequences.
Once you strip meaning from people's lives, they tend to react negatively. Unless they fabricate some fake meaning somewhere else.
Atheists do not give up on 'true morality.' If there's only one kind of morality that exists, and we are the collective authors of it, then it is as true as morality can possibly be. Morality has a dictionary definition, and nowhere does it say that the existence of it depends solely on a God. You can't make an arguement by defining a word in a way that already pre-assumes the conclusion.
@Staunts Without an ultimate author of morality, there is not One kind of morality; there are billions, each person writing his or her own. Even if most agree on some kind of morality, that's just, at best, consensus. But the guy who doesn't agree with that consensus has just as valid a morality as anyone else. He has simply defined right and wrong (which have no Real evidence of existing) different than other people, but his definition is just as valid if it's self-determined as you argue.
Anyone can disagree, but there's always going to be a range of behaviors that directly effect the survival of yourself as well as society, so if one person decides it's ok to murder, they can do that, but chances are they wont last long enought to have a voice in the moral arena, so morality is determined by those who can use it to build, rather than destroy.
@Staunts Morality is basically determined by genes through evolutionary benefit. Most evolved with brains that say "child molestation is wrong" because our body sends uncontrollable signals that say this. But we could have easily evolved differently and those signals could be different. The law is just genetically similar groups forcing their concepts of morality on the genetically different. But both sides have just as legitimate a claim to morality if there is no standard to measure by.
We evolve to have morals that work for our survival, so we couldnt just do anything at all. For example, murder is naturally destructive to a society of living creatures, and thus will always be more likely to be rejected by society. If we just did whatever we wanted or killed each other off, we wouldnt be here. You can say there's no standard, but that's not true if you want social stability.
@Staunts Why the hell should I care about social stability if I don't believe social stability is good? You're relying on the premise that "survival of the species" is a GOOD thing. It's not. It's neither good nor bad, better or wose. It just is. Just like anything else just is without God. Not killing each other may be the means by which we survived, but in no way is it a standard by which to live---unless I care about survival of the species, something I have no reason to care about.
Why should I believe that serving God is good? You cant argue that god needs my devotion, so whether I go to hell or not doesnt change god. Or I could just not care about my soul. therefore, serving god ultimately has no meaning. Morals are always dependant on why we choose to have them. What would god's morality be if nobody agreed with it? God would still be right, but so what?
@Staunts It's just like a speed limit sign. If you go 80 in a 60, I can Truthfully say "you are speeding." Obviously the sign has to exist for you to be "speeding." But if the sign doesn't exist then you aren't "speeding," and I can't say that you are. I have no standard to measure that by. You are just going 80 mph. God is the sign. The speed limit is the moral law. You could even reject the authority of the sign, but that wouldn't change the fact that you Are speeding.
@Staunts Without God (or some divine author) there is no true morality. There is no morality at all. There is just preference that has been determined by evolution. This is the reason religious people rally against evolution incidentally. And atheists never ever seem to understand this. They just say, "SO ATHEISTS ARE IMMORAL? LOOK AT SUICIDE BOMBERS!" and pat themselves on the back without spending ten minutes to think if suicide bombing is even "wrong," if Anything can be "wrong."
Let's say I believe in God, but I dont care about serving him, or what happens to my soul. Now how are you going to convince me to not kill somebody? See, God's morality cant change anything unless I personally accept it, and the same goes with any kind of morality. Even if something is objectively 'wrong,' I could still say, 'so what?' It's the actual consequences of actions that matter.
@Staunts I'm not necessarily concerned with convincing you that you should act moral. That's a totally different issue. I'm simply concerned with convincing you that the word "moral," at least the way 99% of the way people use it, refers to an unchanging divine law that requires a god of some sort. The "consequences" don't Matter unless there's a standard to measure those consequences by. The consequence that people may be hurt doesn't matter unless it's inherently wrong to hurt someone else.
If it's inherently wrong to hurt somebody, then there need be no external moral validation such as god. You claim human life is inherently valueable, correct? Then why would you say that it needs something else to have that value? It's completely contradictory. If I could prove to you that god wasnt real tomorrow, do you think you'd just start killing people? I dont. So why not?
@Staunts You're completely missing the point. If you could prove that, I'm saying that it wouldn't Matter one way or the other if I did start killing people. "Human beings are valuable" IS a divine moral law, and that's what I'm saying. Whether or not you call that "divine" or "from the divine" isn't important. It's just something that just is. We just call it "from God" because it being inherent And random would be confusing to us. We assume morals have a purpose. Purpose requires intent.
@Staunts In direct answer to your question, I wouldn't because it would make me feel bad. Because I evolved that way. That doesn't mean I should or shouldn't or that it matters if I do or don't.
I absolutely agree. Your ultimate reason for doing things belongs to yourself. You must understand, I'm not saying your worldview has no valid reasons for morality, I'm saying that our reasons are ultimately equal. You either choose the most productive path or reject it and allow yourself to be threatened or destroyed. If you dont care about any morality then you dont have a voice in the matter.
@Staunts In your worldview, the person who mutilates children hasn't really done anything Wrong. No one can force their moral rules on him by telling him it is wrong, especially if he disagrees. And he Does care about morality. His morality is just different. In my worldview, that person has done something inherently wrong, regardless of his, my, or your belief about the matter. I don't know why being "productive" matters one way or the other. That's more of you forcing your beliefs on others.
Nobody's being forced. You make an agreement by choosing to live with a community. Nobody has to, you can go live out in the wilderness if you want, but living with other people means there has to be a standard of conduct that serves the most people equally. Being inherently right or wrong is pointless, it's how your behavior effects yourself and others that matters. Secular morality doesnt mean everybody is right, it means right and wrong can be figured out communally.
@Staunts When you arrest someone for a crime, you are physically forcing your morality on them. And for the millionth time, Why Does It Matter if my behavior affects myself or others? That it's important to serve everyone equally is some totally made up standard by which to live that not everyone subscribes to. Also, that it "serves the most people equally" is a modern idea. People never thought that in the past. Were they doing something wrong by deciding that slavery was moral back then?
"And for the millionth time, Why Does It Matter if my behavior affects myself or others?"
And for the millionth and first time, Why Does It Matter if I behave in accordance with God? Tell me right now, what difference does it make????????? I go to hell if I dont? So what?
@Staunts Simply, if you don't behave in accordance to god, you would be WRONG. That's it. You can say "I reject that definition," but that wouldn't make you any more right if the rules are divine. If you don't do math problems according to the laws of mathematics, you would be WRONG. That's it. Does it "matter" beyond that? I have no idea. But humans walk around with an made up assumption that truth exists and that truth matters. Are they wrong? Maybe. But if they are, then they aren't.
What does murder being a sin solve about the problem of murder? Something just being wrong is pointless, it means nothing. Something being objectively wrong is in itself, completely meaningless, it's not wrong for any practical reason
@Staunts That same principle can be applied to anything. What does truth about anything solve about the problem of untruth? Does it matter if mathematical truths exist if some kid keeps getting his math problem wrong? That's up to the individual to determine, but that doesn't mean that there Isn't an external truth. Also, why is it preferable that something be "practical?" I assume you mean something like "useful" when you say "practical?"
That's the point, the *problem* isnt truth either, it's experiencial in nature, and morality is the tool we use to combat the negative effects of the *problem* upon our desired, and ultimately shared goals.
@Staunts And yes, it does mean that everyone is right---or at least not wrong. The pedophile's claim to morality is just as valid as yours. They're both totally made up and based on nothing. You just happen to have more people that agree with you. And because of that, you happen to have access to more guns and force. That doesn't make you any more right than him. That just makes you more capable of enforcing your will.
Everyone can be 'right', but like mutations in evolution, not all moral behaviors can survive to call themselves 'right.' It's biologically possible to grow legs out of your head. Is that wrong? No. Will you survive life that way? Probably not. It's more than agreement, it's PRACTICALITY. It's what works. Morality, like evo, is the interaction of many factors, NOT just everyone being right for everyone else.
@Staunts This is the exact point I was making from the beginning. If it's simply evolved, then no one is right and no one is wrong. The man with the leg head is not wrong. The man who rapes babies is just as not wrong. He just happens to get a bunch of people forcing their beliefs on him. Eventually they might (only some cultures) try to weed him out of the population. Which is neither right nor wrong. It's just something that they preferred to happen.
snarge, I want to ask you the point of being 100% morally right about anything. Why does that matter? Any reason you can come up with, I can just as easily ask you, "Well what's the point of that?" "Ok, why's THAT important?" Eventually, you would reach a point where you can offer no meaningful reason that I cannot dismiss. So again I ask, WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO JUST BE "RIGHT?"
@Staunts Staunts, what's the point of being 100% right about Anything? What's the point of being right in this argument? What's the point in being right in math and science? It's a ridiculous question. Truth is better than untruth. Being right is better than being wrong. Inherently. Everything falls back on first premises, obviously. And that first premise about truth is where everyone starts. And, yes, first premises (even yours) are created out of thin air and are unjustifiable. So what?
Then you agree that any movement toward a 'better' reality is just a choice, and nothing more. When you say 'better,' it still has to be better for a personal reason. In your theistic world, I can still reject all of your claims about something being better, anyone can. Ooh, it's intrinsic? So what? It's only better when it's utilized as such.
@Staunts You are conflating ideas about epistemology with this question about divine morality. I absolutely understand the idea that "truth" for ME relies on my personal will. But that's not really relevant to my point. My point is that a Truth (scientific, moral, whatever) could exist, and that my not seeing that truth doesn't make it any less true. You're right in that this relies on that principle that there IS a truth. And I'm fine with that. The world relies on that principle all the time.
My point is that absolute truth is inapplicable to human morality, but it need not be, because the human condition is based in pure experience, not logic. Pain is not a fact, it is an experienced sensation, and we deem it wrong. Truth has no nerves to feel pain, it experiences no grief over death, therefore it's not where right and wrong, as it relates to human experience, come from. Would murder be wrong in a world without biological life to die?
@Staunts If you take it to that extreme, absolute truth is inapplicable to human Everything. Nothing is a fact. Everything is just a relative experienced sensation, and we deem it true.
But I'm saying this is not how most people approach the world. Most people approach the world with the assumption that there is a Truth (moral, scientific) and our senses can see that truth. For morality to be real as most people call things real, it would have to be absolutely true as people understand truth.
Theist= take everything to it's extreme. Absolute logic does exist with or without us, but morality is not an issue of absolute truth, and I just called you out on it. Colors for example, are pure experience, they arent absolute things, but they dont need to be. So should I not believe in colors?
@Staunts Any logical person has to take arguments to their logical extreme. I do not understand why you assume logic exists with or without us. That's an assumption based on a gut feeling. You simply call things that feel "right" logical, but you only do that because of your biology.
And the real problem you run into when you say that absolute logic exists is that you've failed to explain where this absolute logic came from or why it inherently exists.
Connecting absolute truth to prescriptions of human behavior can be dangerous, that's more like facsism than anything. You cant make a law against breaking the law itself, for once you have broken it you are outside of it. If humans alone cant know what is right and wrong for themselves, then how can we ever know what to trust? No friend, morality belongs to the suffering infant who has nothing, not the god that has everything.
@Staunts I mean, you are basically arguing what I'm arguing. If things are self determined by the will, then no one is right and no one is wrong. About ANYthing. About morality, logic, science, this Argument, anything. Things are neither better or worse, true or false in that world. Things just are. That's the point I was making from the beginning. Without god (or something that makes laws) there is no "morality." There's just preference that each of us make up.
Yes, we are arguing the same thing, except you are trying to make an invalid connection between human experience and absolute truth. Right and wrong, in terms of morality are only relevant to beings which experience the consequences of actions. What can math tell you about the pain of an abused child? Morals aren't meant to be absolute truth, they dont need to be, they dont apply to anything outside human experience.
@Staunts I do not think the connection is invalid. Nothing can absolutely be true (morality or logic) without us self-determining its truth (your argument). And our self-determination of truth depends on our biology. Our biology tells us that murder is wrong. Our biology tells us that "logic makes sense." I don't see a major difference here.
I do believe there are truths. Morality is not truth, it is an extension thereof, such as being biological animals. Experience interacts with truth through sensation and awareness,but can only build an image of truth. Thus, it is unfair to suggest that we are responsible for being tapped into absolute truth, we only determine about truth what we are capable of, and we choose what to do with it. We can reject truth, but in doing so risk annhiliation, when right and wrong would truely cease to be.
@Staunts Why do you believe that there are truths? Why do you trust what you see and feel? Are you not just creating truth, when in reality it probably doesn't exist? The only Possible truth I can conceive of is that "all truth is relative." But that's clearly paradoxical.
Any existence requires truth, even if I were the only thing that existed, my existence itself would still be truth. Were it not, I wouldnt exist to wonder otherwise.
Morality is a little more complex than deciding whether or not one should mutilate babies...Just saying.
I also do think a number of atheists believe that that argument Is "proof" of god's non-existence. Simply because they Do believe True Morality exists.
So, perhaps, though I know nothing about this guy, you are misresponding to him, as he wasn't really addressing people who don't believe in true morality.
I really hate how some people jumble Atheists into one group. It is no different then Atheist anti-theists throw all Theists into one group even though a Hindu person and a Muslim person would derive very different moral ideas based on their very different faiths.
"Logic (like geometry and arithmetic) applies only to fictitious entities that we have created.
Logic is the attempt to comprehend the actual world by means of a scheme of being posited by ourselves; more correctly, to make it formulatable and calculable for us."
You can't drop morality and keep something like logic. I mean, let's be fair here. Things only make sense because the chemicals in our minds tell us that they do. And they only tell us that they do because of our biology.
---our biology, which is simply a factor of our evolution. I mean, if you're going to make morality relative and a mere effect of our evolution, at least apply the same principle to things you actually care about, like logic.
But then I guess no argument has value and then there is no truth. :( Cruel world.
I cant summon up the energy to reply to him in video format today, my poor sinking heart just cant take it!
The bit about mutilating babies most annoyed me. Circumcision, man. God fearing people do that to their children. That's mutilation, whichever way you look at it. Since I'm not too keen on doing that to babies am I more moral than those who do?
It's like asking a religious freak like jezuzfreek777 or that guy if god is all mighty and powerful, could he make a boulder so heavy not even HE can lift? If they say he can't, then "god" isn't that powerful LOL!
Antybu86 I have some advice. I really like videos where dumb people gets owned with math and physics equations. Remember ThunderF00t's ice comet video? I love that you should try it.
Yeah, while I don't think there is always a good counterpart to every thing that could be considred evil, I think there i at least neutral or semi evil.
Like you and a friend are on a desert island only enough food for one to live, is it evil to kill your friend to ensure your survival?
It's funny, I feel like a jerk thinking that every religious person has a massive flaw in the way they think but these videos just keep validating this. Good work.
Well feel like a jerk if you want, but the fact that they believe in something without evidence ought ease your conscience a bit. The same factory that lets them believe in a sky daddy lets them think shooting off their mouth with no evidence to support their claims makes a good argument.
LOL! That really made me laugh out loud too. It was a good video, nonetheless. Although I didn't get much of what the Antidope (or whatever) guy was saying. lol! His words are futile, anyway. I was here to listen to antybu! He rocked!
That Brock thinks the "problem of evil" is an argument against the existence of God, per se, shows that he either doesn't understand it at all, or that he doesn't care that he misrepresents it. Either way it makes him look foolish.
Great response. He needs to get through his head that animals don't believe in a god and yet they have 'morality' by not killing eachother and such. So why can't we be the same? We don't need a god to tell us what to do, aren't we even smarter than other animals?
I think there is a confusion between "morality" and "ethics". The recognition of any absolute "right and wrong" scale certainly leads down the path to a recognition of an outside source for the distinction. That's the morality scale. However, simply understanding and acting within a sense of "fairness", recognizing harm as a net negative, does not take us down that path and is as natural as understanding the drive for procreation or the reaction of a mother to her baby. It's instinctual.
TomKaren1994 3 months ago
Evil is independent of any gods. We sin against "god"; we do evil against men. Evil is just a word used to describe how shitty we are to each other.
ChipArgyle 4 months ago
Sam Harris' book "The Moral Landscape" is worth a read. He makes the case that science is capable of determining human values by studying the well being of humans and animals. This won't produce an absolute set of rights and wrongs but it will make more sense than justifying or discovering supposed morality by reading an ancient book.
rugbyguy59 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 6 months ago
too bad our species HAVE historically mutilated and killed babies - Aztecs, Inca, Babylonians and many early cultures did just that so, unfortunately, your example doesn't work.
Jonathan2342 8 months ago
I found a nice lecture series called "Christianity and the problem of Evil" by Dr. Bruce Little. It's on the cross.tv website. Worth a look!
this is the link: cross.tv/tvshows/1252
shaloop007 1 year ago
Has anybody seen brock in something other than black and white?
NoNamesLeft0102 1 year ago
Even if we assume there is Absolute Morality, Brock Lawleys God falls far short of that marker.
slicingwater 1 year ago
And yeah, I know its a brief three point thing, but I don't want to spam a youtube video with too many posts.
AlexTheHumanist 1 year ago
Technically, I see morality as a product of several things, the chief categories being:
1) The fact living things do what they do to live/survive/reproduce, which extends into human beings.
2) Human nature. Aka, our psychology, with some important parts being our kindness, imagination, and reasoning.
3) Our environment, which serves to give the previous two categories context.
I was wondering if anyone finds something lacking in my view, if anything.
AlexTheHumanist 1 year ago
@AlexTheHumanist I think an important note would be Empathy, I think it would fit along with your point 2 and my even simplify it.
3vi14n931 1 year ago
@3vi14n931
Thanks for the reply. I definitely agree with you on that one. Personally, I think I need to emphasize a lot more of point two as well, since that is the most complex and crucial part from my stand point.
AlexTheHumanist 1 year ago
Escapism - the only way theists can dismiss the PoE.
JPWMT 1 year ago
I think this guy doesn't do any research.
Jonstern1983 1 year ago
how much suffering is the result of human evil rather than the absence of gods love. even some large scale natural disasters could have been averted if man was prepared to invest rescourses in doing so. its only by knowing true pain that we can experince real joy. without the threat of suffering we humans could not learn to exersisi responsoblity towards one another. if god intervened to avert all pain, our human world could not function . pain is a necessary part of our existence.
BritishPatriot3 1 year ago
@BritishPatriot3 You are a moron.
nihlify 1 year ago
@nihlify haha the level of intelligence needed to come up with a responce such as yours. you sure out did me there.
BritishPatriot3 1 year ago
@BritishPatriot3 It doesn't matter, you are still a moron however you look at it. Now fuck off.
nihlify 1 year ago
@nihlify big man, can tell you did well at school.
BritishPatriot3 1 year ago
You can't teach Brock what he doesn't want to know
jambimon 1 year ago
I recon religion and language are social constructs superimposed over a basic spectrum of behavioural or psychological predispositions towards behaviours that work best in social groups. Natural sectional is the reason all religions are essentially so simular; religion is a by-product of naturally selected mechanisms otherwise useful for survival. Religion is an accident or a mis-firing of such mechanisms; like the moth that flies into the flame (Re: God Delusion, R. Dawkins).
Tuathalful 2 years ago
you may also want to check out bitsandpeace the problem of evil
singsangvideo 2 years ago
At least you're being intellectually honest by giving up true morality, though. Most atheists aren't. But please be willing to accept the consequences.
With such big brains, if we can recognize that true morality doesn't really exist, we'll be able to reckon a number of, what I would call, very bad things.
And please, don't be a person who relies on "for the betterment of the species" because with our big brains, we know that that is a pretty meaningless statement at the end of the day.
snarge 2 years ago
Snarge, I recommend reading up on social contract theory if you haven't already.
antybu86 2 years ago 2
Yes, I know what it is. I'm not saying that there will inevitably be a point where people will stop acting "moral." I'm just saying that most people do not approach morality with that theory in mind. They approach morality thinking that things are inherently right or wrong. If you suddenly switched that on everyone, I fear there would be consequences.
Once you strip meaning from people's lives, they tend to react negatively. Unless they fabricate some fake meaning somewhere else.
snarge 2 years ago
All I mean is I don't want to live in a world where everyone thinks like Nietzsche did.
I happen to think he was Incredibly intellectually honest.
snarge 2 years ago
@antybu86 Or Kant, or Ayn Rand or Stefan Molyneux or any of the other philosophers who've discussed objective morality.
newperve 7 months ago
Atheists do not give up on 'true morality.' If there's only one kind of morality that exists, and we are the collective authors of it, then it is as true as morality can possibly be. Morality has a dictionary definition, and nowhere does it say that the existence of it depends solely on a God. You can't make an arguement by defining a word in a way that already pre-assumes the conclusion.
Staunts 1 year ago
@Staunts Without an ultimate author of morality, there is not One kind of morality; there are billions, each person writing his or her own. Even if most agree on some kind of morality, that's just, at best, consensus. But the guy who doesn't agree with that consensus has just as valid a morality as anyone else. He has simply defined right and wrong (which have no Real evidence of existing) different than other people, but his definition is just as valid if it's self-determined as you argue.
snarge 1 year ago
Anyone can disagree, but there's always going to be a range of behaviors that directly effect the survival of yourself as well as society, so if one person decides it's ok to murder, they can do that, but chances are they wont last long enought to have a voice in the moral arena, so morality is determined by those who can use it to build, rather than destroy.
Staunts 1 year ago
@Staunts Morality is basically determined by genes through evolutionary benefit. Most evolved with brains that say "child molestation is wrong" because our body sends uncontrollable signals that say this. But we could have easily evolved differently and those signals could be different. The law is just genetically similar groups forcing their concepts of morality on the genetically different. But both sides have just as legitimate a claim to morality if there is no standard to measure by.
snarge 1 year ago
We evolve to have morals that work for our survival, so we couldnt just do anything at all. For example, murder is naturally destructive to a society of living creatures, and thus will always be more likely to be rejected by society. If we just did whatever we wanted or killed each other off, we wouldnt be here. You can say there's no standard, but that's not true if you want social stability.
Staunts 1 year ago
@Staunts Why the hell should I care about social stability if I don't believe social stability is good? You're relying on the premise that "survival of the species" is a GOOD thing. It's not. It's neither good nor bad, better or wose. It just is. Just like anything else just is without God. Not killing each other may be the means by which we survived, but in no way is it a standard by which to live---unless I care about survival of the species, something I have no reason to care about.
snarge 1 year ago
@snarge worse*
snarge 1 year ago
Why should I believe that serving God is good? You cant argue that god needs my devotion, so whether I go to hell or not doesnt change god. Or I could just not care about my soul. therefore, serving god ultimately has no meaning. Morals are always dependant on why we choose to have them. What would god's morality be if nobody agreed with it? God would still be right, but so what?
Staunts 1 year ago
@Staunts It's just like a speed limit sign. If you go 80 in a 60, I can Truthfully say "you are speeding." Obviously the sign has to exist for you to be "speeding." But if the sign doesn't exist then you aren't "speeding," and I can't say that you are. I have no standard to measure that by. You are just going 80 mph. God is the sign. The speed limit is the moral law. You could even reject the authority of the sign, but that wouldn't change the fact that you Are speeding.
snarge 1 year ago
@Staunts Without God (or some divine author) there is no true morality. There is no morality at all. There is just preference that has been determined by evolution. This is the reason religious people rally against evolution incidentally. And atheists never ever seem to understand this. They just say, "SO ATHEISTS ARE IMMORAL? LOOK AT SUICIDE BOMBERS!" and pat themselves on the back without spending ten minutes to think if suicide bombing is even "wrong," if Anything can be "wrong."
snarge 1 year ago
Let's say I believe in God, but I dont care about serving him, or what happens to my soul. Now how are you going to convince me to not kill somebody? See, God's morality cant change anything unless I personally accept it, and the same goes with any kind of morality. Even if something is objectively 'wrong,' I could still say, 'so what?' It's the actual consequences of actions that matter.
Staunts 1 year ago
@Staunts I'm not necessarily concerned with convincing you that you should act moral. That's a totally different issue. I'm simply concerned with convincing you that the word "moral," at least the way 99% of the way people use it, refers to an unchanging divine law that requires a god of some sort. The "consequences" don't Matter unless there's a standard to measure those consequences by. The consequence that people may be hurt doesn't matter unless it's inherently wrong to hurt someone else.
snarge 1 year ago
If it's inherently wrong to hurt somebody, then there need be no external moral validation such as god. You claim human life is inherently valueable, correct? Then why would you say that it needs something else to have that value? It's completely contradictory. If I could prove to you that god wasnt real tomorrow, do you think you'd just start killing people? I dont. So why not?
Staunts 1 year ago
@Staunts You're completely missing the point. If you could prove that, I'm saying that it wouldn't Matter one way or the other if I did start killing people. "Human beings are valuable" IS a divine moral law, and that's what I'm saying. Whether or not you call that "divine" or "from the divine" isn't important. It's just something that just is. We just call it "from God" because it being inherent And random would be confusing to us. We assume morals have a purpose. Purpose requires intent.
snarge 1 year ago
@Staunts In direct answer to your question, I wouldn't because it would make me feel bad. Because I evolved that way. That doesn't mean I should or shouldn't or that it matters if I do or don't.
snarge 1 year ago
I absolutely agree. Your ultimate reason for doing things belongs to yourself. You must understand, I'm not saying your worldview has no valid reasons for morality, I'm saying that our reasons are ultimately equal. You either choose the most productive path or reject it and allow yourself to be threatened or destroyed. If you dont care about any morality then you dont have a voice in the matter.
Staunts 1 year ago
@Staunts In your worldview, the person who mutilates children hasn't really done anything Wrong. No one can force their moral rules on him by telling him it is wrong, especially if he disagrees. And he Does care about morality. His morality is just different. In my worldview, that person has done something inherently wrong, regardless of his, my, or your belief about the matter. I don't know why being "productive" matters one way or the other. That's more of you forcing your beliefs on others.
snarge 1 year ago
Nobody's being forced. You make an agreement by choosing to live with a community. Nobody has to, you can go live out in the wilderness if you want, but living with other people means there has to be a standard of conduct that serves the most people equally. Being inherently right or wrong is pointless, it's how your behavior effects yourself and others that matters. Secular morality doesnt mean everybody is right, it means right and wrong can be figured out communally.
Staunts 1 year ago
@Staunts When you arrest someone for a crime, you are physically forcing your morality on them. And for the millionth time, Why Does It Matter if my behavior affects myself or others? That it's important to serve everyone equally is some totally made up standard by which to live that not everyone subscribes to. Also, that it "serves the most people equally" is a modern idea. People never thought that in the past. Were they doing something wrong by deciding that slavery was moral back then?
snarge 1 year ago
"And for the millionth time, Why Does It Matter if my behavior affects myself or others?"
And for the millionth and first time, Why Does It Matter if I behave in accordance with God? Tell me right now, what difference does it make????????? I go to hell if I dont? So what?
Staunts 1 year ago
@Staunts Simply, if you don't behave in accordance to god, you would be WRONG. That's it. You can say "I reject that definition," but that wouldn't make you any more right if the rules are divine. If you don't do math problems according to the laws of mathematics, you would be WRONG. That's it. Does it "matter" beyond that? I have no idea. But humans walk around with an made up assumption that truth exists and that truth matters. Are they wrong? Maybe. But if they are, then they aren't.
snarge 1 year ago
What does murder being a sin solve about the problem of murder? Something just being wrong is pointless, it means nothing. Something being objectively wrong is in itself, completely meaningless, it's not wrong for any practical reason
Staunts 1 year ago
@Staunts That same principle can be applied to anything. What does truth about anything solve about the problem of untruth? Does it matter if mathematical truths exist if some kid keeps getting his math problem wrong? That's up to the individual to determine, but that doesn't mean that there Isn't an external truth. Also, why is it preferable that something be "practical?" I assume you mean something like "useful" when you say "practical?"
snarge 1 year ago
That's the point, the *problem* isnt truth either, it's experiencial in nature, and morality is the tool we use to combat the negative effects of the *problem* upon our desired, and ultimately shared goals.
Staunts 1 year ago
@Staunts And yes, it does mean that everyone is right---or at least not wrong. The pedophile's claim to morality is just as valid as yours. They're both totally made up and based on nothing. You just happen to have more people that agree with you. And because of that, you happen to have access to more guns and force. That doesn't make you any more right than him. That just makes you more capable of enforcing your will.
snarge 1 year ago
Everyone can be 'right', but like mutations in evolution, not all moral behaviors can survive to call themselves 'right.' It's biologically possible to grow legs out of your head. Is that wrong? No. Will you survive life that way? Probably not. It's more than agreement, it's PRACTICALITY. It's what works. Morality, like evo, is the interaction of many factors, NOT just everyone being right for everyone else.
Staunts 1 year ago
@Staunts This is the exact point I was making from the beginning. If it's simply evolved, then no one is right and no one is wrong. The man with the leg head is not wrong. The man who rapes babies is just as not wrong. He just happens to get a bunch of people forcing their beliefs on him. Eventually they might (only some cultures) try to weed him out of the population. Which is neither right nor wrong. It's just something that they preferred to happen.
snarge 1 year ago
snarge, I want to ask you the point of being 100% morally right about anything. Why does that matter? Any reason you can come up with, I can just as easily ask you, "Well what's the point of that?" "Ok, why's THAT important?" Eventually, you would reach a point where you can offer no meaningful reason that I cannot dismiss. So again I ask, WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO JUST BE "RIGHT?"
Staunts 1 year ago
@Staunts Staunts, what's the point of being 100% right about Anything? What's the point of being right in this argument? What's the point in being right in math and science? It's a ridiculous question. Truth is better than untruth. Being right is better than being wrong. Inherently. Everything falls back on first premises, obviously. And that first premise about truth is where everyone starts. And, yes, first premises (even yours) are created out of thin air and are unjustifiable. So what?
snarge 1 year ago
Then you agree that any movement toward a 'better' reality is just a choice, and nothing more. When you say 'better,' it still has to be better for a personal reason. In your theistic world, I can still reject all of your claims about something being better, anyone can. Ooh, it's intrinsic? So what? It's only better when it's utilized as such.
Staunts 1 year ago
@Staunts You are conflating ideas about epistemology with this question about divine morality. I absolutely understand the idea that "truth" for ME relies on my personal will. But that's not really relevant to my point. My point is that a Truth (scientific, moral, whatever) could exist, and that my not seeing that truth doesn't make it any less true. You're right in that this relies on that principle that there IS a truth. And I'm fine with that. The world relies on that principle all the time.
snarge 1 year ago
My point is that absolute truth is inapplicable to human morality, but it need not be, because the human condition is based in pure experience, not logic. Pain is not a fact, it is an experienced sensation, and we deem it wrong. Truth has no nerves to feel pain, it experiences no grief over death, therefore it's not where right and wrong, as it relates to human experience, come from. Would murder be wrong in a world without biological life to die?
Staunts 1 year ago
@Staunts If you take it to that extreme, absolute truth is inapplicable to human Everything. Nothing is a fact. Everything is just a relative experienced sensation, and we deem it true.
But I'm saying this is not how most people approach the world. Most people approach the world with the assumption that there is a Truth (moral, scientific) and our senses can see that truth. For morality to be real as most people call things real, it would have to be absolutely true as people understand truth.
snarge 1 year ago
Theist= take everything to it's extreme. Absolute logic does exist with or without us, but morality is not an issue of absolute truth, and I just called you out on it. Colors for example, are pure experience, they arent absolute things, but they dont need to be. So should I not believe in colors?
Staunts 1 year ago
@Staunts Any logical person has to take arguments to their logical extreme. I do not understand why you assume logic exists with or without us. That's an assumption based on a gut feeling. You simply call things that feel "right" logical, but you only do that because of your biology.
And the real problem you run into when you say that absolute logic exists is that you've failed to explain where this absolute logic came from or why it inherently exists.
snarge 1 year ago
Connecting absolute truth to prescriptions of human behavior can be dangerous, that's more like facsism than anything. You cant make a law against breaking the law itself, for once you have broken it you are outside of it. If humans alone cant know what is right and wrong for themselves, then how can we ever know what to trust? No friend, morality belongs to the suffering infant who has nothing, not the god that has everything.
Staunts 1 year ago
@Staunts I mean, you are basically arguing what I'm arguing. If things are self determined by the will, then no one is right and no one is wrong. About ANYthing. About morality, logic, science, this Argument, anything. Things are neither better or worse, true or false in that world. Things just are. That's the point I was making from the beginning. Without god (or something that makes laws) there is no "morality." There's just preference that each of us make up.
snarge 1 year ago
Yes, we are arguing the same thing, except you are trying to make an invalid connection between human experience and absolute truth. Right and wrong, in terms of morality are only relevant to beings which experience the consequences of actions. What can math tell you about the pain of an abused child? Morals aren't meant to be absolute truth, they dont need to be, they dont apply to anything outside human experience.
Staunts 1 year ago
@Staunts I do not think the connection is invalid. Nothing can absolutely be true (morality or logic) without us self-determining its truth (your argument). And our self-determination of truth depends on our biology. Our biology tells us that murder is wrong. Our biology tells us that "logic makes sense." I don't see a major difference here.
snarge 1 year ago
I do believe there are truths. Morality is not truth, it is an extension thereof, such as being biological animals. Experience interacts with truth through sensation and awareness,but can only build an image of truth. Thus, it is unfair to suggest that we are responsible for being tapped into absolute truth, we only determine about truth what we are capable of, and we choose what to do with it. We can reject truth, but in doing so risk annhiliation, when right and wrong would truely cease to be.
Staunts 1 year ago
@Staunts Why do you believe that there are truths? Why do you trust what you see and feel? Are you not just creating truth, when in reality it probably doesn't exist? The only Possible truth I can conceive of is that "all truth is relative." But that's clearly paradoxical.
snarge 1 year ago
Any existence requires truth, even if I were the only thing that existed, my existence itself would still be truth. Were it not, I wouldnt exist to wonder otherwise.
Staunts 1 year ago
@snarge
1. gods laws arbitrary
2. appeal to consequence
InquisitorDracomual 1 year ago
Morality is a little more complex than deciding whether or not one should mutilate babies...Just saying.
I also do think a number of atheists believe that that argument Is "proof" of god's non-existence. Simply because they Do believe True Morality exists.
So, perhaps, though I know nothing about this guy, you are misresponding to him, as he wasn't really addressing people who don't believe in true morality.
snarge 2 years ago
I really hate how some people jumble Atheists into one group. It is no different then Atheist anti-theists throw all Theists into one group even though a Hindu person and a Muslim person would derive very different moral ideas based on their very different faiths.
Maphisto86 2 years ago
yeah i think Dawkins calls "Morality" reciprocal altruism ie: its in our best interests not to be arseholes to each other because of tit for tat
queenboxi 2 years ago
The "MORALIT" with the annotated Y was AWESOM
Newsish 2 years ago
By the way, it took you two weeks to make a new video!? WHAT'S UP WITH THAT?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111oneone
antybu86 2 years ago
You, sir, are a text comedy genius.
Newsish 2 years ago
Good call Anty, for calling creationists out for making assumptions FIRST, and then espousing on them.
johnnyphoenix74 2 years ago
ah...I HATE this guy and his smug, self-satisfied BS.
johnnyphoenix74 2 years ago
He's almost as bad as the original VenomFangX, who is almost as bad as the new VenomFangX.
MarowakDidIt 2 years ago
The argument from morality.
Quick rebbutal
1. There doesn't exist any objective "moral law." depsite theist claims to the contary.
2.Our inate moral sense explained by the huge evolutionary advantage it provides.
It has always been a weak argument.
qanazir 2 years ago
Yeah, except for the Brothers Karamazov and all.
snarge 2 years ago
Was there something amiss about that baby cos it had strange arms
CarolineATRC 2 years ago
yeah, it was an obese baby
antybu86 2 years ago
I thought it looked like a very young sumo wrestler.
octarhaberee 2 years ago
@antybu86 are you an atheist?
9movierox 11 months ago
very nicely done, as usual. fantastic points and use of logic. keep up the good work!
guywitharock 2 years ago
"Logic (like geometry and arithmetic) applies only to fictitious entities that we have created.
Logic is the attempt to comprehend the actual world by means of a scheme of being posited by ourselves; more correctly, to make it formulatable and calculable for us."
You can't drop morality and keep something like logic. I mean, let's be fair here. Things only make sense because the chemicals in our minds tell us that they do. And they only tell us that they do because of our biology.
snarge 2 years ago
---our biology, which is simply a factor of our evolution. I mean, if you're going to make morality relative and a mere effect of our evolution, at least apply the same principle to things you actually care about, like logic.
But then I guess no argument has value and then there is no truth. :( Cruel world.
snarge 2 years ago
I love the Moralit[y] ahtthe end
Floydthefuckbag 2 years ago
Great video, thank you..
I cant summon up the energy to reply to him in video format today, my poor sinking heart just cant take it!
The bit about mutilating babies most annoyed me. Circumcision, man. God fearing people do that to their children. That's mutilation, whichever way you look at it. Since I'm not too keen on doing that to babies am I more moral than those who do?
Oh Brock! :D
bewarethelizards42 2 years ago
Concise and quick. Great, simple, FACTUAL points made.
orangesfromlondon 2 years ago
Good vid!
sureup 2 years ago
It's like asking a religious freak like jezuzfreek777 or that guy if god is all mighty and powerful, could he make a boulder so heavy not even HE can lift? If they say he can't, then "god" isn't that powerful LOL!
ironman711 2 years ago
The annotated "Y" made me laugh. Good argument though.
stenchinator 2 years ago
Dawkins did a good documentary on the origin of Morality called "Good guys finish first". This doc was done right after the Selfish Gene was written.
sevlevboss 2 years ago 3
Antybu86 I have some advice. I really like videos where dumb people gets owned with math and physics equations. Remember ThunderF00t's ice comet video? I love that you should try it.
NapalmXD 2 years ago
LOL now that I think about it most of these born again types sound like used car salesmen.
FRONKI1984 2 years ago
has anyone else noticed how the athiestantidote sounds just like every used car salesman ive ever dealt with?
...maybe its a personality type...where they are predisposed to talk shit
lfdy123 2 years ago
This Athiestantidote guy is hilarious , he keeps making videos and keeps getting beat up by other youtubers.
FRONKI1984 2 years ago
Morality is relative.
There is no such thing as "Good" or "Evil", just what society labels things as.
Drksrpnt 2 years ago
Yeah, while I don't think there is always a good counterpart to every thing that could be considred evil, I think there i at least neutral or semi evil.
Like you and a friend are on a desert island only enough food for one to live, is it evil to kill your friend to ensure your survival?
wolfwing1 2 years ago
Brock is almost as dumb as jezuzfreek777. lol
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago 10
It's funny, I feel like a jerk thinking that every religious person has a massive flaw in the way they think but these videos just keep validating this. Good work.
0mnis14sh 2 years ago
Well feel like a jerk if you want, but the fact that they believe in something without evidence ought ease your conscience a bit. The same factory that lets them believe in a sky daddy lets them think shooting off their mouth with no evidence to support their claims makes a good argument.
mogulwraith 2 years ago
Moralit! MORALIT
LOL
Good video.
NapalmXD 2 years ago
Yeah, I don't know why it did that - it shows up fine pre-compiled.
antybu86 2 years ago
LOL! That really made me laugh out loud too. It was a good video, nonetheless. Although I didn't get much of what the Antidope (or whatever) guy was saying. lol! His words are futile, anyway. I was here to listen to antybu! He rocked!
harshm2u 2 years ago
That Brock thinks the "problem of evil" is an argument against the existence of God, per se, shows that he either doesn't understand it at all, or that he doesn't care that he misrepresents it. Either way it makes him look foolish.
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
Great response. He needs to get through his head that animals don't believe in a god and yet they have 'morality' by not killing eachother and such. So why can't we be the same? We don't need a god to tell us what to do, aren't we even smarter than other animals?
Begeru 2 years ago
good response
ThoughtfulAtheist 2 years ago 4
As I have always said to some of my theist friends, morality has connections with evolution and our need to grow.
RtFusion 2 years ago
heh it's also a big part of evolution of god and religion, though I think the Abrahamic religions have stalled that process.
wolfwing1 2 years ago
awesome video, as always.
Feredir28 2 years ago
nice
dpcarr1987 2 years ago