how about-that we are not like the animal kingdom -but it is like us.When we "fell" the animal kingdom "fell" also, before that they lived in sybiotic harmony. Kant's carried out morality "experiments" and found there was a core moral code that was uniform in all humans. Lastly, good people are in bad religions and bad people are in good religions and both are in prison.
This is interesting. I just got done watching your abortion video, and it occurred to me that maybe abortion is a sort of perversion of that natural order. We humans have the strong sexual drive to propagate but humans, unlike animals, have other stresses in life, social, economic, financial, emotional issues, these all might work to trigger the will to survive once pregnancy occurs and that is stronger than propagation. It may be a malfunction so to speak. In nature, mothers protect the baby.
"Christians believe that man is fallen, that man has a sinful nature that god needs to fix."
I would say that is somewhat true. There are certainly some groups of christians that firmly believe it true but there are some that disagree. I would love to discuss this with you outside the youtube forum.
~sigh~ the worst way to convert someone is with a tract. The best way is to show them your light. But, most Christians don't have the light. Hmm no wonder conversions never seem to work. They don't have light, they don't have answers or logic, and above all they don't have a changed life even though they've been "saved." That my friend, is Christianity.
Here's the problem with your final question: Objective morality is intrinsically SUBjective... and if anyone tells you different, they are relying on a belief OUTSIDE of their own internal moral compass, which is almost impossible to find within yourself without a great deal of DE-programming of the belief "foundation" that you were raised upon. Any Buddhists care to reply?
11:18 - Now THIS is a great point, because though the "written standards" of Christianity have not changed since they were written -- the interpretation and fervor behind those particular interpretations (read: Inquisition, Crusades, et al) have certainly caused these groups to justify great atrocity. That I cannot deny. However, this is simply Lex Talionis within a group of like-minded people, and continues today in Islam predominantly, but also through fringe religions.
4:50 - Lex Talionis is the idea of RETRIBUTION. This is a herd mentality, that gathers steam when a crowd starts irrationally frothing at the mouth, and I for one cannot agree. That is NOT the "law" that "nature" works by. The animal kingdom doesn't revenge. That is left solely to us, sadly. "Whatever wins is what's RIGHT" is intrinsically INCORRECT and IRRATIONAL. Dog-eat-dog barbarism IS Lex Talionis and has nothing to do with civilized society.
One of the truest lines (as well as one of the truest dichotomies about the way we perceive reality) I ever heard was from the comedy "Shallow Hal" -- Hal was arguing with his buddy and said something along the lines of "Who says this or that is THE WAY it is" and his buddy replied "Third Party Perspective". Though this was true for him, Hal makes a very good point that in HIS perspective, he saw something else -- and his buddy replied "Well I guess I really screwed ya' then".
...(cont'd) and while I do not *believe* that such ideas will ever encompass the entire earth, if they DID, they could easily turn your argument on you: Well, we the vast majority have decided that murder is OK, we win, too bad. Would that then render current *fundamental* morals (which, in spite of the 'relativism' you speak of, have remained pretty constant) null and void? I think not.
@ShawDAMAN You're looking at evolving morals, putting your finger on a particular place and time, then attempting to look at them as absolute morals. The fact that they always evolve is kind of the point. Even if Nazism, for instance, had won, that would still only be a temporary state of affairs until the next moral evolution. Everything is moving towards betterment, and is proven by the visible movements of civilisation over great spans of time. Nobody wants to go back to, say, ancient Rome.
@darrylsloan Yeah I get what you're saying. But it's easy for us who live in a system that generally honors fundamental things like not murdering and raping to say that a converse society "would just be temporary, everything will eventually turn out OK" and it offers little in the way of guidance for those who would be in the minority then, if all you can offer to support your moral view is 'the majority agrees with me-' It just seems like a dangerous position.
@ShawDAMAN Not as dangerous as religiously sanctioned burnings, drownings, bombings, and genocides. The most dangerous moral attitude of all is when people act for the glory of their God, for then they commit atrocities with the blessing of their own conscience.
@darrylsloan Good point. There's a phrase your post reminded me of, "If you can get people to accept absurdities, you can make them commit atrocities."
Interesting arguments, but very open to debate. For instance if I understand, what it boiled down to was "I have the right to tell somebody else that murder (or rape, etc) is wrong and punish them for it, because the majority agrees with me, and we win." What about a situation in which the majority concluded that such conduct was OK? Nazism and to some degree dictatorial communism give evidence of how perniciously such ideas can spread.....
(cont.) will be impossible to see objectively carried out, for we are creatures who have instinct factored in an equation that leaves no room for imperfection.
The early 20th C and Medieval Period Christians had access to the same (similar) Bible as ours, yes. Unfortunately, they were led by different people. Christianity can't represent the standards of a Creator or Almighty or anything. Because it's a religion; a religion continued by people who are neither Creator or anything important. As Darrylsloan said above, we are creatures. But, if the Bible, for example, is to be taken at face value, of course it...
i am a christian, but you might as well forget that, for i am like no other christian youve met. I see you have an extremely good arguement, as always. I am open to your opinions and hold you in the highest respect. I just subscribed
That makes a lot of sense, good argument, maybe religion was like a stepping stone from barbarism to a more civilized world...
Here's another way to look at "good" and "evil", good is what everyone wants, bad is what anyone within everyone doesn't want. Most of our "problems" stem from the combined effect of everyone's ignorance or lack of understanding of themselves, others, and the world. Because we do not live in a highly civilized world yet, ignorance endures.
@RiverFyre Yeah, I've been absent from BTV for a while, but don't worry I haven't abandoned the format. My internet connection has been terrible for over a month. Too slow for real-time video streaming. Should sort itself out eventually.
@darrylsloan "My internet connection has been terrible for over a month. Too slow for real-time video streaming. Should sort itself out eventually" - Obviously, the evil and satanic NWO internet connection is censoring any live independent thought from being discussed...OR your 'reppie' signal to the Annunaki mothership is to blame...either way, I'll look forward to your next BTV :)
Oh and my bad on missing the "slavery in the bible" question in the first place -- it turns out it was techinically your bad -- you typed @darrylsloan instead of @geniusboy1380 so I didn't see it. So just to clarify it wasn't me "avoiding" the question, I literally didn't see it; but my penultimate response shows why it doesn't matter anyway.
I've always looked at it like this...this is a rather simplistic summary i might add.... God is just neutral energy....it can be good or bad, depending on how we percieve it. life is always changing and absolutely our morals will change with it. take murder for example.... murdering someone is considered morally wrong... killing osama bin laden was celebrated in the streets...interesting to say the least. here's an interesting question....do we peace for peace or do we fight for peace?
@phlew2010 The universe is adversarial, at every fractal level, from micro-organisms to the motions of stars. In nauture, this expresses itself as predator-prey, survival of the fittest. You can't go against the nature of the universe. "Peace for peace" is an unworkable pipedream that turns you into prey.
@darrylsloan would u say that there is no such thing as non duality at any level where there are no opposing forces..ie predator prey. I know alot of people who believe that duality is an illusion for lack of a better term. just would like to hear u thoughts on that. thanx
@phlew2010 The universe is dualistic. Period. The only place where non-dualism exists is the timeless essence of the source of everything, which we can self-identify with if we wish, but we cannot bring it into space-time, because it's too big for those clothes, so to speak. Predator-prey is how the universe-wide principle of energy conversion manifests on the level of biological creatures. Big subject.
Good and evil do not exist. They are a product of brains that have cognitive dissonance. People with black and white thinking tend to need to categorise people into 2 groups. All that truly exists are 2 demographics with opposing agendas. Each side considers the other to be evil. Everybody's definition of good and evil are different, so because they are subjective they can never truly be defined.
My own standard of behaviour has no reference to a god, though it is the Wiccan Creed: If it hurts none, do what thou wilt.
I do, however, agree that humans are another animal, not a thing apart. The "different from animals" idea stems from most monotheistic religions. We are sophisticated apes, we are not the only species capable of moral qualities such as altruism which has been witnessed in elephants, for example.
Back the truck up to where you talk about a police force...
Do you agree it is immoral for an individual to use violent force, or any force for that matter, to compel another peacefully non compliant individual from going along with the majority's demands?
If you agree...
How is it then moral to hire a police force / agents and give them a right you do NOT have to use violent force against those who peacefully do not comply with the majority's demands?
@batfly I agree ... And, as you say, it's not moral to do so. But you seem to be fixated on the misuse of the police force. You've lost all perpective on the importance of having a police force. Maybe you've never had someone illegally enter your property and steal from you; maybe you've never been assaulted by a thug. I have - both. And I've been very glad of the police's help. You're extremely naive if you think a world without police is a better world. It would be open season on the public.
I have had stuff stolen from me and my property damaged.
One instance I remember a Honda scooter motor bike was stolen from me...I reported it to the Police and they found it a couple of days after with some kid riding it.... The PoliceTook the scooter and stored it in a police storage compound and never charged the kid for theft.
It took the Police a couple of months after several inquiries by me for them to inform me my Honda scooter was in their storage.
As I think more about what happened when I was 18... I have a sneaking hunch the police actually encouraged this kid to steal. I would not doubt it at all. The police did everything to the letter of the law to charge me a storage fee for my property which was stolen from me.
And we the sheep are supposed to just take it up the tail pipe and honor our police who use force and violent force to compel peaceful people to go along with the majority's will.
Morality, emphaty and feelings are all things that we use to be good or bad... but also good and evil are not really there... it is about viewpoints. If somebody steals it can be good and bat at the same time. Like it is against the law and store loses some money but it is also good beacause hi's family got some food to survive.
Without god, people can agree that some act is evil or good, but it's never inherently evil. Without god, morality is a social construct as you said, but that is all it is. Without god, the question "is rape bad?" becomes equal to the question "what's your favorite colour?". An act only possess the quality of good or evil in a persons mind, whereas with religion, it's an inherent quality.
I agree with you totally, you tackled the question "why do you not rape and pillage?" as I would.
Hey - First of all thanks for making this vid! As for the content, I think your viewpoint makes sense from the human-as-animal viewpoint, but at the same time I think you miss that we have an intrinsic moral intuition (which is mentioned in bible) that supersedes animal organization. Meaning, if the society of rapists took over and we were those who need to be "policed" like in your example, we would know intrinsically they were wrong. In your view this would be illusion; rapists would be right.
@geniusboy1380 You're right with do have an "intrinsic moral intuition" or what we might call our "humanity." But this is actually another point in favour of my argument. If we possess "humanity" by default, then we don't need a God to define the rules for us. We intuit them ... "IF a society of rapists ..." Right is decided by how civilisation ACTUALLY evolves, not by hypotheticals that didn't happen. Civilisation as we have it needs no other justification that the fact of its own success.
@darrylsloan We seem to be attacking diverging aspects of morality. You discuss moral EPISTEMOLOGY - how we as humans delineate right from wrong, whereas I'm referring to moral ONTOLOGY - the ground basis for these values, which apart from God is totally arbitrary. For example, when you say "not by hypotheticals" you're presupposing that the right always wins, and that the "takeover" didn't happen but this is totally arbitrary. What do you say to the Nazis who think "the moral wrong" has won?
@geniusboy1380 I'm not presupposing that the right wins. I'm saying that we DEFINE right by what wins. But even this "right" isn't some eternal unchanging standard, just the next step on the rung of the progress of civilisation. Regarding ontology, there is nothing arbitrary about the bases of instinct and pragmatism. A wolf pack doesn't need a Bible to know how to be a successful wolf pack, with its own heirarchy. Nor do we.
@darrylsloan Okay thanks for the clarification - I see you use this progress to DEFINE right itself. The problem with this reasoning is that it ultimately supersedes our moral intuition. What do you say to the lone wolf who thinks the pack has gone astray? In the animal kingdom this wolf dies, and we don't care because we place no judgment value on this wolf's dissension from the norm. But in human life it does matter. Was slavery right when it was the norm? And what do you say to the Nazis now?
@geniusboy1380 "Was slavery right when it was the norm?" Yes it was, until some individualists with other ideas were influential enough to change public opinion. Slavery is a very interesting example, because you won't find its "wrongness" in the Bible, only its continual tolerance. It would seem that it was not God-defined Christian ethics that provoked this change, but something else. And here we are today, all of us frowning upon slavery without the aid of Scripture. Interesting, isn't it?
@geniusboy1380 "And what do you say to the Nazis now?" Fascism loses. Democracy wins ... for now. I'm not sure I get your approach to this question, because you seem to be trying to nail down "right" and "wrong" as fixed unchanging standards, but the whole point is that they aren't like that. When you pull away all delusions, life boils down to Lex Talionis. And civilisation is built upon pragmatic common agreement of the many.
@darrylsloan There seems to be a contradiction - "Facism loses...Democracy wins...for now". So you condemn facism simply because it isn't the current "pragmatic agreement" but you applaud radical movements such as the abolition of slavery even though it was against the "pragamtic agreement" at the time -- (though now you say in retrospect, since everyone agrees on abolition it was "right"). Let's make things simple: If I know I can steal and get away with it and aid my survival why shouldn't I?
@geniusboy1380 "If I know I can steal and get away with it and aid my survival why shouldn't I?" You don't seem to understand that humanity has natural pack instincts. It's abnormal of us to steal from each other, except in extreme circumstances where survival depends on it. Otherwise our preference is for community and working together for mutual benefit. Your question is characterised by presupposing the Biblical "fall from grace", resulting in a "sinful" nature.
@darrylsloan Yes but we cannot avoid the issue by denying reality. If you don't like "sin nature" call it "deviation" from the pack instinct. I have a friend named Bob. Bob knows he can steal, aid his own survival and get away with it (in this hypothetical there is no chance of getting caught; say he owns an invisibility cloak). He also wants to freely spread his progeny (i.e. rape) which he also gets away with. What good reason does he have to stop under your conception of morality?
@geniusboy1380 You're not getting what I mean when I assert that there is no "sin nature." It doesn't exist, as itself, or under the name "deviation." We have a fundamentally different view of human nature. To you it is depraved and in need of redemption. But to me there is nothing wrong with human nature. Why would I steal when I cherish the benefits of mutual friendship? Why would I rape when a woman's loving embrace is far more desirable? Human instinct is not the lone predator vs all else.
@darrylsloan Okay let's try it from another angle: I WANT TO STEAL. In fact, I want to create a new paradigm in which stealing is recognized as a universal good - just like the abolition of slavery was once a new paradigm. I know I can steal and get away with it, and simultaneously aid my own survival. Tell me, on your worldview why I shouldn't continue stealing if I believe it is a new needed paradigm for the animal pack that is human kind? Or do you agree that theres nothing "wrong" with this?
@geniusboy1380 Whether your new paradigm of stealing is "wrong" or not will be determined by how well it catches on. Lex Talionis. I suspect the public would be singularly unimpressed, because they would see the benefits of remaining civilised, and your paradigm would fall flat on its face. Incidentally, this will be my final message, because you have continued to ignore my challenge about how you define slavery as wrong by the Bible. This is a one-sided debate because you won't engage. Bye.
@darrylsloan Hold on there. I don't remember any "challenge" about defining slavery as wrong by the bible, but now that you mention it here we go: Your point is really a straw man because slavery in biblical times often was different from American civil war slavery. "Slaves" were tantamount to being lower class- having the same citizen rights, but being in an indentured position in which you have to pay back a debt through service. This is different from being forcibly subjugated with no rights.
@darrylsloan Also - Realize that the bible has NOTHING to do with the need for God to define morality. The premises in an argument for the need for God to define objective moral values would not include "the bible is true" as a premise. You could argue that this would apply to the Hindu or Muslim God and yes it would - it merely establishes that some transcendent being exists based on objective moral values that we know exist in our hearts. Honing in on the Christian God is a separate matter.
@geniusboy1380 What you're saying is simply 100% untrue. Leviticus 25:44-46. Slaves are property, and God's laws, as written in the Bible, state that slaves are not entitled to the same social justice as non-slaves. Exodus 21:20-21 is particularly harrowing. So again I reiterate, how can you say that slavery is wrong from a Biblical perspective?
@darrylsloan This is a very complicated point and I'm not going to pretend it can be addressed adequately in a youtube window, but nevertheless here we go: In the NT, Jesus made it clear that some of the practices in the OT were not based on God's ideals, but necessary evils to deal with the barbaric human ways of the time (i.e. Matt. 19:3-10). Note also that this message in Leviticus and the Pentateuch as a whole was meant for a specific people at a specific time.
@geniusboy1380 This explanation is totally unsatisfactory. It would have been the easiest thing in the world for God to condemn slavery (he condemns many other things without making concessions). Here he PROACTIVELY institutes laws that ensure that slaves will not have the same rights as citizens. It is what it is. You need to quit making excuses and see the plain facts. People don't get their morality from God; it's a nation's God that mirrors the prevailing culture.
@darrylsloan The mistake here is that you presuppose knowing the mind of God better than God himself. "It would have been the easiest thing in the world for God to condemn slavery" -- you simply cannot understand why he institutes it but makes it clear in the NT that such practices were necessary due to the "hardness" of people's hearts etc...The entire "problem of evil" is addressed completely in the Book of Job. The main idea is that God has reasons beyond comprehension for permitting evil.
@geniusboy1380 "The mistake here is that you presuppose knowing the mind of God better than God himself." Not at all. Remember, I'm not beginning this with the assumption that this is actually God speaking in the OT. I weigh the worth of the words in order to determine whether this truly is God. And the words are found wanting, ergo this is not God speaking.
@darrylsloan As for the bit on the OT, it's illogical to claim to not believe in God and then criticize the God-you-don't-believe-in's actions. If he's not real, then the whole book is a farce, not just the bits on slavery etc... But once again, Book of Job reconciles problem of evil and together with the NT makes adequate coverage of the allowance and at sometimes instruction of certain evils.
@geniusboy1380 "it's illogical to claim to not believe in God and then criticize the God-you-don't-believe-in's actions." Come on, you know when I'm using colourful language, and you know how to read between the lines.
And once again, I'm not saying people "get their morality from God" I'm saying that God serves as the standard by which to measure morality. The distinction is of utmost importance. I grant that you can run a civil society without belief in God, but the only way to objectively justify such a society is to presuppose a belief in a transcendent moral standard.
@geniusboy1380 "I grant that you can run a civil society without belief in God, but the only way to objectively justify such a society is to presuppose a belief in a transcendent moral standard." The way you said this gets right to the heart of the matter, and that is: the Christian feels that we MUST justify a thing objectively, whereas we are content with entirely pragmatic justifications. That's the key difference in our approaches, and it's why you'll never be satisfied with my answers.
@darrylsloan Hmm.......I agree that your point is rationally sound and justified, but at the same time, I believe deep down you have a moral instinct that supersedes evolutionary impulses. To completely be "content" with pragmatic justifications, you'd have to disavow the innate need to reconcile the genetic impulses for reproduction and survival and the intrinsic wisdom to restrain the instincts. You can call it "evolutionary" or "illusory" but, in my view, that's a suppression of the truth.
@geniusboy1380 "To completely be "content" with pragmatic justifications, you'd have to disavow the innate need to reconcile the genetic impulses for reproduction and survival and the intrinsic wisdom to restrain the instincts." Not wishing to open another can of worms, but I believe that the further man moves from his natural instincts, the more screwed up he gets. I think all the sexual perversity in the world has its roots in sexual repression, chiefly at the hands of religious influence.
@darrylsloan Wow I think that's a bit of a radical view - "the further man moves from his natural instincts, the more screwed up he gets." Sounds like another video is in order =P. Aside from all this, what's the status on the telekinesis? Moved up to pens and pencils?
@geniusboy1380 Yeah, could be worth a video. I see it like this: you can manage your instincts (and realistically you must), but you can't repress them. In fact, it's dangerous to do so, because your subscious will seek to express the instinct by whatever means it can, and make a real mess. Big, big, topic, but one for another time.
Note, the argument isn't based on accepting the bible - it merely establishes that a transcendent being must be the source of objective moral values. Also, the NT makes it clear that we are to follow the main two* commandments Jesus gave and all the others flow from that vein. Meaning we should exercise our own rationality and strive to emulate the nature of God without following rules mindlessly. I.e. Mark 2:27. The main part of the "objective" is the decision to emulate God's moral nature.
@darrylsloan Come on now, I've played ball with your questions - I want a response to my objection: how can you claim that slavery is wrong when your Bible accomodates it as a social norm, and gives no moral condemnation of it whatsoever?
I don't agree with all of the Government enforced laws at all and not everyone in prison is a criminal in my eyes. Everything is the way it is because of the elite who make the laws, not because of us and what we want.
It's an an interesting vid. I believe morals are inherent within humans, in our pure natural state we know good from bad, right from wrong.
@cloudskipa I don't agree with all of the enforced laws either. Everything is in flux; civilisation is continually evolving. There will always be revolutions that rock the boat of the status quo, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. Ultimately, in the big picture, civilisation evolves into something better than before. I'm pretty sure we all prefer the modern world (with all its flaws) to Ancient Rome, Greece, Egypt, etc.
Excellent points Darryl, if only more people could see things in this kind of light. Religion, all religion, sure does close the mind to the power of reasoning and real thinking for oneself.
We have a conscience, everyone knows that it exists. It doesn't matter whether it's given by God or born through evolution, conscience is. And it tells almost all of us the same things. People who constantly do something that harms other people had to 'beat' their conscience to make it shut up. And even then, it still exists there as a small voice. Yes there is always someone who'll come and shout "do what thou wilt" but that's free will in use, to go against the consensus of humanity.
Its interesting what you say about christianity. i think that you seem to be referring to literalism in xtianity. the xtians whom I have met in recent days say that a moral life comes out of self reflection rather then the obeying of any system of law. Those who are more theistic say that the "holy spirit" lives in the believer and becomes a motivator to just do the next right thing, not to obey some alleged objective morality. Maybe the xtians around me are just liberal. I dunno
@BespokeGroupUK From what you've said in your videos, you definitely seem to be surrounded by liberal Christians. To me this seems like a wishy-washy form of Christianity, devoid of any real convictions about truth, and therefore it has become essentially harmless. This is certainly not what Christianity is elsewhere. Elsewhere, you would be ostracised for your occult dabbling.
Why do I believe in good & evil? Because these things are observable. In the Nanking massacre, Japanese soldiers amused themselves by forcing fathers to rape their own daughters. Don't tell me that this isn't evil, that it's just evolution's way to get rid of the weak. Some people sacrifice their lives and everything they have to help and save other people, defending the weak and helpless. Don't tell me that this isn't goodness in action.
I do believe in good and evil. I think that there are some objective 'core' values, and many more subjective values. Imagine a circle: in the center is a white area where there exists a group of values that most of humanity agrees upon. (murdering, raping, stealing, generally causing physical or mental damage to others is wrong) Surrounding the center, is the grey area of subjective morality, where things get muddled up do to so many different view points.
@Ravenkeep If it was kill or be killed, I would kill. If I were homeless and hungry, I would steal. If I were a bullied student, I would fight. If my survival depended on it, I would do a lot of things I would not normally do.
@darrylsloan I would defend myself too if someone attacked me. If I were hungry and homeless and there were no other way, I would steal too. But I wouldn't attack someone unprovoked and murder him. I wouldn't ambush someone, beat him, and take his food. If we find ourselves in these kind of hard situations, we often also find ourselves in this grey area of subjective morality. But if I were to steal a piece of bread from a shop in my hunger, my conscience still would accuse me.
i don't want 1 person locked up. especially i resent not one mention of that percentage of people who recognize our 'legal system' as violent and morally wrong. here's a good place to start for moral guidance..non aggregation non violence. YOU dont 'have someone locked up', that statement is false since you do not actually participate in that decision or action to or not to lock anyone up, simply you must as you said go with it or against and against is not a moral guild.
@darrylsloan are you saying that there are no murders and rapists roaming free? disregard the evidence that incarceration does not has not and will not stop violent crime and disregard that most are incarcerated for non-violent crimes. do you feel safer knowing someone is suffering in a cage somewhere? prisons are a for profit driven 'industry. it has an incentive for crime to exists. do you also think police protect you or have you figured out they simply enforce code?
@Azandex Yes, there are murderers and rapists roaming free, unfortunately. Is it not better to at least have a large percentage of them apprehended than to have them ALL roaming free, as you advocate? Incarcerating criminals protects the innocent from those that would destroy them. If the police force was done away with, I wonder how nice your neighborhood would be? You're giving a licence for villains to run amuck.
@darrylsloan i advocate non violence. and once more incarceration in no way lowers violent crime or keeps 'innocent' any more safe. this illusion i feel morally driven to point out. more police=more crime/criminals (customers). would you agree with all incarceration's as moral? is that selective morality? its ok as long as they don't go after people with facial hair. the illusion that Christianity keeps society moral is the same illusion that police keeps people from turning into villains
@Azandex god, or police, do not keep people from becoming vilians, fear does that. fear of being cast out of society. people still rape, murder, steal, etc. because having a compleatly moral society is nearly imposible or extreamly difficult, depending on your outlook. your outlook on incarceration is that no one should be placed under arest because it doesnt matter how many are locked up. this is a lie. it matters because the number locked may or may not be greater than the number free.
@Azandex it sounds as though you would prefer to live in a place where there is no such thing as laws or guids to keep moral balence or what we would think is moral together. more police means more criminals because more police means there are more criminals found. of course your ideas of incarceration are what you think is moral and not moral. of course there are people who think your ideas are crazy. think how you will, ill think how i will. criminals will do the same.
@Saruto001 Native Americans as 1 example did not have prisons spread thought America holding million in cages to keep themselves safe from themselves.. our civilization in a time perspective is a blink of an eye in comparison. how did it work? well, instead of locking someone away for smoking a plant, IF it was perceived as danger the harshest punishment was enacted, that person was ostracized. nothing has yet to be more successful to conform/condition a pack animal to the pack (humans)
@Azandex well are prisons not just another form of ostracizm? of course if you were to ostrocize someone in tha way of teh native americans, during our time period, they would simply go to another town and do the same thing again, would they not? incarceration and ostracizm have thier similarities and differences, but both work in a similar maner.
@Saruto001 i would dare to say they are polar opposites. a prisoner is a commodity.. if you dont yet know ALL government uniforms and gear i.e. army, police forest ranger, desks for schools pens paper laundry.... they are all products of slave labor in the US. 14-20 cents per hour. im not joking. In our time, like all times before crime is a symptom of environment. 'the devils playground' is a good example of the effectiveness of ostracism. both don't work the same..
Excellent analysis Darryl. Keep up the good work. Create a colony of humans in some isolated place, without any knowledge of religion, in time that society would develop something that would be recognised as a moral code because they are social creatures. Moral values are a product of society. They are fluid and they evolve. Using a God as an ambassador of morals standards is madness - he who has committed and continues to promote mass genocide in his own name?
All in all I think there is an extra "something" to mankind which I would call false individual consciousness or "ego" for short (though I consider this an inadequate term). And yes, I would call this uncompromisingly evil. I cannot take the stance you take for I have grown to see its futility.
@Scorner99 I too think that "ego" is something that indicates humans to be different from animals. Animals just are, they are content with what they are. But humankind has this need to show off; building great structures, accomplishing great feats etc. Animals compete with each other to survive, humans do it too, but we also compete for egoistical reasons. Like the bloodthirsty tyrant kings of history. Conquering, killing and building for their own selfish glory.
I think the inadequacy of simply explaining away evil in humankind by reference to Nature comes out most in bas relief with the problem of self-consciousness. Do animals feel self-conceit, egotism, or "pride" in the Christian sense? Do animals have a sense of genuine cruelty for the sake of cruelty?
@Scorner99 Cruelty for cruelty's sake would make an excellent topic for a future video. Of all the arguments against the idea that man is just n animal, this is the only one that gives me any pause for thought. I still think the evidence weighs firmly in my camp, but this would be a good matter to flesh out sometime.
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey Darryl. Have you read any Nietzsche? I have the feeling he would be just your thing right about now. I highly recommend "Thus Spoke Zarathustra."
MetaphysicalShadows 2 months ago
genius
blasphomy4444 2 months ago
yes you are one of the THREE WISE MEN!! one being my Daddy, one being MIKE PATTON...
zombiegirl71 5 months ago in playlist More videos from darrylsloan
Enjoy the videos :)
Reeseycup79 5 months ago
You have a very similar belief as me. :)
justkoful 5 months ago
@justkoful and with me also
javiercmh 1 month ago
how about-that we are not like the animal kingdom -but it is like us.When we "fell" the animal kingdom "fell" also, before that they lived in sybiotic harmony. Kant's carried out morality "experiments" and found there was a core moral code that was uniform in all humans. Lastly, good people are in bad religions and bad people are in good religions and both are in prison.
StellaLeBret 5 months ago
haha i liked this video :) great ending points.
Shakeitupyes 5 months ago
This is interesting. I just got done watching your abortion video, and it occurred to me that maybe abortion is a sort of perversion of that natural order. We humans have the strong sexual drive to propagate but humans, unlike animals, have other stresses in life, social, economic, financial, emotional issues, these all might work to trigger the will to survive once pregnancy occurs and that is stronger than propagation. It may be a malfunction so to speak. In nature, mothers protect the baby.
Shakeitupyes 5 months ago
i think a lot of people dont under stand wut christianity is.
wut do you feal or think christianity is?
bring it in to your perspective.
timman33timman 6 months ago
I TOTALLY AGREE. I gotta stop watching ur channel, kinda think I´ll grow if I watch stuff I disagree. Lol.
IvanMarinIvkovich 7 months ago
There is not such things as good or evil, only balance.
this is one of the beliefs
TwinDenis 7 months ago
"Christians believe that man is fallen, that man has a sinful nature that god needs to fix."
I would say that is somewhat true. There are certainly some groups of christians that firmly believe it true but there are some that disagree. I would love to discuss this with you outside the youtube forum.
deacongray00 7 months ago
@deacongray00 Of course. So many different sects of Christianity disagree it's hard to be totally correct when generalizing.
wpalinckx 5 months ago
you're very intelligent and positive. i found this talk valuable.
WeAreCameron 7 months ago
~sigh~ the worst way to convert someone is with a tract. The best way is to show them your light. But, most Christians don't have the light. Hmm no wonder conversions never seem to work. They don't have light, they don't have answers or logic, and above all they don't have a changed life even though they've been "saved." That my friend, is Christianity.
777LexTalionis777 8 months ago
@777LexTalionis777 You crystallised that perfectly.
darrylsloan 8 months ago
Here's the problem with your final question: Objective morality is intrinsically SUBjective... and if anyone tells you different, they are relying on a belief OUTSIDE of their own internal moral compass, which is almost impossible to find within yourself without a great deal of DE-programming of the belief "foundation" that you were raised upon. Any Buddhists care to reply?
FollowingAutumn 8 months ago
11:18 - Now THIS is a great point, because though the "written standards" of Christianity have not changed since they were written -- the interpretation and fervor behind those particular interpretations (read: Inquisition, Crusades, et al) have certainly caused these groups to justify great atrocity. That I cannot deny. However, this is simply Lex Talionis within a group of like-minded people, and continues today in Islam predominantly, but also through fringe religions.
FollowingAutumn 8 months ago
4:50 - Lex Talionis is the idea of RETRIBUTION. This is a herd mentality, that gathers steam when a crowd starts irrationally frothing at the mouth, and I for one cannot agree. That is NOT the "law" that "nature" works by. The animal kingdom doesn't revenge. That is left solely to us, sadly. "Whatever wins is what's RIGHT" is intrinsically INCORRECT and IRRATIONAL. Dog-eat-dog barbarism IS Lex Talionis and has nothing to do with civilized society.
FollowingAutumn 8 months ago
One of the truest lines (as well as one of the truest dichotomies about the way we perceive reality) I ever heard was from the comedy "Shallow Hal" -- Hal was arguing with his buddy and said something along the lines of "Who says this or that is THE WAY it is" and his buddy replied "Third Party Perspective". Though this was true for him, Hal makes a very good point that in HIS perspective, he saw something else -- and his buddy replied "Well I guess I really screwed ya' then".
FollowingAutumn 8 months ago
...(cont'd) and while I do not *believe* that such ideas will ever encompass the entire earth, if they DID, they could easily turn your argument on you: Well, we the vast majority have decided that murder is OK, we win, too bad. Would that then render current *fundamental* morals (which, in spite of the 'relativism' you speak of, have remained pretty constant) null and void? I think not.
ShawDAMAN 8 months ago
@ShawDAMAN You're looking at evolving morals, putting your finger on a particular place and time, then attempting to look at them as absolute morals. The fact that they always evolve is kind of the point. Even if Nazism, for instance, had won, that would still only be a temporary state of affairs until the next moral evolution. Everything is moving towards betterment, and is proven by the visible movements of civilisation over great spans of time. Nobody wants to go back to, say, ancient Rome.
darrylsloan 8 months ago
@darrylsloan Yeah I get what you're saying. But it's easy for us who live in a system that generally honors fundamental things like not murdering and raping to say that a converse society "would just be temporary, everything will eventually turn out OK" and it offers little in the way of guidance for those who would be in the minority then, if all you can offer to support your moral view is 'the majority agrees with me-' It just seems like a dangerous position.
ShawDAMAN 8 months ago
@ShawDAMAN Not as dangerous as religiously sanctioned burnings, drownings, bombings, and genocides. The most dangerous moral attitude of all is when people act for the glory of their God, for then they commit atrocities with the blessing of their own conscience.
darrylsloan 8 months ago
@darrylsloan Well you are comparing a largely unknown factor with a known one, but yes, in principle, agreed. ;)
ShawDAMAN 8 months ago
@darrylsloan Good point. There's a phrase your post reminded me of, "If you can get people to accept absurdities, you can make them commit atrocities."
JesusFknChrist666 4 months ago
Interesting arguments, but very open to debate. For instance if I understand, what it boiled down to was "I have the right to tell somebody else that murder (or rape, etc) is wrong and punish them for it, because the majority agrees with me, and we win." What about a situation in which the majority concluded that such conduct was OK? Nazism and to some degree dictatorial communism give evidence of how perniciously such ideas can spread.....
ShawDAMAN 8 months ago
(cont.) will be impossible to see objectively carried out, for we are creatures who have instinct factored in an equation that leaves no room for imperfection.
renwik 8 months ago
Some holes in the above argument:
The early 20th C and Medieval Period Christians had access to the same (similar) Bible as ours, yes. Unfortunately, they were led by different people. Christianity can't represent the standards of a Creator or Almighty or anything. Because it's a religion; a religion continued by people who are neither Creator or anything important. As Darrylsloan said above, we are creatures. But, if the Bible, for example, is to be taken at face value, of course it...
renwik 8 months ago
i am a christian, but you might as well forget that, for i am like no other christian youve met. I see you have an extremely good arguement, as always. I am open to your opinions and hold you in the highest respect. I just subscribed
777LexTalionis777 8 months ago
That makes a lot of sense, good argument, maybe religion was like a stepping stone from barbarism to a more civilized world...
Here's another way to look at "good" and "evil", good is what everyone wants, bad is what anyone within everyone doesn't want. Most of our "problems" stem from the combined effect of everyone's ignorance or lack of understanding of themselves, others, and the world. Because we do not live in a highly civilized world yet, ignorance endures.
Jammieg001 8 months ago
Morality along with subconscious purges or spontaneous shadow combustions would be excellent topics for a BTV...hint...hint..:)
RiverFyre 8 months ago
@RiverFyre Yeah, I've been absent from BTV for a while, but don't worry I haven't abandoned the format. My internet connection has been terrible for over a month. Too slow for real-time video streaming. Should sort itself out eventually.
darrylsloan 8 months ago
@darrylsloan "My internet connection has been terrible for over a month. Too slow for real-time video streaming. Should sort itself out eventually" - Obviously, the evil and satanic NWO internet connection is censoring any live independent thought from being discussed...OR your 'reppie' signal to the Annunaki mothership is to blame...either way, I'll look forward to your next BTV :)
RiverFyre 8 months ago
Oh and my bad on missing the "slavery in the bible" question in the first place -- it turns out it was techinically your bad -- you typed @darrylsloan instead of @geniusboy1380 so I didn't see it. So just to clarify it wasn't me "avoiding" the question, I literally didn't see it; but my penultimate response shows why it doesn't matter anyway.
geniusboy1380 9 months ago
I've always looked at it like this...this is a rather simplistic summary i might add.... God is just neutral energy....it can be good or bad, depending on how we percieve it. life is always changing and absolutely our morals will change with it. take murder for example.... murdering someone is considered morally wrong... killing osama bin laden was celebrated in the streets...interesting to say the least. here's an interesting question....do we peace for peace or do we fight for peace?
phlew2010 9 months ago
@phlew2010 The universe is adversarial, at every fractal level, from micro-organisms to the motions of stars. In nauture, this expresses itself as predator-prey, survival of the fittest. You can't go against the nature of the universe. "Peace for peace" is an unworkable pipedream that turns you into prey.
darrylsloan 9 months ago
@darrylsloan would u say that there is no such thing as non duality at any level where there are no opposing forces..ie predator prey. I know alot of people who believe that duality is an illusion for lack of a better term. just would like to hear u thoughts on that. thanx
phlew2010 9 months ago
@phlew2010 The universe is dualistic. Period. The only place where non-dualism exists is the timeless essence of the source of everything, which we can self-identify with if we wish, but we cannot bring it into space-time, because it's too big for those clothes, so to speak. Predator-prey is how the universe-wide principle of energy conversion manifests on the level of biological creatures. Big subject.
darrylsloan 9 months ago
Good and evil do not exist. They are a product of brains that have cognitive dissonance. People with black and white thinking tend to need to categorise people into 2 groups. All that truly exists are 2 demographics with opposing agendas. Each side considers the other to be evil. Everybody's definition of good and evil are different, so because they are subjective they can never truly be defined.
Anon371 9 months ago
My own standard of behaviour has no reference to a god, though it is the Wiccan Creed: If it hurts none, do what thou wilt.
I do, however, agree that humans are another animal, not a thing apart. The "different from animals" idea stems from most monotheistic religions. We are sophisticated apes, we are not the only species capable of moral qualities such as altruism which has been witnessed in elephants, for example.
muskndusk 9 months ago
Back the truck up to where you talk about a police force...
Do you agree it is immoral for an individual to use violent force, or any force for that matter, to compel another peacefully non compliant individual from going along with the majority's demands?
If you agree...
How is it then moral to hire a police force / agents and give them a right you do NOT have to use violent force against those who peacefully do not comply with the majority's demands?
batfly 9 months ago
@batfly I agree ... And, as you say, it's not moral to do so. But you seem to be fixated on the misuse of the police force. You've lost all perpective on the importance of having a police force. Maybe you've never had someone illegally enter your property and steal from you; maybe you've never been assaulted by a thug. I have - both. And I've been very glad of the police's help. You're extremely naive if you think a world without police is a better world. It would be open season on the public.
darrylsloan 9 months ago
@darrylsloan
I have had stuff stolen from me and my property damaged.
One instance I remember a Honda scooter motor bike was stolen from me...I reported it to the Police and they found it a couple of days after with some kid riding it.... The PoliceTook the scooter and stored it in a police storage compound and never charged the kid for theft.
It took the Police a couple of months after several inquiries by me for them to inform me my Honda scooter was in their storage.
batfly 9 months ago
@darrylsloan
So I was relieved the police found it.... That is until the Police gave me an $800 storage fee.
I did not have the money so the Police got to keep my scooter.
If you think for one second Police are there to serve the public... think again... they are there to Fee and Fine the public.
If I want protection I am better off hiring a private security team that will actually prevent crime not profit from the existence of crime.
batfly 9 months ago
@batfly
As I think more about what happened when I was 18... I have a sneaking hunch the police actually encouraged this kid to steal. I would not doubt it at all. The police did everything to the letter of the law to charge me a storage fee for my property which was stolen from me.
And we the sheep are supposed to just take it up the tail pipe and honor our police who use force and violent force to compel peaceful people to go along with the majority's will.
This is tyranny not liberty.
batfly 9 months ago
There is no Good and Evil. There is only power and those too weak to seek it.
batfly 9 months ago
I see that god is not the problem. It is religions and their teachings about it..
WMfin 9 months ago
Morality, emphaty and feelings are all things that we use to be good or bad... but also good and evil are not really there... it is about viewpoints. If somebody steals it can be good and bat at the same time. Like it is against the law and store loses some money but it is also good beacause hi's family got some food to survive.
Wespa 9 months ago
Without god, people can agree that some act is evil or good, but it's never inherently evil. Without god, morality is a social construct as you said, but that is all it is. Without god, the question "is rape bad?" becomes equal to the question "what's your favorite colour?". An act only possess the quality of good or evil in a persons mind, whereas with religion, it's an inherent quality.
I agree with you totally, you tackled the question "why do you not rape and pillage?" as I would.
Atheist.
TheHolyMane 9 months ago
Hey - First of all thanks for making this vid! As for the content, I think your viewpoint makes sense from the human-as-animal viewpoint, but at the same time I think you miss that we have an intrinsic moral intuition (which is mentioned in bible) that supersedes animal organization. Meaning, if the society of rapists took over and we were those who need to be "policed" like in your example, we would know intrinsically they were wrong. In your view this would be illusion; rapists would be right.
geniusboy1380 9 months ago
@geniusboy1380 You're right with do have an "intrinsic moral intuition" or what we might call our "humanity." But this is actually another point in favour of my argument. If we possess "humanity" by default, then we don't need a God to define the rules for us. We intuit them ... "IF a society of rapists ..." Right is decided by how civilisation ACTUALLY evolves, not by hypotheticals that didn't happen. Civilisation as we have it needs no other justification that the fact of its own success.
darrylsloan 9 months ago
@darrylsloan We seem to be attacking diverging aspects of morality. You discuss moral EPISTEMOLOGY - how we as humans delineate right from wrong, whereas I'm referring to moral ONTOLOGY - the ground basis for these values, which apart from God is totally arbitrary. For example, when you say "not by hypotheticals" you're presupposing that the right always wins, and that the "takeover" didn't happen but this is totally arbitrary. What do you say to the Nazis who think "the moral wrong" has won?
geniusboy1380 9 months ago
@geniusboy1380 I'm not presupposing that the right wins. I'm saying that we DEFINE right by what wins. But even this "right" isn't some eternal unchanging standard, just the next step on the rung of the progress of civilisation. Regarding ontology, there is nothing arbitrary about the bases of instinct and pragmatism. A wolf pack doesn't need a Bible to know how to be a successful wolf pack, with its own heirarchy. Nor do we.
darrylsloan 9 months ago
@darrylsloan Okay thanks for the clarification - I see you use this progress to DEFINE right itself. The problem with this reasoning is that it ultimately supersedes our moral intuition. What do you say to the lone wolf who thinks the pack has gone astray? In the animal kingdom this wolf dies, and we don't care because we place no judgment value on this wolf's dissension from the norm. But in human life it does matter. Was slavery right when it was the norm? And what do you say to the Nazis now?
geniusboy1380 9 months ago
@geniusboy1380 "Was slavery right when it was the norm?" Yes it was, until some individualists with other ideas were influential enough to change public opinion. Slavery is a very interesting example, because you won't find its "wrongness" in the Bible, only its continual tolerance. It would seem that it was not God-defined Christian ethics that provoked this change, but something else. And here we are today, all of us frowning upon slavery without the aid of Scripture. Interesting, isn't it?
darrylsloan 9 months ago
@geniusboy1380 "And what do you say to the Nazis now?" Fascism loses. Democracy wins ... for now. I'm not sure I get your approach to this question, because you seem to be trying to nail down "right" and "wrong" as fixed unchanging standards, but the whole point is that they aren't like that. When you pull away all delusions, life boils down to Lex Talionis. And civilisation is built upon pragmatic common agreement of the many.
darrylsloan 9 months ago
@darrylsloan There seems to be a contradiction - "Facism loses...Democracy wins...for now". So you condemn facism simply because it isn't the current "pragmatic agreement" but you applaud radical movements such as the abolition of slavery even though it was against the "pragamtic agreement" at the time -- (though now you say in retrospect, since everyone agrees on abolition it was "right"). Let's make things simple: If I know I can steal and get away with it and aid my survival why shouldn't I?
geniusboy1380 9 months ago
@geniusboy1380 "If I know I can steal and get away with it and aid my survival why shouldn't I?" You don't seem to understand that humanity has natural pack instincts. It's abnormal of us to steal from each other, except in extreme circumstances where survival depends on it. Otherwise our preference is for community and working together for mutual benefit. Your question is characterised by presupposing the Biblical "fall from grace", resulting in a "sinful" nature.
darrylsloan 9 months ago
@darrylsloan Yes but we cannot avoid the issue by denying reality. If you don't like "sin nature" call it "deviation" from the pack instinct. I have a friend named Bob. Bob knows he can steal, aid his own survival and get away with it (in this hypothetical there is no chance of getting caught; say he owns an invisibility cloak). He also wants to freely spread his progeny (i.e. rape) which he also gets away with. What good reason does he have to stop under your conception of morality?
geniusboy1380 9 months ago
@geniusboy1380 You're not getting what I mean when I assert that there is no "sin nature." It doesn't exist, as itself, or under the name "deviation." We have a fundamentally different view of human nature. To you it is depraved and in need of redemption. But to me there is nothing wrong with human nature. Why would I steal when I cherish the benefits of mutual friendship? Why would I rape when a woman's loving embrace is far more desirable? Human instinct is not the lone predator vs all else.
darrylsloan 9 months ago
@darrylsloan Okay let's try it from another angle: I WANT TO STEAL. In fact, I want to create a new paradigm in which stealing is recognized as a universal good - just like the abolition of slavery was once a new paradigm. I know I can steal and get away with it, and simultaneously aid my own survival. Tell me, on your worldview why I shouldn't continue stealing if I believe it is a new needed paradigm for the animal pack that is human kind? Or do you agree that theres nothing "wrong" with this?
geniusboy1380 9 months ago
@geniusboy1380 Whether your new paradigm of stealing is "wrong" or not will be determined by how well it catches on. Lex Talionis. I suspect the public would be singularly unimpressed, because they would see the benefits of remaining civilised, and your paradigm would fall flat on its face. Incidentally, this will be my final message, because you have continued to ignore my challenge about how you define slavery as wrong by the Bible. This is a one-sided debate because you won't engage. Bye.
darrylsloan 9 months ago
@darrylsloan Hold on there. I don't remember any "challenge" about defining slavery as wrong by the bible, but now that you mention it here we go: Your point is really a straw man because slavery in biblical times often was different from American civil war slavery. "Slaves" were tantamount to being lower class- having the same citizen rights, but being in an indentured position in which you have to pay back a debt through service. This is different from being forcibly subjugated with no rights.
geniusboy1380 9 months ago
@darrylsloan Also - Realize that the bible has NOTHING to do with the need for God to define morality. The premises in an argument for the need for God to define objective moral values would not include "the bible is true" as a premise. You could argue that this would apply to the Hindu or Muslim God and yes it would - it merely establishes that some transcendent being exists based on objective moral values that we know exist in our hearts. Honing in on the Christian God is a separate matter.
geniusboy1380 9 months ago
@geniusboy1380 What you're saying is simply 100% untrue. Leviticus 25:44-46. Slaves are property, and God's laws, as written in the Bible, state that slaves are not entitled to the same social justice as non-slaves. Exodus 21:20-21 is particularly harrowing. So again I reiterate, how can you say that slavery is wrong from a Biblical perspective?
darrylsloan 9 months ago
@darrylsloan This is a very complicated point and I'm not going to pretend it can be addressed adequately in a youtube window, but nevertheless here we go: In the NT, Jesus made it clear that some of the practices in the OT were not based on God's ideals, but necessary evils to deal with the barbaric human ways of the time (i.e. Matt. 19:3-10). Note also that this message in Leviticus and the Pentateuch as a whole was meant for a specific people at a specific time.
geniusboy1380 9 months ago
@geniusboy1380 This explanation is totally unsatisfactory. It would have been the easiest thing in the world for God to condemn slavery (he condemns many other things without making concessions). Here he PROACTIVELY institutes laws that ensure that slaves will not have the same rights as citizens. It is what it is. You need to quit making excuses and see the plain facts. People don't get their morality from God; it's a nation's God that mirrors the prevailing culture.
darrylsloan 9 months ago
@darrylsloan The mistake here is that you presuppose knowing the mind of God better than God himself. "It would have been the easiest thing in the world for God to condemn slavery" -- you simply cannot understand why he institutes it but makes it clear in the NT that such practices were necessary due to the "hardness" of people's hearts etc...The entire "problem of evil" is addressed completely in the Book of Job. The main idea is that God has reasons beyond comprehension for permitting evil.
geniusboy1380 9 months ago
@geniusboy1380 "The mistake here is that you presuppose knowing the mind of God better than God himself." Not at all. Remember, I'm not beginning this with the assumption that this is actually God speaking in the OT. I weigh the worth of the words in order to determine whether this truly is God. And the words are found wanting, ergo this is not God speaking.
darrylsloan 9 months ago
@darrylsloan As for the bit on the OT, it's illogical to claim to not believe in God and then criticize the God-you-don't-believe-in's actions. If he's not real, then the whole book is a farce, not just the bits on slavery etc... But once again, Book of Job reconciles problem of evil and together with the NT makes adequate coverage of the allowance and at sometimes instruction of certain evils.
geniusboy1380 9 months ago
@geniusboy1380 "it's illogical to claim to not believe in God and then criticize the God-you-don't-believe-in's actions." Come on, you know when I'm using colourful language, and you know how to read between the lines.
darrylsloan 9 months ago
And once again, I'm not saying people "get their morality from God" I'm saying that God serves as the standard by which to measure morality. The distinction is of utmost importance. I grant that you can run a civil society without belief in God, but the only way to objectively justify such a society is to presuppose a belief in a transcendent moral standard.
geniusboy1380 9 months ago
@geniusboy1380 "I grant that you can run a civil society without belief in God, but the only way to objectively justify such a society is to presuppose a belief in a transcendent moral standard." The way you said this gets right to the heart of the matter, and that is: the Christian feels that we MUST justify a thing objectively, whereas we are content with entirely pragmatic justifications. That's the key difference in our approaches, and it's why you'll never be satisfied with my answers.
darrylsloan 9 months ago
@darrylsloan Hmm.......I agree that your point is rationally sound and justified, but at the same time, I believe deep down you have a moral instinct that supersedes evolutionary impulses. To completely be "content" with pragmatic justifications, you'd have to disavow the innate need to reconcile the genetic impulses for reproduction and survival and the intrinsic wisdom to restrain the instincts. You can call it "evolutionary" or "illusory" but, in my view, that's a suppression of the truth.
geniusboy1380 9 months ago
@geniusboy1380 "To completely be "content" with pragmatic justifications, you'd have to disavow the innate need to reconcile the genetic impulses for reproduction and survival and the intrinsic wisdom to restrain the instincts." Not wishing to open another can of worms, but I believe that the further man moves from his natural instincts, the more screwed up he gets. I think all the sexual perversity in the world has its roots in sexual repression, chiefly at the hands of religious influence.
darrylsloan 9 months ago
@darrylsloan Wow I think that's a bit of a radical view - "the further man moves from his natural instincts, the more screwed up he gets." Sounds like another video is in order =P. Aside from all this, what's the status on the telekinesis? Moved up to pens and pencils?
geniusboy1380 9 months ago
@geniusboy1380 Yeah, could be worth a video. I see it like this: you can manage your instincts (and realistically you must), but you can't repress them. In fact, it's dangerous to do so, because your subscious will seek to express the instinct by whatever means it can, and make a real mess. Big, big, topic, but one for another time.
darrylsloan 9 months ago
Note, the argument isn't based on accepting the bible - it merely establishes that a transcendent being must be the source of objective moral values. Also, the NT makes it clear that we are to follow the main two* commandments Jesus gave and all the others flow from that vein. Meaning we should exercise our own rationality and strive to emulate the nature of God without following rules mindlessly. I.e. Mark 2:27. The main part of the "objective" is the decision to emulate God's moral nature.
geniusboy1380 9 months ago
@darrylsloan Come on now, I've played ball with your questions - I want a response to my objection: how can you claim that slavery is wrong when your Bible accomodates it as a social norm, and gives no moral condemnation of it whatsoever?
darrylsloan 9 months ago
I don't agree with all of the Government enforced laws at all and not everyone in prison is a criminal in my eyes. Everything is the way it is because of the elite who make the laws, not because of us and what we want.
It's an an interesting vid. I believe morals are inherent within humans, in our pure natural state we know good from bad, right from wrong.
cloudskipa 9 months ago
@cloudskipa I don't agree with all of the enforced laws either. Everything is in flux; civilisation is continually evolving. There will always be revolutions that rock the boat of the status quo, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. Ultimately, in the big picture, civilisation evolves into something better than before. I'm pretty sure we all prefer the modern world (with all its flaws) to Ancient Rome, Greece, Egypt, etc.
darrylsloan 9 months ago
In existential terms, god/good is life, and self (the living past within us) is evil.
The life we have lived/the past within us/our self is the devil.
Lived/devil.
When our minds are stilled, when we are simply now, we are life being life, and as such are happy.
Whereas when our minds are in motion/when we are thinking are self/our inner ignorance is expressing its-self and the problems inevitably begin.
Look at this -
Thinking is not intelligent, NOT THINKING is pure intelligence.
NowisEvollovetion 9 months ago
great video! people instead of reading the bible read some real history like the Inquisition movements in europe.now thats how really religion works.
TheBlue128 9 months ago
Excellent points Darryl, if only more people could see things in this kind of light. Religion, all religion, sure does close the mind to the power of reasoning and real thinking for oneself.
summersun2828 9 months ago
We have a conscience, everyone knows that it exists. It doesn't matter whether it's given by God or born through evolution, conscience is. And it tells almost all of us the same things. People who constantly do something that harms other people had to 'beat' their conscience to make it shut up. And even then, it still exists there as a small voice. Yes there is always someone who'll come and shout "do what thou wilt" but that's free will in use, to go against the consensus of humanity.
Ravenkeep 9 months ago
Its interesting what you say about christianity. i think that you seem to be referring to literalism in xtianity. the xtians whom I have met in recent days say that a moral life comes out of self reflection rather then the obeying of any system of law. Those who are more theistic say that the "holy spirit" lives in the believer and becomes a motivator to just do the next right thing, not to obey some alleged objective morality. Maybe the xtians around me are just liberal. I dunno
BespokeGroupUK 9 months ago
@BespokeGroupUK From what you've said in your videos, you definitely seem to be surrounded by liberal Christians. To me this seems like a wishy-washy form of Christianity, devoid of any real convictions about truth, and therefore it has become essentially harmless. This is certainly not what Christianity is elsewhere. Elsewhere, you would be ostracised for your occult dabbling.
darrylsloan 9 months ago
Why do I believe in good & evil? Because these things are observable. In the Nanking massacre, Japanese soldiers amused themselves by forcing fathers to rape their own daughters. Don't tell me that this isn't evil, that it's just evolution's way to get rid of the weak. Some people sacrifice their lives and everything they have to help and save other people, defending the weak and helpless. Don't tell me that this isn't goodness in action.
Ravenkeep 9 months ago
I do believe in good and evil. I think that there are some objective 'core' values, and many more subjective values. Imagine a circle: in the center is a white area where there exists a group of values that most of humanity agrees upon. (murdering, raping, stealing, generally causing physical or mental damage to others is wrong) Surrounding the center, is the grey area of subjective morality, where things get muddled up do to so many different view points.
Ravenkeep 9 months ago
@Ravenkeep If it was kill or be killed, I would kill. If I were homeless and hungry, I would steal. If I were a bullied student, I would fight. If my survival depended on it, I would do a lot of things I would not normally do.
darrylsloan 9 months ago
@darrylsloan I would defend myself too if someone attacked me. If I were hungry and homeless and there were no other way, I would steal too. But I wouldn't attack someone unprovoked and murder him. I wouldn't ambush someone, beat him, and take his food. If we find ourselves in these kind of hard situations, we often also find ourselves in this grey area of subjective morality. But if I were to steal a piece of bread from a shop in my hunger, my conscience still would accuse me.
Ravenkeep 9 months ago
As if Christianity never killed. raped or slaughtered anyone while believing in God
EmpoweredByKnowledge 9 months ago
Lucid as ever.
You should have a look at "Reasons and persons" by the philosopher
Derek Parfait.His book on morality, "Climbing the mountain." is free to download
.
faunflynn 9 months ago
i don't want 1 person locked up. especially i resent not one mention of that percentage of people who recognize our 'legal system' as violent and morally wrong. here's a good place to start for moral guidance..non aggregation non violence. YOU dont 'have someone locked up', that statement is false since you do not actually participate in that decision or action to or not to lock anyone up, simply you must as you said go with it or against and against is not a moral guild.
Azandex 9 months ago
@Azandex So you want murderers and rapists roaming free? Would you feel the same if they were your next-door neighbours?
darrylsloan 9 months ago
@darrylsloan are you saying that there are no murders and rapists roaming free? disregard the evidence that incarceration does not has not and will not stop violent crime and disregard that most are incarcerated for non-violent crimes. do you feel safer knowing someone is suffering in a cage somewhere? prisons are a for profit driven 'industry. it has an incentive for crime to exists. do you also think police protect you or have you figured out they simply enforce code?
Azandex 9 months ago
@Azandex Yes, there are murderers and rapists roaming free, unfortunately. Is it not better to at least have a large percentage of them apprehended than to have them ALL roaming free, as you advocate? Incarcerating criminals protects the innocent from those that would destroy them. If the police force was done away with, I wonder how nice your neighborhood would be? You're giving a licence for villains to run amuck.
darrylsloan 9 months ago
@darrylsloan i advocate non violence. and once more incarceration in no way lowers violent crime or keeps 'innocent' any more safe. this illusion i feel morally driven to point out. more police=more crime/criminals (customers). would you agree with all incarceration's as moral? is that selective morality? its ok as long as they don't go after people with facial hair. the illusion that Christianity keeps society moral is the same illusion that police keeps people from turning into villains
Azandex 9 months ago
@Azandex god, or police, do not keep people from becoming vilians, fear does that. fear of being cast out of society. people still rape, murder, steal, etc. because having a compleatly moral society is nearly imposible or extreamly difficult, depending on your outlook. your outlook on incarceration is that no one should be placed under arest because it doesnt matter how many are locked up. this is a lie. it matters because the number locked may or may not be greater than the number free.
Saruto001 9 months ago
@Azandex it sounds as though you would prefer to live in a place where there is no such thing as laws or guids to keep moral balence or what we would think is moral together. more police means more criminals because more police means there are more criminals found. of course your ideas of incarceration are what you think is moral and not moral. of course there are people who think your ideas are crazy. think how you will, ill think how i will. criminals will do the same.
Saruto001 9 months ago
@Saruto001 Native Americans as 1 example did not have prisons spread thought America holding million in cages to keep themselves safe from themselves.. our civilization in a time perspective is a blink of an eye in comparison. how did it work? well, instead of locking someone away for smoking a plant, IF it was perceived as danger the harshest punishment was enacted, that person was ostracized. nothing has yet to be more successful to conform/condition a pack animal to the pack (humans)
Azandex 9 months ago
@Azandex well are prisons not just another form of ostracizm? of course if you were to ostrocize someone in tha way of teh native americans, during our time period, they would simply go to another town and do the same thing again, would they not? incarceration and ostracizm have thier similarities and differences, but both work in a similar maner.
Saruto001 9 months ago
@Saruto001 i would dare to say they are polar opposites. a prisoner is a commodity.. if you dont yet know ALL government uniforms and gear i.e. army, police forest ranger, desks for schools pens paper laundry.... they are all products of slave labor in the US. 14-20 cents per hour. im not joking. In our time, like all times before crime is a symptom of environment. 'the devils playground' is a good example of the effectiveness of ostracism. both don't work the same..
Azandex 9 months ago
Love your opinions and insights Darryl =)
Razorhawk72 9 months ago
Excellent analysis Darryl. Keep up the good work. Create a colony of humans in some isolated place, without any knowledge of religion, in time that society would develop something that would be recognised as a moral code because they are social creatures. Moral values are a product of society. They are fluid and they evolve. Using a God as an ambassador of morals standards is madness - he who has committed and continues to promote mass genocide in his own name?
alanstarkie2001 9 months ago
All in all I think there is an extra "something" to mankind which I would call false individual consciousness or "ego" for short (though I consider this an inadequate term). And yes, I would call this uncompromisingly evil. I cannot take the stance you take for I have grown to see its futility.
Scorner99 9 months ago
@Scorner99 I too think that "ego" is something that indicates humans to be different from animals. Animals just are, they are content with what they are. But humankind has this need to show off; building great structures, accomplishing great feats etc. Animals compete with each other to survive, humans do it too, but we also compete for egoistical reasons. Like the bloodthirsty tyrant kings of history. Conquering, killing and building for their own selfish glory.
Ravenkeep 9 months ago
I think the inadequacy of simply explaining away evil in humankind by reference to Nature comes out most in bas relief with the problem of self-consciousness. Do animals feel self-conceit, egotism, or "pride" in the Christian sense? Do animals have a sense of genuine cruelty for the sake of cruelty?
Scorner99 9 months ago
@Scorner99 Cruelty for cruelty's sake would make an excellent topic for a future video. Of all the arguments against the idea that man is just n animal, this is the only one that gives me any pause for thought. I still think the evidence weighs firmly in my camp, but this would be a good matter to flesh out sometime.
darrylsloan 9 months ago