I'd like to think that if we could be moral by not destroyong the earth and ourselves, that we could eventually progress and develop intersteller travel capability and colonize that galaxy, so that what we do really could matter to the universe.
The morality of an action is relative to the individual because it is the impact on an individual's quality of existence that is the arbiter to the question "what should I do"
Simple as that. There is no standard that applies to everyone because everyone has different values.
Wow Danny nice video....and I agree with pretty much everything...we are insignificant in the broad scale but significant to this planet...like all species our impact on this planet is important as it is our home but yet most of our species are too concerned with other things...grrr to them...We could all die tomorrow..why worship a god/gods and waste our time?
Bravo, nice response video. It's nice to know there are other people out there as rational as you.
And I don't know if it was just the audio track that you picked, or if you're naturally calm when you speak, but you didn't seem condescending, or snarky. I hope that's not my biased support for your side of the argument coming out, but really, it was nice.
sadly if you say "we mean nothing" to some like vfx. they will respond with "so why not kill everyone"...etc... "why do anything"
i think you misunderstand (like vfx), believing or not believing isn't a want, but just how you see the world. for us to see the world with a god is nonsense. but for vfx to see the world with out a god, is also nonsense.
i just told them i don't know whats the real trueth of what happen and how shit began but at least i don't pretend like i know and that some thing made us all. I'm not afraid of the nothing that awaits me when i die and i don't need an imaginary friend to accompany me to the hole in the ground. I like my life and the time i have and i don't need to be afriad becuase i know me and i know that i'm not a bad person and i can't say the same for them becuase they had some crazy thinking of morals.
this reminds me when i was all alone and i thought i was alone and i explain why it made no sense why my co-worker were afraid of a god thing or ceture that did not exist. They said i belive in nothing and ask me dumb question like were did we all come form or did the chicken come frist or the egg. I sometimes would just say well guess what numb nuts there relly is nothing and when you die nothing happens after and prehaps shit did come form nothing but that sounds dumb like them. continue-
I simply left a comment on venom's video that basically said:
Moral relativism is a silly concept that ethical philosophers don't take seriously. I like utilitarianism myself it holds that pleasure is good and pain is bad and it is right to maximize the good and minimize the bad. Kant is okay too though it has a lot more philosophy speak so it's harder to understand.
Because of that I'm blocked from venomfangx's channel. Can you see what was wrong with that comment?
i agree with your video. We should consider ourselves so lucky to be alive at all. I am happy to have the opportunity to live a full life, and I am making the best of it;not spending my life feeling terrible for somthing that supposedly happened in eden and attempting to atone for it. that's a bullshit waste of a life that should be spent trying to make the world a better place by working for it.( my wife and I take in shelter animals). thanks for posting exactly the way i feel dano. bang up job
First of all saying "when you die that's it" is a belief that has no factual backing. We don't know what happens after we die so making that statement is false. The answer is "I don't know".
Their could be. Like I said I and you don't know. So claiming that you do is intellectual dishonesty. You can concluded death is the end but again this is a belief not backed by anything unless you know any dead people who can tell you for sure what exactly happens.
I don't claim to know. Sure...there could be a magical kingdom for all creatures great and small after death, and it could be made of pizza and ice cream too. But I am not silly enough to entertain the idea just because someone dreamed it up. There's no evidence to support it, so mother goose can have it. I'm not even entertaining the notion until there's a reason to.
Scientific evidence suggests that consciousness is a product of the brain. And the brain doesn't work any more after death. So it would follow from these that consciousness ends at death. I hope I'm wrong though.
You are making just as many faith statement as Venom. Why should I believe your presupposition just because you state it confidently. You don't know that God does not exist and if he does than your world view utterly falls apart. And if he does than your argument at the end of this video utterly falls apart. You are asking me to believe your confident assertion. Have you searched the whole universe? What percentage of the knowledge of the universe do you possess? 3% maybe 4% ?
Well of course my world view falls apart if God exists. Did you study under Captain Obvious? Do you have a degree in no shit-ology?
Sorry but my statements in the video are based on evidence. As in, there is none for God and there is plenty for evolution. Even if I was ignorant to 99.999 percent of the universe, there is still no reason yet to think God is in it. When there is, I'll accept him. Until then, evolution is the only supported claim.
Well all I am pointing out is that all your confident assertions are based upon faith and not fact. The same thing that you accuse Religious people of. You have no magic fact that prove your world view to be correct the only thing you have is your own limited opinion. Good luck.
Can I ask a question? You keep saying that my assertions are faith based, but if evolution is supported by facts, how can it be faith to say that I support the worldview it presents?
Evolution is not a fact, there are no facts supporting evolution. There is not one thing in the fossil record that proves evolution. The real question is how could evolution produce information, that requires intelligence. Oh I guess it take intelligence to figure that out. No one has ever observed Macro-Evolution, only Micro. We all agree on Micro, but Macro is where you run into problems. How do you get from one species to another with all the complexity that we observe.
So the fact that less complex organisms appear in deeper and deeper rock layers in the order that the Theory of Evolution suggests doesn't support it?
So, "Micro" is possible, but not "Macro"? Tell me, where is the limit, the boundary for this that must be somehow built into the DNA, the genes of all creatures?
If you tell me time and chance I am just going to accuse you of faith. Then you have the problem of what started the first spark of life with all of the complexity necessary to produce even a single cell. To me these things argue against Naturalistic evolution. So you have bunch of scientist who are true believers in your world view; none of them were there to observe evolution,, so their beliefs are beliefs not facts.
Right, guess what, you just lost the argument. You can scream its not a fact at the top of your lungs all day but the overwhelming majority of scientists say it is and they are the ones who get to decide because they are the experts. What are you an expert in? Fuck all? Exactly. You have no education in any of these fields which makes you a scientific illiterate. Why should I listen to anything you or Ray Comfort, or Kent Hovind say. Short answer, I, and no one else should. I'm done with you.
A "bunch" of scientists? Try a few million. Are they all just accepting this one science on faith, while all the others are ok? Or wait, is paleontology off, too? How about geology, which also supports evolution? How about physics and Atomic Theory, which provides the basis for radiometric dating? If Atomic Theory doesn't work, well, I wonder what science is keeping all those nuclear power plants going.
There are many facts and observations that support the Theory of Evolution. The theory has requirements and makes predictions, and as long as new observations made don't contradict it but keep supporting it, it's still a valid theory. This is how science works. We accept theories based on the evidence, which in the case of evolution is massive.
Did you know there are over 200,000 scientifc papers supporting it?
What facts? If your world view is flawed than your interpretation of the data will also be flawed. Facts that you say are facts are merely interpretations of the data based upon your world view. If your world view is wrong than your fact can not be trusted.
You accept what you call micro-evolution as a fact. We see no mechanism to suggest that "micro" doesn't mean "macro" over longer time. Is this not a fact?
How about the fact that the deeper and older the geological layer, the simpler the organism?
I suppose you're going to dispute the fact of radiometric dating as well, thereby dicarding Atomic Theory and physics in general?
How about ERVs? The "prediction" of Tiktaalik? Nested hierarchies? Chromosome 2? Etc.
Yep! It is one thing to accept micro evolution because it is observable and therefor a fact. Where is Macro observable? Where are the transitions within the lower geological layers. We find many creature that exist on earth today down there. So I don't see how any of that proves Evolution. Weather or not the extrapolations of Radio Carbon dating are correct or not is not provable.
Why is micro a fact, but macro isn't? Where is the genetic barrier that would prevent micro changes from turning into macro changes?
The transitions are everywhere. Tiktaalik is again a good example. It was even found in the geological layer that the evolutionary theory predicted it would be found.
No, we don't find many creatures that exist today down there. They are different, and many (the vast majority) don't exist today.
It may not be provable - nothing is - but is is reasonable.
Extinct, distinct creatures do not prove evolution. It only proves that those creates existed. They may be interesting and propagandist may make interesting drawing that distort distort the facts. But the truth is you only find distinct creature and no transitions. How can the less complex move to more complex where do you see that in nature? That to me seems totally unreasonable. Where do you see order out of Chaos? How can nature produce information. Only intelligence does!
The fact that about 99% of the species that ever existed are now exting fits with evolution, and it also severly damages the Bible's claim about the Flood, while we're at it.
Distinct creatures and no transitions? Do you even know what a transitional species is?
Less complex to more comples? Where do we see that in nature? Oh, I don't know... Everywhere? Add energy and things grow. Plants suck up light and grow. Cells suck up nutrients and they grow and divide. Are plants/cells intelligent?
It depends on the accuracy of the assumptions of the rate of Carbon 14 decent has been consistent through out time. statement. And we don't have any measurement from the past to know if the assumption are correct or not. So no I don't base my whole life or my eternal destiny off of science which has so often been flawed. I just find the statement more compelling "In the Beginning God Created" far more than Random natural processes over Billions of years.
You do realize that Carbon 14 dating isn't the only dating method around, right? There are many, and they correlate, and are often used to corroberate results.
We have some past milestones to go by, and they can be used to calibrate.
It's fine that you don't base your "eternal destiny" off of science, but I hope you realize that this is an entirely faith based, and seemingly a fear-contingent, statement.
Carbon 14 dating is not even the issue. If you want to base your faith on it go ahead. I choose not to trust the words of sinful and feeble men who will soon perish from the earth. Yours is just as faith based you are choosing scientist I am choose God. You are choosing to believe their opinions as if are fact when they are in reality plausible arguments based upon their world views. Again if their world views are wrong than your whole argument falls apart. I have no problem with faith.
Carbon dating, along with many, many other dating methods, which all corroborate the same results, THAT is an issue, yes. If the Earth is only 6k years old, then God is tricking us by making it appear old.
I don't trust the men/scientists, but the results, which are independently verifiable. And their arguments are based on those results, not their world views, which can differ greatly.
I have no problem with faith, either, it just doesn't belong in science.
Even my Bible says the same thing. So if you accuse me of faith, I accuse you of faith as well. I chose God and I think that my bet is far safer than yours. Hebrews 11:3 "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at Gods command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible." 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him." No problems.
You refer to the Bible, and then accuse me of faith? I don't have a Bible. I don't have a God, or doctrine, or a church with priests or saints. I don't claim the existence of something which cannot be verified. Where is my faith?
This isn't some kind of bet where you have to be "safe". What kind of mentality is that? You're actively doing all this just to feel safe? Doesn't that say something about the truthfulness of your position?
Yes you do. Your Bible is human opinion, your God is yourself, you doctrine is Atheism, your priest is Richard Dawkins (and the like), you claim that something can come from nothing, that Order can come from Chaos, that information can come from Non-intelligence. That nature is all that exists, That random natural processes given enough time and change have created everything that exists. These all all faith presuppositions that have not be verified by science.
My reference to the bible was to show that faith is consistent with my Christian world view so when you accuse me of faith I have no problem with that.
Also, the fact that you find "In the Beginning God Created" a more compelling statement should really also raise some alarms within yourself, because this indicates that your perception of the world is an act of will, based on something that wish to be true, something you find compelling - not something that is actually found to be actually, observably, independently verifiably true.
It seems to me that the same accusation can be made of you. You cling to human opinion and flimsy facts and theories because you reject God and you want God to not exist because that would require you to summit to his authority. You don't have a fact problem you have a moral problem. I chose to believe in God because I have experience his grace and his love and his love has cast out all fear. I now find his existence a delight and one of the highest joy of my life.
No, I don't reject God. I'd have to accept his existence first, wouldn't I? Why do theists always bring up this point, assuming to know what other people think? It's nonsense, and actually quite offensive and insulting to do that.
I'd have no problem whatsoever with God's authority if he made himself known to me. In fact, I had no problems with it for the 15 or so years when I was a Christian.
And no, I don't cling to human opinion, I "cling" to independently verifiable facts.
Why should it. Show me where something can come from nothing. Show me where information can arise from non-intelligence. Show me how time and chance can create all of the design and complexity that we see within nature. Designs must have a designer, Great power must have order everything that we see. So to me it is not so unreasonable to believe that an all powerful God created everything that we see.
We see emergent information and structure coming out of seeming chaos all the time. It's a matter of energy transfer. Again, unless you think God is guiding the cell by cell growth of every plant and organism, then we see this happen by natural means all the time. Water arranges itself to be flat due to gravity and other natural laws, and crystals organize in the same manner - all natural. We've seen that God isn't needed for this, as with many things, so why does he need to be behind it all?
Where do we see information coming out of Chaos. Give me some examples. It requires Intelligence to order Choas. Every mutation in nature is a loss of DNA rather than the increase of it. We have never observed DNA created. Every expenditure of Energy that we observe disorders rather than orders the energy. It is called the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Right
We see it all the time. Plants and cells growing, because they receive energy. We see how gravity pulls and holds things together. We see structures arise by seeming "random" processes in nature.
No, every mutation isn't a loss. I don't know much about biology, but I know this isn't true. Frames shift, bits are duplicated, the results (like nylonase) vary, and some are usable - and those survive.
The 2nd Law of T. refers to a closed system. The earth isn't a closed system.
i can see that believe that there are no facts to support evolution. I was going to answer you're post about parents and their parents but you obivously seem to think that there were always just elephants giving birth to elephants that came off noah boat even though theirs no evidence to support noahs boat. read a text book and stop being a fuckin retard. fuckin retards man. just keeping humanity back with their retarded worldview.
Where did we humans get the sense that keeping slaves is wrong, that women should be able to vote, that we shouldn't kill unbelievers or any child that is disobedient, among other? A lot has changed since the time of the Bible. How come?
Could it be that morals develop, just like society does?
So as social species develop, could their morals not develop along side that?
PCS makes me laugh, he failed miserably at trying to prove creationism and the existance of his god from a scientific stand point, he has now changed tactics and is going to try it from a philosophical angle...which he will fail miserably at also.
I guess you have to give him a bit of credit for not giving up too easily, unfortunately I can see the possibility of him imploding one day and someone will find him hanging from a rope, apparently he is very unstable, sad indeed
How many times throughout our history. When we (humans) opened up a new part of this world, seen its peoples their way of life, customs and rituals. And come away saying "Well they just have a different set morals than us"
How does this work in world where we are all the children of an omnipresent all powerful god?.... doesn't really fit does it?
In the sense you mean it, yeah, I haven't disproved objective morality. But also in that sense it becomes as unprovable as God himself.
Most mammals have tear ducts. They need them to keep the eyes wet. But most do not cry. However elephants, gorillas, and even camels have been observed shedding what appear to be emotional tears.
So do you think this that this particular video can suffice as a refutation for the moral argument. I think the idea of an evolutionary developed moral sense supports premise 2 of the moral argument.
No, I never said it did. This video merely presents one man's rational on the subject. I think it suffices as a damn good argument against it, but it is in no way conclusive.
And even if it did suffice it still wouldn't be enough for those people who want to believe in God and objective morality. I could throw all the evidence in the world in front of them and they'd still find a way to deny it and maintain their beliefs. This video is for people with open minds who want outlooks.
I have an interest in discussing this topic, but I do not see how this argument does any damage at all.
If theistic evolution is true, and it is also true that God instilled in us knowledge of right and wrong, He wouldn't do so by some sort of magic but would do so by using the process of evolution.
In that sense, it seems to strengthen the argument by supporting premise 2.
@Epydemic2020 um well I will assume that theistic evolutionists are those that believe that evolution and such is factual and was God's means of creation. Well that is all good and dandy but that is still making a step that cannot be shown to hold logically. It does not support the premise anymore than it supports the flying spaghetti monster as creator through the means of evolution. achem's razor would call for the metaphysical factor to be untouched until there is empirical or logical proof
@Epydemic2020 I do agree with individuals having innate perceptions of reality and morality, although I find it inappropriate to compare them as if the same logic can hold for both. In fact, it may be more accurate to describe morality as a perception itself, while reality is a label for something that would be there whether humans are perceiving it or not. The laws of physics will hold and always held whether humans understood them or not. But morality is a label that points to a percpetion
@Epydemic2020 The issue is that reality is set and like I said is not dependent on humans. It is here whether we like it or not and the immense amount of uniformity of our understanding of it adds greatly to its validity. On the other hand, there is no uniformity of our morals which themselves are just a perception. We do not perceive our morals but rather our morals are a perception of the innate emotional responses that humans encounter in our environment.
@Epydemic2020 The major issue I have with your argument is that you place morals as something humans perceiving, which is fallacious in the set up of the argument, because morals are the perception of our innate emotional responses to our environment.
My studies on morality and our moral sense indicate that morality is much more than an emotional response to the environment. In Marc Hauser's book "moral minds" he lays out the case for morality being three parts. Reason, intuition, and emotion. Reason tells us that kicking someone hurts, intuition tells us we shouldn't do that, and emotion makes us feel guilty if we do. Emotion is based off of the intuition, rather than the other way around.
@Epydemic2020 The unfortunate thing is that there is not a set definition of objectivity. The one I like best does not, I think, match the one you point to in Hauser's book. I personally find the best definition is one from, yes I know, wikipedia in which it says a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent". Reason will, whether you like or not, tell be people to react differently to the same scenario.
How does that not refute objective morality? People are choosing X or Z subjectively. The choice is contingent on the individual which is basically the definition of subjective. For example, one plus one is objectively two regardless of what anyone thinks. it is objective because the answer is uniform and not contingent on the who is answering it. that is what objectivity means. i dont understand what idea of objectivity you are using but it seems like you are describing objectivity not subjecti
You are not distinguishing between what people do, and what people should do.
Just because some people "do" rape each other does not mean people "should" rape each other.
To use your example, just because some people say 1 + 1 = 3, does not mean people "should" say it (because they are wrong).
Objectivity means that there is a right answer regardless of the subjective response. In your analogy, this would mean that the statement 1 + 1 = 3 is false even though someone thinks otherwise.
Well what should people actually do in that scenario i mentioned involving the mother and child. objectively morality would call for an absolute answer. you can't say that the answer is objectively supposed to be save the wife but kill the child? so does that mean that it is objectively ok to kill your child. of course not, it is contingent on the situation and the individual which, again, is the definition of subjectivity. I don't think you do understand what I am talking about.
do different things in the same scenario. Such as the baby and wife scenario or real scenarios that happened in Katrina effected hospitals. Thou shall not kill but we kill and so on. Thou shall not lie but there are times when we should. It is not objective. It is dependent on the scenario and the person. That is the definition of subjectivity.
I understand your objection now, and I believe it is based off a misconception. my video "absolute objective morality" may help clear things up.
There are no universally bad actions. Morality consists of actions and intentions. You cannot say "all killing is bad" because it doesn't account for intentions.
You could say "killing in the act of self defense is objectively permissible" or "killing an innocent for fun is objectively forbidden". That does not detract from their objectivity.
Well there was a period of time when it was permissable for wealthy higher castes such as knights to kill lower caste peasants for pleasure and sport. You would say that is objectively immoral but how do you really know if that is or if what the knights were down is acceptable. Because at that point it was acceptable, possibly incouraged. Even if the concept of objective morality fits in this current world, which it doesnt, it is still not proof for actual objectivity.
You keep bringing up the same argument, but with different examples.
Again, differences in a posteriori knowledge does not jeopardize the validity of a priori knowledge.
Throughout history individuals have used poor reasoning to boost their own egos. Attribution errors and ingroup/outgroup bias have allowed people to erroneously convince themsevles that they are more valuable than people of a different race, age, income level, ect.
Although people are able to convince themselves (using a posteriori knoweldge) that they are justified in harming other people due to a false sense other people are inferior or less human than they are, does not make it acceptable.
What people do and what people should do are not always synonymous. Pointing these things out does not actually hurt my argument.
If you want to refute the validity of our a priori knowledge, you cannot do so by bringing up differences in a posteriori knoweldge.
Because such a phenomenon could be caused by an advantage for such uniformity to exist, which would fit perfectly in an evolutionary point of view. Further we can see the evidence for it by tracing genes and presenting mathematical models. Where is the evidence for an objective cause of our morals rather than just a correlation? There is none.
I think you are completely correct in terms of your first statement. I agree that if evolution is true morality is innate (to a loose degree). But why do we have good reason to believe that our moral knowledge is not illusionary. The bible is essentially your only source of jesus as you believe in him and yet evolution, theistic or not, shows that the bible's account of the world is not accurate. Wouldn't that discredit it a lot.
Arguing against my particular version of God would not get you of the jam. We have good reason to think our moral sense is not illusory for literally the exact same reason it is not rational to conclude that our senses are not illusory.
I do believe in the Christian God and theistic evolution, but arguing against those views does not harm the moral argument in any way, as the moral argument only proves a personal, omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity.
The unfortunate thing is that you cannot compare the senses in the same way morals operate. We are in a way forced to accept the assumptions that our senses are correct mainly because they (where I include the logical sense to be a part of) have concluded coexisting complementary observations while as morality is not completely universal.
Even if murdered is agreed upon people murder and murder without guilt. people can easily fall away from moral law but it is impossible to fall away from physical laws which were discovered by our physical and logical senses. and a last thing to add. you never responded to my objection to the idea of intuition to be an independent part of "morality". as i commented intuition is just a function of morality and rationality.
guilt is really irrelevant to whether something is immoral or not.
People can disobey moral laws, they can also use reasoning tricks to convince them that their wrong acts were justified. None of those things take away from the validity of my claims.
Intuition consists of a set of fundamental principles which are innate, yet not always consciously accessible. I am not sure how you are attempting to define it.
@Epydemic2020 Well exactly would let a person know that they are not supposed to do something. It can't be fear of "getting in trouble" or getting punished because that would mean that it is the government where morality comes from. So what is it that makes someone feel "not good" about doing something?
In short, objective morality is consistent with a moral hierarchy and situational ethics. Eventually I will try to address all of these topics in video form. I think we are getting closer to really understanding each others viewpoint.
@Epydemic2020 For example, if one was in a scenario where one was married and supported children and a family and was in a situation where you had to choose between your life and a strangers life would it be more moral to choose a strangers life or choose your own considering you have a family to support. I would postulate that there is not single right answer and it does very much depend on who you are posing this scenario to. In that case, who is the moral mind independent?
@Epydemic2020 People may perceive reality differently, but the reality is still there although the perceptions may not be. In the same way humans perceive there emotional responses coupled with there rational deduction in different ways but the emotional responses is still an occurnce regardless of the perception. It is this PERCEPTION that the label of "morality" points to.
If I could have your babies I would ;) Seriously though, each video you make it simply amazing and this is no exception. It's not just theists that have an issue with this. I cannot seem to get it through the heads of many that morality is subjective... even if every single last human being on the planet believes something to be wrong, it's still subjective.
Bingo! Just like how the amount of people who believe in God lends no credibility whatsoever to the notion, so it is with the amount of people who hold a particular moral standard in terms of some divine origin.
Thanks again for the kind words. Particularly the ones about fathering my children. ; )
I'm irritated at diatribes against moral relativism. The simple fact is that's how humans have always operated. For most of our recorded history, slavery was acceptable; now it's not. Killing is evil; unless they pagans, or witches, or heathens, or heretics, or infidels, or homosexuals, etc etc etc. As social attitudes change, our views on morality change. That's the way it's always been, and the way it always will be.
I was at a funeral a couple weeks ago and the Preacher was saying that he was all up on science and had bunch of science books. He said the reason Jesus could appear and disappear to people was because of Dark Matter that God had provided. He was really sure he had found the proof for his religious claims. I think he should really look at Doesn't Matter. Much better concept.
Yeah, well it's like what you said, there's this adaptation or what I like to call an insight into mutual respect and caring. We realize that if we don't care, we die. Love, affection, or what others call right action is a survival mechanism. If we're not here, then there's no right and wrong, but like you said, other animals use this way of thinking too. Right and wrong based on a myth is irrational fear. Right and wrong based on joy and survival is like moving out of the way of a bus.
That they do! Acceptance is the hardest pill to digest, some people will never accept something that is scary or goes against what they believe or what the think is right. I get really annoyed when people won't even consider what other people have to say.
YAWN. Nothing more than a bunch of sollipistic self-aggrandizing.
redrosary 1 year ago
@redrosary YAAAAAAAWWWWn.......wow, that's contagious. Sorry.... did you say something?
dannypantsgm 1 year ago
You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it.
stephenwh1987 1 year ago
@stephenwh1987 haha! Careful Reaper. Shepard has a boot he needs up your ass. ; )
dannypantsgm 1 year ago
I'd like to think that if we could be moral by not destroyong the earth and ourselves, that we could eventually progress and develop intersteller travel capability and colonize that galaxy, so that what we do really could matter to the universe.
jffryh 1 year ago
Well produced, well reasoned video... nice work!
rolybrown 1 year ago
The morality of an action is relative to the individual because it is the impact on an individual's quality of existence that is the arbiter to the question "what should I do"
Simple as that. There is no standard that applies to everyone because everyone has different values.
vooooom 2 years ago
Righto
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
I like that you have Mass Effect music in the background. It magnified the awesome.
LastOptionPils 2 years ago
Mass Effect could do no less.
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
Great video. A well articulated arguement. Simple imagery and music. Very effective.
QuillerBarracuda 2 years ago
Thank you, very much appreciated!
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
Embracing the beauty in the fleeting nature of life is one of the big things that get me through the day.
neuro369 2 years ago
Me too. : )
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
Thanks! You bet it is. Best game ever. : )
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
Wow Danny nice video....and I agree with pretty much everything...we are insignificant in the broad scale but significant to this planet...like all species our impact on this planet is important as it is our home but yet most of our species are too concerned with other things...grrr to them...We could all die tomorrow..why worship a god/gods and waste our time?
Meiklelodians 2 years ago
Righto : )
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
Bravo, nice response video. It's nice to know there are other people out there as rational as you.
And I don't know if it was just the audio track that you picked, or if you're naturally calm when you speak, but you didn't seem condescending, or snarky. I hope that's not my biased support for your side of the argument coming out, but really, it was nice.
mikobook 2 years ago
Hey, thank you. Appreciate the kind words.
Sometimes I do get snarky in videos but in this case I was trying not to be to provide him a genuine answer. : )
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
sadly if you say "we mean nothing" to some like vfx. they will respond with "so why not kill everyone"...etc... "why do anything"
i think you misunderstand (like vfx), believing or not believing isn't a want, but just how you see the world. for us to see the world with a god is nonsense. but for vfx to see the world with out a god, is also nonsense.
mxdirector 2 years ago
Perhaps, perhaps.... something to think about. : )
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
i just told them i don't know whats the real trueth of what happen and how shit began but at least i don't pretend like i know and that some thing made us all. I'm not afraid of the nothing that awaits me when i die and i don't need an imaginary friend to accompany me to the hole in the ground. I like my life and the time i have and i don't need to be afriad becuase i know me and i know that i'm not a bad person and i can't say the same for them becuase they had some crazy thinking of morals.
LORDNAG1 2 years ago
this reminds me when i was all alone and i thought i was alone and i explain why it made no sense why my co-worker were afraid of a god thing or ceture that did not exist. They said i belive in nothing and ask me dumb question like were did we all come form or did the chicken come frist or the egg. I sometimes would just say well guess what numb nuts there relly is nothing and when you die nothing happens after and prehaps shit did come form nothing but that sounds dumb like them. continue-
LORDNAG1 2 years ago
I know, it can be hard not to go off on people sometimes.
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
And mine
Truegryphon 2 years ago
great vid thanks
garenth1988 2 years ago
I simply left a comment on venom's video that basically said:
Moral relativism is a silly concept that ethical philosophers don't take seriously. I like utilitarianism myself it holds that pleasure is good and pain is bad and it is right to maximize the good and minimize the bad. Kant is okay too though it has a lot more philosophy speak so it's harder to understand.
Because of that I'm blocked from venomfangx's channel. Can you see what was wrong with that comment?
kamijk 2 years ago
Couldn't say. I guess caus you didn't just say god did it.
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
Well said Danny :)
All love from me Jasmine
Eopyk 2 years ago
Nice video- convinced me so subscribe! Look forward to more!
juggaloryan3 2 years ago
Thanks : )
Sometimes the videos get goofy but hopefully you'll enjoy it.
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
i agree with your video. We should consider ourselves so lucky to be alive at all. I am happy to have the opportunity to live a full life, and I am making the best of it;not spending my life feeling terrible for somthing that supposedly happened in eden and attempting to atone for it. that's a bullshit waste of a life that should be spent trying to make the world a better place by working for it.( my wife and I take in shelter animals). thanks for posting exactly the way i feel dano. bang up job
ThePeacefulAtheist 2 years ago
Glad I hit the nail on the head for you. Do you have bunnies?
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
nah, man, cats, rats and hamsters
ThePeacefulAtheist 2 years ago
First of all saying "when you die that's it" is a belief that has no factual backing. We don't know what happens after we die so making that statement is false. The answer is "I don't know".
ocelot814 2 years ago
I say that's it because there is no more reason to think anything happens to me than there is a fly.
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
That's fine if that is your belief. That death = termination of the consciousness. But that is a belief it is not back by anything objective.
ocelot814 2 years ago
Oh, when was the last time you talked to a dead person?
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
Yesterday. Cat had his tongue literally. Thank you I'll be here all night.
ocelot814 2 years ago
Heh : )
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
Unless you are equally willing to accept the idea of an insect afterlife, I think we can safely assume we just die.
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
Their could be. Like I said I and you don't know. So claiming that you do is intellectual dishonesty. You can concluded death is the end but again this is a belief not backed by anything unless you know any dead people who can tell you for sure what exactly happens.
ocelot814 2 years ago
I don't claim to know. Sure...there could be a magical kingdom for all creatures great and small after death, and it could be made of pizza and ice cream too. But I am not silly enough to entertain the idea just because someone dreamed it up. There's no evidence to support it, so mother goose can have it. I'm not even entertaining the notion until there's a reason to.
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
And I say the same to the END conclusion. Show me the evidence and I'll support it.
ocelot814 2 years ago
Agreed. Thanks for the conversation. : )
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
Scientific evidence suggests that consciousness is a product of the brain. And the brain doesn't work any more after death. So it would follow from these that consciousness ends at death. I hope I'm wrong though.
kamijk 2 years ago
You are making just as many faith statement as Venom. Why should I believe your presupposition just because you state it confidently. You don't know that God does not exist and if he does than your world view utterly falls apart. And if he does than your argument at the end of this video utterly falls apart. You are asking me to believe your confident assertion. Have you searched the whole universe? What percentage of the knowledge of the universe do you possess? 3% maybe 4% ?
swenner64 2 years ago
Well of course my world view falls apart if God exists. Did you study under Captain Obvious? Do you have a degree in no shit-ology?
Sorry but my statements in the video are based on evidence. As in, there is none for God and there is plenty for evolution. Even if I was ignorant to 99.999 percent of the universe, there is still no reason yet to think God is in it. When there is, I'll accept him. Until then, evolution is the only supported claim.
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
Well all I am pointing out is that all your confident assertions are based upon faith and not fact. The same thing that you accuse Religious people of. You have no magic fact that prove your world view to be correct the only thing you have is your own limited opinion. Good luck.
swenner64 2 years ago
Can I ask a question? You keep saying that my assertions are faith based, but if evolution is supported by facts, how can it be faith to say that I support the worldview it presents?
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
Evolution is not a fact, there are no facts supporting evolution. There is not one thing in the fossil record that proves evolution. The real question is how could evolution produce information, that requires intelligence. Oh I guess it take intelligence to figure that out. No one has ever observed Macro-Evolution, only Micro. We all agree on Micro, but Macro is where you run into problems. How do you get from one species to another with all the complexity that we observe.
swenner64 2 years ago
So the fact that less complex organisms appear in deeper and deeper rock layers in the order that the Theory of Evolution suggests doesn't support it?
So, "Micro" is possible, but not "Macro"? Tell me, where is the limit, the boundary for this that must be somehow built into the DNA, the genes of all creatures?
Gnug215 2 years ago
If you tell me time and chance I am just going to accuse you of faith. Then you have the problem of what started the first spark of life with all of the complexity necessary to produce even a single cell. To me these things argue against Naturalistic evolution. So you have bunch of scientist who are true believers in your world view; none of them were there to observe evolution,, so their beliefs are beliefs not facts.
swenner64 2 years ago
Right, guess what, you just lost the argument. You can scream its not a fact at the top of your lungs all day but the overwhelming majority of scientists say it is and they are the ones who get to decide because they are the experts. What are you an expert in? Fuck all? Exactly. You have no education in any of these fields which makes you a scientific illiterate. Why should I listen to anything you or Ray Comfort, or Kent Hovind say. Short answer, I, and no one else should. I'm done with you.
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
A "bunch" of scientists? Try a few million. Are they all just accepting this one science on faith, while all the others are ok? Or wait, is paleontology off, too? How about geology, which also supports evolution? How about physics and Atomic Theory, which provides the basis for radiometric dating? If Atomic Theory doesn't work, well, I wonder what science is keeping all those nuclear power plants going.
Gnug215 2 years ago
There are many facts and observations that support the Theory of Evolution. The theory has requirements and makes predictions, and as long as new observations made don't contradict it but keep supporting it, it's still a valid theory. This is how science works. We accept theories based on the evidence, which in the case of evolution is massive.
Did you know there are over 200,000 scientifc papers supporting it?
Gnug215 2 years ago
What facts? If your world view is flawed than your interpretation of the data will also be flawed. Facts that you say are facts are merely interpretations of the data based upon your world view. If your world view is wrong than your fact can not be trusted.
swenner64 2 years ago
You accept what you call micro-evolution as a fact. We see no mechanism to suggest that "micro" doesn't mean "macro" over longer time. Is this not a fact?
How about the fact that the deeper and older the geological layer, the simpler the organism?
I suppose you're going to dispute the fact of radiometric dating as well, thereby dicarding Atomic Theory and physics in general?
How about ERVs? The "prediction" of Tiktaalik? Nested hierarchies? Chromosome 2? Etc.
Flawed world view?
Gnug215 2 years ago
Yep! It is one thing to accept micro evolution because it is observable and therefor a fact. Where is Macro observable? Where are the transitions within the lower geological layers. We find many creature that exist on earth today down there. So I don't see how any of that proves Evolution. Weather or not the extrapolations of Radio Carbon dating are correct or not is not provable.
swenner64 2 years ago
Why is micro a fact, but macro isn't? Where is the genetic barrier that would prevent micro changes from turning into macro changes?
The transitions are everywhere. Tiktaalik is again a good example. It was even found in the geological layer that the evolutionary theory predicted it would be found.
No, we don't find many creatures that exist today down there. They are different, and many (the vast majority) don't exist today.
It may not be provable - nothing is - but is is reasonable.
Gnug215 2 years ago
Extinct, distinct creatures do not prove evolution. It only proves that those creates existed. They may be interesting and propagandist may make interesting drawing that distort distort the facts. But the truth is you only find distinct creature and no transitions. How can the less complex move to more complex where do you see that in nature? That to me seems totally unreasonable. Where do you see order out of Chaos? How can nature produce information. Only intelligence does!
swenner64 2 years ago
The fact that about 99% of the species that ever existed are now exting fits with evolution, and it also severly damages the Bible's claim about the Flood, while we're at it.
Distinct creatures and no transitions? Do you even know what a transitional species is?
Less complex to more comples? Where do we see that in nature? Oh, I don't know... Everywhere? Add energy and things grow. Plants suck up light and grow. Cells suck up nutrients and they grow and divide. Are plants/cells intelligent?
Gnug215 2 years ago
It depends on the accuracy of the assumptions of the rate of Carbon 14 decent has been consistent through out time. statement. And we don't have any measurement from the past to know if the assumption are correct or not. So no I don't base my whole life or my eternal destiny off of science which has so often been flawed. I just find the statement more compelling "In the Beginning God Created" far more than Random natural processes over Billions of years.
swenner64 2 years ago
You do realize that Carbon 14 dating isn't the only dating method around, right? There are many, and they correlate, and are often used to corroberate results.
We have some past milestones to go by, and they can be used to calibrate.
It's fine that you don't base your "eternal destiny" off of science, but I hope you realize that this is an entirely faith based, and seemingly a fear-contingent, statement.
Gnug215 2 years ago
Carbon 14 dating is not even the issue. If you want to base your faith on it go ahead. I choose not to trust the words of sinful and feeble men who will soon perish from the earth. Yours is just as faith based you are choosing scientist I am choose God. You are choosing to believe their opinions as if are fact when they are in reality plausible arguments based upon their world views. Again if their world views are wrong than your whole argument falls apart. I have no problem with faith.
swenner64 2 years ago
Carbon dating, along with many, many other dating methods, which all corroborate the same results, THAT is an issue, yes. If the Earth is only 6k years old, then God is tricking us by making it appear old.
I don't trust the men/scientists, but the results, which are independently verifiable. And their arguments are based on those results, not their world views, which can differ greatly.
I have no problem with faith, either, it just doesn't belong in science.
Gnug215 2 years ago
Even my Bible says the same thing. So if you accuse me of faith, I accuse you of faith as well. I chose God and I think that my bet is far safer than yours. Hebrews 11:3 "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at Gods command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible." 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him." No problems.
swenner64 2 years ago
You refer to the Bible, and then accuse me of faith? I don't have a Bible. I don't have a God, or doctrine, or a church with priests or saints. I don't claim the existence of something which cannot be verified. Where is my faith?
This isn't some kind of bet where you have to be "safe". What kind of mentality is that? You're actively doing all this just to feel safe? Doesn't that say something about the truthfulness of your position?
Gnug215 2 years ago
Yes you do. Your Bible is human opinion, your God is yourself, you doctrine is Atheism, your priest is Richard Dawkins (and the like), you claim that something can come from nothing, that Order can come from Chaos, that information can come from Non-intelligence. That nature is all that exists, That random natural processes given enough time and change have created everything that exists. These all all faith presuppositions that have not be verified by science.
swenner64 2 years ago
My reference to the bible was to show that faith is consistent with my Christian world view so when you accuse me of faith I have no problem with that.
swenner64 2 years ago
Also, the fact that you find "In the Beginning God Created" a more compelling statement should really also raise some alarms within yourself, because this indicates that your perception of the world is an act of will, based on something that wish to be true, something you find compelling - not something that is actually found to be actually, observably, independently verifiably true.
Gnug215 2 years ago
It seems to me that the same accusation can be made of you. You cling to human opinion and flimsy facts and theories because you reject God and you want God to not exist because that would require you to summit to his authority. You don't have a fact problem you have a moral problem. I chose to believe in God because I have experience his grace and his love and his love has cast out all fear. I now find his existence a delight and one of the highest joy of my life.
swenner64 2 years ago
No, I don't reject God. I'd have to accept his existence first, wouldn't I? Why do theists always bring up this point, assuming to know what other people think? It's nonsense, and actually quite offensive and insulting to do that.
I'd have no problem whatsoever with God's authority if he made himself known to me. In fact, I had no problems with it for the 15 or so years when I was a Christian.
And no, I don't cling to human opinion, I "cling" to independently verifiable facts.
Gnug215 2 years ago
Why should it. Show me where something can come from nothing. Show me where information can arise from non-intelligence. Show me how time and chance can create all of the design and complexity that we see within nature. Designs must have a designer, Great power must have order everything that we see. So to me it is not so unreasonable to believe that an all powerful God created everything that we see.
swenner64 2 years ago
We see emergent information and structure coming out of seeming chaos all the time. It's a matter of energy transfer. Again, unless you think God is guiding the cell by cell growth of every plant and organism, then we see this happen by natural means all the time. Water arranges itself to be flat due to gravity and other natural laws, and crystals organize in the same manner - all natural. We've seen that God isn't needed for this, as with many things, so why does he need to be behind it all?
Gnug215 2 years ago
Where do we see information coming out of Chaos. Give me some examples. It requires Intelligence to order Choas. Every mutation in nature is a loss of DNA rather than the increase of it. We have never observed DNA created. Every expenditure of Energy that we observe disorders rather than orders the energy. It is called the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Right
swenner64 2 years ago
We see it all the time. Plants and cells growing, because they receive energy. We see how gravity pulls and holds things together. We see structures arise by seeming "random" processes in nature.
No, every mutation isn't a loss. I don't know much about biology, but I know this isn't true. Frames shift, bits are duplicated, the results (like nylonase) vary, and some are usable - and those survive.
The 2nd Law of T. refers to a closed system. The earth isn't a closed system.
Gnug215 2 years ago
Elephants get their sense of right and wrong from their creator.
swenner64 2 years ago
their parents?
ThePeacefulAtheist 2 years ago
Where did their parents get it? Their parents and their parents and it was programed by their creator.
swenner64 2 years ago
i can see that believe that there are no facts to support evolution. I was going to answer you're post about parents and their parents but you obivously seem to think that there were always just elephants giving birth to elephants that came off noah boat even though theirs no evidence to support noahs boat. read a text book and stop being a fuckin retard. fuckin retards man. just keeping humanity back with their retarded worldview.
ThePeacefulAtheist 2 years ago
Where did we humans get the sense that keeping slaves is wrong, that women should be able to vote, that we shouldn't kill unbelievers or any child that is disobedient, among other? A lot has changed since the time of the Bible. How come?
Could it be that morals develop, just like society does?
So as social species develop, could their morals not develop along side that?
Gnug215 2 years ago
PCS makes me laugh, he failed miserably at trying to prove creationism and the existance of his god from a scientific stand point, he has now changed tactics and is going to try it from a philosophical angle...which he will fail miserably at also.
I guess you have to give him a bit of credit for not giving up too easily, unfortunately I can see the possibility of him imploding one day and someone will find him hanging from a rope, apparently he is very unstable, sad indeed
AbdultheImpailler 2 years ago
Great job Danny. He's just so ignorant he makes my blood boil. Wilfully ignorant. Can you post this to him or has he blocked you as well?
AuntieDiluvian 2 years ago
He hasn't blocked me or anything, I CAN post these and have tried, but he has yet to accept a single one. I suspect he has watched them though.
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
How many times throughout our history. When we (humans) opened up a new part of this world, seen its peoples their way of life, customs and rituals. And come away saying "Well they just have a different set morals than us"
How does this work in world where we are all the children of an omnipresent all powerful god?.... doesn't really fit does it?
mak1759 2 years ago
I would say.........nope. : )
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
Is the music from Mass Effect? I recognize it... =P
Awesome video, as per usual. Keep it up. =)
TheAtheistSwede 2 years ago
Sure is. : ) One of my favorite games.
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
Likewise. I can't wait for the end of January hehe.
I think I played through the first one, back to back, seven times before I went on to the next title. =)
TheAtheistSwede 2 years ago
wow, great video. faved
redFISTofEUROPE 2 years ago
Thanks : )
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
I believe in objective morality and God, but I also believe we have evolved a moral sense.
I think the idea that morality evolved as an adaptation in no way disproves objective morality. (to argue that it does commits the genetic fallacy)
When you referenced elephants crying, do you just mean mourning? I thought only humans had tear ducts.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
In the sense you mean it, yeah, I haven't disproved objective morality. But also in that sense it becomes as unprovable as God himself.
Most mammals have tear ducts. They need them to keep the eyes wet. But most do not cry. However elephants, gorillas, and even camels have been observed shedding what appear to be emotional tears.
Thanks for watching. : )
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
So do you think this that this particular video can suffice as a refutation for the moral argument. I think the idea of an evolutionary developed moral sense supports premise 2 of the moral argument.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
No, I never said it did. This video merely presents one man's rational on the subject. I think it suffices as a damn good argument against it, but it is in no way conclusive.
And even if it did suffice it still wouldn't be enough for those people who want to believe in God and objective morality. I could throw all the evidence in the world in front of them and they'd still find a way to deny it and maintain their beliefs. This video is for people with open minds who want outlooks.
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
I have an interest in discussing this topic, but I do not see how this argument does any damage at all.
If theistic evolution is true, and it is also true that God instilled in us knowledge of right and wrong, He wouldn't do so by some sort of magic but would do so by using the process of evolution.
In that sense, it seems to strengthen the argument by supporting premise 2.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
@Epydemic2020 um well I will assume that theistic evolutionists are those that believe that evolution and such is factual and was God's means of creation. Well that is all good and dandy but that is still making a step that cannot be shown to hold logically. It does not support the premise anymore than it supports the flying spaghetti monster as creator through the means of evolution. achem's razor would call for the metaphysical factor to be untouched until there is empirical or logical proof
garenth1988 2 years ago
garenth
It is a step that can be shown logically.
We have an innate perception of reality and morality.
Our percpetion is more rational to be taken as true until we have reason to reject it as illusory.
Therefore reality and morals both objectively exist.
Naturalism cannot account for the objective existence of moral truths.
That is an abreviated version, I discuss it at length in my video "in defense of objective morality"
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
Comment removed
garenth1988 2 years ago
Comment removed
garenth1988 2 years ago
Comment removed
garenth1988 2 years ago
Comment removed
garenth1988 2 years ago
@Epydemic2020 I do agree with individuals having innate perceptions of reality and morality, although I find it inappropriate to compare them as if the same logic can hold for both. In fact, it may be more accurate to describe morality as a perception itself, while reality is a label for something that would be there whether humans are perceiving it or not. The laws of physics will hold and always held whether humans understood them or not. But morality is a label that points to a percpetion
garenth1988 2 years ago
@Epydemic2020 The issue is that reality is set and like I said is not dependent on humans. It is here whether we like it or not and the immense amount of uniformity of our understanding of it adds greatly to its validity. On the other hand, there is no uniformity of our morals which themselves are just a perception. We do not perceive our morals but rather our morals are a perception of the innate emotional responses that humans encounter in our environment.
garenth1988 2 years ago
@Epydemic2020 The major issue I have with your argument is that you place morals as something humans perceiving, which is fallacious in the set up of the argument, because morals are the perception of our innate emotional responses to our environment.
garenth1988 2 years ago
My studies on morality and our moral sense indicate that morality is much more than an emotional response to the environment. In Marc Hauser's book "moral minds" he lays out the case for morality being three parts. Reason, intuition, and emotion. Reason tells us that kicking someone hurts, intuition tells us we shouldn't do that, and emotion makes us feel guilty if we do. Emotion is based off of the intuition, rather than the other way around.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
@Epydemic2020 The unfortunate thing is that there is not a set definition of objectivity. The one I like best does not, I think, match the one you point to in Hauser's book. I personally find the best definition is one from, yes I know, wikipedia in which it says a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent". Reason will, whether you like or not, tell be people to react differently to the same scenario.
garenth1988 2 years ago
garenth
People making different decisions does not refute the idea that objective morality exists.
People decide to do X.
Does not mean that those people should have chosen X.
It could be that everyone should choose Z, but some people choose X.
Make sense?
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
How does that not refute objective morality? People are choosing X or Z subjectively. The choice is contingent on the individual which is basically the definition of subjective. For example, one plus one is objectively two regardless of what anyone thinks. it is objective because the answer is uniform and not contingent on the who is answering it. that is what objectivity means. i dont understand what idea of objectivity you are using but it seems like you are describing objectivity not subjecti
garenth1988 2 years ago
Garenth
You are not distinguishing between what people do, and what people should do.
Just because some people "do" rape each other does not mean people "should" rape each other.
To use your example, just because some people say 1 + 1 = 3, does not mean people "should" say it (because they are wrong).
Objectivity means that there is a right answer regardless of the subjective response. In your analogy, this would mean that the statement 1 + 1 = 3 is false even though someone thinks otherwise.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
You understand what I am saying but yet you don't. There are scenarios where people think honestly that they SHOULD
garenth1988 2 years ago
What people think they should and what they actually should are different.
For example, I think we should not kill jewish people, because Jews are equal with us.
If you believe that jews are a subhuman race of people bent on harming mankind, you may come to a different conclusion about what you should do.
These differences in perspective do not signify a difference in moral truths.
Again, if you present a moral dilemma, you implicitly admit the existence of real moral values which conflict.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
Well what should people actually do in that scenario i mentioned involving the mother and child. objectively morality would call for an absolute answer. you can't say that the answer is objectively supposed to be save the wife but kill the child? so does that mean that it is objectively ok to kill your child. of course not, it is contingent on the situation and the individual which, again, is the definition of subjectivity. I don't think you do understand what I am talking about.
garenth1988 2 years ago
do different things in the same scenario. Such as the baby and wife scenario or real scenarios that happened in Katrina effected hospitals. Thou shall not kill but we kill and so on. Thou shall not lie but there are times when we should. It is not objective. It is dependent on the scenario and the person. That is the definition of subjectivity.
garenth1988 2 years ago
garenth
I understand your objection now, and I believe it is based off a misconception. my video "absolute objective morality" may help clear things up.
There are no universally bad actions. Morality consists of actions and intentions. You cannot say "all killing is bad" because it doesn't account for intentions.
You could say "killing in the act of self defense is objectively permissible" or "killing an innocent for fun is objectively forbidden". That does not detract from their objectivity.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
Well there was a period of time when it was permissable for wealthy higher castes such as knights to kill lower caste peasants for pleasure and sport. You would say that is objectively immoral but how do you really know if that is or if what the knights were down is acceptable. Because at that point it was acceptable, possibly incouraged. Even if the concept of objective morality fits in this current world, which it doesnt, it is still not proof for actual objectivity.
garenth1988 2 years ago
garenth
You keep bringing up the same argument, but with different examples.
Again, differences in a posteriori knowledge does not jeopardize the validity of a priori knowledge.
Throughout history individuals have used poor reasoning to boost their own egos. Attribution errors and ingroup/outgroup bias have allowed people to erroneously convince themsevles that they are more valuable than people of a different race, age, income level, ect.
continued.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
Although people are able to convince themselves (using a posteriori knoweldge) that they are justified in harming other people due to a false sense other people are inferior or less human than they are, does not make it acceptable.
What people do and what people should do are not always synonymous. Pointing these things out does not actually hurt my argument.
If you want to refute the validity of our a priori knowledge, you cannot do so by bringing up differences in a posteriori knoweldge.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
Because such a phenomenon could be caused by an advantage for such uniformity to exist, which would fit perfectly in an evolutionary point of view. Further we can see the evidence for it by tracing genes and presenting mathematical models. Where is the evidence for an objective cause of our morals rather than just a correlation? There is none.
garenth1988 2 years ago
garenth
If theistic evolution is true, moral knowledge is innate and accurate.
If evolution itself is true, morality is innate but illusory.
We have good reason to think that our moral knowledge is not illusory.
Therefore theistic evolution is a better explanation of reality.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
I think you are completely correct in terms of your first statement. I agree that if evolution is true morality is innate (to a loose degree). But why do we have good reason to believe that our moral knowledge is not illusionary. The bible is essentially your only source of jesus as you believe in him and yet evolution, theistic or not, shows that the bible's account of the world is not accurate. Wouldn't that discredit it a lot.
garenth1988 2 years ago
garenth
Arguing against my particular version of God would not get you of the jam. We have good reason to think our moral sense is not illusory for literally the exact same reason it is not rational to conclude that our senses are not illusory.
I do believe in the Christian God and theistic evolution, but arguing against those views does not harm the moral argument in any way, as the moral argument only proves a personal, omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
The unfortunate thing is that you cannot compare the senses in the same way morals operate. We are in a way forced to accept the assumptions that our senses are correct mainly because they (where I include the logical sense to be a part of) have concluded coexisting complementary observations while as morality is not completely universal.
garenth1988 2 years ago
Even if murdered is agreed upon people murder and murder without guilt. people can easily fall away from moral law but it is impossible to fall away from physical laws which were discovered by our physical and logical senses. and a last thing to add. you never responded to my objection to the idea of intuition to be an independent part of "morality". as i commented intuition is just a function of morality and rationality.
garenth1988 2 years ago
garenth
guilt is really irrelevant to whether something is immoral or not.
People can disobey moral laws, they can also use reasoning tricks to convince them that their wrong acts were justified. None of those things take away from the validity of my claims.
Intuition consists of a set of fundamental principles which are innate, yet not always consciously accessible. I am not sure how you are attempting to define it.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
@Epydemic2020 Well if guilt is not the indicator for moral value what is it exactly that indicates the moral value of an action?
garenth1988 2 years ago
garenth1988
It is three part. Reason, intuition, and emotion.
Emotion includes guilt. Emotion does not determine which actions are right and wrong, but it does play a role in persuading us to behave morally.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
@Epydemic2020 How do you KNOW what is moral or not. How does anyone KNOW what is moral of not?
garenth1988 2 years ago
garenth1988
I think we "KNOW" that some things are moral through our a priori knowledge. That would be through use of our ingrained moral intuitions.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
@Epydemic2020 Well exactly would let a person know that they are not supposed to do something. It can't be fear of "getting in trouble" or getting punished because that would mean that it is the government where morality comes from. So what is it that makes someone feel "not good" about doing something?
garenth1988 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@garenth1988 \So what is it that makes someone feel "not good" about doing something?\
Sympathy. Biological empathy. One of the bases of reciprocal altruism.
Eron2828 1 year ago
garenth
In short, objective morality is consistent with a moral hierarchy and situational ethics. Eventually I will try to address all of these topics in video form. I think we are getting closer to really understanding each others viewpoint.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
@Epydemic2020 For example, if one was in a scenario where one was married and supported children and a family and was in a situation where you had to choose between your life and a strangers life would it be more moral to choose a strangers life or choose your own considering you have a family to support. I would postulate that there is not single right answer and it does very much depend on who you are posing this scenario to. In that case, who is the moral mind independent?
garenth1988 2 years ago
@Epydemic2020 People may perceive reality differently, but the reality is still there although the perceptions may not be. In the same way humans perceive there emotional responses coupled with there rational deduction in different ways but the emotional responses is still an occurnce regardless of the perception. It is this PERCEPTION that the label of "morality" points to.
garenth1988 2 years ago
exelent work 5 stars
MrSuntzu1000 2 years ago
I was thinking of responding to his video, but I didn't for a few reasons.
1)This is the same stupid argument over and over again.
2)He wouldn't listen anyway.
3)You just said it all.
FearsEdge 2 years ago
Thanks. I'm having a lot of fun with this, as high as he make my blood pressure go. : )
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
Wow. Awesome video danny.
ThinkWithYourMind223 2 years ago
Thank you. I just thought with my mind. ; )
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
If I could have your babies I would ;) Seriously though, each video you make it simply amazing and this is no exception. It's not just theists that have an issue with this. I cannot seem to get it through the heads of many that morality is subjective... even if every single last human being on the planet believes something to be wrong, it's still subjective.
tattooskin72 2 years ago
Bingo! Just like how the amount of people who believe in God lends no credibility whatsoever to the notion, so it is with the amount of people who hold a particular moral standard in terms of some divine origin.
Thanks again for the kind words. Particularly the ones about fathering my children. ; )
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
well, I'd be having the children... so wouldn't it be "mothering'? :) LOL
tattooskin72 2 years ago
At least I did one thing right.
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
I hate cold truths. Nice vid. 5*
mastrama13 2 years ago
They can indeed suck.
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
Excellent video. The message, the reading, pacing and voice; all terrific.
prodigyat9 2 years ago
Ah thank you sir. That's the kind of constructive critique I enjoy.
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
I'm irritated at diatribes against moral relativism. The simple fact is that's how humans have always operated. For most of our recorded history, slavery was acceptable; now it's not. Killing is evil; unless they pagans, or witches, or heathens, or heretics, or infidels, or homosexuals, etc etc etc. As social attitudes change, our views on morality change. That's the way it's always been, and the way it always will be.
papafox 2 years ago
Amen
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
Damn you are getting really good at this! No wonder you have so many more subs than me! I hate you! Great video!
5 very jealous stars! :P
kirke420 2 years ago
hahaha! Thanks buddy. As always, your feedback means more to me than subs. : )
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
Can I just record all my stuff and send it to you to edit? :)
kirke420 2 years ago
You can try.... but you know I'll just edit it to make it look like one big shout out to me.
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
Awesome!
Hereticbooks 2 years ago
Good video, and I like the Mass Effect music in the background.
Rithrandil 2 years ago
Ah, I knew I'd discover the Mass Effect fans out there for that! : )
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
Great Job, Danny.
I was at a funeral a couple weeks ago and the Preacher was saying that he was all up on science and had bunch of science books. He said the reason Jesus could appear and disappear to people was because of Dark Matter that God had provided. He was really sure he had found the proof for his religious claims. I think he should really look at Doesn't Matter. Much better concept.
dtm52 2 years ago
Hahah! That's a new one.
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
Goddamit stop making videos like this. You'll never get a song sung about you at this rate.
LatumWay 2 years ago
What did you think of it?
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
Its...
good...
LatumWay 2 years ago
Yeah, well it's like what you said, there's this adaptation or what I like to call an insight into mutual respect and caring. We realize that if we don't care, we die. Love, affection, or what others call right action is a survival mechanism. If we're not here, then there's no right and wrong, but like you said, other animals use this way of thinking too. Right and wrong based on a myth is irrational fear. Right and wrong based on joy and survival is like moving out of the way of a bus.
wonderwhaz797 2 years ago
Well said, yes. If it were up to people like Shawn, moving away from oncoming traffic would be attributable to God too.
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
*really
tamaraj1985 2 years ago
I'm eally liking these past couple of videos. I remember we once has a conversation about this, great video as always :)
tamaraj1985 2 years ago
Thanks. Just trying to provoke thought.
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
That they do! Acceptance is the hardest pill to digest, some people will never accept something that is scary or goes against what they believe or what the think is right. I get really annoyed when people won't even consider what other people have to say.
tamaraj1985 2 years ago