You can't disprove Atheism! ok so,there is no reason to believe that morality comes from God, the proof is simply this; Atheists are no less moral than those who beleive in God and Beleivers are no more moral than Atheists. Don't you agree? If I were wrong Atheists would all be murdering and raping etc & preists wouldnt be closet alchoholics, raping little boys or stealing church money etc. JesusLovinBuddy your argument sucks, this coming from a non-Atheists to boot, unbrainwash youself.
urgh morals are taught to you during childhood, children have the same morals as parents and this is something that can be proved. keep a child in a room with someone of poor morals and they will pick up these morals and not feel guilt about doing what we would call 'wrong' but hey i actualy dont really care
Firstly "subjective" means 'of the mind' as opposed to 'objective ' which means 'independent of the mind'
Secondly, If murder was objectively wrong then we would hold a rock morally accountable for falling off a cliff and killing someone. Why do we not? Because the only thing that makes murder murder is intent which is inherently SUBJECTIVE. Same goes for all morality. It is not the act that is deemed moral, it is the subjective intent that motivated the act.
wow 1:45 did you use the dictionary? trying to sound smart?
you cant sound smart while proving the existence of god.
you just proved the existence of morality, not the existence of god. jesus is not the answer to every question. sound like the fucking sham-wow guy.
just because someone does something bad, that doesn't mean they need to apologize to some higher power, they just need to grow the up and not do it again.
LOL Is this a joke? Murder and rape are wrong therefore objective morality? You don't like the idea of people escaping punishment for crimes therefore Jesus? But don't let me disourage you, please (pretty pretty please with sugar on top) keep believing whatever you believe that prevents you from violently raping and murdering your fellow human beings. Have a crime free day :)
Why are you so hung up on the Jew religion? Remember, in days of old, most countries has their own gods, so why do so many Americans like the god of the Jews? I am not a Xtian, and would be embarrassed to be called one. I would have to lower my morals to become a Xtian.
this video is idiotic at best, objective moral are things that common human logic tells us are wrong like theft,its there not mine but i want it but if i take it they will be angry or sad or some other negative feeling, negative=bad therefore making someone feel negatively is bad
Your "logic" is seriously flawed. You have made a case for an objective morality. You merely assert that it has to come from a god (you actually say "Jesus" but that would mean that there was no objective morality until 2,000 years ago).
My counter argument is that I too believe that some things are objectively immoral. Like slavery. Something the Bible God endorsed and encouraged. It seemed okay at the time (subjective) but in reality is immoral and always was. Even Christians know now.
Your "logic" is seriously flawed. You have made a case for an objective morality. You merely assert that it has to come from a god (you actually say "Jesus" but that would mean that there was no objective morality until 2,000 years ago).
My counter argument is that I too believe that some things are objectively immoral. Like slavery. Something the Bible God endorsed and encouraged. It seemed okay at the time (subjective) but in reality is immoral and always was.
bro congruity is the key to the whole argument. teleological,Moral Logic, ontological, cosmological, with all four of these arguments you use congruity to tie it all up then.
Morality is a product of rationality. To prove "we" get our morals from god... Wait why the hell am I even answering this video? Creationists who keep kicking the dead horse of "Well I have a book, and it says there's a god, and god is everything" are never going to get it regardless of how much common sense you throw at them.
Morality is subjective, not objective. What we consider to be moral changes as society advances. Owning a slave used to be thought of as moral. Being willing to sacrifice your child to Yahweh is the ultimate moral standard, and why Abraham is revered. Are you saying if your god asked you to, you would be willing to kill a child?
is it wrong to murder someone if they're an immediate mortal threat to you or your family? is it wrong to steal the antidote to a terminal illness you have if you can't afford it? Objective my ass.
No, there is no logical objective morality without religion, but there is no religion, so either way, there is no morality.
fuck you fucking atheists who want to be moral before you even realize the definition of the word. it is BLACK AND WHITE, RIGHT AND WRONG, yet we spend our lives in subjective reality, we couldnt possible know what is objectively right even if it COULD be measured. utilitarianism.
although the guy who made this video is very much more retarded. empathy does not prove god
The whole morality excuse for "god" is nonsense. What is good? What is evil?
You can't know the answer, bacuase it is subjective. Good and Evil depend in the perception of the people. Some people can perceive an action as "good" and others might perceive the same act as "evil". As @coltharpnicholas said, something can't be "objectively wrong", but subjectively.
Imagine you're an African woman. Your village is being invaded by men who will rape and kill anyone they find. You're hiding in the bushes with your family. You have a baby with you. Your baby is about to cry. If he cries, you and your family will be found and killed. You could smother your baby to death, and save your family.
What is the "objectively correct" action?
An action can be "subjectively wrong" in the same way an opinion about art can be "subjectively wrong."
If there are objective morals, they are set up by our legal system, not the bible. Do the two overlap? sure, but they do not always agree. Society creates its own version of objective morality regardless of what superstitions they might carry with them. Murder is not always wrong - in self defense, it is permitted and in defense of our country. Rape is wrong but the bible actually pretty much said not to rape men as in Sodom. Modern society has brought women the same considerations.
haha. Come watch my video on PROOF THAT COWS ARE FROM ANOTHER GALAXY SENT HERE TO KILL US ALL WITH FARTS. i have proof. I HAVE proof, It's called FAITH. bloody wankers.
Morals are not objective and they are certainly not something given to us by God as that would not explain why people commit acts that we consider immoral.
Someone needs to murder you not only to show you that some people dont have a moral code but simply because the world would be better off without someone as stupid as you. And im not saying your stupid because you believe in god you are actually just retarded. And if by some miracle god actually exists and he lets people like you in to heaven then id rather go to hell anyway.
thanks for preaching it bro! just a note, about all of this "funny" stuff that you add into this video, its not necessary because it is bringing Jesus down to our level. Yes, Jesus is our friend, but he is also our Savior, therefore he deserves the utmost respect. Not jokes about Adam Sandler and the cross. Great video tho.
"You can't have an opinion of something if it doesn't exist...". My opinion of unicorns are that they're gay.
But seriously, we don't rape, kill and murder because that's how we've evolved. If we hadn't, we wouldn't have reached the level of technological advancement that has allowed you to make such ridiculous and illogical claims on a global scale thanks to computers (hooray for science and leaving the dark-ages behind).
I'd give you a thumbs up, except that the theodicy isn't the question here. The question is how proper moral behavior could arise without a divine source.
@awwhellyeah1 You believe in evil? Because to believe in evil is to believe that there is a fine line between good and evil (a universal moral law). if we assume that there is a universal moral law, then we can assume that there is a universal moral law giver.
Also, consider this. If you only behave like a good person because you believe that God is watching you, and in return you will go to heaven, then that is an end to a selfish gain. As in, you only act like a good person because you believe there is something in it for you. That is the implication. I behave like a good person because I am one. Selfish people don't go to heaven.
objective morality stems from evolution. humans are social animals, we operate as a group, failure to respect others would result in expulsion from said group and therefore incapability to survive and death.
if you violated a fellow group member, the group would react as you would be seen as a liability to the functionality of the group as a whole, so you would be forcively removed by the alphas for the benefit of the collective. it was merely a survival instinct that persisted, like fear.
@Grymbaldknight What about Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong and others like them in which that didn't happen? What if the alphas are the "bad" guys and there's no one around to take them down?
Well, that is incorrect. God not only didn't make it to where we won't kill, in several places in the bible, he orders us to kill in his name. The fact is there are ppl who kill, and times when according to god it's just. I'm not an atheist (I'm Jewish), but I understand that god can not be proven by man, it's impossible
Dude, your arguments are not convincing to me due largely to the fact that you simply assert things as being so without providing sufficient or good evidence.
That said, you seem like a good chap who I'd have no problem having a pitcher of beer with.
Continuing... the scientific answer as to why we shouldn't rape or kill is because it's detrimental to the survival of the species. A wolf that kills one of its own is exiled and becomes the lone wolf; and a man that kills one of its own is exiled and called a freakin' nutjob. If Americans were killing each other over religious reasons like they are in the Middle East, do you think we'd have all of this advanced technology and easy living?
@LucCole88 if we shouldn't do something because it is a detriment to the survival of the species, should we also "do something" if the absence of that something allows a detriment to the survival of the species persist?
Not necessarily. Again, everything in the philosophical study of ethics works on a case by case basis. Of course, an action that fits your criterion CAN be morally permissible, but that doesn't mean that all actions that fit your criterion are morally permissible.
P.S. When is someone going to address the fact that I totally pwned this Freshman? Ideally, I'd like it to be JesusLovinBuddy, but is there no one else? Because his, "challenge," is a joke.
Your question was, "Should we do something if the absence of that something allows for the determent to the survival of the species to persist?"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but -in layman's terms- what you're really asking is, "Should we take action in an effort to squelch any factors that are detrimental to the survival of the species."
This question -as I have stated before- is too general. Case-by-case, baby. So can you provide me with a case that better represents your point?
@LucCole88 I was trying to see if you mistyped or if I misunderstood. I was very aware of the whole case-by-case thing. So when you wrote, "The scientific answer as to why we shouldn't rape or kill is because it's detrimental to the survival of the species," I assumed that the case in question was "detriment to the survival of the species." However, am I wrong in understanding that you believe that we shouldn't do things that are "detriments to the survival of the species?"
Yes, but only slightly. Killing may be justified in the event that your life is threatened by another.Thievery may also be justified in the event that your life -or the life of your children- is at risk.
To clarify, these are things that upset social order. Since social order is how human beings have managed to survive, upsetting said order is detrimental to the species.
The point is that God -while a sufficient condition- isn't necessary for the existence of moral sensibility.
@LucCole88 So, we shouldn't do things that upset the social order, because upsetting the social order is a detriment to Homo sapien, right? I'm not familiar with the term "social order." So, I wikied Social Order and don't know if that's what you're talking about. If it is what you're talking about, then I would have to disagree that all disruption of social order is a detriment to Homo sapien. Is that article on Wikipedia a good article on getting a general understanding on social order?
In particular instances, I agree with you: things like revolutions and revolts may be morally permissible. However, the goal of these things is generally to work towards a better system social order, as opposed to doing away with social order entirely. When I speak of social order and how it relates to morality, I'm not speaking of particular orders; rather, just the idea of social order itself.
@LucCole88 I'm betting there's a lot that we would need to discuss to see if we're saying the same thing. It may be that thing where, "Does God say things are wrong arbitrarily, or does God say things are wrong because they are?" I may have to find you to talk about this, far off in the future, when I have time. Thanks for the convo and Merry Christmas.
First and foremost, God isn't a necessary condition for the existence of objective morality. It can be explained by evolution, on account of the fact that we're pack animals with a mammalian brain.
Secondly, I think you're failing to understand the complexity of ethical analysis. It's not as simple as, "is stealing wrong?" When we study ethics, we do it on a case by case basis such as, "if you have to feed your dying child and have no food, is it wrong to steal?" (cont'd.....)
Again, you've not proved or disproved anything at all. You've only made unfounded assertions throughout your video that "objective morality" is sourced from God, and concluded with yet another assertion that if there exists a difference between right and wrong, there must be a God - that because we atheists recognize that morality exists proves there is a God, and somehow that defeats our argument against there being a God. Remove the assertions and your argument fails.
I can not understand how you leap from "Hitler is evil" to God must therefore exist.
We should act morally because it helps to create a moral society which is more pleasant to live in. If I support something like the Nazi plan it helps produce a nightmare society. All things are interconnected and what goes around eventually comes around.
Any attempt to "disprove atheism" is a blatant indication that you have no idea what atheism is. Atheism exists only because theism exists. Atheism is a response to theism - it is a rejection of the theists claim that a god exists. It is merely a disbelief in god. It makes no claims to refute. It would do you well to inform yourself what you are arguing against before you open your mouth. Learn what atheism is and then maybe you can form some arguments that make sense.
Actually there can be objective morality without a god.
Imagine a cliff.
Is it smart or stupid to run off a cliff.
So we need a god to tell us that?? NOPES.
But the cliff is natural. And our own brains tells us its stupid to run off a cliff. That doesnt take a god to tell us its stupid. Its NATURAL. The same way morality is natural.
Stop making videos until you take that course in critical thinking. You couldn't get a minute into this video without fallaciously begging the question:
"Everyone has done something evil, thus we are against god"
That's actually a double-whammy begging of the question, since you are asserting the tired mantra that everyone has sinned, then just go on blissfully assuming there is a god to be against. Your videos are textbook examples of logical fallacies. Well done!
Id also like to add that what you're saying is no different then what ancient greek's said about thunder, the sun moving across the sky, or tidal waves. They didn't know the cause of these phenomenon and assigned a God to them. In this case you see the fact that people work together under a strict rule of law as a product of your own personal God. When in reality morality is prevalent in many forms of life. Wolves, bees, lions, gorillas, they work together because they can all benefit.
I don't say rape and murder (ect ect) are ok. But unfortunately some people do get off scot free. Does this mean that there is a god? No. This means that you would like to think there is some punishment to bad people. You believe in God because it hurts not to. To know that there isn't some all loving big brother figure watching out for you. Buddhism is the way.
We don't kill because we don't want to be killed. We don't steal because we don't want things stolen from this. It's very self-oriented motivations, and certainly not proof of an "objective" morality.
Additionally, I would argue that the Bible itself is proof that there is no "objective morality". If the laws were so clear and apparent, why would God have to specify the 10 Commandments, or the Mosaic law? Morality is a question of what people do to protect personal interests.
This is a fairly good argument. Or, at least it's the very first argument that I've ever seen that wasn't "here's what God said no believe you heathen". Hooooweeverrrr!
It is only your subjective opinion that an objective opinion proves the existence of God. Further, it is your subjective opinion that Jesus (thus the Bible) is the pathway.
A Muslim, by default could use your same argument to prove their religion (that doesn't wash). Just Saying :-)
Rape is not said to be wrong in the bible. Its even commanded sometimes! Judges 21:10-24 Judges 5:30 Numbers 31:7-18 Deuteronomy 20:10-14 2 Samuel 12:11-14 Exodus 21:7 God's Rape Law: Deuteronomy 22:28-29 And the other one: Deuteronomy 22:23-24 God will even help you rape: Zechariah 14:1-2 You said something about objective morality?
Moral Objective does not prove the existence of God,You have not considered other options.
The reason why people don't rape and murder others,you have already covered that,it is Morally wrong.
Moral objections are not rules that have been placed into us from God,it something that we as a collective of people have learnt over our evolutionary processes,that we have come to realise that us as humans co-exist better with these "laws" rather than with out them.
Moral Objective does not prove the existence of God,You have not considered other options.
The reason why people don't rape and murder others,you have already covered that,it is Morally wrong.
Moral objections are not rules that have been placed into us from God,it something that we as a collective of people have learnt over our evolutionary processes,that we have come to realise that us as humans co-exist better with these "laws" rather than with out them.
Moral Objective does not prove the existence of God,You have not considered other options.
The reason why people don't rape and murder others,you have already covered that,it is Morally wrong.
Moral objections are not rules that have been placed into us from God,it something that we as a collective of people have learnt over our evolutionary processes,that we have come to realise that us as humans co-exist better with these "laws" rather than with out them.
How do you use people doing evil things as justification for a god? That's circular logic, and is a logical fallacy in an arguement. You can't say just because objective morality exists that it is proof of god. You can't have an opinion on something that doesn't exist? Like unicorns? Fairies? Dragons? I don't mind you wanting to tackle a subject that you think is important, but you should stop and critically think about your beliefs first before you tackle some one else's.
I don't have original sin and I am not created by a god... What purpose would it serve to worship a creature that has nothing to do with me. Especially a creature that has an inferior morality to my own. Is drowning a person wrong? How about a few thousand? What about an entire planet? Is it ever okay to drown an entire planet? Maybe I should kill all but a small breeding population of humans because God did it. Who will punish God?
Objective morality, that people think that things like murder, theft and rape are wrong, is completely explainable by evolution. As an early human in a tribe, murdering your neighbours would make it harder on the tribe as a whole. The tribes that held together would stay, while the ones where everybody killed everybody else died. There are evolutionary benefits being kind to each other. Natural selection has tuned morality over the several million years humans have been evolving.
You said this is all your opinion, then go on to say morals are objective and that I cannot argue that. Well, your opinion is subjective, and in my opinion morals are subjective. You can meet people that in fact do think rape is not wrong, which in turn proves that morals are in fact subjective. You kind of dug yourself into a hole here.
There is no oblective morality. Read the bible its says killing is fine when done accordingly to "the word" of god. Theft and rape are bad for the vast majority yet are still subjective.
@dragonking700 i will admit i have not read the bible in a long time. That said, just because the bible says it does not make it objective. Every other religion and all atheists find it fallacious.
lol, no it doesn't make any sense at all. how come only 3% of the world buys atheism? maybe we're just all stupid.
I do not find atheism false because so little people believe it, however. Atheism has no base to disprove? I beg to differ. atheism is dead, and there are still people valiantly carrying around this dead rotten corps.
right to fulfill their life to highest potential. Also, on a lower level, I have selfish reasons for not stealing, raping, or killing. I don't want society to put me in jail for a long time or kill me. And on another lower lower level, I know how it feels to be stolen from or to have a loved one die, and I can only imagine having a loved one raped, so that also deters me from those acts. The whole do unto others thing. It's not about commandments or consequences. Feel free to reply.
Thirdly, since objective morality is man-made, there could, and was, a period of chaos where you could steal, rape, and murder all you want. Not saying it's okay, just that it happened. Fourth, there is no absolute right or wrong because society is ever changing, as is objective morality.
So to answer your challenge, I, as an atheist, believe we only get one life on Earth. So I should make it the best I can be. And I'm also a fan of humanity, for some reason, so I think they should have the
Okay first, objective morality is man-made. It's a social construct. Proof: Cursing. In the 1920's, many people avoided saying the word breast, and invented the terms dark and white meat instead, because it was socially unacceptable, an objective morality put in place by society. Is breast a curse word now? Secondly, would you consider theft wrong if you were starving and stole some bread? Or were delusional and raped someone? Or killed someone in a war, even if it was for God? Not set in stone.
Morality is entirely subjective, for over 1000 years rape, slavery etc were all perfectly acceptable.
People don't kill eachother because if you go around killing eachother you can't trust your neighbours. If you can't trust anyone, you can't work together, thus people agree on a set of values to hold to in order to survive and thrive as a group. The benefits of working together outweigh gains from murdering others.
To sum up what is now 6 comments, you have failed to support your argument for an objective morality, instead representing widespread social norms as universal. You have also failed to show demonstrably that your view is right and that a God exists. On top of that, you do little in the way of being convincing with your argument for the need of the Judeo-Christian God specifically.
All that said, I appreciate you voicing your views, misguided as they are, and encourage you to continue.
Now, speaking as an atheist, the word you're looking for to describe us is 'responsible'. Just because there isn't a God giving us directions does not mean we have no acquired morality or social sensibility. We act, just as you act, on the subjective morals we have learned. We learned not to hurt others or steal, so we don't. As for life, it's what you make it, to be cliche. Life does not have inherent value, objectively. It is the person's actions that I view in determining individual value.
We have laws to prevent people from doing things that as a whole are seen as harmful to society, and these are voted on, so what you end up with is a subjective universal view, an opinion held by the vast majority of people. Your Hitler example is part of that cultural norm. We accept that his actions are harmful to our society as a whole via our own subjective moral sensibilities, and in the interest of social stability, lock up the 'crazies'
On the same string of thought, you actually end up undermining your point by the use of the example. Your meter stick (which is a foot stick, a ruler) is either the cultural norm you have acquired, or it is the logical conclusion of a simple risk assessment, both of which equal subjective, not objective, morality.
Your argument for objective morality is sorely lacking. it does nothing to prove the existence of that morality other than to say, 'It's self evident'. The very fact that you're seeking to prove it shows it isn't an objective truth all people inherently understand. Secondly, how you are defining objective truth is as a cultural norm. For example, you give murder as proof. War is murder. There are tribes that consider warfare to be an ultimate good. Ergo, murder is not inherently bad.
in extreme situations people would murder and steal and in some of those i wouldn't call it immoral. the rape one would have to a strange situation but it could happen. you would be changing your morals and that would mean they are subjective. now it can change back once you are out of the situation and you could feel bad about it.
objective morality is not true and even if it was it could come about threw evolution.
I do moral things because my objective transcendent jug of milk tells me so. It definitely isn't the Christian god that dictates moral actions. It is my jug of milk. Prove me wrong.
@scott5878 Does your objective jug of milk take 10% of you income? You can't have a God without a religion and you can't have religion with profit. There for your God is invalid.
@happyjesus123 Of course my jug takes 10% of my money. I put 10% of my income into a milk jug as an offering to The Milk Jug. My religion is Milk Jug-ism. duh :P You have not proven my Jug to be false. You have only shown that you are an immoral Jug denier.
@dragonking700 You are speculating about the Almighty Jug. The Jug dictates to me telepathically what morals I should have. The Jug also has many books about it. If the Bible covered everything you needed to know, then how are you using your computer right now? Surely the Bible has nothing in it about computer science, programming languages, or the proper construction of computers.
Your proof of an objective morality hinges on murder, theft, and rape being universally wrong. And while they violate my moral standards, I cannot show they are wrong in any objective sense. In fact, cultures have seen them as good. Conquer your enemy, take their resources, rape their women... Values held by peoples like the vikings, ancient Mongolians, and even crusaders. You start by defining objectivity. A sign you understand it. I fear you intentionally used a flawed argument.
Why do do christians fight everything in science. They argued that the world was flat, that it was the center of the universe, that the earth orbited the sun, and that the world is about 6 thousand years old and human civilization was already into the agriculture era....the list goes on and on and the whole time religion has been there to fight forward progress. Has anyone noticed that the more isolated the community is such as po-dunk, Kansas the more religiouse the people are?
I argue that evolution has selected for humans who were able to function in a productive society. We are social animals and our ability to work together and communicate is probably our greatest advantage over other animals.
The morals were selected for through evolution, not mandated from God.
You haven't proven that objective morality exist, you just labeled the majority accepted standard of morality as objective. In some cultures rape and murder are okay depending on the circumstance. There's some people in Africa who believe that raping a virgin will cure/prevent AIDS and amongst there peers, doing so is okay. There concept of morality in regards to rape differs from mine, therefore it's subjective.
It is proven that morality is saved in our brain structure. It is in fact a big advantage and therefore could be seen as a proof of evolution.
I don't know what you tried to prove with explaining your logic, but the only thing I took from that was "I am ignorant and the whole world ought to know that."
Because there was a God who set this moral objective standard into all of us that says murder is wrong. Do you believe the holocaust was a good thing?
@JesusLovinBuddy, I have already provided several examples in my video on how murder in certain circumstances, is acceptable in our modern society. You can no longer claim this is an objective moral value, since I already proved it is not.
@JesusLovinBuddy, actually, a lot of people think murder is acceptable. I think murder is acceptable in self-defense. god thinks murder is acceptable when it interests him. and how can his moral objectiveness be "unchanging" if it has changed from the old to the new testament?
Objective means "mind independent" and therefore can not be "within" the mind because then it would be based on our subjectivity. I would like to see you address the Euthyphro Dilemma. Also, we don't all agree that the Holocaust was a bad thing and there are also sociopaths and psychopaths; so obviously it isn't set in ALL of us. ^_^
@JesusLovinBuddy..so if someone broke into your house and was stabbing your family..you wouldn't kill him in self-defense? If you did, would you be immoral?
"you could do whatever you want - if it was opinion" ..no, we have laws...those based on majority subjective moral views..
@JesusLovinBuddy The Nazis many of whom were Christians believed it was commanded by god. So if the Nazis were right and the Christian god did command the holocaust then it would be a good thing wouldn't it? o.0
You are wrong. When someone does something good you say its because God as implanted it in our brains, but when someone does something wrong, its their own fault? You cant have it both ways, either we live by our own moral code that evolved with our growing society, science, and reasoning, or we are slaves to God's moral compass. And guess what, nazis loved the holocaust, an event started by Hitler - a devout roman catholic. 90% of prison populations hold theists. Not atheists. Not atheists.
@JesusLovinBuddy thats why god killed (directly himself) over 2 million people in the bible and did more commanding other people to kill people, if you read the bible, it means that only murder is bad in your own tribe.
@JesusLovinBuddy we have finite knowledge. therefore we can't prove anything to be absolute. we cant know everything about all times, places and conditions. Suggesting that anything is absolutely true is making a claim that you can't know. And yes this applies to morality. It also applies to other absolutes like omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence and omnipresence. The impossibility of proving such things renders all apologetics false as they attempt to prove the unknowable.
@JesusLovinBuddy It was a good thing. Because, you see good is a matter of opinion. Just because the government says "If you murder people we'll put you in a cage for the rest of your life" Doesn't mean its bad. Hitler thought it was a good thing. Just because you think it was bad doesnt mean it was. There is no universal right or wrong. A human killing a human is the same as a snake eating a snake.
Is something right and wrong because it is intrinsically so, or is it because god commands it so. If the latter is true, than it doesn't matter what the command is, only that god says it.
Following this logic, if god commanded you to rape and murder others (as he does in the bible many many many times) would you follow his commands?
Don't try & dodge the ? by saying if you heard god you were prolly crazy then. Its god, he can convince you its really him w/o any doubts. So do you murder & rape?
also your argument for "objective" morality fails horribly. There is nothing objective about a person declaring what is right and wrong, even if you call this person god. Its merely the opinion of god. Secondly, murder, rape, theft etc are wrong because it violates one's autonomy. Something which anyone can understand, i.e. I wouldn't like to be murdered, raped, stolen from there for it is not right to commit those acts against others.
So if a nazi came to your house in WW2 germany asking you if you had any jews you were hiding you would tell them the truth? Even though LYING saves the life of the innocent persecuted jews?
Wow I'd hate to be anne frank hiding in your house, you'd be the first to give em up.
"oh yea there in there, sorry I can't lie, its against gods laws"
You can't disprove Atheism! ok so,there is no reason to believe that morality comes from God, the proof is simply this; Atheists are no less moral than those who beleive in God and Beleivers are no more moral than Atheists. Don't you agree? If I were wrong Atheists would all be murdering and raping etc & preists wouldnt be closet alchoholics, raping little boys or stealing church money etc. JesusLovinBuddy your argument sucks, this coming from a non-Atheists to boot, unbrainwash youself.
fnesb 3 weeks ago
urgh morals are taught to you during childhood, children have the same morals as parents and this is something that can be proved. keep a child in a room with someone of poor morals and they will pick up these morals and not feel guilt about doing what we would call 'wrong' but hey i actualy dont really care
TokiRecords 1 month ago
this kids a dumb shit
michiman57 3 months ago
Firstly "subjective" means 'of the mind' as opposed to 'objective ' which means 'independent of the mind'
Secondly, If murder was objectively wrong then we would hold a rock morally accountable for falling off a cliff and killing someone. Why do we not? Because the only thing that makes murder murder is intent which is inherently SUBJECTIVE. Same goes for all morality. It is not the act that is deemed moral, it is the subjective intent that motivated the act.
Hufflewaffle 4 months ago
Hey moron, if your stupid bible is true, isn't it a serious matter? With followers like you, your god doesn't need atheists to mock him.
dymchurch1 5 months ago
you need forgiveness mate, I just need a good seat by the lake of fire!
NoCheeseJustCrackers 6 months ago
wow 1:45 did you use the dictionary? trying to sound smart?
you cant sound smart while proving the existence of god.
you just proved the existence of morality, not the existence of god. jesus is not the answer to every question. sound like the fucking sham-wow guy.
just because someone does something bad, that doesn't mean they need to apologize to some higher power, they just need to grow the up and not do it again.
hahapwnd07 6 months ago
Murder is wrong .. thus JESUS!
TheSpecialist31 7 months ago
LOL Is this a joke? Murder and rape are wrong therefore objective morality? You don't like the idea of people escaping punishment for crimes therefore Jesus? But don't let me disourage you, please (pretty pretty please with sugar on top) keep believing whatever you believe that prevents you from violently raping and murdering your fellow human beings. Have a crime free day :)
wyattnolte 7 months ago
Why are you so hung up on the Jew religion? Remember, in days of old, most countries has their own gods, so why do so many Americans like the god of the Jews? I am not a Xtian, and would be embarrassed to be called one. I would have to lower my morals to become a Xtian.
ktorch 8 months ago
GOD DIDNT PUT IN PLACE OUR MORAL CODE!!! WE DID!!!! yea
canesrule96 8 months ago
this video is idiotic at best, objective moral are things that common human logic tells us are wrong like theft,its there not mine but i want it but if i take it they will be angry or sad or some other negative feeling, negative=bad therefore making someone feel negatively is bad
hidan227 8 months ago
Our morals doesnt come from the bible.
Thank god for that. In that case we still would have slavery.
mooombooo 9 months ago
Your "logic" is seriously flawed. You have made a case for an objective morality. You merely assert that it has to come from a god (you actually say "Jesus" but that would mean that there was no objective morality until 2,000 years ago).
My counter argument is that I too believe that some things are objectively immoral. Like slavery. Something the Bible God endorsed and encouraged. It seemed okay at the time (subjective) but in reality is immoral and always was. Even Christians know now.
littlecoloreddots 9 months ago 2
Your "logic" is seriously flawed. You have made a case for an objective morality. You merely assert that it has to come from a god (you actually say "Jesus" but that would mean that there was no objective morality until 2,000 years ago).
My counter argument is that I too believe that some things are objectively immoral. Like slavery. Something the Bible God endorsed and encouraged. It seemed okay at the time (subjective) but in reality is immoral and always was.
littlecoloreddots 9 months ago
why does god have to give us morality?
TripleThreat2011 9 months ago
Subjective morality means "If I start raping and murdering and stealing from you, it's OK, and you saying it isn't is just an opinion." is true.
But it being an opinion doesn't mean people like it.
Nervousification 10 months ago
Is this a parody? Poe's law, after all...
And as an aside, if people have trouble distinguishing your beliefs from parody, doesn't that suggest that those beliefs are ridiculous?
FighterDoken 10 months ago
bro congruity is the key to the whole argument. teleological,Moral Logic, ontological, cosmological, with all four of these arguments you use congruity to tie it all up then.
hfzack18919 10 months ago
Morality is a product of rationality. To prove "we" get our morals from god... Wait why the hell am I even answering this video? Creationists who keep kicking the dead horse of "Well I have a book, and it says there's a god, and god is everything" are never going to get it regardless of how much common sense you throw at them.
berner 10 months ago
Morality is subjective, not objective. What we consider to be moral changes as society advances. Owning a slave used to be thought of as moral. Being willing to sacrifice your child to Yahweh is the ultimate moral standard, and why Abraham is revered. Are you saying if your god asked you to, you would be willing to kill a child?
Corneilius5188 10 months ago
is it wrong to murder someone if they're an immediate mortal threat to you or your family? is it wrong to steal the antidote to a terminal illness you have if you can't afford it? Objective my ass.
TheJerzeyDragon 10 months ago
No, there is no logical objective morality without religion, but there is no religion, so either way, there is no morality.
fuck you fucking atheists who want to be moral before you even realize the definition of the word. it is BLACK AND WHITE, RIGHT AND WRONG, yet we spend our lives in subjective reality, we couldnt possible know what is objectively right even if it COULD be measured. utilitarianism.
although the guy who made this video is very much more retarded. empathy does not prove god
ANON118879 10 months ago
Americans are funny dood. I raffed SOOO hard.
DaH1pp1e 10 months ago
The whole morality excuse for "god" is nonsense. What is good? What is evil?
You can't know the answer, bacuase it is subjective. Good and Evil depend in the perception of the people. Some people can perceive an action as "good" and others might perceive the same act as "evil". As @coltharpnicholas said, something can't be "objectively wrong", but subjectively.
Edu2503 11 months ago
Even the title is a big failure: Since when not believing in something is false? It sounds so stupid...
Edu2503 11 months ago
Imagine you're an African woman. Your village is being invaded by men who will rape and kill anyone they find. You're hiding in the bushes with your family. You have a baby with you. Your baby is about to cry. If he cries, you and your family will be found and killed. You could smother your baby to death, and save your family.
What is the "objectively correct" action?
An action can be "subjectively wrong" in the same way an opinion about art can be "subjectively wrong."
coltharpnicholas 11 months ago
Empathy and treating others as we want to be treated.
jmussemann 11 months ago
Reason we should act moral without a god:
jmussemann 11 months ago
this is satire right? i refuse to believe people are still this dumb
dudeonthasopha 1 year ago
If there are objective morals, they are set up by our legal system, not the bible. Do the two overlap? sure, but they do not always agree. Society creates its own version of objective morality regardless of what superstitions they might carry with them. Murder is not always wrong - in self defense, it is permitted and in defense of our country. Rape is wrong but the bible actually pretty much said not to rape men as in Sodom. Modern society has brought women the same considerations.
Mirkwoods 1 year ago
made it to 0:46..... noticed the ratings... left
frackcha 1 year ago
haha. Come watch my video on PROOF THAT COWS ARE FROM ANOTHER GALAXY SENT HERE TO KILL US ALL WITH FARTS. i have proof. I HAVE proof, It's called FAITH. bloody wankers.
TheABsiNtHeFaiRy 1 year ago
Morals are not objective and they are certainly not something given to us by God as that would not explain why people commit acts that we consider immoral.
maskofsan1ty 1 year ago 8
Someone needs to murder you not only to show you that some people dont have a moral code but simply because the world would be better off without someone as stupid as you. And im not saying your stupid because you believe in god you are actually just retarded. And if by some miracle god actually exists and he lets people like you in to heaven then id rather go to hell anyway.
iltsp1 1 year ago
thanks for preaching it bro! just a note, about all of this "funny" stuff that you add into this video, its not necessary because it is bringing Jesus down to our level. Yes, Jesus is our friend, but he is also our Savior, therefore he deserves the utmost respect. Not jokes about Adam Sandler and the cross. Great video tho.
giveyourbestshot 1 year ago
"You can't have an opinion of something if it doesn't exist...". My opinion of unicorns are that they're gay.
But seriously, we don't rape, kill and murder because that's how we've evolved. If we hadn't, we wouldn't have reached the level of technological advancement that has allowed you to make such ridiculous and illogical claims on a global scale thanks to computers (hooray for science and leaving the dark-ages behind).
capitalknockers666 1 year ago
worst intro ever
SpyGuysX 1 year ago
How... the hell can you disprove atheism? You speak of it as if it were a religion and it is not.
KakashiHatake2121 1 year ago
Do you go to Bob Jones University?
ndjarnag 1 year ago
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then He is not omnipotent.
Is He able, but not willing?
Then He is malevolent.
Is He both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is He neither able, nor willing?
Then why call him God?
-Epicurus
awwhellyeah1 1 year ago 30
@awwhellyeah1
I'd give you a thumbs up, except that the theodicy isn't the question here. The question is how proper moral behavior could arise without a divine source.
LucCole88 1 year ago
@awwhellyeah1 You believe in evil? Because to believe in evil is to believe that there is a fine line between good and evil (a universal moral law). if we assume that there is a universal moral law, then we can assume that there is a universal moral law giver.
ShoelaceTemptation 9 months ago
@ShoelaceTemptation because something exists doesn't mean someone/thing intentionally put it there or made it exist.
hahapwnd07 6 months ago
@hahapwnd07 Give me an example
ShoelaceTemptation 6 months ago
@ShoelaceTemptation There is no such thing as a universal modern ''law''.
We do what we think is right.
Also, consider this. If you only behave like a good person because you believe that God is watching you, and in return you will go to heaven, then that is an end to a selfish gain. As in, you only act like a good person because you believe there is something in it for you. That is the implication. I behave like a good person because I am one. Selfish people don't go to heaven.
awwhellyeah1 3 months ago
minute 1:23 the amazingatheist seems to be hitting you there... lol
gerinja 1 year ago
objective morality stems from evolution. humans are social animals, we operate as a group, failure to respect others would result in expulsion from said group and therefore incapability to survive and death.
if you violated a fellow group member, the group would react as you would be seen as a liability to the functionality of the group as a whole, so you would be forcively removed by the alphas for the benefit of the collective. it was merely a survival instinct that persisted, like fear.
Grymbaldknight 1 year ago
@Grymbaldknight What about Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong and others like them in which that didn't happen? What if the alphas are the "bad" guys and there's no one around to take them down?
BereanRedneck 1 year ago
Well, that is incorrect. God not only didn't make it to where we won't kill, in several places in the bible, he orders us to kill in his name. The fact is there are ppl who kill, and times when according to god it's just. I'm not an atheist (I'm Jewish), but I understand that god can not be proven by man, it's impossible
vader300 1 year ago
Dude, your arguments are not convincing to me due largely to the fact that you simply assert things as being so without providing sufficient or good evidence.
That said, you seem like a good chap who I'd have no problem having a pitcher of beer with.
So thanks for sharing your views.
Cheers,
And let reason prevail
LetReasonPrevail1 1 year ago
Continuing... the scientific answer as to why we shouldn't rape or kill is because it's detrimental to the survival of the species. A wolf that kills one of its own is exiled and becomes the lone wolf; and a man that kills one of its own is exiled and called a freakin' nutjob. If Americans were killing each other over religious reasons like they are in the Middle East, do you think we'd have all of this advanced technology and easy living?
LucCole88 1 year ago
@LucCole88 if we shouldn't do something because it is a detriment to the survival of the species, should we also "do something" if the absence of that something allows a detriment to the survival of the species persist?
BereanRedneck 1 year ago
@BereanRedneck
Not necessarily. Again, everything in the philosophical study of ethics works on a case by case basis. Of course, an action that fits your criterion CAN be morally permissible, but that doesn't mean that all actions that fit your criterion are morally permissible.
P.S. When is someone going to address the fact that I totally pwned this Freshman? Ideally, I'd like it to be JesusLovinBuddy, but is there no one else? Because his, "challenge," is a joke.
LucCole88 1 year ago
@LucCole88 Is the criterion you're referencing "detriment to the survival of the species?"
BereanRedneck 1 year ago
@BereanRedneck
Your question was, "Should we do something if the absence of that something allows for the determent to the survival of the species to persist?"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but -in layman's terms- what you're really asking is, "Should we take action in an effort to squelch any factors that are detrimental to the survival of the species."
This question -as I have stated before- is too general. Case-by-case, baby. So can you provide me with a case that better represents your point?
LucCole88 1 year ago
@LucCole88 I was trying to see if you mistyped or if I misunderstood. I was very aware of the whole case-by-case thing. So when you wrote, "The scientific answer as to why we shouldn't rape or kill is because it's detrimental to the survival of the species," I assumed that the case in question was "detriment to the survival of the species." However, am I wrong in understanding that you believe that we shouldn't do things that are "detriments to the survival of the species?"
BereanRedneck 1 year ago
@BereanRedneck
Yes, but only slightly. Killing may be justified in the event that your life is threatened by another.Thievery may also be justified in the event that your life -or the life of your children- is at risk.
To clarify, these are things that upset social order. Since social order is how human beings have managed to survive, upsetting said order is detrimental to the species.
The point is that God -while a sufficient condition- isn't necessary for the existence of moral sensibility.
LucCole88 1 year ago
@LucCole88 So, we shouldn't do things that upset the social order, because upsetting the social order is a detriment to Homo sapien, right? I'm not familiar with the term "social order." So, I wikied Social Order and don't know if that's what you're talking about. If it is what you're talking about, then I would have to disagree that all disruption of social order is a detriment to Homo sapien. Is that article on Wikipedia a good article on getting a general understanding on social order?
BereanRedneck 1 year ago
@BereanRedneck
Yes, wiki link pretty much summed it up.
In particular instances, I agree with you: things like revolutions and revolts may be morally permissible. However, the goal of these things is generally to work towards a better system social order, as opposed to doing away with social order entirely. When I speak of social order and how it relates to morality, I'm not speaking of particular orders; rather, just the idea of social order itself.
LucCole88 1 year ago
@LucCole88 I'm betting there's a lot that we would need to discuss to see if we're saying the same thing. It may be that thing where, "Does God say things are wrong arbitrarily, or does God say things are wrong because they are?" I may have to find you to talk about this, far off in the future, when I have time. Thanks for the convo and Merry Christmas.
BereanRedneck 1 year ago
@BereanRedneck
Likewise. Cheers!
LucCole88 1 year ago
First and foremost, God isn't a necessary condition for the existence of objective morality. It can be explained by evolution, on account of the fact that we're pack animals with a mammalian brain.
Secondly, I think you're failing to understand the complexity of ethical analysis. It's not as simple as, "is stealing wrong?" When we study ethics, we do it on a case by case basis such as, "if you have to feed your dying child and have no food, is it wrong to steal?" (cont'd.....)
LucCole88 1 year ago
This Video makes me laugh.. Good Job brother
bigjrritchie 1 year ago
Comment removed
twsbbl 1 year ago
Again, you've not proved or disproved anything at all. You've only made unfounded assertions throughout your video that "objective morality" is sourced from God, and concluded with yet another assertion that if there exists a difference between right and wrong, there must be a God - that because we atheists recognize that morality exists proves there is a God, and somehow that defeats our argument against there being a God. Remove the assertions and your argument fails.
twsbbl 1 year ago
I can not understand how you leap from "Hitler is evil" to God must therefore exist.
We should act morally because it helps to create a moral society which is more pleasant to live in. If I support something like the Nazi plan it helps produce a nightmare society. All things are interconnected and what goes around eventually comes around.
DancingRabbit52 1 year ago
Any attempt to "disprove atheism" is a blatant indication that you have no idea what atheism is. Atheism exists only because theism exists. Atheism is a response to theism - it is a rejection of the theists claim that a god exists. It is merely a disbelief in god. It makes no claims to refute. It would do you well to inform yourself what you are arguing against before you open your mouth. Learn what atheism is and then maybe you can form some arguments that make sense.
JamesMorlan 1 year ago
Actually there can be objective morality without a god.
Imagine a cliff.
Is it smart or stupid to run off a cliff.
So we need a god to tell us that?? NOPES.
But the cliff is natural. And our own brains tells us its stupid to run off a cliff. That doesnt take a god to tell us its stupid. Its NATURAL. The same way morality is natural.
jinitron 1 year ago
Stop making videos until you take that course in critical thinking. You couldn't get a minute into this video without fallaciously begging the question:
"Everyone has done something evil, thus we are against god"
That's actually a double-whammy begging of the question, since you are asserting the tired mantra that everyone has sinned, then just go on blissfully assuming there is a god to be against. Your videos are textbook examples of logical fallacies. Well done!
Wyglyph 1 year ago
Religious 'objective' moralities is just as ineffective as subjective moralities.
matthewtaylorbrown 1 year ago
Id also like to add that what you're saying is no different then what ancient greek's said about thunder, the sun moving across the sky, or tidal waves. They didn't know the cause of these phenomenon and assigned a God to them. In this case you see the fact that people work together under a strict rule of law as a product of your own personal God. When in reality morality is prevalent in many forms of life. Wolves, bees, lions, gorillas, they work together because they can all benefit.
Zombie1990 1 year ago
I don't say rape and murder (ect ect) are ok. But unfortunately some people do get off scot free. Does this mean that there is a god? No. This means that you would like to think there is some punishment to bad people. You believe in God because it hurts not to. To know that there isn't some all loving big brother figure watching out for you. Buddhism is the way.
MrMurder1733 1 year ago
your 'bible' was written by atheists.
JAWWDC 1 year ago
We don't kill because we don't want to be killed. We don't steal because we don't want things stolen from this. It's very self-oriented motivations, and certainly not proof of an "objective" morality.
Additionally, I would argue that the Bible itself is proof that there is no "objective morality". If the laws were so clear and apparent, why would God have to specify the 10 Commandments, or the Mosaic law? Morality is a question of what people do to protect personal interests.
rchodges 1 year ago
This is a fairly good argument. Or, at least it's the very first argument that I've ever seen that wasn't "here's what God said no believe you heathen". Hooooweeverrrr!
It is only your subjective opinion that an objective opinion proves the existence of God. Further, it is your subjective opinion that Jesus (thus the Bible) is the pathway.
A Muslim, by default could use your same argument to prove their religion (that doesn't wash). Just Saying :-)
atxthumper 1 year ago
AJBuwalda 1 year ago
Moral Objective does not prove the existence of God,You have not considered other options.
The reason why people don't rape and murder others,you have already covered that,it is Morally wrong.
Moral objections are not rules that have been placed into us from God,it something that we as a collective of people have learnt over our evolutionary processes,that we have come to realise that us as humans co-exist better with these "laws" rather than with out them.
ultsmackdown 1 year ago
Moral Objective does not prove the existence of God,You have not considered other options.
The reason why people don't rape and murder others,you have already covered that,it is Morally wrong.
Moral objections are not rules that have been placed into us from God,it something that we as a collective of people have learnt over our evolutionary processes,that we have come to realise that us as humans co-exist better with these "laws" rather than with out them.
ultsmackdown 1 year ago
Moral Objective does not prove the existence of God,You have not considered other options.
The reason why people don't rape and murder others,you have already covered that,it is Morally wrong.
Moral objections are not rules that have been placed into us from God,it something that we as a collective of people have learnt over our evolutionary processes,that we have come to realise that us as humans co-exist better with these "laws" rather than with out them.
ultsmackdown 1 year ago
How do you use people doing evil things as justification for a god? That's circular logic, and is a logical fallacy in an arguement. You can't say just because objective morality exists that it is proof of god. You can't have an opinion on something that doesn't exist? Like unicorns? Fairies? Dragons? I don't mind you wanting to tackle a subject that you think is important, but you should stop and critically think about your beliefs first before you tackle some one else's.
shirotatsu1 1 year ago
Act morally if you want to avoid prison..we have laws.
Go back to your fairy tale man..really.
ncPsychosis 1 year ago
you can disprove my lack of belief?
licensedhobo 1 year ago
I don't have original sin and I am not created by a god... What purpose would it serve to worship a creature that has nothing to do with me. Especially a creature that has an inferior morality to my own. Is drowning a person wrong? How about a few thousand? What about an entire planet? Is it ever okay to drown an entire planet? Maybe I should kill all but a small breeding population of humans because God did it. Who will punish God?
PinkProgram 1 year ago
hahahha i enjoyed the Adam sandler impression.
iesidne 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY
why do you think they deserve to live? why does that make you happy? ...are you saying you have a soul, adn a conscience? where did they come from?
dragonking700 1 year ago
Objective morality, that people think that things like murder, theft and rape are wrong, is completely explainable by evolution. As an early human in a tribe, murdering your neighbours would make it harder on the tribe as a whole. The tribes that held together would stay, while the ones where everybody killed everybody else died. There are evolutionary benefits being kind to each other. Natural selection has tuned morality over the several million years humans have been evolving.
RandomActOfBoredom 1 year ago
You said this is all your opinion, then go on to say morals are objective and that I cannot argue that. Well, your opinion is subjective, and in my opinion morals are subjective. You can meet people that in fact do think rape is not wrong, which in turn proves that morals are in fact subjective. You kind of dug yourself into a hole here.
HaleyOfAwesome 1 year ago
There is no oblective morality. Read the bible its says killing is fine when done accordingly to "the word" of god. Theft and rape are bad for the vast majority yet are still subjective.
SelinityDawn 1 year ago
@SelinityDawn the bible says these things are wrong on pretty much every page. read the bible yourself.
dragonking700 1 year ago
@dragonking700 i will admit i have not read the bible in a long time. That said, just because the bible says it does not make it objective. Every other religion and all atheists find it fallacious.
SelinityDawn 1 year ago
@SelinityDawn
every other religion and belief system finds the koran fallacious, except for Islam.
97%+ of the world finds atheism fallacious.
dragonking700 1 year ago
@dragonking700 that doesn't make sense. Atheism has no base to disprove. Anyway your view of "objective truth" is skewed.
SelinityDawn 1 year ago
@SelinityDawn
lol, no it doesn't make any sense at all. how come only 3% of the world buys atheism? maybe we're just all stupid.
I do not find atheism false because so little people believe it, however. Atheism has no base to disprove? I beg to differ. atheism is dead, and there are still people valiantly carrying around this dead rotten corps.
dragonking700 1 year ago
A pretty GOOD video.
blackaboe 1 year ago
right to fulfill their life to highest potential. Also, on a lower level, I have selfish reasons for not stealing, raping, or killing. I don't want society to put me in jail for a long time or kill me. And on another lower lower level, I know how it feels to be stolen from or to have a loved one die, and I can only imagine having a loved one raped, so that also deters me from those acts. The whole do unto others thing. It's not about commandments or consequences. Feel free to reply.
Nobody2989 1 year ago
Thirdly, since objective morality is man-made, there could, and was, a period of chaos where you could steal, rape, and murder all you want. Not saying it's okay, just that it happened. Fourth, there is no absolute right or wrong because society is ever changing, as is objective morality.
So to answer your challenge, I, as an atheist, believe we only get one life on Earth. So I should make it the best I can be. And I'm also a fan of humanity, for some reason, so I think they should have the
Nobody2989 1 year ago
but it's that very question, for what reason are you a fan of humanity? doesn't that question bother you a little? it does for most of the world.
dragonking700 1 year ago
Okay first, objective morality is man-made. It's a social construct. Proof: Cursing. In the 1920's, many people avoided saying the word breast, and invented the terms dark and white meat instead, because it was socially unacceptable, an objective morality put in place by society. Is breast a curse word now? Secondly, would you consider theft wrong if you were starving and stole some bread? Or were delusional and raped someone? Or killed someone in a war, even if it was for God? Not set in stone.
Nobody2989 1 year ago
OMG - your philosophy (if that is what it is) belongs in the stone age.
Are you actually serious???
We passed this point in Hellenic Greece!!!
CASEwithscience 1 year ago
I like your style!
However, no deity is required to act morally.
Morality is entirely subjective, for over 1000 years rape, slavery etc were all perfectly acceptable.
People don't kill eachother because if you go around killing eachother you can't trust your neighbours. If you can't trust anyone, you can't work together, thus people agree on a set of values to hold to in order to survive and thrive as a group. The benefits of working together outweigh gains from murdering others.
out of chars.
kelarael 1 year ago
To sum up what is now 6 comments, you have failed to support your argument for an objective morality, instead representing widespread social norms as universal. You have also failed to show demonstrably that your view is right and that a God exists. On top of that, you do little in the way of being convincing with your argument for the need of the Judeo-Christian God specifically.
All that said, I appreciate you voicing your views, misguided as they are, and encourage you to continue.
fighting1fefnir 1 year ago
Now, speaking as an atheist, the word you're looking for to describe us is 'responsible'. Just because there isn't a God giving us directions does not mean we have no acquired morality or social sensibility. We act, just as you act, on the subjective morals we have learned. We learned not to hurt others or steal, so we don't. As for life, it's what you make it, to be cliche. Life does not have inherent value, objectively. It is the person's actions that I view in determining individual value.
fighting1fefnir 1 year ago
We have laws to prevent people from doing things that as a whole are seen as harmful to society, and these are voted on, so what you end up with is a subjective universal view, an opinion held by the vast majority of people. Your Hitler example is part of that cultural norm. We accept that his actions are harmful to our society as a whole via our own subjective moral sensibilities, and in the interest of social stability, lock up the 'crazies'
fighting1fefnir 1 year ago
On the same string of thought, you actually end up undermining your point by the use of the example. Your meter stick (which is a foot stick, a ruler) is either the cultural norm you have acquired, or it is the logical conclusion of a simple risk assessment, both of which equal subjective, not objective, morality.
fighting1fefnir 1 year ago
Your argument for objective morality is sorely lacking. it does nothing to prove the existence of that morality other than to say, 'It's self evident'. The very fact that you're seeking to prove it shows it isn't an objective truth all people inherently understand. Secondly, how you are defining objective truth is as a cultural norm. For example, you give murder as proof. War is murder. There are tribes that consider warfare to be an ultimate good. Ergo, murder is not inherently bad.
fighting1fefnir 1 year ago
So if there's no reward, something can't be good? Am I understanding you correctly?
thisnameisuniq 1 year ago
Logical fallacy employed:
Begging the question.
That's all. :)
NewMozart 1 year ago
sorry if this isn't original.
in extreme situations people would murder and steal and in some of those i wouldn't call it immoral. the rape one would have to a strange situation but it could happen. you would be changing your morals and that would mean they are subjective. now it can change back once you are out of the situation and you could feel bad about it.
objective morality is not true and even if it was it could come about threw evolution.
atheistnarutofan 1 year ago
if god told you to murder some one this would then be objective with your reasoning
Colepotera 1 year ago
I do moral things because my objective transcendent jug of milk tells me so. It definitely isn't the Christian god that dictates moral actions. It is my jug of milk. Prove me wrong.
scott5878 1 year ago 29
@scott5878 Does your objective jug of milk take 10% of you income? You can't have a God without a religion and you can't have religion with profit. There for your God is invalid.
happyjesus123 1 year ago
@happyjesus123 Of course my jug takes 10% of my money. I put 10% of my income into a milk jug as an offering to The Milk Jug. My religion is Milk Jug-ism. duh :P You have not proven my Jug to be false. You have only shown that you are an immoral Jug denier.
scott5878 1 year ago
@scott5878
the jug of milk has no words on it that explain anything related to morality. on the other hand, the bible covers everything we need to know.
dragonking700 1 year ago
@dragonking700 You are speculating about the Almighty Jug. The Jug dictates to me telepathically what morals I should have. The Jug also has many books about it. If the Bible covered everything you needed to know, then how are you using your computer right now? Surely the Bible has nothing in it about computer science, programming languages, or the proper construction of computers.
scott5878 1 year ago
Your proof of an objective morality hinges on murder, theft, and rape being universally wrong. And while they violate my moral standards, I cannot show they are wrong in any objective sense. In fact, cultures have seen them as good. Conquer your enemy, take their resources, rape their women... Values held by peoples like the vikings, ancient Mongolians, and even crusaders. You start by defining objectivity. A sign you understand it. I fear you intentionally used a flawed argument.
ElNerdoLoco 1 year ago
Great job, JesusLovinBuddy! Awesome information provided in a quirky, fun format! Thanks!
jnweaver78 1 year ago
Why do do christians fight everything in science. They argued that the world was flat, that it was the center of the universe, that the earth orbited the sun, and that the world is about 6 thousand years old and human civilization was already into the agriculture era....the list goes on and on and the whole time religion has been there to fight forward progress. Has anyone noticed that the more isolated the community is such as po-dunk, Kansas the more religiouse the people are?
Smirk090887 1 year ago
I argue that evolution has selected for humans who were able to function in a productive society. We are social animals and our ability to work together and communicate is probably our greatest advantage over other animals.
The morals were selected for through evolution, not mandated from God.
My two cents...
Plur307 1 year ago
You haven't really proven anything, or shown an example of an objective moral value.
evilotakuneko 1 year ago
You haven't proven that objective morality exist, you just labeled the majority accepted standard of morality as objective. In some cultures rape and murder are okay depending on the circumstance. There's some people in Africa who believe that raping a virgin will cure/prevent AIDS and amongst there peers, doing so is okay. There concept of morality in regards to rape differs from mine, therefore it's subjective.
jmt24 1 year ago
It is proven that morality is saved in our brain structure. It is in fact a big advantage and therefore could be seen as a proof of evolution.
I don't know what you tried to prove with explaining your logic, but the only thing I took from that was "I am ignorant and the whole world ought to know that."
EPR89 1 year ago
Hooooooo boy. I'll take up the challenge. I MIGHT have something up tonight.
IAmTheScum13 1 year ago
Because there was a God who set this moral objective standard into all of us that says murder is wrong. Do you believe the holocaust was a good thing?
JesusLovinBuddy 1 year ago
@JesusLovinBuddy
What about a hardcore Nazi who honestly believes the Holocaust was a good thing? They do exist.
Plur307 1 year ago
@JesusLovinBuddy, I have already provided several examples in my video on how murder in certain circumstances, is acceptable in our modern society. You can no longer claim this is an objective moral value, since I already proved it is not.
naejimba 1 year ago
@JesusLovinBuddy, actually, a lot of people think murder is acceptable. I think murder is acceptable in self-defense. god thinks murder is acceptable when it interests him. and how can his moral objectiveness be "unchanging" if it has changed from the old to the new testament?
AshesWasHerName 1 year ago
@JesusLovinBuddy
"moral objective standard into all of us"
Objective means "mind independent" and therefore can not be "within" the mind because then it would be based on our subjectivity. I would like to see you address the Euthyphro Dilemma. Also, we don't all agree that the Holocaust was a bad thing and there are also sociopaths and psychopaths; so obviously it isn't set in ALL of us. ^_^
HumanStrategy 1 year ago
@JesusLovinBuddy
I don't, but Hitler did didn't he? Because he wouldn't have done it otherwise. So he didn't have this objective morality you speak of.
StanMarsh1 1 year ago
@JesusLovinBuddy Your argument is flawed instead of reading a bible i encourage you to read books from the non-fiction area of your library.
hman111 1 year ago
@JesusLovinBuddy he did not! god gave us free will to make are own choices in life
polevaulter6916 1 year ago
@JesusLovinBuddy Do you believe that god's word is the only thing that's stopping you from murder? Do you think Hitler wasn't a true believer in god?
alexandervlad 1 year ago
@JesusLovinBuddy..so if someone broke into your house and was stabbing your family..you wouldn't kill him in self-defense? If you did, would you be immoral?
"you could do whatever you want - if it was opinion" ..no, we have laws...those based on majority subjective moral views..
what weak weak arguments.
ncPsychosis 1 year ago
@JesusLovinBuddy The Nazis many of whom were Christians believed it was commanded by god. So if the Nazis were right and the Christian god did command the holocaust then it would be a good thing wouldn't it? o.0
Nihilist127 1 year ago
@JesusLovinBuddy
No it wasn't it didn't include moron christians
AngryAtheist1 1 year ago
@JesusLovinBuddy do you think killing hitler would have been a good thing?
lnmylife 1 year ago
You are wrong. When someone does something good you say its because God as implanted it in our brains, but when someone does something wrong, its their own fault? You cant have it both ways, either we live by our own moral code that evolved with our growing society, science, and reasoning, or we are slaves to God's moral compass. And guess what, nazis loved the holocaust, an event started by Hitler - a devout roman catholic. 90% of prison populations hold theists. Not atheists. Not atheists.
Zombie1990 1 year ago
@JesusLovinBuddy thats why god killed (directly himself) over 2 million people in the bible and did more commanding other people to kill people, if you read the bible, it means that only murder is bad in your own tribe.
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@JesusLovinBuddy we have finite knowledge. therefore we can't prove anything to be absolute. we cant know everything about all times, places and conditions. Suggesting that anything is absolutely true is making a claim that you can't know. And yes this applies to morality. It also applies to other absolutes like omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence and omnipresence. The impossibility of proving such things renders all apologetics false as they attempt to prove the unknowable.
Suicideforcelluloid 1 year ago
@JesusLovinBuddy It was a good thing. Because, you see good is a matter of opinion. Just because the government says "If you murder people we'll put you in a cage for the rest of your life" Doesn't mean its bad. Hitler thought it was a good thing. Just because you think it was bad doesnt mean it was. There is no universal right or wrong. A human killing a human is the same as a snake eating a snake.
dude48124 1 year ago
Is something right and wrong because it is intrinsically so, or is it because god commands it so. If the latter is true, than it doesn't matter what the command is, only that god says it.
Following this logic, if god commanded you to rape and murder others (as he does in the bible many many many times) would you follow his commands?
Don't try & dodge the ? by saying if you heard god you were prolly crazy then. Its god, he can convince you its really him w/o any doubts. So do you murder & rape?
shonkey 1 year ago
also your argument for "objective" morality fails horribly. There is nothing objective about a person declaring what is right and wrong, even if you call this person god. Its merely the opinion of god. Secondly, murder, rape, theft etc are wrong because it violates one's autonomy. Something which anyone can understand, i.e. I wouldn't like to be murdered, raped, stolen from there for it is not right to commit those acts against others.
shonkey 1 year ago
hhahaha you've gotta be kidding me.
So if a nazi came to your house in WW2 germany asking you if you had any jews you were hiding you would tell them the truth? Even though LYING saves the life of the innocent persecuted jews?
Wow I'd hate to be anne frank hiding in your house, you'd be the first to give em up.
"oh yea there in there, sorry I can't lie, its against gods laws"
Some morality you've got there
shonkey 1 year ago
morality is for humans that need it.
anarchyclayman 1 year ago
These rules seems to be impossible to not break, erego God is an ass
baltusd 1 year ago
Comment removed
baltusd 1 year ago