I actually disagree, I think that a lot of the notions of being kind do have a historical origin in religion. In all religions "good" must be practiced, the notion of good then is proclaimed, but nonetheless the "point" of it is doing good, to be righteous. Of course it makes much more sense to do it out of thought and logic discussion, which also has a place inside (some) religions, but wether you're an atheist or religious, our notion of being righteous is very linked to being non-sinful.
Take a look at (pretty much) every single pro-atheism and anti-religion video on this site. That's right, I can't see the dislike bars either.
Now take a look at (pretty much) every single pro-religion, more specifically pro-christianity video on here as well. Looks like the dislike button got stuck on auto-press.
Rational thinkers are becoming the majority, very quickly.
In only 1 or 2 generations the modern world will finally break the shackles of having to bow down to religious tyranny.
I have to respectfully disagree on your main point. I think that the rational perspective is growing, but not quickly and it is certainly not the majority. The reason why there are little dislikes on pro-atheism videos and many on religious preaching ones is that those who employ rational thought gain their beliefs through research and weighing up both sides.
This is a dangerous way of behaving for religion and religious thinkers, so they ignore any self reflective action.
@bloodninja09 clearly rational thinkers arent the majority, I never stated so, merely that they're 'becoming' so. Agreed that a main reason for all of these likes etc on atheist videos is due to rational thinkers being more likely to introspect about religion and beliefs. However it would be foolish to dismiss all other reasons, clearly there is a rise. I live in the UK, & its safe to say from statistics that atheism is rapidly increasing here, as in much of Europe, Canada, Australia & the U.S.
I misread your statement, apologies! I agree that it does seem, however slowly, that at least the western world is growing out of religion. What a day it will be when those who enjoy rational, free thinking reflect the majority.
@shnaizebemydays There's a selective bias, rational thinkers are more likely to be viewing videos on theological debate. The non-rational take whatever religious values they've been spoon fed at face value, shying away from any form of debate which would challenge and expose the absurdity of their belief. choosing instead to spend their time watching videos of dogs riding skateboards or some such crap.
I'm afraid in the grand scheme the idiots are still winning.
Morals are subjective. Morals are not set in stone and can change dependant on your relgion, gender, social environment and upbringing. Christians are no more moral than atheists, as there is no way of measuring morality.
So "objective" means : a truth that is everlasting and applies to final eternal destiny.
So the goal or the quest in life must be set to everlasting life & reaching the omniscient omnipotent creator, being like him & having bride-groom relationship. In the ultimate goal Morality & ethics are objective (everlasting truth, everlasting wisdom, everlasting love)
Morality is what leads to the goodness of human ultimate destiny, everlasting life & happiness.
Dawkins decides sexual promiscuousness is the best solution
His morality is forging straw-men against spiritual faiths, dictating that what is moral is to fight religion when he misses the essence & the whole morality of religious faiths stating his absolute morality: Evolution
"Morality is what leads to the goodness of human ultimate destiny, everlasting life & happiness."
- incorrect, morality 'relates to principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong', it could be best described as a standard by which actions can be determined as good/bad.
"Dawkins decides sexual promiscuousness is the best solution"
- where? not endorsing the sexual oppression of women (common across the Abrahamic faiths) does not equate to endorsing promiscuity.
Dawkins by standing against religious point in marriages, makes two blunders:
1- he merely sums up the idea in religion as dictator stoning women who wants to mate a better gene,
2- Straw-man the point In religion relationship is merely respect human soul body & emotions which dawkins intentionally misses : Who ever without a sin let him cast the first stone.
@balamanti2 " ... Dawkins always sums up the idea in religion as megalomaniac dictator who requires worship & kills everyone who disagrees with him. ... "
Yep, wonder why? Except, he doesn't kill them, just puts them in hell forever.
"Yep, wonder why? Except, he doesn't kill them, just puts them in hell forever."
this statement indicates that you object that life is short, and that death is forever.
Q:
1- Do u think u deserve to live forever? if so why?
2- If not, would like evolution? when u personally will die no matter how much u evolved & denied God. So where is Goodness? if God is not good enough then how do u know God is not good enough? but if u know goodness then there must be goodness same like the cross'
Let we discuss fairy tales? which part u do not like? ex: Sleeping princess?
sleeping princess is a symbol, curses, obstacles, waiting for the right moment. all of it r parts of our human experience to achieve our dreams & love.
when u reject & disrespect it; it it is most likely u have issue in ur childhood(will discuss later)
2- Jesus is not a fairy tale;he the history &maker of it
saying fairy tales about history= beating ur head in a wall
"Let we discuss fairy tales? which part u do not like?"
- whether i like a given fairytale eg. life after death says nothing about whether it is true.
"when u reject & disrespect it; it it is most likely u have issue in ur childhood"
- incorrect, as i already pointed-out the reason is founded in intellectually honesty; any claim made without evidence can and should be dismissed without evidence
- incorrect, i ave used to this to substantiate my rejection based on intellectual honesty; im rejecting it because there is no evidence it is true inspite of my personal preference.
"Save me this bull, 'people spit in the eyes of the bold; he said it is raining'"
- now THAT is a non sequitur :)
"parrot repeating mantras (Trolling style)"
- incorrect again, the fact that any claim made without evidence can (and should) be dismissed without evidence is basic logic
"Jesus is not a fairy tale;he the history &maker of it'
- incorrect again, Jesus is no more historical than Buddha .etc Regardless of whether the myth was based on an actual person there is no reason to believe it's supernatural claims.
"We are discussing Jesus here. Saying Jesus is not historical is just trolling..."
- QUOTEMINE: my actual statement is that he is no more historical than Buddha
"if U say the teaching & resurrection of Jesus is mythical: this is against the history"
- INCORRECT there may have been a person on which the jesus myth is based (there is some sketchy evidence for this) but nothing to support the supernatural claims
does not start with straw men arguments; "fairy tales aggressiveness" which i replied down & will discuss more; & historic accurate Jesus a fairy tale
"if God is not good enough then how do u know God is not good enough? but if u know goodness then there must be goodness same like the cross'"
- 'good' and 'bad' are simply words that refer to things we do and dont like, my basis for saying that the character god as portrayed in the bible 'is not good enough' is derived from two things:
a). i dislike some things
b). i dislike some things more than others
no absolute benchmark for good is required to make this assessment :)
@balamanti2 It doesn't matter what anyone thinks good and bad SHOULD be. We have to live life assuming that good and bad have to be decided by us otherwise any one can claim to have the truth.
1. I live for as long as I live for. That's the way it is. Nothing to do with deserving it.
2. Would I like evolution? Individuals don't evolve. They pass on genes to there children which vary slightly. Over millions of years, if two populations are separated they will evolve differently to their different environments and may even evolve to a point where any individual can no longer mate with individuals from other population. "Goodness" comes from empathy and rational thought.
In the context of a creator , design ,Object of life: yes there is
Even in Evolution: Everything you do is to attain everlasting life. by trying to modify your thinking, behavior & society whilst discovering the rules that life & universe work by(denying that there is a creator & designer).
The problem with this scenario is that nothing for you, or ur eternity. Nor anything of your genes will remain, it is for some future fachistic god,
@balamanti2 Lots of the offspring are not better adapted to the environment. The ones that are tend to go on to have more children. Over time, the better adapted ones increase in number and become dominant. No goal. Just better adapted members reproducing more successfully.
You're making an unjustified leap from "evolution causes adaptation towards survival" to "evolution has a goal". Please, make a logical connection between the two.
If you can't have a conversation in which you display intellectual honesty, don't come on YouTube. The people who actually know what they're talking about will flay you alive.
So, instead of justifying your illogical leap towards your false conclusion, you throw insults?
I'm still waiting on your defense of the statement, "evolution has a goal". Because, quite simply, any biological or evolutionary scientist will tell you evolution does not have foresight.
"Dawkis views excuse promiscuous as some good practice to deliver the genes or women or men to help survival of the fittest"
- incorrect, his statement regarding it's evolutionary effect SAYS NOTHING about whether it is moral nor does he attempt to claim it does, he never tries to do what you claim.
1) If you can't make complete sentences with clear subjects, verbs, and agreement of the two, I can't understand what you're trying to say.
2) Again, not sure what you're trying to say. Try using complete sentences with proper grammar and tense. Meaning, use plurals when you're supposed to. Capitalization. Anything that could help me make sense of your comments.
So, instead of justifying your illogical leap towards your false conclusion, you throw insults?
I'm still waiting on your defense of the statement, "evolution has a goal". Because, quite simply, any biological or evolutionary scientist will tell you evolution does not have foresight.
I'm still waiting on your defense of the statement, "evolution has a goal". Because, quite simply, any biological or evolutionary scientist will tell you evolution does not have foresight.
"His morality is forging straw-men against spiritual faiths"
- how, where is the strawman?
"dictating that what is moral is to fight religion when he misses the essence & the whole morality of religious faiths stating his absolute morality: Evolution..."
- incorrect, he doesnt claim that fighting religion is absolutely right, he simply believes it is right in terms of his SUBJECTIVE standard of morality and can justify it using logic/reason
"you've failed to provide any evidence he's dont any of these things."
u know your method in replying is just negating - which is = denying .
I will consider ur denying is one good step as that u do not agree with Dawkins.
but , you might be too proud to admit that he really put things out of context , If look at my reply to you u will examples of how he grasp at straws, misrepresents, straw -man arguments
"he doesnt claim that fighting religion is absolutely right"
- he makes religion faith the worst enemy of his, & causes of all evilness; pretty much like Hitlers view toward the semitic Jews & all religions
- he misses the essence & the whole morality of religious faiths intentionally (immoral) then he states &dictates an absolute morality: Evolution (contradicting himself)
Reason states that you understand well what u are challanging. I told u Dawkins does not understand that in religious context, the hsin is to fail to respect of human soul, life, & value. By this respect u set relationship, the fall of humanity, the forgiveness.
Dawkins disregards everything that is good in the religion points, denies it by giving fake examples that does not represent the religion view & spirituality on the matter, &market his diatribes as facts
"Reason states that you understand well what u are challanging. I told u Dawkins does not understand that in religious context"
- you assert it but fail to provide any evidence.
"the hsin is to fail to respect of human soul, life, & value"
- there is no evidence that a soul exists and the value we attribute to life isnt contingent on it existing (as Dawkins demonstrates by showing how moral principles can be reached through logic and reason)
soul is not a physical entity to touch it but you see its effect in life.
Like the wind : you see its effect on trees but you can not see from where it comes & where it goes
The evidence of human soul are in the actions of human beings, faiths, the drivers, loves, hates, wars, arts etc..all what shapes human world is the human soul
saying Human have no soul is evil: makes human life without value
try to read and understand the point before replying. I said : you can not see the wind, but you see its effects . Same like the soul you see its effect
" I said : you can not see the wind, but you see its effects . Same like the soul you see its effect"
- incorrect again, wind is a force that can be empirically measured, the soul on the otherhand is simply something you assert to exist without any evidence
The difference being, there are no effects that can be attributed to a soul. First you have to demonstrate that a soul exists, then you can claim the soul has an effect on something. Feeling the wind isn't the only way we know it exists. Nice straw-man, though.
How amusing is this. The guy asked a question like what tree produces mangoes. Richard Dawkins answer is all about apples! I am amazed at this. The question has nothing to do with religion at all.
Christianity is completely different to Islam. Islam is 10 times more stricter and evil. Apostasy in Islam is death by stoning, there is no punishment for apostasy in Christianity -you can choose your own path whenever you want to. Islam makes their women wear face masks, what God would cover the face of their creation? Islam is an extreme religion with no place in modern society. They talk about living by the quran because it has good morals, which is completely untrue. + I only believe in God
If an atheist was asked if there was anything wrong with a little girl being raped and hacked to pieces, can the atheist say that anything is absolutely wrong with that? Of course not. They may only agree that the crime should be punished based on the morality 'fashioned' by society. Laws in a society cannot be the basis of morality!
"If an atheist was asked if there was anything wrong with..."
- sure they could; all atheism says about someone is that they dont believe in a god and nothing about whether they believe in absolute morality.
- now an advocate of moral relativism on the otherhand would ofcourse be unable to say x is absolutely wrong...but given that they dont accept absolute morality it be illogical to ask them in the first place (your question presupposes absolutism)
"If an atheist was asked if there was anything wrong with..."
- sure they could; all atheism says about someone is that they dont believe in a god and nothing about whether they believe in absolute morality.
- now an advocate of moral relativism on the otherhand would ofcourse be unable to say x is absolutely wrong...but given that they dont accept absolute morality it be illogical to ask them in the first place (your question presupposes absolutism)
"If an atheist was asked if there was anything wrong with..."
- sure they could; all atheism says about someone is that they dont believe in a god and nothing about whether they believe in absolute morality.
- now an advocate of moral relativism on the otherhand would ofcourse be unable to say x is absolutely wrong...but given that they dont accept absolute morality it be illogical to ask them in the first place (your question presupposes absolutism)
"If an atheist was asked if there was anything wrong with..."
- sure they could; all atheism says about someone is that they dont believe in a god and nothing about whether they believe in absolute morality.
- now an advocate of moral relativism on the otherhand would ofcourse be unable to say x is absolutely wrong...but given that they dont accept absolute morality it be illogical to ask them in the first place (your question presupposes absolutism)
"Laws in a society cannot be the basis of morality!"
Your question is wrong: 'morality' is simply a word that describes 'principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour'. We identify actions as right/wrong in terms of standards.
The law is one such standard, as is my subjective opinion, but what standard are you talking about?
HINT: if it's an absolute standard then you've just presupposed absolutism again.
Entrenching such narrowminded scientific ideals within a society is dangerous for it's development. I'm not vindicating organized religions and the texts they adhere to, but I am attacking the notion that science is the authority on the production of knowledge.
He hasn't really answered the question. Yes there are horrific things in biblical texts but that's not the point. The problem is an existential one. Atheism is a product of the political inculcation and institution of science. Science alone merely carves off a shaving of the world and examines it, there's an awful lot it can't account for, and the true scientist will know this; will know the limits of his field. Spirituality, emotional life, the subjective experience. Science cannot access these
A morality that rests on logic and feeling will only get so far, because we are all well aware that human logic is flawed and human emotion is fickle.
The problem with a thought out, reasoned morality is that it can not possibly survuve in the face of strong, uncontrollable human emotions. That is why true morality must come from a different place in consciousness. And reaching that place is a spiritual journey. Look at the last few centuries and the escalating and insane death toll and growing inhumanity of man. It is a result of the age of reason. This pure focus on ego, the rational mind and intellect is an evolutionary dead end.
@spoondemon True reason is not suborned to the insanities of ego and greed. All the atrocities in the recent centuries have been done by people mad with power and without reason. Emotions and passions still guide the greater part of humanity, that's why there is so much suffering and turmoil in the world.
But definitely, intelligence must be tempered with spirituality, because it's the guiding force that helps temper the negative sides of being human.
@parthon Emotions and desires trump logic and reason. Every time. That's why the atheist position is not just wrong, it's dangerous. It's all well to not want to follow religious books perverted by man, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Mankind needs spirituality and a deeper connection to the universe. Our friend Dawkins is hopelessly lost in ego and intellect and can't see the forest for the trees.
@spoondemon That's why we need to work on our values and our discipline. We can conquer our emotions and desires. That's one of purposes of spirituality. But spirituality without reason is tree-hugging hippies holding hands in a field. Reason need to be used to turn those values into actions. Reason when used correctly is very powerful, but it's just a method, a tool. It's how it is used that determines the result. Reason isn't at fault, but the people misusing it.
I think Mussolini was Catholic? Either way, Mao and Pol Pot (who was raised a Buddhist) weren't acting extreme religious beliefs, they were just mad! Being an Atheist doesn't make you more likely to commit an atrocity, in fact, can you name a war that started because an atheist wanted to impose their beliefs on anyone else? No! How many people have been killed though because of their faith? LOTS! If we lived with the moral laws spoken of the the bible, we would be in the dark ages. end of.
haha wow you really just said that.Mussolini was hostile to anything religious. Just because his parents were Catholic doesn't mean he was religious. He believed religion was , as Freud did, a mental illness. You need to look into all the prominent atheists philosophers of the 19th century (Kant/Marx/Nietzshe) who contributed heavily to the atheism of these dictators of the 20th century.All of their societies were militant to theism and desired only state allegiance.Do RESEARCH
haha did you actually read it? Cause if you did you'd notice 1.God does not command slavery, he regulates the system that's already in place 2. Slavery in the Hebrew culture is diff from slavery in North America, it was more like indentured servitude (notice the fixed period of time mentioned in Exodus) 3. God protects slaves through his laws concerning slavery.You need to do research about the historical context before you make assertions
and that moral code is above religion,because everyman is their own authority.
God is not a vengeful man sitting on a throne,to me God is a universal life force energy present in everything without judgement just overwhelming love and acceptence,so there is no right or wrong way just the way that works for you in alignment with your own moral code.....lighten up guy's there is no lightening bolt of doom going to strike you down ( only if your own guilt creates it)
haha ummm...has this universal life force come into human history? Cause the God of the Bible took on human flesh and appeased the just wrath that everyone deserves for breaking that "moral code".
Morality.....interesting word if you break it into two you have the word moral as in the moral of a story,some learning to be gained by an experience,isn't that like our own lives we learn from our experiences and therefore create our own moral code of ethics.
for a church,religious group or bible interpretation to stand and generalize about what peoples morals should or should'nt be,because of a brainwashed fear of a vengeful God is poppy cock.We make our choices by our own moral code alone
Sounds like Dawkins would be happy to "design" a "perfect" "moral" society, just as he deems it should be, whereby "secular moral philosophy" would rule - based on what he believes is truth..... "Well thought out, discussed, reasoned, argued and then TAUGHT" to others as TRUTH based upon some unilateral/universal consensus... He must think he's God.
@MrIamnotamuslim I love it when theists attack Dawkins' character. It shows how thoroughly your arguements have been demolished when you can't even form a rebuttal.
@MrIamnotamuslim Haha! Did you seriously just watch a video about rationally formed systems of morality and jump to "Dawkins must be a secret fascist"? You really have no other argument to fall back on. You are an idiot. A sad, pathetic idiot.
"Sounds like Dawkins would be happy to 'design' a 'perfect' 'moral" society'
- we only needs to design one because one doesnt already exist :)
- perfection doesnt exist under moral relativism.
- he would be designing a moral standard NOT a 'moral society' (wtf does that mean?)
"just as he deems it should be"
-it's nothing about what he believes, it's about what can be reached through logic/reasoning eg. if i hurt others they will be more likely to hurt me.
Do you listen to the carefully thought out, rationalised thinking of a highly educated individual who continually works to disprove the lies told by pompous child molesters,
or,
Do you listen to the unproven hearsay fairy tales contained within a book that has been rewritten countless times by people hundreds of years afterwards?
Dawkin's determines what is moral based on what makes man, in his opinion, look/feel good. The Bible determines what is moral based on what glorifies God. God=Creator Dawkins=Creature Who shall I listen to...hmmmmmm
Secular morals = doing what is good and right for all.
Religious morals = do what this book tells you, even though it was originally written by romans, then rewritten by a group of priests, and is outdated by centuries.
Haha try checking your facts bud. The Old Testament was written wayyyy before the Romans. The New Testament was written primarily by Jews. The Romans persecuted Christians for about 200 or so years before Constantine made it Rome's religion. By that time the canon of Scripture was nearly in its complete form. If only zealous atheists were nearly as informed as they are sarcastic and dismissive
@ambassadorinchainz The Old Testament was written by the Romans. When Paul translated it from hebrew to Latin, he only translated it the way he wanted it translated. Then the KingJames edition was even further modified by priests when translated into English. The point is that the bible is not the word of God, but the product of Man.
That may be the MOST inaccurate rewriting of history I have EVER heard. Please Please Please Please check your facts. Paul did not translate the Old Testament into Latin! He wrote an epistle in greek entitled Romans if that's what you mean? You are skipping the Septuagint (GreekOT around 200BC) the Latin Vulgate by Jerome. The Geneva Bible (predecessor to KJ) You are ignoring the Dead Sea scrolls. If you wont research you won't know. Out of curiosity where did you hear your info?
(removing my eyeglasses) Dawkins is a creature who actually exists. I can see him right there. What he says makes sense, and matches reality. What your clerics (creatures) have to say about their gods (ideas) and their prophets (creatures/ideas) only makes sense insofar as it matches what Dawkins just said.
If you can distinguish the good parts of your religious document form the bad, then you, too, use a morality from some other source.
haha ummm instead of removing my glasses (not wearing any) I'll just respond. The first part of your response seems to just say "I love Dawkins and he is always right". I'm not sure what you know about the Bible, but I'm assuming very little considering your comment. If you have any interest in actually interacting with this topic meaningfully please read it. Also, there is NOTHING in Scripture that I would take out and discard.
I said "What [Dawkins] says makes sense, and matches reality." See if you can spot the difference with what you claim I said, "I love Dawkins and he is always right." It's subtle, but you might spot the difference if you try really hard.
I can only assume you know very little about your own Bible (or possible about morality), if you claim your Bible advocates nothing immoral, I can only assume you've never read it.
So, what part of Chapter 21 of Exodus is the moral part?
haha did you actually read it? Cause if you did you'd notice 1.God does not command slavery, he regulates the system that's already in place 2. Slavery in the Hebrew culture is diff from slavery in North America, it was more like indentured servitude (notice the fixed period of time mentioned in Exodus) 3. God protects slaves through his laws concerning slavery.You need to do research about the historical context before you make assertions
All dawkins has said is...nope their is no objective morality and then list off things he sees as moral, which to another culture may be absolutely absurd.For instance how we treat animals (only the fuzzy ones)would be crazy to some cultures, and if a different culture that eats dogs beats out our culture then that is moral. Same goes for women, capital punishment etc.He is unable to find a foundation outside of shifting cultural perspectives.Dawkins is a scientist not a philosopher and it shows
@ambassadorinchainz You completely misinterpreted him. He's saying that modern secular reasoning has improved morality over the last few centuries, but religious absolute morality is still stuck in the dark ages. This isn't about cultures, but about what is good for people, individuals as well as society as a whole. What you call a culture shift is actually a morality shift towards better morals.
Oh no no I completely understand his Enlightenment view of the world, but you must not have understood what I'm saying. The west is not the only culture out there. What basis do you have to say that the West's morality is better than any other culture's? Is it because the west has money? Has military control? You live there? What if Hitler's Germany would have won and their morality was prominent.On what basis would you say that it is wrong?
@ambassadorinchainz Well, actually, it's not just the west. It's everywhere. In places where there's less religion there's less suffering, less disease and illness, and quality of living is better. The highly religious areas of the middle east are constantly in turmoil, and the people there live in persecution. Morality around the world has improved in general, not through religion, but through laws and reasoning. We still have a long way to go though.
If you wanna skip the entire 20th century then yeah you are so right...haha. Look into the Mao, Mussolini, and Pol Pot. All atheists...all militant against religion....the narrative you just regurgitated unfortunately is as much a rewriting of history as your assertions about the origins of the Bible.
@ambassadorinchainz Like I said, we still have a long way to go. These people did evil things, not because they were atheist, but because they were evil people.
What is evil? how does the concept even fit in your worldview? Is evil that which breaches social norms? Again, if any of those men would have won out and society looked like Hitler's Germany, would that make it right? If not, where is your morality coming from if not from society? Yourself? You are a materialist so an abstract concept like universal morality has no place in your worldview
@ambassadorinchainz Evil is what hurts people. Good is what helps people. Good, Evil and Morality exist as non-religious absolute concepts, just like truth and love. Before we had religion we had morality. People without religion still have morality. Right and Wrong is often subjective to the society one lives in and is brought up in, but the impact of actions on others can be objectively Good or Bad.
Also, I'm not a materialist, I'm just not a Christian.
What if helping people hurts them? Or what if hurting people helps them? The truth hurts, so the saying goes. Are lies better than truth then, to avoid that kind of hurt? But lies hurt too! Should you help a deadbeat person who won't lift a finger to help themselves? If you take care of someone who just has their laziness reinforced by your helping, isn't that hurting them? The definition is short-sighted.
Perfectly said!
CharlieDrumsTV 3 days ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
fuck that Paki Camel Jockey! Someone do us all a favour and wipe them off the face of the earth!?
Youaresofullofshite 5 days ago
A brilliant man who sometimes doesn't rise to his full height, but on this occasion becomes a giant.
db9man2005 5 days ago 3
I actually disagree, I think that a lot of the notions of being kind do have a historical origin in religion. In all religions "good" must be practiced, the notion of good then is proclaimed, but nonetheless the "point" of it is doing good, to be righteous. Of course it makes much more sense to do it out of thought and logic discussion, which also has a place inside (some) religions, but wether you're an atheist or religious, our notion of being righteous is very linked to being non-sinful.
duarteinacan 5 days ago
@duarteinacan "I think that a lot of the notions of being kind do have a historical origin in religion."
Then you are wrong.
BoredInfidel 4 days ago
When Dawkins takes off his glasses, it means "Shit just got real"
badkluster 6 days ago 74
Did they let the muslim nutter have a reply to Dawkins? I skimmed through the whole discussion but couldn't see this part in it.
guwest2 6 days ago
david brent sent me here LOL
eltrain2 6 days ago
@eltrain2 "Are you havin' a laugh?" Andy Millman sent me here as well!
jessicalba7 5 days ago
spot on
JEMTAC 6 days ago
Take a look at (pretty much) every single pro-atheism and anti-religion video on this site. That's right, I can't see the dislike bars either.
Now take a look at (pretty much) every single pro-religion, more specifically pro-christianity video on here as well. Looks like the dislike button got stuck on auto-press.
Rational thinkers are becoming the majority, very quickly.
In only 1 or 2 generations the modern world will finally break the shackles of having to bow down to religious tyranny.
shnaizebemydays 6 days ago 34
#atheistrollcall
shnaizebemydays 6 days ago
@shnaizebemydays I hope, lol. :)
ChoskarChuliansYT 6 days ago
@shnaizebemydays
I have to respectfully disagree on your main point. I think that the rational perspective is growing, but not quickly and it is certainly not the majority. The reason why there are little dislikes on pro-atheism videos and many on religious preaching ones is that those who employ rational thought gain their beliefs through research and weighing up both sides.
This is a dangerous way of behaving for religion and religious thinkers, so they ignore any self reflective action.
bloodninja09 5 days ago
@bloodninja09 clearly rational thinkers arent the majority, I never stated so, merely that they're 'becoming' so. Agreed that a main reason for all of these likes etc on atheist videos is due to rational thinkers being more likely to introspect about religion and beliefs. However it would be foolish to dismiss all other reasons, clearly there is a rise. I live in the UK, & its safe to say from statistics that atheism is rapidly increasing here, as in much of Europe, Canada, Australia & the U.S.
shnaizebemydays 5 days ago
@shnaizebemydays
I misread your statement, apologies! I agree that it does seem, however slowly, that at least the western world is growing out of religion. What a day it will be when those who enjoy rational, free thinking reflect the majority.
bloodninja09 5 days ago
@shnaizebemydays There's a selective bias, rational thinkers are more likely to be viewing videos on theological debate. The non-rational take whatever religious values they've been spoon fed at face value, shying away from any form of debate which would challenge and expose the absurdity of their belief. choosing instead to spend their time watching videos of dogs riding skateboards or some such crap.
I'm afraid in the grand scheme the idiots are still winning.
arthmus01 5 days ago 7
@shnaizebemydays Atleast in the modern society. (spelling?)
litenskitis 4 days ago
@shnaizebemydays I (pretty much) believe rational thinkers are a majority already, we just suffer from not being obnoxiously loud.
Eniacbc 4 days ago 4
0:23 Dawkins takes glasses off, CHECKMATE !!
IvanderHaisley 1 week ago
Morals are subjective. Morals are not set in stone and can change dependant on your relgion, gender, social environment and upbringing. Christians are no more moral than atheists, as there is no way of measuring morality.
soundslave 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@types10000
"objective and unchanging"
So "objective" means : a truth that is everlasting and applies to final eternal destiny.
So the goal or the quest in life must be set to everlasting life & reaching the omniscient omnipotent creator, being like him & having bride-groom relationship. In the ultimate goal Morality & ethics are objective (everlasting truth, everlasting wisdom, everlasting love)
balamanti2 1 week ago
Comment removed
balamanti2 1 week ago
“I do not want an absolute morality..."
Dawkins seem to miss the definition of morality.
Morality is what leads to the goodness of human ultimate destiny, everlasting life & happiness.
Dawkins decides sexual promiscuousness is the best solution
His morality is forging straw-men against spiritual faiths, dictating that what is moral is to fight religion when he misses the essence & the whole morality of religious faiths stating his absolute morality: Evolution
balamanti2 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@balamanti2
"Morality is what leads to the goodness of human ultimate destiny, everlasting life & happiness."
- incorrect, morality 'relates to principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong', it could be best described as a standard by which actions can be determined as good/bad.
"Dawkins decides sexual promiscuousness is the best solution"
- where? not endorsing the sexual oppression of women (common across the Abrahamic faiths) does not equate to endorsing promiscuity.
types10000 1 week ago
@types10000
"Dawkins decides sexual promiscuousness"
Dawkins by standing against religious point in marriages, makes two blunders:
1- he merely sums up the idea in religion as dictator stoning women who wants to mate a better gene,
2- Straw-man the point In religion relationship is merely respect human soul body & emotions which dawkins intentionally misses : Who ever without a sin let him cast the first stone.
balamanti2 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@balamanti2
"Dawkins by standing against religious point in marriages, makes two blunders:
1- he merely sums up the idea in religion as dictator stoning women who wants to mate a better gene,"
- incorrect, nowhere does he use that line of argument
"Straw-man the point In religion relationship is merely respect human soul body & emotions which dawkins intentionally misses"
- incorrect again, he addresses the claims of religion using logic and reason
types10000 1 week ago
@types10000
- Dawkins always sums up the idea in religion as megalomaniac dictator who requires worship & kills everyone who disagrees with him.
(his using stoning of women being one example of how he misrepresents relgion)
Dawkis views excuse promiscuous as some good practice to deliver the genes or women or men to help survival of the fittest
But He is forgetting that in religious context the goal is set to ultimate good goal of everlasting life not just a step-by-step "benefit"
balamanti2 1 week ago
@balamanti2 " ... Dawkins always sums up the idea in religion as megalomaniac dictator who requires worship & kills everyone who disagrees with him. ... "
Yep, wonder why? Except, he doesn't kill them, just puts them in hell forever.
St00sh13 1 week ago
@St00sh13
"Yep, wonder why? Except, he doesn't kill them, just puts them in hell forever."
this statement indicates that you object that life is short, and that death is forever.
Q:
1- Do u think u deserve to live forever? if so why?
2- If not, would like evolution? when u personally will die no matter how much u evolved & denied God. So where is Goodness? if God is not good enough then how do u know God is not good enough? but if u know goodness then there must be goodness same like the cross'
balamanti2 1 week ago
@balamanti2
"1- Do u think u deserve to live forever? if so why?"
- Why not? do you think you deserve to be purple?
"If not, would like evolution? when u personally will die no matter how much u evolved & denied God"
- because i value being intellectually honest over believing in a fairytale that makes me feel better.
" So where is Goodness?"
- what are you claiming pertains to goodness? i would say that in my opinion that actions that benefit my fellow human beings are 'good'
types10000 1 week ago
@types10000
1- "believing in a fairy tale"
Let we discuss fairy tales? which part u do not like? ex: Sleeping princess?
sleeping princess is a symbol, curses, obstacles, waiting for the right moment. all of it r parts of our human experience to achieve our dreams & love.
when u reject & disrespect it; it it is most likely u have issue in ur childhood(will discuss later)
2- Jesus is not a fairy tale;he the history &maker of it
saying fairy tales about history= beating ur head in a wall
balamanti2 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@balamanti2
"Let we discuss fairy tales? which part u do not like?"
- whether i like a given fairytale eg. life after death says nothing about whether it is true.
"when u reject & disrespect it; it it is most likely u have issue in ur childhood"
- incorrect, as i already pointed-out the reason is founded in intellectually honesty; any claim made without evidence can and should be dismissed without evidence
types10000 1 week ago
@types10000
"whether i like a given fairytale eg. life after death says nothing about whether it is true"
-> Non sequitur
" intellectually honesty"
Save me this bull, "people spit in the eyes of the bold; he said it is raining"
"claim made without evidence "
--> parrot repeating mantras (Trolling style)
balamanti2 1 week ago
@balamanti2
"Non sequitur"
- incorrect, i ave used to this to substantiate my rejection based on intellectual honesty; im rejecting it because there is no evidence it is true inspite of my personal preference.
"Save me this bull, 'people spit in the eyes of the bold; he said it is raining'"
- now THAT is a non sequitur :)
"parrot repeating mantras (Trolling style)"
- incorrect again, the fact that any claim made without evidence can (and should) be dismissed without evidence is basic logic
types10000 1 week ago
@types10000
" intellectual honesty; "
you are so far from intellectual honesty as much as baboons to Human
"people spit in the eyes of the bold ...now THAT is a non sequitur ""
No --> it means u are unwilling to understand the point = still trolling
other things you wrote were garbage
balamanti2 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@balamanti2
"you are so far from intellectual honesty as much as baboons to Human..."
- i explained why my rejection was founded on intellectual honesty, all you can do is assert it isnt. your claim has no substance.
"No --> it means u are unwilling to understand the point = still trolling"
- incorrect, you failed to provide any evidence for your claim, so it's only logical for me to reject it.
types10000 1 week ago
@balamanti2
"Jesus is not a fairy tale;he the history &maker of it'
- incorrect again, Jesus is no more historical than Buddha .etc Regardless of whether the myth was based on an actual person there is no reason to believe it's supernatural claims.
types10000 1 week ago
@types10000
"no more historical"
We are discussing Jesus here. Saying Jesus is not historical is just trolling (discussion will end here)
if U say the teaching & resurrection of Jesus is mythical: this is against the history, its evidences & the origin of the Christianity
balamanti2 1 week ago
@balamanti2
"We are discussing Jesus here. Saying Jesus is not historical is just trolling..."
- QUOTEMINE: my actual statement is that he is no more historical than Buddha
"if U say the teaching & resurrection of Jesus is mythical: this is against the history"
- INCORRECT there may have been a person on which the jesus myth is based (there is some sketchy evidence for this) but nothing to support the supernatural claims
types10000 1 week ago
@types10000
"QUOTEMINE: my actual statement is that he is no more historical than Buddha"
you are trying to forge a new path for discussion. You are discussing Jesus. reply to Jesus historical authenticity, don't open side roads.
"here may have been a person on which the jesus "
--> "may have been" part , this is pure tolling and based on this ( discussion stops here)
balamanti2 1 week ago
@balamanti2
"you are trying to forge a new path for discussion"
- incorrect, you claimed jesus was historical fact, i pointedout that there is no more evidence to support his existance than there is Buddha.
"'may have been' part , this is pure tolling and based on this ( discussion stops here)"
- incorrect, you failed to provide any evidence for your assertion so im well within my rights to dismiss it.
types10000 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@types10000 "you claimed jesus was historical fact, " = ur still trolling 3rd time;
" incorrect, you failed to provide any evidence for your assertion so im well within my rights to dismiss it"
= you are still trilling for the 4th time
balamanti2 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@types10000
"- do you think you deserve to be purple? "
straw man -> everlasting life = purple?
balamanti2 1 week ago
@types10000
"intellectually honest "
does not start with straw men arguments; "fairy tales aggressiveness" which i replied down & will discuss more; & historic accurate Jesus a fairy tale
balamanti2 1 week ago
@balamanti2
"does not start with straw men arguments"
- you failed to demonstrate it was a strawman argument.
Try again :)
types10000 1 week ago
@types10000
"actions that benefit my fellow human beings are 'good'"
benefit them is which direction?
balamanti2 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@balamanti2
"benefit them is which direction?..."
- it's not a matter of direction.
types10000 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@types10000
"- it's not a matter of direction"
of course it matters,
balamanti2 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@balamanti2
"if God is not good enough then how do u know God is not good enough? but if u know goodness then there must be goodness same like the cross'"
- 'good' and 'bad' are simply words that refer to things we do and dont like, my basis for saying that the character god as portrayed in the bible 'is not good enough' is derived from two things:
a). i dislike some things
b). i dislike some things more than others
no absolute benchmark for good is required to make this assessment :)
types10000 1 week ago
@types10000
'good' and 'bad' are simply words that refer to things we do and dont like"
NO
good and bad has to be objective i.e. true for all times
balamanti2 1 week ago
@balamanti2
Or to put it a different way:
- 'To make the statement that x is not good enough requires that you have a scale by which to judge it and hence must accept absolute goodness'
is as erroneous as claiming:
'To make the statement that an island is not perfect requires that you put it in scale and must accept that the perfect island exists'
The reason the claim is erroneous is because our ability to conceptualize of something doesnt mean it actually exists.
types10000 1 week ago
@types10000
NO
Good and bad should be objective i.e. true for all times & places;
any seeming temporary good but leads to everlasting death is BAD
balamanti2 1 week ago
@balamanti2 It doesn't matter what anyone thinks good and bad SHOULD be. We have to live life assuming that good and bad have to be decided by us otherwise any one can claim to have the truth.
St00sh13 1 week ago
Comment removed
balamanti2 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@types10000
you have a scale by which to judge it and hence must accept absolute goodness--> scale is everlasting life & knowing God & being like God
island is not perfect -> nothing is perfect on earth because of entropy & our temporary existence,
conceptualize of something doesnt mean it actually exists --> this is an anti-intellectual statement, anti-human achievement, anti-dreams(nihlist)
+ Concepts are the main faculties of the realizations & actualizations & scientific endeavors
balamanti2 1 week ago
@balamanti2
1. I live for as long as I live for. That's the way it is. Nothing to do with deserving it.
2. Would I like evolution? Individuals don't evolve. They pass on genes to there children which vary slightly. Over millions of years, if two populations are separated they will evolve differently to their different environments and may even evolve to a point where any individual can no longer mate with individuals from other population. "Goodness" comes from empathy and rational thought.
St00sh13 1 week ago
@St00sh13
"Nothing to do with deserving it"
In the context of a creator , design ,Object of life: yes there is
Even in Evolution: Everything you do is to attain everlasting life. by trying to modify your thinking, behavior & society whilst discovering the rules that life & universe work by(denying that there is a creator & designer).
The problem with this scenario is that nothing for you, or ur eternity. Nor anything of your genes will remain, it is for some future fachistic god,
balamanti2 1 week ago
@balamanti2 "Even in Evolution: Everything you do is to attain everlasting life. by trying to modify your thinking"
Evolution has nothing to do with evolution. Modifying your thinking is nothing to do with evolution.
St00sh13 1 week ago
@St00sh13
"Evolution has nothing to do with evolution. Modifying your thinking is nothing to do with evolution."
--> trolling statements
balamanti2 1 week ago
@balamanti2 I meant everlasting life is nothing to do with evolution.
St00sh13 1 week ago
@St00sh13
" everlasting life is nothing to do with evolution."
Stupid statement, why? because thr word evolve means towards a goal or objective,
evolutions means : "adaptation, conquer, survive"
Survive means more life,
More life where to?
everlasting life
Denying is like someone spitting in your face and u say "it is raining"
balamanti2 1 week ago
@balamanti2 Evolve just means change and evolution has no goal. Survive, in evolutionary terms, means survive long enough to pass on your genes.
It's not me that survives, it's my children.
St00sh13 1 week ago
@St00sh13
Evolution has no GOAL = YOU ARE A TOTAL DEAD MORON
I defy you justify the meaning of evolve outside:
an improved design with the object of better adaptation towards conquer or survival
= more life
FUCK it PARROT MORONS
balamanti2 1 week ago
@balamanti2 Lots of the offspring are not better adapted to the environment. The ones that are tend to go on to have more children. Over time, the better adapted ones increase in number and become dominant. No goal. Just better adapted members reproducing more successfully.
St00sh13 1 week ago
@balamanti2
Evolve does not mean "towards a goal or objective". Go back to school.
drche420 1 week ago
@drche420
No You Moron , I defy you justify the meaning of evolve without the improved designed with the object of adaptation towards survival or conquer
FUCK it PARROT MORONS
balamanti2 1 week ago
@balamanti2
You're making an unjustified leap from "evolution causes adaptation towards survival" to "evolution has a goal". Please, make a logical connection between the two.
If you can't have a conversation in which you display intellectual honesty, don't come on YouTube. The people who actually know what they're talking about will flay you alive.
drche420 1 week ago
@drche420
"unjustified leap "
YOU ARE FUCKTARD.
What fFUCKING unjustful about telling you the reality. Don't hide behind your thumb you Baboon
denying is like saying "it is raining" when people are spitting in your eye
balamanti2 1 week ago
@balamanti2
So, instead of justifying your illogical leap towards your false conclusion, you throw insults?
I'm still waiting on your defense of the statement, "evolution has a goal". Because, quite simply, any biological or evolutionary scientist will tell you evolution does not have foresight.
drche420 1 week ago
@balamanti2
"Dawkins always sums up the idea in religion as megalomaniac dictator who requires worship & kills everyone who disagrees with him."
- with regard to the actions of the abrahamic god yes and he does this by referencing evidence.
"his using stoning of women being one example of how he misrepresents relgion"
- there is no misrepresentation here
types10000 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@balamanti2
"Dawkis views excuse promiscuous as some good practice to deliver the genes or women or men to help survival of the fittest"
- incorrect, his statement regarding it's evolutionary effect SAYS NOTHING about whether it is moral nor does he attempt to claim it does, he never tries to do what you claim.
types10000 1 week ago
@balamanti2
1) If you can't make complete sentences with clear subjects, verbs, and agreement of the two, I can't understand what you're trying to say.
2) Again, not sure what you're trying to say. Try using complete sentences with proper grammar and tense. Meaning, use plurals when you're supposed to. Capitalization. Anything that could help me make sense of your comments.
drche420 1 week ago
@drche420
See above
+ Go Play with your tail Baboon
balamanti2 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@balamanti2
So, instead of justifying your illogical leap towards your false conclusion, you throw insults?
I'm still waiting on your defense of the statement, "evolution has a goal". Because, quite simply, any biological or evolutionary scientist will tell you evolution does not have foresight.
drche420 1 week ago
@balamanti2
Childish. Leave this place for the intelligent people who wish to exchange ideas and learn.
drche420 1 week ago
@drche420
Yea yea yea, Sure, right
bla bla bla
Moron, reply to the points I presented showing you understood, before masturbating about how smart you are
balamanti2 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@balamanti2
I'm still waiting on your defense of the statement, "evolution has a goal". Because, quite simply, any biological or evolutionary scientist will tell you evolution does not have foresight.
drche420 6 days ago
@balamanti2
"His morality is forging straw-men against spiritual faiths"
- how, where is the strawman?
"dictating that what is moral is to fight religion when he misses the essence & the whole morality of religious faiths stating his absolute morality: Evolution..."
- incorrect, he doesnt claim that fighting religion is absolutely right, he simply believes it is right in terms of his SUBJECTIVE standard of morality and can justify it using logic/reason
types10000 1 week ago
@types10000
" how, where is the strawman?"
He misquotes
Put out of context
he present the religion & faith in an intentional wrongful manner
this is not just straw-man it is unethical
balamanti2 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@balamanti2
'He misquotes Put out of context he present the religion & faith in an intentional wrongful manner"
- you've failed to provide any evidence he's dont any of these things.
types10000 1 week ago
@types10000
"you've failed to provide any evidence he's dont any of these things."
u know your method in replying is just negating - which is = denying .
I will consider ur denying is one good step as that u do not agree with Dawkins.
but , you might be too proud to admit that he really put things out of context , If look at my reply to you u will examples of how he grasp at straws, misrepresents, straw -man arguments
balamanti2 1 week ago
@balamanti2
"u know your method in replying is just negating - which is = denying ."
- yes and im quite justified in doing so: a claim made without evidence can (and should) be dismissed without evidence.
"I will consider ur denying is one good step as that u do not agree with Dawkins."
- then your mistaken as it infact demonstrates that i do not agree with your unevidenced assertions.
Try again :)
types10000 1 week ago
@types10000
"he doesnt claim that fighting religion is absolutely right"
- he makes religion faith the worst enemy of his, & causes of all evilness; pretty much like Hitlers view toward the semitic Jews & all religions
- he misses the essence & the whole morality of religious faiths intentionally (immoral) then he states &dictates an absolute morality: Evolution (contradicting himself)
balamanti2 1 week ago
@balamanti2
"he makes religion faith the worst enemy of his, & causes of all evilness; pretty much..."
- no, he simply addresses it's claims using logic and reason.
"he misses the essence & the whole morality of religious faiths intentionally (immoral) then he states &dictates an absolute morality"
incorrect:
- you've failed to provide any evidence that he 'misses the essence' religous morality
- he never claims morality is absolute - morality arising from evolution certainly isnt absolute
types10000 1 week ago
@types10000
"logic and reason"
Reason states that you understand well what u are challanging. I told u Dawkins does not understand that in religious context, the hsin is to fail to respect of human soul, life, & value. By this respect u set relationship, the fall of humanity, the forgiveness.
Dawkins disregards everything that is good in the religion points, denies it by giving fake examples that does not represent the religion view & spirituality on the matter, &market his diatribes as facts
balamanti2 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@balamanti2
"Reason states that you understand well what u are challanging. I told u Dawkins does not understand that in religious context"
- you assert it but fail to provide any evidence.
"the hsin is to fail to respect of human soul, life, & value"
- there is no evidence that a soul exists and the value we attribute to life isnt contingent on it existing (as Dawkins demonstrates by showing how moral principles can be reached through logic and reason)
types10000 1 week ago
@types10000
"here is no evidence that a soul exists"
Yes there is,
soul is not a physical entity to touch it but you see its effect in life.
Like the wind : you see its effect on trees but you can not see from where it comes & where it goes
The evidence of human soul are in the actions of human beings, faiths, the drivers, loves, hates, wars, arts etc..all what shapes human world is the human soul
saying Human have no soul is evil: makes human life without value
balamanti2 1 week ago
@balamanti2 You can feel wind and measure wind. You can't measure a soul.
Jilinhall 1 week ago
@Jilinhall
try to read and understand the point before replying. I said : you can not see the wind, but you see its effects . Same like the soul you see its effect
balamanti2 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@balamanti2
" I said : you can not see the wind, but you see its effects . Same like the soul you see its effect"
- incorrect again, wind is a force that can be empirically measured, the soul on the otherhand is simply something you assert to exist without any evidence
types10000 1 week ago
@types10000
Open your head Dumbo...To understand you ass whole and stop trolling
balamanti2 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@balamanti2
"Open your head Dumbo...To understand you ass whole and stop trolling"
- i find it hilarious that YOU are calling EVERYONE ELSE a troll, projection much? hahahaha
types10000 1 week ago
@balamanti2
The difference being, there are no effects that can be attributed to a soul. First you have to demonstrate that a soul exists, then you can claim the soul has an effect on something. Feeling the wind isn't the only way we know it exists. Nice straw-man, though.
drche420 1 week ago
@drche420
You are demonstrating that you are playing stupid, troll, willing bold ingnprant
balamanti2 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@drche420
You are demonstrating that you are playing stupid, troll, willing bold ignorant
balamanti2 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@balamanti2 You can feel wind and measure wind. You can't measure a soul.
Jilinhall 1 week ago
@balamanti2
What!?!?
"Dawkins seem to miss the definition of morality." No, YOU have missed it.
"Dawkins decides sexual promiscuousness is the best solution" When did he say that?
"His morality is forging straw-men against spiritual faiths" Show me just ONE straw man argument that Dawkins has made. Just one.
"his absolute morality: Evolution" Morality and evolution have nothing to do with each other. Are you a troll?
drche420 1 week ago
@drche420
see above
balamanti2 1 week ago
Richard Dawkins: LIKE A BOSS!
AmuterSI 2 weeks ago
@cucumbonger "We're all unique individuals"
I'm not.
whackthedog 2 weeks ago
How amusing is this. The guy asked a question like what tree produces mangoes. Richard Dawkins answer is all about apples! I am amazed at this. The question has nothing to do with religion at all.
RavensMinistry 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Christianity is completely different to Islam. Islam is 10 times more stricter and evil. Apostasy in Islam is death by stoning, there is no punishment for apostasy in Christianity -you can choose your own path whenever you want to. Islam makes their women wear face masks, what God would cover the face of their creation? Islam is an extreme religion with no place in modern society. They talk about living by the quran because it has good morals, which is completely untrue. + I only believe in God
ITroll4DaLOLS 3 weeks ago
1:46 Why is she staring at me?
zeppelinman1685 3 weeks ago
If an atheist was asked if there was anything wrong with a little girl being raped and hacked to pieces, can the atheist say that anything is absolutely wrong with that? Of course not. They may only agree that the crime should be punished based on the morality 'fashioned' by society. Laws in a society cannot be the basis of morality!
n0thing2seri0us 3 weeks ago
@n0thing2seri0us
"If an atheist was asked if there was anything wrong with..."
- sure they could; all atheism says about someone is that they dont believe in a god and nothing about whether they believe in absolute morality.
- now an advocate of moral relativism on the otherhand would ofcourse be unable to say x is absolutely wrong...but given that they dont accept absolute morality it be illogical to ask them in the first place (your question presupposes absolutism)
types10000 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@n0thing2seri0us
"If an atheist was asked if there was anything wrong with..."
- sure they could; all atheism says about someone is that they dont believe in a god and nothing about whether they believe in absolute morality.
- now an advocate of moral relativism on the otherhand would ofcourse be unable to say x is absolutely wrong...but given that they dont accept absolute morality it be illogical to ask them in the first place (your question presupposes absolutism)
types10000 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@n0thing2seri0us
"If an atheist was asked if there was anything wrong with..."
- sure they could; all atheism says about someone is that they dont believe in a god and nothing about whether they believe in absolute morality.
- now an advocate of moral relativism on the otherhand would ofcourse be unable to say x is absolutely wrong...but given that they dont accept absolute morality it be illogical to ask them in the first place (your question presupposes absolutism)
types10000 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@n0thing2seri0us
"If an atheist was asked if there was anything wrong with..."
- sure they could; all atheism says about someone is that they dont believe in a god and nothing about whether they believe in absolute morality.
- now an advocate of moral relativism on the otherhand would ofcourse be unable to say x is absolutely wrong...but given that they dont accept absolute morality it be illogical to ask them in the first place (your question presupposes absolutism)
types10000 3 weeks ago
@n0thing2seri0us
"Laws in a society cannot be the basis of morality!"
Your question is wrong: 'morality' is simply a word that describes 'principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour'. We identify actions as right/wrong in terms of standards.
The law is one such standard, as is my subjective opinion, but what standard are you talking about?
HINT: if it's an absolute standard then you've just presupposed absolutism again.
types10000 3 weeks ago
Joined the British Humanist Association and done my bit.
Looking into the NSS too. Dawkins you are a legend.
trixapete 3 weeks ago
Entrenching such narrowminded scientific ideals within a society is dangerous for it's development. I'm not vindicating organized religions and the texts they adhere to, but I am attacking the notion that science is the authority on the production of knowledge.
Manbagdeluxe 3 weeks ago
He hasn't really answered the question. Yes there are horrific things in biblical texts but that's not the point. The problem is an existential one. Atheism is a product of the political inculcation and institution of science. Science alone merely carves off a shaving of the world and examines it, there's an awful lot it can't account for, and the true scientist will know this; will know the limits of his field. Spirituality, emotional life, the subjective experience. Science cannot access these
Manbagdeluxe 3 weeks ago
A morality that rests on logic and feeling will only get so far, because we are all well aware that human logic is flawed and human emotion is fickle.
vader421138 4 weeks ago
The problem with a thought out, reasoned morality is that it can not possibly survuve in the face of strong, uncontrollable human emotions. That is why true morality must come from a different place in consciousness. And reaching that place is a spiritual journey. Look at the last few centuries and the escalating and insane death toll and growing inhumanity of man. It is a result of the age of reason. This pure focus on ego, the rational mind and intellect is an evolutionary dead end.
spoondemon 4 weeks ago
@spoondemon True reason is not suborned to the insanities of ego and greed. All the atrocities in the recent centuries have been done by people mad with power and without reason. Emotions and passions still guide the greater part of humanity, that's why there is so much suffering and turmoil in the world.
But definitely, intelligence must be tempered with spirituality, because it's the guiding force that helps temper the negative sides of being human.
parthon 4 weeks ago
@parthon Emotions and desires trump logic and reason. Every time. That's why the atheist position is not just wrong, it's dangerous. It's all well to not want to follow religious books perverted by man, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Mankind needs spirituality and a deeper connection to the universe. Our friend Dawkins is hopelessly lost in ego and intellect and can't see the forest for the trees.
spoondemon 4 weeks ago
@spoondemon That's why we need to work on our values and our discipline. We can conquer our emotions and desires. That's one of purposes of spirituality. But spirituality without reason is tree-hugging hippies holding hands in a field. Reason need to be used to turn those values into actions. Reason when used correctly is very powerful, but it's just a method, a tool. It's how it is used that determines the result. Reason isn't at fault, but the people misusing it.
parthon 3 weeks ago
It's done when he took off his glasses :)
CJYCrystal 1 month ago
I think Mussolini was Catholic? Either way, Mao and Pol Pot (who was raised a Buddhist) weren't acting extreme religious beliefs, they were just mad! Being an Atheist doesn't make you more likely to commit an atrocity, in fact, can you name a war that started because an atheist wanted to impose their beliefs on anyone else? No! How many people have been killed though because of their faith? LOTS! If we lived with the moral laws spoken of the the bible, we would be in the dark ages. end of.
MrGeorge897 1 month ago
haha wow you really just said that.Mussolini was hostile to anything religious. Just because his parents were Catholic doesn't mean he was religious. He believed religion was , as Freud did, a mental illness. You need to look into all the prominent atheists philosophers of the 19th century (Kant/Marx/Nietzshe) who contributed heavily to the atheism of these dictators of the 20th century.All of their societies were militant to theism and desired only state allegiance.Do RESEARCH
ambassadorinchainz 1 month ago
All religion is mind control. Be yourself - we're all unique individuals, not sheep.
cucumbonger 1 month ago 13
@cucumbonger
atheism is sulking attitudes controlling the mind
balamanti2 1 week ago
@balamanti2 baaaaaa
cucumbonger 1 week ago
He is advocating spiritual evolution.
Olipse 1 month ago
Reasoning, common sense and logic 1 Religion 0
F1RacerRR 1 month ago
haha did you actually read it? Cause if you did you'd notice 1.God does not command slavery, he regulates the system that's already in place 2. Slavery in the Hebrew culture is diff from slavery in North America, it was more like indentured servitude (notice the fixed period of time mentioned in Exodus) 3. God protects slaves through his laws concerning slavery.You need to do research about the historical context before you make assertions
ambassadorinchainz 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ambassadorinchainz
"1.God does not command slavery, he regulates the system that's already in place"
- as opposed to simply telling them not to do it.
"2. Slavery in the Hebrew culture is diff from slavery in North America, it was more like indentured servitude..."
a). that little exemption only applies to Jewish slaves
b). if any type of slave (Jewish or otherwise) bears a child then that child becomes a slave indefinitely too.
"You need to do research"
- right back at you bub.
types10000 1 month ago
and that moral code is above religion,because everyman is their own authority.
God is not a vengeful man sitting on a throne,to me God is a universal life force energy present in everything without judgement just overwhelming love and acceptence,so there is no right or wrong way just the way that works for you in alignment with your own moral code.....lighten up guy's there is no lightening bolt of doom going to strike you down ( only if your own guilt creates it)
seerkaren 1 month ago
haha ummm...has this universal life force come into human history? Cause the God of the Bible took on human flesh and appeased the just wrath that everyone deserves for breaking that "moral code".
ambassadorinchainz 1 month ago
Morality.....interesting word if you break it into two you have the word moral as in the moral of a story,some learning to be gained by an experience,isn't that like our own lives we learn from our experiences and therefore create our own moral code of ethics.
for a church,religious group or bible interpretation to stand and generalize about what peoples morals should or should'nt be,because of a brainwashed fear of a vengeful God is poppy cock.We make our choices by our own moral code alone
seerkaren 1 month ago
Cheers Ricky ...... Where do I sign?
Guvna07 1 month ago
ricky gervais brought me here.
Matty6660 1 month ago
I could listen to him talk all day, I love the way he reasons.
KittiMitties 1 month ago
Sounds like Dawkins would be happy to "design" a "perfect" "moral" society, just as he deems it should be, whereby "secular moral philosophy" would rule - based on what he believes is truth..... "Well thought out, discussed, reasoned, argued and then TAUGHT" to others as TRUTH based upon some unilateral/universal consensus... He must think he's God.
MrIamnotamuslim 1 month ago
@MrIamnotamuslim I love it when theists attack Dawkins' character. It shows how thoroughly your arguements have been demolished when you can't even form a rebuttal.
Md2802 1 month ago
@MrIamnotamuslim Haha! Did you seriously just watch a video about rationally formed systems of morality and jump to "Dawkins must be a secret fascist"? You really have no other argument to fall back on. You are an idiot. A sad, pathetic idiot.
TalkingMonkey666 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrIamnotamuslim
"Sounds like Dawkins would be happy to 'design' a 'perfect' 'moral" society'
- we only needs to design one because one doesnt already exist :)
- perfection doesnt exist under moral relativism.
- he would be designing a moral standard NOT a 'moral society' (wtf does that mean?)
"just as he deems it should be"
-it's nothing about what he believes, it's about what can be reached through logic/reasoning eg. if i hurt others they will be more likely to hurt me.
types10000 1 week ago
That's a great question!
Do you listen to the carefully thought out, rationalised thinking of a highly educated individual who continually works to disprove the lies told by pompous child molesters,
or,
Do you listen to the unproven hearsay fairy tales contained within a book that has been rewritten countless times by people hundreds of years afterwards?
You are a tool.
XIII13TREDICI13XIII 1 month ago
Dawkin's determines what is moral based on what makes man, in his opinion, look/feel good. The Bible determines what is moral based on what glorifies God. God=Creator Dawkins=Creature Who shall I listen to...hmmmmmm
ambassadorinchainz 1 month ago
Secular morals = doing what is good and right for all.
Religious morals = do what this book tells you, even though it was originally written by romans, then rewritten by a group of priests, and is outdated by centuries.
parthon 1 month ago
Haha try checking your facts bud. The Old Testament was written wayyyy before the Romans. The New Testament was written primarily by Jews. The Romans persecuted Christians for about 200 or so years before Constantine made it Rome's religion. By that time the canon of Scripture was nearly in its complete form. If only zealous atheists were nearly as informed as they are sarcastic and dismissive
ambassadorinchainz 1 month ago
@ambassadorinchainz The Old Testament was written by the Romans. When Paul translated it from hebrew to Latin, he only translated it the way he wanted it translated. Then the KingJames edition was even further modified by priests when translated into English. The point is that the bible is not the word of God, but the product of Man.
parthon 1 month ago
That may be the MOST inaccurate rewriting of history I have EVER heard. Please Please Please Please check your facts. Paul did not translate the Old Testament into Latin! He wrote an epistle in greek entitled Romans if that's what you mean? You are skipping the Septuagint (GreekOT around 200BC) the Latin Vulgate by Jerome. The Geneva Bible (predecessor to KJ) You are ignoring the Dead Sea scrolls. If you wont research you won't know. Out of curiosity where did you hear your info?
ambassadorinchainz 1 month ago
@ambassadorinchainz Great, you acknowledge the Bible was written by Man, not God. :D
parthon 1 month ago
@ambassadorinchainz "God=Creator Dawkins=Creature"
(removing my eyeglasses) Dawkins is a creature who actually exists. I can see him right there. What he says makes sense, and matches reality. What your clerics (creatures) have to say about their gods (ideas) and their prophets (creatures/ideas) only makes sense insofar as it matches what Dawkins just said.
If you can distinguish the good parts of your religious document form the bad, then you, too, use a morality from some other source.
loqiloqi 1 month ago 4
haha ummm instead of removing my glasses (not wearing any) I'll just respond. The first part of your response seems to just say "I love Dawkins and he is always right". I'm not sure what you know about the Bible, but I'm assuming very little considering your comment. If you have any interest in actually interacting with this topic meaningfully please read it. Also, there is NOTHING in Scripture that I would take out and discard.
ambassadorinchainz 1 month ago
@ambassadorinchainz
I said "What [Dawkins] says makes sense, and matches reality." See if you can spot the difference with what you claim I said, "I love Dawkins and he is always right." It's subtle, but you might spot the difference if you try really hard.
I can only assume you know very little about your own Bible (or possible about morality), if you claim your Bible advocates nothing immoral, I can only assume you've never read it.
So, what part of Chapter 21 of Exodus is the moral part?
loqiloqi 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
haha did you actually read it? Cause if you did you'd notice 1.God does not command slavery, he regulates the system that's already in place 2. Slavery in the Hebrew culture is diff from slavery in North America, it was more like indentured servitude (notice the fixed period of time mentioned in Exodus) 3. God protects slaves through his laws concerning slavery.You need to do research about the historical context before you make assertions
ambassadorinchainz 1 month ago
All dawkins has said is...nope their is no objective morality and then list off things he sees as moral, which to another culture may be absolutely absurd.For instance how we treat animals (only the fuzzy ones)would be crazy to some cultures, and if a different culture that eats dogs beats out our culture then that is moral. Same goes for women, capital punishment etc.He is unable to find a foundation outside of shifting cultural perspectives.Dawkins is a scientist not a philosopher and it shows
ambassadorinchainz 1 month ago
@ambassadorinchainz You completely misinterpreted him. He's saying that modern secular reasoning has improved morality over the last few centuries, but religious absolute morality is still stuck in the dark ages. This isn't about cultures, but about what is good for people, individuals as well as society as a whole. What you call a culture shift is actually a morality shift towards better morals.
parthon 1 month ago
Oh no no I completely understand his Enlightenment view of the world, but you must not have understood what I'm saying. The west is not the only culture out there. What basis do you have to say that the West's morality is better than any other culture's? Is it because the west has money? Has military control? You live there? What if Hitler's Germany would have won and their morality was prominent.On what basis would you say that it is wrong?
ambassadorinchainz 1 month ago
@ambassadorinchainz Well, actually, it's not just the west. It's everywhere. In places where there's less religion there's less suffering, less disease and illness, and quality of living is better. The highly religious areas of the middle east are constantly in turmoil, and the people there live in persecution. Morality around the world has improved in general, not through religion, but through laws and reasoning. We still have a long way to go though.
parthon 1 month ago
If you wanna skip the entire 20th century then yeah you are so right...haha. Look into the Mao, Mussolini, and Pol Pot. All atheists...all militant against religion....the narrative you just regurgitated unfortunately is as much a rewriting of history as your assertions about the origins of the Bible.
ambassadorinchainz 1 month ago
@ambassadorinchainz Like I said, we still have a long way to go. These people did evil things, not because they were atheist, but because they were evil people.
parthon 1 month ago
What is evil? how does the concept even fit in your worldview? Is evil that which breaches social norms? Again, if any of those men would have won out and society looked like Hitler's Germany, would that make it right? If not, where is your morality coming from if not from society? Yourself? You are a materialist so an abstract concept like universal morality has no place in your worldview
ambassadorinchainz 1 month ago
@ambassadorinchainz Evil is what hurts people. Good is what helps people. Good, Evil and Morality exist as non-religious absolute concepts, just like truth and love. Before we had religion we had morality. People without religion still have morality. Right and Wrong is often subjective to the society one lives in and is brought up in, but the impact of actions on others can be objectively Good or Bad.
Also, I'm not a materialist, I'm just not a Christian.
parthon 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@parthon
"Evil is what hurts people. Good is what helps people. Good, Evil and Morality exist as non-religious absolute concepts, just like truth and love."
You can assert them to be absolute all you want but that's not what we observe:
- evil is a word used to refer to things you dont like
- good is a word used to refer to things you do like
- truth is a word used to refer to statements that are true
- love is a type of human emotion caused by the mind.
types10000 1 month ago
@parthon
What if helping people hurts them? Or what if hurting people helps them? The truth hurts, so the saying goes. Are lies better than truth then, to avoid that kind of hurt? But lies hurt too! Should you help a deadbeat person who won't lift a finger to help themselves? If you take care of someone who just has their laziness reinforced by your helping, isn't that hurting them? The definition is short-sighted.
vader421138 4 weeks ago