HAHA..you really can look at the world today and believe that BAD people have been bred out of existence? or are on their way to? hmmm sure does help explain why prisons are more overflowing than ever...murder is way up...oh yeah and church attendance is down..coincidence?
Can you acknowledge the fact that not all theists think that atheists are not moral. As a Christian I think that atheists can be moral. I also think that the bible teaches good lessons in morality. And please no pull the whole "oh well in the bible there is murder and slavery and stuff so god is bad" I hear that way too much.
I agree that it is an error to assume that an atheist does not observe some version of morality. Just as it would be an error to assume that a Christian would always act in line with his moral code.
As a theist, I wouldn't say that atheists do not have or employ some version of morality. What I WOULD say is that every time he does, he is borrowing from the theist's worldview and that his exercise or espousal of his morality is incongruous, or better, contradictory to his own worldview.
This amused me. Since the bible promotes slavery and human sacrifice, if I were running around murdering people then I might be borrowing from a theist's view point. Since I am instead promoting the ideals of free-thought, suggesting that I am rehashing theistic views is incongruous. Free-thought is the ultimate adversary of theism.
I think what you mean is the Bible describes slavery and human sacrifice. That's not the same as promoting it.
If you hold to a non-theistic objective view of morality you have simply removed a god from the picture and replaced it with someone else (yourself, society, etc.). Atheism can only accommodate a morality that is an illusion which comforts those who do not like the harshness of the world in which they believe they live.
I make no claim that atheists are necessarily any less moral than theists but:
1. A man wishes to marry his sister Tina, his best friend Jim, Jim's wife Pam, and their dog Fred. Is it moral for him to marry all four of them?
2. Gertrude had a little baby girl two weeks ago. She is out of work and addicted to heroine. This child will grow up in an unloving poverty stricken existence. Gertrude takes her baby girl to a doctor who terminates the child for her. Did Gertrude do the right thing?
2: No, as the baby has clearly passed the point where it is just a bundle of cells clinging to the inside of her uterus, she has no right to kill it, nor would a doctor in that crazy world be correct to kill it for her. The child should be setup in a foster home or orphanage and given proper care until she can be adopted.
"No, as the baby has clearly passed the point where it is just a bundle of cells "
Granted, I'm not still clinging to my mother's uterus but I am just a bundle of cells. Seems kind of arbitrary to disallow it's termination just because of it's location.
Oh, sorry I haven't been online for a while. Here goes.
1: It is only moral if all parties are sentient, of age, understand the situation, and agree. If hypothetically his sister, Jim, Pam and Fred the super intelligent dog from outer-space all wanted to marry together...then Yes it is perfectly moral.
Those aren't stringent at all. Most humans fit into those categories. They're a lot looser than nut job conservatives who insist on all sorts of ridiculous requirements. The main reason for those requirements are to ensure that the marriage and most likely following sex are consensual. This is quite a broad and inclusive view actually, and would allow for such things as gay marriage, polygamy, and me hooking up with hot 6 breasted aliens.
"Those aren't stringent at all. Most humans fit into those categories. They're a lot looser than nut job conservatives who insist on all sorts of ridiculous requirements."
Maybe so, but to a rapist, you're the nut job conservative. Why do you get to set the rules for everyone else is my point?
Well, since rape is wrong and infringes on the happiness and freedom of other people I don't think that their view is legitimate.
The plan is to eliminate as much suffering as possible while simultaneously promoting happiness and allowing a large degree of freedom. Not all things can be allowed, but we should TRY to help people have as much freedom and happiness as possible. So yes, rape would not be allowed since it hurts others and infringes on their freedom to NOT get raped.
You're begging the question. You say rape is wrong. Says who? And who says I should have any concern for someone else's happiness or freedom. Your stipulation of these values is somewhat arbitrary. Do you consider morality objective? Universal?
I've just defined why it's wrong: It infringes on another person's well-being and freedom. It injures another being. That's pretty simple. The same way that stabbing someone is wrong. Morality is MOSTLY objective. In that I belive that human freedom and happiness are the goals that should govern our actions. Others may feel differently. Since our species has evolved to be mostly social, we as a whole tend toward views like mine (such as alleviating suffering etc etc.)
I say "Mostly" because there are some things that most us agree upon and that our society takes up as "absolutes". The law says "these are wrong" and that's pretty absolute for our societal structure. But for example: In America it is illegal to kill your child. The bible teaches you that you SHOULD kill your kid if he "curses" you:
"All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense." (Leviticus 20:9) so clearly that has changed over time.
"I've just defined why it's wrong: It infringes on another person's well-being and freedom. It injures another being. That's pretty simple."
It's not that simple. How do you know that infringing on another's well being and freedom is wrong? If it is true that we are products of evolution living in a purely material universe as you believe, then what you are describing are merely your preferences (like your favorite ice cream flavor). Yet you expect others to feel obliged to respect them. Why?
Human beings have an innate moral compass precisely because of our evolution. As our species has progressed, nature has favoured those members of a society that protect one another and help one another. Initially this might start out as simply a biological urge. A gene that contains the instruction: "if it looks like you, favour it". Clearly this gene will survive above other genes since it would promote its survival in other bodies, not just its own.
Furthermore, once our ancestors had evolved to the point that primitive societies begin to occur (Wolves, for example, have social packs) where there is relative order and structure - a more cohesive group will often have a survival advantage over loners or groups that fight amongst themselves. This further selects a positive gene for future generations by weeding out less favourable ones.
"Human beings have an innate moral compass precisely because of our evolution."
I don't really buy the evolved morality explanation for a number of reasons. However, for the sake of argument, let's assume you are correct. That doesn't make murder wrong. It makes it inconvenient. So then you don't really mean that rape is wrong; it's just counter-productive. We might feel like it's wrong in some objective sense but that's just our survival instinct creating the illusion of morality. Is that it?
The idea of "wrongness" is connected to a state in your brain. There is no higher-power's "objective" morality, there is only what our brains produce and what we assign as "objective" for the purposes of law. So yes, "wrong" is just the result of our genetics combined with learned social structures. We don't FEEL it that way however, we have a visceral reaction to things that we feel are "wrong". In the same way that we FEEL love, even though love is just neural activity.
That's a though decision - Save 4 and kill one - or kill 0, and have 4 dead persons.
But we live in such a world where such decisions are needed to be made everyday.
If everyone took a step back and said - I'm not the arbitrator of life, society would collapse - And one can ask whether that is moral or immoral, or if morals is even important in such a context.
Religious people and atheists both seem to be concerned about proving to each other their moral integrity. What is the difference? They both denigrate each other in terms of being selfrighteousness.
Well Blip, the answer is actually pretty simple: I (and most atheists) make no claims about theists being immoral. However, many theists claim that atheists are immoral by nature. That's really the difference here. I claim that all (or at least the vas majority of) humans have built in moral compasses, a large group of theists claim that people who do not follow a religion are inherently immoral because they don't have "rules" about how to act.
I have read comments in which atheists denigrate theists and vice versa. I know nothing about theists claiming that atheists are innately immoral. Even so, I also have found that people have "built in moral compasses". Once again, I do not know about the validity regarding your final statement; that is, about theists saying people without religion are inherently immoral because they are without rules. I think we are talking about "natural law," which both theists and atheists have in common.
I visited both channels, and couldn't see anything indicating a stance regarding atheists being immoral by nature, i.e. innate. I could see where venomfangx's creationist approach would be aggravating, and I'm speaking as a theist. The concept of humanity having an innate "moral compass" is insightful. My archaic term for such a faculty is "conscience". You should take some philosophy, or have you? Thanks for the dicussion. I got nothing left to say.
HAHA..you really can look at the world today and believe that BAD people have been bred out of existence? or are on their way to? hmmm sure does help explain why prisons are more overflowing than ever...murder is way up...oh yeah and church attendance is down..coincidence?
SlingApe 3 years ago
Can you acknowledge the fact that not all theists think that atheists are not moral. As a Christian I think that atheists can be moral. I also think that the bible teaches good lessons in morality. And please no pull the whole "oh well in the bible there is murder and slavery and stuff so god is bad" I hear that way too much.
muzik313 3 years ago
I agree that it is an error to assume that an atheist does not observe some version of morality. Just as it would be an error to assume that a Christian would always act in line with his moral code.
As a theist, I wouldn't say that atheists do not have or employ some version of morality. What I WOULD say is that every time he does, he is borrowing from the theist's worldview and that his exercise or espousal of his morality is incongruous, or better, contradictory to his own worldview.
larrycastle 3 years ago
CORRECTION: As a theist, I wouldn't say that atheists DO have or employ some version of morality.
Sorry. Typo. (not a Freudian slip :-)
larrycastle 3 years ago
This amused me. Since the bible promotes slavery and human sacrifice, if I were running around murdering people then I might be borrowing from a theist's view point. Since I am instead promoting the ideals of free-thought, suggesting that I am rehashing theistic views is incongruous. Free-thought is the ultimate adversary of theism.
FrankieAvocado 3 years ago
"the bible promotes slavery and human sacrifice"
I think what you mean is the Bible describes slavery and human sacrifice. That's not the same as promoting it.
If you hold to a non-theistic objective view of morality you have simply removed a god from the picture and replaced it with someone else (yourself, society, etc.). Atheism can only accommodate a morality that is an illusion which comforts those who do not like the harshness of the world in which they believe they live.
larrycastle 3 years ago
Also, the challenge stands: Ask me to tackle any moral quandry.
FrankieAvocado 3 years ago
I make no claim that atheists are necessarily any less moral than theists but:
1. A man wishes to marry his sister Tina, his best friend Jim, Jim's wife Pam, and their dog Fred. Is it moral for him to marry all four of them?
2. Gertrude had a little baby girl two weeks ago. She is out of work and addicted to heroine. This child will grow up in an unloving poverty stricken existence. Gertrude takes her baby girl to a doctor who terminates the child for her. Did Gertrude do the right thing?
larrycastle 3 years ago
2: No, as the baby has clearly passed the point where it is just a bundle of cells clinging to the inside of her uterus, she has no right to kill it, nor would a doctor in that crazy world be correct to kill it for her. The child should be setup in a foster home or orphanage and given proper care until she can be adopted.
FrankieAvocado 3 years ago
"No, as the baby has clearly passed the point where it is just a bundle of cells "
Granted, I'm not still clinging to my mother's uterus but I am just a bundle of cells. Seems kind of arbitrary to disallow it's termination just because of it's location.
larrycastle 3 years ago
Not at all, for example: the baby has a brain. A week old blastocyst, for example, has approximately 150 cells and no brain.
FrankieAvocado 3 years ago
"the baby has a brain. A week old blastocyst, for example, has approximately 150 cells and no brain."
But my point is that it's no less arbitrary to say since it has a brain, now you can't terminate it. Why not?
larrycastle 3 years ago
Have you had time to consider the "moral quandaries" I offered?
larrycastle 3 years ago
Oh, sorry I haven't been online for a while. Here goes.
1: It is only moral if all parties are sentient, of age, understand the situation, and agree. If hypothetically his sister, Jim, Pam and Fred the super intelligent dog from outer-space all wanted to marry together...then Yes it is perfectly moral.
FrankieAvocado 3 years ago
"It is only moral if all parties are sentient, of age, understand the situation, and agree."
Those are some pretty stringent demands. Why are all those stipulations necessary?
larrycastle 3 years ago
Those aren't stringent at all. Most humans fit into those categories. They're a lot looser than nut job conservatives who insist on all sorts of ridiculous requirements. The main reason for those requirements are to ensure that the marriage and most likely following sex are consensual. This is quite a broad and inclusive view actually, and would allow for such things as gay marriage, polygamy, and me hooking up with hot 6 breasted aliens.
FrankieAvocado 3 years ago
"Those aren't stringent at all. Most humans fit into those categories. They're a lot looser than nut job conservatives who insist on all sorts of ridiculous requirements."
Maybe so, but to a rapist, you're the nut job conservative. Why do you get to set the rules for everyone else is my point?
larrycastle 3 years ago
Well, since rape is wrong and infringes on the happiness and freedom of other people I don't think that their view is legitimate.
The plan is to eliminate as much suffering as possible while simultaneously promoting happiness and allowing a large degree of freedom. Not all things can be allowed, but we should TRY to help people have as much freedom and happiness as possible. So yes, rape would not be allowed since it hurts others and infringes on their freedom to NOT get raped.
FrankieAvocado 3 years ago
"since rape is wrong"
You're begging the question. You say rape is wrong. Says who? And who says I should have any concern for someone else's happiness or freedom. Your stipulation of these values is somewhat arbitrary. Do you consider morality objective? Universal?
larrycastle 3 years ago
I've just defined why it's wrong: It infringes on another person's well-being and freedom. It injures another being. That's pretty simple. The same way that stabbing someone is wrong. Morality is MOSTLY objective. In that I belive that human freedom and happiness are the goals that should govern our actions. Others may feel differently. Since our species has evolved to be mostly social, we as a whole tend toward views like mine (such as alleviating suffering etc etc.)
FrankieAvocado 3 years ago
I say "Mostly" because there are some things that most us agree upon and that our society takes up as "absolutes". The law says "these are wrong" and that's pretty absolute for our societal structure. But for example: In America it is illegal to kill your child. The bible teaches you that you SHOULD kill your kid if he "curses" you:
"All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense." (Leviticus 20:9) so clearly that has changed over time.
FrankieAvocado 3 years ago
"I've just defined why it's wrong: It infringes on another person's well-being and freedom. It injures another being. That's pretty simple."
It's not that simple. How do you know that infringing on another's well being and freedom is wrong? If it is true that we are products of evolution living in a purely material universe as you believe, then what you are describing are merely your preferences (like your favorite ice cream flavor). Yet you expect others to feel obliged to respect them. Why?
larrycastle 3 years ago
Human beings have an innate moral compass precisely because of our evolution. As our species has progressed, nature has favoured those members of a society that protect one another and help one another. Initially this might start out as simply a biological urge. A gene that contains the instruction: "if it looks like you, favour it". Clearly this gene will survive above other genes since it would promote its survival in other bodies, not just its own.
FrankieAvocado 3 years ago
Furthermore, once our ancestors had evolved to the point that primitive societies begin to occur (Wolves, for example, have social packs) where there is relative order and structure - a more cohesive group will often have a survival advantage over loners or groups that fight amongst themselves. This further selects a positive gene for future generations by weeding out less favourable ones.
FrankieAvocado 3 years ago
"Human beings have an innate moral compass precisely because of our evolution."
I don't really buy the evolved morality explanation for a number of reasons. However, for the sake of argument, let's assume you are correct. That doesn't make murder wrong. It makes it inconvenient. So then you don't really mean that rape is wrong; it's just counter-productive. We might feel like it's wrong in some objective sense but that's just our survival instinct creating the illusion of morality. Is that it?
larrycastle 3 years ago
The idea of "wrongness" is connected to a state in your brain. There is no higher-power's "objective" morality, there is only what our brains produce and what we assign as "objective" for the purposes of law. So yes, "wrong" is just the result of our genetics combined with learned social structures. We don't FEEL it that way however, we have a visceral reaction to things that we feel are "wrong". In the same way that we FEEL love, even though love is just neural activity.
FrankieAvocado 3 years ago
"So yes, "wrong" is just the result of our genetics combined with learned social structures."
Okay. So then, why was it "wrong" for Hitler to promote genocide? Or was it? It was an accepted norm in the culture of the Third Reich.
larrycastle 3 years ago
That's a though decision - Save 4 and kill one - or kill 0, and have 4 dead persons.
But we live in such a world where such decisions are needed to be made everyday.
If everyone took a step back and said - I'm not the arbitrator of life, society would collapse - And one can ask whether that is moral or immoral, or if morals is even important in such a context.
To just claim you are not
Palle016 3 years ago
I am christian, and I support your decision to be athiest. My father taught me morals and he is athiest.
Quiznoss 3 years ago
Frankie its either "throw my hat in the ring" or "throw in my 2 cents". Good vids man, especially the dnd 4.0 vids. keep it up!
Quiznoss 3 years ago
Religious people and atheists both seem to be concerned about proving to each other their moral integrity. What is the difference? They both denigrate each other in terms of being selfrighteousness.
Blipbloto 3 years ago
Well Blip, the answer is actually pretty simple: I (and most atheists) make no claims about theists being immoral. However, many theists claim that atheists are immoral by nature. That's really the difference here. I claim that all (or at least the vas majority of) humans have built in moral compasses, a large group of theists claim that people who do not follow a religion are inherently immoral because they don't have "rules" about how to act.
FrankieAvocado 3 years ago
I have read comments in which atheists denigrate theists and vice versa. I know nothing about theists claiming that atheists are innately immoral. Even so, I also have found that people have "built in moral compasses". Once again, I do not know about the validity regarding your final statement; that is, about theists saying people without religion are inherently immoral because they are without rules. I think we are talking about "natural law," which both theists and atheists have in common.
Blipbloto 3 years ago
I direct you to venomfangx and jezusfreak777
FrankieAvocado 3 years ago
I visited both channels, and couldn't see anything indicating a stance regarding atheists being immoral by nature, i.e. innate. I could see where venomfangx's creationist approach would be aggravating, and I'm speaking as a theist. The concept of humanity having an innate "moral compass" is insightful. My archaic term for such a faculty is "conscience". You should take some philosophy, or have you? Thanks for the dicussion. I got nothing left to say.
Blipbloto 3 years ago
★★★★★
Katalyzt 3 years ago
Throw your _hat_ into the ring :)
darktango78 3 years ago
GOOD MAN.
FrankieAvocado 3 years ago