Can you be good without God? Adam Deen vs. Dan Barker (one of USA's leading atheists)

[Aguijon1982]

Oh yeah...Adam is right...we need to get our morality and the sense of good and evil "from somewhere" or "from some external mysterious source". So I got my morality from Pocahontas.

And you?

In fact, i think that if Pocahontas didn't exist, ill probably be now murdering people in the streets.

[RottenRroses]

Why is the linked first debate private?

[fnanfne]

"How can we account for moral values if no God existed?" Uhm, human solidarity?

[NJaw90]

I agree with Adam yet I respect Dan's opinions. I think both men did a great job. I think theists and atheists can learn from both perspectives. I believe in God, however, I agree with Dan in some cases.

I think we should all do that, since both men gave valid answers.

[LetReasonPrevail1]

Adam asks: Why is an action immoral for humans but non immoral for other animals?

Simply put, morality applies to humans b/c we have obtained the cognative ability to reflect on our behaviors & to consider the well-being of others. Further, we have acquired a theory of mind that allows us to put ourselves in the place of others & conceive of how they feel & what they think

Other animals don't have these same cognative characteristics, so morality doesn't aplly to them

Voila, there you have it

[IspanasOnTop]

Wow Both of them are such a good speakers, and this is such a great debate, however christians, it seemed to me, they do not have specific answers, if they do not know something, they put god in there and all of the suddenly everything makes sense. On the other hand, atheists give real, valid answers, not all of them, but most of them :)

[TheAmethystScorpion]

Adam can string words together but they seem to be without meaning and empty as though he is just regurgitating a script because he's meant to. Dan on the other hand sounds genuine and passionate about what he is saying.

[neverspitatthewind]

Wow Dan is a great debater. 

[EnjoiningKnowlege]

@MarineCore88 Yeah, I agree - he IS a great speaker. Now, perhaps you would care to elaborate on why exactly you feel his arguments are "REALLY REALLY bad..."? I just see a number opinionated claims in your post, but no real substantiation. Take care!

[GhostlyRebellion]

Adam is focusing on the minor details and missing the big picture. Dan has proved that we can be moral people without god and it DOES make sense because our morals have been programmed into us by evolution and that we can create laws based on the the question of how we can improve the well being of society.

[EnjoiningKnowlege]

@GhostlyRebellion With all due respect, the very fact that you reiterate these outdated points conveys that you do not seem to understand the issue of moral ontology in the absence of a "conceptual anchor" such as a transcendental reality like God. Dan has failed utterly to demonstrate how morality ontologically exists in an objective sense without God. You can "define" certain behaviour as moral all you want, however, that's merely moral semantics. It doesn't show "right" and "wrong" exist.

[EnjoiningKnowlege]

@GhostlyRebellion Your argument is that certain behaviours have been programmed into us by evolution (and social pressures fyi), and that we can codify certain laws based on these behaviours and whichever one is most conducive towards survival. You also tie this in with the "well-being" of society. But how exactly do you arrive at well-being = what is objectively morally right? You simply define it as such, but fail to show how objective morality even exists in the first place. Moral semantics.

[EnjoiningKnowlege]

@GhostlyRebellion This is the same mistake Sam Harris makes in his debate with William Lane Craig on "Is Good from God?" 

[TheTexanCanadian]

The joke of this debate is that a god can't give "objective" morality, and an even bigger joke is that the biblical god represents the ultimate good. Any mind (disembodied or not) with a sense of self is necessarily subjective in viewpoint. It is only the biblical god's supposed capacity for objective punishment that allows the use of the term objective. As with ALL theistic debates, if you can't prove the god exists, your argument is utterly pointless.

[EnjoiningKnowlege]

@TheTexanCanadian Hello fellow Canadian! Actually, your analysis is faulty. In Islam, God is not conceived of as a disembodied mind. I suggest learning the fundamentals of the theology of w/e religion you are arguing against. This is William Craig's terminology and concept. In Islam, God is a transcendental reality, and is Absolute: beyond space-time, and the contingent realm. He has no frame of reference like we contingent and subjective beings do. Thus, everything He is exists as an absolute.

[kalsolarUK]

Adam demonstrates quite early on that he doesn't actually know what the word objective means.

[EnjoiningKnowlege]

@kalsolarUK And you, just as so many other critics of Adam's points posting on this video, have demonstrated that you are only interested in providing empty claims. Explain where he goes wrong with his understanding of objective, my good friend. Perhaps then, your comment won't look so empty of substantive meaning.

[choongd]

ownage starts at 0:24:00

[retonete]

the voice fits so well in dan barker

[MarvelExtra]

Man I love this Dan Barker! It makes so much sense for me.

[nickallah]

@1:03:36 the muslim siting in the second row appeared on you tube many times whats his name??

[EnjoiningKnowlege]

@nickallah His name is Adnan Rashid.

[Scanini]

@Nazam44 I would say he wants to download it so our comment are not vetted by your opinion on wether they should be displayed.

Im assuming your a religious freak as im yet to see a vid posted by an atheist that have the comments pending approval.

[loneranger666]

if Dans last comment is true we are all living in dictatorships we all live in a society where we are fearful of breaking the law, i know i would do certain things if it were not for the laws of my country. In societies where God is not known such as the amazon human sacrifice and unimaginable moral wrongs which would not be accepted in our "civilised" societies are commited so moral values are derived from teachings coming from an external rather than anything internal

[tommyk77]

@loneranger666 That's a non-sequitur. What people chose to do doesn't redefine morals.

[wachnathan]

 I was born atheist and will die atheist if you want to argue with that i invite you to try.

[wachnathan]

And this from the "peace loving" Koran:

THIS IS ISLAM, THE SO CALLED “RELIGION OF PEACE” :

“Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.” Koran 2:191

“Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood.” Koran 9:123

“When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them.” Koran 9:5

“Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable.” Koran 3:85

“The Jews and the Christians are perverts; fight them.”… Koran 9:30

Just a few lines from the "peaceful" muslims

[holmsatlarge]

Why ,yes you can do good without god.

[sick08]

dan barker uses dumb arguments...uses jokes instead of real arguments.

[bellyzbad]

adam did ive good case

[PythonisticOmar]

Hmm.. The Jesus Christ quote at the end.. "If you are healthy you don't need to go to the doctor.. etc." I've heard it before..!

Is it the only quote that Dan Barker knows??

[PythonisticOmar]

Wow.. Starting from 1:00 onwards, Dan Barker started (unintentionally?) throwing one straw man after the other.

[cruiseylee]

wow if this was a boxing match it would have been stopped in 1st second lol. This has to be the biggest win ever lol. go dan barker!! Be good because its right, dont be good cos your scared of concequences. Simple.

[PythonisticOmar]

@cruiseylee

So basically, how can you judge that being Good is right and being Bad is wrong?

For example, if we assume that Stalin was bad because he killed innocent people (which he was, if you ask me), then how can we judge that what he did (being bad) was a wrong thing? Or is it only because it doesn't sound good to us? Note that in eyes of Stalin himself, killing innocent (if there was such a word in his mind) people was not only good, but it was the right thing to do.

[cruiseylee]

What a load of tosh that religiouds guy talks lol. Just on one point. He talks about how bad societ would be without god and religion...er?? Doesnt he know the 4 most non religious countries in the world are, Norway, sweden, Denmark, Japan! And do u see them suicide bombing, raping, killing? No! they have the lowest crime rates in the world! They are good people andf have great econmoys and are wonderful countries! Iraq, Usa, mexico, are 3 of the worst and they are highest on % of religious!

[KARAMUSLIMAN]

Barker is an exchristian and he is imposing many of the christian concepts in islam, as the story of "in religion we are bad and we need to be fixed", "is a religious solution to a religious problem..." blablabla. Islam affirms human natural inclination to some core good moral values which are natural, and calls against their corruption and the rational investigation on life, humanity and the universe. I've been on atheism and on Islam, and Dan knoes nothing about Islam, he's debating christnity

[KARAMUSLIMAN]

Barker's arguments are not that strong, but he's an agressive and impressive speaker, and he always uses the rethorical method of showing the other side's ideas as 'obviously irrational' just like Dawkins (with expressions like 'the sky daddy' or something like that). Deen was quite good, I believe, but he lacked that agressiveness. And Barker showed a way of morals getting into our minds or being developed according to evolution and social pressures but not an objective morality.

[albanianboxer]

Dan barker may yo burn in helll forever ! truly i never would give a shittt iff jou suffer !

[aello465]

@albanianboxer What the fuck kind of person are you? You much be an outlier on the bellcurve of human moral capability.

[Encryptsan]

Wow. Dan mopped the floor with Adam.

I've watched many debates like this and I can honestly say that no one has articulated the atheistic side better than Dan did in his opening speech.

[Shaewaros]

Thank you for providing us with this interesting debate. I have to say that, eventhough I did agree with Dan's arguments, I was a bit offended by his rude behavior towards Adam at the end of the debate. I mean I would never tell anyone in a public debate to "grow up" just because I have a different belief. I guess Dan was offended by Adam's comment on Dan's rather blasphemous comments. But still Dan's behavior was a bit classless in my opinion.

[rt36crazyfists]

Haha, Dan, ya can't tell Muslims about women's rights as an example of morality

[xcommunicate]

SOMEONE give that black man a PSI Ball at the start. Thanks.

[khalidsayd]

Dan made an excellent reply. Nothing was broken by Adam.

[77theist77]

can someone please quote ONE christian debater from the last 2 decades that has ever proposed that unbelievers are incapable of doing good acts? cuz if nobody can, we'll have to admit it's a straw man to pretend they do.

after having heard a million debates on the subject, i've never heard a single theist--at least not a christian one--make this claim. their actual argument (which it seems atheists pretend to "not get") is that if Materialism is true, good and evil are mere consensual delusions

[Walabinx]

@77theist77 I think atheists bring up the fact that they are capable of being good, not as a response to what the apologists are saying, but as a response to what seems to be a general religious opinion among less understanding believers(the majority of them), and perhaps some in the audience; that all atheists have two horns and a tail. In that sense it is somewhat of a strawman because it's not what the apologist is saying directly; yet it is not an irrelevant point to make in a debate either.

[Walabinx]

@77theist77 Agreed however. I'm an atheist, but I find that even humanists like Dan who do a better job than other atheists at addressing morality, don't really hit this issue hard enough. I'd love to argue the point with you, if you want to pm me because these boxes are too small. Perhaps you're as tired as I am of just listening and not being able to be part of the discussion? Or perhaps you've already heard enough of foolish atheists trying to justify our life of sin:( Let me know.

[HIMAZZZ1991]

Adam gave a very good case n dan made a poor job refutin it although it seems otherwise at least 2 atheists on these comments.i think i know y. Adam is NOT that good of a speaker in many aspects n one of his greatest flaws is that he's too smart n he cannot explain his case but in a very intelligent way that it seems very dumb,he's one of these "Smart Comedians",u know,when sb has a VERY funny thing 2 say then he sais it outloud amongst his frnds but no one laughs cuz they didnt understand

[HIMAZZZ1991]

Adam gave a very good case n dan made a poor job refutin it although it seems otherwise at least 2 atheists on these comments.i think i know y. Adam is NOT that good of a speaker in many aspects n one of his greatest flaws is that he's too smart n he cannot explain his case but in a very intelligent way that it seems very dumb,he's one of these "Smart Comedians",u know,when sb has a VERY funny thing 2 say then he sais it outloud amongst his frnds but no one laughs cuz they didnt understand

[iod3k]

I might have missed it if this point was made in the video, but I've always wondered how to argue that belief in God is the only possible means of having morality, if Adam and Eve committed original sin while believing in God. Indeed, God was all they ever knew. Supposedly, Adam and Eve weren't atheists, they were theists, but they committed an immorality so evil that all of future humanity would be punished until Judgement day. For that matter, why does punishment come before the Judgement?

[SlayingMinion]

HE SAYS AT 50:00 THAT HE'S NOT ARGUING THAT YOU NEED GOD TO BE MORAL. IF SO, WHAT THE HELL IS HE DOING THERE DEBATING?!?

[aaaaaaac1]

We should be good for goodness sake? But the root word for goodness is God. For God sake! Haha

[bizzybears]

..we are all stuck here with each other together any way lol so lets just make the best of it and get real and relevent to whats fact..

[bizzybears]

put it this way id rather be hugged then punched, happy rather then angry, achieve rather then fail, the feeling of compassion from a helping hand rather then the sadness of abandonment etc... and im 100% sure u feel the same way with or without god , grow up stop reading fairytales and believing in santa...( i know it hurt me too when i found out as a kid cause i was a believer lol),weve out grown it, time to face reality i think we should just believe a little more in each other instead..

[bizzybears]

put it this way id rather be hugged then punched, happy rather then angry,achievement rather then failure, and im 100% sure u do to, make that a religon , grow up stop believing in santa clause so we all can face true reality...together one love!!!

[greyeyed123]

Adam has himself caught in a mirror. Just because morals/values are relative doesn't mean they don't SEEM absolute to us *because they are relative to us*! If we acted generally in ways that harmed those around us, or attempted to kill those around us, or indeed kill those around us, we risk killing/harming ourselves by the reaction of those we hurt/kill (group response in terms of killing). Death is as absolute as it gets for us, and killing and harm connect directly to morality/death.

[sambyon]

adam had the face that said "I've been royally pwnd"at the end of the Q&A part.LOL

[123backinyerface]

Remove both the belief and punishment of god and nothing at all would change in the world, remove the law and punishment of man and all hell would break loose on earth...lol.

[Elune137]

"Can you be good without god?" What a stupid question!

"Are all atheists evil?" would be the negative expression that shows it's so silly!

[1982witchcraft]

I love these debates but I just can't watch or hear that Devil for too long.

[1982witchcraft]

Dan barker's filthy godamn eyes looks devilish. His fingers are just nasty disgusting looking. He Hates God, because God is not like he want him to be, or like he thinks in his filthy devil hell bound mind he should be.

he's mad and he's gonna burn forever in hell.

I can't stand to even watch that filthy beast!

I hope that goddamn thing dies soo!

[Elune137]

@1982witchcraft

Sorry, this is exactly what people call religious delusion!

By the way, moral is as independent from a supernatural being as math!

It's both not a material thing, but logic that is about rules based on causality (maintaining a stable society,etc. better read Dawkins "the selfish gene").

The way you talk, is the same fundamentalist muslims, hindus, etc. may talk about you! Think about it!

Sometimes, it's not holy enlightenment, but just ignorance.

BTW, I was ignorant too :D

[CheekyVimto08]

@1982witchcraft are you being like...satirical or something?

[bizzybears]

@1982witchcraft wow such evil words u speak and i bet u learnt most of them from your religious book, if anyone is mad its you and with your projection of words i believe you should burn in hell and why is your profile name witchcraft lmao your a walking contradiction i hope you can see how stupid u look unless your being satirical

[wowamonn]

Dan Barker is my new hero!!

[robaquarian]

to say we need a god for morality is omitting the fact that you need the right god "Allah". if you believe in god but your jewish or christian you cant be moral cause your not obeying the prophet or the right god. your still damned. so the most moral thing you can do is to accept the koran. if not and you just believe in any god you can never be good cause you are deserving hell. so he should be arguing you cant be moral if you dont believe in my god.the koran in clear the evil of infadels.

[jaminjava2]

adam argues that the foundation for objective morality is to minimise harm ? Rofl whose harm ? What happens when indvidual interests collide, what harm should be minimised? It is important for America to take over iraq and build a pipe line in azerbijan because America needs oild and gas and its harsh winters the innocent population would suffer, so isnt the American government minimising harm ? The point has no ground and it makes us humans nothing but animal fighting for individual survival

[aldeniw]

Although Dan Barker looks like he hasn't slept in a week, he thoroughly stomped Mr. Deen's flimsy, typical arguments. I enjoy Dan's temperance and cool-headedness as well. He is, undoubtedly, a class act

[PersianPaladin]

If you don't believe in Divine Law; then you have to accept that your understanding of morality is derived from cultural invention. Thus violating these moral codes would be a socio-cultural taboo. Atheists regard morality as subjective and relative. Even their "golden rule" ideology falls within that framework. Many humans drop this at any convenience, and so do some animals.

[ozy123]

@PersianPaladin or they find other ways to justify their actions, actions such as crashing a plane into a building full of people for example.

[byteresistor]

@PersianPaladin "Many humans drop this at any convenience"

Many religious people stop following their unquestionable and unalternable divine law at any convenience. How can religious people argue in favor of absolute morality when they don't follow it either? Morals have changed for both believers and non-believers allike throughout time, this is a fact. For example, many religious people do not stone people to death anymore or approve slavery even when their scripture condones these.

[OsyenVyeter]

Wow Adam is so fail. "Morality is objective because god exists, therefore he is good" First of all, its not objective just because you declare it so, it must be proven as such first. Secondly, god is clearly immoral as any cursory glance at the bible will show you. And a pile of evidence from any given scientific field could give you ample reason to show why god does not exist. And it was funny that he conceeded existance is billions, he just contradicted the bible with that one.

[alexnapad]

Sorry that my comments below are disordered. I entered them in order, but they came out as seen below. The paragraph order as I meant it is: 1. Adam Deen.... 2. But isn't this.... 3. Also, even if.... 4. We are left in.... 5. Humans are left.... 6. The belief in....

[alexnapad]

Adam Deen is correct in his assertion, although I'd rephrase it slightly: if one is looking for absolute (objective) (not incomplete or partial) grounding for ascertaining whether an action is moral or not, one would need an objective moral arbiter. But this does not need to be a god. It simply means that one would need access to a guide to morality that covered absolutely every possible action.

[alexnapad]

The belief in an absolute moral arbiter is unnecessary to discussions about morality. We should take the lesson of William of Ockham and discard it from our investigation.

[alexnapad]

Humans are left to the devices for determining morality that we have at hand, which Mr. Barker should have done more to emphasize: our reason, intellect, instinct, and our society. It is this last one that is so important. It is only through social interaction that morality is at all known and can be discussed, for it is here that we come to realize our compassion.

[alexnapad]

We are left in our state of relativism. And even if the whole world agreed about the nature of the arbiter, how would we know that the whole world was not deceiving itself? As Mr. Deen puts it, if the whole world believed rape was good, would it indeed be moral?

[alexnapad]

Also, even if morality only becomes meaningful if grounded in an absolute moral arbiter, what does grounded mean? Is he simply saying that any investigation of morality must assume that an absolute moral arbiter exists before proceeding? If so, it does not have any bearing on discussions of morality, because there can be no agreement on the who, what, when, where, why, and how of that arbiter.

[alexnapad]

But isn't this a tautology? In order to make morality meaningful, it needs to be grounded in the objective, which necessitates believing that something morally objective actually exists. I can say that morality is indeed meaningful without positing the existence of some absolute moral arbiter, but that would not convince Mr. Deen that his logic was wrong because he has determined what is meaningful. His assumption is that moral meaning must be objective.

[alexnapad]

Adam Deen is correct in his assertion, although I'd rephrase it slightly: if one is looking for absolute (objective) (not incomplete or partial) grounding for ascertaining whether an action is moral or not, one would need an objective moral arbiter.  But this does not need to be a god. It simply means that one would need access to a guide to morality that covered absolutely every possible action.

[ekhanam1]

@Nazam44 because i want it on my ipod but i dont know how to use real player to download it...:S

jazakaAllah Khair ya akhi

[TheHacen2]

HI diego,

Check this out!!!

[engmoo]

I believe atheists like Dan try to say that

we exist because we are a successful species at avoiding harm

[engmoo]

they were arguing from different perspectives.

I liked Adam idea that God is a very strong explanation as a source for all moral values.

thanx