My moral belief is very simple and based only on two principles:
-Respect
-Decency
Thats all. Easy.
And I believe that I live a better life than some theists who bully people and treat them with disrespect during the week and then go to their place of worship on Sunday and all is forgiven so they can go out and continue with their normal lives.
Thank You! I was going to point out the very same thing about animals to Christians but I was sure one of them would pounce on me calling me a douche bag or some such thing as they commonly seem to do to others who question Gods existence and teachings. I was also sure they'd come back with something like... well animals act on instinct and not free will thus they are pre-programed to act a certain way, which is hogwash. Anyway, uncharacteristically, I left it unsaid.
So there you have it. I consider all arguments against religions useless unless this issue is addressed. In the religious mind, evidence isn't as important. An argument via evolution is utterly useless unless you first address which approach gets precedence. Should you believe things because of faith, or should you believe based on evidence.
A few months ago as I was discussing evolution with my conservative catholic father(who is getting his master's degree in some sort of theology), we were arguing about how the church is able to reconcile itself with evolution. Basically, the answer I got was pretty revealing and I'm sure I'll remember it for a damn long time. His argument, as it went, was basically this. "evolution is alright so long as it doesn't directly contradict Faith".
To ericdt7, I'd suggest considering other devious human behavior such as necrophilia, cannibalism, torture, lying, stealing, etc.
I think this illustrates exactly why explaining the roots of morality via evolution(I think the argument in this video presupposes evolution is true) isn't effective against mainstream religions - they don't believe in evolution. However, when trying to explain evolution to religious folk, problems arise immediately.
And no, I don't subscribe to the idea that atheists are immoral, or lack judgement. I just have to wonder how one can adhere to an absolute morality, if the basis for moral laws is circumstantial and relative.
Many statements in this video indeed sound somewhat ridiculous, and rather simplistic. Comparing animals to humans (and their distinctive psyche) is rather silly. Then again, the animal kingdom is not without cruelty. Quite often lions will attack / kill their young (males). And there are many other scuh examples where animals are concerned. Just as most animals do not understand "love". Back to humans... the first question that needs answered when discussing morality is if evil exists.
What about stealing? Animals steal from eachother. Lions are jealous of another lions meat, and it will go try to take it. Squirrels will hide their acorns, because squirrels steal from squirrels. Animals have no problem with stealing. They don't think it is wrong. However, humans KNOW it is wrong to steal. It's against the law, and we don't just take things. Where does that sense of right and wrong come from, because it certaintly doesn't come from our "ancestors".
We have moral philosophy, sociology and psychology amongst religious texts. For example Immanuel Kant (a great German philosopher) set the basis of morals in our rationality, our conscious mind able to judge. But there could be other non-religious bases on which a moral behavior could be built. Religion itself can be interpreted as a human social development, an easy way to find an instance to achieve social living possible.
I don't care too much about religion. I think it's interesting, but I don't believe it because I see no proof. Atheist have morality. Deal with it. I don't need a book, or even a law, to tell me that killing people is bad. If thats your thing, fine. But don't come knocking on my door trying to spread your fear onto my lifestyle.
v=-wB6fb-VLaM...You don't get it rabidape. God created everything, and we were created in his image. We create. I know you play guitar. Chord chart this for me (from scratch), if you can.
That video is a wonderful example of the athiest ability to coercse confused/simple/ignorant people to their cause. Religion is a bad word to it's worst extent. Jesus himself debated the "religion" of the pharases and kicked their ass. Because they preached God, but were corrupt (sound familiar?). We never change, even with God's word, to this day. God's word is true. We're the one's too stupid to get it (and truely live by it).
billthrill, if anything is allusion it's atheism, based on "if". How lame. Richard Dawkins will be forgotten 100 years from now (or less). He is a "nobody" compared to those who made "real" scientific" breakthoughs" throughout history, and were Christian and who "understood" that the Bible scriptures lead to true understanding/science.
I strongly disagree. "...that the Bible scriptures lead to true understanding/science." The bible is science's enemy. The bible tells us that the Earth is a few thousand years old, that God created man himself (no evolution), that the Earth is the center of the universe, and that Moses put two of each species on the ark. Do you really buy into all this bullsh*t?
The Bible is science's enemy? Your understanding of the Bible & History is really really bad if that is your best examples. Centuries outdated outlooks & young earth creationists? OH yea, the boring easy defense.
If you are really saying the bible supports science, then I am convinced you are just f*cking with me, so there is no point in debating anymore. If that is what you really believe, then give support for your argument.
The Bible challenges man's understanding of science. The examples are plentifull. Geocentricty is ancient historical belief by most world cultures, not the Bible. Look up "astronomy" in Wilkipedia. That's just one example.
Yea I figured that was a slip. No biggie. I'd be happy to answer the two questions you've asked. But it would be nice if you'd reply to the comments I made, first.
Which specific thing do you want me to respond to?
By the way, youtube kind of sucks for discussions.
The Richard Dawkins forum on imdb is a better location if you want to discuss there. I gotta warn you though: there are more atheists than religious people.
Ya youtube isn't the greatest cause of comments are not in order. I meant my reply about looking up "astronomy" in Wilki & the Bible challenging man's understanding.
I might check out that forum, thanks. It wouldn't bother me if I'm outnumbered lol.
"billthrill, if anything is allusion it's atheism, based on "if". How lame." What exactly do you mean by this? Religion is the huge IF. Religion says, "We cannot explain this, so it must be God." Atheism trusts science, which uses evidence rather than a fictional book to explain the world.
Nice example, Copernicus quote: Perhaps there will be babblers who claim to be judges of astronomy although completely ignorant of the subject and, badly distorting some passage of Scripture to their purpose, will dare to find fault with my undertaking and censure it. I disregard them even to the extent of despising their criticism as unfounded.
We do share the basic instinct to surive and social programming as animals, but beyond that it's a lame arguement. We have emotional/spiritual content they do not. Understanding of good and bad, ego, vanity, greed. Animals don't need morals, but we do. And where do morals come from. RELIGIOUS TEXT. Biblical, buddhist, hindu ect ect. And you ask why? Simple, because we're not just physical creatures, but spiritual (Created in God's image, remember?).....v=qoSkRRLZZZg
The possibility of morals comming from society over time is impossable, and there is no evidents of it ever happening. No historical facts to support this idea.
You mean like slavery slowly over time being abolished? You mean like women slowly over time getting equal rights as men? You mean like society slowly over time becoming more free? Those kinds of historical facts?
Slavery, William Wilberforce Christian abolitionist started the movement along with many other churches / Historiclly Jesus is the number one Fememist, his encounter with the woman caught in adultry, the woman at the well and trusting the testimony of women as the first to see his resurrection. More Free? there is no such thing, either your free or your not...are you meaning the practice of of favoring some people over others...if so that wouldn't be from Christ, He has set us all free equally.
You obviously missed my point. I was pointing out how we achieved greater morality over time, which you said was impossible. Jesus has nothing to do with it.
Oh and sorry but approx. 200,000 years is the accepted view, not proven to any solid degree. We couldn't carbon date a 100,000 year old human if we had wanted to. You can't split the atom with "accepted view". It's a proven formula. Some science is absolute and alot is theory.... give me something solid. Answer my question about Atheist nations? I'm throwing you a bone there.
Give me something other than pure denial with no backing. I'm Tryin to relate my point by your methods. Science and historically proof. You can't argue morals would've occured naturally, because it didn't. Man's first need to write and communicate were for spirutual reasons and that far beyond just than 2000 years. Next....
Atheist Nations? I've never looked into that, so tell me..what countries have majority populations that are atheist and a leader/president that is a practicing/leading atheist?
I'm not deluded at all. You just can't admit the truth. The morals you live by as an atheist are Christian and religious based. We as a species wouldn't have survived to this day without them. Atheists adopt religious morals and practice them without beliving in God. Can you not understand my point? Or is it just that distasteful to give credit where credit is due?
And pointless rambles to boot! Animals live by instinct and don't kill for sport and pleasure. That's what Man does. Whether you believe in God or not we all live by the morals originally written as religious script. And you should be thankful for that. Britian was saved by these religious morals. The well preserved and violently murdered bodies pulled from the bogs proves how difficult it would be for a Godless people to even graps the idea of morality.
He certainly rambles. He speaks of morals.A religion sets a benchmark of morality. It both creates and defines it. Where does he determine his morals? From whence did he arrive at a concept of morality? He feels he is moral based upon what? Someone else may not agree with his morals. So what is moral? People of religion have experience based time tested texts that set a framework for behavior. Atheism is meaningless other than the non belief in a higher power.
i agree with you on most parts however i would like to hear what you think of The Tsavo Man-eaters and other animals that seem to kill without any obvious reason
Religious people often make the argument that if we didn't have religion to give morality, then we'd all be running around killing and raping each other. Is the only thing stopping these religious people from committing atrocities their belief in a god? Sort of scary.
I miss seeing this blokes videos, though he wasnt the best speaker, his points were spot on all the time. Bring back NICK !
Kanvass1 2 years ago
My moral belief is very simple and based only on two principles:
-Respect
-Decency
Thats all. Easy.
And I believe that I live a better life than some theists who bully people and treat them with disrespect during the week and then go to their place of worship on Sunday and all is forgiven so they can go out and continue with their normal lives.
StopSpamming1 2 years ago
paulusmagirl 2 years ago
What is your defenition of morality?
onetocome 3 years ago
im not an athiest but lol all kangaroos are going to hell
pistonsfan1991 3 years ago
All morality is bunk.
watch?v=AVCd58U5FM8
frosty666fuckXyou 3 years ago
So there you have it. I consider all arguments against religions useless unless this issue is addressed. In the religious mind, evidence isn't as important. An argument via evolution is utterly useless unless you first address which approach gets precedence. Should you believe things because of faith, or should you believe based on evidence.
clam454 3 years ago
A few months ago as I was discussing evolution with my conservative catholic father(who is getting his master's degree in some sort of theology), we were arguing about how the church is able to reconcile itself with evolution. Basically, the answer I got was pretty revealing and I'm sure I'll remember it for a damn long time. His argument, as it went, was basically this. "evolution is alright so long as it doesn't directly contradict Faith".
clam454 3 years ago
To ericdt7, I'd suggest considering other devious human behavior such as necrophilia, cannibalism, torture, lying, stealing, etc.
I think this illustrates exactly why explaining the roots of morality via evolution(I think the argument in this video presupposes evolution is true) isn't effective against mainstream religions - they don't believe in evolution. However, when trying to explain evolution to religious folk, problems arise immediately.
clam454 3 years ago
And no, I don't subscribe to the idea that atheists are immoral, or lack judgement. I just have to wonder how one can adhere to an absolute morality, if the basis for moral laws is circumstantial and relative.
ericdt7 3 years ago
Many statements in this video indeed sound somewhat ridiculous, and rather simplistic. Comparing animals to humans (and their distinctive psyche) is rather silly. Then again, the animal kingdom is not without cruelty. Quite often lions will attack / kill their young (males). And there are many other scuh examples where animals are concerned. Just as most animals do not understand "love". Back to humans... the first question that needs answered when discussing morality is if evil exists.
ericdt7 3 years ago
What about stealing? Animals steal from eachother. Lions are jealous of another lions meat, and it will go try to take it. Squirrels will hide their acorns, because squirrels steal from squirrels. Animals have no problem with stealing. They don't think it is wrong. However, humans KNOW it is wrong to steal. It's against the law, and we don't just take things. Where does that sense of right and wrong come from, because it certaintly doesn't come from our "ancestors".
Republican21 3 years ago
We have moral philosophy, sociology and psychology amongst religious texts. For example Immanuel Kant (a great German philosopher) set the basis of morals in our rationality, our conscious mind able to judge. But there could be other non-religious bases on which a moral behavior could be built. Religion itself can be interpreted as a human social development, an easy way to find an instance to achieve social living possible.
eydos 4 years ago
I don't care too much about religion. I think it's interesting, but I don't believe it because I see no proof. Atheist have morality. Deal with it. I don't need a book, or even a law, to tell me that killing people is bad. If thats your thing, fine. But don't come knocking on my door trying to spread your fear onto my lifestyle.
RedeGude 4 years ago
v=-wB6fb-VLaM...You don't get it rabidape. God created everything, and we were created in his image. We create. I know you play guitar. Chord chart this for me (from scratch), if you can.
KapaMan00 4 years ago
That video is a wonderful example of the athiest ability to coercse confused/simple/ignorant people to their cause. Religion is a bad word to it's worst extent. Jesus himself debated the "religion" of the pharases and kicked their ass. Because they preached God, but were corrupt (sound familiar?). We never change, even with God's word, to this day. God's word is true. We're the one's too stupid to get it (and truely live by it).
KapaMan00 4 years ago
"That video is a wonderful example of the athiest ability to coercse confused/simple/ignorant people to their cause."
Are you serious? Read a book that outlines the countless flaws with religion. I recommend The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.
Religion is a joke.
billthrill1 4 years ago
billthrill, if anything is allusion it's atheism, based on "if". How lame. Richard Dawkins will be forgotten 100 years from now (or less). He is a "nobody" compared to those who made "real" scientific" breakthoughs" throughout history, and were Christian and who "understood" that the Bible scriptures lead to true understanding/science.
KapaMan00 4 years ago
I strongly disagree. "...that the Bible scriptures lead to true understanding/science." The bible is science's enemy. The bible tells us that the Earth is a few thousand years old, that God created man himself (no evolution), that the Earth is the center of the universe, and that Moses put two of each species on the ark. Do you really buy into all this bullsh*t?
billthrill1 4 years ago
The Bible is science's enemy? Your understanding of the Bible & History is really really bad if that is your best examples. Centuries outdated outlooks & young earth creationists? OH yea, the boring easy defense.
KapaMan00 4 years ago
If you are really saying the bible supports science, then I am convinced you are just f*cking with me, so there is no point in debating anymore. If that is what you really believe, then give support for your argument.
billthrill1 4 years ago
The Bible challenges man's understanding of science. The examples are plentifull. Geocentricty is ancient historical belief by most world cultures, not the Bible. Look up "astronomy" in Wilkipedia. That's just one example.
KapaMan00 4 years ago
Let me ask you this: do you really believe that Moses put two of each species on an ark?
billthrill1 4 years ago
Don't sidestep my comment. Answer what I've presented first.
KapaMan00 4 years ago
I meant to write Noah's ark. Typo down there. Don't know why I wrote that.
billthrill1 4 years ago
Yea I figured that was a slip. No biggie. I'd be happy to answer the two questions you've asked. But it would be nice if you'd reply to the comments I made, first.
KapaMan00 4 years ago
Which specific thing do you want me to respond to?
By the way, youtube kind of sucks for discussions.
The Richard Dawkins forum on imdb is a better location if you want to discuss there. I gotta warn you though: there are more atheists than religious people.
billthrill1 4 years ago
Ya youtube isn't the greatest cause of comments are not in order. I meant my reply about looking up "astronomy" in Wilki & the Bible challenging man's understanding.
I might check out that forum, thanks. It wouldn't bother me if I'm outnumbered lol.
KapaMan00 4 years ago
"billthrill, if anything is allusion it's atheism, based on "if". How lame." What exactly do you mean by this? Religion is the huge IF. Religion says, "We cannot explain this, so it must be God." Atheism trusts science, which uses evidence rather than a fictional book to explain the world.
billthrill1 4 years ago
Nice example, Copernicus quote: Perhaps there will be babblers who claim to be judges of astronomy although completely ignorant of the subject and, badly distorting some passage of Scripture to their purpose, will dare to find fault with my undertaking and censure it. I disregard them even to the extent of despising their criticism as unfounded.
KapaMan00 4 years ago
Babble on dude. You, Dawkins and Gisburne
KapaMan00 4 years ago
We do share the basic instinct to surive and social programming as animals, but beyond that it's a lame arguement. We have emotional/spiritual content they do not. Understanding of good and bad, ego, vanity, greed. Animals don't need morals, but we do. And where do morals come from. RELIGIOUS TEXT. Biblical, buddhist, hindu ect ect. And you ask why? Simple, because we're not just physical creatures, but spiritual (Created in God's image, remember?).....v=qoSkRRLZZZg
KapaMan00 4 years ago
The possibility of morals comming from society over time is impossable, and there is no evidents of it ever happening. No historical facts to support this idea.
truth4U2C 4 years ago
You mean like slavery slowly over time being abolished? You mean like women slowly over time getting equal rights as men? You mean like society slowly over time becoming more free? Those kinds of historical facts?
alienspy07 4 years ago
Slavery, William Wilberforce Christian abolitionist started the movement along with many other churches / Historiclly Jesus is the number one Fememist, his encounter with the woman caught in adultry, the woman at the well and trusting the testimony of women as the first to see his resurrection. More Free? there is no such thing, either your free or your not...are you meaning the practice of of favoring some people over others...if so that wouldn't be from Christ, He has set us all free equally.
truth4U2C 4 years ago
You obviously missed my point. I was pointing out how we achieved greater morality over time, which you said was impossible. Jesus has nothing to do with it.
alienspy07 4 years ago
Oh and sorry but approx. 200,000 years is the accepted view, not proven to any solid degree. We couldn't carbon date a 100,000 year old human if we had wanted to. You can't split the atom with "accepted view". It's a proven formula. Some science is absolute and alot is theory.... give me something solid. Answer my question about Atheist nations? I'm throwing you a bone there.
KapaMan00 4 years ago
Give me something other than pure denial with no backing. I'm Tryin to relate my point by your methods. Science and historically proof. You can't argue morals would've occured naturally, because it didn't. Man's first need to write and communicate were for spirutual reasons and that far beyond just than 2000 years. Next....
KapaMan00 4 years ago
Atheist Nations? I've never looked into that, so tell me..what countries have majority populations that are atheist and a leader/president that is a practicing/leading atheist?
KapaMan00 4 years ago
KapaMan... you have been officially pwned.
XxTrailofDeadxX 4 years ago
I'm not deluded at all. You just can't admit the truth. The morals you live by as an atheist are Christian and religious based. We as a species wouldn't have survived to this day without them. Atheists adopt religious morals and practice them without beliving in God. Can you not understand my point? Or is it just that distasteful to give credit where credit is due?
KapaMan00 4 years ago
And pointless rambles to boot! Animals live by instinct and don't kill for sport and pleasure. That's what Man does. Whether you believe in God or not we all live by the morals originally written as religious script. And you should be thankful for that. Britian was saved by these religious morals. The well preserved and violently murdered bodies pulled from the bogs proves how difficult it would be for a Godless people to even graps the idea of morality.
KapaMan00 4 years ago
He certainly rambles. He speaks of morals.A religion sets a benchmark of morality. It both creates and defines it. Where does he determine his morals? From whence did he arrive at a concept of morality? He feels he is moral based upon what? Someone else may not agree with his morals. So what is moral? People of religion have experience based time tested texts that set a framework for behavior. Atheism is meaningless other than the non belief in a higher power.
Twicebakedtaters 5 years ago
very interesting
i agree with you on most parts however i would like to hear what you think of The Tsavo Man-eaters and other animals that seem to kill without any obvious reason
swoffy42 5 years ago
lmao at the edits.
xJediHowieX 5 years ago
Ants (and any Hive species) do sort of have a religion - they follow the law of the Queen.
Ronaldsan 5 years ago
That's not religion. That's just a legal system, if anything.
lanz0r4tehwin 5 years ago
AHHHHH...sorry, just needed that Gisburne fix.
wolf2dragon 5 years ago
Religious people often make the argument that if we didn't have religion to give morality, then we'd all be running around killing and raping each other. Is the only thing stopping these religious people from committing atrocities their belief in a god? Sort of scary.
Emily2531 5 years ago
Atheism is tits.
stratocasterz 5 years ago
fuck you.
karljt 5 years ago