@TheWalkingDead000 "Atheist are REALLY moral,because they try to be a good person" Hey Fuckhead,where did atheists learn what is good, in the first place? They learned it from cultures whose morals had been shaped by Theistic philosophy. You are a total moron.
@kmsoileau Atheist nations like North Korea, Albania etc have been hellholes to live in. This alone shows the stupidity of thinking that atheism leads to good government.
Oh I was just quoting the zaunstar vid. Sorry for the confusion (not trying to start a fight or anything, I just thought it was an interesting reply to this video)
@Icantbeforever I don't think I make any claims to speaking for anyone. I express my view that atheist moral indignation is ridiculous (or at least, irrational). I can't speak for Zaunstar's interpretation of my video.
Who id the "majority?" Please clarify. Morality is subjective by nature. If I'm religious, and someone else with a different religion says I'm being immoral, it's still a stalemate. It's society that controls what is moral in the end, not an omnipotent being.
@ArmyOfWalrus The religious person is not being "ridiculous" when he/she condemns immorality, because they are doing it within a context of belief in a God who establishes an objective morality. I don't claim they are "right", only that they are "not ridiculous." On the other hand, an indignant atheist who condemns morality does so with no context whatsoever, except their own personal preferences on how others should behave. That is what I claim is ridiculous.
@kmsoileau Why do you call me indignant? And as I stated, morality is naturally subjective. A deity didn't teach me not to steal or hurt. My peers taught me that. I know how to behave based on how the society I live in reacts to certain acts. Our current perception of morality actually stems from the idea of natural law, so you could argue atheists have a common understanding of what is moral as well as theists.
@ArmyOfWalrus Actually I didn't call you indignant. By indignant atheist I mean a subset of atheists of which you may or may not be a member. An atheist is indignant when he/she condemns the behavior of another person. Indignance involves taking the position that there is some moral authority that another person has, in the atheist's opinion violated. "Natural Law" had no authority beyond the fact that social majorities have embraced it. One can easily imagine other social conventions.
@kmsoileau Thank you for clarifying you weren't speaking of all atheists as being indignant. And yes, I'm sure there are other conventions, but natural law is a huge blueprint for what we perceive as moral. No, there is no authority figure, but it perfectly defines the basics of what is moral in our society.
Why rational people are still trying to talk to idiots like this guy in the video?Just tell him,tell them straight what they are-people suffering from serious brain damage.And stop treat them as a normals,because they are not.It's a job for doctors to fix them,if it's even possible.
@phillozoph50 I chuckled when I got to the end of your comment and realized you didn't say anything intelligent or make any kind of point, merely that you disagree with my point of view but apparently can't say way in a logical argument.
@kmsoileau BTW, the 4 likes represent the roughly 4% of viewers who are smart enough to understand the point of the video. The rest are morons like you. Have a nice day! :)
@kmsoileau I think 4 likes represents 100% of people retarded enough to share your opinions and the rest are normal.104 dislikes represents roughly 10% of them.
@0019josh7100 "I base my morals on evidence and reason..." You still haven't told me why your basis is any better than that of another atheist who believes in pleasure seeking and sees your "evidence and reason" as a pretext to restrict his/her pursuit of pleasure...
Because you can't. Your moral code is based on a fallacy.
You thinking its ridiculous is simply your personal opinion....I am glad that you agree that I'm a morally indignant atheist even if you find it ridiculous....
Here's what "moral authority" is NOT: A christian trying to tell anyone what's morally right and morally wrong because there version of a god told them...Especially when there is ABSOLUTELY no evidence for there version of there god...
If you don't agree with the definition of a word I would suggest not using the word...I think there would be less confusion this way because most people use the dictionary to define words...
@0019josh7100 So you have no answer for my other questions? All you have to discuss is my use of the dictionary? This discussion is becoming pointless.
Its really confusing when you make up your own definition for a word. . It just confuses the argument...It would be easier if you phrased your argument differently because most people use a dictionary to define words...
@0019josh7100 "Its really confusing when you make up your own definition for a word." It's really confusing when you define one word, "moral authority" in terms of another (undefined) word, "good character." Unless you can define "good character", the dictionary definition of "moral authority" is worthless except to point out that the two concepts are related.
Just because people don't agree with me has no bearing on me being a morally indignant atheist....Just because you find it ridiculous has no bearing on me being a morally indignant atheist...I am a morally indignant atheist....
Since you don't agree with the definition of moral authority you should phrase your argument differently. . That way there's less confusion. . Most people use the dictionary to define words...
@0019josh7100 "definition of moral authority" Like most dictionary definitions, the definition is circular. In this case, the definition uses the term "good character" to define moral authority, but doesn't define the meaning of "good character." If you don't understand this, use the dictionary to learn about "circular" definitions and arguments.
@0019josh7100 Here's what "moral authority" is NOT: An atheist like you telling another atheist how to behave and the meaning of right and wrong, good and bad. It doesn't matter whether you have some fancy rationale like "evidence and reasoning." Your moral judgment is not any more valid than that of another atheist.
@kmsoileau Since we are discussing moral issues between two atheists, the moral thinking of Christians is completely irrelevant. Please stay on topic.
For me to be a morally indignant atheist all I have to do is to find someone or something's morals are unjust or wrong..A good example of this is christians version of a god condoning slavery in the bible...Your approval of my reasoning has absolutely no bearing on me being a morally indignant atheist...
@0019josh7100 "For me to be a morally indignant atheist all I have to do is to find someone or something's morals are unjust or wrong." Sure you can. However, your "finding" something wrong has no significance to anyone but yourself, since a different atheist is perfectly free to reject your moral judgment and use his/her own. It's just your opinion, nothing more.
moral authority 1. The quality or characteristic of being respected for having good character or knowledge, especially as a source of guidance or an exemplar of proper conduct.
@0019josh7100 "good character" What's good character? You are still indulging in circular definitions. Besides, "evidence and reason" do not say anything about the meaning of good character, so your own version of morality has no authority under the dictionary definition you present.
@0019josh7100 "Slavery is morally unjust" So YOU say. Another atheist might say that some races are inferior and should be enslaved. Who are YOU to say that the other atheist is "wrong"?
He's saying because atheist don't claim that they receive their morals directly from some version of a god,that atheist can't be morally indignant,but I showed him that by basing my morals on evidence and reason I can prove someone else's morals are unjust by evidence and reason....I am a morally indignant atheist and I think you are too...
@0019josh7100 "I can prove someone else's morals are unjust by evidence and reason" You proved no such thing. You began with the assumption that "evidence and reason" have moral authority. It's called a circular argument, a type of logical fallacy.
I don't have hostilities toward christians...I'm just using them as examples for how people can get there morals wrong when they get them out of an ancient text written by superstitious men claiming its the perfect word of their version of a god..
Christians don't base it on church teaching....They base their morals on the bible....There is several passages in the bible that condones slavery,but there isn't any that rejects slavery...
@0019josh7100 Your obsession with defaming Christians is adversely affecting your reasoning abilities. I've never met a Christian who believes slavery is moral. I don't think you have either. Maybe you should see a psychologist about your hostility toward Christians.
@kmsoileau The Bible clearly indicates that there is no moral objection to slavery. Slavery is a 'given'. So, it is clear that modern Christians do NOT derive their moral repugnance for slavery from the Bible. Christians also eat food that is explicitly forbidden in the Bible. They do not stone their children to death for disobedience either. It would appear that Christians 'cherry pick', because reasoned secular morality is FAR better than Biblical dogma.
I base my morals on evidence and reason not the law....Your absolutely right about humanities morals on slavery..They have improved because of evidence and reasoning....There is still a lot of religious people especially christian who believe slavery is morally just because it is condoned by their version of a god.....
@0019josh7100 I agree that reasoned secular morality has far outstripped Biblical morality. Christians seem oblivious to the fact that they themselves do not derive their own morality from the Bible and clearly ignore MOST of it; the stonings for; adultery, working on the Sabbath, children for disobedience. That sort of thing. The worrying thing is that this primitive penal code is alive and kicking the Islamic legal system of Sharia which they impose in Islamic countries and plan for the West.
@kmsoileau I was responding to one of the comments.The video argument is based on the sinister idea that if there is no God then it follows that there are no morals. It could just as easily be argued that WITH Abraham's God there are no morals. After playing chicken, Abe takes a knife to his son's genitals to settle the matter. His cousin raped his own daughters, had one gang raped, probably murdered his wife. They were the best God could find? Not to mention the Arabian Blackbeard, Mohammed.
@ritchloui "The video argument is based on the sinister idea that if there is no God then it follows that there are no morals." Wrong. The video makes no such claim. Atheists can certainly have moral codes and live by them. The video claims that moral INDIGNATION is ridiculous. Keep watching it over and over until you get it.
@0019josh7100 In 1850 slave owners weren't breaking any laws by owning slaves, yet slavery is almost universally regarded as immoral. Therefore one cannot reliably base one's moral compass on the law, as you seem to be doing.
@0019josh7100 How would you answer an atheist who said, "Your evidence and reasoning are just pretexts to try to control how I run my life. Run your own life any way you want, but don't try to tell me what I should and shouldn't do!"?
Your right....Lets get back to the video....You say that there can't be a morally indignant atheist ....I think mao tse tungs morals were wrong because of my basis for morality ....Therefore I'm a morally indignant atheist....
@0019josh7100 "mao tse tungs morals were wrong" You may THINK he's wrong, but in the end all you have is your personal opinion. That's not a basis, your opinion has no authority over anyone but you. I'm sure Mao wouldn't have given your opinion of his actions any consideration at all.
@0019josh7100 "Until there is another source of morality discovered its the best method we have." Perhaps, but again, which source of morality is the "best" (whatever that means) is not the point of the video. Perhaps you should do a video describing what "best source of morality" means.
@0019josh7100 Since evidence and reasoning by themselves is just as likely to lead to amoral as well as moral behavior, it's obvious they are insufficient as sources of moral judgment. More is required.
You are human and you are just like everyone else; therefore, your morality though regressing into the bronze age is not superior to modern morality which embraces today our current world reality.
@JusticeIsWhere "your morality though regressing into the bronze age" LOL WTF are you talking about? I have made no assertions about "my" morality, I am logically discussing the implications of atheist morality. Complain about religion on your own video.
You believe god exists because you are supposed to believe he exists, so as to be accepted in the community, horde, of which you feel belonging. Protecting the belief is a group function of our social evolution of horde-group behavior thus you are not protecting god but in fact are just protecting your standing in your cult of believers.
What are the morals of a bronze age god that have improved humanity if both moral authority and the right to abandon morality come from God (assuming the existence of a moral god like you)? Morality is learned group psychosocial behavior and is based solely on one’s life experience and one’s function within a group. Morality is not defined by any god, yet is influenced by delusional god belief and internalized self-projections that are manifestations in group think rituals.
Hitler believed he was doing gods will. Hitler was raised christian. Hitler was a self proclaimed christian. .Here is just one of Hitlers many quotes "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.." - Hitler, Mein Kamph
@0019josh7100 "Hitler was a self proclaimed christian" LOL If he had said he was a microwave oven, would you have tried to use him to bake a potato? If you don't like my Hitler example, then consider that atheist Mao Tse Tung based his "morals" on evidence and reasoning. The point is the same.
@0019josh7100 "And I said that I base my morals on evidence and reasoning." Evidence and reasoning are not a basis for morals. Evidence and reasoning (of a particularly brutal kind) guided the "morals" of Adolph Hitler.
@0019josh7100 You did not answer all of my questions. My main question is, why do you claim that pedophiles are "wrong"? How the hell do YOU know what is right and wrong? You merely follow the moral programming of society. If you had been raised by pedophiles, you would probably support their views on morality.
"religious people have moral superiority over atheist" Neither the video nor this discussion is about religious people. It is about atheism and atheists. If you want to discuss religious people, make a video of your own.
No your claim for your version for a god is irrational because its unsupported by evidence . . I was raised by christians. . I dismissed their morals and know I have my own morals based on evidence and reasoning. Child rape is morally wrong. .
@0019josh7100 "No your claim for your version for a god is irrational because its unsupported by evidence" What claim? I made no such claim. Are you getting tired of not being able to answer my questions?
@0019josh7100 "My claim is rational" In what sense is it rational? You are angry when children are hurt, yet you cannot say why YOUR moral view is somehow more credible than the claim of a different atheist that life is about pleasure and children are for the sexual pleasure of adults. In fact, you cannot say why, your "rational" view is based entirely on learned emotional reactions absorbed by you during your upbringing. If you'd been brought up by pedophiles, you'd have a different "morality."
Here is the definition for indignant... Indignant - angered at something unjust or wrong; "an indignant denial"; "incensed at the judges' unfairness"; "a look of outraged disbelief".......I am a morally indignant atheist because I am angered at the unjust morals of the version of the christian god yahwey....
@0019josh7100 "unjust morals" Before declaring that Yahweh is "unjust" or "immoral", you must first present a moral system with enough authority to judge a god. Otherwise you are merely expressing your own personal morality which has no innate authority over anyone but YOU, much less an unimaginably powerful god. Well?
I have moral authority over anyone who thinks child rape is ok and I have evidence to back up my moral authority ....... Just because you invoke your version of a god doesn't validate your morals....
–noun 1. The quality or characteristic of being respected for having good character or knowledge,especially as a source of guidance or an exemplar of proper conduct. . .Is this how you define moral authority....
@0019josh7100 Moral authority is what establishes that behavior X is wrong and behavior Y is right. It's more than just one atheist's opinion. You seem to think that because you think harming children is wrong, that somehow means that other atheists ought to agree with you. This is your delusion.
@0019josh7100 "Child rape is morally wrong because it has harmful effects on the child that was raped." Says you. A different atheist is free to say, I think harm to children doesn't matter, what's important is adult pleasure. Who are you to say that atheist is "wrong"?
Just because no one accepts my morals doesn't have any bearing on me having a basis for my morals. . My morals are base on evidence and reason. . You saying I don't have a basis for my morals is just plain wrong. ..My basis for my morality is evidence and reasoning. . What is the basis for your morality?
@0019josh7100 "I base my morals on evidence and reason. ." Obviously. But why should anyone else share your view of morality? It's still just your personal preference, yet in an earlier post you claimed that a pedophile's or a selfish atheist's moralities are "wrong." Says who? You? THAT'S what I mean when I say your morality has no basis.
I base my morals on evidence and reasoning ....Therefore my basis for morals is evidence and reasoning. . It is also my preference for basing morality. .
@0019josh7100 You haven't given me an objective basis for it, you merely express that it is your personal preference to base your morality on evidence and reasoning. You haven't said why your preference is more valid than say, an atheist who believes in maximum pleasure for him or herself and doesn't care about anyone else.
I would tell him he was wrong, but he is allowed to think that if he wants..That's why we have laws to protect us from people whose morals are screwed up like christian who say slavery is ok because there version god codones slavery or killing homosexual is ok because there version of god commands it. .
@0019josh7100 "I would tell him he was wrong" You tell him he's wrong, he tells you you're wrong. In the end you have no basis for your moral code except that it's your personal preference. To atheists, morality is like language: it makes no sense to insist that anyone else speak the same language as you do, similarly it makes no sense to be indignant that someone else doesn't adhere to your moral code.
@0019josh7100 I asked you first. Answer the question. What is the source of your moral sense of right and wrong? If it's reason and evidence, how would you respond to an atheist who says, "Shove your reason and evidence, I believe in pleasing myself, your "morality" is just a way of controlling me."
I was raised by christians who still think slavery is morally ok because their version of god condones it and that homosexuality is immoral....I reject both of these premises..Not because I was taught to because I went to church school which tried to reinforce these immoral views. .I
@0019josh7100 Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. OK, so you rejected the premises as immoral. So that means some moral source inside your head told you the premises were immoral. So where did that voice in your head come from? Hmmmmmm? Your DNA?
I know I'm right and he is wrong about raping a child and I will stand with other people in society and show my evidence and make laws against child rape. .I will morally not approve of child rape . . And I didn't come to this conclusion by any version of god. . . I used evidence and reason from past events to justify my morals. .saying you get your moral superiority by your version of god makes you delusion. First you have to prove your version of god exist. .
@0019josh7100 "I know I'm right and he is wrong " How do you know? Faith? You just don't get it, do you? The reason you think raping children is wrong is because you were taught to believe that. There is no other basis for your disapproval of such an act. Atheism, in itself, is completely amoral and atheists who follow moral codes do it because they absorbed the code at an early age. To an atheist, all morality is just the consensus of the people who raised them.
That's why we have laws because we can't all agree on morals. . And these laws come from men not from some higher authority . . You give it a rest. .I think child rape is wrong not because some higher authority whispered in my ear but because I have been giving evidence that it is harmful to the child in numerous ways. .And I am disgusted by any who thinks its morally acceptable. .I am a moral indignant atheist. . You can get morals from reason. .
@0019josh7100 "giving evidence that it is harmful to the child" You implicitly assume that avoiding harm to children is wrong. A different atheist might say that children are for the sexual pleasure of adults. Who are YOU to say the other atheist is wrong? In fact, you have no real basis to argue that you are right and the other atheist is wrong. Nothing in atheism per se approves of you and disapproves of the other atheist.
@Boosterbeast My videos have nothing to do with my personal preferences, they examine the logical moral implications of atheism. Try reading and watching before commenting, you'll seem less ignorant.
Sadly I did. But you only see the extremes of either case. Either we have your god OR we have no morals at all... you seem to forget the social aspect of the human race. We are social animals and we "invented" morals loooong before any one god claimed the rights to them (again)
AND I take it that when you say "extra human authority" I guess you mean the god of the bible... so my first comment stands.
@Boosterbeast Once again, my video doesn't say it's ridiculous to be an atheist, it says it's ridiculous to be a morally indignant atheist. Keep watching until you get it.
Realistically don't we all answer to the higher moral authority of what ever social group we live in? This is a flawed argument. Your presupposition that god/s is the only possible higher authority is ignores human interactions like the parent and child, the police and citizen, and so on. What about doing the right thing for the simple idea that it is right? Your assertion is based on a premiss that is full of holes.
Gosh, I go on a long sea cruise and I find whole new levels of stupidity and lack of comprehension littering my video page. One more time: my videos are neutral with respect to Theism and atheism. They make observations about morality in a godless setting. It's pointless to bring up religion when I specifically make no assumptions about the truth or falsehood of any religion. My videos examine the logical moral implications of atheism. Kindly restrict your comments to the topic or post somewher
Realize that morals are not objective, but subjective. Now (as quickly as possible, please) realize that subjective morals are not worthless. Morality is not destroyed by its subjective nature, but in fact it is freed. Morality changes as we change. It adapts to our society as we learn new things. Morality is updated through reasoned argument. Slavery, for example, was once as morally accepted as having a pet cat, but society changed.
(cont) You are mistaken when you suggest that anything goes if morality is not objective. What is moral depends on what is agreed *by those directly affected by the action*, provided they are of sound mind to agree. It isn't wrong to punch my best friend in the stomach if he wants me to, but it is wrong to punch the same friend if he doesn't want me to. It's not exactly rocket science. The very core of morality is social interaction.. as in more than one person involved.
Flawed thinking there, man. Majority rule means that if you can convince 50.1% of people to kill the other 49.9%, it would be 'morally' OK. It's not, and I would like to believe that most people would agree. Majority rule does not equal correct rule.
Wow. Man is a social animal. I think the things you call morals are just behavior of humans that allows them to live in a group and to sustain the species as it moves foreward in time. I think that is what you are talking about, but I am unsure. You don't seem to understand the words coming out of your mouth. Strange.
Oh hell...you are just a good ole bag full of strawmen, aren't you? Silly old fart, try thinking on a slightly higher plane than strictly black and white for a change, will you? You want to talk "ridiculous"? Try expanding your morality to the plight of the African AIDS epidemic vs. contraception. Jesus had nothing significant to say about the subject, and with your REALLY STUPID good vs. bad paradigm, you don't either. Morality is complicated, and the Bible is terrible at conveying that.
The morality of our society is not based on the Bible or some King in the sky, Our morality is determined by what we say what we do and what people say and think about what we do. We don't just go around saying these people are good those people are bad. there's usually a reason. We have determined that things like murder, rape and stealing are wrong not because a god made some list but because they intentionally hurt others. and not all criminals are evil or bad. some just need help or guidance
Well, I guess you think morals come from the god of the Bible and ,as such, those laws are perfect. Let's look into these perfect moral laws then. "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Exodus 22:18 "'If a priest's daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire." Leviticus 21:9 The "pro-life" god: "They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open." Hosea 13:16
@RadarKat73080 "Well, I guess you think morals come from the god of the Bible" Nothing in my video remotely asserts that. Projecting your disorganized thinking onto me? LOL
@kmsoileau What are you trying to say then? Seemed like you were arguing for a moral absolute, and since your target was "morally indignant atheists" I assumed you were trying to prove an absolute moral authority.
@kmsoileau Why? If you do something wrong, I have no right to call you out on it? I wouldn't chisel my morals onto a stone tablet and insist they were the law of the land for two reasons. They're not absolute, there are plenty of things that ALMOST always morally reprehensible, like rape. But if rape is better than the alternative, say the murder of a million people, then I'd begrudgingly bend to the situation. Also, there are plenty of people who disagree with me.
@RadarKat73080 "If you do something wrong, I have no right to call you out on it?" How do you KNOW that what I've done is wrong? If it think it's actually a right thing to do, what makes your opinion trump mine?
@kmsoileau Nothing, but again, I don't make the laws. My morals are my opinion. If there's a god, his morals are his opinion. But we both still get to have one.
@RadarKat73080 Right. But moral indignation isn't just difference of opinion. When one becomes morally indignant, one is implicitly taking the position of "I'm right, you're wrong." That's what my video is about.
@RadarKat73080 Right. But moral indignation isn't just difference of opinion. When one becomes morally indignant, one is implicitly taking the position of "I'm right, you're wrong." That's what my video is about.
@kmsoileau Okay, you could have made that clearer in the video. Why single out atheists if you don't think there's a divine moral standard? The only real difference between a theist and an atheist in a morals argument is that the theist thinks his morals are from on high, from his god or gods. Thus they are absolute.
@RadarKat73080 The relevant difference between atheists and Theists is that Theists have an single unifying source for their morality, namely the will of the God they worship. Atheists by their very nature have no such unifying moral source, so therefore atheist moral indignation is essentially ridiculous.
@RadarKat73080 "Most do agree that hurting others is wrong." True, but so what? All that indicates is the prevailing consensus on morality. One could easily imagine an alternate society which holds that only the strong deserve to survive. Who are atheists to claim that such a society is "wrong"?
@RadarKat73080 "Such a society, one that's "every man for himself", won't be a society for long." Says you. "Take your morality and shove it" says a different atheist who sees your morality as a way to control and obstruct his quest for personal pleasure.
@kmsoileau Different Christians often have VASTLY different morals. Some see murder as moral, if the victim is a doctor who performs abortions, for example. You can't lump everyone into one group and claim they ALL do this or think like this. Atheists get accused of groupthink a lot. But we have no Bible and nobody who claims to know "the Truth."
@RadarKat73080 My point has nothing to do with claiming anyone has the truth. My point is, an indignant atheist has a logically inconsistent viewpoint, because their philosophy does not admit of a unifying source of morals. An indignant Theist has a logically consistent position in that their philosophy does admit of such a unifying source of morals. "Consistency" is not the same as "correctness."
@RadarKat73080 "Some see murder as moral, if the victim is a doctor who performs abortions, for example." I think mainstream Christian has roundly condemned such criminals.
@RadarKat73080 We're discussing Theism as a source of morals, NOT whether those who claim to be Theists are always faithful and perfect in following its precepts. The fact that some who claim to be Theists are also criminals is not the point.
And don't get testy. I have no tolerance for that.
@TheWalkingDead000 "Atheist are REALLY moral,because they try to be a good person" Hey Fuckhead,where did atheists learn what is good, in the first place? They learned it from cultures whose morals had been shaped by Theistic philosophy. You are a total moron.
kmsoileau 2 weeks ago
@kmsoileau Atheist nations like North Korea, Albania etc have been hellholes to live in. This alone shows the stupidity of thinking that atheism leads to good government.
kmsoileau 2 weeks ago
I look forward to seeing them. I'll try too keep a more open mind
Icantbeforever 2 months ago
It appears I have misunderstood this video. My apologies
Icantbeforever 2 months ago
@Icantbeforever No problem. I look forward to your future thoughts about my videos.
kmsoileau 2 months ago
Very well, it appears I have misinterpreted this video. My apologies
Icantbeforever 2 months ago
Oh I was just quoting the zaunstar vid. Sorry for the confusion (not trying to start a fight or anything, I just thought it was an interesting reply to this video)
Icantbeforever 2 months ago
@Icantbeforever I don't think I make any claims to speaking for anyone. I express my view that atheist moral indignation is ridiculous (or at least, irrational). I can't speak for Zaunstar's interpretation of my video.
kmsoileau 2 months ago
hold up!!!! you think were arguing for the majority?
Icantbeforever 2 months ago
@Icantbeforever I'm not sure I understand your post, clarify?
kmsoileau 2 months ago
Who id the "majority?" Please clarify. Morality is subjective by nature. If I'm religious, and someone else with a different religion says I'm being immoral, it's still a stalemate. It's society that controls what is moral in the end, not an omnipotent being.
ArmyOfWalrus 2 months ago
@ArmyOfWalrus The religious person is not being "ridiculous" when he/she condemns immorality, because they are doing it within a context of belief in a God who establishes an objective morality. I don't claim they are "right", only that they are "not ridiculous." On the other hand, an indignant atheist who condemns morality does so with no context whatsoever, except their own personal preferences on how others should behave. That is what I claim is ridiculous.
kmsoileau 2 months ago
@kmsoileau I wrote "condemns morality", I meant "condemns immorality".
kmsoileau 2 months ago
@kmsoileau Why do you call me indignant? And as I stated, morality is naturally subjective. A deity didn't teach me not to steal or hurt. My peers taught me that. I know how to behave based on how the society I live in reacts to certain acts. Our current perception of morality actually stems from the idea of natural law, so you could argue atheists have a common understanding of what is moral as well as theists.
ArmyOfWalrus 2 months ago
@ArmyOfWalrus Actually I didn't call you indignant. By indignant atheist I mean a subset of atheists of which you may or may not be a member. An atheist is indignant when he/she condemns the behavior of another person. Indignance involves taking the position that there is some moral authority that another person has, in the atheist's opinion violated. "Natural Law" had no authority beyond the fact that social majorities have embraced it. One can easily imagine other social conventions.
kmsoileau 2 months ago
@kmsoileau Thank you for clarifying you weren't speaking of all atheists as being indignant. And yes, I'm sure there are other conventions, but natural law is a huge blueprint for what we perceive as moral. No, there is no authority figure, but it perfectly defines the basics of what is moral in our society.
ArmyOfWalrus 2 months ago
@kmsoileau Thank you for the civil dialogue. Looking forward to your future comments.
kmsoileau 2 months ago
Why rational people are still trying to talk to idiots like this guy in the video?Just tell him,tell them straight what they are-people suffering from serious brain damage.And stop treat them as a normals,because they are not.It's a job for doctors to fix them,if it's even possible.
phillozoph50 2 months ago
@phillozoph50 I chuckled when I got to the end of your comment and realized you didn't say anything intelligent or make any kind of point, merely that you disagree with my point of view but apparently can't say way in a logical argument.
kmsoileau 2 months ago
@kmsoileau ......4 likes:)
phillozoph50 2 months ago
@phillozoph50 Well, you may not be able to debate intelligently, but you can understand numbers. It's a start... :)
kmsoileau 2 months ago
@kmsoileauYOU SUFFER FROM BRAIN DAMAGE BUT YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT IT.SO I'M TELLING YOUUUU.DOOOO YOOOO UNDERSTAND??? ....104 dislikes:)
phillozoph50 2 months ago
@phillozoph50 Just keep practicing your numbers: 1,2,3,4, ... :)
kmsoileau 2 months ago
@kmsoileau BTW, the 4 likes represent the roughly 4% of viewers who are smart enough to understand the point of the video. The rest are morons like you. Have a nice day! :)
kmsoileau 2 months ago
@kmsoileau I think 4 likes represents 100% of people retarded enough to share your opinions and the rest are normal.104 dislikes represents roughly 10% of them.
phillozoph50 2 months ago
@kmsoileau
My moral code is bases on evidence and reason...How is that a fallacy....
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@kmsoileau
They can believe whatever they want as long as they don't break any laws
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@kmsoileau
I base my morals on evidence and reason...
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@0019josh7100 "I base my morals on evidence and reason..." You still haven't told me why your basis is any better than that of another atheist who believes in pleasure seeking and sees your "evidence and reason" as a pretext to restrict his/her pursuit of pleasure...
Because you can't. Your moral code is based on a fallacy.
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@kmsoileau
You thinking its ridiculous is simply your personal opinion....I am glad that you agree that I'm a morally indignant atheist even if you find it ridiculous....
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@0019josh7100 "You thinking its ridiculous is simply your personal opinion" Actually, I backed it up with logic, which is more than you have done.
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@kmsoileau
Here's what "moral authority" is NOT: A christian trying to tell anyone what's morally right and morally wrong because there version of a god told them...Especially when there is ABSOLUTELY no evidence for there version of there god...
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@kmsoileau
If you don't agree with the definition of a word I would suggest not using the word...I think there would be less confusion this way because most people use the dictionary to define words...
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@0019josh7100 So you have no answer for my other questions? All you have to discuss is my use of the dictionary? This discussion is becoming pointless.
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@kmsoileau
Its really confusing when you make up your own definition for a word. . It just confuses the argument...It would be easier if you phrased your argument differently because most people use a dictionary to define words...
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@0019josh7100 "Its really confusing when you make up your own definition for a word." It's really confusing when you define one word, "moral authority" in terms of another (undefined) word, "good character." Unless you can define "good character", the dictionary definition of "moral authority" is worthless except to point out that the two concepts are related.
kmsoileau 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kmsoileau
Just because people don't agree with me has no bearing on me being a morally indignant atheist....Just because you find it ridiculous has no bearing on me being a morally indignant atheist...I am a morally indignant atheist....
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@0019josh7100 "I am a morally indignant atheist." Yes, you are. However, my point is that your indignation is ridiculous.
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@kmsoileau
Since you don't agree with the definition of moral authority you should phrase your argument differently. . That way there's less confusion. . Most people use the dictionary to define words...
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@0019josh7100 "definition of moral authority" Like most dictionary definitions, the definition is circular. In this case, the definition uses the term "good character" to define moral authority, but doesn't define the meaning of "good character." If you don't understand this, use the dictionary to learn about "circular" definitions and arguments.
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@0019josh7100 Here's what "moral authority" is NOT: An atheist like you telling another atheist how to behave and the meaning of right and wrong, good and bad. It doesn't matter whether you have some fancy rationale like "evidence and reasoning." Your moral judgment is not any more valid than that of another atheist.
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@kmsoileau Since we are discussing moral issues between two atheists, the moral thinking of Christians is completely irrelevant. Please stay on topic.
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@kmsoileau
For me to be a morally indignant atheist all I have to do is to find someone or something's morals are unjust or wrong..A good example of this is christians version of a god condoning slavery in the bible...Your approval of my reasoning has absolutely no bearing on me being a morally indignant atheist...
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@0019josh7100 "For me to be a morally indignant atheist all I have to do is to find someone or something's morals are unjust or wrong." Sure you can. However, your "finding" something wrong has no significance to anyone but yourself, since a different atheist is perfectly free to reject your moral judgment and use his/her own. It's just your opinion, nothing more.
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@kmsoileau
moral authority 1. The quality or characteristic of being respected for having good character or knowledge, especially as a source of guidance or an exemplar of proper conduct.
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@0019josh7100 "good character" What's good character? You are still indulging in circular definitions. Besides, "evidence and reason" do not say anything about the meaning of good character, so your own version of morality has no authority under the dictionary definition you present.
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@kmsoileau Slavery is morally unjust...How did humans development these morals.....At one time slavery was morally accepted...
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@0019josh7100 "Slavery is morally unjust" So YOU say. Another atheist might say that some races are inferior and should be enslaved. Who are YOU to say that the other atheist is "wrong"?
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@kmsoileau
You don't know the definition of moral authority ...
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@0019josh7100 And I suppose YOU do? Pray tell, give us the correct definition of the term, "moral authority".
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@ritchloui
He's saying because atheist don't claim that they receive their morals directly from some version of a god,that atheist can't be morally indignant,but I showed him that by basing my morals on evidence and reason I can prove someone else's morals are unjust by evidence and reason....I am a morally indignant atheist and I think you are too...
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@0019josh7100 "I can prove someone else's morals are unjust by evidence and reason" You proved no such thing. You began with the assumption that "evidence and reason" have moral authority. It's called a circular argument, a type of logical fallacy.
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@kmsoileau
I don't have hostilities toward christians...I'm just using them as examples for how people can get there morals wrong when they get them out of an ancient text written by superstitious men claiming its the perfect word of their version of a god..
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@kmsoileau
Christians don't base it on church teaching....They base their morals on the bible....There is several passages in the bible that condones slavery,but there isn't any that rejects slavery...
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@0019josh7100 Your obsession with defaming Christians is adversely affecting your reasoning abilities. I've never met a Christian who believes slavery is moral. I don't think you have either. Maybe you should see a psychologist about your hostility toward Christians.
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@kmsoileau The Bible clearly indicates that there is no moral objection to slavery. Slavery is a 'given'. So, it is clear that modern Christians do NOT derive their moral repugnance for slavery from the Bible. Christians also eat food that is explicitly forbidden in the Bible. They do not stone their children to death for disobedience either. It would appear that Christians 'cherry pick', because reasoned secular morality is FAR better than Biblical dogma.
ritchloui 3 months ago
@kmsoileau
I base my morals on evidence and reason not the law....Your absolutely right about humanities morals on slavery..They have improved because of evidence and reasoning....There is still a lot of religious people especially christian who believe slavery is morally just because it is condoned by their version of a god.....
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@0019josh7100 "especially christian" Uh, nope, I challenge you to find one reputable Christian church anywhere in the world that condones slavery.
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@0019josh7100 I agree that reasoned secular morality has far outstripped Biblical morality. Christians seem oblivious to the fact that they themselves do not derive their own morality from the Bible and clearly ignore MOST of it; the stonings for; adultery, working on the Sabbath, children for disobedience. That sort of thing. The worrying thing is that this primitive penal code is alive and kicking the Islamic legal system of Sharia which they impose in Islamic countries and plan for the West.
ritchloui 3 months ago
@ritchloui None of that has any bearing on the point of the video. Do you have any comment on its point, or are you just here to make a speech?
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@kmsoileau I was responding to one of the comments.The video argument is based on the sinister idea that if there is no God then it follows that there are no morals. It could just as easily be argued that WITH Abraham's God there are no morals. After playing chicken, Abe takes a knife to his son's genitals to settle the matter. His cousin raped his own daughters, had one gang raped, probably murdered his wife. They were the best God could find? Not to mention the Arabian Blackbeard, Mohammed.
ritchloui 3 months ago
@ritchloui "The video argument is based on the sinister idea that if there is no God then it follows that there are no morals." Wrong. The video makes no such claim. Atheists can certainly have moral codes and live by them. The video claims that moral INDIGNATION is ridiculous. Keep watching it over and over until you get it.
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@kmsoileau
He can live his life anyway he wants just as long as it doesn't break any laws....
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@0019josh7100 In 1850 slave owners weren't breaking any laws by owning slaves, yet slavery is almost universally regarded as immoral. Therefore one cannot reliably base one's moral compass on the law, as you seem to be doing.
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@kmsoileau
I have evidence and reasoning that his morals were wrong....
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@0019josh7100 How would you answer an atheist who said, "Your evidence and reasoning are just pretexts to try to control how I run my life. Run your own life any way you want, but don't try to tell me what I should and shouldn't do!"?
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@kmsoileau
Your right....Lets get back to the video....You say that there can't be a morally indignant atheist ....I think mao tse tungs morals were wrong because of my basis for morality ....Therefore I'm a morally indignant atheist....
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@0019josh7100 "mao tse tungs morals were wrong" You may THINK he's wrong, but in the end all you have is your personal opinion. That's not a basis, your opinion has no authority over anyone but you. I'm sure Mao wouldn't have given your opinion of his actions any consideration at all.
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@kmsoileau
Until there is another source of morality discovered its the best method we have. .
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@0019josh7100 "Until there is another source of morality discovered its the best method we have." Perhaps, but again, which source of morality is the "best" (whatever that means) is not the point of the video. Perhaps you should do a video describing what "best source of morality" means.
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@kmsoileau
So I guess you agree that evidence and reasoning can be a basis for morality....
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@kmsoileau
You said "mao tse tung based his morals on evidence and reason" but you also said that someone couldn't base their morals on evidence and reason
...so which is it....
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@0019josh7100 My point is that evidence and morality does not necessarily lead to "moral" behavior as we conceive of it.
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@0019josh7100 Since evidence and reasoning by themselves is just as likely to lead to amoral as well as moral behavior, it's obvious they are insufficient as sources of moral judgment. More is required.
kmsoileau 3 months ago
You are human and you are just like everyone else; therefore, your morality though regressing into the bronze age is not superior to modern morality which embraces today our current world reality.
JusticeIsWhere 3 months ago
@JusticeIsWhere "your morality though regressing into the bronze age" LOL WTF are you talking about? I have made no assertions about "my" morality, I am logically discussing the implications of atheist morality. Complain about religion on your own video.
kmsoileau 3 months ago
You believe god exists because you are supposed to believe he exists, so as to be accepted in the community, horde, of which you feel belonging. Protecting the belief is a group function of our social evolution of horde-group behavior thus you are not protecting god but in fact are just protecting your standing in your cult of believers.
JusticeIsWhere 3 months ago
What are the morals of a bronze age god that have improved humanity if both moral authority and the right to abandon morality come from God (assuming the existence of a moral god like you)? Morality is learned group psychosocial behavior and is based solely on one’s life experience and one’s function within a group. Morality is not defined by any god, yet is influenced by delusional god belief and internalized self-projections that are manifestations in group think rituals.
JusticeIsWhere 3 months ago
@kmsoileau
Hitler believed he was doing gods will. Hitler was raised christian. Hitler was a self proclaimed christian. .Here is just one of Hitlers many quotes "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.." - Hitler, Mein Kamph
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@0019josh7100 "Hitler was a self proclaimed christian" LOL If he had said he was a microwave oven, would you have tried to use him to bake a potato? If you don't like my Hitler example, then consider that atheist Mao Tse Tung based his "morals" on evidence and reasoning. The point is the same.
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@kmsoileau
I hope I sufficiently answer your question about me being a morally indignant atheist ...
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@0019josh7100 No, in fact you are incredibly dense. Good luck.
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@0019josh7100 "And I said that I base my morals on evidence and reasoning." Evidence and reasoning are not a basis for morals. Evidence and reasoning (of a particularly brutal kind) guided the "morals" of Adolph Hitler.
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@kmsoileau
I answer all your questions. Could answer one of my questions do you think religious people have moral superiority over atheist...
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@0019josh7100 You did not answer all of my questions. My main question is, why do you claim that pedophiles are "wrong"? How the hell do YOU know what is right and wrong? You merely follow the moral programming of society. If you had been raised by pedophiles, you would probably support their views on morality.
kmsoileau 3 months ago
"religious people have moral superiority over atheist" Neither the video nor this discussion is about religious people. It is about atheism and atheists. If you want to discuss religious people, make a video of your own.
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@kmsoileau
What question.
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@kmsoileau
No your claim for your version for a god is irrational because its unsupported by evidence . . I was raised by christians. . I dismissed their morals and know I have my own morals based on evidence and reasoning. Child rape is morally wrong. .
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@0019josh7100 "No your claim for your version for a god is irrational because its unsupported by evidence" What claim? I made no such claim. Are you getting tired of not being able to answer my questions?
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@kmsoileau
My claim is rational. . . You believing in your version of a god without a single shred of evidence to declare moral authority is irrational. .
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@0019josh7100 "My claim is rational" In what sense is it rational? You are angry when children are hurt, yet you cannot say why YOUR moral view is somehow more credible than the claim of a different atheist that life is about pleasure and children are for the sexual pleasure of adults. In fact, you cannot say why, your "rational" view is based entirely on learned emotional reactions absorbed by you during your upbringing. If you'd been brought up by pedophiles, you'd have a different "morality."
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@kmsoileau
By me simply being angered by a fictional characters unjust morals makes my a morally indignant atheist. .
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@0019josh7100 Your anger is real but irrational, as I argue in my video.
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@kmsoileau
Here is the definition for indignant... Indignant - angered at something unjust or wrong; "an indignant denial"; "incensed at the judges' unfairness"; "a look of outraged disbelief".......I am a morally indignant atheist because I am angered at the unjust morals of the version of the christian god yahwey....
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@0019josh7100 "unjust morals" Before declaring that Yahweh is "unjust" or "immoral", you must first present a moral system with enough authority to judge a god. Otherwise you are merely expressing your own personal morality which has no innate authority over anyone but YOU, much less an unimaginably powerful god. Well?
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@kmsoileau
I have moral authority over anyone who thinks child rape is ok and I have evidence to back up my moral authority ....... Just because you invoke your version of a god doesn't validate your morals....
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@kmsoileau
What is your definition of moral authority....
This is one I found.... Moral Authority
–noun 1. The quality or characteristic of being respected for having good character or knowledge,especially as a source of guidance or an exemplar of proper conduct. . .Is this how you define moral authority....
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@0019josh7100 Moral authority is what establishes that behavior X is wrong and behavior Y is right. It's more than just one atheist's opinion. You seem to think that because you think harming children is wrong, that somehow means that other atheists ought to agree with you. This is your delusion.
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@kmsoileau
I have evidence and reasoning to prove child rape is wrong. .Where is your moral stance on child rape
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@kmsoileau
Child rape is morally wrong because it has harmful effects on the child that was raped. .Any kind of rape is morally wrong..
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@0019josh7100 "Child rape is morally wrong because it has harmful effects on the child that was raped." Says you. A different atheist is free to say, I think harm to children doesn't matter, what's important is adult pleasure. Who are you to say that atheist is "wrong"?
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@kmsoileau
Just because you claim that you get your morals from your version of a god doesn't trump my morals. . . Morals are just peoples opinions. .
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@0019josh7100 "Morals are just peoples opinions." So what gives you the right to say that pedophiles are "wrong"?
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@kmsoileau
The argument was that I had no basis for my morals. . And I said that I base my morals on evidence and reasoning.
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@kmsoileau
Yes my opinion is that child rape is wrong. .
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@0019josh7100 So you admit your moral judgment has no authority over anyone else but yourself. Exactly my point.
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@kmsoileau
Just because no one accepts my morals doesn't have any bearing on me having a basis for my morals. . My morals are base on evidence and reason. . You saying I don't have a basis for my morals is just plain wrong. ..My basis for my morality is evidence and reasoning. . What is the basis for your morality?
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@0019josh7100 In an earlier post you claimed that a pedophile's or a selfish atheist's moralities are "wrong." Says who? You?
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@kmsoileau
I base my morals on evidence and reason. .
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@0019josh7100 "I base my morals on evidence and reason. ." Obviously. But why should anyone else share your view of morality? It's still just your personal preference, yet in an earlier post you claimed that a pedophile's or a selfish atheist's moralities are "wrong." Says who? You? THAT'S what I mean when I say your morality has no basis.
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@kmsoileau
I base my morals on evidence and reasoning ....Therefore my basis for morals is evidence and reasoning. . It is also my preference for basing morality. .
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@kmsoileau
I have already told my basis for my morality....Its evidence and reasoning...Do you get your morals from a little voice in your head....
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@0019josh7100 You haven't given me an objective basis for it, you merely express that it is your personal preference to base your morality on evidence and reasoning. You haven't said why your preference is more valid than say, an atheist who believes in maximum pleasure for him or herself and doesn't care about anyone else.
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@kmsoileau
I would tell him he was wrong, but he is allowed to think that if he wants..That's why we have laws to protect us from people whose morals are screwed up like christian who say slavery is ok because there version god codones slavery or killing homosexual is ok because there version of god commands it. .
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@0019josh7100 "I would tell him he was wrong" You tell him he's wrong, he tells you you're wrong. In the end you have no basis for your moral code except that it's your personal preference. To atheists, morality is like language: it makes no sense to insist that anyone else speak the same language as you do, similarly it makes no sense to be indignant that someone else doesn't adhere to your moral code.
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@kmsoileau
Is there a little voice inside your head telling you what's right and what is wrong. .
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@0019josh7100 I asked you first. Answer the question. What is the source of your moral sense of right and wrong? If it's reason and evidence, how would you respond to an atheist who says, "Shove your reason and evidence, I believe in pleasing myself, your "morality" is just a way of controlling me."
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@kmsoileau
I came do my morality by evidence and reasoning . .
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@kmsoileau
I came to these premises by evidence and simply reasoning . . There was nobody's version of a god involved in my moral conclusions . .
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@kmsoileau
I was raised by christians who still think slavery is morally ok because their version of god condones it and that homosexuality is immoral....I reject both of these premises..Not because I was taught to because I went to church school which tried to reinforce these immoral views. .I
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@0019josh7100 Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. OK, so you rejected the premises as immoral. So that means some moral source inside your head told you the premises were immoral. So where did that voice in your head come from? Hmmmmmm? Your DNA?
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@kmsoileau
I know I'm right and he is wrong about raping a child and I will stand with other people in society and show my evidence and make laws against child rape. .I will morally not approve of child rape . . And I didn't come to this conclusion by any version of god. . . I used evidence and reason from past events to justify my morals. .saying you get your moral superiority by your version of god makes you delusion. First you have to prove your version of god exist. .
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@0019josh7100 "I know I'm right and he is wrong " How do you know? Faith? You just don't get it, do you? The reason you think raping children is wrong is because you were taught to believe that. There is no other basis for your disapproval of such an act. Atheism, in itself, is completely amoral and atheists who follow moral codes do it because they absorbed the code at an early age. To an atheist, all morality is just the consensus of the people who raised them.
kmsoileau 3 months ago
kmsoileau
That's why we have laws because we can't all agree on morals. . And these laws come from men not from some higher authority . . You give it a rest. .I think child rape is wrong not because some higher authority whispered in my ear but because I have been giving evidence that it is harmful to the child in numerous ways. .And I am disgusted by any who thinks its morally acceptable. .I am a moral indignant atheist. . You can get morals from reason. .
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@0019josh7100 "giving evidence that it is harmful to the child" You implicitly assume that avoiding harm to children is wrong. A different atheist might say that children are for the sexual pleasure of adults. Who are YOU to say the other atheist is wrong? In fact, you have no real basis to argue that you are right and the other atheist is wrong. Nothing in atheism per se approves of you and disapproves of the other atheist.
Keep thinking, maybe you'll get it someday.
kmsoileau 3 months ago
So you would prefer the morality of the bible? Have you ever read the bible. Your "god" knows absolutely nothing about morals!
Boosterbeast 3 months ago
@Boosterbeast My videos have nothing to do with my personal preferences, they examine the logical moral implications of atheism. Try reading and watching before commenting, you'll seem less ignorant.
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@kmsoileau
Sadly I did. But you only see the extremes of either case. Either we have your god OR we have no morals at all... you seem to forget the social aspect of the human race. We are social animals and we "invented" morals loooong before any one god claimed the rights to them (again)
AND I take it that when you say "extra human authority" I guess you mean the god of the bible... so my first comment stands.
Boosterbeast 3 months ago
@Boosterbeast Once again, my video doesn't say it's ridiculous to be an atheist, it says it's ridiculous to be a morally indignant atheist. Keep watching until you get it.
kmsoileau 3 months ago
Realistically don't we all answer to the higher moral authority of what ever social group we live in? This is a flawed argument. Your presupposition that god/s is the only possible higher authority is ignores human interactions like the parent and child, the police and citizen, and so on. What about doing the right thing for the simple idea that it is right? Your assertion is based on a premiss that is full of holes.
Richardisdorky 3 months ago
Gosh, I go on a long sea cruise and I find whole new levels of stupidity and lack of comprehension littering my video page. One more time: my videos are neutral with respect to Theism and atheism. They make observations about morality in a godless setting. It's pointless to bring up religion when I specifically make no assumptions about the truth or falsehood of any religion. My videos examine the logical moral implications of atheism. Kindly restrict your comments to the topic or post somewher
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@kmsoileau e else. Thanks!
kmsoileau 3 months ago
Hey, everybody. It's the male, adult, non-lyrical version of Rebecca Black.
PT109Boat 3 months ago
Fail..... LOL!!... oh man...
drnekodr 3 months ago
and beliving in an imaginary thing makes you better than everyone else? bullshit!
wcresponder 3 months ago
Realize that morals are not objective, but subjective. Now (as quickly as possible, please) realize that subjective morals are not worthless. Morality is not destroyed by its subjective nature, but in fact it is freed. Morality changes as we change. It adapts to our society as we learn new things. Morality is updated through reasoned argument. Slavery, for example, was once as morally accepted as having a pet cat, but society changed.
pfarabee 3 months ago
(cont) You are mistaken when you suggest that anything goes if morality is not objective. What is moral depends on what is agreed *by those directly affected by the action*, provided they are of sound mind to agree. It isn't wrong to punch my best friend in the stomach if he wants me to, but it is wrong to punch the same friend if he doesn't want me to. It's not exactly rocket science. The very core of morality is social interaction.. as in more than one person involved.
pfarabee 3 months ago
Flawed thinking there, man. Majority rule means that if you can convince 50.1% of people to kill the other 49.9%, it would be 'morally' OK. It's not, and I would like to believe that most people would agree. Majority rule does not equal correct rule.
themike314v2 3 months ago
Wow. Man is a social animal. I think the things you call morals are just behavior of humans that allows them to live in a group and to sustain the species as it moves foreward in time. I think that is what you are talking about, but I am unsure. You don't seem to understand the words coming out of your mouth. Strange.
joestfrancois 3 months ago
@VictorphoenixDMvault Strawman.
alphaenemy 3 months ago
Oh hell...you are just a good ole bag full of strawmen, aren't you? Silly old fart, try thinking on a slightly higher plane than strictly black and white for a change, will you? You want to talk "ridiculous"? Try expanding your morality to the plight of the African AIDS epidemic vs. contraception. Jesus had nothing significant to say about the subject, and with your REALLY STUPID good vs. bad paradigm, you don't either. Morality is complicated, and the Bible is terrible at conveying that.
alphaenemy 3 months ago
This guy really failed to do his homework.
How about reading up on actual atheistic moral concepts instead of what preacher tells you ?
torrid426 3 months ago
Which god would that be? Vishnu will kick his ass.
a300pilotster 3 months ago
The morality of our society is not based on the Bible or some King in the sky, Our morality is determined by what we say what we do and what people say and think about what we do. We don't just go around saying these people are good those people are bad. there's usually a reason. We have determined that things like murder, rape and stealing are wrong not because a god made some list but because they intentionally hurt others. and not all criminals are evil or bad. some just need help or guidance
concord327 3 months ago
where do lions get their moralities from?
IAmDonar 3 months ago
Well, I guess you think morals come from the god of the Bible and ,as such, those laws are perfect. Let's look into these perfect moral laws then. "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Exodus 22:18 "'If a priest's daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire." Leviticus 21:9 The "pro-life" god: "They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open." Hosea 13:16
RadarKat73080 3 months ago 2
@RadarKat73080 "Well, I guess you think morals come from the god of the Bible" Nothing in my video remotely asserts that. Projecting your disorganized thinking onto me? LOL
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@kmsoileau What are you trying to say then? Seemed like you were arguing for a moral absolute, and since your target was "morally indignant atheists" I assumed you were trying to prove an absolute moral authority.
RadarKat73080 3 months ago
@RadarKat73080 I didn't claim being an atheist is ridiculous, only that a morally indignant atheist is.
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@kmsoileau Why? If you do something wrong, I have no right to call you out on it? I wouldn't chisel my morals onto a stone tablet and insist they were the law of the land for two reasons. They're not absolute, there are plenty of things that ALMOST always morally reprehensible, like rape. But if rape is better than the alternative, say the murder of a million people, then I'd begrudgingly bend to the situation. Also, there are plenty of people who disagree with me.
RadarKat73080 3 months ago
@RadarKat73080 "If you do something wrong, I have no right to call you out on it?" How do you KNOW that what I've done is wrong? If it think it's actually a right thing to do, what makes your opinion trump mine?
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@kmsoileau Nothing, but again, I don't make the laws. My morals are my opinion. If there's a god, his morals are his opinion. But we both still get to have one.
RadarKat73080 3 months ago
@RadarKat73080 Right. But moral indignation isn't just difference of opinion. When one becomes morally indignant, one is implicitly taking the position of "I'm right, you're wrong." That's what my video is about.
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@RadarKat73080 Right. But moral indignation isn't just difference of opinion. When one becomes morally indignant, one is implicitly taking the position of "I'm right, you're wrong." That's what my video is about.
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@kmsoileau Okay, you could have made that clearer in the video. Why single out atheists if you don't think there's a divine moral standard? The only real difference between a theist and an atheist in a morals argument is that the theist thinks his morals are from on high, from his god or gods. Thus they are absolute.
RadarKat73080 3 months ago
@RadarKat73080 The relevant difference between atheists and Theists is that Theists have an single unifying source for their morality, namely the will of the God they worship. Atheists by their very nature have no such unifying moral source, so therefore atheist moral indignation is essentially ridiculous.
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@kmsoileau Most do agree that hurting others is wrong.
I'm just wondering what the point of your video is then.
RadarKat73080 3 months ago
@RadarKat73080 "Most do agree that hurting others is wrong." True, but so what? All that indicates is the prevailing consensus on morality. One could easily imagine an alternate society which holds that only the strong deserve to survive. Who are atheists to claim that such a society is "wrong"?
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@kmsoileau Such a society, one that's "every man for himself", won't be a society for long. Societies didn't form until we learned to cooperate.
RadarKat73080 3 months ago
@RadarKat73080 "Such a society, one that's "every man for himself", won't be a society for long." Says you. "Take your morality and shove it" says a different atheist who sees your morality as a way to control and obstruct his quest for personal pleasure.
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@kmsoileau Different Christians often have VASTLY different morals. Some see murder as moral, if the victim is a doctor who performs abortions, for example. You can't lump everyone into one group and claim they ALL do this or think like this. Atheists get accused of groupthink a lot. But we have no Bible and nobody who claims to know "the Truth."
RadarKat73080 3 months ago
@RadarKat73080 My point has nothing to do with claiming anyone has the truth. My point is, an indignant atheist has a logically inconsistent viewpoint, because their philosophy does not admit of a unifying source of morals. An indignant Theist has a logically consistent position in that their philosophy does admit of such a unifying source of morals. "Consistency" is not the same as "correctness."
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@RadarKat73080 "Some see murder as moral, if the victim is a doctor who performs abortions, for example." I think mainstream Christian has roundly condemned such criminals.
kmsoileau 3 months ago
@kmsoileau Did I say "All Christian believe murder is moral if..."?
RadarKat73080 3 months ago
@RadarKat73080 We're discussing Theism as a source of morals, NOT whether those who claim to be Theists are always faithful and perfect in following its precepts. The fact that some who claim to be Theists are also criminals is not the point.
And don't get testy. I have no tolerance for that.
kmsoileau 3 months ago