วีดีโอ

Nope, factual

@@TheZeroAssassin there's nothing factual in your statement

It's really like you're fighting to miss the point. When we say win a chess game, we clearly mean it in the general sense that everyone plays it. Stop being obtuse and pretending that saying "to win a chess game" means anything other than this standard usage.

@@Blazingbiskit Chess is just a metaphor for life. What is the goal of life? How do you win at life?

​@@gravity_well5627 If you want a recap of the video, just scroll up.

What an idiot

That's cute. I'm sure your mind is in the right place.

@@PinchePeloSpiderman Yes, my mind is with God ☝️. SeculaRUST morality is inferior as f.. Almost every point he gave was either irrelevant, or bs..

@@goingmonotheist783 You can't even prove your God. So you keep telling yourself your mind is with something imaginary.

@@PinchePeloSpiderman Perfect example of the factually irrelevant~ It works whether it's provable or not ✍️ If God is just as much a conceptual construct as "justice" is itself, in order to allow us to live saner lives.. I'm all for God 👍 And it does infact.. Serve that purpose well. Secularism/ athiesm are literally regressive ideas. Pre-human.. Like from the times before we even find evidence of ritual burial, in higher more "human" forms of sapiens ✓

@@PinchePeloSpiderman Here's a no-brainer for you.. "Ought" functionally exists.. And it's NOT about relitivism, or opinion.. And it's literally the "active ingredient" in any notion of ethic or morality.. How do you get ought from a secular/ atheist paradigm? 😂 "Well being"? ☕ Oh well then, by all means.. Define that! Then, "Prove" 🙂 an objective measure of "well being" exists.. We both know you can't~ And that's EXACTLY why every single last seculaRUST "morality movment" is a confused, self contradicting, and divisive pile of C-ra-P~ From feminism, to lgbtq+-#¶∆π^¥®¢£, to blm, to CRT, to marxist conflict theories, to democracy, liberalism, communism etc..

That's a pretty horrible misrepresentation. Do you have a time stamp proving that Matt actually said anything like that?

@@sophonax661 - I am not saying that he said that but if you do not define "well being" then could not a secular moral system be like Hitler who thought he was maximizing well being by killing the Jews (since he considered them to be net drains on society); or Mao who killed millions to advance the society. You need to prove the axiom to confirm the system as legitimate. Show me why a secular moral system could not reach a decision that would hurt the wellbeing of a few non-contributors (by denying them food) to benefit the wellbeing of the many who are contributors (by giving them the food of others)?

If you think killing someone maximizes their well-being . . .

It was put there by terrorists to demonstrate their values

It's a 4-dimensional unfolded hypercube presented on a 2d display.

Do you feel better now? 🤣

MrRhomas913 we are not extinct

And your point is?

I'm thinking the point Revanhald was trying to make was if humans were not compassionate beings, we would have killed each other off by now and our species would be extinct? Our compassion for the planet and for each other is what keeps our species going. (I just pulled that out of my ass so you going to smash me on this, I already know. lol). :)

Half correct. Compassion etc also serves to make us care for others and help them. As a prey we needed to cooperate to not get eaten. Young humans are weak and unable to do anything so we need protection

@@nateellenberger6043 - Sorry for the late response. True to a point. It makes sense for people to be compassionate to their family, their clan, their tribe, their nation....but it is not logical to be compassionate to all of humanity especially if it goes against our interests. I think the problem with secular morality is that it is formulaic and relies on maximizing well-being which theoretically could bring about results that we today would deem immoral. Think if we live in a society with limited resources and we have 1,000,000 people who are no longer contributing. Secular morality might recommend terminating their lives so well being is maximized for the remainder (basically it would follow utilitarianism). Christian morality (which focuses on the greatest moral law: love your neighbor as yourself) would hold that this is not justifiable.

The point isnt that people will answer correctly its that there are right answers. If you fail a math class we dont stop teaching math we give you a bad grade. Also this objection applies as much to religion as logical morality. If all the christians and bibles were gone might people choose no religion or different religions?

Exactly! "Good," "goodness," and "superior" all sound like subjective concepts, don't they? Can an objective "good" exist without a god? I doubt Dillahunty or anyone else can make the case for it.

wjkathman first you got to prove there is a god then you still got plenty of road to go

But if you talk about yahweh he is a fucking asshole.

Interesting how the word skeptic is used negatively, when being a skeptic means only believing things that have evidence, and not believing things that don't.

MrRhomas913 societies with slavery don’t thrive. History proves it doesn’t work

Slaves rebel

@@Revanbzn - none of those societies collapsed because of slavery

Most religions accept slavery though so this objection isnt really specific to secular morality. Sure a society could decide slavery, expansionism, or some other atrocity is moral but religions have already done that and at least in a secular system there is a basis for argument to change that conclusion

Also the thing about wanting to make society better is part of evolutionary psychology. Certain psychological traits facilitate group living

Ex 21:20-21 speaks to 'intent' and the difference between murder & manslaughter. Which goes to show God's mercy because not even God said lock a man up for life without any means to support himself. No, He gave cities of refuge for the manslaughters who did not intentionally kill as a safe haven for them as long as they remained in & worked in the city of refuge. But man thought better and now we lock 'em up & make the victims pay via tax dollars used to support those whom God said let them go free & live, they are just not allowed to live close to their family for a while as punishment. As far as Deuteronomy 13, that is one of those "if you do not do this, then I will do this" and so it was because of their love of idolatry, He purged them from His land & scattered them to the four corners of the earth. Nothing more, nothing less.

Where in the text does it say that God condones the beating of servants? And how come it is that you completely ignore Ex 21:26-27? In order to understand verses 20-21, one must also read verses 1-2 & 18-19 and then continue on through verses 26-27 as this chapter covers intentional murder of another, unintentional killing of another as well as injury inflicted upon another. As far as Dt 13 & religion, I ask you, is God reigning & ruling over the land of Israel today?

It's called indoctronation, it's a form of brainwash were you are conditioned to not ask questions and not see the truth.

Bill Keon v

Thank you

44:00 Matt’s claim doesn’t work here. The value system of the KKK thinks a white state is better. Matt would say that making a society more white is not better, the KKK would say a more white society is better. There is no transcendent secular mandate to start with any particular value system, and so no clear way to adjudicate between particular secular value systems people start with. The good news is that our morality is largely hardwired biologically, prior to any logical conscious consideration, so the only recourse for secular morality is that we don’t choose our fundamental value systems. They are largely built into us, prior to any logical considerations. So all this preaching done by Matt is mostly just virtue signaling to make similar minded people feel good about what they already think. Preaching to the choir.

@@WeAreShowboat Wrong and dumb. Way to go.

@@WeAreShowboat A stabilisation to the mean is what takes precedence. I believe that the world would be better off if all elite prog-rock and jazz-fusion musicians were state sponsored to tour the country on giant floats blasting awesome music to everybody using the loudest sound systems designed by the best engineers. Most people would be annoyed. The majority's precedence takes priority over my biases.

He explained well his distinct use of the term objective. Being objective based on facts rather than individual feelings and opinions, out of a set of potential actions, there are objectively identifiably better and even best actions that meet the basic standards for that system. As he stated, the standards could be subjectively or arbitrarily generated, but nonetheless the actions (when evaluating consequences) can be shown to factually be better or worse regardless of an individual's opinion. In that sense, the evaluation can be part of an objective process, while the basis can be either objective (such as the principle that avoiding harm is preferable) or arbitrary. There is no authority other than what is internally accepted, making it consensus and not predicated on any individual's specific preferences (again, objective in a sense), where as non-secular systems RELY on an externally imposed authority with no demonstration even required that the IMPOSED (not chosen) authority be beneficial or correct in it's moral dictates (making those externally imposed moral codes arbitrary to what that authority deems correct and thereby subjective as it is based on the positions maintained by a single individual mind - even if that mind is a proposed god). So you are partially correct. It is moral consensus. But as that consensus is based largely on fact, rational discourse, and debate, it does not rely on the opinion of any ONE individual mind, is objective in a sense. It is a tricky concept to grasp - a secular moral system such as the one Matt describes allows us to have an objectively fair method for determining moral actions for situations even if the basis is not externally imposed (which would actually be arbitrary to that external authority). It relies on a consensus on the goals desired for a given society, but those goals can also be so basic and so logical that stating they are merely subjective opinions would be ludicrous (such as life is generally preferable to death).

Gregory Dearth I'm entirely correct, and you just placed yourself into the category of those who don't understand what objectivity means.

Björn Martins Paz I can read a dictionary. Objectivity is defined as "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts." The way Matt is describing what is objective here meets that definition at a certain level. It does NOT mean "absolute" or "not dependent on human minds" or any other transcendent independence that some people think of when considering objective morals. It isn't that difficult. It just means that the standards are independent from individual personal feelings or opinions about matters, but are truths that can be appreciated and known by anyone that takes an honest look at the consequences for a particular action. Rather, the fact that life is generally preferable to death and a lack of pain is generally prefereable to pain are so true as to be considered objective truths. That is the point.

Gregory Dearth Don't take this personal, I just want to lift the confusion about objectivity. Also, not everyone reading this is familiar with certain philosophical terminologies, so that's why I go into more details now. I quote you, "The way Matt is describing what is objective here meets that definition at a certain level. It does NOT mean "absolute" or "not dependent on human minds" or any other transcendent independence that some people think of when considering objective morals." I'm sorry, but this is just plain nonsense. Matt is simply wrong in his definition of objectivity. You can't just redefine the meaning of "objectivity" to your liking just to satisfy the desire to prove to others that there is now a possibility for objective morality. If you say "objectively", you do mean an absolute and mind-independent fact of reality. If you don't mean that, then you are not talking about objectivity and should stop using this term. Also note that you have to DESCRIBE reality to be considered objective. You can't just "consistently" follow a rule and say that you are being objective. Don't confuse "consistency" with "objectivity". Quote: "According to the ethical objectivist, the truth or falsity of typical moral judgments does not depend upon the beliefs or feelings of any person or group of persons. This view holds that moral propositions are analogous to propositions about chemistry, biology, or history: they DESCRIBE (or fail to DESCRIBE) a MIND-INDEPENDENT REALITY. When they DESCRIBE it accurately, they are true-no matter what anyone believes, hopes, wishes, or feels. When they fail to DESCRIBE this MIND-INDEPENDENT MORAL REALITY, they are false-no matter what anyone believes, hopes, wishes, or feels." - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_%28philosophy%29 Now, some further definitions: 1. Objectivity deals with the *IS* of reality. DESCRIPTIVE statements about REALITY. 2. Morality deals with the *OUGHT* of human behavior. PRESCRIPTIVE statements about behavior. 3. OBJECTIVE MORALITY deals with the question " *IS* there an *OUGHT* in the OBJECTIVE world?". 4. David Hume (1711) showed that you cannot derive and *OUGHT* from an *IS*. This is called the "Is-Ought" problem. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem Now I quote you again, "Rather, the fact that life is generally preferable to death and a lack of pain is generally prefereable to pain are so true as to be considered objective truths. That is the point.". Here is the problem. The DESCRIPTIVE statement "Humans prefer life over death" may be objective, because it correctly DESCRIBES what *IS* in the real world. But it does not imply that the PRESCRIPTIVE statement "Humans *OUGHT* to live" is also objective and a fact of reality. You cannot take an *IS* and imply that the *OUGHT* is also true. So, although Matt says that his system is based upon objective facts like the DESCRIPTIVE statement "Humans prefer life over death", the resulting set of *OUGHT* rules (PRESCRIPTIVE statements) are neither objective nor true. For Matt's rules to be objective, he needs to start with an objectively true PRESCRIPTIVE statement, or in other words, he needs to find an objective *OUGHT* in reality. And as a true Atheist, there should be none. Because an *OUGHT* depends on a PURPOSE, and Atheists claim there is no objective purpose in the universe, and therefore no objective *OUGHT* and also no objective morality. Now consider the following logical conclusion: IF "Humans ought to live" THEN "Humans ought not to kill". You may SUBJECTIVELY decide to believe that the first PRESCRIPTIVE statement "Humans ought to live" is true and use that to start one of Matt's moral systems. You decide to believe that it is true, but this does not mean that there is an objective true fact that humans really *OUGHT* to. So, by subjectively believing that the first prescriptive statement is true, it is a "logical conclusion" that the second prescriptive statement "Humans ought not to kill" must also be true. But, by following this rule of not killing, you are still not being objective, even if you follow it "unbiased and regardless of your own preferences". You are not being objective because you are NOT DESCRIBING any facts of reality by doing so. What you are doing though, is being CONSISTENT within your belief, the SUBJECTIVE belief that the first prescriptive statement "Humans ought to live" is true. Following the rule of not killing is just a logical consequence if you want to remain CONSISTENT within your subjective belief that "Humans ought to live" is true. But you are not "being objective" about reality by doing so. You can act CONSISTENTLY within ANY given BELIEF, but you can only be OBJECTIVE about REALITY trough descriptive statements. You can play chess "consistently" by the rules, but saying that the act of playing chess by the rules means that you are "being objective", makes no sense. On the other hand, the DESCRIPTIVE statement "You are playing chess by the rules" is objective, because it describes correctly what *IS* in reality, and if I decide to make this statement in some form, then I'm "being objective". Think of objective scientific papers, objective journalism, etc. They are making unbiased descriptive statements about facts of reality and are thus "being objective".

Björn Martins Paz That was actually a very well presented argument and explanation. Thank you for doing your homework. I actually agree with you on most points. Though I maintain that Matt is not redefining objectivity but using it at a different level. I know that is kinda vague. But as you accurately and clearly defined, there is this IS/ought issue, for which I think all Matt was getting at was the objective truths in the "IS" level of the conversation. From those actual objective truths, we, as logical beings, should automatically select "oughts" in alignment with those truths. That would make the resulting morality system based on objective truths. And those objective truths, being that they are "IS" statements, are obviously indepenedent of any religious or god notion as they are indeed independent of minds in their correctness. If we say it is a truth that life is preferable to death, than we ought to form societies that ensure that truth is central to our basic rights. It might therefore be a category error on Matt's part to state the morality system itself is objective, even though the IS statements that it is based on happen to be objective. I appreciate your clarity on the matter and am considering all sides of this conversation going forward. One other thing to note is that Hume could be wrong in his assessment. Matt has stated that he disagrees with him. I too find Hume's arguments somewhat arbitrary, though well argued. Still, it is food for thought and probably more of the mainstream. I am of the opinion currently that this whole defense against the objectivity assertion of theists might be unnecessary. Who cares if they think they have an objective morality given by their god? Until they can demonstate their god even exists, there is no reason to expect that an actual objective morality can exist. And as the Euthrapro delima illustrates, their claims might contain fatal contradictions. My thoughts on this matter are evolving daily as I delve deeper into the meaning of morality and the goals of civilized societies. I am currently of the belief that one can base their morality on objective truths, build a moral system out of a rational analysis of consequences, using several metrics including the basic one of empathy, and that ultimately though our moral systems might be subjective on a society level, we can continue to refine these moral systems to approach a universal consensus, making them objective in the sense that they are not the opinion of any ONE mind.

Right on topic I must say.

Very interesting. Is it possible that as human intellect improves over time that at some point in the future chess will be as boring and pointless as tic-tac-toe? Only children will play it because they can make the errors necessary to make an unpredictable win/loss. I personally find chess pretty fun ... because I suck. At level 3 on my tablet, my android can occasionally outsmart me. I beat it 77% of the time, but every now and then I screw up or it does something interesting. I also play around with my openings to see if I can do something very unorthodox and still win. But I think you are right. Even in a complex game like chess, there is nonetheless a finite number of ways to play and eventually all openings converge on an endgame that is pretty damn boring.

Gregory Dearth It won't devolve as far as to become a children's game when the perfect game is too complex to memorize. Like checkers, it's still a very fun game for adults but it lost all value as a sport.

ahouyearno Well, I just figure that the children of our children's children could be vastly more intelligent that we are, making such a game as chess trivial. It is just a suspicion I have, based on the fact that the children of today would have made the adults of 300 years ago look like complete morons. An adult 300 years ago could have had a lively game of tic tac toe whereas today children can see that if one thinks about it for more than a couple seconds, it is an unwinable game and pointless. I have no doubt that chess will remain a casual past time for adults in general for quite some time. But say, 500 years from now, might mere children have the IQ to render it also similarly pointless, ending every game in a stale mate or conceding the game only a few moves in as they deduce the outcome is unwinable for their side? I guess we would have to show that IQ is increasing at a steady rate to make such an assertion. Interesting idea nonetheless. I picture a future where our children look back at us as barbaric morons. We can only hope.

Gregory Dearth that is if IQ score are going to rise. Evolution has no direction, maybe higher IQ scores are bad for the species. Dunno but the option exists.

I would say the former, because they are using their moral agency. According to Erikson's theory of moral development, pre-conventional morality deals only with consequences. Where as post conventional deals with morality as a useful tool but a changeable one.

Can't be God as it's already determined by an atheist the evidence doesn't support any to exist. Culture can't be correct, because now you are in a dilemma of one culture thinking their moral system is better than the other much like religion does anyways. Law could be possible from a naturalistic perspective for sentient beings as killing is not acceptable within any community without a plus one such as divine purpose or a totalitarianism body thinking for its public. edit - typo

Yeah, since god doesn't exist there is no supernatural power establishing or enforcing the ideas. Law is only the idea of punishment for wrong actions. None of these systems are or can be universal, since only those with a desire to adhere to standards will attempt to do so. What these ideas of wrong and right are based on is culture- what we as a group decide is best for the group. So religion and law just boil down to culture.

J Segal "None of these systems are or can be universal, since only those with a desire to adhere to standards will attempt to do so." So theories in physics can be universal but morality can't? Sure there are slight adjustments based on ideas that weren't thought of or misconceived but they still stand the test of time. Cultures will fight over which one has the better morality.

Yes ur point is valid but is only aplicable to a stagnate thinker... one does not know everything ergo and ergo alone we as truth seekers are willing to (without bias) view other options... atleast i supose we try and dissolute modalitys b4 going into an arguement

demydevil People are sloppy thinkers and lazy. Once you get yourself in the habit of saying "I am morally superior because of x, y, and z", eventually you shorten that to "I am morally superior" and the thinking stops right there. From there, it's a depressingly short step to spending less time and effort critically analyzing the quality of the moral decisions you make. Belief in one's own moral superiority or of the moral inferiority of external groups is a very, very dangerous thing. Frankly, the mere thought terrifies me.

Benfea We're all pretty lazy, and as neuroscience is making depressingly clear, most of us are profoundly sloppy thinkers.

If you want to argue that Christian morality is superior, then that makes me nervous. If a city worships other gods, kill everyone in it and burn it (Deuteronomy 13:12-16).

Tamerleen I'm not sure who you're talking to (Benfea is me), but I am most certainly not a Christian. The Bible is quite clearly an inferior moral guide to, well, just about anything. It is one thing for me to say that the Christian approach to determining what is or is not moral is inferior, but if I get into the habit of saying that Christians are inherently immoral, then I'm wandering into dangerous ground. Some of the most profoundly immoral acts were committed by people who were convinced that they were doing something good, and further that they were inherently morally superior or that their victims were inherently morally inferior.

yes, but at least it was an organic potato. (actually organic food has no better nutritional value than non-organic). Why do the people who record these events put the mic at the back or side of the room where you get audience noise, the echo of the room, and everything but the speaker. Put the mic in front of (or on) the speaker.

Haha! Agreed I have terrible hearing, which is now even worse because of cranked volume then crowd applause 🤣