I kept asking the same questions to Don specifically and exclusively, and eventually got an answer which I can cherry-pick to my satisfaction. Therefore atheism is false.
If they had empathy, they'd find it too hard to align themselves with a genocidal god, let alone worship something that's going to send unbelievers into a burning hell forever.
Empathy sits in the Realm of illusion. One cannot verify if they have empathy with another individual or not unless you can read minds and into their experiances.
@@Beacon80 JEdith can only claim that some fictional deity is needed for a moral right and wrong. In the meanwhile, he can't explain how his moral rights and wrongs are determined. He can't even explain how slavery is immoral or how they can keep allowing for pedo in their ranks.
@@JimCastleberry "and the fact that GOD is necessary for any moral right and wrong" F**k you are LYING IT IS NOT A FACT! Again for the moron in the room IT IS NOT A FACT! You have to prove the God then that it's the source of morality... other wise I can as easily say: " and the fact that Odin is necessary for any moral right and wrong " And no the only one pathologically lying here as usual is YOU... Your pathological lying is not moral. Therefore you are an immoral person and your God had no f**king effect on it... Also anal wipe, you are a proven immoral person so you are in no position to judge anyone's morality...
@@JimCastleberry On the other thread you accused me of lying when I said I'm not a rapist and I asked you to back up the allegation with proof. You've failed to do so. Are you now prepared to admit you were lying out of your arse?
The Golden Rule (of Empathy), treat others like you want to be treated. But the empathy is necessary, you must train that you can think what other people think so that you can decide whether you want that they think that about you,
You can still learn and understand how to treat others as they wish to be treated, even if you are a psychopath, that does not experience empathy in any emotional sense. But religious psychopaths, certainly do find ways to justify acting like they themselves are god made flesh...
The Bible not only depicts God to be tolerant of slavery, but also promotes slavery, provides instruction to both the slaves and the masters and he never rejects slavery. "No human being shall own another human being", might have made a good eleventh commandment from a loving God.
@jamesparson No, he wouldn't. He would never settle for being a slave. He has no empathy. Guys like that would never take what they love to dish out to others that they perceive as inferior.
He said that he agreed that slavery is wrong. The problem is that he only thinks it’s wrong because scripture says so, except it doesn’t say slavery is wrong.
@@Sundae_Times it dozen matter what he wants! Jebus says _"math is pointless, because I'm going to destroy the world soon.. ish... maybe. Daddy doesn't tell me anything! WHY? WHY? WHY?"_ 🥹😢😖😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
Every theist who tries to defend slavery always sees themself as the slave owner which is a very moral thing to do, just like genocide is okay when a god tells you to genocide according to the bible.
Some of them do recognize that they themselves are slaves. They just justify it, by telling themselves that they get to rule this planet, in their master's stead.
Just like every clown who tries to say that socialist policies (like universal health care and social security) always imagines themself as the rich guy paying the taxes and getting no benefit, not the down-on-their-luck guy who is currently making use of such policies, that they actually are. 🤦
@@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2That’s an interesting observation. Possibly a contributing factor to why policies that benefit the least fortunate are so hard to pass: people who are not currently poor or underserved act like they never will be. This is a new perspective for me.
Secular morality is somehow a Bad Thing? But that's where we developed concepts like democracy, gender equality, racial equality... We didn't get those from religion. Religion teaches uncritical obedience. How is that moral in any way?
Yep. But you hit some of the best religious zealot hot button topics: Gender equality, racial equality. These ignorant people have been using their "perfect book", (that is wrong about almost everything), to justify keeping women and people of different characteristics subservient for centuries. You can't argue logic with a theist, as they have to completely suspend it to believe the batshittery.
Kind of weird that he talks about how he can't just outlaw brussels sprouts because he finds them disgusting, yet in the Bible, God prohibits people from eating certain animals because they are supposedly disgusting
@tekbarrier The wisdom from God to forbid certain foods may have prevented a lot of sickness that may or may not have been known at the time to be associated with those particular foods; for instance - shellfish, which is forbidden, are known now to be filter-feeders and may accumulate all kinds of bacteria, viruses and toxins which would then carry over to the humans who ate them. Don't you think God gave His people wise advice? I haven't researched every single forbidden food item, but I would not be surprised to see God's wisdom in warning throughout His laws - perhaps proving to doubters that God knows what's good for us and what is harmful - not just in the foods we choose but in the way we choose to live.
And they want to ban OTHER people's behavior based on their morality as well: Being gay, not being xtian, not being THEIR type of xtian, sexual behavior of ANY kind concerning marriage and age, the list goes on and on and on.
@@EricDellinger-t2hWell age of constant should definitely exist due to the harm it causes to underage people. But the Bible doesn’t agree with that. A guy could “promise” (sell) his child aged daughter to an adult at like 12.
And he was right. Don is actually an easier target. Which is an indictment on the caller's entire argument: He was not confident enough in his arguments to try to go against the stronger interlocutor. He is indeed a coward!
Correct me if I am wrong, I think that what this call boils down to is secular morality is bad because it’s just people legislating their feelings and divine morality is good because it’s a supernatural being legislating it’s feelings. I’ll personally take the former because it’s ever evolving as opposed to the latter which is more stagnant.
The supernatural being had to impregnate a virgin with himself, to appease himself for original sin. Which commenced, when a rib woman convinced a dirt man, to eat a magic fruit, from a forbidden tree. All under the counsel of a talking snake. Thanks to the latter, I've never killed anyone, robbed them or raped them for that matter.
When really it’s still just people making the rules but claiming there’s a supernatural entity that backs them up. Everything this guy “knows” about god is from a book written by people. People who claim to be/speak for god. People who know they can’t demonstrate a god so they make punishments for questioning it. Who also endorse atrocities but say it’s fine on this “gods” authority.
@@NotALiberalSoSkipTheScript I agree. They claim to be supported by ultimate power. With that ultimate power comes ultimate corruption, as cliche as it sounds.
I wonder what I said since YT has deleted my comment. It's a daily occurrence being brought back to comment threads, where I have obviously commented, to find that my comment is no longer there. What a great way the left has of communicating. Just delete anything you don't agree with. Not just that, that an AI doesn't agree with. A simple solution for simple-minded people.
@@tinetannies4637 Difference between consensus and morality. Slavery was never moral but those in power profited from it. The caller is saying that slavery is moral because the Bible says so. He had no “point” just repeating the same apologetics we always hear. If you don’t agree with the horrendous atrocities of the Bible you “have no morals”. When he was shown to be wrong about his absolute certainty he tried to run away. All he had was scripted lines that had nothing to do with the facts of the matter. They were meant to obfuscate.
I foster failed my first cat. I then adopted the next foster because he was a rescue, and he got along so well with my first cat, I couldn't bear to separate them.
God's morality: Those who do wrong will not inherit the kingdom of God. Also God's morality: All have done wrong. And no one will inherit the kingdom of God. Also God's morality: Everyone will be forgiven of all wrongs if you accept Jesus, so you will inherit the kingdom of God even if you did all the wrongs.
And don't forget, the buybull gh0d specifically created some humans for the sole purpose of infinite torture after they die, making morality totally arbitrary.
Dan sounds like a guy I would love to hang with, but he's not made to discuss morals with sociopaths like Seth. In all due fairness, I don't think I am either.
I do not own my cats... They own me! 😺 Our first cat actually adopted us, then when we accepted him he brought a friend... We were chosen by them and with all our cats we have tried to honour that privilege
1:58 owning a cat or a dog is different from owning slaves, we don´t force our cats to do work for us nor beat them, many are treated as another member of the family.
Ah yes one of my first exposures to presuppositionalism. I could never and still don't comprehend how you are able to take God as an axiomatic certainty as your primary condition, and expect anyone who doesn't believe you to take you seriously. It's the closest thing to literally creating your own mind prison as you possibly could, as there's absolutely no means of changing or growth from that position.
They want to be given the authority of a god but know they can’t demonstrate it. Apologetics are just excuses and deflections to get around that they can’t demonstrate that their god exists, how it came to exist, what it is, why theirs is the real one, how it “created” anything, or how they’re sure the things in their text are accurate.
This is one of my favorite clips. This dishonest person comes in looking to score a win on a guy he deemed too unintelligent to have this conversation. Don was the best (and my favorite) prior host because he was charitable, not pedantic, and attempted to speak in easy to understand language to those of us that don't bury ourselves in philosophy and associated terminology. What a silly theist.
I'm an atheist and I have objective moral standards that stem from promoting the well being of others. Simple 😎 And a good Thursday Morning 🌞 AXP Fans and Theists ❤❤❤ Peace Love Empathy From Australia 💪🤠☝️
@@JimCastleberryMans opinions of me concerns me never, as God warned us not to trust in men. As such, your comment is dismissed. Thank God for AXP 🙏✝️❤
Amusing how he says that some atheists think incest is fine while ignoring the fact that - according to the bible - god seems to be absolutely enamored of it, as at least two great biblical righteous heroes (Lot and Noah and his family) engage in the practice w/o any qualms whatsoever.
Yes, I was a little miffed this was just allowed to pass unchallenged but then again, it was a firehose of cockamamie claims coming from this weird guy, hard deal with them all without a four hour show...
That describes most of the Christians here in the comments. They think that the only reason they don't hurt others is because their god tells them not to. They can't imagine having the sympathy and empathy that would give then a sense of wrong in hurting others. What monsters.
What is worse, having no "Basis for morality" VS morality from the bible where one can do what ever they want, hurt who ever they want, lie and cheat and at the end of the day all they need to do is put their hands together and say "I love you Jesus" and all their immorality is instantly forgiven?
I love the fact that at the end he started to realize he was stuck in an endless loop (God real because Bible, Bible true because God, etc etc) so rather than acknowledge it he just said "I want to speak with Don again" 😂
What stood out for me from the caller was him trying to find out why Don (or atheists in general) thinks it's wrong for one animal to own another animal. He also made the comparison of owning a slave with owning a pet. Is he implying that slaves (or potential slaves) are a different kind of animal than human?
It's why we get a bunch of people, voted for by the population because we believe they are intelligent, to discuss and decide which laws are beneficial to society. If a person can't understand this then they obviously aren't particularly intelligent. Group behaviour to benefit the group.
Religion hasn't given anybody morals. We all basically work on the principle, I don't want it done to me so I won't do it to others, but I will defend myself.
2:00 Every living thing on Earth is exactly the same amount of evolved; there is no more or less evolved, only subjected to different selection pressures over the same period of time. The main important difference between a cat or dog and ourselves is our ability to understand and take responsibility for our actions. As for keeping pets: if we were able to communicate with them well enough to offer a choice between being kept and living wild (or some other arrangement) then we would be obligated to give it to them. But they aren't able to understand that they would have a better life in our care than otherwise (if the situation is such that this isn't true, then that person has no moral standing to have a pet).
17:52 By continually coming back to the fact that we're "a group of animals" what he's trying to say in other words is "who cares if they suffer?" Again, the answer is: We care. You don't necessarily have to care, but you had better not harm any of us because we don't like it and we will take steps to prevent you from doing it again, and at that point we might not care how you feel about the matter.
20:02 He's correct for some definition of "exist". But for the relevant definition, there is a whole category of things that also does not exist. "Pride And Prejudice" also does not exist in the exact same respect. In a "materialistic universe" it's just an emergent pattern of ink shapes on a stack of paper, or pits on an optical disk, or electric charges on a memory chip, or patterns of light intensity on a grid of LEDs, or an arrangement of neurons and neurotransmitters in the brain of someone who knows the story. The same thing is true of Ten Commandments. Ink on paper or divots in stone, its just an arrangment of matter. But it represents real ideas that we can give meaning. It's really no different from looking at the clouds and seeing a bunny. Is there a bunny "existing" in the sky? In a sense. If you agree that it does.
It’s not evidently true that everything is exactly the same amount of evolved. In order for that to be true, all things would’ve had to have gone through the same amount of change. How would you even define and determine “how much” change something has gone through? You don’t have to make a claim you can’t back up just to refute their claim they can’t back up.
@@Leith_CrowtherAll species go back to the LUCA (last universal common ancestor). So starting from there, all species have gone through the same amount of evolution.
I’ve never personally met a dog owner who lets their dog outside freely unsupervised with no fence or barrier, and I’m not sure that’s actually a good idea.
@@Leith_CrowtherAsk a dog catcher if they agree with you. Many people let their dogs roam around, and don’t give a shit about what damage they cause, until they get fined for it.
@@Leith_Crowther Local councils employ people to catch stray dogs. They would agree with me, that many people let their dogs roam freely, and have no idea where their dogs are most of the time.
That speech about certainty and uncertainty raises some philosophical questions, such as: Is there some middle ground between knowing for certain and having faith? And if so, then where are the borderlines, where exactly does that middle ground start and where does it end?
I think when they have no evidence for their beliefs and believe in things that could not possibly happen in reality, they have to be good at strawmanning. In their mind, as long as they dispute atheism or science, their god all of a sudden will start to exist.
*_Morality evolved first, long before Religion_* _Which came first, religion or morality? Listening to religious people, you’d hear how people need religion’s instructions, or else we’d be morally clueless. God comes first, then God’s Law comes to humanity, and only then can people be good._ _But there’s no good evidence for any part of this fable. Such a religious fable itself is a relatively recent creation, reduplicated in many forms all over the world. Different religions talk about all manner of strange supernatural agents perpetually obsessed with correct human conduct. (You’d think any actual self-respecting deity would have more interesting things to do.) Yet basic morality itself is remarkably consistent across human societies. Long before humans had language complex enough to spin stories of heaven, our distant ancestors had to deal with their own problems on Earth._ _We are a highly social species, using social structures like monogamy, family, clan, and tribe. Our ancestors were using these structures at least 500,000 years ago. If you were suddenly plucked from your life and sent back in time to live with people in Indonesia about 15,000 years ago (or even Ethiopia 150,000 years ago), you would be able to figure out what is going on. The basic social roles, responsibilities, and civil rules would seem somewhat familiar to you, and you’d fit in pretty fast…_ ~ John Shook, Centre for Inquiry, 10.02.10
Human beings are social animals that live in large groups. We, over millennia, have developed rules which make living in large groups easier, and more successful. Those agreed upon rules are what we ultimately call morality. 😜😜🍸😜
Everyone has a moral standard, even if it's a minus 10 on a scale of 100. Morality is an individually determined value. We can't expect everyone to know the difference. After all, most people stopped learning after they were told "But of the tree of knowledge...thou shalt not eat".
Seth, like many of the Christian creationists who can't grasp the idea of taxonomy, can't understand what it means that humans are animals. They think all animals must behave the same way. It is beyond their understanding that different animals have different properties. For example, fish are also animals, but we can't breathe underwater. Does that mean we are not animals? This is how illogical these guys are.
@@Steve-sg3uz Why do you lie? How do you know that I'm "for" all of these? I solemnly promise that I will not get an abortion or kill my young. And I will not practice homosexuality. So you are patently wrong, just like you are wrong to believe in a fictional book with no evidence. But I am not going to force you or push for legislation to take away your right to worship a fictional god. Likewise, I'm not going to take away the rights of others for the choice to terminate their pregnancy or to love who they want. And if you don't realize that it's wrong to murder, regardless of their age, then there's no hope for you. The only ones here where I've heard of treating the young like property has been a Christian, DamonKenny. BTW, stop being disingenuous and saying dumb things like, "animals kill young therefore atheists are for it." It's as stupid as, "animals can breathe underwater, so atheists breathe underwater." Do you see how illogical that makes you look? But I'll bet you can't see that.
@@Steve-sg3uz"Independent of individual opinion", yes. So morality isn't just or even mainly about whatever satisfies my own desires. Morality means considering the needs and wants of other people as well. Morality is objective to the extent that it does this in an impartial way. Sociopathy of the sort exemplified by your narcissistic avatar is the main alternative to moral thinking. It is all about me getting what I want regardless of the consequences to others.
@@amtlpaul He has demonstrated over and over that he doesn't understand what "objective" morality means. Otherwise, why would he point to the 10 commandments as his proof that he has "objective" morality? And he gets his philosophy from just the first thing that Google returns for him. And he doesn't even bother to look at the full context of where that result came from. So, so dumb.
@@amtlpaul Here's what it says on the site where Steve got his Google search result: "Objective morality is the belief that morality is universal and not up for interpretation, suggesting that objective morality exists independently of individual perspectives. Some individuals may think of objective morality when they study commandments in their religion, while others may believe the universe has objective rules to follow, *such as universal kindness."* Oh, would you look at that? The place that gave him the definition of objective morality ALSO says that religion is not necessary to have objective morality. Wow! He pointed to the reference that almost literally says that he's an idiot.😂😂
The only difference between biblical morality, and my morality, is that one is written down and one is in my head. If I write my morals down and point to that piece of paper for reference, then my morals now have just as much of a basis of the Bible. Of course in practice I coil stray from my writings, just as Christians stray from the Bible.
Caller's absolutely certain that he should follow the morality of his genocidal, slavery-endorsing god? - no wonder he doesn't recognise empathy & compassion as valid reasons for making moral assessments.
A simple study of history and society shows that morals are subjective and relative. We can try to justify some of that by referencing objective consequences but our evaluations of those will tend to be subjective.
Morality and law are not necessarily what the majority have agreed to. The majority may come to an agreement, but that's different. Also, morality and law are not the same. There are obviously a lot of things that may be considered immoral, depending on your moral system, but are not illegal.
@@queuecee Yes, morality and law are not the same, which is why I separated them. The laws promulgated by Hitler during his reign would not be what we might consider morally acceptable. And morality is not always positive, however it is always subjective. . The morality in the bible, for instance, is not the same as the morality of modern secular societies. The morality of many religious communities today are not positive according to modern secular morality. Which is why secular law and morality based on reason and scientific reality is typically superior to any unbending religious dogma.
@j.whisper2379 I'm not sure what point you are trying to make by bringing up law when we are talking about morality. As you agreed, they are different things. And I don't agree that morality is always subjective. There are of course moral anti-realisms, but there are plenty of moral realist theories. I think what a lot of people get caught up on is that the application of morality is going to be context based and won't always result in the same outcome. However, moral principles can be objective, in the sense that it's stance independent, independent of human opinions and beliefs. You even mentioned such when you talk about morality based on reason and science.
@@queuecee ! Show me a moral concept held by anyone that is not subjectivee. Laws are typically reflective of a societies accepted moral beliefs. Women are required to wear hijabs by law in many Muslim countries because that is a religiously morally accepted concept in those societies.
Don should have simply pointed out that other animals do not have the capacity to consider moral arguments or to reflect on the consequences of their behaviour, and to then use that to change how they behave. So obviously other animals harming other animals is entirely irrelevant
"Survival of the fittest" has NOTHING to do with killing one another and the survivor is the "stronger one" People who argue this is either a psychopath or doesn't understand what this quote meant. 😅
@@Steve-sg3uz Alas for you just because some animals kill members of their own species it doesn't make that the entire meaning of "survival of the fittest" a phrase often misunderstood.
@@nealjroberts4050 Are you implying that Steve is not just ignorant of moral philosophy but of evolution as well??? 😱 Please look closely at my shocked Pickachu face.
@@Steve-sg3uz " survival of the fittest outcomes. " Hey child, you do realise that "fittest" is in relation to REPRODUCTION, not strength or killing ability... ? " In fact some atheists often" Maybe in the "special bus" you take to kindergarten but no, the rest of us do not make that claim... Do you post like this because you're a moron or because you're a retread?
Nobody can reasonably claim that a g0d that slaughtered infants to punish the parents can be a source of absolute or objective morality. Any person making such a claim who then accuses atheists of lacking a moral compass is merely adding hypocrisy to the list of things they believe to be morally acceptable.
I always find it funny how a believer will tell you that you can’t have objective morals without a god, then when you point out a horrific command from the OT, will then tell you that that particular command doesn’t apply anymore because Jesus nullified it…well, if it has changed, then how does having a god give you access to objective morals? A moral that is objective wouldn’t change, that would make it subjective
JNTO keeps stating that only a like thing can only produce a like thing. For example, only a mortal animal can produce mortal animals. Okay, bad example. Only a plant coulld create plants, only a planet could create planets.... uh, okay, back to the drawing board.
He claims that non-intelligence can't result in intelligence. And yet, ge came from a non-intelligent zygote. Well, that's a bad example. And a non-moral zygote resulted in him. Ok, another bad example. But you know what I mean.
Of course I have a standard for my morals. They're based on my values. This is really a topic about `objective` morality, and I contend no one has an objective standard, despite the claims. Though I have quite a bit more respect for ideologies like `ethical intuitionism` than I do arbitrary claims of divine revelation, via inexplicable god concepts without a shred of evidence.
@@wtfjesus8251 You `don't` know what is right in an objective sense. It's subjective. However humans tend to share a lot of the same values, so the morals pulled from those values tend to match more than they don't. Not that it ultimately matters. I really like certain foods that other do not. That reality doesn't change how the food tastes. This gets made into such a huge issue, but it's really not. Usually because if our values are subjective then we have no way to reasonably `impose` those morals on others, but we don't have that right anyway. That's not how the world works.
Morality / conscience is a feeling towards distinguishing right from wrong, or good from evil. It arises from "understanding" a context. Moral actions are thus contingent on context, and my understanding therof, as fallible as it might be. An "objective" morality is an agreed to feeling. Thats why moral feelings change from Canaan 900BCE, Poland 1943 and Australia 6500BCE, and why one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
The fact that we survived as a species means most of us (as individuals and more importantly - as a population) have the desire to survive innately, therefore most of us want to hold others accountable for actions that go against what is objectively best for our subjective goal of survival of the greatest number of current societal members. With any agreed subjective goal, that which aids it is called "right', that which goes against it is called 'wrong'. By "innately" the theist may claim "written on our hearts be some god" but since an important natural survival trait is a motivation to survive (within most members of a given population) then evolution adequately explains this without adding unseen entities. In animals without higher reasoning, nature WILL naturally select the survival of those populations with sufficient survival traits. For example, If a population of lions "killed" all the nearby population of gazelles, an important food source would be absent, resulting in the decline of lions. Nature will balance and cull those individuals/populations without sufficient survival traits for their current and changing environments, just like nature and reality will cull any society without sufficient survival traits. Only with the addition of a specific goal does one then add the labels of right and wrong (even with the theist - if their subjective goal is to be 'in heaven' and survive forever!). Since the caller is to an atheist show and likely a theist - who was quick to point out and scoff when another claims "I don't know" - demonstrates that they have become convinced of one of several claimed (thought to be superior) magic, quick, prepackaged, easy, catch-all answer of a "goddidit" - found handy by some to more easily answer tough moral questions, rather than doing the hard work of learning real answers by weighing consequences, and having the humility to accept "I don't know" when that is the more honest answer. Claiming 'absolute certainty' about anything means one is unable or unwilling to learn new information about that subject and appears the height of arrogance (simply appearing to be a primate that desperately wants to be correct/fears being wrong). Suggestion: Please focus on and learn normal high school and college courses which may otherwise be lacking in one's reasoning toolkit. Question: Why do some people feel the need to be "more justified than others" for the moral standards that they happen to accept? It almost seems like they want the exclusive power to dictate what is right and wrong in their society or at least claim superior justification for their claims (via something that is not demonstrable) over others 'deemed inadequate' justification by claiming some made-up higher standard than the other human can claim, when in reality - it appears morality has only have ever been a cooperative effort ONLY among humans who only ever decide on TENTATIVE answers to moral questions. For the sake of all of us - please avoid voting those types into any office where they might inflict their prejudiced policy on others. Definition: A law in science is called a law when no exception to an observed natural behavior within the studied parameters has been known to occur. For example - NOTHING so far observed would indicate that even if all conscience beings died at once, the law of conservation of energy would NOT still hold true which includes "energy (therefore also matter) can neither be created not destroyed". That is what's meant by law - no god required (in fact - would indicate NO god created any energy nor any matter).
All ye trollish online Christian preachers, take heed. Verily, unless and until you demonstrate that your God exists, that you know what God's moral judgements are and that said judgements are objectively correct, your version of Christian morality counts as subjective, that is, based on your feelings and preferences rather than on known objective facts.
Many theists seem to simultaneously have an overly simplistic view of morality when it comes to their religion (It's moral if God says it is) and yet needlessly try to complicate it when it comes to secular morality. It's really not that difficult... does X improve the overall wellbeing of our society, decrease it, or have no impact either way? If it decreases wellbeing then let's try to put a stop to it. Otherwise, it's fine and we'll allow it.
Hi The Atheist Experience, for many years I struggled with the conventional wisdom about morals and ethics, while it has always been abundantly clear that all the moral certainties that are claimed to be of divine origin are actually simple human fictions there do seem to be some underlying principles that are so common in all people that they appear to have some higher level origin. The universal sense of justice is a good example, every person has their own clear ideas about right and wrong that allow a range of variation in form and expression but still have that common grounding. It seems that such concepts are quite fundamental to our nature but clearly cannot prescribe all 'proper' behaviour, this relies on public and personal conventions which have to be the product of a person's own choices. This of course leaves us all with no universal standards that all must accept and agree which implies that we can only try to establish appropriate consensus by debate and negotiation. More recently I encountered what appears to me to be a viable alternate, to try to negotiate an understanding within the community we live based on the principles of utilitarianism, this implies that any measure that can clearly be shown to be of significant benefit without significant cost to any member of the community can be put forward as a workable proposition without having to be justified as 'right', moral or ethical. This simple pragmatic approach seems to me to side-step these difficult questions and allow peaceful co-operation that will proscribe particular actions and behaviour as dis-functional and retrograde, to avoid such actions because they are counter-productive not because they are 'wrong'. Cheers, Richard.
According to my values, on balance and in our modern world, religion’s harm far outweighs its good. 1. Faith enables manipulation by demagogues for their nefarious purposes: Religion requires faith, that is, belief without evidence. Such faith becomes available for co-option in different situations. It is epistemically indefensible, and a lazy way of thinking that lends itself to manipulation by demagogues pushing agendas that on greater reflection could be seen for what they are; perversions of justice, compassion, and human decency. 2. Faith replaces the role of chance with imaginary supernatural agency: Faith allows religious people to disregard the misfortunes of others, because they believe them to be undeserving, their gods or spirits having willed it so. It allows them to disregard the role of chance in life, and so believe the wealthy to be deserving. Such false beliefs lead to bad decisions, such as when theists vote against progressive social policies because they believe their good fortune is due to their god's blessing, and the less fortunate are undeserving, so they can’t be good people. 3. Religions discriminate against and oppress non-members: Various religions or sects validate discrimination or oppression against people who don’t share their beliefs, resulting in sectarian violence, even warfare. History shows that religious wars tend to be the deadliest. 4. Objective morality sourced from ancient texts is primitive and sometimes unethical: Religious people believe in objective morality, the source of which is to be found in the ancient text of their choice. However, the morality on display, at least in part, is necessarily primitive and rebarbative. Moral philosophy has moved on since then, making our world a better place, despite the efforts of religious adherents. Compare the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights with the Ten Commandments. The Bible condones slavery, so long as the master doesn’t beat his slave to death. 5. Supernatural beliefs, conflicting with reality, cause faulty decision making: Holding false beliefs that conflict with reality, relating to one or another of mankind’s many gods, is akin to being misinformed. This makes it more likely that decisions influenced by such beliefs will be erroneous. This is particularly true when religious dogma conflicts with scientific data and theories, such as creationism versus evolution by natural selection.
@@JimCastleberry All you can do is keep spouting the same, unsupported claim that moral values or duties require god. In fact, you are explicitly proven wrong since almost all moral systems are non-theistic. Also, you can't actually specify what these moral values or duties even are, and how you know that they come from god, rather than from a fiction.
The Code of Ur-Nammu is the oldest known law code surviving today. It is from Mesopotamia and is written on tablets, in the Sumerian language c. 2100-2050 BCE. Wikipedia The Code of Hammurabi is a Babylonian legal text composed during 1755-1750 BCE. It is the longest, best-organized, and best-preserved legal text from the ancient Near East. It is written in the Old Babylonian dialect of Akkadian, purportedly by Hammurabi, sixth king of the First Dynasty of Babylon. Wikipedia So, where are the ten commandments and the ark of the covenant? The best that you can do is to say that they were written about in a mid 5th century BCE book.
@@jufulu7066which means he'll reward you for believing in him, despite you not being good. And he made you not good in the first place. But it's your fault for not being good. Because he says so.
A good guide to morality is "do as you would be done by" - if you wouldn't want something done to you, then don't do it to anyone else. Simple. Doesn't even need a bible.
@@Steve-sg3uz Atheism is just a disbelief in magical sky-daddies. The bible is just imaginative fiction, with no basis in reality. We should base our moral systems on reality, not religious fiction. We should base them on what hurts people, rather than what is imagined to offend an imaginary god. So while atheism has no "oughts" because it has no laws, we can still acheive moral systems without bloody bibles.
@Steve-sg3uz Except you can't even demonstrate that a divine commander exists. what its divine commands are, or that said commands are objectively correct!
@@Steve-sg3uz You are really fond of making claims about what's in the Bible, but consistently fail to back it up. I'll help: yeah, this is in Matthew, but dates to NON-Christian sources (Egyptian, Greek, Hindi, Tamil, etc) from LONG before an anonymous Greek author decided to plagiarise... because, OF COURSE it does! It's the most basic and obvious idea for social cohesion - an evolutionarily advantageous state. 🤦
Religious people trying to fit there god into the world with using the ambiguity of words like laws and faith, is showing me they are running out of ideas. Keep trying guys 😂
"I only want to talk to the guy who has less experience in dealing with fools like me." Chicken much? 🐓
I kept asking the same questions to Don specifically and exclusively, and eventually got an answer which I can cherry-pick to my satisfaction. Therefore atheism is false.
@@KarlBunker 😂
Bullies need a power imbalance to be effective.
“Wait my viewpoint is being challenged a bit too much, let me talk to don again”
These people terrify me. They are openly admitting to having no empathy.
If they had empathy, they'd find it too hard to align themselves with a genocidal god, let alone worship something that's going to send unbelievers into a burning hell forever.
I heard Dat religious faith iz a type of virus lol.
@@RM-ti8nf religious decepticons lol
Empathy sits in the Realm of illusion. One cannot verify if they have empathy with another individual or not unless you can read minds and into their experiances.
@@RighteousnessWillPrevail I think your brain is in the realm of illusion..
Apologists continually fail to understand that religion is not the source for morality.
@@JimCastleberry Stop lying about me lying. 😛
And I don't need a god to determine what's moral. I can do that completely on my own.
@@Beacon80 JEdith can only claim that some fictional deity is needed for a moral right and wrong. In the meanwhile, he can't explain how his moral rights and wrongs are determined. He can't even explain how slavery is immoral or how they can keep allowing for pedo in their ranks.
@@JimCastleberry "and the fact that GOD is necessary for any moral right and wrong"
F**k you are LYING
IT IS NOT A FACT!
Again for the moron in the room
IT IS NOT A FACT!
You have to prove the God then that it's the source of morality... other wise I can as easily say:
" and the fact that Odin is necessary for any moral right and wrong "
And no the only one pathologically lying here as usual is YOU...
Your pathological lying is not moral.
Therefore you are an immoral person and your God had no f**king effect on it...
Also anal wipe, you are a proven immoral person so you are in no position to judge anyone's morality...
Get new boring copy paste *Edjth.*
@@JimCastleberry On the other thread you accused me of lying when I said I'm not a rapist and I asked you to back up the allegation with proof. You've failed to do so. Are you now prepared to admit you were lying out of your arse?
This dude really thought he had a gotcha, and made himself look idiotic
As usual...😮
In other news, water is wet!
Oh it was a gotcha, he just forgot to check which way it was facing. Rookie mistake.
he was arguing against his own position, half the time.
'if a lion kills a gazelle, nobody gets upset'
that's because morality isn't objective
@@haydenwalton2766 I bet the gazelle gets upset
My moral standards are based on compassion and consent and better living for as many humans and non-humans as possible, it's not that hard
The Golden Rule (of Empathy), treat others like you want to be treated.
But the empathy is necessary, you must train that you can think what other people think so that you can decide whether you want that they think that about you,
@@feedingravens Or maybe just ask how other people want to be treated.
You can still learn and understand how to treat others as they wish to be treated, even if you are a psychopath, that does not experience empathy in any emotional sense. But religious psychopaths, certainly do find ways to justify acting like they themselves are god made flesh...
This is a great illustration of why I don’t get into discussions with theists. The dishonesty is numbing.
I start to find people who argue that they need God to behave ethically (meaning e.g.: not kill or enslave others) pretty dangerous.
The Bible not only depicts God to be tolerant of slavery, but also promotes slavery, provides instruction to both the slaves and the masters and he never rejects slavery. "No human being shall own another human being", might have made a good eleventh commandment from a loving God.
Seth must be a Republikkkan. Only a 70's guy would recognize a dumbass.
Agreed
💯 They keep telling on themselves. Thank goodness they don't still abide by old testament law and don't really read their bibles.
Just goes to show how important God is to have in your lives as an example. Thank you. =)
Since Seth has no problem with slavery, let him volunteer to become a slave under those same conditions. But somehow, I don't think he will. 🤔
He imagines himself as a slave owner.
Not surprisingly. White guy.
Worse yet. He might. If he was convinced being a slave is what God wanted, he might just do it.
@jamesparson No, he wouldn't. He would never settle for being a slave. He has no empathy. Guys like that would never take what they love to dish out to others that they perceive as inferior.
Holding a belief that slavery is objectively immoral and having no wish to be a slave myself is one of the major reasons that I am not a Christian.
He said that he agreed that slavery is wrong. The problem is that he only thinks it’s wrong because scripture says so, except it doesn’t say slavery is wrong.
Omg he went back to wanting to talk to Don at the end. That’s so funny 😂 😂
Lady teacher: Seth, how much is 3 x 4?
Seth : Umm... I wanna talk to Don!
He dozen want to answer that.
@@Sundae_Times it dozen matter what he wants! Jebus says _"math is pointless, because I'm going to destroy the world soon.. ish... maybe. Daddy doesn't tell me anything! WHY? WHY? WHY?"_ 🥹😢😖😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
@@Sundae_Times☝️sorry 'bout that. The spirit of the Lord came all over me... I'll go clean up now.
@@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2 That's ok. I just assumed you were quoting from Numbers 🤭
Every theist who tries to defend slavery always sees themself as the slave owner which is a very moral thing to do, just like genocide is okay when a god tells you to genocide according to the bible.
And then they don't realize that they themselves are slaves to their god. Ironic, isn't it??
@@MrCanis4It’s worse. Lots of them do recognize it.
Some of them do recognize that they themselves are slaves. They just justify it, by telling themselves that they get to rule this planet, in their master's stead.
Just like every clown who tries to say that socialist policies (like universal health care and social security) always imagines themself as the rich guy paying the taxes and getting no benefit, not the down-on-their-luck guy who is currently making use of such policies, that they actually are. 🤦
@@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2That’s an interesting observation. Possibly a contributing factor to why policies that benefit the least fortunate are so hard to pass: people who are not currently poor or underserved act like they never will be. This is a new perspective for me.
Ten years later: Seth, are you embarrassed by this call?
He can't say because he couldn't talk to Don!
😂😂😂😂@@sfprivateer
The biggest question of all is why do these idiot callers feel the need to try and defend slavery?
They are defending their "perfect" book
Because they’re sick and come from a lineage of evil.
They are desperate to hold on to their belief which keeps them in their comfortable tribe.
They had rather defend slavery, knowing it is wrong, than admit God is not all loving, perfect and infallible.
Secular morality is somehow a Bad Thing? But that's where we developed concepts like democracy, gender equality, racial equality...
We didn't get those from religion. Religion teaches uncritical obedience. How is that moral in any way?
Yep. But you hit some of the best religious zealot hot button topics: Gender equality, racial equality. These ignorant people have been using their "perfect book", (that is wrong about almost everything), to justify keeping women and people of different characteristics subservient for centuries. You can't argue logic with a theist, as they have to completely suspend it to believe the batshittery.
My dog is not a pet, she's a valued member of my family.
Pets are family
Same here
👍🍻
Ya but your dog is still a pet it wouldn’t be as hard when the dog dies as if your child did
@@truckerweeks8489 it would be the same for me.
Asks to speak to Don and then cuts him off and interrupts him before Don finishes any point.
Kind of weird that he talks about how he can't just outlaw brussels sprouts because he finds them disgusting, yet in the Bible, God prohibits people from eating certain animals because they are supposedly disgusting
Eat thou not of the unclean, bitter plants. No Brussel sprouts, rapini, parsnips...
Eat of the potato. But baked or boiled. Friest them not.
@tekbarrier The wisdom from God to forbid certain foods may have prevented a lot of sickness that may or may not have been known at the time to be associated with those particular foods; for instance - shellfish, which is forbidden, are known now to be filter-feeders and may accumulate all kinds of bacteria, viruses and toxins which would then carry over to the humans who ate them. Don't you think God gave His people wise advice? I haven't researched every single forbidden food item, but I would not be surprised to see God's wisdom in warning throughout His laws - perhaps proving to doubters that God knows what's good for us and what is harmful - not just in the foods we choose but in the way we choose to live.
And they want to ban OTHER people's behavior based on their morality as well: Being gay, not being xtian, not being THEIR type of xtian, sexual behavior of ANY kind concerning marriage and age, the list goes on and on and on.
@@EricDellinger-t2hWell age of constant should definitely exist due to the harm it causes to underage people. But the Bible doesn’t agree with that. A guy could “promise” (sell) his child aged daughter to an adult at like 12.
@@brucebaker810 No fried potatoes? Surely, this has to be some sort of mistake? In traslation? Just misspoke?
What a shifty character. He only wanted to speak to Don because he assumed Don was less experienced at argument.
And he was right. Don is actually an easier target. Which is an indictment on the caller's entire argument: He was not confident enough in his arguments to try to go against the stronger interlocutor. He is indeed a coward!
Coward, dishonest, manipulator. The *truth* has nothing to fear from inquiry.
Correct me if I am wrong, I think that what this call boils down to is secular morality is bad because it’s just people legislating their feelings and divine morality is good because it’s a supernatural being legislating it’s feelings. I’ll personally take the former because it’s ever evolving as opposed to the latter which is more stagnant.
The supernatural being had to impregnate a virgin with himself, to appease himself for original sin. Which commenced, when a rib woman convinced a dirt man, to eat a magic fruit, from a forbidden tree. All under the counsel of a talking snake.
Thanks to the latter, I've never killed anyone, robbed them or raped them for that matter.
When really it’s still just people making the rules but claiming there’s a supernatural entity that backs them up.
Everything this guy “knows” about god is from a book written by people. People who claim to be/speak for god. People who know they can’t demonstrate a god so they make punishments for questioning it. Who also endorse atrocities but say it’s fine on this “gods” authority.
@@NotALiberalSoSkipTheScript I agree. They claim to be supported by ultimate power. With that ultimate power comes ultimate corruption, as cliche as it sounds.
I wonder what I said since YT has deleted my comment. It's a daily occurrence being brought back to comment threads, where I have obviously commented, to find that my comment is no longer there. What a great way the left has of communicating. Just delete anything you don't agree with. Not just that, that an AI doesn't agree with. A simple solution for simple-minded people.
@@tinetannies4637 Difference between consensus and morality. Slavery was never moral but those in power profited from it. The caller is saying that slavery is moral because the Bible says so.
He had no “point” just repeating the same apologetics we always hear. If you don’t agree with the horrendous atrocities of the Bible you “have no morals”. When he was shown to be wrong about his absolute certainty he tried to run away.
All he had was scripted lines that had nothing to do with the facts of the matter. They were meant to obfuscate.
Empathy and Desire to prevent harm
I adopted one of our cats; the other adopted us. Neither wishes to be free of us.
I foster failed my first cat. I then adopted the next foster because he was a rescue, and he got along so well with my first cat, I couldn't bear to separate them.
Wow. I hope this caller does not ever hold me responsible for anything. He cannot distinguish good from bad.
God's morality: Those who do wrong will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Also God's morality: All have done wrong. And no one will inherit the kingdom of God.
Also God's morality: Everyone will be forgiven of all wrongs if you accept Jesus, so you will inherit the kingdom of God even if you did all the wrongs.
And don't forget, the buybull gh0d specifically created some humans for the sole purpose of infinite torture after they die, making morality totally arbitrary.
Lol yup
I never actually 'facepalm' in reality, but I genuinely did when the guy said 'more evolved'.
Dan sounds like a guy I would love to hang with, but he's not made to discuss morals with sociopaths like Seth.
In all due fairness, I don't think I am either.
Seth says he gets his world view from scripture, but agrees that slavery is bad for society??
I do not own my cats... They own me! 😺
Our first cat actually adopted us, then when we accepted him he brought a friend... We were chosen by them and with all our cats we have tried to honour that privilege
Even when they drive us crazy.... 😺
@@TheMoggiemum We "put up with them" because we know that someday we won't be able to, because we outlive them.
@@JFrazer4303 that's one way to look at it...
Theists and morality. Absolutely mind blowing
Classic Christian compassion. Slavery is only wrong because dad says so. Except for when dad says its totally fine. 😂
@@Steve-sg3uz Is that a joke? Please tell me you can see the problems with what you said.
1:58 owning a cat or a dog is different from owning slaves, we don´t force our cats to do work for us nor beat them, many are treated as another member of the family.
Dogs are pack animals by nature and often view their owners as such.
Ah yes one of my first exposures to presuppositionalism. I could never and still don't comprehend how you are able to take God as an axiomatic certainty as your primary condition, and expect anyone who doesn't believe you to take you seriously. It's the closest thing to literally creating your own mind prison as you possibly could, as there's absolutely no means of changing or growth from that position.
They want to be given the authority of a god but know they can’t demonstrate it. Apologetics are just excuses and deflections to get around that they can’t demonstrate that their god exists, how it came to exist, what it is, why theirs is the real one, how it “created” anything, or how they’re sure the things in their text are accurate.
This is one of my favorite clips. This dishonest person comes in looking to score a win on a guy he deemed too unintelligent to have this conversation. Don was the best (and my favorite) prior host because he was charitable, not pedantic, and attempted to speak in easy to understand language to those of us that don't bury ourselves in philosophy and associated terminology. What a silly theist.
I'm an atheist and I have objective moral standards that stem from promoting the well being of others.
Simple 😎
And a good Thursday Morning 🌞 AXP Fans and Theists ❤❤❤
Peace Love Empathy From Australia 💪🤠☝️
@@JimCastleberry*Blasphemy!*
You are a *fool* (man) to not understand promoting well being leads to objective truths.
Thank Gods will for atheism 🙏✝️
@@JimCastleberryMans opinions of me concerns me never, as God warned us not to trust in men.
As such, your comment is dismissed.
Thank God for AXP 🙏✝️❤
It's so simple yet Seth is killing my brain.
Empathy feels good to the person giving empathy as well as the one receiving it.
This issue goes back to treating people the you would want be treated.
Amusing how he says that some atheists think incest is fine while ignoring the fact that - according to the bible - god seems to be absolutely enamored of it, as at least two great biblical righteous heroes (Lot and Noah and his family) engage in the practice w/o any qualms whatsoever.
Also Adam and Eve and their offspring would have had to have had incest
@@queueceeNot to mention Noah's grandchildren
God can't have any problems with incest because by definition everyone is related to Adam and Eve
Yes, I was a little miffed this was just allowed to pass unchallenged but then again, it was a firehose of cockamamie claims coming from this weird guy, hard deal with them all without a four hour show...
guy who doesnt understand sympathy and empathy 😭
That describes most of the Christians here in the comments. They think that the only reason they don't hurt others is because their god tells them not to.
They can't imagine having the sympathy and empathy that would give then a sense of wrong in hurting others. What monsters.
Hard to relate to and treat others how you want to be treated, when you're a psychopath
No, he does understand them, this is an abstract philosophical discussion where empathy isn't sufficient for him to have a moral law.
@@jsmall10671 Why isn't empathy sufficient for an abstract philosophical discussion? There are many meta-ethics that is connected to human empathy.
Morality pre-dates religion it stems from alturism which can be found in all higher order species.
What is worse, having no "Basis for morality" VS morality from the bible where one can do what ever they want, hurt who ever they want, lie and cheat and at the end of the day all they need to do is put their hands together and say "I love you Jesus" and all their immorality is instantly forgiven?
I know for certain because...circular reasoning 😂
I love the fact that at the end he started to realize he was stuck in an endless loop (God real because Bible, Bible true because God, etc etc) so rather than acknowledge it he just said "I want to speak with Don again" 😂
What stood out for me from the caller was him trying to find out why Don (or atheists in general) thinks it's wrong for one animal to own another animal. He also made the comparison of owning a slave with owning a pet. Is he implying that slaves (or potential slaves) are a different kind of animal than human?
It's why we get a bunch of people, voted for by the population because we believe they are intelligent, to discuss and decide which laws are beneficial to society. If a person can't understand this then they obviously aren't particularly intelligent. Group behaviour to benefit the group.
Religion hasn't given anybody morals. We all basically work on the principle, I don't want it done to me so I won't do it to others, but I will defend myself.
2:00 Every living thing on Earth is exactly the same amount of evolved; there is no more or less evolved, only subjected to different selection pressures over the same period of time. The main important difference between a cat or dog and ourselves is our ability to understand and take responsibility for our actions. As for keeping pets: if we were able to communicate with them well enough to offer a choice between being kept and living wild (or some other arrangement) then we would be obligated to give it to them. But they aren't able to understand that they would have a better life in our care than otherwise (if the situation is such that this isn't true, then that person has no moral standing to have a pet).
17:52 By continually coming back to the fact that we're "a group of animals" what he's trying to say in other words is "who cares if they suffer?"
Again, the answer is: We care.
You don't necessarily have to care, but you had better not harm any of us because we don't like it and we will take steps to prevent you from doing it again, and at that point we might not care how you feel about the matter.
20:02 He's correct for some definition of "exist". But for the relevant definition, there is a whole category of things that also does not exist. "Pride And Prejudice" also does not exist in the exact same respect. In a "materialistic universe" it's just an emergent pattern of ink shapes on a stack of paper, or pits on an optical disk, or electric charges on a memory chip, or patterns of light intensity on a grid of LEDs, or an arrangement of neurons and neurotransmitters in the brain of someone who knows the story. The same thing is true of Ten Commandments. Ink on paper or divots in stone, its just an arrangment of matter. But it represents real ideas that we can give meaning. It's really no different from looking at the clouds and seeing a bunny. Is there a bunny "existing" in the sky? In a sense. If you agree that it does.
When I learned this it was an ah ha moment
It’s not evidently true that everything is exactly the same amount of evolved. In order for that to be true, all things would’ve had to have gone through the same amount of change. How would you even define and determine “how much” change something has gone through? You don’t have to make a claim you can’t back up just to refute their claim they can’t back up.
@@Leith_CrowtherAll species go back to the LUCA (last universal common ancestor). So starting from there, all species have gone through the same amount of evolution.
I miss Don, he seems like a really good dude
Me too.
Same.
Nah dude is too passive. Even though the caller was an idiot, he was given the opportunity to feel like he got one over on atheism as a whole.
I’m sure he’s a lovely guy, but he was not very good as a host.
@@SteelSquishyYeah, this wasn’t his best showing. But Don actually got quite a bit sharper in later videos.
My pets are family members, not slaves or things to own.
My dog owns me -- and I love it.
Congratulations on 415k subscribers AXP
❤❤❤
Keep up the great work 💪
And a good Thursday Morning 🌞
Peace Love Empathy From Australia 🤠
Divine morality = no responsibility
Seth please never lose your theism. Should that happen I fear what awful things you would do.
Does have an AR-15 vibe about him, doesn't he.
No threat of permanent torture and punishment, just love and empathy for guidance.
The caller is arguing for absolutes, and he's rejecting relativism. That's his whole thing.
My cat & dog are not slaves, they can leave at any time.
I’ve never personally met a dog owner who lets their dog outside freely unsupervised with no fence or barrier, and I’m not sure that’s actually a good idea.
@@Leith_Crowther That would depend on how bloody big your property is.
@@Leith_CrowtherAsk a dog catcher if they agree with you. Many people let their dogs roam around, and don’t give a shit about what damage they cause, until they get fined for it.
@@reefhogI don’t know any dog catchers, but it sounds like they will indeed agree with me.
@@Leith_Crowther Local councils employ people to catch stray dogs. They would agree with me, that many people let their dogs roam freely, and have no idea where their dogs are most of the time.
Theism arguments about morality are always circular because they don't want to say that their definition of morality involves God in the first place.
That speech about certainty and uncertainty raises some philosophical questions, such as: Is there some middle ground between knowing for certain and having faith? And if so, then where are the borderlines, where exactly does that middle ground start and where does it end?
Not to brag, but the caller is really good at strawmanning 😂
I think when they have no evidence for their beliefs and believe in things that could not possibly happen in reality, they have to be good at strawmanning.
In their mind, as long as they dispute atheism or science, their god all of a sudden will start to exist.
*_Morality evolved first, long before Religion_*
_Which came first, religion or morality? Listening to religious people, you’d hear how people need religion’s instructions, or else we’d be morally clueless. God comes first, then God’s Law comes to humanity, and only then can people be good._
_But there’s no good evidence for any part of this fable. Such a religious fable itself is a relatively recent creation, reduplicated in many forms all over the world. Different religions talk about all manner of strange supernatural agents perpetually obsessed with correct human conduct. (You’d think any actual self-respecting deity would have more interesting things to do.) Yet basic morality itself is remarkably consistent across human societies. Long before humans had language complex enough to spin stories of heaven, our distant ancestors had to deal with their own problems on Earth._
_We are a highly social species, using social structures like monogamy, family, clan, and tribe. Our ancestors were using these structures at least 500,000 years ago. If you were suddenly plucked from your life and sent back in time to live with people in Indonesia about 15,000 years ago (or even Ethiopia 150,000 years ago), you would be able to figure out what is going on. The basic social roles, responsibilities, and civil rules would seem somewhat familiar to you, and you’d fit in pretty fast…_
~ John Shook, Centre for Inquiry, 10.02.10
just ask Seth what he thinks a theory is and let's get this over with.
Do unto others as you do unto your Self.
Human beings are social animals that live in large groups. We, over millennia, have developed rules which make living in large groups easier, and more successful. Those agreed upon rules are what we ultimately call morality. 😜😜🍸😜
Everyone has a moral standard, even if it's a minus 10 on a scale of 100. Morality is an individually determined value. We can't expect everyone to know the difference. After all, most people stopped learning after they were told "But of the tree of knowledge...thou shalt not eat".
Gotta be the most weirdest and immature questioning ever from a caller. What a siily man.
let's not be too generous...this imbecile is no man; at best it is human-adjacent
Seth, like many of the Christian creationists who can't grasp the idea of taxonomy, can't understand what it means that humans are animals. They think all animals must behave the same way. It is beyond their understanding that different animals have different properties. For example, fish are also animals, but we can't breathe underwater. Does that mean we are not animals?
This is how illogical these guys are.
@@Steve-sg3uz Why do you lie? How do you know that I'm "for" all of these?
I solemnly promise that I will not get an abortion or kill my young. And I will not practice homosexuality. So you are patently wrong, just like you are wrong to believe in a fictional book with no evidence.
But I am not going to force you or push for legislation to take away your right to worship a fictional god. Likewise, I'm not going to take away the rights of others for the choice to terminate their pregnancy or to love who they want.
And if you don't realize that it's wrong to murder, regardless of their age, then there's no hope for you. The only ones here where I've heard of treating the young like property has been a Christian, DamonKenny.
BTW, stop being disingenuous and saying dumb things like, "animals kill young therefore atheists are for it." It's as stupid as, "animals can breathe underwater, so atheists breathe underwater." Do you see how illogical that makes you look? But I'll bet you can't see that.
@@Steve-sg3uzdo you even have an idea of what 'objective' means, yes or no?
@@Steve-sg3uz"Independent of individual opinion", yes. So morality isn't just or even mainly about whatever satisfies my own desires. Morality means considering the needs and wants of other people as well. Morality is objective to the extent that it does this in an impartial way. Sociopathy of the sort exemplified by your narcissistic avatar is the main alternative to moral thinking. It is all about me getting what I want regardless of the consequences to others.
@@amtlpaul He has demonstrated over and over that he doesn't understand what "objective" morality means. Otherwise, why would he point to the 10 commandments as his proof that he has "objective" morality?
And he gets his philosophy from just the first thing that Google returns for him. And he doesn't even bother to look at the full context of where that result came from. So, so dumb.
@@amtlpaul Here's what it says on the site where Steve got his Google search result:
"Objective morality is the belief that morality is universal and not up for interpretation, suggesting that objective morality exists independently of individual perspectives. Some individuals may think of objective morality when they study commandments in their religion, while others may believe the universe has objective rules to follow, *such as universal kindness."*
Oh, would you look at that? The place that gave him the definition of objective morality ALSO says that religion is not necessary to have objective morality. Wow! He pointed to the reference that almost literally says that he's an idiot.😂😂
The only difference between biblical morality, and my morality, is that one is written down and one is in my head. If I write my morals down and point to that piece of paper for reference, then my morals now have just as much of a basis of the Bible. Of course in practice I coil stray from my writings, just as Christians stray from the Bible.
Caller's absolutely certain that he should follow the morality of his genocidal, slavery-endorsing god? - no wonder he doesn't recognise empathy & compassion as valid reasons for making moral assessments.
A simple study of history and society shows that morals are subjective and relative.
We can try to justify some of that by referencing objective consequences but our evaluations of those will tend to be subjective.
Morality is all subjective and changes as society progresses. Our morality and law are what the majority have agreed to.
Morality and law are not necessarily what the majority have agreed to. The majority may come to an agreement, but that's different.
Also, morality and law are not the same. There are obviously a lot of things that may be considered immoral, depending on your moral system, but are not illegal.
@@queuecee Yes, morality and law are not the same, which is why I separated them. The laws promulgated by Hitler during his reign would not be what we might consider morally acceptable. And morality is not always positive, however it is always subjective. . The morality in the bible, for instance, is not the same as the morality of modern secular societies. The morality of many religious communities today are not positive according to modern secular morality. Which is why secular law and morality based on reason and scientific reality is typically superior to any unbending religious dogma.
@j.whisper2379 I'm not sure what point you are trying to make by bringing up law when we are talking about morality. As you agreed, they are different things.
And I don't agree that morality is always subjective. There are of course moral anti-realisms, but there are plenty of moral realist theories.
I think what a lot of people get caught up on is that the application of morality is going to be context based and won't always result in the same outcome. However, moral principles can be objective, in the sense that it's stance independent, independent of human opinions and beliefs. You even mentioned such when you talk about morality based on reason and science.
@@queuecee ! Show me a moral concept held by anyone that is not subjectivee. Laws are typically reflective of a societies accepted moral beliefs. Women are required to wear hijabs by law in many Muslim countries because that is a religiously morally accepted concept in those societies.
@@queuecee ! Morality is a human created concept, like sin and does not naturally occur in nature.
Don should have simply pointed out that other animals do not have the capacity to consider moral arguments or to reflect on the consequences of their behaviour, and to then use that to change how they behave.
So obviously other animals harming other animals is entirely irrelevant
"Survival of the fittest" has NOTHING to do with killing one another and the survivor is the "stronger one"
People who argue this is either a psychopath or doesn't understand what this quote meant. 😅
@@Steve-sg3uz
Alas for you just because some animals kill members of their own species it doesn't make that the entire meaning of "survival of the fittest" a phrase often misunderstood.
@@nealjroberts4050 Are you implying that Steve is not just ignorant of moral philosophy but of evolution as well??? 😱 Please look closely at my shocked Pickachu face.
@@Steve-sg3uz
Who are these “atheists” that you claim tell you things that aren’t true?
@@queuecee
Hey, last time I looked closely at someone's shocked Pikachu face we had to visit the clinic!
@@Steve-sg3uz
" survival of the fittest outcomes. "
Hey child, you do realise that "fittest" is in relation to REPRODUCTION, not strength or killing ability... ?
" In fact some atheists often"
Maybe in the "special bus" you take to kindergarten but no, the rest of us do not make that claim...
Do you post like this because you're a moron or because you're a retread?
Nobody can reasonably claim that a g0d that slaughtered infants to punish the parents can be a source of absolute or objective morality.
Any person making such a claim who then accuses atheists of lacking a moral compass is merely adding hypocrisy to the list of things they believe to be morally acceptable.
I always find it funny how a believer will tell you that you can’t have objective morals without a god, then when you point out a horrific command from the OT, will then tell you that that particular command doesn’t apply anymore because Jesus nullified it…well, if it has changed, then how does having a god give you access to objective morals? A moral that is objective wouldn’t change, that would make it subjective
This caller was so aggressive and so certain but so patently wrong.
JNTO keeps stating that only a like thing can only produce a like thing. For example, only a mortal animal can produce mortal animals. Okay, bad example. Only a plant coulld create plants, only a planet could create planets.... uh, okay, back to the drawing board.
He claims that non-intelligence can't result in intelligence. And yet, ge came from a non-intelligent zygote. Well, that's a bad example.
And a non-moral zygote resulted in him. Ok, another bad example. But you know what I mean.
Especially since there's no meaningful definition of of "living" that applies to Yahweh
Presups are such cowards.
Seth, why did you bother to call when you weren't going to listen to a damn word they said
Call’s ten years old, Seth could be dead by now.
@@Leith_Crowther and?, the call could be 10 minutes old and Seth could be dead, I'm not sure what your point is
Of course I have a standard for my morals. They're based on my values. This is really a topic about `objective` morality, and I contend no one has an objective standard, despite the claims. Though I have quite a bit more respect for ideologies like `ethical intuitionism` than I do arbitrary claims of divine revelation, via inexplicable god concepts without a shred of evidence.
Your standards, God's standards .... How do you know what is "right" and ... did you make mistakes sometimes???
@@wtfjesus8251 You `don't` know what is right in an objective sense. It's subjective. However humans tend to share a lot of the same values, so the morals pulled from those values tend to match more than they don't. Not that it ultimately matters. I really like certain foods that other do not. That reality doesn't change how the food tastes. This gets made into such a huge issue, but it's really not. Usually because if our values are subjective then we have no way to reasonably `impose` those morals on others, but we don't have that right anyway. That's not how the world works.
In a universe where things exist AND those thing interact there are rules that govern how they interact...What a premise!
But there is only one denomination since the Bible is so clear on its morailty....wait that's not right.
Morality / conscience is a feeling towards distinguishing right from wrong, or good from evil. It arises from "understanding" a context.
Moral actions are thus contingent on context, and my understanding therof, as fallible as it might be. An "objective" morality is an agreed to feeling. Thats why moral feelings change from Canaan 900BCE, Poland 1943 and Australia 6500BCE, and why one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
I'm surprised this guy wasn't dropped as soon as he started trying to pick which presenter to talk to.
They later on made it a rule that you have to talk to both hosts, specifically to keep dishonest interlocutors from trying scummy tactics like this.
Yes this was so gross, he tried to pick on Don because he saw him as the easy target. Theists like this are the absolute worst
@@jackwhitbread4583 😂😂 nature takes the path of least resistance
The fact that we survived as a species means most of us (as individuals and more importantly - as a population) have the desire to survive innately, therefore most of us want to hold others accountable for actions that go against what is objectively best for our subjective goal of survival of the greatest number of current societal members. With any agreed subjective goal, that which aids it is called "right', that which goes against it is called 'wrong'.
By "innately" the theist may claim "written on our hearts be some god" but since an important natural survival trait is a motivation to survive (within most members of a given population) then evolution adequately explains this without adding unseen entities. In animals without higher reasoning, nature WILL naturally select the survival of those populations with sufficient survival traits. For example, If a population of lions "killed" all the nearby population of gazelles, an important food source would be absent, resulting in the decline of lions. Nature will balance and cull those individuals/populations without sufficient survival traits for their current and changing environments, just like nature and reality will cull any society without sufficient survival traits. Only with the addition of a specific goal does one then add the labels of right and wrong (even with the theist - if their subjective goal is to be 'in heaven' and survive forever!).
Since the caller is to an atheist show and likely a theist - who was quick to point out and scoff when another claims "I don't know" - demonstrates that they have become convinced of one of several claimed (thought to be superior) magic, quick, prepackaged, easy, catch-all answer of a "goddidit" - found handy by some to more easily answer tough moral questions, rather than doing the hard work of learning real answers by weighing consequences, and having the humility to accept "I don't know" when that is the more honest answer. Claiming 'absolute certainty' about anything means one is unable or unwilling to learn new information about that subject and appears the height of arrogance (simply appearing to be a primate that desperately wants to be correct/fears being wrong). Suggestion: Please focus on and learn normal high school and college courses which may otherwise be lacking in one's reasoning toolkit.
Question: Why do some people feel the need to be "more justified than others" for the moral standards that they happen to accept? It almost seems like they want the exclusive power to dictate what is right and wrong in their society or at least claim superior justification for their claims (via something that is not demonstrable) over others 'deemed inadequate' justification by claiming some made-up higher standard than the other human can claim, when in reality - it appears morality has only have ever been a cooperative effort ONLY among humans who only ever decide on TENTATIVE answers to moral questions.
For the sake of all of us - please avoid voting those types into any office where they might inflict their prejudiced policy on others.
Definition: A law in science is called a law when no exception to an observed natural behavior within the studied parameters has been known to occur.
For example - NOTHING so far observed would indicate that even if all conscience beings died at once, the law of conservation of energy would NOT still hold true which includes "energy (therefore also matter) can neither be created not destroyed". That is what's meant by law - no god required (in fact - would indicate NO god created any energy nor any matter).
All ye trollish online Christian preachers, take heed. Verily, unless and until you demonstrate that your God exists, that you know what God's moral judgements are and that said judgements are objectively correct, your version of Christian morality counts as subjective, that is, based on your feelings and preferences rather than on known objective facts.
So glad I don't need a god to tell me that harming others is a horrible thing.
Only weak people need to submit to a higher, imaginary, immoral power for their morals.
Many theists seem to simultaneously have an overly simplistic view of morality when it comes to their religion (It's moral if God says it is) and yet needlessly try to complicate it when it comes to secular morality.
It's really not that difficult... does X improve the overall wellbeing of our society, decrease it, or have no impact either way? If it decreases wellbeing then let's try to put a stop to it. Otherwise, it's fine and we'll allow it.
Here before every trolls!
Hi The Atheist Experience, for many years I struggled with the conventional wisdom about morals and ethics, while it has always been abundantly clear that all the moral certainties that are claimed to be of divine origin are actually simple human fictions there do seem to be some underlying principles that are so common in all people that they appear to have some higher level origin. The universal sense of justice is a good example, every person has their own clear ideas about right and wrong that allow a range of variation in form and expression but still have that common grounding. It seems that such concepts are quite fundamental to our nature but clearly cannot prescribe all 'proper' behaviour, this relies on public and personal conventions which have to be the product of a person's own choices.
This of course leaves us all with no universal standards that all must accept and agree which implies that we can only try to establish appropriate consensus by debate and negotiation.
More recently I encountered what appears to me to be a viable alternate, to try to negotiate an understanding within the community we live based on the principles of utilitarianism, this implies that any measure that can clearly be shown to be of significant benefit without significant cost to any member of the community can be put forward as a workable proposition without having to be justified as 'right', moral or ethical. This simple pragmatic approach seems to me to side-step these difficult questions and allow peaceful co-operation that will proscribe particular actions and behaviour as dis-functional and retrograde, to avoid such actions because they are counter-productive not because they are 'wrong'.
Cheers, Richard.
This caller thinks he's smart yet he believes in magic.
He’s intertwined his belief in god so deep if he stumped his toe he’d have to ask god if it hurts or not.
Presup destroyed
Yes we do. Next.
According to my values, on balance and in our modern world, religion’s harm far outweighs its good.
1. Faith enables manipulation by demagogues for their nefarious purposes:
Religion requires faith, that is, belief without evidence. Such faith becomes available for co-option in different situations. It is epistemically indefensible, and a lazy way of thinking that lends itself to manipulation by demagogues pushing agendas that on greater reflection could be seen for what they are; perversions of justice, compassion, and human decency.
2. Faith replaces the role of chance with imaginary supernatural agency:
Faith allows religious people to disregard the misfortunes of others, because they believe them to be undeserving, their gods or spirits having willed it so. It allows them to disregard the role of chance in life, and so believe the wealthy to be deserving. Such false beliefs lead to bad decisions, such as when theists vote against progressive social policies because they believe their good fortune is due to their god's blessing, and the less fortunate are undeserving, so they can’t be good people.
3. Religions discriminate against and oppress non-members:
Various religions or sects validate discrimination or oppression against people who don’t share their beliefs, resulting in sectarian violence, even warfare. History shows that religious wars tend to be the deadliest.
4. Objective morality sourced from ancient texts is primitive and sometimes unethical:
Religious people believe in objective morality, the source of which is to be found in the ancient text of their choice. However, the morality on display, at least in part, is necessarily primitive and rebarbative. Moral philosophy has moved on since then, making our world a better place, despite the efforts of religious adherents. Compare the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights with the Ten Commandments. The Bible condones slavery, so long as the master doesn’t beat his slave to death.
5. Supernatural beliefs, conflicting with reality, cause faulty decision making:
Holding false beliefs that conflict with reality, relating to one or another of mankind’s many gods, is akin to being misinformed. This makes it more likely that decisions influenced by such beliefs will be erroneous. This is particularly true when religious dogma conflicts with scientific data and theories, such as creationism versus evolution by natural selection.
@@JimCastleberry All you can do is keep spouting the same, unsupported claim that moral values or duties require god. In fact, you are explicitly proven wrong since almost all moral systems are non-theistic.
Also, you can't actually specify what these moral values or duties even are, and how you know that they come from god, rather than from a fiction.
The Code of Ur-Nammu is the oldest known law code surviving today. It is from Mesopotamia and is written on tablets, in the Sumerian language c. 2100-2050 BCE. Wikipedia
The Code of Hammurabi is a Babylonian legal text composed during 1755-1750 BCE. It is the longest, best-organized, and best-preserved legal text from the ancient Near East. It is written in the Old Babylonian dialect of Akkadian, purportedly by Hammurabi, sixth king of the First Dynasty of Babylon. Wikipedia
So, where are the ten commandments and the ark of the covenant? The best that you can do is to say that they were written about in a mid 5th century BCE book.
I'm moral because God says I am! So there.
No. Good says no one is good. So that's that.
@@jamesparson But I told him that believed in him.😒
@@jufulu7066which means he'll reward you for believing in him, despite you not being good. And he made you not good in the first place. But it's your fault for not being good. Because he says so.
10:07 Buddy you are dodging an entire person.
A good guide to morality is "do as you would be done by" - if you wouldn't want something done to you, then don't do it to anyone else. Simple. Doesn't even need a bible.
@@Steve-sg3uz Atheism is just a disbelief in magical sky-daddies. The bible is just imaginative fiction, with no basis in reality. We should base our moral systems on reality, not religious fiction. We should base them on what hurts people, rather than what is imagined to offend an imaginary god. So while atheism has no "oughts" because it has no laws, we can still acheive moral systems without bloody bibles.
@@Steve-sg3uz
Still deliberately misrepresenting atheism and morality I see.
@@Steve-sg3uzAtheism isn't a belief system nor a worldview.
@Steve-sg3uz Except you can't even demonstrate that a divine commander exists. what its divine commands are, or that said commands are objectively correct!
@@Steve-sg3uz You are really fond of making claims about what's in the Bible, but consistently fail to back it up. I'll help: yeah, this is in Matthew, but dates to NON-Christian sources (Egyptian, Greek, Hindi, Tamil, etc) from LONG before an anonymous Greek author decided to plagiarise... because, OF COURSE it does! It's the most basic and obvious idea for social cohesion - an evolutionarily advantageous state. 🤦
There's that word empathy again. Many people don't understand that that word basically exists in the realm of illusion.
Religious people trying to fit there god into the world with using the ambiguity of words like laws and faith, is showing me they are running out of ideas. Keep trying guys 😂
They ran out of ideas ages ago. 😂
Seth was the first Karen. Instead of the manager...he wanted to talk to Don.