Matt Dillahunty: The Superiority of Secular Morality
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ต.ค. 2024
- For more information, visit: freethoughtfest...
AHA @ UW - Madison: wiscatheists.bl...
Madison Area Coalition of Reason: unitedcor.org/mad/
Matt Dillahunty is the president of the Atheist Community of Austin and host of their live, call-in, television program, "The Atheist Experience." A fundamentalist Christian for more than 25 years, his best efforts to become a minister backfired and gave birth to one of the most prolific voices on atheism of the past decade. In addition to hundreds of live television shows and thousands of informal debates on the show, he's also engaged in formal debates and traveled the United States speaking to local secular organizations and university groups. He's also the producer of both the "Godless Bitches" and "The Non-Prophets" podcasts.
![[UNCUT]"ตุลามรณะ"ย้อนฟังคำทำนาย หมอดูทุกสาย ดวงเมืองร้อน (หมอปลาย ฟองสนาน อ.โอเล่)I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/lE5az5VvT9M/mqdefault.jpg)
Secular morality is doing what is right, regardless of what we are told.
Religious dogma is doing what we are told, no matter what is right.
MrStripeyDog He wasn't doing what was right because he was mentally disturbed, and if you did criticize him he probably have you killed as well. Hitler's generals knew he was a lunatic and wasn't doing right but wouldn't criticize for fear of their lives. Joseph Smith thought he doing right through his faith and no one would dare tell him he as doing wrong because of their faith, and he killed them all.
MrStripeyDog The Internet, where religions come to die, QUICKLY
Oh dear, I'm guilty by association! I guess I have a sincere belief in god now...
How do I know if it's working?
MrStripeyDog FAITH
A definition
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen Hebrews 11:1
Faith can be used to justify anything
Appeals to faith are an admission of failure.
Faith is the excuse people give when they believe something and don't have good have a good reason to believe.
MrStripeyDog Wrong. That's why theists use faith instead of facts to say gods do exist. You have no facts,Present some?, and quotes from some fairy book don't count.
"ballsacks" written on the chalkboard .. lol
When I was in university I would arrive to class early. and I would often add ridiculous shit to the black board to see if the prof would notice. my favourite was a graph that shows the increase in 'ennui'' over time.
Yeh, Google'Billy Connolly: Scrotum!
EDUCATIONballsacks
" they've already changed their views based on society around them. Based on the secular views. " so much truth in those last few sentences
Lies
The Non-theistic teachings of Buddha (who was around 500 years before Christ) is proof that you don't need a God to be moral. Although he may have been Polytheistic, his teachings never ended with "because this god said so."
You don't need to say "Because this God said so." the teachings could have Still come from a God or Goddess or Thing. Buddhism is still a religion to another Realm.
Neanderthal is a good moniker for you. Aren't you embarrassed at displaying your stupidity in public?
I am, but that doesn't change my intelligence.
+Brennon Dan
Actually he was technically a agnostic apatheist.
Also his name was Siddhartha Gautama, Buddha was a title given to him and several other people in religious Buddhist tradition.
@@thegreatprophesizedantichr3762 actually, budhdhism was one of the few Faiths in India that didn't recognize soul and didn't care about god at all.. it also threw out our old Vedic Varna system and rituals..
The whole focus was on suffering in this world and the cause for it to be desire...
if your morality comes from an imaginary deity, then your morality is imaginary. More elastic, bendable than secular morality. You can easily think God agrees with whatever it is you are doing. I have seen this again and again.
Ygor Nimoy you actually have a point. I was diest liberal Catholic before becoming a Traditonal Catholic that believed in secular morality. However I was a believer in a God but I very much believe it's very possible to be a moral person without a belief in God.
Yes, but, humans do this to justify their actions with and without god.
"...the illusion of certainty and the comfort of simplicity." BRILLIANT!!!
No actually pretty ignorant. Religion ultimately rests on faith which is obviously not certainty.
If you think a human jelly bean who spouts polemics at a bunch of uneducated teenagers is brilliant... then you're probably an uneducated teenager.
@@matthiasmuller7677 I could also be a 45-year-old autodidact with a college diploma and an IQ of 143! I'm glad _you_ can tell the difference between faith and certainty. However, there are literally billions of people in the world who use the words, "Know," and, "Believe," interchangeably and consider the religious beliefs with which they have been indoctrinated since earliest youth to be absolute fact! They're not _actually_ certain, but they are so confident in their beliefs that no amount of reason or evidence will ever change their minds. That is the, "...illusion of certainty," to which Matt refers. Religion allows people to _think_ they understand _everything,_ while _actually_ understanding _nothing._ As for, "...the comfort of simplicity," God is a "one size fits all" answer to every question anyone might ever _have_ but be too lazy to actually _study._ I suppose, in that sense, one man's Epistemology _is_ another man's Polemics; after all, when one's position can't stand up to rational scrutiny, having someone _say so_ probably feels like an attack. Speaking of attacks, kudos on presenting two Ad Hominem (Personal Attack) logical fallacies in a single sentence; it really drives home the evidentiary and logical strength of your position.
@@OmniphonProductions Every religion that I'm aware of explicitly states that faith is the ground it ultimately rests on. Who cares if some individuals don't correctly apply that?
To conflate a religion with the behavior of its followers (who's thoughts you seem to know better then they do) is probably at least one fancy sounding fallacy.
Btw your IQ means nothing, it's just processing speed. These are not complicated topics.
If you're an outlier like that chances are that you're actually a little on the autitstic side and unable to see connections, only particulars.
No offense, this is what TH-cam comments are about 😉
@@OmniphonProductions and what you quote about simplicity sounds very rational. The only thing that's irrational is that you again mix in psychological speculations for why someone might adhere to that. I could do exactly the same in the opposite way. Assuming that there is no final ground which all reality rests on but instead everything being just chaos and coincidence offers plenty of benefit for someone to BELIEVE in because it frees you from all purpose.
@@OmniphonProductions and concerning the polemics. I listened to half the video. All I heard was shallow boring unsubstantiated nonsense. Empty words towards an audience of giggling 18 year old girls. Them and Dillhaunty should instead have discussed the thing they have in common: daddy issues! 😄
Theres another ad hominem for you (ad fatfuck rather)
The difference between the average atheist and the average theist is that the atheist understands the thought process of the theist. The theist does not understand the thought process of an atheist. Atheism is a large intellectual step above theism.
You're wrong about me being wrong. I did not say all theists.
finalfantasy8911 That's called a contradiction.
finalfantasy8911 I think you're a little fuzzy on what fits the definition of a contradiction. Also, I did not say "all theists". You misread my comment.
+Eru Illuvatar Actually, I was an atheist a great deal of my life. I could spout out nonsense like this guy all day, as well or better than he can. Only when I accept Jesus in my own life, did I realize the true depth of ignorance secular perception has. It's easy to understand Godlessness. It exists all around us. The reason atheism is gaining such a wide following is that earth belongs to Satan. Temptation is always available. Humans have the audacity to believe that they are superior to God, and therefore ignore his rules, break his laws and allow sin into their lives, willingly ignorant, gratefully serving the Master of Lies. We are God's children. He has instructed us, and it's up to us to decide through free will which path we follow. The question is, will we sing like the children of Eru, creating harmony, or be prideful like Melkor and create rancor in the world?
John 8:44
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye
will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the
truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he
speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
legunncat I read a lot of emotional dribble and Bible preaching in your reply. I am sorry that you've been brainwashed and that your emotions have usurped your rational thought process. Ask yourself honestly, do you think it more likely that your one religion is true and all others are false, or that you've bought in to the religion that your culture has adopted? You are still an atheist my friend. You are an atheist regarding all other religions. I truly hope that you open your mind and realize that _every_ religion is illogical, not just your own.
A person who believes in morality, truth and justice. Well done and thank you Matt.
Today I had the integrity of my Charity Foundation attacked by a Christian who argued its illogical for me to do Charity work. 1) because it is illogical to help anyone but yourself if I don’t believe in the Christian God. 2)) And since its illogical for me to want to help someone then I’m therefore incapable of helping people. 3) I’m immoral to the core. 4) Finally, my core immorality makes it so I will eventually use my Charity for immoral goals and things. And anyone involved in the charity work were all being deceived by an immoral person, a.k.a. Me. It broke my heart that he was holding a baby in his Facebook profile picture. I feel so sorry for his kid 😔 And I don’t mean that in a condescending way. It’s really sad that he’s going to indoctrinate a baby to believe he or she is incapable of being a good person without God.
Your idea of a good person is derived from Christian religion.
@@keithhunt5328 No, it's not.
If you must worship a god, it's best to pick one that nobody else worships, such as KA or Nike.
That god will be so pleased to be picked and will be able to give you his/her full attention.
If you pick a very popular god, he/she will probably be very busy helping others.
You might have to wait a long time to get your prayers answered.
Awesome lecture, I was there sitting at the back of the hall, had the pleasure of sitting in the row ahead of AronRa, was an awesome day with a ton of great lectures.
You would think some one would fix the gotdammed microphone.
+Jim Mears (Funniest Videos) That would never be a problem with the liars and thieves of evangelism
Listen with headphones and only use the left one
Anyone else see "ballsacks" on the chalkboard? Love it.
Christians always want to debate why slavery is wrong according to secular morality. This video helps.
According to his bestselling memoir, God didn't always object to it.
As I approach the end of life, I have come to understand the centrality of "worth". Did I lead a life that was worth living. Was what I sought in life worthy of my seeking? What did I fail to do that was worthy while I pursued the unworthy?
Love is the only answer. The "I - Thou" love not the "I- it" love.
Matt said "sagacity"!
I love that word. So perspicacious.
I guess no one noticed "ballsacks" was written on the board before he started talking? hahaha
I work in a callcentre, and sometimes I find myself talking in a way that Matt would to get a point across to people who just dont understand off the bat. Matt is amazing.
13 minutes in I realize the chalkboard says "ballsacks" on it.
I love it that someone put "bullsacks" on the blackboard!
Just to help in future: This video has the lapel mic on the left channel and a distant mic on the right channel. Very frustrating to listen to on headphones.
Morality is just an mix of utilitarianism, survival and self interest.
If your morality is self-interest then it isn't morality.
@@avivastudios2311They don’t understand that oughts can’t be made using subjective consensus or preference. Secular morality 30 years from now won’t be what it is today because it is completely fluid.
"I'm Matt and I'm an enemy of religion" 😂❤️
luke hp but actually Catholicism is the Religion for the intellectual
Gingerella Cookie sure it is. 😂😂
@@gingerellacookie5641 particularly if you're a priest who likes little boys. A great place to "work" so they'll shuffle you around if you get caught.
@@gingerellacookie5641 There is no such thing as ANY religion for an intellectual. An intellectual thinks for themselves, instead of putting their faith in some book.
I couldn't help but notice on the blackboard behind him it said "ballsacks" in the beginning. In all seriousness though, thanks for putting this up-great presentation!! Matt Dillahunty is awesome!
as an intellectual believer, I actually think athiests can be far more moral then many believers!
True! Except me - I'm an utter bastard.
All best
Emm, to begin with not having the trouble to defend slavery because your belief endorses it yeah we have our mind in the right place. But lets be honest, why would anyone in the XXI century believe in religious ideology? Religions are literally debunked and additionally wanting them to be true is something that makes you inhuman and an immoral person. As simple as it sounds.
For all of you that believe in subjective morality, I’m curious of your opinion on this.
According to subjective morality, If someone believes something is morally right or wrong for them, it is subjectively right or wrong for them.
Following that logic, someone could believe racism is right one minute, but then 5 minutes later believe it is wrong and that would be true for them. And they could change their mind endlessly but it would be true for them.
@@lovespeaks777 Morality is subjective, always, it requires living and thinking agents to feel and understand, there is no solid and ultimate "morality" EVEN if there were a god (time theists understand that and stop acting like retards) because it still depends on minds, but by acknowledging this we can make objective and firm conclusions about well-being and so on so we can live in society (example: what is wrong with killing me?: not only that it will stop my well being BUT also if you tried to kill me I would do my best to kill you first because you demonstrated your intentions against my being, so theists tend to ask that, why is it wrong to kill and I bring it back to you: if you try to kill me I will kill you first in self defense, so what is wrong with killing me? If you try, you are one who will discover the true meaning of good and bad).
I'm curious about you people who belief god is morality, I'm curious how you sleep at night believing your "god" >>(all we know about it is your fairy tale book called the bible)
The idea that no one tells you to be good and you simply choose to be is one of the most powerful states of mind.
Why does it say "Ballsacks" on the chalkboard?
Why not?
Because someone write it
due to particles of dinosouaur fossils being on a dark surface from which light bounces off of which is interpreted by you brain as seen from your eyes
2:55
I've seen this kind of thing too. In an article written by a Christian, he readily admitted the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Noah story shared many similarities (both are about a man ordered by a divine forces to build an a ark and collect two of every animal for preparation of a worldwide flood) and that the Epic of Gilgamesh was dated older than the Old Testament story. But the conclusion boiled down to "since the Bible is the inerrant word of God, the only logical conclusion is that the Noah story was passed down orally and is thus older than the Epic of Gilgamesh."
If you'd like to read it, here is the link: www.icr.org/article/noah-flood-gilgamesh/
This is a great, albeit brief, presentation by Matt. I don't see how anyone can disagree with what he's said, but perhaps I'm being naive. I especially liked the finale, where he indicated that we (secularists) are winning, and in a sense have already won. When we abolished slavery, secular morality won. When we gave women the vote, secular morality won. And just this summer, when we gave gays the right to marry, secular morality won. (Like our humane treatment of blacks and women, that'll one day be seen as the right action, across the board.) Secularists create progress, and religions eventually catch up. Those were victories of secular morality over Biblical morality, and Christians now agree they were right. Although it's in their Bible, today no Christian (outside the KKK) would say slavery or treating women as second-class citizens is right.
Atheists say slavery is morally right all the time. They support the prison system.
@@CarnevalOne And Christians don’t? Seems to me a crap ton of Christians think the prison system is fabulous & keeps criminals off the streets. I do think prison systems shouldn’t be privatized to prevent exploiting prisoners for money. But the question is would you rather lock them up, kill them, or let them roam the streets? You got 3 options.
@@CarnevalOne Nah, only christians try to defend slavery (holding another human being as property) all the time. For some reason they prefer to sacrifice their own morality than accept their favorite book is not infallible.
The prison system is shit, and should be reformed, regardless if a god exist or not.
BTW, nice stramanned tu quoque, if only you wouldnt feel so much shame of your own magical fairy.
Haha, awesome rebottle. Props to you mate.
Cheers from Amsterdam
The case for "morality" is pretty simple.
Consider the analogy of driving; there are certain rules that you follow when you drive; why? Even without traffic laws, why do people on the road (almost all drivers) avoid traffic accidents? Why don't people just cross the center line into oncoming traffic?
Because the action of driving has an IMPLIED goal of COMPLETING YOUR DRIVE IN TACT; and everyone else on the road has that same implied goal. Even those people THAT WANT to turn the road into a demolition derby UNDERSTAND that the road is filled with drivers that don't want that, and so recognize that DEMOLITION DERBY ON THE ROAD IS WRONG because it goes against the goals of 90+% of the people on the road, and you will be making the road a place that goes against the almost majority goal.
You can do this same sort of analogy for any behavior that involves people interacting; including LIFE ITSELF.
Like driving, living has the implied goal to "continue living," and hopefully "continue living on a road where we don't have to worry about head on accidents."
So in life, IF YOU ARE DOING ANYTHING that makes "the road" a place that people fear, then you are "doing wrong."
----
Try it:
Harming babies; wrong? The vast majority of parents and individuals don't want to live in a world where they fear for their baby or any babies are harmed; and they also wouldn't want their younger baby self to have been harmed, so harming babies "makes the road a scary place" for 99+% of people; SO YES, HARMING BABIES IS WRONG.
Do WE NEED AN ABSOLUTE MORALITY or morality to explain morality? In math, do we need an absolute addition god to explain why 2+2=5 is "wrong?" That is about the substance of the "case for a necessary absolute morality giver (god)" is; it's really not needed to explain ethics and morality.
+Mr. Mammal. things can only reasonably considered right or wrong by people because we are the only beings who have the mental capacity to understand the difference. that is what seperates us from animals and not a sole. we choose to coexist with each other in a way that is best for the majority of people.
***** Yes, you are correct, the road analogy does not address the immorality of TARM (Theft Assault Rape Murder).
These can be addressed on a physical basis. Like the road analogy, each individual is like a car, we have a physical body and brain. Each of us maintains certain attitudes about "our bodies." We imagine property rights, ownership over our own body, our domain. Each physical individual will object to certain treatments of their body or property.
So from this physical beginning, we can see an inherent preference for these cognitive individuals to DEMAND CONSENT upon acting on other bodies; a precedent or principal is set by the physical observed world - And a contradiction arises when one individual tries to defy this consent principle, the rapist convicts himself, when another watching individual seeks to physically stop the rapist or achieve vengeance for a rape, the rapist can only present the principal that "bro you can't harm me, I don't consent."
Hey shit for brains. Try driving on the right hand side of the road in England.
***** Touche. Takes a genius to come up with. Socrates would be proud.
capoman1 I didn't read your whole comment. I didn't realize we agree.
This stuff is seriously like therapy to me. Thanks Matt for doing what you're doing
I stumped my mother once when I asked why, because I really wanted to know why I had to do something that legitimately served no purpose. She told me that it was because when a parent gives an order to their child that child has to follow that order. She had a horrible father that only cares about himself, so I asked her if that meant that if my grandfather were to show and order her to do something, that she would have to do it. She immediately said no. I then asked her why the rule she had just laid out only applies to me then and not her because she didnt specify any kind of age restriction. She didnt have an answer for that.
Cycle of abuse. There's a cool TOOL song about that called 'prison sex'. Interesting psychological phenomenon that abuse victims often become perpetrators. Occurs even with benign stuff like bossing your kids around. Most likely though your mother just getting off on the power trip because she can't/hasn't gotten any power elsewhere in life.
The best part of secular morality to me is that it is not reinforced by a divine shield. If we look at this statement:
_"A woman's testimony is one half that of a man. Women may forget, therefore they should be given helpers in testimony. It is expressed by Allah the Almighty who created the woman. So, it is an unchanging rule."_ -- Sharia Law
... the worst part to me is this: _"It is expressed by Allah the Almighty who created the woman. So, it is an unchanging rule."_
That means that even a mountain of evidence to contradict these claims about women would merely bounce off the divine shield and barely make a dent. Divinity is allergic to truth, and anything allergic to truth is allergic to justice. It makes this law unable to evolve since it's protected by an immortal "God" with 1.6 billion followers who pray to him five times a day.
Religion retards progress, since morality may be an extremely complex subject prone to wildly subjective interpretations, but if it's not based on our best and most objective attempts at understanding truth, then it is clearly unjust. I can't think of anything more objectively immoral than something which clearly contradicts our best and most objective attempts at understanding truth.
It's difficult to state exactly how much religion had a part in putting a blockage towards black civil rights. There it's a bit more subtle than some law that blatantly states that Yahweh or Jesus favor white power. It seems to be affiliated at least in part, but I don't want to jump to conclusions.
I also don't blame religion so much as the root for things like sexism, homophobia, racism, misogyny, xenophobia. Humans seem to segregate themselves into _"us vs. them"_ kind of groups repeatedly throughout history regardless of religious affiliation.
The biggest problem to me of religion is that it can cement those kinds of hostile forces into stone. When people start getting it into their heads that their oppressive beliefs are divinely given to them by God, and that they're going to be rewarded for any hostile actions through a divine I.O.U. afterlife insurance policy, it's so hard to make progress, so difficult to get a consensus. It becomes so difficult to change people's minds even if you bury them in a mountain of truth contradicting their beliefs.
Blatant examples in the U.S. are like fights to keep "Intelligent Design" pseudo-science out of scientific classrooms which unfortunately had to be a fight because of religious forces. Another is like same-sex marriage being such a massive issue and again, largely due to religious opposition from Christians who can't reconcile the notion that homosexuality is not a deliberate choice (that would mess up their idea of free will and deliberate acts of sin).
The other big problem to me for religion is that even in a secular nation, like France, people can believe they are above man's laws and only need to obey what they personally interpret to be God's. Again this afterlife insurance policy makes people think this life on earth is just a brief test, and if they believe that strongly enough, they'll see their sole accountability to God. So then we see religious extremists who ignore the secular laws in favor of killing what they perceive to be a blasphemer -- vigilantes so thoroughly convinced they are delivering their God's justice with a fantastic reward awaiting them after they die for their actions. So religion tends to give men a set of divine laws (sometimes just laws they personally make up after finding a little justification for in some ancient scripture) that override the secular laws.
finalfantasy8911 people of faith have helped the world in the name of their faith more that atheist have helped the world in the name of atheism.
finalfantasy8911 it's called satire.
Morality is a construct of the mind, so it is by definition subjective. No mind, no morality.
Problem is, there are 2 definitions of "objective" in english.
From the latin, one is "sine opinione": unaffected by prejudice, not influenced by emotions or personal bias.
The other is "ex re", meaning *Independent of the mind*
The second one is mutually exclusive with "subjective", while you can use the first definition for something that is both subjective and objective.
This problem doesn't occur in other languages, where you have two terms for the two different meanings.
In italian, for example, we have "obiettivamente" and "oggettivamente"
They both translate in "objectively" in english (check google translate), which means it's a flaw in english (and other) languages.
I usually wish they'd continue with the Q and A session. That is often as interesting as the presentation itself.
Matt Dillahunty is the new Messiah
In my opinion secular morality is better because it can adapt so it can always get better, and you actually stand for your morality more because you've had to figure it out for yourself, AND the key thing which is you do as good as you can because you want the world to benefit and the people around you to flourish, NOT because you'll get punished when you die if you don't. It's about doing the right things for the right reason.
I do. Do you know what morality is? Why it makes a society better?
A better morality is the key to a society where people are happier and less misstreated than in a society where people get harrased for their sexual orientation, religious background, etnicity, etc. If people had better morals the world would be a far better place than it is today. But some people are stuck at "I'm going to have this morality because it says so in my book", not because they have actually thought about their actions and cared about other people. Morality out of empathy is better than morality out of religion.
Morality is a set of rules we make for ourselves in order to benefit us as a group. Better morality = more beneficial to all of us.
What do you think it is? What God thinks of our sins? (I actually got that reply recently)
I never said that. I said morals are rules we make for ourselves, I probably should have expanded it to "morals are rules we make for ourselves based on our decisions". But they're not only individual choices, something that is concidered moral in one society isn't moral in another. You are affected by your surroundings.
And by rule I mean for instance "I don't steal". Which is based on what I've been taught growing up mixed with the fact that I can imagine how it would hurt the person I'm stealing from, so I choose not to do it.
What do you think morality is then?
MrStripeyDog
I think I remember seing your name in another thread and people said you were a troll. Seems about right. Your life must be really sad. You don't even have anything original to say anymore.
I'll be happy to argue with you if you actually made any points of your own but since all you can really say seems to be "you're stupid and wrong" without making any counterclaims it's really just a waste of my time.
Wow, this was really awesome and I couldn't agree more. Just because secular morality doesn't offer a simple answer like "god", does not mean that objective, absolutes are unattainable for any given situation. And while that might seem like the hardest problem to solve, it just shows how much work we still have ahead of us. As truth seekers we should not forget that ignorance can blind us, and we should continue to seek knowledge where it seems impossible. I think the reality of this "secular morality" will only become more obvious in time, but we can use the time we have to contribute to that discussion as best we can. So thank you Matt for remarkably doing so.
The simplicity of "religious morality" seems to be the sticking point for a lot of theists. They enjoy the black and white, absolute code.
Bible Belt Atheist no 50 shades of grey in theism
Eleanor Fitz It kinda reminds of a situation where you shoot the hostage to get at the bad guy seems immoral but done right can have the desired outcome (hostage injured and bad guy dead or detained , but as Matt Dilahaunty has pointed out in his talks is that he doesnt know who might be the oppressor or oppressed) So no matter what knowledge is more important then faith. People think of think duality as devil/God or satan/jesus advisary/authority. Why not present duality as a complmentary instead of always contradictory. Electricity needs to move in both directions does it mean that negative electrons are bad/evil !!! I think certainly not.
mob rules then
Now we have the contrapositive of that with people reporting things that were flat out fallacious {i.e hands up don;t shoot and I can't breathe etc..}
I am Catholic, was an Atheist, but I love this guy. He is so talented and smart.
I love Matt Dillahunty, and I cannot stop looking at the addendum on the chalkboard that says "ballsacks" lololol
Has Matt written anything on objective morality? I'd love to read it.
Matt kills it...as usual!
"ballsacks"
Am I the only one wondering why 'BALLSACK' is written on the chalkboard?
Is it just me that sees 'ballsacks' written on the chalkboard?! Lmao
It says 'ballsacks' on the blackboard behind him...
Some hooligan...
More importantly "Education Ballsacks", the more important kind of ballsacks.
Lol. I know. I've just paused the video to check. Yep. Ballsacks.
Sapiosexual vandalisation ;D
Morality is not subjective, it is OBJECTIVE. The idea that it's subjective is opinion. Morality is understood from experiment. Do you want me to rob you? 99% of people would say no. Do you want me to kill you? Again most Everyone would say no. Do you want me to rape you or beat the shit out of you or torture you? Most people would say no. That is Morality. Not doing things to people b/c it's against their desires. But the problem is that people have taken this too far & said homosexuality or drugs is against their desires so now it's become more about desires than it has the hurting of other people. But they wouldn't like it if they were told who to love & to stop doing things that are proven worse than weed, such as sex. Morality in simpler terms is just (Hurting or not hurting other people.) Hurting yourself has NOTHING to do with morality b/c it's you & so you are allowed to decide what happens with yourself, you can destroy yourself & any action you take is negative in some way or another anyways. You can treat yourself however you want. You're no one else's property. You're no one else's rightful slave. If anyone HAS enslaved, they've done so, unrightfully. I've done drugs for years & haven't hurt one person. Not to mention I've barely even hurt myself. I'm smarter & stronger than when I started doing drugs, mostly just smoking weed, which is the only drug that can be abused constantly without any real side-effects, in fact, the more you use weed, the less it effects you. Oh well, thankfully there's a Creator & so people who try to make morality subjective, murdering & attacking others, will be punished & Justice will prevail.
"Morality is not subjective, it is OBJECTIVE."
As Matt Dillahunty says, assuming that you can agree on a basis for morality (eg, human well-being), than you can make objective determinations of what is and is not moral based on that. However, the basis itself is necessarily subjective. There is no objective reason (in the sense that theists use it) to use human well-being as the basis for morality, but once you agree on that, objective determinations can be made, based on what we know about how the world works and how we interact with it. No creator needed.
Morality is not really subjective. If it is, then one could say there is no such thing as Morality & everything is acceptable. Murdering, Raping, Robbing.. or one could say there is only Morality & NOTHING is acceptable! Tearing all life away. Idgaf what the dictionary says about it being a code of ethics.. Morality, ultimately, is really the considerate or inconsiderate treatment of others. Morality is being nice, Immoral is being inconsiderate & bad.
If we can agree on what morality (not capitalized in English) is, then moral determinations can become objective. If we agree that morality is about maximizing human well-being, then we can objectively determine that murder, rape and robbery go against morality. But there is nothing that ultimately forces us to prefer to behave in a way that maximizes our well-being, so in that sense the basis of morality is subjective, if you look at morality as how we treat others, rather than treating others nicely, since that latter meaning presupposes the basis.
Again, I disagree. Morality is far from subjective. Murderers who find it ok to torture & murder, when they are captured, complain when they are tortured & beg for forgiveness & relief. Not all of them but eventually it seems they all give in. Especially in Damnation. Take robbers & rob them, they will not like it, most of them. So morality is really a term associated with right & wrong & we view these things as right or wrong for personal understanding of personal suffering & suffering is unwanted, so codes of morality are established to keep people happy & safe.
I'm drawing a distinction and you're just ignoring it. There is a difference between the basis for morality, and making moral determination based on that basis. You say morality is related to right and wrong - but the question is, right and wrong relative to what? There is no objective meaning to right or wrong, in the transcendent sense. But there is meaning to right and wrong with respect to human well-being, and so that can be used as a basis. And we can determine what things increase well-being and what things decrease it, and thus make objective determinations based on that.
Murderers who find it okay to murder, who believe that murder is moral, are simply wrong from the perspective of human well-being.
This is really interesting, thank you for uploading. I'm doing Philosophy at uni, and I really like Ethics as a topic. I find myself with Matt on most things, and now I find he is a Cognitivist Realist! Awesome, i need to look up some of the debates he mentioned.
I may be wrong but I believe Matt is no longer religious for one simple reason. He didn't want his room mate to go to hell. He actually cares about, values and has empathy for other human's lives who have a different opinion to him.
12 minutes in and I'm still waiting for an argument for the title...
im against all religions. but not equally.
Yes, there are religions that at least marginally have a better value system, morality, and reflection of reality than most others.
goodbye, do not let the door hit you on the way out.
He never actually explained how you determine if an action is right or wrong
it's situational and it's based on well being
@@Contagious93812 So any action that increases well being or at least doesn’t reduce well being is ok?
@@Seethi_C No. The idea that any action which increases well-being and does not decrease well-being is acceptable fails to take into account the nuances of morality and the potential consequences of certain actions.
@@Contagious93812 So what are some factors other than well being that matter in the decision?
@@Seethi_C Consideration of fairness, individual autonomy, the recognition of human rights, empathy, compassion, integrity, honesty, sustainability, and the impact on future generations.
I love it when Theists make our arguments for us....thanks mrtadreamer...case closed.
Holy shit was it frustrating to watch Matt stumble his way though this. Anyone who purports to know anything about secular morality without at least a mention of the concept of "universally preferable behaviour" is doing the topic a great disservice. Google it, read it, ignore the source and analyze the argument
The only thing we need for secular ethics is having enough empathy to deeply internalize what we all learned in kindergarten and first grade - treat others as you'd want to be treated yourself. It really is actually just that simple, stop making it more complicated than needed.
Carl Eleck Behavior is not a term limited to animals in any way, and besides - humans are animals even if it was. Read the free e-book "Universally Preferable Behavior" by Stefan Molyneux if you are confused about the argument I made.
Carl Eleck "If a human is an animal, anything goes." That is not an argument. Care to elaborate what that statement even means in relation to the concept of ethics?
Read the book I mentioned - it's pretty short but I don't want to have to basically regurgitate it all for you here in a TH-cam comment debate.
Carl Eleck Sure you're an atheist, but with this last comment I'm now pretty sure you are also an idiot. You don't even make grammatical sense, let alone any common sense. Worse yet you're pretending I said I bunch of stuff I never said, falsely attributing your own blathering nonsense as my argument - which I never made.
I am done with you. Just read the damn book, you clearly still need some help with this stuff. And don't reply to me again or I'm just going to delete it.
Sorry, it's not "Treat others how you would like to be treated", it's, "Treat others how THEY would like you to treat them"
Not everyone is going to want to be treated exactly like you want.
I see your argument. But what happens when someone wants to be treated differently than YOU think you should be treated. For example if I have little regard and self respect for myself than I can justify treating other people the same way. So yeah i think it is a little more complicated than a 1st grade outlook in morality.
I know Matt wanders a lot, but great camera work all around!
He's a fair-sized target, and doesn't move impossibly fast.
If you can see, nobody would choose to make themselves blind; but ironically, with belief, that's what the person does. Chooses to go blind and put a blindfold on.
There's still the problem that what's considered moral isn't necessarily related to your own or others wellbeing, that's an arbitrary position. Even if you accept wellbeing as objetively morally good, the question remains ''whose wellbeing on whose expense''. Is your goal a minimum of wellbeing for everybody which likely demands some sacrifices of wellbeing from the (by privilige or otherwise) strong, or is it as much well being as possible for most people which likely would exclude some weak--
Just because everyone dies, doesn't mean people should wish for death or that death is preferred over life. The one common trait of all life is the will/need/desire/drive/instinct to keep living.
I'm curious as to why christians think that God and the bible offer objective morality? We really get our morals from the society we live in. Slavery is the most glaring example of that.
Where is the hour long version he was talking about in the beginning?
Sadly the sound recording was awful
No morality is not always something that you feel is right or wrong; because sometimes what you do feel is not true.
Matt Dillahunty wishes he owned a Macbook Pro. You can see it in his deep brooding eyes.
Morality comes from empathy foremost. Culture also plays a huge role and also selfishness (I'll compromise not to steal your stuff if you promise not to do the same to me). Neither atheism nor religion necessarily leads to morals in themselves. Atheism leads many to feel like we are alone in the world except for other humans, hence secular humanism. But you don't have to be a secular humanist to be an atheist (even though the large majority are). Christians today are much different morally than Christians a thousand years ago because of the huge affect that culture plays on their morals. You tend to meld your beliefs around your morals, not the other way around. Atheists tend to be the more educated of society, and those tend to commit less crimes. That is perhaps, do more to the education itself than atheism, though I could see someone getting into a chicken or the egg argument over it. Secular morality, to me, is simply a reasoned agreement on behavior by the majority in order to create a society that the majority wants.
Go Matt Go! keep going my man! You are awesome!
Secular morality is basically just Christian morality in the guise of Scientism.
I've heard the first part ("Secular morality is basically just Christian morality...") but I can't make sense of "...in the guise of Scientism." Can you re-phrase / explain?
@@Devious_Dave it's because science explains natural phenomena and does it very well, but morality is another realm all together. many act like this isn't the case. you can't "see" morality without a value judgement where as you can see and measure biological processes without one.
@@tangerinesarebetterthanora7060 Thanks for explaining. Let's discard the word "scientism" and use things like observations & comparisons to assess societal fairness, benefit, etc.
wrong. secular morality is a morale code which is superior to religious moral codes... sorry but that includes christianity. religions may have come with some of the first crude attempts to devise a code of ethics or morals... kept especially simple for the masses, in some cases. but we've come beyond that and should continue to refine secular morality to fit any expansion in our scientific understanding of ourselves, our universe and our place in it
@@calldwnthesky6495 secular morality isn't based off of the empirical findings of science though, yet it is pushed by those in the scientific community because they can't fully let go of their christian sentiment
if none of religions are divine in origin, all morality is secular
One point is that Music, just made by inflated Ego's can create more damage than good, without the actual person being aware of it. What amazes me, is that you have people that say words mean nothing, but in the same breath say that words mean everything. Words can be great but at the same time, they can also breed hatred, they can breed jealousy and animosity and nasty stuff because they are weapons also and they can be healers as well.
Belief is like putting on a blind fold and going by all that you think and all that you feel. But all that you think about your surroundings and where you're going etc when you're wearing a blind fold is not going to be correct. And you're going to find it hard to get anywhere because you're moving around slower, feeling around trying to find your way, but the right way you could have just missed because you've got a blind fold on. Back that up with the intense feeling that belief gives you
This was probably the first video I’d ever seen with Matt Dillahunty.
Morality ONLY requires a concern for Well Being.
Hey Audio! Matt's wearing a personal mic. Why does he STILL sound lousy?
WHY didn't you do sound check? Why didn't you fix it during the show?
Why allow a show to be ruined by bad audio?
Why don't you care??
Don't do this anymore.
Somebody wrote "ballsacks" on the chalkboard.
“The existentialist, finds it extremely embarrassing that God does not exist, for there disappears with Him all possibility of finding values in an intelligible heaven. There can no longer be any good a priori, since there is no infinite and perfect consciousness to think it. It is nowhere written that 'the good' exists, that one must be honest or must not lie, since we are now upon the plane where there are only men.”
-Jean-Paul Sartre (French atheist existentialist philosopher 1905-1980)
Isn't this just moral relativism saying 'We say what it is right' and not objective secular morality v.s. a supposed objective morality derived from god ?
All morality is relative. The irony of Christian morality is that Christianity itself is a human construct. All we have is how we define morality. Objectivity always comes after the definition of morality. Once you decide well-being is the basis for morality you no longer need a God.
"Death is preffered over life."
Be dead then, see how far that gets you?
"After all more people have died in the past than are living today."
I suppose that you think they WANTED to have died, just like MORE people have suffered than have lived in general happiness, therefore suffering is preferable?
is there a stereo recording of this? The mono is making my brain hurt.
The smarter you are, the more capable you are of defending your beliefs against opposing arguments - this is why it is so hard to get intelligent non-skeptics to change their beliefs.
Nah, most non-skeptics wouldn't know evidence if you slapped them in the face with a feathered dinosaur fossil.
No, two VERY different things. One makes a positive claim, the other does NOT. This is a very important distinction.
The premise that life/well-being is 'generally' preferred over death is my starting point for morality. Death doesn't happen to make room for you or I. It just does for various reasons. If our environment is static, there'd be no need to evolve but we will still die. It's not, however, and that's why we continue evolving. Not because of death. I don't evolve. But I will pass on my genes that will make my offsprings more adaptable/survivable (hopefully) and they will evolve.
You don’t need to believe in a “God” to be moral… but absolute morality needs a God absolutely.
There's no such thing as "absolute morality"
He says there IS absolute morality but he doesn't say what we have now is IT.
Also, I am not trying to take moral high grounds here or anywhere. I am just stating in order for me to choose to do good deeds is not down to the fact I fear something if I do not or that I fear I won't get praised if I don't. When I do good things, it is simply because I want to do good things. Can that not be accepted by other people? That individuals do good deeds because they want to and also because they can, because they are in the position to do something about it.
Sounds like Mr. D was running for some kind of office with that closing remark.
He said the premise for secular morality can be an arbitrary statement such as "life is preffered over death."
If thats the case, then the opposite of that arbitrary view can be a starting point. "Death is preffered over life."
After all more people have died in the past than are living today.
Thoughts anyone?
We do. Matt explained how in the video. Why not watch it?
Also to a small extent Christianity does contribute to sexual deviancy. The problem is that a celibate life is just not for everyone, most people will go slightly mad if forced into over rationalising their own nature.
Neither 100% theology nor 100% atheism is a good idea. Both lead to several dangerous extremes.
Heck, the categorization of objects that are "alive" in the first place are objects that use biological processes to do something that sustains those biological processes. Life is literally "to stay alive".
One atheist says "these is definitely no god". The other says "there might be a god." The more atheist I talk to, the more it sounds like a system.
I like how the blackboard has "ballsacks" written on it!
Exactly because what you need to do good deeds is love not fear.
A man is only as good as his word. If you lie to achieve your ends, then you are dishonorable. If I told you I would give you something in trade for an item, yet took your item and gave nothing in return, is this wrong? Yes, because the next time I had need of something from you you'd remember that I had acted dishonorably the last time and not deal with me. So the lie not only hurt you, but when I needed you later it would hurt me. That's how we decide something is wrong, it hurts all.
I think Mr. Dillahunty meant to say was that many religious people think that the life we live now is not the real life that they will live in heaven and that many people don't treat this one as there only true life, that is only a small sliver of their life that they will live as mortals and then become immortal in heaven.
"Evidence is already here, all around us, inside us, our very dna points to immense complexity and intelligence. All of creation shouts His glory and majesty! Yes, all things
He begins by saying it is impossible to discuss secular morality in such a limited period of time, and then he wastes the first 14 minutes telling stories about previous debates he participated in. He is over 14 minutes in before he even addresses the subject. This is what I dislike so much about Matt Dillahunty. I have no idea how he ever developed a reputation for seeking the "truth." The only think he seeks is a fight. It is all tribalism and us against them with Matt. It isn't about the truth. It is about who is winning a debate.
have you ever heard him debate outside of TAE ? your claims are absurd
@@calldwnthesky6495 Yes, I've seen many of his debates. I've never seen him show the slightest interest in pursuing the "truth."
@@johanvanderlinden4331 enjoy your fairytale you nut
HOOOOLY SHIT... A chalkboard! Haven't seen one of THOSE in a looong ass time. People still used those in 2012? Holy shit.
Most of us, including religious people, are good because most of us are interested in coexisting peacefully with our fellow Humans.
I'm not sure if it was on purpose or not but he seemed to leave out the part where he demonstrated that secular morals are better
The fact that we can't force people to adopt that initial value is no more a problem for viewing many aspects of secular morality from an objective standpoint than the fact that some people might reject logic prevents logic from being useful and being able to formulate truth claims.
It is objectively true that a law requiring men to hit women in the stomach whenever they meet one will not maximize well being in a society of humans, for example.