DEBATE: Can Atheism Justify Human Rights? | Cosmic Skeptic vs Subboor Ahmad
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ก.ย. 2024
- To support me on Patreon (thank you): / cosmicskeptic
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/c...
To purchase Cosmic Skeptic merchandise: cosmicskeptic....
-------------------------VIDEO NOTES-------------------------
This debate between Alex J. O'Connor and Subboor Ahmad took place at Wadham College, Oxford University on the 6th March 2020. The question was 'Can Atheism Justify Human Rights?'
Thank you to the Oxford Forum for hosting this event, and to Patrick Dauncey for moderating. The motion passed, with a majority of audience members voting that atheism can justify human rights.
-------------------------------LINKS--------------------------------
Subboor Ahmad's channel (Darwinian Delusions): / @subboorahmadabbasi
----------------------------CONNECT-----------------------------
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskept...
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
Snapchat: cosmicskeptic
The Cosmic Skeptic Podcast: podcasts.apple...
---------------------------CONTACT------------------------------
Business email: cosmicskeptic@gmail.com
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's kinda interesting and slightly amusing how everyone in the comment section of this video is obliterating Subboor Ahmad and everyone on Subboor's video is destroying Alex in the comment section.
Now thay you mentioned it
It is funny abit ...
Fan bases and comment monitoring at work.
Except that they're deluded believers.
Confirmation bias destroyes lives
@Dxrk Zoom I hope you realise that can work both ways
For the sake of this argument just assume all of my premises are true
I get what you are saying but tbf for making any type of argument, you need to assume that the premises are true...
Even if you grant all premises the conclusion could still be wrong. One can ask if the argument has any formal fallacy. For that you assume the premises as true and see if the conclusion follows from it.
@@Sebastian-nb4cu not true
The references Subboor Ahmad used in the debate:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (Declaration of Independence)
“There are no gods in the universe, no nations, no money, no human rights, no laws, and no justice outside the common imagination of human beings.” (Yuvah Noah Harrai, Sapiens)
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men evolved differently, that they are born with certain mutable characteristics, and that among these are life and the pursuit of pleasure.” (Yuvah Noah Harrai, Sapiens)
"Again (Natural selection), it does not prove to disprove moral ontology, it says nothing about it." Alex O'Connor's 'Cosmic Skeptic' video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnOsG...
“Our core morality isn’t true, right, correct, and neither is any other. Nature just seduced us into thinking it’s right. It did that because that made core morality work better; our “believing in its truth increases our individual genetic fitness.”
Excerpt From: Rosenberg, Alex. “The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions.” iBooks.
“Is natural selection so smart that it was able to filter out all the wrong, incorrect, false core moralities and end up with the only one that just happens to be true? Or is it the other way around: Natural selection filtered out all but one core morality, and winning the race is what made the last surviving core morality the right, correct, true one.
Which is it?
It can’t be either one. The only way out of the puzzle is nihilism.”
Excerpt From: Rosenberg, Alex. “The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions.” iBooks.
Replay the tape a million times ... and I doubt that anything like Homo sapiens would ever evolve again. (Stephen J Gould)
Alister McGrath & Bret Weinstein • Religion: Useful fiction or ultimate truth?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRx2u...
If, for instance, to take an extreme case, men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering. (Charles Darwin)
“Brierley: Ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we’ve evolved five fingers rather than six.
Richard Dawkins: You could say that, yeah.”
Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. (Michael Ruse)
@@Sebastian-nb4cu A part of an argument is proving your premises
I'm so used to watching 2 year old videos on this channel that I was literally shocked when Saboor said "coronavirus."
Timestamp?
When?
This video was uploaded 2 MONTHS AGO. However, it may have been produced 2 years ago. Coronavirus has been widely known among scientists so it would not be a surprise if he is well-read in some areas.
@@wadatamana your name made my day bro 😂😂😂
Lol nerd squad 😂
This is the most chill moderator ever I can't tell if he is just tired or if he is trying to listen to both of their points
Lmao I have to say though, he is leaning toward the tired side than listening.
@@JoeyJoeJoeJr.Shabadoo 😂
To me he seems bored as f**k.
He also looks like gigachad lol.
No out-spoken atheist has ever said that being an atheist puts you on a higher moral ground.Not believing something doesn't give you a special ground. If any thing, it puts you on a neutral ground.
I think the idea is that other forms of deriving morality are in their essence flawed because they have implicit biases.
Can it put you on a middle path?
@@blondboozebaron There is no absolute path. Knowing that, puts you at ease. What can harm others can harm me too.
@@rouzbehazshab
Would you be interested if I made the attempt to draw one out for you?
Draw one with words.
A Venn diagram.
@@Oguzalp97 The bias is in the fact that like will protect like.
Alex: "You can't just swap out variables from different categories".
Subboor: "Why not"?
Alex: [long pause] "I... I would think that's obvious".
He eventually conceded that you can do that keep watching after this point and you will see it
@@uber70ppt94 Timestamp please
The claim that it was a category mistake by Cosmicskeptic is just wrong. We are not talking about the existence of God vs. the existence of human rights. We are talking about the BELIEF that human rights exist vs the BELIEF that God exists. Why would substituting one belief with another be a category mistake? Cosmicskeptics whole shtick was if it was "useful". THEY ARE BOTH BELIEFS. It doesn't matter if it is true or not or whatever Cosmicskeptic might say to convince you otherwise. And once all the Atheists realise that equivocating between one set of beliefs and another set of beliefs is not fallacious they see that Cosmicskeptics whole argument crumbles.
@@TheRevxPk that actually makes sense
Simon Wright it starts from 47:20
This man is the personification of patience
"I'm not a potted plant" was the apex of his righteous fury xd
Who are you referring to?
The patient one
@@justinrivera1618 hAHAHAHA
I have seen that patience in debate with mo hijab...
The moderator looks like he just came in from a day of surfing
😹😹
He made this debabte woth looking amd not only listening to 😝
Looks stoned
i'll obliterate them both, although i have to say alex's logic makes much more sense than the beardy guys mental gymnastics and codswallop. unbiased enough for you?
He looks like timothee chalamet
As a Muslim this was actually very interesting I understood some of the arguments from both sides even if I didn’t understand some of the philosophical arguments. But I did enjoy the debate, I’ve grown to like CosmicSkeptic even though he may vehemently dislike religions especially the Abrahamic ones but I don’t really care. All I know is I’m slowly starting to understand his points and arguments
Same. His arguments do raise great discussions, however, he wasn’t faced by a complementary opponent. I’d like to see another Mohammed Hijab debate.
Seems like a fairly sincere guy but his fans don't seem to understand Suboor's arguments so resort to only mentioning that he interrupted Alex a couple of times. None of their arguments were perfect but Suboor edged this debate imo.
You should check out Genetically Modified Sceptic, he is a big proponent of being respectful in all situations and trying to have the best most civil discussions we can between atheists and theists. He is an ex-fundamental. Really a huge inspiration.
@@Sam-ng3of I disagree. The points Suboor repeatedly brought up were sufficiently answered philosophically speaking by Alex, yet Suboor just kept asking them. Also, Suboor kept conflating terms like moral worth and moral agency or objective and collective subjective. And I've never in my life heard a philosopher dismiss another philosopher's argument by calling it "philosophic jargon", that was appalling. If Alex' point was insufficient to Suboor then he should have explained his contention, not repeated the original question or dismissed it in such bad faith. Other than that I really disliked the lack of nuance in Suboor's points. They seemed to be so simple Alex had to ask several times for him to expand or clarify. I didn't even notice the interrupting, but that also seems to have been a problem, since Suboor wasn't contending with Alex' arguments at all in those situations.
@Shaun Sharted Because many religions especially Abrahamic say that athiests should be killed. However yes we should look at the individual but it makes sense to me to dislike Abrahamic religions as a whole.
I think a good analogy to Alex's position is how we measure distance. The length of an inch is ultimately arbitrary and subjective. Subboor is arguing that since the length of an inch is subjective, you cannot make objective statements about it. An inch is subjective, but that doesn't mean you can't claim that item A is twice as many inches long than item B.
Nice analogy.
Saying A has twice as many inches as B is NOT a subjective statement because irrespective of the subjective length of inch, this statement will always be true if the length of A is twice to that of B.
Your is a dis-analogy (qiyas ma'al fariq) because in the above case, the objective statement is independent of the subjective premise about the length of inch whereas what Alex is arguing is that his supposedly 'objective' morality will only be true if we accept his subjective premise. He never said that his position is true independently of the premise.
Thats why Alex's moral standards are impotent. Its too loose to be effective enough to define rights. The same with why metric system are a must.
@@samx4434 The UN human rights declaration makes enough sense
An inch is not subjective. It's objective. It refers to an objective length/distance. You cannot argue "yeah I reckon one inch = 900cm". That would be wrong in all times, places.
What is subject is saying one inch or two or three is a short or long distance.
the misrepresentation of what Alex is saying is so cringe inducing
What was his misrepresentation? I’m too sleepy to watch the whole video lmao
Here 1:37:00
@@verosaraiva how is that a misrepresentation?
@@HosniBoun So I watched it.
Alex is saying that Collective belief that Rape is wrong is Objective.
But the other Guy says that it’s not, rather that it is Subjective because there’s people who like to indulge in rape.
However that is a misrepresentation.
Just because that person enjoys rape, doesn’t mean that the Collective view that Rape is wrong is subjective.
Rape being wrong is in fact objective because the collective majority agrees it is wrong. All those who disagree are mentally ill. We base our morality on well-being. Those who don’t value well-being are mentally ill. So the subjective view of the mentally ill on the matter is irrelevant.
@@HosniBoun But of course, we derive our basis for morality and ethics on subjectivity.
We need to be subjective to deem something as harmful to well-being. Once we all agree on this basis for morality, it THEN becomes objective.
"Racial justice is Justice, animal justice is justice, gender justice is justice! " Subbed for that!
Timestamp?
1:14:37
That isn't true though. The concept of racial justice is actually unjust. It is a collectivist notion of guilt and innocence that shares all the ethical flaws of the war crime of collective punishment.
@@brianmacker1288 no
@@brianmacker1288 Would you be prepared to debate Alex on that? I suspect not, and I suspect that statement won't hold water on closer inspection, but I can't be bothered.
I think what Ahmad does not understand is that atheists:
1. didn't choose their lack of belief in God
2. will see no advantage in pretending that a God exists
3. do not need a God
@Rener Oslo I suggest you to watch that bit of the video again and see where the conclusion went. Alex admitted that if it was the case that belief in a god is beneficial then it would be better off to believe. But this is only relevant if you assume that belief is a choice (which it isn't) . How is that so hard to comprehend mate, watch the video again for fuck sake.
I think there's a lot that Ahmad doesn't understand...
@Rener Oslo Justifying morality with human rights doesn't require you to be convinced that human rights actually exist on their own. Justifying morality with a god, on the other hand, requires you to be convinced that that god actually exists on its own. They're not "exactly the same type of justification".
@Rener Oslo I'm not convinced that morality is objective, but that there are objectively right and wrong ways to maximize pleasure or to reduce suffering. I think Alex holds roughly the same position.
What exactly is the inconsistency you're seeing here?
The morality that Alex put forward is problematic as it's based on maximization of pleasure on a societal level. Simply look back to Nazi Germany and current India where the majority people's pleasure is expelling minority from the country, that is why Alex's moral ground is catastrophic. You just carefully look at what alex say, then you can easily understand the inconsistencies in his argument
"I can't win this debate against Alex. So let's move the premise of the debate to an alternative universe, where I'll make up a new hypothetical reality".
It's called a hypothetical scenario/thought experiment to help draw out the crux of one's arguments. I thought it was useful as, for me, it showed how utterly arbitrary Alex's moral compass is. How many are the assumptions and how many are self-contraditions that exist when Alex makes his proposition.
@@umarr6221 Of course our "moral compass" is arbitrary. Compasses are arbitrary-north is where the compass points. If we lived in a universe where being beaten to within an inch of your life cured cancer, it wouldn't necessarily be immoral to beat someone to within an inch of their life. Subboor's thought experiment was meaningless because all it demonstrated was that "if things are different, then things are different." It's self-evidently tautological. I'm surprised to see such banal argumentation even being offered in a philosophical debate.
Simon, I'm surprised you only got that from Suboor's questioning. He was trying to tease out what meter Alex uses to put the exact emphasis on each species value and worth, and by suggesting another world/scenario where animals felt more emotion/sensation than humans, would he value animals more. It is useful because for someone making moral claims, as alex is, it is important to know what principles he values to arrive at those claims.
Hope I answered the question.
Umar R what are the contradictions? Seemed pretty consistent.
@@umarr6221 Hi Umar, thanks for the reply but I understood all of that. It was one of the most tedious parts of the debate because Alex honestly couldn't have been clearer, yet Subboor kept repeating himself as if Alex didn't respond to it.
Cosmic: "Things bad" not moral, "things good" moral
Ahmad: If everything was different you would be wrong, therefore you're wrong
Amhad: What if we rewind the VHS and evolution makes rape good.
Alex: 🤨 Then it would no longer be rape, by definition ot would be sex.
Young Dawah yes, people have different desires that they wish to fulfill. The point of a moral system is to be able to evaluate desires and determine whether or not those desires should be realized (with action) by some standard. By Alex’s standard, consensual homosexuality would be permissible because it does not cause suffering to individuals involved in the relationship. Eating meat would be immoral because even though it gives pleasure to the person consuming it, it required a significant amount of suffering of non-human persons to make happen. If you want to demonstrate that homosexuality is immoral under Alex’s system, you have to demonstrate that it causes more suffering than pleasure to those who are involved in it.
@Young Dawah 'Arf yö red thär bibler? Ez moster importo par ett havler ov öll thar sturry ov Jengus Christler, son ov Lordo. Thar ust trüest bibler, fur nuly ta dee vot.
Fortunarto, Ay ehm moster educatordo. Hogg aten ov öll Bibler ez prophesito foretolden! Lordo havv choosen Hogg as be ov new Jengus Christler! Jenguss Christler ez crucifixo en then thar H’Ongry Hogge do aten ov Jengus Christler en everbotty applauden vary hardardo. Helleluyar!
@Jackesfox Who is cosmic to decide whether something is bad or not, if you cant decide whats bad then you can't decide what's not moral vice versa for good. Lots of us know things are "bad" for you, for example, Heroin but it brings about absolute pleasure and nowadays we have the saying "I'm here for a "good" time, not a long one", this saying is usually associated with pleasure and is said before one of the lads snorts 1g of ket, that's why I have the stance as long as I have a child my jobs done, hence why I take a sh*t tonne of psychedelics and drugs to discover new meaning to life because as an atheist I have realized there is none. As life has no meaning our existence is merely natural "rights" are purely subjective if someone wants to kill someone or even enjoys it who am I to judge, I can't condemn them as long as they don't affect my family & friends.
@@thecommander9304 Why make a exception for your family and friends? Why condemn their murder? There is no ultimate meaning there is the meaning we establish and you don't want to live in a society where your friends and family can be killed so you should act to avoid that society. Not caring about the murder of those you don't care about will help bring in that society.
I was straight, but after looking at Alex in that suit, I'm leaning towards bi.
BRO WHY ARE YALL LIKE THIS
10M Subscribers With No Videos change straight with lesbian, and same 😄
Ty Throw You say that as if it’s an insult. It’s not.
@Ty Throw Citation needed lol
HAHAHAHAHAHA that's awesome...
I want a t-shirt with "deer exceptionalism" on it
Koalas are the most exceptional ...fk deers .... Salman khan should kill them all
Official petition to get "I am for deer exceptionalism" on merch ?
Personally, I’m more of a cat exceptionalist. Why? Because I look at them and I suddenly have a reason to live - boom
Im gonna actually print THAT on a shirt .
Oh deer!
When Alex is explaining his stance, Subboor isn't even listening. he is just saying "sure, sure..." and keeps reading in his laptop... 10 seconds later he ist asking the same stupid things he did before, even though alex already cleared it up.
This is just painful to watch, especially, because subboor is acting so cocky and self-confident all the time, while alex is very respectful and actually thinks, before talking.
@Lol Rofl Alex does answer that question. Did you watch the debate?
@Lol Rofl Hey, i just want to point out, that english isn't my first language, before i attempt to answer you :D
I think Alex did answer the question and offered a lot of context to it. If someone understands his explanation about how something can be objectively right or wrong within a subjective topic it's very easy to understand what he is saying.
An example would be, that I like chocolate flavour more than vanilla. That's my subjective taste. So within my subjective taste it's objectively true, that I ought to order chocolate ice cream instead of vanilla ice cream.
In Alex' example he says, that subjectivly MOST of the pople would want to live in a society, where rape is punished. So objectively we should punish rape, so that MOST of the people feel safer in our society.
But the way subboor asked the question, without acknowledging this distinction of objectivity within a subjectiv preference, is very ingenuine and seems like an attempt to one of those "GOTCHA"-moments.
I'm not saying alex is always right about anything and he wouldn't say this about himself either. He really seems to care about the topics he is talking about and tries to reflect on his position as much as possible, while discussing it. For that reason I really appreciate him and his opinions even if I would disagree.
Also I would like to point out 1:18:00 in the video, where Alex asks Subboor about impartiality. Subboor didn't answer the question at all and just keeps attacking alex, as if there wasn't even a question to begin with. I got really mad about that and hoped that the guy in the middle did a better job of keeping the topics on track. Instead he seemed very bored and sometimes had this ugly arrogant smile on his lips, while not even listening to the conversation...
@Lol Rofl I think we found Subboor's TH-cam account! Lol.
Alex was very clear, concise, and very easy to follow. Further, I don't think that there's a need for inherent objectivity. I know theists get stuck on this concept a lot but I can't understand why it's of any sticking point whether there is an inherent objective nature to morality or any concept. I would suggest people struggling with this concept read Jean Paul Sartre's "Existentialism is a Humanism" as perhaps another lens of trying to understand this concept.
Great video Alex. I've been watching your videos since shortly after you started but have lied in silent lurker status. I'm enjoying your debates and wish you continued success in all of your endeavors!
If u have to think what ur are talking about in a debate clearly u don't know what ur r talking about
@@khanaqib6003 I disagree and would argue that if you don't stop to think during a debate, especially when posed difficult or confusing questions, you're prone to repeating rhetoric and may not be critically analyzing your own views. Why is thought a bad thing?
mad props to Alex for keeping cool under misrepresentation and disinterest in engaging with his actual beliefs and arguments.
His move at 1:20:59 denying to defend his position is just godlike patience
The references Subboor Ahmad used in the debate:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (Declaration of Independence)
“There are no gods in the universe, no nations, no money, no human rights, no laws, and no justice outside the common imagination of human beings.” (Yuvah Noah Harrai, Sapiens)
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men evolved differently, that they are born with certain mutable characteristics, and that among these are life and the pursuit of pleasure.” (Yuvah Noah Harrai, Sapiens)
"Again (Natural selection), it does not prove to disprove moral ontology, it says nothing about it." Alex O'Connor's 'Cosmic Skeptic' video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnOsG...
“Our core morality isn’t true, right, correct, and neither is any other. Nature just seduced us into thinking it’s right. It did that because that made core morality work better; our “believing in its truth increases our individual genetic fitness.”
Excerpt From: Rosenberg, Alex. “The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions.” iBooks.
“Is natural selection so smart that it was able to filter out all the wrong, incorrect, false core moralities and end up with the only one that just happens to be true? Or is it the other way around: Natural selection filtered out all but one core morality, and winning the race is what made the last surviving core morality the right, correct, true one.
Which is it?
It can’t be either one. The only way out of the puzzle is nihilism.”
Excerpt From: Rosenberg, Alex. “The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions.” iBooks.
Replay the tape a million times ... and I doubt that anything like Homo sapiens would ever evolve again. (Stephen J Gould)
Alister McGrath & Bret Weinstein • Religion: Useful fiction or ultimate truth?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRx2u...
If, for instance, to take an extreme case, men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering. (Charles Darwin)
“Brierley: Ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we’ve evolved five fingers rather than six.
Richard Dawkins: You could say that, yeah.”
Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. (Michael Ruse)
Mad props to Subboor for keeping cool under nonsense and Speciesism, that continuously spewed from Alex O'Connor.
Alex is amazing he is what I call the ideal debater (Cool and Collective) unlike religious debaters (Ofcourse not all of them)
@@n.ganadily8973 Alex is amazingly ignorant, unlike Theist debaters.
@@robinrobyn1714 If you actually hold this belief you are horribly misled. Please provide evidence of this.
Okay! As a muslim i always strive to be sincere to my conscience as this is what my religion teaches me, Qur'an says "Be just even if it's against yourself" so I'd like to give my honest review about the debate.
it was certainly a very productive discussion and I've definitely got to learn from both sides, both of them have shown that we can establish a respectful dialogue doesn't matter how severe the disagreements between our different worldviews may be, brother Suboor has always impressed me with his professionalism and his immense knowledge of academic discourse,
i have also grown much respect for Alex seeing him demonstrating disciplined mannerism and academic integrity and, he's one of the few atheists on internet who have earned my respect, as for the debate,
Suboor did a good job with presenting his arguments in a lucid way but it was Alex who stole the stage with his logical responses to Suboor's arguments, Alex remained consistent throughout the debate without deflecting from the topic and he came out successful in defending his arguments against the attempted rebuttals of his opponent, so Alex is clearly the winner as far as this debate is concerned, it is not to say that i agree with Alex's view or that I think his arguments cannot be dealt with and shown to be incoherent but only that this debate has a clear winner and that is Alex.
Peace be upon you all.
SubjectToScrutiny excellent post...
You do a much better job at removing your own bias than I do a lot of the time so I just wanted to say I'm impressed with your balanced view point and it was helpful for me to balance my own biases.
fake muslim here lol
Do please pay close attention to how Alex spent his opening remarks rallying for his side of the motion. Whereas Suboor spent his opening remarks using other people's arguments to justify inconsistencies in what he assumed was Alex's position based on comments he made from his TH-cam channel... virtually no time rallying for his side of the motion. Poor form. But highlights the difference in the calibre of the philosophers at hand here. Well done, Alex. Onto the next. May they offer a less tedious challenge.
Not really because Alex never refuted Saboor's main argument which is.
P1. Atheism leads to moral nihilism because there is no justification for moral agency in atheism. Different situation results in different morals which proves the first premise true which Alex even admitted in the debate. He said rape would be justifiable in a different circumstance and it would just be called sex. Therefore you can never say which is right and which is wrong therefore moral nihilism.
P2. Moral Nihilism undermines human rights. None of the human rights work because of this moral ambiguity or nihilism. They are not objective like moral landscape of Sam Harris.
C. Therefore atheism undermines human rights.
Now I'm a muslims and I have to say I think Alex did a good job. Brother Saboor is a much more experienced veteran debater. So anyone would have trouble debating him. He overall did good however he completely fails to address Saboor's main argument and he was really struglling in the end when saboor trapped him. So hopefully next time he actually address Saboor's main argument.
@@Islamiccalling The argument fails before it begins because atheism is not a moral system. In the same way islam is not able to provide us with the perfect duck confit recipe.
@Thuzar Correct; intelligence is never defined by how one feels about what others think.
Islamic Defense what is your proof it leads to what you posit?
@@Islamiccalling Sorry, sweetie, Saboors' premise is faulty because atheism does not lead to moral nihilism. And certainly not religion can claim any moral high ground, it leads to authoritarianism and truly undermines human rights. And, religion relies on emotions as Saboor tried to do when bringing up the chinese Muslims, who are being cinesized as China has done to all it's people. Forced re-education. All countries have done some form of that and I feel bad for those who are suffering from it, but it is also done by islamists. So, victim card don't work! It is not an atheist evil, just a human one.💖☮️🎃
Subboor kept misrepresenting Alex’s position over and over again like a parrot ... I don’t get how people can be patient with that...
"I'm trying to educate alex" when he said that it killed me inside
Oh my god and when he pulls out the Nazi comparison at the end. That's when you know you've lost
@Rener Oslo when was the first time I failed to see the point?
@Rener Oslo also, the argument that a majority agreeing makes something true is a complete fabrication that Ahmad made up, it was never Alex's point. You'd have to have zero respect for your opponent to think they'd seriously believe that majority makes truth.
@Rener Oslo at this point youre debating with yourself
Stop
The rape vs rapist argument and the blue vs yellow argument can be easily reconciled. Rape is defined as sexual activity, and usually sexual intercourse, carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against a person's will or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent. By its definition, rape only occurs to those that do not consent to it, and therefore ALL people necessarily agree that rape is something that they don’t want to happen to themselves. Much like the hypothetical situation where all people agree that blue is the best color. Therefore, much like the person saying that they want yellow for themselves against all others, the rapist wants to rape against others. The person trying to enforce yellow doesn’t want it for themself, because they prefer blue; much like the rapist does not want to be raped, even though they want to rape others. Therefore, rape is wrong because it is universally harmful to all, including the rapist should it happen to them.
This shows that human rights are about humans don’t want done to them, not what they may have predilections to do upon others. This is often epitomized by the statement that your right to extend your fist ends when it infringes on someone else’s right to not have it extend into them and their personal space. This is where religious rights often get muddy. The right to believe your own religion does not extend to the right to enforce your religion upon others. Likewise, your right to enforce atheism does not extend to the right to enforce atheism upon others. Using the China vs Islam argument as an example of why atheism cannot support human rights violates this, because it tries to argue that atheists claim that action to be ok, because some atheists try to do it.
Just as the argument that some people who don’t want to be raped themselves rape others means rape is not objectively wrong in a world where nobody wants to be raped is itself a false argument, so is the argument that some atheists who do not want to be forced to change their religious views forcing atheism on those that do not want to change their religious views is not objectively wrong in a world where nobody wants to be forced to change their religious personal views is also a false argument. Put simply, people acting to deny human rights that they themselves want protected for themselves does not invalidate that human rights exist, and that they exist not based on what those with power can enforce, but based on what those that are sentient to experience don’t want done upon them. Therefore, human rights are based on preventing suffering, not emphasizing pleasure.
Your comment is so underrated🌹
Thank you I had trouble understanding that point
By applying the pain and pleasure principle, one can contend that being subjected to rape is morally reprehensible on a subjective level, as it involves inflicting pain and suffering upon the victim, a situation that even the perpetrator would likely find undesirable. However, when employing this same principle to assess the morality of rape itself, it becomes challenging to make an objective judgment. This is because, within the framework where pain and pleasure serve as the moral compass, a rapist who derives pleasure from their actions could argue that their subjective experience justifies the act. Thus, while one may perceive rape as wrong based on subjective experiences of pain and suffering, objectively labeling it as universally wrong becomes elusive.
Additionally, the notion that rape is inherently wrong because it could potentially happen to the rapist overlooks the core argument. This idea relies on the hypothetical possibility of the rapist becoming the victim, and until this hypothetical scenario becomes reality, the act is considered wrong. However, this perspective ignores the fundamental issue that rape itself, from the perspective of the rapist, is not morally wrong. Even if the rapist were to experience being raped, it merely shifts the dynamics, with the rapist becoming the victim and potentially perpetuating the cycle of harm. The subjective experience of the act remains unchanged, underscoring the complexity of moral judgments and the limitations of solely relying on the pain and pleasure principle to determine morality.
@@NeedlestolearnBut I'm not sure about the claim rapist or murderers think that what they are doing is good. Especially rapist. Many of them know what they do is wrong but for some they do it. Either because they have a lack of control in resisting or they want to hurt the other person (knowing they are harming them) or they don't realize what they do is rape. Even if they believe that the action is neutral the fact that they wouldn't to be forced with violence shows that they can acknowledge the harm.And then they can agree with premise that harm exist and is bad for them. They only reason they would disagree on the fact that harm is bad is because they are psychopath or unable to control themselves thus sick. I'm not sure how it misses the core of the argument. Tell me how I'm wrong
@@AymanPlayer The crux of the issue lies in uncertainty regarding the objectivity of wrongdoing. It necessitates assuming that the perpetrator shares the same moral framework, but they may argue against it, rendering "rape is bad" merely an opinion. This highlights the challenge in deriving morality from such ideologies, as they rely heavily on assumptions and subjective viewpoints, rather than objective principles.
I'm getting very frustrated. Every time Alex dismantles Ahmad's arguments he just starts interrupting him, saying "yeah... yeah.." over and over again while just scrolling through his laptop. Super rude-
@Ishaaq Ahmad Aren't you intelligent.
@Ishaaq Ahmad Well i am sorry for posting such a arbitrary and frankly stupid comment. Please forgive my behavior and perhaps I can one day be seen as something more than a common cretin in your eyes, oh wise one.
Ahmad: "Why are we making an exception when it comes to humans attacking humans?"
Because we have the intellect to think about the consequences of our actions
How do YOU trust your intellect to be correct?
Because from an evolutionary perspective you can survive on false beliefs too.
We can have bad Consequences and still think it's for the greater good. Remember Hitler?
@@lunarcalendar368 Hitler shot himself in the face
@boxers nation what is wrong with these from a atheist point of view? Where do you derive your morality from? Everything is subjective.
@boxers nation
We theists can justify why we trust our minds, can you?
There are falsification tests in religious books, have you ever tried them?
Can I know on what basis of morality you condemn slavery, child marriages etc. (P.s I am not a fan of them)but
Charles Darwin approved the massacres of the "savages" in North America, Australia, Africa etc based on survival. And the hierarchy.
And if reproduction is the the basis of evolution, how can you condemn any sort of marriages?
@@lunarcalendar368 Speaking for myself, I rarely trust it outright with the complex stuff. I trust my brain to recognize harmful and beneficial things but I'll think it through and test. Seems to be working out thus far and so I trust it just a little bit more everytime. Sometimes it fails horrendously and I don't trust it in those scenarios that it failed in.
Edit: even if it works out some level of skepticism is necessary since things may have worked out because of other factors that I didn't even consider (correlation vs causation and all that)
"Alex.. If it's possible that your view of morality is false in some other hypothetical universe, how could it be true in this one?"
Wtf kind of logic is this? As long as you can conceive of something being false in any possible universe, then it cannot be true?
This was an awfully frustrating conversation. Just constant reiteration of the same points followed by the same misunderstandings/misrepresentations in response.. Over and over.
Do you believe morality grounded in subjectivity can be objective?
@@fresh235 Yes,if the topic has an OBJECTIVE effect on the individuals and the system, let's talk about rape,why is rape immoral? because of the psychological effects it leaves the on the rapist and the person getting raped,it allows the rapist to adopt more aggressive and primitive ways of thinking,while scarring the person getting raped for life,both of these effects can in term affect the system these two individuals live in,is killing immoral? yes,because you're removing individuals who can be productive to the system,if you bring up ANY subjective moral rule, I'm 100% sure you can find an objective effect around it.
Seriously.
If it’s possible that your view of (insert word here. Let’s say say money) is false in some hypothetical universe, how could it be true in this one.
@@rickb.4168 it's pure romanticism. It's the same kind of thinking that no matter the universe "love" would exist.
how faar you can be extreeme sceptic with your own concept? let subboor help you XD
Cosmic Skeptic is scary. His Oxfordian education really shows in his language. His reasoning... as far as I have seen ... kinda flawless. He reminds me of Hitchens. But I think he's even better than Hitchens... who used to use more rhetorical arguments than Cosmic does. Cosmic sticks to reason and doesn't seem to appeal to emotion. That's scary. He seems more intelligent than Sam Harriss.. who I thought a genius. I actively look for bias, for bad reasoning... and I just struggle keeping up with Cosmic's ideas. Subboor is outclassed.
Not at all. Bias has surely settled in you.
Oh please. I am an atheist and Alex spews fallacy after fallacy. The entire idea of utilitarianism was falsified long ago because their is no way to calculate minimization of suffering, and no reason to assume "suffering" should be the sole criteria. Suffering is subjective, and tied to pleasure in complex ways that are entirely subjective. Do we ban competivive sports because only one team can win the championship and all others suffer from losing that year? Alex's claims are all hand waving. He purports the existence of the impossible.
He also goes a further step of foolishness in trying to subsume the animal kingdom under utilitarianism. How does one minimize sufferring between lions and zebras via utilitarianism.
Further ridiculous because he can't make up his mind whether he wants a top down utilitarianism or a rights based one. He also seems to have settled on collectivist rights, not the proper individual rights.
What a mess.
@@brianmacker1288 championship in unnecessary therefore the pleasure or suffering from that is contingent
Therefore there's no reason to ban it
On point @@brianmacker1288
If this is satire, I think it’s hilarious and you have a great sense of humor
Dude you deserve to debate people who actually listen and respond to your points. This was painful - again
This kid is so brilliant that most aren't understanding him. One of the best debaters.
Lol
@@icemanbrfcwhat is so funny?
Alex is really enormously smart
@@Bistra4982 yeh I'm sure, and he ain't taking you for dinner broski lol 😂
@@icemanbrfc nor does you!
@@Bistra4982
The assumption that "he's so smart they don't understand him" is what's funny.
They do understand him, but his stance only works for him, if u do smth as simple as "disagreeing" with him then his whole point crumbles, that's why he was actually very smart to insist that he only cares about being "consistent" and not being "right", because he knows that his position can't be generalised.
Alex, you have the patience of a saint (ironically!) I don't think I'd be able to explain the same things over and over so calmly to someone so bent on misunderstanding your points.
His patience is something that separates him from those who agree with him and are irrational.
Alex: *gives a detailed explanation of why being a sentient being requires feeling pleasure & pain for the fifth time.*
Subboor: "Sure, sure, sure, but you still haven't given me an explanation of why this cannot be. You see, we're in a different evolutionary tree."
He quite cunningly made fools most of you . Morals and truth are subjective its not distance bro . Truth is always subjective only if you have some senses running smoothly.
The debate title is loaded in the theist's favor, it presupposes that theism has any more of a justification for human rights than atheism.
But that is a presupposition that many theists have. It is a claim made by religions all over history.
@@DeathEatsCurry Yeah and taking that into account is biased.
@@aspacelex its not biased, its justified, cause as subbor mentioned, current human rights borrow a christian pressuposition of the divinity of a man or divine spark
They do though
How is atheism even connected to human rights??
"Would you say that a lion has moral agency"?
"Yes"
"...Has moral agency"?
"Yes"
A lion has moral agency because he does actions that can be considered " good" , or " bad" according to Subboor. " Judged by whom?" was Alex his good response. But even more fundamentally, the fact that some actions can be considered "good" and some actions can be considered " less good" or even " bad" doesnt mean that the lion has agency, just that he does random acts to which these labels can be attributed. The lion is not a moral agent, because he doesnt reason morality like we do, even if he can do things which outcome can be objectively considered good, better, less bad, or bad. This was just so weak by Subboor :(
th-cam.com/video/JfTyKxR_MiU/w-d-xo.html
HaSnA BaShEeR Lol when you can’t give a cogent reply so you have to send everyone a link to a Muslim apologist whom Alex already intellectually slapped around the room.
The cropping up of apologists is a clear sign that people if faith are becoming desperate.
th-cam.com/video/M0XuDqg2iRA/w-d-xo.html
Time stamp @5:00
Would advise to watch the entire video but perhaps a prejudice against subhoor is common amongst atheists.
I love how he said "animals" and then you corrected him "other animals"!
I also try my best to use language that acknowledges our taxonomic classification!
The difference between this interaction and Alex's interaction with Mohammad hijab is astonishing. Alex really didn't shy away from confronting and held his grounds and didnt let anyone (including that audience) to speak over him. He made his points precisely without any room for doubt for the positions he holds. Coming to suboor I felt like he came to the debate with some preconceived notions of what Alex will say without really understanding why he is saying it and prepare his rebuttal based on those notions. This is quite evident when Alex will try to explain something and he will try to hurry alex up by interrupting and asking another question thinking he just caught Alex saying some word or statement he was hoping to hear as a "gotcha" moment. But I m glad Alex actually explained things well for an average listener like me. I wish suboor was more present in this conversation and actually listened and conversed rather than having that debate mentality of "gotcha" moment and waiting to hear the words or statements he was hoping Alex would make. I believe this interaction would have been a far more enjoyable and intelligent video than it was if that would have the case.
@Persian Assassin no, he said given a different world with a different perception of rape (that perception being it's not bad, and that instead it's a good thing that everyone enjoys), it would stop being rape and just be sex, and that there was no problem with that, precisely because it would no longer be perceived as a painful experience. At least that is what I got from this discussion, it was hard to keep up honestly because Suboor was so bad.
Persian Assassin , God didn‘t make a commanment „ thou shall not rape women and children“ according to the Torah, Bible and the Quran. So much for rape is morally objective wrong.
@Persian Assassin holy shit really? You're gonna try and pull me into that trap? And after 2 weeks of nothing? I suggest you try reading what I said again.
Of course in this world, rape is bad, and that's based partly upon it being a painful experience. But if you can imagine, in a DIFFERENT world, rape may not be experienced as painful, but may be experienced as pleasurable. At which point, by definition, it stops being rape, and isn't considered a particular bad act, it just becomes sex.
At no point in that am I saying I think rape is good, or that it's not bad if the victim enjoys it, or that even the victim would. I'm talking about a scenario in which the experience and therefore the morals are different. That's Moral Philosophy. You can do this with other things like murder, you could imagine a world where murder isn't seen as bad by people and therefore isn't punished, maybe seen as just a natural part of life that happens. Again, that's not to say I think it's good. These examples are just to show morality is subjective in nature and dependent upon us being here to perceive them, rather than being objective facts about the physical world or something similar.
@Persian Assassin also you are not taking into account that if a rape victim enjoys parts of it they are still going to have lasting traumatic psychological issues
@Persian Assassin (1) Islam doesn't believe in marital rape. First, a husband is allowed to beat his wife he disobeys him. And if a wife ever refuses to have sex with her husband, the freaking angels of the God curses her for the entire night. So that's two against female sexual agency. And there is no verse condemning a husband if he so chooses to force himself upon his wife. No examples of any punishment for such crime.
(2) Islam doesn't have a concept of statutory rape. A child of nine can not consent and an adult having sexual relationship with one is considered a rape in many, many countries. But not in Sharia.
So, yes, Islam does condemn rape, but that condemnation is dependent on what they consider or does not consider as rape.
I hate the premise of this debate. I am so tired of people needing an authority to back up whats right. Who cares if anything can back up anything? If its right its right. If you are a good hearted loving person who cares if the Bible says it? Who cares if there is a god? Who cares if one belief system or another is responsible for doing the right thing or treating people with dignity? If you need your authority to say it for you to agree with it then you never learned to think for yourself as a child and if you never learned to value the dignity of other people than you never learned that the world was bigger than you. Come one people! How long do we have to carry on like this?
Ugh. I'm sick of the "if we rewound the tape" analogy. No matter how many times I rewind The Lion King and play it again, Mufasa dies.
that proves randomness doesnt exist
@@911beats no, it only states that what happened happened. A = A. If there was a new universe with similar starting conditions it very well may have an element of randomness. No idea tbh
@@Omagadam1 theres no such thing as randomness, its a mathematical concept that doesn't exist in reality
@@911beats I'm not saying it does, I'm just saying my interpretation of the tape analogy doesn't disprove randomness only that a = a
maaaan I went and tidied my room when Alex got angry, big dad energy
I kinda got scared too I was getting flashbacks
Hot
time ?
@@zaenlol 1:24:54
@@MrGuillermolago oh shit
"Can atheism justify human rights?"
No.
Now ask "can athe_ists_ justify human rights?" and we can have a discussion.
This made so much sense... Thank you
@Trolltician Oh, sorry - I didn't know you were the one who made the decision :) How about morality? Justice? Just so I know where I stand...
Same answer no .. otherwise you are contradicting your atheistic view
@@DonLuis10 You know nothing about me, but please describe my "atheistic view" and explain why it is incompatible with my notion of human rights.
Oh, and describe my notion of human rights.
@@JMUDoc Atheistic view means what necessary comes from Atheism , If you have a beliefs that contradicts the atheistic view , then you are tolerating contradictions therefore you are not rational.
Alex you’re a formidable opponent! Thank you for explaining concepts so concisely, it makes philosophy much easier to understand.
The references Subboor Ahmad used in the debate:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (Declaration of Independence)
“There are no gods in the universe, no nations, no money, no human rights, no laws, and no justice outside the common imagination of human beings.” (Yuvah Noah Harrai, Sapiens)
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men evolved differently, that they are born with certain mutable characteristics, and that among these are life and the pursuit of pleasure.” (Yuvah Noah Harrai, Sapiens)
"Again (Natural selection), it does not prove to disprove moral ontology, it says nothing about it." Alex O'Connor's 'Cosmic Skeptic' video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnOsG...
“Our core morality isn’t true, right, correct, and neither is any other. Nature just seduced us into thinking it’s right. It did that because that made core morality work better; our “believing in its truth increases our individual genetic fitness.”
Excerpt From: Rosenberg, Alex. “The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions.” iBooks.
“Is natural selection so smart that it was able to filter out all the wrong, incorrect, false core moralities and end up with the only one that just happens to be true? Or is it the other way around: Natural selection filtered out all but one core morality, and winning the race is what made the last surviving core morality the right, correct, true one.
Which is it?
It can’t be either one. The only way out of the puzzle is nihilism.”
Excerpt From: Rosenberg, Alex. “The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions.” iBooks.
Replay the tape a million times ... and I doubt that anything like Homo sapiens would ever evolve again. (Stephen J Gould)
Alister McGrath & Bret Weinstein • Religion: Useful fiction or ultimate truth?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRx2u...
If, for instance, to take an extreme case, men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering. (Charles Darwin)
“Brierley: Ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we’ve evolved five fingers rather than six.
Richard Dawkins: You could say that, yeah.”
Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. (Michael Ruse)
can you summarize his "easy to understand philosophy" on the objectivity of morality? it sounded to me like he only avoided this issue
@@MohdHilalhe kinda is
Subbor: "People beleive in delusions all the time to make themselves happy". Sums him up really.
Sums almost all beliefs including Atheism.
@@BePostitive Not sure what you mean mate. I do think that belief in an god without evidence is a delusion. How does that make my view a delusion? Please explain.
@@BePostitive You realise that Atheism is a lack of a belief and not a belief right? Its like saying the off button on your TV is the same as a TV channel. There isn’t any excuse to be making mistakes like you are, you obviously haven’t got a clue what atheism is.
Assuming that atheism is a system, I assume you're quite stupid. Not playing football is a sport? Not collecting stamps is a hobby?
@@synthrostx4508 it seems like you are the one who is Stupid here, do you know that belief have several different definitions?!
According to your definition of belief, Atheism is not a belief system, but according to mine it's a belief system or at least incorporate several different belief systems. But you know what I won't debate it with you here cuz it seems like you are one of them ones... etc
Of course the muslim would break Godwin's Law and bring up Nazis, not realizing that it demolishes his own position, because a theist is far more likely to commit atrocities than an atheist who bases his or her actions on minimizing pain, rather than on an old book or voices in their head or orders from authority claiming divine right.
Is that true though? I think the Nazis and Commies killed the most people in history. Although those crimes don't necessitate atheism.
I'm yet to hear of a gay dude being hung from his neck because of a specific non belief in the supernatural "Hang in the name of no God or Godess."
*The Muslim didnt "break" Godwin's Law, he followed it.*
@ You're right I phrased that wrong.
Nobody:
Subboor: If things were different, things would be different.
No. They would be even differenter.
So how do we know our different differences are better then the other possible differences?
i mean he is not wrong about that. Subboor is wrong about a lot but not that.
The biggest flaw in Subboor's argument here is that accepting the concept of Human exceptionalism requires accepting the truth of supernaturalism. Human exceptionalism is fully self-evident without reference to the supernatural.
I feel this was a Q & A with Alex... Subboor just brought talking points and Straw.
*sings* Do you want to build a straw man?
@ if you build a logical argument and it's consistent, than it's true. That is the point of logical argument. Point out the flaws.
@@SteveVanWinkle an argument can be consistent (P1 killing humans is wrong,
P2 there is no trait in animals that justifies the difference in ethical consideration Conc: therefore killing animals is also wrong)
But the assumptions dont have to be true on a fundamental basis, killing humans is a-moral could be true so the consistent argument crumbles.
So an argument can be consistent but it may not have a true basis. Therefore an argument can be consistent but still wrong- or atleast its basis can be wrong.
So if you build a logical argument and it is consistent it may be true - but it doesnt have to be.
I dont want to debate if the examples and arguments are correct or not i just wanted to get the point across
@@moritz3168 if all parties agree on the premises and conclusions it's a logically sound argument. If you can not agree on the conclusion, You need to point out the flaws, in the premises or the conclusion they put forward. Every one keeps creating strawman arguments and saying this is why he is wrong.
Your example of a "consistent argument" is not a "consistent argument" the first premise is flawed that is why it falls apart.
Find the flaws in HIS argument and point it out.
@ 'Arf yö red thär bibler? Ez moster importo par ett havler ov öll thar sturry ov Jengus Christler, son ov Lordo. Thar ust trüest bibler, fur nuly ta dee vot.
Fortunarto, Ay ehm moster educatordo. Hogg aten ov öll Bibler ez prophesito foretolden! Lordo havv choosen Hogg as be ov new Jengus Christler! Jenguss Christler ez crucifixo en then thar H’Ongry Hogge do aten ov Jengus Christler en everbotty applauden vary hardardo. Helleluyar!
Can atheism justify human rights. No. Can an atheist justify human rights. Yes. Can one justify human rights without religion. Yes.
The phrase "if athiesm is true" makes me cringe.
Justifying and believing are two different things! Alex (an atheist) tries to justify his beliefs through atheism which you admitted can't justify human rights... 🤕😂💀
Atheism doesn't justify anything. An atheist, like Alex, can justify a lot of things. You seem to lack the ability to differentiate the person from the thing.
Alex looks so handsome in that outfit.
u gay bro?
@@riglancer5473 Yes, very gay indeed. I adore men :-).
Bin Young ok bro
Bin Young I agree. It’s delicious
When I was in 8th grade I thought he was really damn cute oop
This was such a refreshing debate compared to the one with Mohamed Hajib.
Yeah, comparatively it was better but I still think that Subboor was kind of manipulative and didn't really listen to Alex. I just left this debate feeling like Subboor just tried to twist Alex's words and tried to scoff at Alex for something that just wasn't true
Nat Ch. oh yeah completely! But at least Alex had a chance to explain himself and was able to provide his view and actual thoughts on the topic, which Mohamed Hajib didn’t allow Alex to do.
@@SapienEnergy yeah, that's very true. I hope more people see the video Alex did, somehow he was still gracious to Mohammed in it
He got destroyed in both.
@@gman4074 did you even watch it? Alex made points that Subboor just ignored out of pure ignorance. In no way was Alex destroyed 😂😂😂
Lots of Sam Harris' views were thrown around, and in a negative light. I feel compelled to defend him a bit, because Sam's position is actually really close to Alex's. Sam says pleasure and pain are objective due to observability of the neurophysiology of experiencing morality (and pleasure/pain). Alex is just starting from the next level up, at the level of experience rather than the biology causing that experience (making his foundation subjective). Experience IS subjective (Alex), but the neurophisiology causing it is objective (Sam). I prefer Alex's, tbh, because it means that if pleasure and pain is possible without a basis in reality (that we understand or not) then Alex's morality would still hold but Sam's would not; Alex's is more general and more powerful. However, Sam's position is still sane and shouldn't be misrepresented; it's also consistent AFAICT.
I agree. Best as I can tell, they are more just just consistent. The difference between them is a semantic one at best. Both describe our moral system as simultaneously subjective relative to the universe *AND* objective relative to the facts of our biology and physicality.
Rener Oslo Agreed, the whole subjective morality concept is nothing more than a chaotic paradox in my opinion.
Rener Oslo Indeed, I would even argue that questioning objective laws and axioms is illogical and flawed. Take the trivial example of why we don’t question the laws of nature and mathematics which are fundamental buildings blocks to our existence. Long story short but if there was no objective basis for morality, then it follows that i can RATIONALLY justify ANY act, be it moral or immoral (you might as well wipe out humanity if you believe in such a thing) hence the chaotic paradox that i referred to from earlier.
@@edit8826 Rener said it is absurd to make objective claims from a subjective premise. Even if the objective claim is right, that doesn't make the argument reasonable, as the premise is based on personal views. There is no subjective premise in your claim, either it is true that people consider pain to be a negative experience, or they don't.
@@edit8826 For example, my favorite color is red. So if I'm buying a car, I might be able to claim objectively that I should buy the red car to maximize my own pleasure. But that is based on a subjective premise, that my favorite color is red. It will not apply to people who have a different favorite color.
In the Frozen song tune... “Do you want to build a straw man?”
@Rob LoweTheists do it too. Stop tryna pretend they don't.
@Rob Lowe Bruh, you got stats on that or you jus gon assert it as fact?
@Rob Lowe sames you boy we ain't special and tryna pretend like you better only takes away from your "moral high ground"
@Rob Lowe yeh eh i can git mo incoherent if ya want
@Rob Lowe Mmm, yes the classic for arrogent, pompous, self aggrandizing people when talking to people they dislike.
Alex is basically saying "Treat others the way you want to be treated", very simplified. But in essence, sentient animals can feel pain, if we were one of those sentient animals, would we think that being treated the way we treat animals now, is something we would want?
Also, why is Subboor so incredibly condescending?
I feel bad for Alex just watching this
I feel bad for you too just by reading your comment
Alex baddest moment 1:34:56
@@_eLf45 baddest? Is that even a word?
@@trybunt
it's not a proper word, it's a slang
what is slang?
"Slang is very informal language or specific words used by a particular group of people. You'll usually hear slang spoken more often than you'll see it put in writing, though emails and texts often contain many conversational slang words."
"how big a cage should i get for my parrot?"
"32 miles"
The references Subboor Ahmad used in the debate:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (Declaration of Independence)
“There are no gods in the universe, no nations, no money, no human rights, no laws, and no justice outside the common imagination of human beings.” (Yuvah Noah Harrai, Sapiens)
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men evolved differently, that they are born with certain mutable characteristics, and that among these are life and the pursuit of pleasure.” (Yuvah Noah Harrai, Sapiens)
"Again (Natural selection), it does not prove to disprove moral ontology, it says nothing about it." Alex O'Connor's 'Cosmic Skeptic' video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnOsG...
“Our core morality isn’t true, right, correct, and neither is any other. Nature just seduced us into thinking it’s right. It did that because that made core morality work better; our “believing in its truth increases our individual genetic fitness.”
Excerpt From: Rosenberg, Alex. “The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions.” iBooks.
“Is natural selection so smart that it was able to filter out all the wrong, incorrect, false core moralities and end up with the only one that just happens to be true? Or is it the other way around: Natural selection filtered out all but one core morality, and winning the race is what made the last surviving core morality the right, correct, true one.
Which is it?
It can’t be either one. The only way out of the puzzle is nihilism.”
Excerpt From: Rosenberg, Alex. “The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions.” iBooks.
Replay the tape a million times ... and I doubt that anything like Homo sapiens would ever evolve again. (Stephen J Gould)
Alister McGrath & Bret Weinstein • Religion: Useful fiction or ultimate truth?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRx2u...
If, for instance, to take an extreme case, men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering. (Charles Darwin)
“Brierley: Ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we’ve evolved five fingers rather than six.
Richard Dawkins: You could say that, yeah.”
Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. (Michael Ruse)
This was an amazing debate to watch in person. Makes me wanna attend more to learn and improve 😀
Thanks again Alex
I've said this in the chat I want to repeat this:
I am firmly on Alex's side (before and after the debate), but as someone who had watched Mohammed Hijab's debate, I cannot but applaud the civility in-display here
I'm firmly on Suboor's side, and I also do appreciate that the discussion was relatively civil, lol.
I personally have seen Alex say horrendously rude things on his channel in years gone by, and if nothing else was learnt, I hope it is a sign that he is distancing himself from some elements of the toxic new atheist movement.
@@umarr6221 Is there anything specific he said that you found compelling, or do you just happen to fall on his side?
@@umarr6221 yeah religions are not toxic, atheism is toxic, sure.
@@umarr6221 I have personally seen immorla things written in the quran too. I hope u have learnt worshipping a pedo and killing infidels as adviced by the pedos manual, is not great anymore.
@Eddie Austin while you're correct about the Islamophobia point, I was wondering if you are aware of Dawkins' point on the god hypothesis
What happened around 1:24:00 was plain glorious. The way he handled that question and the rather obnoxious way it was put forward was beautiful. That was a Hitchens moment right there. Well played Alex.
We just wanna see blood in debates. Might be why Hitch was so well loved
I like Alex, his demeanour, his mannerisms and his ability to keep the viewer watching. It was a really good debate. I don't think it's as clear cut as many of the comments suggest. Suboor is a very intelligent man, he made many good points as did Alex.
That means that I think you have a very balanced view that is not heavily biased I think. Just listening at this right now, but that is usually my take as well. I believe in God myself but I believe in Vedanta so I have no dog in the race as it pertains to Islam vs Atheism, no dog in the race as it pertains to both belief systems. For me, religion is very powerful and has had a positive transformative effect but it is more so a personal thing and a way of life, I don't care to convert people with the zeal of the convert, no. If one is happy and good even being atheist I applaud that, I am just not orientated that way myself. Good to see someone such as yourself not cemented in "my way", "my belief". I think that is quite toxic, going into these debates as the "atheist team" or the "muslim team" etc, that is all part of ones ego. Much better to approach it the way you do, I think. All the best man.
No he didn't he has comprehension issues.
he literally didn’t 💀
Well ehm...
I'd like to agree with you.
I think I hoped better from Subboor. I feel I get his point but also feel Alex already won it over before Subboor even started talking.
It's like Suboor started talking about "this is why Atheism can't work as a moral basis" but I feel we just did how it does.
@@viancavarma3455 who didn't what?
What about "Islam and Human Rights" Debate
Lets make it happen guys.
You are assuming human rights are objectively true which they are not they are just opinions taken from a conference in the 1960s by secular old men.
@@omaribnalahmed5967 So you also believe that the “rights” found in your supposedly divine law code is also just mere opinions from a medieval Arabian warlord without no actual objective validity? If not, please justify why you think that that is not the case.
Also, why are you even here if you never saw much merit in human rights in the first place?
Oh Subboor doesn’t even listen to Alex’s argument and rebuttal to even comprehend his position
The references Subboor Ahmad used in the debate:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (Declaration of Independence)
“There are no gods in the universe, no nations, no money, no human rights, no laws, and no justice outside the common imagination of human beings.” (Yuvah Noah Harrai, Sapiens)
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men evolved differently, that they are born with certain mutable characteristics, and that among these are life and the pursuit of pleasure.” (Yuvah Noah Harrai, Sapiens)
"Again (Natural selection), it does not prove to disprove moral ontology, it says nothing about it." Alex O'Connor's 'Cosmic Skeptic' video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnOsG...
“Our core morality isn’t true, right, correct, and neither is any other. Nature just seduced us into thinking it’s right. It did that because that made core morality work better; our “believing in its truth increases our individual genetic fitness.”
Excerpt From: Rosenberg, Alex. “The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions.” iBooks.
“Is natural selection so smart that it was able to filter out all the wrong, incorrect, false core moralities and end up with the only one that just happens to be true? Or is it the other way around: Natural selection filtered out all but one core morality, and winning the race is what made the last surviving core morality the right, correct, true one.
Which is it?
It can’t be either one. The only way out of the puzzle is nihilism.”
Excerpt From: Rosenberg, Alex. “The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions.” iBooks.
Replay the tape a million times ... and I doubt that anything like Homo sapiens would ever evolve again. (Stephen J Gould)
Alister McGrath & Bret Weinstein • Religion: Useful fiction or ultimate truth?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRx2u...
If, for instance, to take an extreme case, men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering. (Charles Darwin)
“Brierley: Ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we’ve evolved five fingers rather than six.
Richard Dawkins: You could say that, yeah.”
Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. (Michael Ruse)
Good job keeping it together Alex. Saboor kept trying to twist your words. I thought you were very clear
This debate resembles more like a tentative to misrepresent one side than *debating* about the subject. Using various strawman, misrepresentations and (some) ad hominem, Subboor is visibly highly motivated to show so-called “Alex's inconsistencies” while remaining in the convenient position of not exposing his own views on the subject discussed here.
A good example of such a tactic is by systematically opposing Alex's views against Harris' views, showing an easy-to-follow connection between two "public figures" of atheism, confounding the audience in making them think that their (apparent) incoherences make Alex wrong (and therefore atheism) -but, do we have to remind that this was not the subject matter!?
It obviously worked, as the questions were all directed toward Alex, not Subboor.
Subboor makes himself look like he's “right”... but this does not make a case for his position anyway.
He is super manipulative, and unfortunately a lot of people fall for that
Had this thought all along.. frustration hits hard when i watch Alex debating
@@rasmuslassen6273 especially indoctrinated people.
"im not sure i agree with the diagnosis" " SO YOU'RE DENYING THE PREMISE?"/// No, uncertainty does not equal disagreement (or agreement); its more of a trichotomy i think.
It's not a trichotomy. You either accept a premise or deny it. That is a dichotomy. However denying a premise is not the same as asserting a premise is false, which is a different claim. Subboor is rhetorically treating denial as if Alex is asserting the claim is false.
If everyone in a universe liked the colour "blue" that would only prove that everyone in that universe likes blue.
However that wouldn't prove that Blue is the right color nor would it prove that Blue is the right color for that universe.
Yes, however if we accept the premise that everyone in that universe accepts blue is the color which minimizes suffering then we can obtain the objective truth that blue is the right color.
Again applying this idea to the rape example, rape is defined to be any sexual act done without consent of the victim. Thus, the premise is rape increases suffering for the victim. This statement is true even for a rapist if that person is a victim of rape. Hence all humans will accept this premise, making rape being immoral an objective fact. Hope this makes sense.
@@yogeshpipada4420 is raping a dead body immoral ?
@@salahaldin447 Can you even rape a dead body tho because they cannot consent? Necrophiliacs exist and they perform sexual acts on dead bodies so I assume you mean those. Applying the principle I stated earlier, a dead body would represent someone's loved one. Doing that to a loved one if they are dead would cause suffering for people who loved/cared for this person, this premise holds true for the rapist as well and hence would be immoral. If the person who is a corpse had no loved one at all it still wouldn't matter as humans are social beings and hence hearing of such stories would cause them to empathetically feel bad increasing the suffering of human kind.
All in all the idea is empathy dictates morals in this framework.
@@yogeshpipada4420 By applying the pain and pleasure principle, one can contend that being subjected to rape is morally reprehensible on a subjective level, as it involves inflicting pain and suffering upon the victim, a situation that even the perpetrator would likely find undesirable. However, when employing this same principle to assess the morality of rape itself, it becomes challenging to make an objective judgment. This is because, within the framework where pain and pleasure serve as the moral compass, a rapist who derives pleasure from their actions could argue that their subjective experience justifies the act. Thus, while one may perceive rape as wrong based on subjective experiences of pain and suffering, objectively labeling it as universally wrong becomes elusive.
Moreover, equating the wrongness of rape solely to the fact that nobody desires to be raped is akin to suggesting that because nobody wants to lose, there should be no winners, or because nobody wants to fail, nobody should be corrected. This line of reasoning oversimplifies complex moral dilemmas and ignores the broader ethical considerations involved. It fails to account for the inherent rights and dignity of individuals and the impact of one's actions on others, reducing morality to mere avoidance of personal discomfort rather than a nuanced understanding of right and wrong.
I think The Muslim guy doesn't know what he is talking about.
Explain.
Why increase pleasure? Why not anxiety?
- Suboor Ahmad, 2020
Constructing a fictional reality called "hell" in christianity and islam was a clever religious move to increase anxiety.
@shemi shami your last 2 sentences are rly dumb
@@Tom-vq4xk and u despite all the paragraph emphasizing the last 2 sentences shows that you are in another mood
@shemi shami There is no need for a divine being. Quoting Alex, it's the "maximization of pleasure and minimization of suffering." When a corrupt bureaucrat or a psychopath simply "wants" pleasure by causing "suffering" to another being, that may be maximizing pleasure for one but it is GREATLY increasing pain or suffering for another.
@shemi shami is the victim of the rapist experiencing pleasure or pain? Its pain isn't it. Is the victim if Hitlers holocaust experiencing pleasure ir pain, again its pain isn't it, is the 9 year old girl being raped by a 54 year old man, pleasure or pain. Yet again its pain. Why do all the theist ask the question was Hitler wrong in his opinion was the rapust Mohammed wrong in his opinion. I dont hive a fucknabout there opinions, I give a fuck about the humans who suffer at there hands. And guess what, so do they.
Its not a question from the perpetraturs it's a question from the victims.
Thars where we derive morality from
Hey, Alex. Fantastic debate. Been watching your videos and love your channel. I like what you have to say and I agree and see what you mean. Keep up the good work man. Will keep watching.
Lost it when Subboor said that lions can make moral judgments
I totally agree with you.... in addition to that, I feel that Subboor was basically in some type of juvenile mental mode that was sadly and always reaching to pathetically disagree with just about anything Alex could make a basic and reasonable point for.... just to possibly make his own poor and severely limited view of our world and life, seem more complete. 🤦♂️
Wow, Sam Harris really did a poor job of defending his arguments in this debate.
Love it! This is what I just write as my own comment:
“Sam Harris makes it clear that the basis for objective morality is the subjective agreement that well-being is THE goal of morality... once the goal is set objective determinations about how to best achieve that goal become available-this guy has misrepresented Harris & worse does not understand how objective determinations are derived, most of which have an arbitrary/subjective ground: for ex we can objectively determine temperatures by agreeing that 100 = Boiling 0 = Freezing. These are arbitrary/subjective markers, but once we agree to them we can make objective claims about temperature. Epic fail...”
A dB You don’t see pain and pleasure as measurable natural phenomena? Perhaps each individual has a distinct sensitivity, but that doesn’t eliminate the possibility of measurement, whether quantifiable by an accepted standard (much like boiling/freezing) or via self-report-much as we do in the arena of health. The fact that water boils at different temperatures at different elevations does not hinder... all you need is a model of comparison-X policy produces happier women w/ out affecting everyone else so it is preferable to Y policy which has a higher proclivity for producing depression... Maximal suffering vs minimal suffering... the metaphor applies. I disagree.
A dB A dB Well-being/survival IS the evolutionary “purpose” of morality-it’s descriptive-as far as I can tell. The purpose of moral codes is to produce functional societies, families, & minds whether in this life or the next. The fact that something can produce well-being in the short run & fail in the long means it was successful at producing well-being in the short & failed in the long-nothing more-and this is a measurement of its success/failure-so you’ve made my point & practiced using well-being as a measure... & it worked. Well-being as a goal didn’t change in ur example, the environmental factors did, so u change the method to adjust to the new circumstances or u try to change the environment itself-u don’t lose the goal of well-being. That some may find social media beneficial & others not beneficial to their well-being means that the conditions in which each person exists need attention & we can begin from there to address that issue & create programs that maximize the well-being of each group... u’ve opened up a window of opportunity for scientists to pursue means of understanding & programs that more effectively address the variation in human conditions-& once we have the goal we have a starting place for inquiry & possible solutions. If the goal of chess is to win, you can separate out good from bad moves based on their success in reaching that goal. If your goal is to irritate your opponent, u’d play in a different way-maybe don’t wear deodorant or call him names & knock over his knight “by accident” a few times, eyc.-& winning wld take second place. I’m sorry but happiness is not hard to define. Just because I like ketchup & u like mustard does nothing to make “happiness” more difficult to define.
the topic is atheism not alex and i think sam is big figure in new atheism (right?). so i think the separations should be made from the atheist's doctrine. alex and sam in this case should explain atheism pov
Sam Harris is not a real philosopher. People don't know how to read actual philosophy texts and so 'The Moral Landscape' is all they have left.
1:04:25 "You're under valuing human rights by arguing against human exceptionalism."
Hmm, that sounds familiar..."you're under valuing white rights by arguing against white exceptionalism."
Dude, just became white supremacist and didn't even realize it. 🤣
And hence. Why do they keep saying females have same rights as men.. since Alex's view is that there are differences between the creatures.. according to their capacity.. so he should not argue much
I am so excited about you Alex! Hitchens has been my hero for years and who I want to be when I "grow up" (even though I have been grown for years) You remind me of a mini Hitch right now. We definately need more minds like yours! Keep up the great work!
hitch was far aggressive in nature contrary alex is very peaceful young guy but it takes only a male like Hitchens to slap those straw mans by those religious bigots.
We'll find out when we die
@@watvid1or we won’t (;
@@visiblehuman3705 in which case we won't know, we'll be nothing. But there's a few verses in the Quran about this.
I get Alex is attempting to be as straightforward as possible by sticking to arguing that an atheist can justify ethics, but there were moments I would have loved him returning Subboor's questions. So many Suboor's questions could be very easily applied to religious standards. He asking whether r*pe was objectively wrong could have pushed to Alex asking whether slavery is (given sacred texts allowing it, and his refusal to argue ethics on a rational basis rather than revelation).
The same could be done about "how would you convince a desert island of your morals???". Suboor seemed to heavily imply that by being religious he had the right ro raid any culture that doesn't match his values, no justification required.
Oh, I thought Subboor's point was even stranger: That he thought the island people would listen to him because he could make a case of objective morales bc of god.
Man, you freaking nailed it. Great to hear someone make nearly identical arguments to what I make regarding morality (and a few beyond that even) without weirdly trying to call it objective morality.
😂😂😂 u guys are cancer to society
@@mohammedanees1610 Did your post present strong, logical evidence of objective morality? It didn't. So then you apparently don't have a good reason to believe it exists. Just like me.
Well I'm honest about it: because I don't know, _I admit I don't know_ objective morality exists, and won't believe in it unless we someday get evidence of it.
Valuing truth isn't "cancerous". It's the most rational way for a society to behave. In fact irrational beliefs like religion are a far more dangerous ideology to humanity.
@@majmagehow about this. To be selfless is better than being selfish because it is the embodiment of empathy and compassion versus selfishness embodying ego/pride or pleasure.
To murder someone innocent is selfish and evil, to help a stranger in need is selfless and good. The kicker is, helping someone gives both the one in need and* you a rewarding feeling. It's actually as if love is the one thing that breaks the action-reaction paradigm into action-action (both being forward/good from a moral perspective).
Finally to argue that murdering someone isn't fundamentally wrong would hinge on the subjective 0.01% of humanity essentially basing an argument on a statistical outlier. We know good cannot exist without evil (nor can the north exist without the south) and we know what each encompasses yet somehow say it's all subjective? You can't have it both ways.
@@dartskihutch4033 Objective means, _"not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."_
Subjective means, _"based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions."_
You've stated your feelings on various moral acts. That's why what you described is subjective morality.
Objective morality would mean that you could prove something was right or wrong independent of feelings/tastes/opinions. Yet nobody so far has ever been able to do that. (In fact most commonly other posters either present their own feelings like you did, or ask me my feelings. Ironic because _that's exactly what makes it subjective!_ )
@@majmage objectivity and objective morality exists in slightly nuanced spaces, but sure I'll concede to that and allude to my point that 0.01% of humanity would agree that murdering the innocent is wrong, and we only set moral standards for humans, so are you saying that we would need 100% to agree? Or would that still fall into 100% of people subjectively agree this is correct?
In that case does 1+1=2 not count as objectively true because someone somewhere truly disagrees? Do you agree that up cannot exist without down objectively due to relativity? In the same stroke, would it not be true objectively that good cannot exist without evil?
If we can't even agree that objective truths such as this can't exist, then we might as well say nothing exists, evil nor good, up nor down, and everything is nonsense and absolute chaos. But then again, chaos is directly proportional to order.
It's really unfair for Theists (any brand of theist) to decry anyone for having a subjective element to the foundational premise of their morality.
Theists ALSO base their morality on subjective elements.
I'd argue that they rely even more heavily on than than I do, as an atheist; but I'm willing to say it's roughly the same, just so we don't get distracted from the point.
Their morals are partly subjective as well.
They just hide it behind their back and pretend it isn't there.
When Christians and other theists says their faith is "personal", they're making a reference (in part) to how subjective the nature of the experience is; and thus: the premise of the claim.
When long-ago men decided that "god" was the answer to so many questions,
it was then (the same as now): an entirely subjective lens.
They took objective truths like "crops fail", and then built and attached religion (or "faith") out of subjective reasoning.
It's fear, and it's hope, and its various feel-good neurotransmitters being gimick'ed into habitual activation (under a fantasy narrative), and it's group-think, and it's the Slave Mind, and it's even various degrees of Narcissism; passed off as humility.
Ya gotta love how blatantly they gaslight; as they accuse others of what they themselves are doing, just to artificially inflate their utterly empty premise of authority.
Without all the subjective sense of needs, wants, fears, urges to control others, urges to be controlled, desire to be special, mutually regressive shaming, etc all coming together to place their gaze behind a pre-shaped lens (fashioned by other fallible humans) to see the world through, ...
there would be no cry of "GOD!" as the thing they credit their morality to.
Even if there were a literal GOD up there (for the sake of argument), ...
if believing in a God and deferring to a holy book was actually a totally objective basis for their morality, ...
all the theists would be in agreement about WHICH god, and WHICH book, and WHICH interpretations, etc.. and then they'd all have the same morality.
Subjectivity is why they can't agree on all that junk.
So when they say "oh, atheists can't justify their morality because their morality is subjective", ...
it's like they don't even know what the word actually means,
and aren't even remotely self-aware of the nature of their own mental processes.
@Trolltician of course it does if you are basing your morality on your personal faith
it's not unfair from them.
it is ignorant from them.
Subboor Ahmad doesn't even understand science,how can we want from him to understand philosophy derived from our scientific understading?
he has invalid model of how reality works in his head,therefore he is unable to see how stupid his arguments are.
@Trolltician if you don't base your philosophy on reality,then you are not talking about reality.
and since science is our best tool for understanding reality, I consider to be the best way to start with it.
@Trolltician so you don't consider science as our best tool for understanding reality?
what would you start with?
@Trolltician I'm talking about reality.
yes I presuppose reality exists and we are in the same reality.
our pattern seeking brains are able to find patterns even when there are none,
but by learning about reality (using available scientific understanding), by not denying a frigging evolution (among others) as a fact because it doesn't fit some interpretation of your favorite religion (not necessarily talking about you,I don't know your view), then you can understand world around you better and use it as a base for philosophical view on that (or at least not ignore it).
Religion works against the common good, because it refutes intrinsic common value.
ie "we all start worthy of death (or worse), but if you want to become worthy of not-killing and not-torturing, you must join our faith".
For most self-described atheists, our position is that we're stepping outside of that bubble and saying "I see the value of people who aren't inside of your religious faith-bubble. Same as I see the value of people inside of it".
Being non-a-theist means being free of a somewhat specific kind of handicap, when it comes to being able to see the whole of humanity as species of common worth.
Religion makes that harder to do; because in order to get there,
you have to adopt a secular view of life's worth. And then your options are to either pretend that equality-of-worth (worthy to have your existence valued same as other humans) is a religious view
or admit that it isn't.
@Rener Oslo Starting hundreds of thousands of years ago (at the very least), our primitive ancestors relied on superstitious ideas, as the early and gradual development of religious faith.
They knew almost nothing about how anything worked.
So lightning became the furious power of gods being thrown down in anger.
Crops failing became punishment for whatever local current taboos were pet peeves of the loudest voices in any given village.
If *the* *hate* *of* *the* *day* was women who didn't please their men enough, then THAT's what "the gods" were mad about; or disobedient children, or anyone suspected of evil magics.
Early on, religions were a way to get people to behave better in public (in some ways), but far worse in other ways; depending on whatever the most dominant religious assholes said "god said". So if the head narcissist (what we call "priests" and "pastors" these days) said "god said he hates it when you don't give me some of your earnings", then that became what "god" wants.
But just because early humans gleaned some social cohesion from religion (at great consequence of suffering), doesn't mean that humans today still need training wheels; let alone any crafted from the bones of innocents, or oiled with the blood and tears of children.
You might not want to grow up; but you shouldn't be trying to hold humanity back from doing so.
Just because our primitive ancestors used religion to channel their fears, and control issues, and ignorance, and selfishness, and violence into collective productivity doesn't mean we still need that.
It's past time for rehab.
It's past time to outgrow those old crutches.
It's past time to grow up.
@Rener Oslo Just as "no two people have ever read the same book", it seems that you and I were hearing a different debate; even though watching the same.
It's late, here.
I'll come back to this tomorrow.
All that is required to justify human rights is empathy, compassion and an appreciation for 'win win' interactions.
All of which are biological adaptations that led to the success of our social species. They are requirements for cooperative behavior.
Hands down the most impotent mediator I have ever seen in a debate.
EDIT: I hope nobody read that as "most important" lol
which definition of impotence lmao
Ngl, I had to double take. I definitely read that as 'important' the first time.
This guy seems to be intentionally missing Alex’s every point and it’s so difficult to listen to. I can not understand how anyone takes him seriously
Or maybe, just maybe, you don’t understand his arguments
@@AmirHussain-bi2vx no I understand perfectly clear every point that was trying to be made. Suboor did not.
i feel the same too i mean if i would have been in alex's position i would have been really irritated
What kind of question is that? And why waste time "debating" such silly question? I am not going to watch, but I assume the argument is something like "without god there are no morals; if you have no god, you have no morals; without morals, there are no human rights..."
You're close. It was:
Atheism leads to moral nihilism,
moral nihilism undermines human rights;
therefore, atheism undermines human rights
Without the All Wise and All knowledgeable Law Giver then your abortion campaign and the Arab pagans who buried their own daughters are the same *objectively according to you*
Morality becomes a joke, "sex liberation" is the disguise that LGBT community uses. People in Norway and Sweden are starting to accept Incest... I wonder why......... 💀🤕
Islam and human rights, that has to be the best example of an oxymoron. Unless it’s framed Islam and the lack of human rights, then I believe it would be a congruent statement.
His opening statement reminds me so much of Hitch
Nobody:
Subboor: “let’s change the variables”
You only say that because -- you know why? -- Because you've evolved on this trajectory. /s
What a wonderful human being Alex is. How I would love to spend a few hours in his company. Thank you for your continued efforts.
Hello Alan, Alex is a very busy man. I am not. Do you wanna hangout? Don't get me wrong, i am a woman lover but i have time to spend a few hours in your company. I must say i am not really a talker, but i can listen very good.
Next saturday?
Aslan B. Sure
So did you guys hang out ?
@@usèr1234-x1o Hahaha, NO!
I am in Australia and while I have no idea where Aslan B is there is no way I would seek out a nutter like that anyway.
@@AlanLow Hahaha.
I'd love to hang out with Alex too, but yeah, I'd pass on Aslan B.🤭
I can't believe Ahmad brought up China to complain about atheists disregarding human rights. Does he understand that China has a religious-like structure centred around the state acting as a deity and nothing in that country is about secular humanism
@@jarlaxledaerthe4045 The scriptures are assumed to be the basis of morality. What moral system are you using to evaluate scripture? What your mom told you?
@@globalcoupledances You can be asian chinese and disbelieve in the supernatural.
@@globalcoupledances Hasty generalisation and appeal to ignorance.
- You've been taking notes, any remarks?
- it's really hard to know where to begin...
You cracked me up Alex!
lol....you are easy to pleased to....that's cringe!
Let me turn the tables and say, "Only atheism justifies morality and human rights, religion is neither consistent nor historically evident to have justified morality or human rights ".
Empathy, is an evolutionary trait that helped humans (even before homo erectus) to build stronger bonds and survive in groups. Here is where your moral scale comes form.
Atheism justifies bad acts of rape
@@شبلمذحجالطعان Oooh can you expand on that?
@@شبلمذحجالطعانhow so
"What do you (atheists) have in the world to come up with human rights?" In brief, one's own experiences. And this experience can be in any form.
Did you even watch the video. Ones own Experiences? LoL.
So, A man raping a woman, in his own experience is maximizing his pleasure and the woman's pleasure because for him, the woman is screaming in pleasure, but in reality she is screaming in pain.
@blueray1969 nope from evolution. Didn't you know it's all about survival and reproduction.
@blueray1969 good, now we are getting into something.
Can I know your basis for moral code, which you can always refer back to.
Because Atheists are usually all over the place.
@@lunarcalendar368 sorry to break your bubble but countries that have a secular constitution have punitive measures in place for violent acts such as rape, murder etc. where do you think these laws came from? as for your rape analogy, what that experience teaches not just the man/woman committing the act, but the society, is that it is an act of violence that infringes upon somebody else's rights, which eventually falls under the umbrella of "any act of violence that infringes upon other people's rights". so, in short, sorry that is a strawman like the many strawmen that folks like you invoke in such situations.
as for your ignorant view about evolution, nobody uses evolution to arrive at solutions for moral dilemmas.
@@nirmalvarma3386 sorry to inform you, That you contradicted yourself.
you intially mentioned about ONE'S OWN experience. Now you are talking about the "society". Take a stance, you cannot be all over the place.
Bringing in politics about secular countries is a strawman into justifying morality.
I could listen to Alex speak all day
The succinct agreement by Alex in situations like 1:07:54 catching Subboor off guard are so satisfying to me. Agreeing to a premise (and thus staying logically consistent) when your opponent expect you to disagree with them is perhaps one of the single most satisfying moments in any discussion, besides perhaps coming to common ground.
Subboor also concedes his own immorality here. He very plainly views humans above others, and views even the concept of another being as worth more than a human as "absurd". He outted himself.
Because Alex just conceded to his argument and undermined human rights. Lol how did u miss that?
@@hk3676 he's biased 😂
this is so painful to watch you calmly and coherently try to explain points to a man who doesn't seem to understand the simplest of concepts.
At 1:07:29 - 1:08:00 Alex argues that because a Deer has less of a capacity for pain, it has less value than human life. But using this same logic, we can say that a human being who is born with a lesser capacity for pain is now worth less than other human beings, which of course undermines the whole concept of universal human rights. And this is not a hypothetical scenario, because there are actually humans who are born with conditions that cause their pain receptors to not work properly, and so their capacity for feeling pain is much less than other human beings. According to Alex's worldview, these humans would be worth less than other human beings, and less entitled to human rights.
I didn't watch the debate (and I don't even want to), but just to complement what you said: someone that is like in coma or even anaesthetised would worth less than someone who's not. That's just absurd!
Yes, exactly! And it can also work the other way round. At one point in the debate, he was even willing to concede that a "super sensitive Panda" who has more of a capacity for pain would be worth 2 humans.😧
@@magnus8704 he actually addresses this in the video.
According to Alex's moral philosophy, some humans would be worth less than others. This definitely goes against the concept of universal human rights. The equal worth of all humans is one of the most fundamental pillars of Human rights, and Alex has just undermined it without realising it. He is also indirectly saying that humans who have a lesser capacity for pain should be less entitled to the same human rights as you and me. Remember, that for Alex, your value as a living organism, and your entitlement to rights, solely depends on your capacity for pain, and by extension, your capacity for pleasure. That is why he does not believe animals deserve the same rights as human beings, because in his opinion they have a lesser capacity for pain and pleasure. Therefore the same would be true for any human who has a lesser capacity for pain and pleasure I.e. they would be less entitled to rights as compared to other humans.
Yes, of course I love my family members more than other human beings. However, I don't go around saying that their lives are worth more than other human beings. I may love them, but I still recognise that their lives have only equal worth to other human beings. Alex, on the other hand, is basically saying that if someone has a lesser capacity for pain and pleasure, then that means they are worth less, in the same way a deer or any other animal is worth less. And he is even willing to concede, that if it was the other way around, then animals would be worth more than human beings.
As the saying goes, you can't have your cake and eat it. If someone is worth less, due to their lesser capacity for pain and pleasure, then they can't also be considered equal at the same time.
I don’t think Subboor was very charitable in this debate. It seemed like he was asking questions for a specific answer, and once Alex got anywhere near the answer Subboor wanted, Subboor would accept his “gotcha” and move to the next topic.
43:19
“Everything good I’ve said is from god, every mistake is for myself” is a disgusting philosophy that is shared by all monotheisms. I used to be confused when Hitchens spoke of the self-hatred in religion, but now I get it. Does this not sound like gaslighting or an abusive relationship? “You’re broken and can only do bad and anything good you do is because of me.”
I've been listening to Alex for awhile now, but I want to bring something up, just for the sake of clarity... I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that morality is subjective on a personal level, but at the same time ultimately objective when you look at the bigger picture. Even if it's to say that it's NOT actually objective, and that we just treat it as if it were. The example you gave of the color blue for example, how can you say that blue is objectively the right color, if even 1 person disagrees. This sounds to me like a contradiction and a generalization combined. That is, to say that morality is subjective, and yet if you go against the norm you are not being moral, is in my opinion a contradiction. It's still your opinion of right and wrong vs theirs, so how do you justify this belief system? Also, how do you determine the "norm?" Is it taken to a vote and majority wins, and if so how is that fair and objective? By the way I'm not condemning the belief, not condoning it, I'm only searching for clarity on the matter, thank you.
If someone tells you they prefer blue over all colors and that other colors make them sad and then they tell you they are going to paint their house yellow well then you might try to convince them that doing that is a bad idea.
Perhaps Alex and his contemporaries such as Harris should use "universal" instead of "objective" Just because something is not absolute or objective (in the sense of Objectivism), does not mean it's universality is any less true. Just as believing morality to be relativistic does not make you a moral nihilist. The fact that sugary food tastes sweet is not absolute (in the objectivism sense) and the gustatory perception relies on the mind to exist shows that it [taste] is not objective but subjective. and so just as morality requires minds to exist and is not as "eternally" real or true as things that are within the domain of Objectivism, that does not mean morality is not universal within human culture. Killing is universally wrong across all cultures. Also, money is literally a piece of paper, yet its exchange value is "real" within the confines of human society. You could think of this as such: morality, taste, money, love, trust, etc exist on hierarchy of realistic. and what exists on the highest plane to be ultimately real or true.
He has done a lot of talks, if you go back in his catalog, you'll probably find them!
@@armanjasuja4059 bla bla bla... twisting here and there to make thing looks appropriate you your own belief
one person did not agree to paint blue, yet still say its all agree.LOL
@@armanjasuja4059 Nope, i think the better comparison is like gay marriage. some people agree and some people against it. its subjective to each individual.
However, in islam, its morally OBJECTIVE. gay marriage/sexual is haram/prohibited in Islam. Why God prohibits it? because God the creator of us the the universe knows best.
Now, in modern medical reports say that HIV infections are now mainly contributed by homosexual among men that surpasses needle/syringe and heterosexual activities
moving into the future, what else human SUBJECTIVE morality would demand, having sex with child? incest? with animal? or marrying a piano?
If Cosmic Skeptic was a Harry Potter character he would be Hermione Granger
Hermione from the film and everything😂
Atheism isn't opposed to what China does? He is joking right? We are inconsistent?!
What about the muslim world that was more up and arms about France freedom of speech but was ok with China cometing cultural genocide against Muslims! Some muslim countries were so ok with it they accept Chinese money (looking at you Pakistan! But you are not the only one).
Seriously this angers me so much as a French citizen. We had murders because they were so offended by cartoons!!
subboors problem of understanding comes from him having exhausted alex so much that alex did not want to go back all the way to explaining the connection between conciousness and moral worth
For sure, Subboor was trying to browbeat Alex,
Ahmed opening is bearable in the start, but he takes a lot of things out of context near the end.
I generally agree with Alex but I think there is another point here he missed. The reason to be moral has quite a lot more to do with self interest in a reciprocating social context than he's letting on. The reason why we are champions of our family, tribe, nation, and species has more to do with avoiding the potential negative consequences of normalizing exploitation of blow back to ourselves which is then abstracted out to the general rule of minimize suffering. Championing human rights, is hedging to avoid our own potential suffering. We can, if we cooperate, enhance our ability to achieve more pleasure and avoid more suffering.
Our morality has a lot to do with our own self interest but for some reason people don't like to admit it. If you're nice to people usually you get that in return. If you're a dick to people usually you get that in return. You learn that through life experience.
He made exactly that point when he made the analogy to the hypothetical comatose patient.
Only Allah can guide them. We Muslims just pray of them. We belong to Allah and we will return to Allah.
Alex building patience like you has become my life goal
"God is with those who are patient"
The last book
@@darwinistdelusions6504I don't need god I need to inculcate good qualities
@@siddharthatwal6633 you have*
Sidharth Atwal....Ya! his bloody ancestors looted a big amount and then he want to preach new form of morality to enslave our mind!
@@siddharthatwal6633 But you need a narcissist as a God!
That Timothée Chalamet impersonator in the middle is reaaaally good.
Time stamp?