I get them all the time, thousands of them in total. I think they either target atheists on these ads or yt platform presents religious ads under videos tagged as religious or about religion.
@S Gloobal "Common sense" is a damn poor way of deciding any issue. And explaining the origin of life is really nothing to do with atheism one way or another.
Now we can fornicate, blaspheme GOD'S name, worship my lexus, love the dodgers more than anything, lust in my mind until my hearts content, lust and covet my neighbor wife and be envious of all that my neighbor has, with impunity!!!!! Thanks guys, thanks Matt!😁🙂😃🎉🎊
@fludaa you have blocked out you feeling in regards to those activities so you can have your "wellbeing". You have seared your GOD given conscience, not to feel guilt over these things. to have true wellbeing is not to repress the truth of your guilt, but to make peace with your creator. To be forgiven and healed by GOD! Yield your will, surrender your rebellion against GOD and HE will cleanse you of your guilt and shame from commiting these offences. He will also heal your pain, anguish, and anger and blame you hold against HIM for all the injustice evil perpetrated against you and others in this world. And as if this wasn't enough, HE will accredit Jesus's righteousness into your account, on your behalf and present you flawless to the FATHER and grant you everlasting life and peace which surpasses all understanding.
@@MegaAce54 How does being relieved of guilt by a 3rd party relieve you of responsibility for your actions? God heals you? Which god are you referring to, and I mean that seriously and what does he heal you of? What offences are you referring to? And what blame is being attributed to HIM are you referring to? Can you back up any of the claims you just made?
@@MegaAce54 Kevin, how do any of those things you just mentioned harm anyone else? Not only do I not care if you fornicate, I don't care who you do it with as long as it's another consenting adult. Don't care if you blaspheme or against which imaginary god, worship your Lexus (no idea why), love the Dodgers (ditto), lust in your mind, covet your neighbors wife or even mine (I'll be the first to admit she's very attractive), or be envious of stuff your neighbor has. Yep, don't care a whit. It all sounds like a waste of time but if that's how you wish to spend your day, lust and envy on, my man. It sounds like you feel a bit guilty about it, though, so if it makes you feel bad, then change your own behavior. Up to you.
I suppose you don't feel guilty over the aforementioned transgressions. I'm afraid you Repress the truth for so long that you may have completely seared your conscience. Our transgressions aren't only horizontal (Against our fellow man) They're vertical (Against Almighty God). And since you have no reverence for God, These transgressions mean nothing to you. I hope one day you'll see that you're not only responsible to your fellow man, but you're also but you're also responsible and accountable to God! take care brother.
Yeah, the chess analogy makes no sense, chess is not the right way to play that game necessary, there is anti-chess, spell chess, etc. Ultimately beeing empathetic is better for everyone, but that's a subjective goal
@@raktimamchiforthe4thtime445 yeah but that makes them subjective standards of morality not objective. If I say it's moral to kill newborn babies and immoral to allow them to live, then I could objectively make judgements on that subjective standard of morality. It doesn't make my standard of morality objective, it's still subjective. In a universe where there is no God there cannot be an objective standy or morality.
We can make objective judgements on morality after we understand the objective standards of fairness. edit: fairness can be a subjective goal, contrasting the goal of evil
@@Bullyproof297 defining fairness is also subjective and even if it wasn't, you're now defining morality as fairness which is in itself a subjective definition of morality. Why is fairness the standards for morality ? See the issue?
Correct! Morality has many subjective interpretations, however we CAN draw conclusions from objective standards such as wellbeing and fairness. Pleasure fits into fairness and unfairness as well.
@@alejandroayvar5305 if something being harmful is not evil to you then you must not value your own life. Granted that wellbeing needs to be sacrificed sometimes to have justice, but in what scenario is r*ping you justice?
@@Bullyproof297 here’s the difference between you and me. I believe in an objective standard, therefore I can justify why rape is objectively evil Let’s say for the sake of argument that it’s 100% proven God isn’t real, then this means that no, there’s no such thing as objective good or evil, as since it’s based on the individual. This means that there is no such thing as good, evil, or justice unless it’s your subjective opinion If someone raped your loved one, while u may find it evil, and others too, that doesn’t make the other person objectively evil, as in his eyes what he did was good If your confused, let me give u an example In our world, there are some ice cream flavors. If the majority liked chocolate for example and say that vanilla is objectively bad, are they wrong? Ofc they are, since it’s subjective Meaning if there’s two societies that one says chocolate good, and vanilla bad, and the other society says vanilla good, chocolate bad, none of them are right or wrong, it just is There is so such thing as the best, or worst ice cream flavor, it just is, no one is right or wrong Unless there was a objective standard above us, where let’s say that chocolate is good no matter what, then it’s all subjective Same goes with morality. If one society says rape bad, helping is good, vs another society that says rape good, helping bad, with no objective standard, none of them are right or wrong, it just is
Objective morality needs a Goal? Objective morality can have a Subjective underlying cause or reasoning?? What does that doublespeak even mean?? Objective morality exists independently of anything except Justice and Love. Not even reality needs to exist, in order for morality to exist. You need objective moral standards, otherwise you have no sense of Scale. It be like trying to get the temperature using a system that doesn't acknowledge/care about degrees in Kelvin... Sure, you can operate under it. But eventually you'll reach a point of failure... For instance, under what circumstances could you prove that those being prosecuted at the Nuremberg trials, were immoral... Subjectively speaking. Objective morality is needed to tell someone that did something that everyone else was doing, that they were wrong. They actually needed to come to this conclusion when they realized that at the Nuremberg trials. They couldn't find a way to make it work without, proving that objectively speaking, the Nazis were wrong. Without any objective standards, thing's cannot be proven morally wrong, in disparate/disputed moral subjective moral systems/cultures/societies.
Wouldn't the crimes then be universally subjective (to an extent)? The world came together in a sense and agreed that the crimes were morally reprehensible. I don't see where objective comes in. The Nazi's im sure thought the crimes they were committing were objectively morally correct no? Who gets to decide what is objective morality?
@@1nzi If foundation of "wellbeing" is subjective, then Nazis did nothing wrong. Since every goal is subjective, they have every right to choose different foundation, "wellbeing for white people only". Either Matt's foundations are objectively better (therefore not subjective) or Nazis have equally good foundations as Matt. I choose option number 1 (objective morality exists and Matt is objectively better than Nazis).
@@tituslivius2084 Can you explain? If morality has subjective goals as foundation, why do Nazis (or anybody) need to have universal wellbeing as foundation? Can't they have selective wellbeing instead? If foundation is subjective, they can choose any foundation they want, can't they?
Objective standards are wellbeing and fairness/equality. We live in a natural selection predator-over-prey reality which actively goes against all of these standards. This is why even though morality is, has always been and will always be objective under these criteria, morality will never be truly enforced unless governed by an omni-benevolent god, which as I've said, is not the case :( ))
OMG! Get your definitions CORRECT! These fracking labels - objective, subjective, relative - are what’s making me angry at atheists who define themselves with these labels.
Allowing murder is an objectionably bad move if the goal is human well being. But that's just pragmatism. It's right in that situation but doesn't tell you if it's objectively always the right thing.
I'm curious as to how the concept of rights fit into Matt and CS' consequentialist view of ethics. When Matt uses bodily integrity as an argument for abortion rights and the right to die, for example, he seems to be drifting from the consequentialist view and adopting one more similar to patient-centered deontology. I think both moral philosophies make sense of our moral intuitions, depending on the situation, but they also seem to contradict each other at times. Anyone know of a feasible hybrid of these philosophies?
@wvn nfh Utilitarianism and other branches of consequentialism based on well-being seem to imply that one can easily violate certain rights depending on the results. For example, Peter Singer has said that from a utilitarian perspective, in Judith Jarvis Thompson's violinist analogy, the woman is morally obligated to stay connected to the violinist, which I think is heinous. Then again, there might be scenarios where the net result of harm will be so great if we don't violate this person's bodily autonomy, that I would consider it permissible to do so; but I'm not sure.
Laurent Brodie sometimes the doctrine of double effect isn’t a big deal, but we make it so because it challenges us uncomfortably. Peter singer also argued human rights extended to non-human animals, and the consequential ramifications ultimately giving up our desire for meat consumption. Now is that truly a violation of our rights? Or are people finding the best excuse they can to satisfy their insignificant desires? The contradictions are only evaluated based on how we measure and value humanity in the case of abortion and euthanasia My point is that our rights are exaggerated like we are somehow privileged on this earth when the concept of human rights is ultimately meaningless. But yes I do agree that there are contradictions with the structure of utilitarianism, but then again, what isn’t? All arguments of philosophy would not be philosophical if it couldn’t be argued.
Matt D has explained that he is not in favour of a crude consequentialism in which every action is assessed merely on its immediate consequences, but a more subtle version that considers the longer-term societal consequences of permitting or forbidding certain actions. Consider what would be the outcome if we all acted as if no one had any right to bodily integrity and you may get the idea.
How did he conclude the “well-being” is a universally subjective value? Many people actively make choices against their own well-being. That is a claim that would require evidence.
@@Jackiepapers Black Americans attending Christian churches. Did they forget that it was the Christian church that enslaved Africans? Why would Black Americans attend a church that supported the enslavement of their ancestors? It goes against their well-being. They, by their participation, empower a system designed to oppress.
Usually (in my opinion) seft destructive behaviours are a just wrongs ways to feel better. Suicidal would think ending his being will make him stop suffering, wich seems to be true, but it will also stop making him having any chance to feel good since its the end of feeling. The person that smoke bcs its makes him "less stressed", but depending on his consommation/ predisposition, maybe the net harm from having a cancer or the feeling that you are addict will be more harmfull than the "gain" of stressing less from smoking. I really feel like alot of self destructive behaviours are drive by the feeling of compensing something you can suffer about, so its actually a way they found to "counter" the pain or reoriente it, but then we can argue that based on this same goal of feeling better, what is the best, or at least not the worts ways to do it.
If moral system derives from subjective goals, as hosts said, what happens if somebody pick different goal than wellbeing for everybody? System that hosts propose can be used to justify Nazism, slavery and child molestation by picking different (arbitrary) subjective goals. But there is a way around it. The only relevant subjective view is victim's view. If I'm being nice to you or not, that's for you to judge. You have perfectly good reason for not wanting to be harmed. If I want to be moral, I have to respect your and other's personal wishes. So even your wishes are subjective, from my perspective they are objectively true and I have to respect them to be moral. Why is slavery wrong, even if 99% of country would think slavery is OK? Because slave thinks it's wrong. His opinion is only one that is relevant and not arbitrary.
Basically lol. They just added an extra step to sound like they had an answer. If the goal of morality is subjective then morality itself is subjective. I could just say the goal is chaos, death and misery. Which isn’t wrong I guess 🤷♂️
@@BobDingus-bh3pdthey literally said morality is subjective and you apply an objective standard to your subjective goal. If your subjective goal is peace then there is an objective standard you would need to accomplish it.
@@jere3632 there isn’t an objective standard for accomplishing “peace.” Because my peace could be another man’s chaos. I get what Alex is saying…and he’s wrong. If my moral goal is subjective then there is no way to objectively accomplish it. You can’t objectively do something that’s subjective.
@@BobDingus-bh3pd since it is not the same peace then it is not the same goal. A specific goal has a specific standard. Going with their analogy, if you both say "i want to win" but for you winning is other person's losing. It means even though it might sound like the same goal but you both have different practical goals. So there is no objective way of both the person winning the game. But you, your coach, your seconds and "fans" everyone has the same goal, to make you win. Now there is an objective standard of winning the game.
Having a hard time understanding Matt’s chess analogy. Is he saying that there are analytic tools that are objective to understand the rules? Or that the analytic tools are objective with respect to the subjective nature of the rules of chess? The analogy went over my head a little bit
The latter - if you and I both agree on what the rules are, and agree on the goal of winning, then we can objectively say that one move is better than another move, regardless of what people's opinions of those moves are.
@Amrit Lohia So the analytic tools change, making them subjective to some degree? If I’m understanding Matt’s analogy correctly, morality changes, but the tools by which to judge morality are objective which we could agree on, but they are only objective given the current state of morality, with the change of morality, the rules of analysis change? It just seems to me like he’s not really escaping the problem he is faced with, if your going to say the rules of chess change, but the tools by which to change the rules don’t change, then the analytic tools are the objective standard, so how in that case would his answer be a refutation to the question of objective morality when the standard to judge morality is objective, the question being, where does that objective standard come from, and how can it be viewed as objective in the atheist worldview? It just seems confusing to me and that it doesn’t really answer the question in a satisfying way
@@andrewdavidson8167 The reason you're confused is a common one - Matt has a different definition of 'objective' to what you and many others use. Yes, the rules of chess can change over time, and similarly over time we could, in theory, change from having 'wellbeing' as our goal to having some different goal - though it seems difficult to suggest that any new goal wouldn't include wellbeing as a significant component. What doesn't change is the fact that we can make assessments objectively as to whether something leads towards or away from the chosen goal. So, for example, given the current rules of chess and a given position, there is a single objectively right answer as to whether a particular move is winning or losing. Of course, we might not necessarily know that answer, but we can work to try to get as close to it as possible, using computer analysis etc. Similarly, given an agreed-upon goal of wellbeing and a given action in a given situation, there is in principle a single objectively right answer as to whether that action would advance wellbeing or detracts from it. As with chess, we may not - and may never - be able to ascertain that answer with certainty, but we can try to approximate it by considering the consequences of the action as rigorously as possible. So, in summary, the thing that doesn't change over time and doesn't depend on people's opinions or cultural constructs is not "the tools by which to change the rules", but the the ability to make judgments as to whether something is consistent with the rules (including the goal) or not. Actually, the 'tools' by which we make those judgments could and should also change over time, as we get more and better information and ways of analysing it. It's like how, with chess, we went from humans attempting to analyse moves and positions to using computers which can think many more moves ahead than even the strongest grandmasters. But the task that the humans and the computers are performing is the same and hasn't changed - they are both working out the consequences of various moves to see whether they probably lead to wins or losses under the rules of chess. The fact that this task doesn't change, and that the results of it don't change arbitrarily or according to people's opinions but rather involves getting better and better approximations to a single true answer that exists out there somewhere, is what provides 'objectivity'. Finally, to return to where I started. You, like many people, seem to think that any element of arbitrary choice or opinion - such as the choice to use 'wellbeing' as our goal - necessarily makes something 'subjective' rather than 'objective'. That's a common definition of 'objective', but it's not the one that Matt is using. What you would probably refer to as 'objective morality' - something that is absolutely independent of any human choices, opinions, or preferences whatsoever - is what Matt would call 'absolute morality'. He thinks, and I agree with him on this, that absolute morality simply doesn't exist at all - not even under a theistic worldview. That's because, just as choosing 'wellbeing' as our goal can be considered subjective, choosing 'obeying a god's commands' (or 'avoiding eternal punishment') as our goal is equally subjective. Just as someone could ask 'why, objectively, should we care about wellbeing?', we could, and should, equally ask 'why, objectively, should we care about any god's opinions on morality?' Indeed, it seems to me that the problem is even worse than that: even if we were to agree on 'obeying a god's commands' as the goal, we still (unlike with secular morality) couldn't even make objective judgments as to whether something is consistent with that goal or not, because we can't really know what any god has actually commanded or said at any time. All we have are various people claiming to know what their god has said or opined, and yet those claims frequently disagree with and contradict each other. All this illustrates that, as Matt often points out, there is no problem with secular morality that could be solved by adopting theistic morality. All the problems with secular morality, including the underlying subjectivity you're concerned about, are also problems, and even bigger problems, with theistic morality. Lastly, I appreciate this is a long answer, and I'm by no means an expert on this or any other philosophical topic, but I very much hope it helps.
@@amritlohia8240 So given everything you've said, and I do appreciate the detailed answer which is helpful to understand the position better, but given what you've said, the reality is at the end of the day, these "objective tools" are by nature subjective. If they change, then they are only objective at a paticular point in history. I think your explanation was really good in describing Matt's position, but it seems to me that it doesn't escape the charge, but simply defines words differently and adds caviats in order to justify his position, making our current understanding of ethics merely subjective. I don't think atheists can agree on a defintion of well being since that's something athiests like Neitzche would disagree with Matt on. I guess would you be able to tell me what the commonly agreed understanding of well being is?
So morality can't be objective, but our subjectivity can create objectivity? Sounds absurd. It might be more intellectually honest to just agree that morality is objective, since that seems to be your end result anyway.
If moral system derives from subjective goals, as hosts said, what happens if somebody pick different goal than wellbeing for everybody? System that hosts propose can be used to justify Nazism, slavery and child molestation by picking different (arbitrary) subjective goals. But there is a way around it. The only relevant subjective view is victim's view. If I'm being nice to you or not, that's for you to judge. You have perfectly good reason for not wanting to be harmed. If I want to be moral, I have to respect your and other's personal wishes. So even your wishes are subjective, from my perspective they are objectively true and I have to respect them to be moral. Why is slavery wrong, even if 99% of country would think slavery is OK? Because slave thinks it's wrong. His opinion is only one that is relevant and not arbitrary.
@@ronaldp.vincent8226 I didn't say subjectivity creates objectivity. I only had 2 points - other people and their wellbeing are objective facts, they exist, and if morality is not about respecting other's wellbeing, then morality has no meaning.
gilman6789 how are they describing utilitarianism? The main idea was encompassing objective principles through subjective reasoning. As Matt illustrated, the rules of chess are objective, but the meta ethical perspective breaks it down to the subjective ideas that questions the rules itself. Utilitarianism is illustrated in favour of the greatest number and in most cases inclusive of the doctrine of double effect. If I was to address utilitarianism here I could guess that once everyone agrees on a single goal, it will be easier to work with the goal’s objective construct, but this is not their argument afaik.
@@Godlimate In the video, they said thst the only way to find the reasoning for objective principkes is through the well being of the individual. The basis for utilitarianism is to increase the well.being of said individual.
gilman6789 I think that means objective principles are reasonable, so long as they benefit society. But utilitarianism doesn’t entirely endorse this because it is associated with consequentialism. Unless... objective morals aim to marginalise subjective morals. It’s like “a brave new world” if you’ve ever read it. However, I’m pretty sure that the hosts weren’t trying to marginalise subjective morals, it’s more like include objective morals wherever you can if it benefits us.
@@Godlimate thank yoy for responding. I am the best at moral philosophy, but my point is that yes, utilitariinisn is consequetionalist, however it bases its morality on the well being of individyals via happiness. I am not sure what they mean by subjective goals to objective morals because it seems that they suggest all of these subjective goals are gearing towards human well being as rationality rules said. Again, yes the readon may be subjective but its objective standard is to maximize the well being of the individual or individuals as said in the video. This is the standard for utilitarianism.
@@Godlimate If moral system derives from subjective goals, as hosts said, what happens if somebody pick different goal than wellbeing for everybody? System that hosts propose can be used to justify Nazism, slavery and child molestation by picking different subjective goals.
This is so fucking confusing. I'm an atheist but I have trouble giving a good explanation against theists objective morality stance coming from God as the source. Can someone clarify.
If there were only five human left in the world and they all subjectively think slavery is OK (because they subjectively don't share goal of wellbeing), would slavery be OK then?
@@BamBoJam OK, just making sure. So there is nothing wrong with slavery in Bible, since they thought it was OK? (Yes, it's the third time I ask the same question, sorry, just making sure.)
what if well being is achieved only by killing somone ?like killing some bandits they killing ,so killing bandits would save more people before they are killed?
If you believe in God, it depends on what he says. If you dont, kill anyone you want lmaooo it's not like you'll be accountable for anything after this. Good can only exist with God, without him only power exist, if you can do it its good.
If I think it would be wrong for something to happen to me, then it is wrong for me to do it to someone else. That is the simplest way of thinking about morality.
I wish more people think that way.. alot of people think they're better then other people.. so that doesn't apply to them.. it's frustrating people are like that but it is what it is..
It is how I figured out my moral code. No God needed to know what I find out what I figure is ok to do to me. I don't need a badly translated book, or an imaginary controlling to figure it out. Yes, I read the bible, that is why I am an atheist now.
Ken Christiansen Exactly. I’ve written in a few threads about the 10 commandments that my outlook is easier, “Don’t say or do dumb shit that can hurt oneself or others.”
@@Godlimate no. That is the idea of revenge. That is more of a punishment thing, not a moral code. My idea is a personal directive. It tells me how to act towards you.
Usually I consider *Morality* to be *Subjective* The laws we make, based on our *subjective morality* form an *objective moral code* Eventhough, this objective moral code is dynamic. We can change the rules in the lawbook, but aslong as the rules are valid (like the rules of chess) they are objective
@The Black Dawn/Ajjqi Suffering and pleasure are objectively verifiable, yes. But that doesnt mean that when someone performs an act, that makes another person suffer, that this act is immoral. When one man, willingly punches another person in the face, you could think that this is immoral. But when this is done within the context of a boxing match, then suddenly this same act is not immoral. Why not? Because there's a different motive to it. This motive has been decided upon, cognitively, based on our emotions. Based on what we "feel is fair" Since that is the deciding factor, morality can only be subjective.
@@goranmilic442 Nothing IS ok. Then slavery would BE CONSIDERED TO BE ok. Nothing is inherently good or bad, we only perceive something as good or bad, in a moral sense. Obviously somethings are objectively good or bad in regards to functionality. But that doesnt mean its immoral per definition.
Q: What's objective morality? A: Something is moral or immoral regardless of whether I think it's moral or immoral. Q: Are you thinking of it now? A: Yes. checkmate
If moral system derives from subjective goals, as hosts said, what happens if somebody pick different goal than wellbeing for everybody? System that hosts propose can be used to justify Nazism, slavery and child molestation by picking different subjective goals.
@@goranmilic442 Not a problem. Others can pick a different goal than ours and if that goal is in conflict with our moral goal we lock them up or fight them in the battle, subdue them and gradually transform their values through education. Religion doesn't help solving this problem. If you think there's a god who promulgates moral laws there are still people who disagree and you need to deal with them in the same way.
@@waxberry4 Who mentioned God? I didn't. Sure, we can fight those with different goals, but we are not different from them. Fight doesn't make you right. You mentioned education. How would you educate them, what argument would you present them, if goals you picked are just as subjective as their are?
@@goranmilic442 "we are not different from them" True in the sense that we are all pursuing our goals. Humans want to survive, so do germs. In this sense humans are not different from germs. We kill germs to save humans because of who we are, not because we are objectively superior to germs. "how to educate them" We need to first understand why our values are different from theirs. Humans share certain natures. Sometimes people behave selfishly because their empathy is not properly discovered. Moral education is not primarily about logical reasoning but about emotional care and influence. Most people's behavior patterns are subject to change under conditioning. So far there is no better alternative to transform people's moral views. If your argument is that something is moral because a god said so, how convincing do you think it's to those who disagree?
@@waxberry4 Those are not satisfying answers. Brain conditioning is basically a crime. Appeal to human emotions is logical fallacy. Majority of people sharing same views about morality is another fallacy, argumentum ad populum. So you don't have any logical base for your moral system, you just have confidence that you're right and willingness to use brute force to share your views. You have no argument to give to those who pick different moral system than you. What argument would you present in a society that supports slavery? Again, this is not about god.
The chess analogy is very useful in explicating the third person objective measures to achieving a goal, but a moral relativist would just say that the goals established are entirely subjective and so the objective moralities derived from them are not truly universal. And so, a society that agrees that blinding every second child is good (let's say for superstitious reasons) is achieving their goal in an objectively reasoned way. But I feel like morality can be more easily intuited as being objective in the sense that it is universal and that there must simply be a right and wrong in moral conduct with reference to the usual methods of reason. David Hume raised the point that humans are constantly interacting with a vast array of experiences that necessitate moral considerations, and so our morality must be an objective feature of our living. Noam Chomsky raises this point in the context of linguistics, that is to say that we have an internal generative capacity that is universal. No matter where a child is born they simply must have a pre-existing mechanism that enables language, regardless of what the cultural heritage of those languages are. In this sense, we all have an innate capacity to learn an infinite number of languages. The same is true of morality. In order for us to respond to a vast array of different moral scenarios, we must have a pre-existing moral capacity that renders actions in these scenarios possible. And in order to deduce right and wrong actions, we don't need to rely on the assumption of human wellbeing (although it is a useful approximation). Consider the following comparison: mathematics is another solid example of an innate capacity of ours. We don't need to deeply reflect why 2+2 is 4 nor does such a proposition rest on any other claim or assumption. Yet, if we were to stumble across the society mentioned above and we also learned that in addition to blinding every second child, they also taught their students that 2+2 is 5, we would be able to make the solid claim that they are objectively wrong. But how so? Why is it that we can so readily point out that someone is wrong in their mathematical reasoning but not wrong in their moral reasoning? Do we need deeply introspective reasoning to explain that murder, promise breaking and lying is wrong or can we just accept that these are universal features. Morality is objective in the same way that math and linguistics is objective. However, that's not to say that therefore every culture should have developed the same morality. Every inborn capacity (eye colour, vision, height) is capable of environmental influence. Someone may argue: well just because these are built-in features, who said we have to do math OR speak a language OR make moral considerations. My response is that this is impossible: these are features that are necessary and inevitable. One can live their entire life not studying math, but still employs it's reasoning in everyday life: intuitively grasping relations of quantity: size of objects, solidity, dimensions, volume and so forth. The same is true of morality, you don't have to read Kant, Bentham or Mill or even come across the words duty, consequence and obligation in order to employ these features.
If moral system derives from subjective goals, as hosts said, what happens if somebody pick different goal than wellbeing for everybody? System that hosts propose can be used to justify Nazism, slavery and child molestation by picking different (arbitrary) subjective goals. But there is a way around it. The only relevant subjective view is victim's view. If I'm being nice to you or not, that's for you to judge. You have perfectly good reason for not wanting to be harmed. If I want to be moral, I have to respect your and other's personal wishes. So even your wishes are subjective, from my perspective they are objectively true and I have to respect them to be moral. Why is slavery wrong, even if 99% of country would think slavery is OK? Because slave thinks it's wrong. His opinion is only one that is relevant and not arbitrary.
@@goranmilic442 All goals we pick are subjective but in order to agree upon a goal there has to be an underlying rationalisation for it. In the context of Nazism and slavery, it is easy to see why they are flawed concepts: both ideas seek to exclude a group of people from freedom and fair treatment based on refutable evidence. There is no logical reason to treat someone differently based on their predetermined characteristics (race) or social origin.
@@rayhan3654 Is there a logical reason to treat all people equally? More importantly, if there is a logical reason, wouldn't that make your entire system completely objective (moral rules objectively derived from goals which are based on logic, which is objective)?
I've come to my own conclusion that morality is neither subjective nor objective, but psychological: I'll begin my explanation with rape and murder because the christians like to argue those two criminal acts. Rape, by definition is forced sex, which means the women (usually) don't want sex, which makes the guy immoral to rape them; There are people want to die (suicidal), but most people want to live, which would mean killing them is immoral. Of course, the desire for suicide usually indicates depression, which is a mental illness. Such people need help; If they still want to die, that's their decision. It's all about what people want and don't want, and other people acting upon them against their will.
@nengjun If moral system derives from subjective goals, as hosts said, what happens if somebody pick different goal than wellbeing for everybody? System that hosts propose can be used to justify Nazism, slavery and child molestation by picking different (arbitrary) subjective goals. But there is a way around it. The only relevant subjective view is victim's view. If I'm being nice to you or not, that's for you to judge. You have perfectly good reason for not wanting to be harmed. If I want to be moral, I have to respect your and other's personal wishes. So even your wishes are subjective, from my perspective they are objectively true and I have to respect them to be moral. Why is slavery wrong, even if 99% of country would think slavery is OK? Because slave thinks it's wrong. His opinion is only one that is relevant and not arbitrary.
@@theunholinesswithin70 If moral system derives from subjective goals, as hosts said, what happens if somebody pick different goal than wellbeing for everybody? System that hosts propose can be used to justify Nazism, slavery and child molestation by picking different (arbitrary) subjective goals. But there is a way around it, similar to what you said. The only relevant subjective view is victim's view. If I'm being nice to you or not, that's for you to judge. You have perfectly good reason for not wanting to be harmed. If I want to be moral, I have to respect your and other's personal wishes. So even your wishes are subjective, from my perspective they are objectively true and I have to respect them to be moral. Why is slavery wrong, even if 99% of country would think slavery is OK? Because slave thinks it's wrong. His opinion is only one that is relevant and not arbitrary.
Another interesting analogy would be that it's like various inventions such as chairs or doors. There are numerous ways to design chairs, doors, or anything else, using different shapes, sizes, colors, materials, etc. The invention was designed (by us, of course) to serve a purpose that can be objectively agreed upon, but simultaneously, these inventions are not innately existing entities that form through natural processes (at least not exactly like the schemas we've developed), but are merely synthetic arrangements of various materials to form a certain structure we've conceptualized; with that being said, they didn't already exist before us. There is also a distinction between our psychological/neurochemical sense of morality that we've developed through natural selection and the moral systems we form around that subjective sense.
So much worthless banter by fools who reject the living God. "Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" (1 Cor 1:20).
@@vishwamdhruva8537, the evidence for the existence of God is seen in the creation around, in the moral soul within you, and His written word in front of you. Repent of your sins and get your heart right with him today. You have no excuse not to believe. "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent" (Acts 17:30).
@@blaziustheblaze9935 That's not an evidence. That doesn't prove god exists. Also, even if it did, how can you say it's the Christian God? Why can't it be Zeus?
@@vishwamdhruva8537, because Zeus fails the test for the preconditions of intelligibility, just as does every other god in this world. But seriously? This is what you ask me? You can't come up with anything original, but instead parrot the typical atheist script?
@@blaziustheblaze9935 Oh so you're telling me that I can't come up with anything original? You're the one who's using the overused teleological argument to prove god's existence which has been refuted many times. The evidence you presented wasn't even an evidence. "Oh look around, we can't explain how these things are here. Therefore it must be god. More precisely the god which I believe in!"
Any definition of morality presumes the acceptance of innate rights. The claim of ultimate benefits may be used to justify an immediate harm. E.g. military action, medical intervention. When someone's rights are violated in pursuit of an ulterior goal, the judgment which drives the action is imperfect and subjective. In practice, the claim of objective morality is just propaganda to justify a preference.
If moral system derives from subjective goals, as hosts said, what happens if somebody pick different goal than wellbeing for everybody? System that hosts propose can be used to justify Nazism, slavery and child molestation by picking different (arbitrary) subjective goals. But there is a way around it. The only relevant subjective view is victim's view. If I'm being nice to you or not, that's for you to judge. You have perfectly good reason for not wanting to be harmed. If I want to be moral, I have to respect your and other's personal wishes. So even your wishes are subjective, from my perspective they are objectively true and I have to respect them to be moral. Why is slavery wrong, even if 99% of country would think slavery is OK? Because slave thinks it's wrong. His opinion is only one that is relevant and not arbitrary.
lol at 1:55 ... oh ok ... so its ok to murder... but its subjective if you do it for pleasure. Humans seem to have a different morality than the rest of the Animals and other living things on earth. Where do we get that standard from? If you don't go with some of the Morals learned from God.... then you will have to redefine your own version of what " Good " is for each person. Some people might think murder is Good ... some might think it is bad... if we are going to redefine our own standard of morality independently without any reference or standard....then there would be no clear standard of morality.
I suggest you watch this again. You seem to not understand how evolution works. Each social species has its own morality, and depending on the species can share a lot with ours. You seem to be hung up on standards, why does there need to be specific standards? Why is any of this a problem for you? A god that gives us a set of rules isn't morality. That's just programming us to not do bad things. Which hasn't been working out for him. Not saying he needs to be fired from his job but maybe...
@@veggie88 Well where do the standards come from? ... Lions rape , and kill the old lions cubs ...and thats normal.... cats rape to reproduce.... evolution seems to only care about reproduction at any cost.... Why do humans feel the need to transcend this natural order ? .... God said thou shall not kill, steal, or covet thy neighbors property.... Who else before then gave such a standard? ... we know these things are bad.... but why do we think they are bad? If there is no God ... where do you get your moral standards from?
@@Phil360 God says in the Bible we could own slaves and sell our daughters to strangers who could then forcefully have sex with them. He also says to kill witches, which don't actually exist, and as a result the church murdered a bunch of innocent men and women out of pure paranoia. Where is this God getting his standards? Because some of his standards seem kind of evil and stupid. The answer is that our standards come from empathy and compassion. It doesn't take a God or a PhD. to look at another living creature in pain and understand that pain hurts, and living things don't want to feel it any more than necessary. If you have to ask, 'why should I care about empathy and compassion', that's like asking, 'why should I eat healthy food instead of poison'. You can believe poison is healthy to eat. You can eat poison if you really want to. But the rest of us who enjoy life aren't going to eat poison with you, and if you try to feed poison to someone else, we'll all try to stop you. Evil doesn't take a supernatural force to explain. Humans evolved out of a vicious, competitive world. We've only recently developed intelligence and rationality. It makes perfect sense to me that some percentage of human beings enjoys hurting other people, or doesn't care about anyone but themselves. That's exactly what I would expect from a species of semi-intelligent apes, which is what we apparently are. To counter it, we teach, educate, help, and when necessary, fight. We have learned how to be better than 'mere' animals. We're not perfect, and we haven't figured it all out. But we're getting better, and learning all the time.
I would say there is no way a atheist can claim moral objectivity. It’s subjective if there is no God. It’s very simple. Example human flourishing does not = good. It can be good to John but not to billy. This is where I would say I have never seen a atheist win a debate with a “God” apologist. The best route for a atheist is to go with subjective morality.
@@thakraken6995 not necessarily true. Example if there is a God and we give God credit for the one who determines morality it’s logically sound. Now if there is no God one can’t can’t a objective claim.
@@chrisarmon1002 false. If there's a God it would not automatically follow that his moral imperatives and commands are objective. How are God's moral imperatives objective?
@@chrisarmon1002 if someone's morality is subjective that means that their morality is dependent on their opinions and feelings. If we appealed to a gas morality we would be appealing to his opinions and his feelings on morality. It would not matter whether it came from a God or someone else it is still subjective. Just because a god makes those imperatives does not mean they are objective, you will have to do a little bit better than " its objective because God says so"
You guys are way out there, just explain your thoughts in simple English, and don't make the mistake that everyone is playing chess, even if your referring to each persons thoughts or actions, Plain English for those of us who are not MENSA graduates.
@wvn nfh Not everyone sees belief, or non belief in those terms, and not everyone is trying to force others to believe what they believe. I like others am interested in what people think about religion, but have no interest in trying to position myself to make others believe , or not to believe in God. As I get older, it is harder for me to believe the scriptures that are found in the Bible, My curiosity causes me to see what other people think, but I am truly seeking the truth. Matt and his guests are very educated people, and sometimes it seems like everyone is trying to out verbalize the other with terms, and subjects, that some of us find hard to follow. All im saying is keep it simple.
@wvn nfh My comments were not to give anyone a hard time, only to let them know if they are reading comments, that not all of us have PHDs, and its hard sometimes to follow the train of thought when everyone is flexing their brains. I don't consider myself uneducated, but when they start talking about physics, and theories, I sometimes get lost in what they are trying to say. I realize that I am not the sharpest tac in the box, but Im sure their are others that get lost as well. Thank you for your reply Stephen.
@Richard Ball No need to be sarcastic, I was just saying that not everyone is following the conversation when one person is trying to out IQ the other, and I have watched it happen several times, and that is why I say keep it as simple as possible.
To be an atheist you have to not believe in God or any type of higher being but doesn't that mean you do believe in a higher being cuz to not believe in something you have to have something to not believe in
Christian Ramos atheism is the rejection of the god claim. So if you are not convinced by the proposed “evidence” that the gods of other religions are real then you’re basically an atheist to the claims made by the people worshipping those gods. The term atheist though is most commonly associated with people who are not convinced of any god claims. If I tell you that I am a level 9 leader of the United council of aliens and all I have is a picture of me with aliens and you say “nah I don’t believe you, that picture could’ve been photoshopped. I need better evidence then that.” Then it would be nonsensical to say that for you not to believe then you must have something not to believe. So the most logical stance is to not take any sides and wait for me to bring you evidence that you would find believable, then only can you say, “ okay, the evidence you provided gives me the confidence to say that I believe your claim.” And essentially, Atheists are people that are just waiting for the people claiming that a god/gods are real to give them sufficient evidence for them to be confident enough to believe the claim.
I love the fact that despite all their "intellectual" distinctions and esoteric application of vocabulary, every single point they make could be instantly and irrefutably revoked and overturned by a 5 year old simply asking "So what?"
@@goranmilic442 Every point they try to make can be undone by asking "so what"? Because if you keep asking them that you will find that they can never get to the bottom of any of their claims to justify them, at least not without borrowing from theistic philosophy that would contradict their stated opening position. None of their claims are based on logical grounds all the way down to the core without clinging to an infinite regress.
@@snowflakeeel I understand what you mean, but since they are basing everything on subjective goals, at one point they can respond to your question with "because we want it like that". I think they use wellbeing as ultimate bottom, being is better than non-being, and that would be it. No further regress.
@@goranmilic442 and if they respond with "because we want it like that" they have no argument against the militant jihadist who wants to kill every non muslim on the planet, "because they want it like that." Also there are many who believe all humanity should be eradicated and prefer non being to well being. And there is a myriad of differing beliefs as to what constitutes well-being. So you can end the infinite regress by switching lanes over to absurdity, in effect claiming, because I said so, the argumentation of toddlers. But you cant do that while also claiming to have a rational and defensible worldview.
@@snowflakeeel I agree, good point. If bottom reason for moral system is some subjective goal, then anybody who doesn't share that goal can set his own moral system. It would mean that you and me are moral for not blowing people up, while jihadists are moral for doing that. I agree, it's absurd. I should point out that I'm an atheist, but I do believe that objective morality exists.
This is the 'problem' I have with Matt, and his views on morality. He is always striving for something objective to base them on. The chess example he gave is a perfect one to reiterate it. When asked what is the goal of a chess game, Matt will simply say: "To win the game, and we can objectively detriment which moves are the winning one". However, chess is a game, thus isn't the point of it to enjoy the game, rather than win? Which one is more important to you.
_Sky_ but that’s why he said objective evaluations are made “once we have the goal” which implies that the goal is the subjective means that determines how objective rules are applied. Chess can be fun, which may render the rules to having “no rules”. Chess can be competitive, which rules are imperative. And by cosmic skeptic, the precepts of meta ethics regulates subjective thought which determines the composition of rules applied in this instance
@@Godlimate But that just shows you how morality is subjective, and relative. Something all of them seem to be running away like it's a pedophile Catholic priest.
_Sky_ it is, yes you are right. No one is running away from it, we simply create objective morals to regulate law and order from a subjective view. Just to explain what I mean by objective morals, it means murder is wrong for example. The law enforces absolutes, but people still murder because it’s ultimately subjective in practice.
@@Godlimate I just do not see how is the murder objectively wrong. Math is objective, morality isn't. You can't create 'objective morals' using subjective opinions and preferences. And that seems to be a thing they are doing here.
@joonlar jj Exactly... so how then morality isn't relative or subjective. He still went on painting it as if it had some "sub-set" of objectivity, which it doesn't.
In the end, you have no humility. This will lead to violence. It's just the way it is. The ancients knew this. See, when you don't have a single archetype above all others, eventually it will lead to separation, to critique, to passive oppression, to active oppression, then violence. But you will never comprehend this, because all you have to say is "I don't need that book to be a good person" and that is the exact reason you need it. Because you are not humble, you think you know more than 1000s of men, 39 authors, 66-88 books, all the wisdom of the ancients. But you are better. That's so pathetic, there is no word to describe.
You don't see it. You see how you chastise Christianity? How do you know i'm even Christian, I could be buddistm muslim, or Methodist, or catholic, so why would you mention this irrelevant piece of information unless you have some preconceived notion and agenda already? Anyway, you're supposed to be showing me how you display humility or where you got this idea to be humble in the first place?
It takes a HUGE AMOUNT OF ARROGANCE to think you are wiser and smarter than all the great ancient minds. That's all they did was think, you just think because it was ancient times the philosophers and writers of the day were stupid, but far far from it. They were far smarter than I could ever be and if im smarter than you, whats that say about you?
What supernatural claim is even eligible for archeological evidence? What would be the archeological evidence from healing the blind? And there is evidence of the resurrection in the shroud. Also, archeological sites like sodom are 94% brimestone with sulphur deposits all over the sites. Educate youself.
These guys need to listen to William Lane Craig or something; he makes it far easier to understand what is meant (in academia) by "objective morality". Simply put, it is the view that What's moral/immoral is moral/immoral regardless of opinion. In the same way the Earth is round and would be round even if everyone agreed it was flat, x is morally wrong and would be wrong even if everyone agreed it was right.
@wvn nfh That's precisely the misunderstanding. To say "I believe in objective morality" is to say that there is a *fact* of the matter, regarding what should/shouldn't happen. It's not about finding objectively effective/ineffective ways of bringing about what is good. It's about whether or not such a thing as good really exists in the first place.
@wvn nfh "Good doesn't exist as an absolute. " Okay now, are you denying it as I've defined it, or as "moral absolutism" is defined? Because those are different things, with the latter defined as "the ethical belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, *and that certain actions are right or wrong, regardless of the context of the act."* I don't believe in the latter phrase, but I believe in the former based on my experience of morality (and the lack of any reason to doubt that experience). "The premise to build a morality is always a subjective understanding. " Well obviously if you're going to *build* a "morality" (that is, decide on particular values), that's subjective. But you don't have to if there's an objective morality you can instead discover. "Unless you accept an absolute morality from God, which presents its host of problems including presuppositionalism, which only delegates subjectivity to a being "higher"." If god *decided* on what was good/bad, you'd be right. But Craig (mentioned before) has refuted the Euthyphro by pointing out that it's a false dilemma. But that's another topic.
@wvn nfh "By absolute I mean ultimate rules that must be obeyed as they are, even if not understood. I don't think they exist or are necessary." Well they don't *have* to be obeyed, but I get your point. And I don't think it's relevant whether or not objective morality is *necessary,* I just think that we can trust our moral senses to the same degree that you trust your *physical* ones. "Are you saying that subjectivity is possible but you'd rather rely solely on an objective morality, independent of our current knowledge - that we need to figure out?" I wouldn't say what I'd *rather* do or believe in, just that I think we've good reason to believe in an objective moral realm. "I agree on the discovery, think also morality can evolve, but not that there is one true morality to understand. " Why not? Can't we at least sense that, say, torturing a child for fun is morally wrong? Can't we say that the holocaust was immoral, and it would've been even if the Germans had succeeded in killing off/brainwashing everyone who disagreed with it so that everyone thought it was *right?* "We could imagine a sadomasochist society being "virtuous" by inflicting pain, in their moral reference. " That's possible. But it's also possible that it's wrong even if people are OK with it. "That would be immoral to us, only because our values go in an opposite direction. " On the view that morality is subjective, yes. But on the view that it's objective, certain things really are wrong, with some people being incorrect while the others are correct in their assessment of them. ME: "But Craig (mentioned before) has refuted the Euthyphro by pointing out that it's a false dilemma. But that's another topic." YOU: "I'd need to check him on that, but that may be indicative of your views." Sure thing, but the summary of it is simply that "God decides what is moral" and "God looks to something outside of himself to find out what's moral" aren't the only two options. God could instead *be* what Plato called "the good", and his commands would just be expressions of his nature. As for my views, I'm an atheist, but not an anti-theist and so I don't have much stake in these arguments either way. But I do find them interesting.
@@Vic2point0 Craig never refutes the Euthyphro, all he does is kick the can down the road and add an extra step and then does some hand waiving to try to get rid of the problem. Also, I see your obsession with Craig hasn't waned at all since our previous discussions.
@wvn nfh "but what about people sensing something different? " One could ask the same about people who are blind, or deaf, etc. All of these senses are fallible, but that doesn't mean what they perceive (at least from time to time) isn't real. "We can list all the nefarious effects of torturing a child, but why don't we want these things?" Because we can sense that they're wrong, would be my answer. ME: "Can't we say that the holocaust was immoral, and it would've been even if the Germans had succeeded in killing off/brainwashing everyone who disagreed with it so that everyone thought it was right?" YOU: "We can, only because not everyone was killed or brainwashed to want that instead." I get that it would be impossible for us to know/believe the holocaust was wrong if we were brainwashed into thinking otherwise. But the point is that I think it would still be wrong even if we all agreed it was right. Same with anything else that is objectively true (e.g., we once agreed unanimously that the Earth was flat). "Again, here, nothing compels an isolated sadomasochist group to stop their actions, as long as they survive and consider they "thrive" doing what they do." I would say these people are simply impaired when it comes to their moral sense. Again, not unlike someone who is blind. "In the end I now doubt how your view differentiates absolute and objectivity. With the notion of one set of rules objectively "better" than all others, how is it not absolute?" It can be called "absolute" in that way, sure. But I asked what you meant by that because 'moral absolutism' also means that x is wrong no matter the context. You can believe that there is an objective fact about morality without believing context is irrelevant.
God sent his son to die. In the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus begged God to let him off the hook. But God insisted that he carries on with his mission. Even on the cross, Jesus still hoped that God would let him off, but God didn't budge. "My God, my God, why hast thou let me down again ? "
S Gloobal No, you can’t show archeological evidence for the Bible, it doesn’t exist. You’ve been told this by multiple people in multiple threads multiple times, then you claim you’ve linked your ‘evidence’ (yet you actually don’t) then claim YT deletes your accounts for reasons. As far as thinking I’m angry at God, or I just deny or ignore his existence or whatever else you’ll pull outta your ass, you can think whatever you like because I don’t have to explain myself to you.
David Ownage You have so much hate in your heart. I feel sorry for you. I suggest speaking to a mental health professional or a therapist. Good luck to you kid.
So great, I'm converted to Atheism. Now I can fornicate, blaspheme GOD'S name, worship my lexus, love the dodgers more than anything, lust in my mind until my hearts content, lust and covet my neighbor wife and be envious of all that my neighbor has, with impunity!!!!! Thanks guys, thanks Matt!😁🙂😃🎉🎊
@Count Vulgar Is that what you're excuse is going to be when you're face GOD ALMIGHTY with all your sins? It's not going to work brother! Turn from your sins and trust in JESUS's work on the cross, it's the only way you'll be safe from GOD's righteous judgement against all ungodlyness. Do it today, brother, before death ushers you into eternity.
@Count Vulgar Check your conscience brother! It's an indication there's moral accountability! Or is it so seared that you no longer feel compunction for your lying, thiefing, lusting, fornicating, blaspheming, adultery in in your heart, murder in your heart, and your envious repacious greed of your heart! If you've experience any of these self evident sins with-in your mind and heart, then your're in big trouble on judgement day! Like I said, "check you conscience" and see if any of these thing are true! If so, your 're in need of a savior, big time brother! Repent now (turn from your sin) a cry out for GOD's mercy and trust completely in, and put on the LORD JESUS CHRIST and you will be saved from the righteous wrath to come!
@@blueunstopple4289 Creation is proof for the creator. your conscience is proof that he demands morality. The list of sins I listed are all sins against the Almighty God you know deep down exists!
I got a Christian ad on this telling me to give my life. Are they targeting atheist videos lol can that be done.
Me too, for Reformation Bible College. Whatever, they're just giving AXP ad revenue.
@J w sir, this is a Wendy's🍔
I get them all the time, thousands of them in total. I think they either target atheists on these ads or yt platform presents religious ads under videos tagged as religious or about religion.
You help where there's need for it 🤷♂️
Can we all just appreciate how much healthier and better Matt is looking lately?
@S Gloobal Says the guy who can't show proof of his gods existence.
@S Gloobal "Common sense" is a damn poor way of deciding any issue. And explaining the origin of life is really nothing to do with atheism one way or another.
This is exactly the kind of thread I was hoping for when I wrote my original comment.
@@everdash to answer your question yes I appreciate it.
Guy has zero muscle definition and the frame of a 12 yr old girl
Sound and clear explanation with great examples... this is a solid group. Thank you.
Now we can fornicate, blaspheme GOD'S name, worship my lexus, love the dodgers more than anything, lust in my mind until my hearts content, lust and covet my neighbor wife and be envious of all that my neighbor has, with impunity!!!!! Thanks guys, thanks Matt!😁🙂😃🎉🎊
@fludaa you have blocked out you feeling in regards to those activities so you can have your "wellbeing". You have seared your GOD given conscience, not to feel guilt over these things. to have true wellbeing is not to repress the truth of your guilt, but to make peace with your creator. To be forgiven and healed by GOD! Yield your will, surrender your rebellion against GOD and HE will cleanse you of your guilt and shame from commiting these offences. He will also heal your pain, anguish, and anger and blame you hold against HIM for all the injustice evil perpetrated against you and others in this world.
And as if this wasn't enough, HE will accredit Jesus's righteousness into your account, on your behalf and present you flawless to the FATHER and grant you everlasting life and peace which surpasses all understanding.
@@MegaAce54 How does being relieved of guilt by a 3rd party relieve you of responsibility for your actions? God heals you? Which god are you referring to, and I mean that seriously and what does he heal you of? What offences are you referring to? And what blame is being attributed to HIM are you referring to? Can you back up any of the claims you just made?
@@MegaAce54 Kevin, how do any of those things you just mentioned harm anyone else? Not only do I not care if you fornicate, I don't care who you do it with as long as it's another consenting adult. Don't care if you blaspheme or against which imaginary god, worship your Lexus (no idea why), love the Dodgers (ditto), lust in your mind, covet your neighbors wife or even mine (I'll be the first to admit she's very attractive), or be envious of stuff your neighbor has. Yep, don't care a whit. It all sounds like a waste of time but if that's how you wish to spend your day, lust and envy on, my man. It sounds like you feel a bit guilty about it, though, so if it makes you feel bad, then change your own behavior. Up to you.
I suppose you don't feel guilty over the aforementioned transgressions. I'm afraid you Repress the truth for so long that you may have completely seared your conscience.
Our transgressions aren't only horizontal (Against our fellow man) They're vertical (Against Almighty God). And since you have no reverence for God, These transgressions mean nothing to you. I hope one day you'll see that you're not only responsible to your fellow man, but you're also but you're also responsible and accountable to God! take care brother.
I love that Pureflix is running advertisements, and effectively helping produce The Atheist Experience.
We can make objective judgements on morality after we create a subjective standard for morality.
Thats just subjective morality with more steps champ.
Yeah, the chess analogy makes no sense, chess is not the right way to play that game necessary, there is anti-chess, spell chess, etc. Ultimately beeing empathetic is better for everyone, but that's a subjective goal
Yah but the judgement are still objective based upon the subjective goal
@@raktimamchiforthe4thtime445 yeah but that makes them subjective standards of morality not objective.
If I say it's moral to kill newborn babies and immoral to allow them to live, then I could objectively make judgements on that subjective standard of morality. It doesn't make my standard of morality objective, it's still subjective.
In a universe where there is no God there cannot be an objective standy or morality.
We can make objective judgements on morality after we understand the objective standards of fairness.
edit: fairness can be a subjective goal, contrasting the goal of evil
@@Bullyproof297 defining fairness is also subjective and even if it wasn't, you're now defining morality as fairness which is in itself a subjective definition of morality. Why is fairness the standards for morality ? See the issue?
Correct! Morality has many subjective interpretations, however we CAN draw conclusions from objective standards such as wellbeing and fairness. Pleasure fits into fairness and unfairness as well.
So rape isn’t objectively evil then right?
@@alejandroayvar5305 it is. unless you define objectively as "we all agree"
@@Bullyproof297 no it is not. It is objectively harmful, yes. But evil no if there is no objective standard
@@alejandroayvar5305 if something being harmful is not evil to you then you must not value your own life. Granted that wellbeing needs to be sacrificed sometimes to have justice, but in what scenario is r*ping you justice?
@@Bullyproof297 here’s the difference between you and me. I believe in an objective standard, therefore I can justify why rape is objectively evil
Let’s say for the sake of argument that it’s 100% proven God isn’t real, then this means that no, there’s no such thing as objective good or evil, as since it’s based on the individual. This means that there is no such thing as good, evil, or justice unless it’s your subjective opinion
If someone raped your loved one, while u may find it evil, and others too, that doesn’t make the other person objectively evil, as in his eyes what he did was good
If your confused, let me give u an example
In our world, there are some ice cream flavors. If the majority liked chocolate for example and say that vanilla is objectively bad, are they wrong? Ofc they are, since it’s subjective
Meaning if there’s two societies that one says chocolate good, and vanilla bad, and the other society says vanilla good, chocolate bad, none of them are right or wrong, it just is
There is so such thing as the best, or worst ice cream flavor, it just is, no one is right or wrong
Unless there was a objective standard above us, where let’s say that chocolate is good no matter what, then it’s all subjective
Same goes with morality. If one society says rape bad, helping is good, vs another society that says rape good, helping bad, with no objective standard, none of them are right or wrong, it just is
Ok i don't know who these guests are, but i want more of them.
@deadend thanks so much.😀
Objective morality needs a Goal? Objective morality can have a Subjective underlying cause or reasoning??
What does that doublespeak even mean??
Objective morality exists independently of anything except Justice and Love. Not even reality needs to exist, in order for morality to exist.
You need objective moral standards, otherwise you have no sense of Scale. It be like trying to get the temperature using a system that doesn't acknowledge/care about degrees in Kelvin...
Sure, you can operate under it. But eventually you'll reach a point of failure...
For instance, under what circumstances could you prove that those being prosecuted at the Nuremberg trials, were immoral... Subjectively speaking.
Objective morality is needed to tell someone that did something that everyone else was doing, that they were wrong. They actually needed to come to this conclusion when they realized that at the Nuremberg trials. They couldn't find a way to make it work without, proving that objectively speaking, the Nazis were wrong.
Without any objective standards, thing's cannot be proven morally wrong, in disparate/disputed moral subjective moral systems/cultures/societies.
Wouldn't the crimes then be universally subjective (to an extent)? The world came together in a sense and agreed that the crimes were morally reprehensible. I don't see where objective comes in. The Nazi's im sure thought the crimes they were committing were objectively morally correct no? Who gets to decide what is objective morality?
@@1nzi If foundation of "wellbeing" is subjective, then Nazis did nothing wrong. Since every goal is subjective, they have every right to choose different foundation, "wellbeing for white people only". Either Matt's foundations are objectively better (therefore not subjective) or Nazis have equally good foundations as Matt. I choose option number 1 (objective morality exists and Matt is objectively better than Nazis).
@@goranmilic442 false argument because Nazi actions were not directed to universal wellbeing
@@tituslivius2084 Can you explain? If morality has subjective goals as foundation, why do Nazis (or anybody) need to have universal wellbeing as foundation? Can't they have selective wellbeing instead? If foundation is subjective, they can choose any foundation they want, can't they?
Objective standards are wellbeing and fairness/equality. We live in a natural selection predator-over-prey reality which actively goes against all of these standards. This is why even though morality is, has always been and will always be objective under these criteria, morality will never be truly enforced unless governed by an omni-benevolent god, which as I've said, is not the case :( ))
Rationality Rules!
OMG! Get your definitions CORRECT! These fracking labels - objective, subjective, relative - are what’s making me angry at atheists who define themselves with these labels.
Allowing murder is an objectionably bad move if the goal is human well being. But that's just pragmatism. It's right in that situation but doesn't tell you if it's objectively always the right thing.
I'm curious as to how the concept of rights fit into Matt and CS' consequentialist view of ethics. When Matt uses bodily integrity as an argument for abortion rights and the right to die, for example, he seems to be drifting from the consequentialist view and adopting one more similar to patient-centered deontology. I think both moral philosophies make sense of our moral intuitions, depending on the situation, but they also seem to contradict each other at times. Anyone know of a feasible hybrid of these philosophies?
@wvn nfh Utilitarianism and other branches of consequentialism based on well-being seem to imply that one can easily violate certain rights depending on the results. For example, Peter Singer has said that from a utilitarian perspective, in Judith Jarvis Thompson's violinist analogy, the woman is morally obligated to stay connected to the violinist, which I think is heinous. Then again, there might be scenarios where the net result of harm will be so great if we don't violate this person's bodily autonomy, that I would consider it permissible to do so; but I'm not sure.
Laurent Brodie sometimes the doctrine of double effect isn’t a big deal, but we make it so because it challenges us uncomfortably.
Peter singer also argued human rights extended to non-human animals, and the consequential ramifications ultimately giving up our desire for meat consumption. Now is that truly a violation of our rights? Or are people finding the best excuse they can to satisfy their insignificant desires?
The contradictions are only evaluated based on how we measure and value humanity in the case of abortion and euthanasia
My point is that our rights are exaggerated like we are somehow privileged on this earth when the concept of human rights is ultimately meaningless. But yes I do agree that there are contradictions with the structure of utilitarianism, but then again, what isn’t? All arguments of philosophy would not be philosophical if it couldn’t be argued.
Matt D has explained that he is not in favour of a crude consequentialism in which every action is assessed merely on its immediate consequences, but a more subtle version that considers the longer-term societal consequences of permitting or forbidding certain actions. Consider what would be the outcome if we all acted as if no one had any right to bodily integrity and you may get the idea.
@@amtlpaul Okay, thanks, that clears up some confusion for me.
How did he conclude the “well-being” is a universally subjective value? Many people actively make choices against their own well-being. That is a claim that would require evidence.
When you say against their own well-being, what exactly are you thinking of?
@@Jackiepapers Black Americans attending Christian churches. Did they forget that it was the Christian church that enslaved Africans?
Why would Black Americans attend a church that supported the enslavement of their ancestors? It goes against their well-being. They, by their participation, empower a system designed to oppress.
Usually (in my opinion) seft destructive behaviours are a just wrongs ways to feel better.
Suicidal would think ending his being will make him stop suffering, wich seems to be true, but it will also stop making him having any chance to feel good since its the end of feeling. The person that smoke bcs its makes him "less stressed", but depending on his consommation/ predisposition, maybe the net harm from having a cancer or the feeling that you are addict will be more harmfull than the "gain" of stressing less from smoking.
I really feel like alot of self destructive behaviours are drive by the feeling of compensing something you can suffer about, so its actually a way they found to "counter" the pain or reoriente it, but then we can argue that based on this same goal of feeling better, what is the best, or at least not the worts ways to do it.
So, isn't it fair to say that the desire to be healthy and well is an innate desire that humankind has evolved?
A terrific clip of clarity from terrific thinkers on the matter.
If moral system derives from subjective goals, as hosts said, what happens if somebody pick different goal than wellbeing for everybody? System that hosts propose can be used to justify Nazism, slavery and child molestation by picking different (arbitrary) subjective goals.
But there is a way around it. The only relevant subjective view is victim's view. If I'm being nice to you or not, that's for you to judge. You have perfectly good reason for not wanting to be harmed. If I want to be moral, I have to respect your and other's personal wishes. So even your wishes are subjective, from my perspective they are objectively true and I have to respect them to be moral.
Why is slavery wrong, even if 99% of country would think slavery is OK? Because slave thinks it's wrong. His opinion is only one that is relevant and not arbitrary.
@@goranmilic442 You nailed it! Why can't we get persons to comprehend this?
Power team right here !
Is your argument, “I subjectively believe well-being is objective, therefore it is?”
Basically lol. They just added an extra step to sound like they had an answer.
If the goal of morality is subjective then morality itself is subjective. I could just say the goal is chaos, death and misery. Which isn’t wrong I guess 🤷♂️
That’s why Alex made the distinction between meta ethics and practical ethics
@@BobDingus-bh3pdthey literally said morality is subjective and you apply an objective standard to your subjective goal. If your subjective goal is peace then there is an objective standard you would need to accomplish it.
@@jere3632 there isn’t an objective standard for accomplishing “peace.” Because my peace could be another man’s chaos. I get what Alex is saying…and he’s wrong.
If my moral goal is subjective then there is no way to objectively accomplish it. You can’t objectively do something that’s subjective.
@@BobDingus-bh3pd since it is not the same peace then it is not the same goal. A specific goal has a specific standard. Going with their analogy, if you both say "i want to win" but for you winning is other person's losing. It means even though it might sound like the same goal but you both have different practical goals. So there is no objective way of both the person winning the game. But you, your coach, your seconds and "fans" everyone has the same goal, to make you win. Now there is an objective standard of winning the game.
A pinky finger of any of these three hosts is more intelligent than the majority of the people who ever called into this show combined...
And that's discrimination in a nutshell
Having a hard time understanding Matt’s chess analogy. Is he saying that there are analytic tools that are objective to understand the rules? Or that the analytic tools are objective with respect to the subjective nature of the rules of chess? The analogy went over my head a little bit
The latter - if you and I both agree on what the rules are, and agree on the goal of winning, then we can objectively say that one move is better than another move, regardless of what people's opinions of those moves are.
@Amrit Lohia
So the analytic tools change, making them subjective to some degree? If I’m understanding Matt’s analogy correctly, morality changes, but the tools by which to judge morality are objective which we could agree on, but they are only objective given the current state of morality, with the change of morality, the rules of analysis change? It just seems to me like he’s not really escaping the problem he is faced with, if your going to say the rules of chess change, but the tools by which to change the rules don’t change, then the analytic tools are the objective standard, so how in that case would his answer be a refutation to the question of objective morality when the standard to judge morality is objective, the question being, where does that objective standard come from, and how can it be viewed as objective in the atheist worldview?
It just seems confusing to me and that it doesn’t really answer the question in a satisfying way
@@andrewdavidson8167 The reason you're confused is a common one - Matt has a different definition of 'objective' to what you and many others use.
Yes, the rules of chess can change over time, and similarly over time we could, in theory, change from having 'wellbeing' as our goal to having some different goal - though it seems difficult to suggest that any new goal wouldn't include wellbeing as a significant component. What doesn't change is the fact that we can make assessments objectively as to whether something leads towards or away from the chosen goal. So, for example, given the current rules of chess and a given position, there is a single objectively right answer as to whether a particular move is winning or losing. Of course, we might not necessarily know that answer, but we can work to try to get as close to it as possible, using computer analysis etc.
Similarly, given an agreed-upon goal of wellbeing and a given action in a given situation, there is in principle a single objectively right answer as to whether that action would advance wellbeing or detracts from it. As with chess, we may not - and may never - be able to ascertain that answer with certainty, but we can try to approximate it by considering the consequences of the action as rigorously as possible.
So, in summary, the thing that doesn't change over time and doesn't depend on people's opinions or cultural constructs is not "the tools by which to change the rules", but the the ability to make judgments as to whether something is consistent with the rules (including the goal) or not.
Actually, the 'tools' by which we make those judgments could and should also change over time, as we get more and better information and ways of analysing it. It's like how, with chess, we went from humans attempting to analyse moves and positions to using computers which can think many more moves ahead than even the strongest grandmasters. But the task that the humans and the computers are performing is the same and hasn't changed - they are both working out the consequences of various moves to see whether they probably lead to wins or losses under the rules of chess. The fact that this task doesn't change, and that the results of it don't change arbitrarily or according to people's opinions but rather involves getting better and better approximations to a single true answer that exists out there somewhere, is what provides 'objectivity'.
Finally, to return to where I started. You, like many people, seem to think that any element of arbitrary choice or opinion - such as the choice to use 'wellbeing' as our goal - necessarily makes something 'subjective' rather than 'objective'. That's a common definition of 'objective', but it's not the one that Matt is using.
What you would probably refer to as 'objective morality' - something that is absolutely independent of any human choices, opinions, or preferences whatsoever - is what Matt would call 'absolute morality'. He thinks, and I agree with him on this, that absolute morality simply doesn't exist at all - not even under a theistic worldview. That's because, just as choosing 'wellbeing' as our goal can be considered subjective, choosing 'obeying a god's commands' (or 'avoiding eternal punishment') as our goal is equally subjective. Just as someone could ask 'why, objectively, should we care about wellbeing?', we could, and should, equally ask 'why, objectively, should we care about any god's opinions on morality?'
Indeed, it seems to me that the problem is even worse than that: even if we were to agree on 'obeying a god's commands' as the goal, we still (unlike with secular morality) couldn't even make objective judgments as to whether something is consistent with that goal or not, because we can't really know what any god has actually commanded or said at any time. All we have are various people claiming to know what their god has said or opined, and yet those claims frequently disagree with and contradict each other. All this illustrates that, as Matt often points out, there is no problem with secular morality that could be solved by adopting theistic morality. All the problems with secular morality, including the underlying subjectivity you're concerned about, are also problems, and even bigger problems, with theistic morality.
Lastly, I appreciate this is a long answer, and I'm by no means an expert on this or any other philosophical topic, but I very much hope it helps.
@@amritlohia8240 So given everything you've said, and I do appreciate the detailed answer which is helpful to understand the position better, but given what you've said, the reality is at the end of the day, these "objective tools" are by nature subjective. If they change, then they are only objective at a paticular point in history. I think your explanation was really good in describing Matt's position, but it seems to me that it doesn't escape the charge, but simply defines words differently and adds caviats in order to justify his position, making our current understanding of ethics merely subjective.
I don't think atheists can agree on a defintion of well being since that's something athiests like Neitzche would disagree with Matt on. I guess would you be able to tell me what the commonly agreed understanding of well being is?
@@amritlohia8240 What happens if you and I don't agree on rules of game or goals?
So morality can't be objective, but our subjectivity can create objectivity? Sounds absurd. It might be more intellectually honest to just agree that morality is objective, since that seems to be your end result anyway.
If moral system derives from subjective goals, as hosts said, what happens if somebody pick different goal than wellbeing for everybody? System that hosts propose can be used to justify Nazism, slavery and child molestation by picking different (arbitrary) subjective goals.
But there is a way around it. The only relevant subjective view is victim's view. If I'm being nice to you or not, that's for you to judge. You have perfectly good reason for not wanting to be harmed. If I want to be moral, I have to respect your and other's personal wishes. So even your wishes are subjective, from my perspective they are objectively true and I have to respect them to be moral.
Why is slavery wrong, even if 99% of country would think slavery is OK? Because slave thinks it's wrong. His opinion is only one that is relevant and not arbitrary.
@@goranmilic442 Subjectivity by definition cannot "create objectivity".
The end.
@@ronaldp.vincent8226 I didn't say subjectivity creates objectivity. I only had 2 points - other people and their wellbeing are objective facts, they exist, and if morality is not about respecting other's wellbeing, then morality has no meaning.
Craig is right about objective morality itself, although I don't believe it implies the existence of a god.
They seem to be describing utilitarianism. I am not sure though. Can someone clear it up?
gilman6789 how are they describing utilitarianism?
The main idea was encompassing objective principles through subjective reasoning. As Matt illustrated, the rules of chess are objective, but the meta ethical perspective breaks it down to the subjective ideas that questions the rules itself.
Utilitarianism is illustrated in favour of the greatest number and in most cases inclusive of the doctrine of double effect.
If I was to address utilitarianism here I could guess that once everyone agrees on a single goal, it will be easier to work with the goal’s objective construct, but this is not their argument afaik.
@@Godlimate In the video, they said thst the only way to find the reasoning for objective principkes is through the well being of the individual. The basis for utilitarianism is to increase the well.being of said individual.
gilman6789 I think that means objective principles are reasonable, so long as they benefit society. But utilitarianism doesn’t entirely endorse this because it is associated with consequentialism.
Unless...
objective morals aim to marginalise subjective morals. It’s like “a brave new world” if you’ve ever read it. However, I’m pretty sure that the hosts weren’t trying to marginalise subjective morals, it’s more like include objective morals wherever you can if it benefits us.
@@Godlimate thank yoy for responding. I am the best at moral philosophy, but my point is that yes, utilitariinisn is consequetionalist, however it bases its morality on the well being of individyals via happiness. I am not sure what they mean by subjective goals to objective morals because it seems that they suggest all of these subjective goals are gearing towards human well being as rationality rules said. Again, yes the readon may be subjective but its objective standard is to maximize the well being of the individual or individuals as said in the video. This is the standard for utilitarianism.
@@Godlimate If moral system derives from subjective goals, as hosts said, what happens if somebody pick different goal than wellbeing for everybody? System that hosts propose can be used to justify Nazism, slavery and child molestation by picking different subjective goals.
This is so fucking confusing. I'm an atheist but I have trouble giving a good explanation against theists objective morality stance coming from God as the source. Can someone clarify.
Morality from god is just arbitrary. It's no different from saying "Morality comes from the President."
Morality is subjective, but this isnt a bad thing and it doesnt matter.
Alex “thinks” the subjectivity isn’t in the action? Well it’s nice that he thinks that. Now what’s the empirical logic?
Well if you morality serves a subjective goal isn't it subjective?
If there were only five human left in the world and they all subjectively think slavery is OK (because they subjectively don't share goal of wellbeing), would slavery be OK then?
@@goranmilic442 Yes.
@@BamBoJam So slavery can be OK?
@@goranmilic442 You’re making an emotional appeal by asking the same question twice.
@@BamBoJam OK, just making sure. So there is nothing wrong with slavery in Bible, since they thought it was OK? (Yes, it's the third time I ask the same question, sorry, just making sure.)
what if well being is achieved only by killing somone ?like killing some bandits they killing ,so killing bandits would save more people before they are killed?
If you believe in God, it depends on what he says. If you dont, kill anyone you want lmaooo it's not like you'll be accountable for anything after this. Good can only exist with God, without him only power exist, if you can do it its good.
@@johnx140what kind of dipshit ass logic is this, did you even watch this video??
They are beating around the bush. Morality is subjective. Morality changes depending on the goals of each human. All humans are not united in goals.
If I think it would be wrong for something to happen to me, then it is wrong for me to do it to someone else. That is the simplest way of thinking about morality.
I wish more people think that way.. alot of people think they're better then other people.. so that doesn't apply to them.. it's frustrating people are like that but it is what it is..
It is how I figured out my moral code. No God needed to know what I find out what I figure is ok to do to me. I don't need a badly translated book, or an imaginary controlling to figure it out. Yes, I read the bible, that is why I am an atheist now.
Ken Christiansen Exactly. I’ve written in a few threads about the 10 commandments that my outlook is easier, “Don’t say or do dumb shit that can hurt oneself or others.”
Ken Christiansen isn’t this the same as an eye for an eye?
@@Godlimate no. That is the idea of revenge. That is more of a punishment thing, not a moral code. My idea is a personal directive. It tells me how to act towards you.
I'm an esoteric essoterian. Why TF do theism focus on this so much? Don't they get that almost nobody cares about these pedantic definitions?
Ooof, some of the people in this comment section though.
lol, moral subjectivism IS moral relativism. both are anti-realism positions in meta ethics.
THESE ARE LITERALLY THE BEST BOYS
@Misogyny Man Hell isn't real.
@Misogyny ManProve it.
@Misogyny Man Just WOW! How delusional are you?
@Misogyny Man 👏👏👏
@Misogyny Man But there isn't a God and you literally have zero evidence.
Usually I consider *Morality* to be *Subjective* The laws we make, based on our *subjective morality* form an *objective moral code* Eventhough, this objective moral code is dynamic. We can change the rules in the lawbook, but aslong as the rules are valid (like the rules of chess) they are objective
@The Black Dawn/Ajjqi Suffering and pleasure are objectively verifiable, yes. But that doesnt mean that when someone performs an act, that makes another person suffer, that this act is immoral.
When one man, willingly punches another person in the face, you could think that this is immoral. But when this is done within the context of a boxing match, then suddenly this same act is not immoral. Why not?
Because there's a different motive to it. This motive has been decided upon, cognitively, based on our emotions. Based on what we "feel is fair" Since that is the deciding factor, morality can only be subjective.
@@WilliamsWorldView If there were only five human left in the world and they all subjectively think slavery is OK, would slavery be OK then?
@@goranmilic442 Nothing IS ok. Then slavery would BE CONSIDERED TO BE ok.
Nothing is inherently good or bad, we only perceive something as good or bad, in a moral sense.
Obviously somethings are objectively good or bad in regards to functionality. But that doesnt mean its immoral per definition.
@@WilliamsWorldView Then why do we get angry at Nazis/slave owners/child molesters, if what they're doing is not bad?
@@WilliamsWorldView Is morality just an illusion, if we perceive something that is not really there?
Q: What's objective morality?
A: Something is moral or immoral regardless of whether I think it's moral or immoral.
Q: Are you thinking of it now?
A: Yes.
checkmate
If moral system derives from subjective goals, as hosts said, what happens if somebody pick different goal than wellbeing for everybody? System that hosts propose can be used to justify Nazism, slavery and child molestation by picking different subjective goals.
@@goranmilic442 Not a problem. Others can pick a different goal than ours and if that goal is in conflict with our moral goal we lock them up or fight them in the battle, subdue them and gradually transform their values through education. Religion doesn't help solving this problem. If you think there's a god who promulgates moral laws there are still people who disagree and you need to deal with them in the same way.
@@waxberry4 Who mentioned God? I didn't. Sure, we can fight those with different goals, but we are not different from them. Fight doesn't make you right. You mentioned education. How would you educate them, what argument would you present them, if goals you picked are just as subjective as their are?
@@goranmilic442 "we are not different from them"
True in the sense that we are all pursuing our goals. Humans want to survive, so do germs. In this sense humans are not different from germs. We kill germs to save humans because of who we are, not because we are objectively superior to germs.
"how to educate them"
We need to first understand why our values are different from theirs. Humans share certain natures. Sometimes people behave selfishly because their empathy is not properly discovered. Moral education is not primarily about logical reasoning but about emotional care and influence. Most people's behavior patterns are subject to change under conditioning.
So far there is no better alternative to transform people's moral views. If your argument is that something is moral because a god said so, how convincing do you think it's to those who disagree?
@@waxberry4 Those are not satisfying answers. Brain conditioning is basically a crime. Appeal to human emotions is logical fallacy. Majority of people sharing same views about morality is another fallacy, argumentum ad populum. So you don't have any logical base for your moral system, you just have confidence that you're right and willingness to use brute force to share your views. You have no argument to give to those who pick different moral system than you. What argument would you present in a society that supports slavery? Again, this is not about god.
The chess analogy is very useful in explicating the third person objective measures to achieving a goal, but a moral relativist would just say that the goals established are entirely subjective and so the objective moralities derived from them are not truly universal. And so, a society that agrees that blinding every second child is good (let's say for superstitious reasons) is achieving their goal in an objectively reasoned way.
But I feel like morality can be more easily intuited as being objective in the sense that it is universal and that there must simply be a right and wrong in moral conduct with reference to the usual methods of reason.
David Hume raised the point that humans are constantly interacting with a vast array of experiences that necessitate moral considerations, and so our morality must be an objective feature of our living. Noam Chomsky raises this point in the context of linguistics, that is to say that we have an internal generative capacity that is universal. No matter where a child is born they simply must have a pre-existing mechanism that enables language, regardless of what the cultural heritage of those languages are. In this sense, we all have an innate capacity to learn an infinite number of languages.
The same is true of morality. In order for us to respond to a vast array of different moral scenarios, we must have a pre-existing moral capacity that renders actions in these scenarios possible. And in order to deduce right and wrong actions, we don't need to rely on the assumption of human wellbeing (although it is a useful approximation).
Consider the following comparison: mathematics is another solid example of an innate capacity of ours. We don't need to deeply reflect why 2+2 is 4 nor does such a proposition rest on any other claim or assumption. Yet, if we were to stumble across the society mentioned above and we also learned that in addition to blinding every second child, they also taught their students that 2+2 is 5, we would be able to make the solid claim that they are objectively wrong. But how so? Why is it that we can so readily point out that someone is wrong in their mathematical reasoning but not wrong in their moral reasoning? Do we need deeply introspective reasoning to explain that murder, promise breaking and lying is wrong or can we just accept that these are universal features.
Morality is objective in the same way that math and linguistics is objective. However, that's not to say that therefore every culture should have developed the same morality. Every inborn capacity (eye colour, vision, height) is capable of environmental influence.
Someone may argue: well just because these are built-in features, who said we have to do math OR speak a language OR make moral considerations. My response is that this is impossible: these are features that are necessary and inevitable. One can live their entire life not studying math, but still employs it's reasoning in everyday life: intuitively grasping relations of quantity: size of objects, solidity, dimensions, volume and so forth. The same is true of morality, you don't have to read Kant, Bentham or Mill or even come across the words duty, consequence and obligation in order to employ these features.
it's called their conscience (with knowledge) GOD givin, society shape!
@@MegaAce54 If God created moral laws, does that mean he can change them, for example making slavery a good thing?
If moral system derives from subjective goals, as hosts said, what happens if somebody pick different goal than wellbeing for everybody? System that hosts propose can be used to justify Nazism, slavery and child molestation by picking different (arbitrary) subjective goals.
But there is a way around it. The only relevant subjective view is victim's view. If I'm being nice to you or not, that's for you to judge. You have perfectly good reason for not wanting to be harmed. If I want to be moral, I have to respect your and other's personal wishes. So even your wishes are subjective, from my perspective they are objectively true and I have to respect them to be moral.
Why is slavery wrong, even if 99% of country would think slavery is OK? Because slave thinks it's wrong. His opinion is only one that is relevant and not arbitrary.
@@goranmilic442
All goals we pick are subjective but in order to agree upon a goal there has to be an underlying rationalisation for it. In the context of Nazism and slavery, it is easy to see why they are flawed concepts: both ideas seek to exclude a group of people from freedom and fair treatment based on refutable evidence. There is no logical reason to treat someone differently based on their predetermined characteristics (race) or social origin.
@@rayhan3654 Is there a logical reason to treat all people equally? More importantly, if there is a logical reason, wouldn't that make your entire system completely objective (moral rules objectively derived from goals which are based on logic, which is objective)?
I think it's my fault too!
Antonio Robles no it's my fault
I am also Spartacus!
God is not an object and thus not objective, God cannot be used for any "objective morality".
I've come to my own conclusion that morality is neither subjective nor objective, but psychological: I'll begin my explanation with rape and murder because the christians like to argue those two criminal acts. Rape, by definition is forced sex, which means the women (usually) don't want sex, which makes the guy immoral to rape them; There are people want to die (suicidal), but most people want to live, which would mean killing them is immoral.
Of course, the desire for suicide usually indicates depression, which is a mental illness. Such people need help; If they still want to die, that's their decision.
It's all about what people want and don't want, and other people acting upon them against their will.
@joonlar jj Do you want anybody to either force himself onto or kill you, if you don't want it?
@joonlar jj So, would anybody doing so, be moral?
@joonlar jj Well, why would anybody ask them? What are you talking about?
@nengjun If moral system derives from subjective goals, as hosts said, what happens if somebody pick different goal than wellbeing for everybody? System that hosts propose can be used to justify Nazism, slavery and child molestation by picking different (arbitrary) subjective goals.
But there is a way around it. The only relevant subjective view is victim's view. If I'm being nice to you or not, that's for you to judge. You have perfectly good reason for not wanting to be harmed. If I want to be moral, I have to respect your and other's personal wishes. So even your wishes are subjective, from my perspective they are objectively true and I have to respect them to be moral.
Why is slavery wrong, even if 99% of country would think slavery is OK? Because slave thinks it's wrong. His opinion is only one that is relevant and not arbitrary.
@@theunholinesswithin70 If moral system derives from subjective goals, as hosts said, what happens if somebody pick different goal than wellbeing for everybody? System that hosts propose can be used to justify Nazism, slavery and child molestation by picking different (arbitrary) subjective goals.
But there is a way around it, similar to what you said. The only relevant subjective view is victim's view. If I'm being nice to you or not, that's for you to judge. You have perfectly good reason for not wanting to be harmed. If I want to be moral, I have to respect your and other's personal wishes. So even your wishes are subjective, from my perspective they are objectively true and I have to respect them to be moral.
Why is slavery wrong, even if 99% of country would think slavery is OK? Because slave thinks it's wrong. His opinion is only one that is relevant and not arbitrary.
Another interesting analogy would be that it's like various inventions such as chairs or doors. There are numerous ways to design chairs, doors, or anything else, using different shapes, sizes, colors, materials, etc. The invention was designed (by us, of course) to serve a purpose that can be objectively agreed upon, but simultaneously, these inventions are not innately existing entities that form through natural processes (at least not exactly like the schemas we've developed), but are merely synthetic arrangements of various materials to form a certain structure we've conceptualized; with that being said, they didn't already exist before us.
There is also a distinction between our psychological/neurochemical sense of morality that we've developed through natural selection and the moral systems we form around that subjective sense.
But these views are limited to consequentialism though.
So much worthless banter by fools who reject the living God. "Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" (1 Cor 1:20).
How do you even know if god exists?
@@vishwamdhruva8537, the evidence for the existence of God is seen in the creation around, in the moral soul within you, and His written word in front of you. Repent of your sins and get your heart right with him today. You have no excuse not to believe. "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent" (Acts 17:30).
@@blaziustheblaze9935 That's not an evidence. That doesn't prove god exists.
Also, even if it did, how can you say it's the Christian God? Why can't it be Zeus?
@@vishwamdhruva8537, because Zeus fails the test for the preconditions of intelligibility, just as does every other god in this world. But seriously? This is what you ask me? You can't come up with anything original, but instead parrot the typical atheist script?
@@blaziustheblaze9935 Oh so you're telling me that I can't come up with anything original? You're the one who's using the overused teleological argument to prove god's existence which has been refuted many times.
The evidence you presented wasn't even an evidence.
"Oh look around, we can't explain how these things are here. Therefore it must be god. More precisely the god which I believe in!"
Bwahahahahahahaha
No no no... it’s my fault
Any definition of morality presumes the acceptance of innate rights. The claim of ultimate benefits may be used to justify an immediate harm. E.g. military action, medical intervention. When someone's rights are violated in pursuit of an ulterior goal, the judgment which drives the action is imperfect and subjective. In practice, the claim of objective morality is just propaganda to justify a preference.
If moral system derives from subjective goals, as hosts said, what happens if somebody pick different goal than wellbeing for everybody? System that hosts propose can be used to justify Nazism, slavery and child molestation by picking different (arbitrary) subjective goals.
But there is a way around it. The only relevant subjective view is victim's view. If I'm being nice to you or not, that's for you to judge. You have perfectly good reason for not wanting to be harmed. If I want to be moral, I have to respect your and other's personal wishes. So even your wishes are subjective, from my perspective they are objectively true and I have to respect them to be moral.
Why is slavery wrong, even if 99% of country would think slavery is OK? Because slave thinks it's wrong. His opinion is only one that is relevant and not arbitrary.
lol at 1:55 ... oh ok ... so its ok to murder... but its subjective if you do it for pleasure. Humans seem to have a different morality than the rest of the Animals and other living things on earth. Where do we get that standard from? If you don't go with some of the Morals learned from God.... then you will have to redefine your own version of what " Good " is for each person. Some people might think murder is Good ... some might think it is bad... if we are going to redefine our own standard of morality independently without any reference or standard....then there would be no clear standard of morality.
I suggest you watch this again. You seem to not understand how evolution works. Each social species has its own morality, and depending on the species can share a lot with ours.
You seem to be hung up on standards, why does there need to be specific standards?
Why is any of this a problem for you? A god that gives us a set of rules isn't morality. That's just programming us to not do bad things. Which hasn't been working out for him. Not saying he needs to be fired from his job but maybe...
@@veggie88 Well where do the standards come from? ... Lions rape , and kill the old lions cubs ...and thats normal.... cats rape to reproduce.... evolution seems to only care about reproduction at any cost.... Why do humans feel the need to transcend this natural order ? ....
God said thou shall not kill, steal, or covet thy neighbors property.... Who else before then gave such a standard? ... we know these things are bad.... but why do we think they are bad? If there is no God ... where do you get your moral standards from?
@@veggie88 and maybe ... its not working out because there is a real evil enticing people to go against what they know is right. just saying.
@@veggie88 however I'll watch it again.
@@Phil360 God says in the Bible we could own slaves and sell our daughters to strangers who could then forcefully have sex with them. He also says to kill witches, which don't actually exist, and as a result the church murdered a bunch of innocent men and women out of pure paranoia. Where is this God getting his standards? Because some of his standards seem kind of evil and stupid.
The answer is that our standards come from empathy and compassion. It doesn't take a God or a PhD. to look at another living creature in pain and understand that pain hurts, and living things don't want to feel it any more than necessary.
If you have to ask, 'why should I care about empathy and compassion', that's like asking, 'why should I eat healthy food instead of poison'. You can believe poison is healthy to eat. You can eat poison if you really want to. But the rest of us who enjoy life aren't going to eat poison with you, and if you try to feed poison to someone else, we'll all try to stop you.
Evil doesn't take a supernatural force to explain. Humans evolved out of a vicious, competitive world. We've only recently developed intelligence and rationality. It makes perfect sense to me that some percentage of human beings enjoys hurting other people, or doesn't care about anyone but themselves. That's exactly what I would expect from a species of semi-intelligent apes, which is what we apparently are. To counter it, we teach, educate, help, and when necessary, fight. We have learned how to be better than 'mere' animals. We're not perfect, and we haven't figured it all out. But we're getting better, and learning all the time.
Where does God get his morality ?
I would say there is no way a atheist can claim moral objectivity. It’s subjective if there is no God. It’s very simple. Example human flourishing does not = good. It can be good to John but not to billy. This is where I would say I have never seen a atheist win a debate with a “God” apologist. The best route for a atheist is to go with subjective morality.
The funny thing is even a theist's morality would still be considered subjective
@@thakraken6995 not necessarily true. Example if there is a God and we give God credit for the one who determines morality it’s logically sound. Now if there is no God one can’t can’t a objective claim.
@@chrisarmon1002 false. If there's a God it would not automatically follow that his moral imperatives and commands are objective. How are God's moral imperatives objective?
@@thakraken6995 I would argue because God determines morality, creator of all. If god exist how can it not be objective ?
@@chrisarmon1002 if someone's morality is subjective that means that their morality is dependent on their opinions and feelings. If we appealed to a gas morality we would be appealing to his opinions and his feelings on morality. It would not matter whether it came from a God or someone else it is still subjective. Just because a god makes those imperatives does not mean they are objective, you will have to do a little bit better than " its objective because God says so"
You guys are way out there, just explain your thoughts in simple English, and don't make the mistake that everyone is playing chess, even if your referring to each persons thoughts or actions, Plain English for those of us who are not MENSA graduates.
@wvn nfh Not everyone sees belief, or non belief in those terms, and not everyone is trying to force others to believe what they believe. I like others am interested in what people think about religion, but have no interest in trying to position myself to make others believe , or not to believe in God. As I get older, it is harder for me to believe the scriptures that are found in the Bible, My curiosity causes me to see what other people think, but I am truly seeking the truth. Matt and his guests are very educated people, and sometimes it seems like everyone is trying to out verbalize the other with terms, and subjects, that some of us find hard to follow. All im saying is keep it simple.
@wvn nfh My comments were not to give anyone a hard time, only to let them know if they are reading comments, that not all of us have PHDs, and its hard sometimes to follow the train of thought when everyone is flexing their brains. I don't consider myself uneducated, but when they start talking about physics, and theories, I sometimes get lost in what they are trying to say. I realize that I am not the sharpest tac in the box, but Im sure their are others that get lost as well.
Thank you for your reply
Stephen.
@Richard Ball No need to be sarcastic, I was just saying that not everyone is following the conversation when one person is trying to out IQ the other, and I have watched it happen several times, and that is why I say keep it as simple as possible.
To be an atheist you have to not believe in God or any type of higher being but doesn't that mean you do believe in a higher being cuz to not believe in something you have to have something to not believe in
Christian Ramos atheism is the rejection of the god claim. So if you are not convinced by the proposed “evidence” that the gods of other religions are real then you’re basically an atheist to the claims made by the people worshipping those gods.
The term atheist though is most commonly associated with people who are not convinced of any god claims.
If I tell you that I am a level 9 leader of the United council of aliens and all I have is a picture of me with aliens and you say “nah I don’t believe you, that picture could’ve been photoshopped. I need better evidence then that.” Then it would be nonsensical to say that for you not to believe then you must have something not to believe. So the most logical stance is to not take any sides and wait for me to bring you evidence that you would find believable, then only can you say, “ okay, the evidence you provided gives me the confidence to say that I believe your claim.”
And essentially, Atheists are people that are just waiting for the people claiming that a god/gods are real to give them sufficient evidence for them to be confident enough to believe the claim.
No.
Christian Ramos The only "thing" that has to exist for you to not believe something is the claim. Do you believe in unicorns?
Does not believing in the tooth fairy mean that the tooth fairy is real because there must be a tooth fairy for you to not believe in?
I love the fact that despite all their "intellectual" distinctions and esoteric application of vocabulary, every single point they make could be instantly and irrefutably revoked and overturned by a 5 year old simply asking "So what?"
Explain, please.
@@goranmilic442 Every point they try to make can be undone by asking "so what"? Because if you keep asking them that you will find that they can never get to the bottom of any of their claims to justify them, at least not without borrowing from theistic philosophy that would contradict their stated opening position.
None of their claims are based on logical grounds all the way down to the core without clinging to an infinite regress.
@@snowflakeeel I understand what you mean, but since they are basing everything on subjective goals, at one point they can respond to your question with "because we want it like that". I think they use wellbeing as ultimate bottom, being is better than non-being, and that would be it. No further regress.
@@goranmilic442 and if they respond with "because we want it like that" they have no argument against the militant jihadist who wants to kill every non muslim on the planet, "because they want it like that."
Also there are many who believe all humanity should be eradicated and prefer non being to well being. And there is a myriad of differing beliefs as to what constitutes well-being. So you can end the infinite regress by switching lanes over to absurdity, in effect claiming, because I said so, the argumentation of toddlers. But you cant do that while also claiming to have a rational and defensible worldview.
@@snowflakeeel I agree, good point. If bottom reason for moral system is some subjective goal, then anybody who doesn't share that goal can set his own moral system. It would mean that you and me are moral for not blowing people up, while jihadists are moral for doing that. I agree, it's absurd. I should point out that I'm an atheist, but I do believe that objective morality exists.
If it's a subjective goal, it's subjective. It's not rocket science
I am early!
This is the 'problem' I have with Matt, and his views on morality. He is always striving for something objective to base them on. The chess example he gave is a perfect one to reiterate it.
When asked what is the goal of a chess game, Matt will simply say: "To win the game, and we can objectively detriment which moves are the winning one".
However, chess is a game, thus isn't the point of it to enjoy the game, rather than win? Which one is more important to you.
_Sky_ but that’s why he said objective evaluations are made “once we have the goal” which implies that the goal is the subjective means that determines how objective rules are applied.
Chess can be fun, which may render the rules to having “no rules”. Chess can be competitive, which rules are imperative.
And by cosmic skeptic, the precepts of meta ethics regulates subjective thought which determines the composition of rules applied in this instance
@@Godlimate But that just shows you how morality is subjective, and relative. Something all of them seem to be running away like it's a pedophile Catholic priest.
_Sky_ it is, yes you are right. No one is running away from it, we simply create objective morals to regulate law and order from a subjective view.
Just to explain what I mean by objective morals, it means murder is wrong for example. The law enforces absolutes, but people still murder because it’s ultimately subjective in practice.
@@Godlimate I just do not see how is the murder objectively wrong. Math is objective, morality isn't. You can't create 'objective morals' using subjective opinions and preferences. And that seems to be a thing they are doing here.
@joonlar jj Exactly... so how then morality isn't relative or subjective. He still went on painting it as if it had some "sub-set" of objectivity, which it doesn't.
In the end, you have no humility. This will lead to violence. It's just the way it is. The ancients knew this. See, when you don't have a single archetype above all others, eventually it will lead to separation, to critique, to passive oppression, to active oppression, then violence. But you will never comprehend this, because all you have to say is "I don't need that book to be a good person" and that is the exact reason you need it. Because you are not humble, you think you know more than 1000s of men, 39 authors, 66-88 books, all the wisdom of the ancients. But you are better. That's so pathetic, there is no word to describe.
You don't see it. You see how you chastise Christianity? How do you know i'm even Christian, I could be buddistm muslim, or Methodist, or catholic, so why would you mention this irrelevant piece of information unless you have some preconceived notion and agenda already? Anyway, you're supposed to be showing me how you display humility or where you got this idea to be humble in the first place?
It takes a HUGE AMOUNT OF ARROGANCE to think you are wiser and smarter than all the great ancient minds. That's all they did was think, you just think because it was ancient times the philosophers and writers of the day were stupid, but far far from it. They were far smarter than I could ever be and if im smarter than you, whats that say about you?
where did I demonstrate this by the way? please tell me, where exactly did I demonstrate a "HUGE AMOUNT OF ARROGANCE"
What supernatural claim is even eligible for archeological evidence? What would be the archeological evidence from healing the blind? And there is evidence of the resurrection in the shroud. Also, archeological sites like sodom are 94% brimestone with sulphur deposits all over the sites. Educate youself.
@Richard Ball poor child.
These guys need to listen to William Lane Craig or something; he makes it far easier to understand what is meant (in academia) by "objective morality". Simply put, it is the view that What's moral/immoral is moral/immoral regardless of opinion. In the same way the Earth is round and would be round even if everyone agreed it was flat, x is morally wrong and would be wrong even if everyone agreed it was right.
@wvn nfh That's precisely the misunderstanding. To say "I believe in objective morality" is to say that there is a *fact* of the matter, regarding what should/shouldn't happen. It's not about finding objectively effective/ineffective ways of bringing about what is good. It's about whether or not such a thing as good really exists in the first place.
@wvn nfh "Good doesn't exist as an absolute.
"
Okay now, are you denying it as I've defined it, or as "moral absolutism" is defined? Because those are different things, with the latter defined as "the ethical belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, *and that certain actions are right or wrong, regardless of the context of the act."* I don't believe in the latter phrase, but I believe in the former based on my experience of morality (and the lack of any reason to doubt that experience).
"The premise to build a morality is always a subjective understanding.
"
Well obviously if you're going to *build* a "morality" (that is, decide on particular values), that's subjective. But you don't have to if there's an objective morality you can instead discover.
"Unless you accept an absolute morality from God, which presents its host of problems including presuppositionalism, which only delegates subjectivity to a being "higher"."
If god *decided* on what was good/bad, you'd be right. But Craig (mentioned before) has refuted the Euthyphro by pointing out that it's a false dilemma. But that's another topic.
@wvn nfh "By absolute I mean ultimate rules that must be obeyed as they are, even if not understood. I don't think they exist or are necessary."
Well they don't *have* to be obeyed, but I get your point. And I don't think it's relevant whether or not objective morality is *necessary,* I just think that we can trust our moral senses to the same degree that you trust your *physical* ones.
"Are you saying that subjectivity is possible but you'd rather rely solely on an objective morality, independent of our current knowledge - that we need to figure out?"
I wouldn't say what I'd *rather* do or believe in, just that I think we've good reason to believe in an objective moral realm.
"I agree on the discovery, think also morality can evolve, but not that there is one true morality to understand.
"
Why not? Can't we at least sense that, say, torturing a child for fun is morally wrong? Can't we say that the holocaust was immoral, and it would've been even if the Germans had succeeded in killing off/brainwashing everyone who disagreed with it so that everyone thought it was *right?*
"We could imagine a sadomasochist society being "virtuous" by inflicting pain, in their moral reference.
"
That's possible. But it's also possible that it's wrong even if people are OK with it.
"That would be immoral to us, only because our values go in an opposite direction.
"
On the view that morality is subjective, yes. But on the view that it's objective, certain things really are wrong, with some people being incorrect while the others are correct in their assessment of them.
ME: "But Craig (mentioned before) has refuted the Euthyphro by pointing out that it's a false dilemma. But that's another topic."
YOU: "I'd need to check him on that, but that may be indicative of your views."
Sure thing, but the summary of it is simply that "God decides what is moral" and "God looks to something outside of himself to find out what's moral" aren't the only two options. God could instead *be* what Plato called "the good", and his commands would just be expressions of his nature.
As for my views, I'm an atheist, but not an anti-theist and so I don't have much stake in these arguments either way. But I do find them interesting.
@@Vic2point0 Craig never refutes the Euthyphro, all he does is kick the can down the road and add an extra step and then does some hand waiving to try to get rid of the problem.
Also, I see your obsession with Craig hasn't waned at all since our previous discussions.
@wvn nfh "but what about people sensing something different?
"
One could ask the same about people who are blind, or deaf, etc. All of these senses are fallible, but that doesn't mean what they perceive (at least from time to time) isn't real.
"We can list all the nefarious effects of torturing a child, but why don't we want these things?"
Because we can sense that they're wrong, would be my answer.
ME: "Can't we say that the holocaust was immoral, and it would've been even if the Germans had succeeded in killing off/brainwashing everyone who disagreed with it so that everyone thought it was right?"
YOU: "We can, only because not everyone was killed or brainwashed to want that instead."
I get that it would be impossible for us to know/believe the holocaust was wrong if we were brainwashed into thinking otherwise. But the point is that I think it would still be wrong even if we all agreed it was right. Same with anything else that is objectively true (e.g., we once agreed unanimously that the Earth was flat).
"Again, here, nothing compels an isolated sadomasochist group to stop their actions, as long as they survive and consider they "thrive" doing what they do."
I would say these people are simply impaired when it comes to their moral sense. Again, not unlike someone who is blind.
"In the end I now doubt how your view differentiates absolute and objectivity. With the notion of one set of rules objectively "better" than all others, how is it not absolute?"
It can be called "absolute" in that way, sure. But I asked what you meant by that because 'moral absolutism' also means that x is wrong no matter the context. You can believe that there is an objective fact about morality without believing context is irrelevant.
God sent his son to die. In the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus begged God to let him off the hook.
But God insisted that he carries on with his mission. Even on the cross, Jesus still hoped that God would let him off, but God didn't budge. "My God, my God, why hast thou let me down again ? "
tedgrant2 So, basically God’s a deadbeat dad, never around when JC needs him.
S Gloobal I am someone..someone that stopped believing the Bible was accurate and an imaginary friend exists a long time ago.
S Gloobal No, you can’t show archeological evidence for the Bible, it doesn’t exist. You’ve been told this by multiple people in multiple threads multiple times, then you claim you’ve linked your ‘evidence’ (yet you actually don’t) then claim YT deletes your accounts for reasons.
As far as thinking I’m angry at God, or I just deny or ignore his existence or whatever else you’ll pull outta your ass, you can think whatever you like because I don’t have to explain myself to you.
Yup. God is immoral. Which is what you would expect in a being that was concocted by primitive barbarians.
None of you would stand a chance.
David Ownage You have so much hate in your heart. I feel sorry for you. I suggest speaking to a mental health professional or a therapist. Good luck to you kid.
Stand against what?
Poooor Baaaaaby.
Against what exactly
First!
So great, I'm converted to Atheism. Now I can fornicate, blaspheme GOD'S name, worship my lexus, love the dodgers more than anything, lust in my mind until my hearts content, lust and covet my neighbor wife and be envious of all that my neighbor has, with impunity!!!!! Thanks guys, thanks Matt!😁🙂😃🎉🎊
@Count Vulgar Is that what you're excuse is going to be when you're face GOD ALMIGHTY with all your sins? It's not going to work brother! Turn from your sins and trust in JESUS's work on the cross, it's the only way you'll be safe from GOD's righteous judgement against all ungodlyness. Do it today, brother, before death ushers you into eternity.
@Count Vulgar Check your conscience brother! It's an indication there's moral accountability! Or is it so seared that you no longer feel compunction for your lying, thiefing, lusting, fornicating, blaspheming, adultery in in your heart, murder in your heart, and your envious repacious greed of your heart! If you've experience any of these self evident sins with-in your mind and heart, then your're in big trouble on judgement day! Like I said, "check you conscience" and see if any of these thing are true! If so, your 're in need of a savior, big time brother! Repent now (turn from your sin) a cry out for GOD's mercy and trust completely in, and put on the LORD JESUS CHRIST and you will be saved from the righteous wrath to come!
@@MegaAce54 How do we know there is moral accountability?
@@MegaAce54 So first of all everything you just said is asserting! Demonstrate that this God is real first instead of just asserting!
@@blueunstopple4289 Creation is proof for the creator. your conscience is proof that he demands morality.
The list of sins I listed are all sins against the Almighty God you know deep down exists!