Morality absolutely is malleable. Humans are heavily influenced by the moral opinions of the society they grow up in, and those moral opinions vary significantly. Certainly there are commonalities like “don’t kill people,” a lot of people believe that, but not everyone agrees on who counts as “people.” A lot of people think very little of committing acts of horrific barbarism against an individual who worships the “wrong” God. As history progresses, the majority has changed their opinion on things like slavery, women’s rights, war, etc. all things that a holy text such as the Bible can be construed as endorsing or condemning, depending on what you want. All of this is to say that I think morality absolutely is relative. That is not unique to atheism.
are you saying that because peoples' opinions on what is moral/immoral changes throughout time and geography, then morality itself is changing? if so, why does peoples' opinion on morality change what is actually moral/immoral?
@@EitherSpark Morality is partly something we born with (due to evolutionary pressure) and partly something we learn from our parents and culture (bit like fear of heights and snakes). Thus it is subject to changes. There is tribe (called Wari') in Amazon area, which used to eat their deceased loved ones. They were absolutely horrified how we western people can be so cruel that we let the bodies of our loved ones to rot in cold. It's that malleable.
@@EitherSpark I suppose if there was some sort of objective morality, peoples’ opinions would not not matter, but there isn’t, so they do. Even a source of supposedly objective morality such as a religious text has to be interpreted, and what we interpret religion as endorsing or condemning changes constantly.
@@user255 is morality something we are born with or is it moral opinions that we are born with? is morality subject to change or are our moral opinions subject to change?
I'm not sure what you mean by "atheism as a movement". I'm not religious, and I'm not aware that I'm part of any "movement". I just don't think that gods and other random ancient mythical figures actually exist in real life. Am I not an atheist, then? Morality doesn't just "interface with our conscience", it is rooted in our conscience, as a function of our human nature. Morality as an "endeavor" is not an intellectual endeavor. Who in that "atheist movement" told you that it's an intellecual endeavor? It's a spiritual endeavor, and ideally it aims for cleaning your moral sense from those "maladaptive", distorting factors that you might pick up from your social environment, so that you can listen to your conscience that reflects your human nature without any distortions. What monotheism does is it asserts itself on top of human nature, and plasters over our true, human conscience with an arbitrary fantasy, thereby closing off our path to our natural, underlying morality. The point of morality in monotheism is that human nature is malleable, but God is absolute. Therefore, the right thing to do is to align yourself to God, even if that contradicts your natural sense of morality. For example, a spiritually healthy person might think that drowning your own sentient creations, the children, their mothers, the old, the disabled, everyone, because they turned their backs on you, is a monstrous and horrible act. Similarly, one might think that ordering your creations to murder their own family members if they happen to worship foreign gods is a monstrous, horrible act. Your religion however tells you that that's how a perfectly just and holy God acted at the time of the Flood, and at the time of the ancient Israelites, thereby distorting your sense of morality. That's why emperors, kings and caliphs like monotheism so much. Because it is able to suppress people's natural sense of morality, and prime them for accepting (and sometimes even dying for) the arbitrary rules and principles handed down from above.
maybe by 'atheism as a movement' he means the people following after the new atheists such as dawkins, hitchens, etc. maybe he means 'movement' in a more abstract sense--a group of people that hold similar beliefs and guided by the thinking of a small group--rather than a concrete sense as used in 'feminist movement' or 'lgbtq movement'
Atheism is the belief that we can and do know that there is no God or gods outside of our physical limitations. Religion is indistinguishable from simulation theory. In effect they are both just another version of "we can't test this based on the way we define it." If there is a god, we can't run scientific tests on it because the god could trick us by changing reality. Even a very advanced trickster who wasn't close to omnipotent could be capable of tricking our measly sensory organs.
@@EitherSparkmany people come to not hold a belief in God or gods etc, and yet still hold to moral claims. And these people never know Dawkins, etc (anyone who doesn't speak English)
Morality is empathy. Morality is understanding. No need to oppose it to intellect. And some values are not flexible. You are searching for a contradiction who is not there. And also i feel quite preoccupied about what seems a little bit of hatred. Sometimes i feel that too, i feel misunderstood. Just because we are humans. I think others are deeply wrong sometimes. Do i want to punish others or threaten their freedom? No. Because i don't want my belief (or non-belief...) and my freedom to be arbitrarily confiscated too. There's some obvious rules. If god exist, only him can juge.
Who's willing to die for an intellectual claim. Better to ask: who's willing to kill for an intellectual claim. Historically what people are willing to die for is also the thing they're willing to kill for. Maybe that's why the worst abuses in history usually stemmed from religious fanaticism. Actually, atheism is not a movement. That's your first mistake. Atheism is the absence of belief in a deity. There have been roughly three thousand gods dreamt up by the human imagination. I'd therefore have to estimate that you, yourself, are an atheist approximately two thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine times over. Atheism is a statement of one thing that an individual doesn't believe in. It says nothing about what that individual actually does believe in. Perhaps you would do better not to make broad claims about those who you clearly do not remotely understand. As for the morality of the believer, if it's based on fear of Devine punishment, then it's not any kind of morality at all. Morality is doing what one believes is right for the simple reason that it is right. The fear of punishment is the crudest approximation of morality at best. It may have the outward appearance of morality, but it's not the real thing.
From the videos I've seen, you're normally open minded and careful with your reasoning, so I'm not sure why this one jumped off the rails. There are a few problems with your argument. 1) Moral claims versus intellectual claims I don't know where you got the idea that Atheists are precluded from having morals or ethical values. If an Atheist told you this, point me at them and I will explain to them why they are wrong. Just as with Christians, Jews, Muslims, or disciples of any religion, moral claims and intellectual claims inform each other, and often a broad moral system can intellectually derive from a few moral principles. If anyone believes that their entire system is purely intellectual, they are wrong- at some point, to make such a system that lets you tell right from wrong, you must pick a standard of value. Choosing this standard of value is necessarily a moral decision, even if the rest of the system derives from it in an intellectual way. The only difference is that religious people accept these moral axioms based on religious doctrine, while Atheists choose one through non-religious methods. This could be an instinctive "Hurting people makes me feel icky" thing, or a more philosophically reasoned thing, but that doesn't change what it is. Perhaps the Atheist accepts the laws of society rather than the commandments outlined in the bible. It's also not valid to say that a religious source of morality is inherently "better" than a non-religious source, because then you're committed to defending religiously motivated atrocities such as... Well, choose your own examples here, don't need to trigger the bots. By the way, recent census data indicates that 4% of the US adult population identifies as Atheist, and yet only 0.07% of the prison population is Atheist. If we measure moral behavior based on the idea that moral behavior keeps you out of prison, Atheists are 57 times more moral than the general population. Even once you commit to a religious source for your moral axioms, you still have to choose. Christians, for example, choose which moral principles to accept when choosing a denomination- do you vibe with Anglicans? Lutherans? Baptists? Do you know of anyone who has switched to a different church because the pastor's teachings rang "more true" over there? And it also happens when they decide which specific verses are a big deal. Why is Leviticus 18:22 so important, and Leviticus 19:28 so negligible? So in summary on this point, Atheists are not excluded from making moral claims, and a religious source for moral claims does not appear to be inherently more valid than a non-religious source. 2) Atheists see morality as malleable, which (to paraphrase what I think your argument is) means that the Atheist view on morality is invalid. I agree that Atheists see morality as malleable, but so do theists. Even within Catholicism, we have Ex Cathedra announcements, papal bulls, and apostolic exhortations which can re-define or gradually shape not just religious practices, but also moral codes within the church. As the different branches of the church evolve, faction, cross-pollenate, fade out, or grow, the moral principles involved with that branch also change and evolve. Even within the bible itself, morality isn't fixed. What are verses such as Matthew 19:3-9, Acts 10:9-16, and Hebrews 8:13 if not updates that override the prior moral code? The reason your syllogism fails- "Morality deals with human nature. Human nature doesn't change. Therefore morality doesn't change," is in part because morality doesn't just deal exclusively with human nature. It also describes the interaction between humans and society. So even if we pretend that human nature is unchanged, society changes, therefore components of morality are free to change as well. We've been using "morality" and "ethics" as synonyms up to this point, but even if we scale back the discussion from narrowly defined morality (the interaction with society) to pure ethics (an individual's character), you yourself stated earlier in the video that morality, conscience, and intellectual claims can all interplay and inform each other. This is a dynamic system, and the components including morality will move as we learn more about the consequences of our actions. And frankly, thank goodness that morality does update, even among the religious. Genesis 16 was one of the most upsetting things I've ever read. That whole deal with Hagar was obviously not consensual, and the idea that an angel would coach Hagar to return to such an abusive environment is profoundly disturbing. 3) Who is willing to die for an intellectual (or relative) claim? Humans. People were excommunicated, tortured, and/or killed for Atheism during the inquisition. 4) Atheism has no staying power under persecution. See, this point in particular makes me wonder whether you've been coached to hold these views, because if you'd actually been reading the stories of Atheists or asking about our lived experiences, it's extremely common for Atheists to face persecution. Coming out as Atheist often involves losing friends, losing community, losing spouses, becoming alienated with parents or siblings, and even physical abuse. It's traumatic, and redefines our relationships and lives. Read up on Jessica Ahlquist and the death threats that she received at age 16. Humans are social animals, and we have physiological reactions to that kind of stuff. Knowing how people will respond, and staying true to your beliefs anyway, takes great courage. Calling Atheists cowardly is a declaration of ignorance, and shows that you have a lot to learn about what they go through. And remember, just because an Atheist doesn't believe in God, that doesn't mean they don't believe in anything. There are Atheist cops, soldiers, firefighters, and so on- Atheists who believe in their country, their community, and in their fellow humans, and who surely don't deserve to be called cowardly.
I suspect that the title is supposed to be a clickbait. It's not really an honest representation of the content. But that's okay, because it serves the purpose of spreading truth about atheism in the name of God. ... I'm just kidding. This is not a serious moral issue. What's unfortunate though is that he doesn't seem to read the comments.
If there is no objective morality, then under what basis is any objection made? It would seem that the only grounds are essentially, "I don't like it," or "we, as a group, don't like it," to which the dissenter can simply respond, "so what?" If one begins with the premise that there is no objective morality, then one's argument against slavery, for example, has no teeth because someone else can disagree with you; and you have no means by which to demonstrate the flaw in the opposing party's logic. You've already conceded that morality is subjective; and from that individual's perspective, their actions _are_ moral. However, that doesn't stop people from making moral arguments anyway. "Slavery is evil!" "Bigotry is evil!" "This is evil!" "That is evil!" Evil according _to whom?_ Based on what _metric_ Who determined that metric? On what _basis?_ On whose _authority?_ How do we know that is the "right" view? It all becomes meaningless, which makes these moral high ground fallacies all the more laughable. It's not that these individuals aren't _able_ to act morally. It's not that I _disagree_ with their assessments as to which actions are moral, which are immoral, and which are amoral and cannot be judged on a moral basis. Rather, it's that if there is no objective morality, they cannot cannot *justify* their moral assessments beyond, "I don't like it," which isn't a compelling argument because it sounds like petulant child's argument. Even if we agree that certain acts are immoral, if one is to convince a dissenter of this, one needs a better argument than a toddler's "I don' 'wike' it!," and, as best as I can tell, you can't get to a better argument without an objective standard.
"the dissenter can simply respond, "so what?"" How does that help them? They still go to jail if we really "don't wike" what they did. "On whose authority?" On the authority of the state. The "we, as a group", who don't wike it. "means by which to demonstrate the flaw in the opposing party's logic" What exactly is your means to demonstrate the flaw in their "logic" if there's objective morality? How do you demonstrate that what you claim is objective morality is indeed the real objective morality? For example, say, you live in the Old Testament times, and Duteronomy dictates that if you rape someone's daughter, you must pay the father for damaging her property, and you must marry the woman. You might consider that "objective morality", but how do you demonstrate that the scripture is really objective morality?
i dont know anything about subjective morality so i apologise if i am wrong, however could the subject not say, for example, 'action x is wrong to me' and that acts as a basis for why someone ought not do action x to that subject. even if the person doing the action thinks 'action x is morally fine to me', they are still doing action x to the subject, and to whom is it wrong. could this not act as a basis for subjective morality?
@al-Assas You're conflating morality with legality. A false equivocation fallacy doesn't make your case any more logical. If there is _no_ objective morality, and society collectively decides that rape is moral, then no matter how disgusting you find it, you have no basis for objection. And, who said anything about any scriptures being the objective standard? I'm not advocating for any such thing. I'm irreligious and agnostic, so don't strawman me.
@EitherSpark Sure. But, it dodges the point. If morality is subjective and society collectively decided action X (rape, slavery, whatever) is moral, then no matter how deplorable one finds action X, it simply wouldn't matter.
@@JustifiedNonetheless I'm sorry. What can be a basis for objective morality then, if not the Bible? Or am I strawmanning you again? Technically, you didn't say that there's an objective morality.
Why would this matter even if it were true? There are gods or there aren't. The qualities of movements don't matter. We should subordinate ourselves to reality rather than picking beliefs that have "perks".
3:05 cautious language noted but that being said, that's a huge part of your claim. Assuming human nature evolves, which I believe is likely and even already may have with technology such as the internet and social media, moral relativism then again is intuitive. Unless you're willing to claim in blanket that morality ought/is tied to human nature. Interesting video appreciate your insight!
“Human nature does not change.” “Human nature has not changed.” LOL! Based on all available evidence, that is verifiably not true. Thus, your argument fails. Morality is malleable.
"Based on all available evidence" in the 1400s, blood letting was a totally valid medical practice....Science can't verify, it can only falsify. You can't disprove a god tautologically. Meaning that because of how we define what "god" means, any actual "god" would fall entirely outside of the purview of science. Atheists are trying to examine electrons with telescopes...
Atheism doesn't suck, its just that people that are fanatically atheist do. Kinda like vegans. Im atheist, or agnostic idk kinda switch between the two. I still think there's more to the world than what we can perceive though, thats not incompatible with atheist. I just think that believing the words written in a book as though its a direct line from god when god could just as easily talk directly to the people, is really stupid.
Morality is an intellectual endeavor insomuch as we describe ethic and morals using our intellect. It may not be the source of morality, but it can be how we describe it. You say atheism couldn’t cause a positive change under a tyrannical system? What if the tyrannical system is a theocratic dictatorship and the only way to revolt is to overthrow the authoritarian religious regime? Would that not be an example against your claim? Overall, if this is an argument against being an atheist, it’s an extremely weak one. But if it’s just an opinion of yours that you’re sharing and not trying to argue a point, then that’s fine.
allows for freeform frameworks so long as there isn't any obnoxious mandala competition that wants a specific outcome to which you participate in, a collider of expectation maintained by your own participation across a game of 12 strong rock paper scissors lizard spock, the danger of not believing in something is that someone else doesn't get to hedge their bets.
Morality absolutely is malleable. Humans are heavily influenced by the moral opinions of the society they grow up in, and those moral opinions vary significantly. Certainly there are commonalities like “don’t kill people,” a lot of people believe that, but not everyone agrees on who counts as “people.” A lot of people think very little of committing acts of horrific barbarism against an individual who worships the “wrong” God. As history progresses, the majority has changed their opinion on things like slavery, women’s rights, war, etc. all things that a holy text such as the Bible can be construed as endorsing or condemning, depending on what you want. All of this is to say that I think morality absolutely is relative. That is not unique to atheism.
are you saying that because peoples' opinions on what is moral/immoral changes throughout time and geography, then morality itself is changing? if so, why does peoples' opinion on morality change what is actually moral/immoral?
@@EitherSpark Morality is partly something we born with (due to evolutionary pressure) and partly something we learn from our parents and culture (bit like fear of heights and snakes). Thus it is subject to changes. There is tribe (called Wari') in Amazon area, which used to eat their deceased loved ones. They were absolutely horrified how we western people can be so cruel that we let the bodies of our loved ones to rot in cold. It's that malleable.
@@EitherSpark I suppose if there was some sort of objective morality, peoples’ opinions would not not matter, but there isn’t, so they do. Even a source of supposedly objective morality such as a religious text has to be interpreted, and what we interpret religion as endorsing or condemning changes constantly.
@@belugaknight3167 how can you just claim there is no such thing as objective morality?
@@user255 is morality something we are born with or is it moral opinions that we are born with? is morality subject to change or are our moral opinions subject to change?
I'm not sure what you mean by "atheism as a movement". I'm not religious, and I'm not aware that I'm part of any "movement". I just don't think that gods and other random ancient mythical figures actually exist in real life. Am I not an atheist, then?
Morality doesn't just "interface with our conscience", it is rooted in our conscience, as a function of our human nature. Morality as an "endeavor" is not an intellectual endeavor. Who in that "atheist movement" told you that it's an intellecual endeavor? It's a spiritual endeavor, and ideally it aims for cleaning your moral sense from those "maladaptive", distorting factors that you might pick up from your social environment, so that you can listen to your conscience that reflects your human nature without any distortions.
What monotheism does is it asserts itself on top of human nature, and plasters over our true, human conscience with an arbitrary fantasy, thereby closing off our path to our natural, underlying morality. The point of morality in monotheism is that human nature is malleable, but God is absolute. Therefore, the right thing to do is to align yourself to God, even if that contradicts your natural sense of morality. For example, a spiritually healthy person might think that drowning your own sentient creations, the children, their mothers, the old, the disabled, everyone, because they turned their backs on you, is a monstrous and horrible act. Similarly, one might think that ordering your creations to murder their own family members if they happen to worship foreign gods is a monstrous, horrible act. Your religion however tells you that that's how a perfectly just and holy God acted at the time of the Flood, and at the time of the ancient Israelites, thereby distorting your sense of morality.
That's why emperors, kings and caliphs like monotheism so much. Because it is able to suppress people's natural sense of morality, and prime them for accepting (and sometimes even dying for) the arbitrary rules and principles handed down from above.
maybe by 'atheism as a movement' he means the people following after the new atheists such as dawkins, hitchens, etc. maybe he means 'movement' in a more abstract sense--a group of people that hold similar beliefs and guided by the thinking of a small group--rather than a concrete sense as used in 'feminist movement' or 'lgbtq movement'
I agree that atheism is not a movement, mostly I see it as an individual coming to grips with what they personally believe.
Atheism is the belief that we can and do know that there is no God or gods outside of our physical limitations. Religion is indistinguishable from simulation theory. In effect they are both just another version of "we can't test this based on the way we define it." If there is a god, we can't run scientific tests on it because the god could trick us by changing reality. Even a very advanced trickster who wasn't close to omnipotent could be capable of tricking our measly sensory organs.
Well stated
@@EitherSparkmany people come to not hold a belief in God or gods etc, and yet still hold to moral claims. And these people never know Dawkins, etc (anyone who doesn't speak English)
Morality is empathy. Morality is understanding. No need to oppose it to intellect. And some values are not flexible.
You are searching for a contradiction who is not there.
And also i feel quite preoccupied about what seems a little bit of hatred.
Sometimes i feel that too, i feel misunderstood.
Just because we are humans. I think others are deeply wrong sometimes.
Do i want to punish others or threaten their freedom?
No.
Because i don't want my belief (or non-belief...) and my freedom to be arbitrarily confiscated too.
There's some obvious rules. If god exist, only him can juge.
Who's willing to die for an intellectual claim. Better to ask: who's willing to kill for an intellectual claim. Historically what people are willing to die for is also the thing they're willing to kill for. Maybe that's why the worst abuses in history usually stemmed from religious fanaticism.
Actually, atheism is not a movement. That's your first mistake. Atheism is the absence of belief in a deity. There have been roughly three thousand gods dreamt up by the human imagination. I'd therefore have to estimate that you, yourself, are an atheist approximately two thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine times over. Atheism is a statement of one thing that an individual doesn't believe in. It says nothing about what that individual actually does believe in. Perhaps you would do better not to make broad claims about those who you clearly do not remotely understand.
As for the morality of the believer, if it's based on fear of Devine punishment, then it's not any kind of morality at all. Morality is doing what one believes is right for the simple reason that it is right. The fear of punishment is the crudest approximation of morality at best. It may have the outward appearance of morality, but it's not the real thing.
I am not an Atheist, I just don't believe in magic, that's all.
From the videos I've seen, you're normally open minded and careful with your reasoning, so I'm not sure why this one jumped off the rails. There are a few problems with your argument.
1) Moral claims versus intellectual claims
I don't know where you got the idea that Atheists are precluded from having morals or ethical values. If an Atheist told you this, point me at them and I will explain to them why they are wrong. Just as with Christians, Jews, Muslims, or disciples of any religion, moral claims and intellectual claims inform each other, and often a broad moral system can intellectually derive from a few moral principles. If anyone believes that their entire system is purely intellectual, they are wrong- at some point, to make such a system that lets you tell right from wrong, you must pick a standard of value. Choosing this standard of value is necessarily a moral decision, even if the rest of the system derives from it in an intellectual way. The only difference is that religious people accept these moral axioms based on religious doctrine, while Atheists choose one through non-religious methods. This could be an instinctive "Hurting people makes me feel icky" thing, or a more philosophically reasoned thing, but that doesn't change what it is. Perhaps the Atheist accepts the laws of society rather than the commandments outlined in the bible.
It's also not valid to say that a religious source of morality is inherently "better" than a non-religious source, because then you're committed to defending religiously motivated atrocities such as... Well, choose your own examples here, don't need to trigger the bots.
By the way, recent census data indicates that 4% of the US adult population identifies as Atheist, and yet only 0.07% of the prison population is Atheist. If we measure moral behavior based on the idea that moral behavior keeps you out of prison, Atheists are 57 times more moral than the general population.
Even once you commit to a religious source for your moral axioms, you still have to choose. Christians, for example, choose which moral principles to accept when choosing a denomination- do you vibe with Anglicans? Lutherans? Baptists? Do you know of anyone who has switched to a different church because the pastor's teachings rang "more true" over there? And it also happens when they decide which specific verses are a big deal. Why is Leviticus 18:22 so important, and Leviticus 19:28 so negligible?
So in summary on this point, Atheists are not excluded from making moral claims, and a religious source for moral claims does not appear to be inherently more valid than a non-religious source.
2) Atheists see morality as malleable, which (to paraphrase what I think your argument is) means that the Atheist view on morality is invalid.
I agree that Atheists see morality as malleable, but so do theists. Even within Catholicism, we have Ex Cathedra announcements, papal bulls, and apostolic exhortations which can re-define or gradually shape not just religious practices, but also moral codes within the church. As the different branches of the church evolve, faction, cross-pollenate, fade out, or grow, the moral principles involved with that branch also change and evolve. Even within the bible itself, morality isn't fixed. What are verses such as Matthew 19:3-9, Acts 10:9-16, and Hebrews 8:13 if not updates that override the prior moral code?
The reason your syllogism fails- "Morality deals with human nature. Human nature doesn't change. Therefore morality doesn't change," is in part because morality doesn't just deal exclusively with human nature. It also describes the interaction between humans and society. So even if we pretend that human nature is unchanged, society changes, therefore components of morality are free to change as well. We've been using "morality" and "ethics" as synonyms up to this point, but even if we scale back the discussion from narrowly defined morality (the interaction with society) to pure ethics (an individual's character), you yourself stated earlier in the video that morality, conscience, and intellectual claims can all interplay and inform each other. This is a dynamic system, and the components including morality will move as we learn more about the consequences of our actions.
And frankly, thank goodness that morality does update, even among the religious. Genesis 16 was one of the most upsetting things I've ever read. That whole deal with Hagar was obviously not consensual, and the idea that an angel would coach Hagar to return to such an abusive environment is profoundly disturbing.
3) Who is willing to die for an intellectual (or relative) claim?
Humans.
People were excommunicated, tortured, and/or killed for Atheism during the inquisition.
4) Atheism has no staying power under persecution.
See, this point in particular makes me wonder whether you've been coached to hold these views, because if you'd actually been reading the stories of Atheists or asking about our lived experiences, it's extremely common for Atheists to face persecution. Coming out as Atheist often involves losing friends, losing community, losing spouses, becoming alienated with parents or siblings, and even physical abuse. It's traumatic, and redefines our relationships and lives. Read up on Jessica Ahlquist and the death threats that she received at age 16. Humans are social animals, and we have physiological reactions to that kind of stuff. Knowing how people will respond, and staying true to your beliefs anyway, takes great courage. Calling Atheists cowardly is a declaration of ignorance, and shows that you have a lot to learn about what they go through.
And remember, just because an Atheist doesn't believe in God, that doesn't mean they don't believe in anything. There are Atheist cops, soldiers, firefighters, and so on- Atheists who believe in their country, their community, and in their fellow humans, and who surely don't deserve to be called cowardly.
Sucks? Bro you’re the one with the Christian mythology
As least we have something to believe and have something to follow, but the creator used the wrong word
I suspect that the title is supposed to be a clickbait. It's not really an honest representation of the content. But that's okay, because it serves the purpose of spreading truth about atheism in the name of God. ... I'm just kidding. This is not a serious moral issue. What's unfortunate though is that he doesn't seem to read the comments.
@@al-Assas what u play D&D? I saw from your subscriptions lol. I’m an eladrin Druid circle of the moon
Define 'atheism'. I'm willing to bet you don't believe in Odin, Allah, or Shiva.
If there is no objective morality, then under what basis is any objection made? It would seem that the only grounds are essentially, "I don't like it," or "we, as a group, don't like it," to which the dissenter can simply respond, "so what?" If one begins with the premise that there is no objective morality, then one's argument against slavery, for example, has no teeth because someone else can disagree with you; and you have no means by which to demonstrate the flaw in the opposing party's logic. You've already conceded that morality is subjective; and from that individual's perspective, their actions _are_ moral. However, that doesn't stop people from making moral arguments anyway. "Slavery is evil!" "Bigotry is evil!" "This is evil!" "That is evil!" Evil according _to whom?_ Based on what _metric_ Who determined that metric? On what _basis?_ On whose _authority?_ How do we know that is the "right" view? It all becomes meaningless, which makes these moral high ground fallacies all the more laughable.
It's not that these individuals aren't _able_ to act morally. It's not that I _disagree_ with their assessments as to which actions are moral, which are immoral, and which are amoral and cannot be judged on a moral basis. Rather, it's that if there is no objective morality, they cannot cannot *justify* their moral assessments beyond, "I don't like it," which isn't a compelling argument because it sounds like petulant child's argument. Even if we agree that certain acts are immoral, if one is to convince a dissenter of this, one needs a better argument than a toddler's "I don' 'wike' it!," and, as best as I can tell, you can't get to a better argument without an objective standard.
"the dissenter can simply respond, "so what?""
How does that help them? They still go to jail if we really "don't wike" what they did.
"On whose authority?"
On the authority of the state. The "we, as a group", who don't wike it.
"means by which to demonstrate the flaw in the opposing party's logic"
What exactly is your means to demonstrate the flaw in their "logic" if there's objective morality? How do you demonstrate that what you claim is objective morality is indeed the real objective morality? For example, say, you live in the Old Testament times, and Duteronomy dictates that if you rape someone's daughter, you must pay the father for damaging her property, and you must marry the woman. You might consider that "objective morality", but how do you demonstrate that the scripture is really objective morality?
i dont know anything about subjective morality so i apologise if i am wrong, however could the subject not say, for example, 'action x is wrong to me' and that acts as a basis for why someone ought not do action x to that subject. even if the person doing the action thinks 'action x is morally fine to me', they are still doing action x to the subject, and to whom is it wrong. could this not act as a basis for subjective morality?
@al-Assas
You're conflating morality with legality. A false equivocation fallacy doesn't make your case any more logical. If there is _no_ objective morality, and society collectively decides that rape is moral, then no matter how disgusting you find it, you have no basis for objection.
And, who said anything about any scriptures being the objective standard? I'm not advocating for any such thing. I'm irreligious and agnostic, so don't strawman me.
@EitherSpark
Sure. But, it dodges the point. If morality is subjective and society collectively decided action X (rape, slavery, whatever) is moral, then no matter how deplorable one finds action X, it simply wouldn't matter.
@@JustifiedNonetheless I'm sorry. What can be a basis for objective morality then, if not the Bible? Or am I strawmanning you again? Technically, you didn't say that there's an objective morality.
Why would this matter even if it were true? There are gods or there aren't. The qualities of movements don't matter. We should subordinate ourselves to reality rather than picking beliefs that have "perks".
3:05 cautious language noted but that being said, that's a huge part of your claim. Assuming human nature evolves, which I believe is likely and even already may have with technology such as the internet and social media, moral relativism then again is intuitive. Unless you're willing to claim in blanket that morality ought/is tied to human nature. Interesting video appreciate your insight!
“Human nature does not change.”
“Human nature has not changed.”
LOL! Based on all available evidence, that is verifiably not true. Thus, your argument fails.
Morality is malleable.
"Based on all available evidence" in the 1400s, blood letting was a totally valid medical practice....Science can't verify, it can only falsify. You can't disprove a god tautologically. Meaning that because of how we define what "god" means, any actual "god" would fall entirely outside of the purview of science. Atheists are trying to examine electrons with telescopes...
Atheism doesn't suck, its just that people that are fanatically atheist do. Kinda like vegans.
Im atheist, or agnostic idk kinda switch between the two. I still think there's more to the world than what we can perceive though, thats not incompatible with atheist. I just think that believing the words written in a book as though its a direct line from god when god could just as easily talk directly to the people, is really stupid.
Atheism is great (you should try it,)
This was a complete waste of time.
Morality is an intellectual endeavor insomuch as we describe ethic and morals using our intellect. It may not be the source of morality, but it can be how we describe it. You say atheism couldn’t cause a positive change under a tyrannical system? What if the tyrannical system is a theocratic dictatorship and the only way to revolt is to overthrow the authoritarian religious regime? Would that not be an example against your claim? Overall, if this is an argument against being an atheist, it’s an extremely weak one. But if it’s just an opinion of yours that you’re sharing and not trying to argue a point, then that’s fine.
You should go to school (not Christian school dosing count)...
gna gthey hidig
Leave this place with your blasphemous wizarding
@@parkerstroh6586 sorry i was off shrooms
allows for freeform frameworks so long as there isn't any obnoxious mandala competition that wants a specific outcome to which you participate in, a collider of expectation maintained by your own participation across a game of 12 strong rock paper scissors lizard spock, the danger of not believing in something is that someone else doesn't get to hedge their bets.
SWING and a MISS . Thanks for playing ✌️✌️🤣🤣🤣🤣