I'm an atheist. I am also the type of person where if I saw someone drop a 20 dollar bill, I would chase them down and give it back to them. I am strongly against murderers, thieves, liars, and the likes. I have morals because I am an intelligent, thinking human being. I need not answer to God or anybody else; I have to answer to my own inner consciousness. I couldn't really live with myself if I did some of those things. I just do what is RIGHT. I think everyone should too, just without God.
100% you dont need religion to be a moral person, just look at history how many sickening things have been done in the name of religion. Look at what the priests in catholic churches did to kids as an example.
Just to piggyback. Murdering, stealing, and lying are not in anyone's self-interest. There all a sign of evasion from thought and reason. The symptom is a dependency on the victims of those crimes, not to mention having to remember all of the lies. The subject of morality is about teaching people how to live. Morality is not a set of commandments. Commandments want you to abandon the use of your mind. Anti-mind is anti-human. Anti-human is anti-life.
castroy64 and Abrahamic religions in the last 100 decades have murdered nearly 2.2 billion people equaled to the population. Your self righteousness is fading like your religions values.
@castroy64 Except they werent atheistic, but you probably don't care /shrug. In case you actually do care - A little education for you: ruclips.net/video/igdIoXYVQ_k/видео.htmlm46s
Dr. Flow so you think slavery is a good idea? If i catch my neighbor cutting his grass next sunday should i kill him? If the bible is the perfect immutable word of god...why did it need the new testament jesus adventures that rebuke most of the old?
slavery is a prime example of a moral teaching that believers can't defend. we are all supposed to be god's children. how can one group of children ferociously mistreat another group of children for many decades, while god the father watches and chooses to do nothing? keep in mind he's supposed to be omnipotent and could stop the mistreatment at any time. I've never heard any religious person give a reasonable explanation to this.
@castroy64 Are you trying to make the argument that those regimes would have been peaceful if they involved modern religion more in society and governing? In that case, you're an idiot.
@@philc5499 1) *Yawns*, as expected..all the classic, age-old logical fallacies used over & over again. 2) By your logic, mustaches are bad because Hitler & Saddam were murderers with mustaches. 3) Cite your source that every single abolitionist was a Christian, and EVEN IF - what does that have to do with their stance? The implications are grand and the presumption is absurd. Had one been/identified as a Buddhist, then how would you feel? How would you statement change? 4) Slavery was in-part justified because of biblical passages found in Exodus, Leviticus, Genesis and more. If the bible has been one objectively-true book with timeless wisdom and morality, then it wouldn't stipulate slavery. 5) One can identify with any religion and sect and still fight against indecency - affiliation with any given cult is irrelevant. If anything, that proves their humanity in more modern times than biblical ones - and how they know better than to take a primitive, amalgamated Middle Eastern book as "divinely-inspired truth". This is a book that says that says that a 600 year old man got two of each animal on an ark. This is a book that says the gays are sinful and should be condemned. I wouldn't take that pile of trash seriously..does it have some poetry and nice parables? Sure..but is it based on cosmic truth? Nope.
Gods are poor moral guides because authoritarian dogma can be deliberately twisted by misguided people. gods are merely an attempt to personalize moral codes in the form of a father figure who is always watching, able to inflict punishment on law breakers by magical means, and whom one would feel shame for disobeying as one would one's own father. Rationality has to be part of the moral equation, and real rationality always involves a recognition that social animals like humans are mutually dependent and therefore compassion is essential to our relationships.
It is amazing that anyone in the 21st century embraces any of these ancient religions. We are way past the point where all of them should be abolished.
Jose, I am not an art scholar either but most artists I know do art because they are unsatisfied with anything else. Many of the great painters were penniless throughout their careers often becoming celebrated after their deaths. Money makes life easier but it doesn't stand in the way of true passion and talent.
Part 2 In my view human rights can no more be established by groups or individuals than I could declare that theft is no longer an evil or that charity now is an evil. We cannot "declare" human rights, we can only recognize pre-existing universal moral truths. Moral truth can only derive from "among" us or from "beyond" us. If from among us, it is merely provincial and malleable. If it is from beyond us, we are looking at a universal Law-Giver.
The question I have, is does the subjective nature of morality make it any less meaningful than if it were somehow declared by a "Devine Law-Maker"? And would you personally consider Euthyphro's dilema a fundamental flaw with the notion of "divinely ordained law and morality"? Would it not invalidate the idea that Godly morals are fundamentally objective?
@@NateAnderson69 Nate, The dilemma is a false one. Morality which is ungrounded in objective truth becomes self defeating. One party says it is wrong to steal from my store. The other party (as we have seen so graphically in recent years) says it is perfectly right to steal from your store because I have been mistreated by your society. With objective morality a conclusion can be derived. With subjective morality no conclusion can be reached for both claimants possess the same status. Hence one cannot overrule the other. Virtue and morality must then necessarily be meaningless. To quote another: "Thankfully, the Bible provides a third option to which Christians assent. God's nature, His divine character, serves as the standard of goodness, which He follows. Since He is pointing to His own nature as the standard, that standard does not exist above or outside Himself." This is the answer to Euthyphro's dilemma.
@@BillyBike416 Hey again Bill, I think it's very interesting that many who participate in the philosophy of religious morality often describe the alternative to their assertions as only being nihilism, full-stop. I think that we should consider the value of secular morality, however. It's really convenient and simple to just assert that without God, morality is meaningless with the only alternative being nihilism. Secular morality does exist in the absence of nihilism, as well as religious morality too, however. It seems like your answer to Euthyphro's dilemma is, and correct me if I'm in any way wrong, "God's nature is all good, and morality is a reflection of his nature", which seems to be a bit of a roundabout way of saying "a thing is moral because God says it is". This doesn't really highlight a flaw in the dilema, rather the answer in which you provide to invalidate it; this may seem like a leap, but hear me out. If subject action is moral because it is inherently moral, and God is merely articulating that fact, then morality exists without the existence of God; he's simply the law enforcer, not the maker. But if morality is only moral because God says it is, then morality in and of itself is arbitrary. You say the latter is true, but that God's nature being all good and all moral is what informs this decision. God's nature is moral, and therefore his laws are moral. But who decided what God's nature was? Did God decide? If so, then subject action is moral because God says it is, and all we've done is push the issue back a step without answering the actual question. If God did NOT decide, then again, morality supercedes him. Speaking to the notions of a Judeo-Christian God, this would also invalidate the presumption that he is the alpha and omega. Ultimately, claiming that God's nature being moral is what deems him to articulate and authoritate morality is just an acceptance that he deems what is moral, not because it is intrinsically good, but because he says it is. But what defines those things and actions as being truly moral? Again, if their only explanation for being moral is circular reasoning, it ultimately takes out any of the inherent value from the commandments and moral rules that God puts forward. At that this point, we aren't discussing morality and ethics, we are talking about arbitrary commandments that have nothing to do with intrinsic morality. And if you claim that "his laws are moral because his nature is moral, and his nature is moral because those moral virtues are universal, and they're universal because God commands them, and God commands them because they reflect his nature", it just creates an unending loop. I think that morality can simultaneously be subjective, as well as objective within the confines of the subjective nature in which said morality is being applied in, if that makes sense. Morality is a reflection of a few key things, those being the intelligence of a given species, the biological and anthropological obstacles that said species has to overcome, and that species capacity for empathetic thinking. While philosophical notions like the "social contract" night encompass a part of what it is to be moral, I think many secular moralists give it too much credit, and ignore the role of emotion in moral decision making. Any ways, given the parameters in which morality can develope, it stands to reason that, yes, morality can cultivate and manifest in different ways, depending on different species and cultures, there are certain unalienable truths that be determined through exercise of reason, as well as empathy. These are the objective moral truths that reside in the subjective nature of morality. It isn't easy to determine these truths, and like you perfectly articulated, disagreements are bound to crop up. But that's why we discuss morality, and that's why we should challenge preconceived notions. To arrive at moral conclusivity may be harder to do than if operating under theistic moral assumption, but that doesn't make it invalid, incorrect, or less true than the moral conclusions drawn to through religion. The simplest answer often isn't the correct one, in my opinion. I respect your beliefs, but personally I remain unconvinced that morality is entirely dependant on theistic belief.
Sam Harris in another lecture says that "religion" (the word) stands for a whole load of different things. In this, he is absolutely right. And of all these things, good and bad, the best is the death of ego. The elimination of arrogance. This is truly religion at its best. Can atheism do that? (cont.)
The union went to war singing "My eye's have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord" "he died to make men Holy let us die to make men free" God sent Moses back to Egypt to liberate the slaves from the Pharaohs does not sound like an endorsement of slavery to me.
So? The book of Exodus has clear guidelines for taking, keeping, and trading slaves. In the book of Numbers, the Christian god commands his people to lay waste to neighboring cities and take all the virgin women as slaves. The New Testament admonishes slaves to treat their Christian masters especially well, that they might partake in their holiness. Jesus, himself uses slave analogies in his preachments. Have you even read these disgusting books?
@charlieapeshit Brilliant. After reading this statement or at least coming to the same understanding of history it blows me away that people can still succumb to the Christian faith. Carry on
If you believe that this worlds judgements of Good And Evil are enough, then don’t believe on Jesus. But if You believe in Gods Judgement that We Need Jesus and The Holy Spirit. Then Believe in Jesus as Good that Took on The Evil due to our name, and the promise is that You will receive the Holy Spirit. For this world is Not Holy. But we can be Holy, By Belief and Salvation.
And when informed that Shelly is talking about revolution, replying, "Wind is not revolution. Wind blows straight, and revolution is revolving, rotating, cycling." And when told that it means revolution of people, responding, "People are not wheels to be rotating. This is not how human locomotion is structured." You'd say, "This man has no idea what this poem is about." (cont.)
Eugenics was the outgrowth of a secular/scientific worldview which developed around a humanist philosophy during the period of 1860 - 1900. Upon review, its philosophic underpinnings were rejected by most ethicists. The definition I found for morality was "the differentiation between good and evil acts". Regarding "human rights", are they something that you could grant to me? Can you create new human rights and grant them to other people? How are they derived? Is it a matter of a majority vote?
only we can decide such a thing. who else could? having objective morality is like having objective musical tastes or beauty. there will rarely be unanimous agreement but such is the world. but you do the best you can and continue to evolve our ideas. for example, we used to believe that slavery was moral but we have since learned otherwise through experience. the only way powerful people can decide what is moral is if we, the people, allow them to. people must not follow anyone blindly.
@Plissken07 That is from a non-Christian perspective. If you on the other hand believe that the Bible is the (inspired) word of God, why should its commands not be taken literally? Are the Ten Commandments also metaphorical? Is Jesus a metaphor for something? Is Abraham a metaphor?
A Way to Save Ourselves It takes two to Tango. There is usually fault on both sides. At first, we often realize we were not quite right with our simple conclusion about the problem. Then we begin to look at both sides and then there are more sides. Soon the issue has become very complex, and it begins to include the big picture - the whole picture. There is always one word that can be used to describe the problem: Unfairness. We have gone from simple to complex and then back again to a simple solution for all conflicts. Get rid of the unfairness - all of it. Fairness is simple. Unfairness is complicated. Fair people are simple people. Fair people are most powerful. Power is simple. Unfair people are complicated. Unfair people are less powerful. Are you on the side of fairness or unfairness? It has been said there are no rules in war. In an unfair world, war would be despicably evil. Fairness has rules. We must be fair with our punishment. If we had fairness for all, there would be no wars. Put all this aside for a minute. Just relax and see what happens next. Take no action for a minute. Stop all your thoughts. We want everyone to be fair to everyone. We want the unfairness to stop happening to us. Ask the all powerful all for help to make it happen. Fairness is good. Unfairness is evil. Is there a problem? Who is being unfair? We all need to surrender to being fair to everyone everyday. The all powerful all creates unity and agreement. Stop worrying. Trust that this will work. Fair people do not cause the problem. Unfair people cause the problem. Maybe we need to take action. We could tell them to leave from our place. We can terminate our friendship with unfair people. We could refuse to talk to unfair people. We could refuse to do anything for them. We could shun them. Be careful. Unfair people are harmful to fair people. Fair people need to protect themselves from unfair people. Our Governmental laws are so complicated that they are incapable of stopping the unfairness. They are incapable of establishing justice for all. The unfair elite have created laws to benefit themselves. Their system has become a racket - a scheme to gain wealth and power at the expense of others. It has become an in group exploiting the out group. We need fair minded people in government to stop the unfairness from government. Imagine a system of government that is designed to get rid of all the unfairness, both inside and outside itself. Imagine religions also are about getting rid of all unfairness, both inside and outside themselves. I argue that all the mass shooting and killings were caused by unfairness. I argue that all wars were caused by unfairness. We already know it is unfair when some terroristic event happens. We need to stop the unfairness to the people that have become terroristic. Love will not stop the hate that is being created. Our laws will not stop the unfairness. Stopping unfairness will. We all need to agree to be fair to everyone. We all need to surrender to being fair to everyone everyday. We can easily see how factions, groups, support groups, cults, religions, political parties, nations, etc. are a major part of the world of people. These various groups or alliances create various beliefs that are unique to themselves. More and more, these beliefs are about the in group being right and the others being wrong and evil to the in group in some way. These beliefs are not based on facts. Rather, they are based on falsehood. The in group believes that only the in group knows and tells the truth and the others are enemies to the truth. However, this is not true at all. We are in a world of people that are enemies to each other. All too often these groups are about gaining power over the outsiders in an attempt to defeat and then rule them. These people become less and less concerned about actual truth and fairness. Hate of the outsiders becomes the norm. Unfairness becomes the norm. More and more the in group believes it has the real truth and everyone else is delusional or brainwashed believing deception. However, it is the in group that is believing falsehood. More and more, the entire human family is believing falsehood. These ingroups become unconcerned about fairness. They become mean and cruel. This is happening to the other groups also. The world of humans becomes insane from delusional thinking and unfairness. Unfairness to others becomes the norm. I argue that the cause of all of this is a tolerance to unfairness. We allow unfairness in our religions. We allow unfairness in our politics. We allow unfairness in ourselves. Unfairness has become the norm. Denial of truth about ourselves and others becomes the norm. More an more, people refuse to admit the truth. Being born into this unfairness makes humans hateful, delusional and unfair themselves. It becomes very understandable that all unfairness must be stopped. Unfairness should not be allowed to happen to anyone from the time they are born until the time they die. It needs to become the norm that humans are required to admit the truth rather than denying the truth. We need to form a movement and a religion with the main purpose to stop all unfairness. This must be done in a fair and helpful way to all. It is not the peoples fault that they were born into this devastating unfairness. However, it is the responsibility of all to put an end to unfairness , both within ourselves and also in others. Join us. We are The Way of fairness. Share this message everywhere.
Especially since he doesn't appear to exist. But, to be fair, I suppose one could argue that after the rapture, slavery would not longer exist. Up until then however, he seems fine with it.
@Loveseekingmissile - not so much the tone and the pitch, but the way he puts his thoughts together in a coherent manor. I listen to smart people speak regularly and I can tell the difference between someone who is smart and who is not...this guy is not stupid. He may be wrong...but he's not stupid.
"Most of them [fine tunings] are one percent sort of things. In other words if a thing is one percent different everything gets bad. And a physicist could say maybe those are just luck. On the other hand this cosmological constant is tuned to one part in ten to the hundred and twenty, [1 in 10^120]. Nobody thinks that's accidental. That is not a reasonable idea that something is tuned to 120 decimal places by accident" Atheist physicist Leonard Susskind
morality is not something to be imposed. it is an abstract concept to be discussed and developed, because some aspects are greyer than others. morality is not universal and it changes over time and over different cultures. it's as changing as it is subjective. as for humans deciding this, i'd vaguely quote sam harris who said at ted talks, "who are we to decide what is moral? who are we not to decide this? who are we to say that we know so little about human well being?"
@zassounotsukushi I strongly disagree with you. Morality, in my understanding, is totally inside the realm of science. As long as we can say that X is better than Z, the same way as when we can say that something is fixed or other is broken, based in our experience and give values to different states, we can use science to make predictions, hypothesis(and then thesis then theories) and use it to make predictions and/or say that this will be better than that to the growth of a community.
Here is what Marx said about religion: ""Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness." ("Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right") (cont.)
"How is opposition resolved? By making it impossible. And how is religious opposition made impossible? By abolishing religion." (The Jewish Question). But I found that the "demand of real happiness" ends up creating far more misery than illusory happiness of religion. Particularly when there is abolishing of religion by force. What am I supposed to do with this knowledge?
...but the fact that it was as likely as unlikely, and not at all uncommon, lends authority to its use as an illustration of the possible results of the moral contradiction he was addressing.
Where else would our social behavior have come from? He doesn't have to argue that really, it's just the way it is. We evolved to where we are, with no intervention and pure survival skills. It's obvious we helped each other or we wouldn't be here.
If I'm an atheist, I'm an atheist, and there should be no need of saying anything about it. We should discuss this at a massive scale and get this over with once and for all.. so that whoever chooses to be a realist can be a realist.
Imagine someone saying, "Leaves are not ghosts. In fact, there are no ghosts! There are no enchanters either, and leaves are not stricken by pestilence." And just a little later: Wild Spirit, which art moving everywhere; Destroyer and preserver. That’s religious language. I can just see Sam Harris going "Destroyer and preserver? One cannot be both. Contradiction!" (cont.)
i would even propose that education is absolutely fundamental to the solutions to most social issues that are relevant today. almost every social problem a country faces stems from people's ignorance about the problem.
Yes there are serious thinkers today but it of course matters what they are thinking about. One of the byproducts of a materialistic, frenetic society like we have is that culture has become a mile wide but an inch deep. We know "more and more about less and less". Go to any university and read the titles of the last (say) 5 years Phd theses. You will find them (necessarily) arcane and unrelated to Life. The branches of knowledge today are so diverse that the can seldom speak to each other.
[certainly relieved some of the stress I felt from my first encounter with death.] My ex-wife thinks the same. For sure the belief that life goes on provides some stress relief. She is happy to exchange a day or two of relief for an entire life of panic, thinking that I or other loved ones that do not endorse his religious views will burn in hell forever. It is not a clever choice, but who can argue in favor of rationality with a person who choose to ignore reason and embrace fantasy?
i think, to a certain degree, that i get what you are saying. i think some of that stems from a lack of incentive. the artists of those times were good but most don't realize that they did it for a price. i'm not art scholar but i do know that mozart or leonardo davinci did what they did because someone was willing to pay generously. much like today, many pieces of art back then was considered a commodity. i think the incentive to pursue art has simply been stifled.
Sebastian, The Bible is a complex book and much more than a set of moral behaviors. Yes, there are parts of the Bible we no longer follow as the Biblical story is progressive. You will note the Bible consists of two "Testaments" and understanding them is key to understanding the whole. You probably have noted that we (Christians) no longer keep Jewish holidays, we eat shellfish, we don't worship on Saturday, we don't circumcise for religious reasons but for (supposed) health reasons.
the theory of evolution doesn't attempt to explain morality. it is an explanation for how we went from simple life forms long ago to the varied and complex species we see today. it's attempting to answer a completely unrelated question. it doesn't even attempt to explain how life began, just how it changed.
that could be. i don't mean to say that all artists were in it for the money. many of these artists over the centuries may very well have still went on to create their masterpieces but how many would have known of them. for example, bethoven's 9th symphony was a commisioned work. i guess my overall point is that because art has become so commercialized, many (but definitely not all) artists are a dime a dozen. since the internet became widespread their has been a massive flood of musicians.
I have respect for Sam Harris's arguments however, I can't stand how so many of his followers and admirers trash talk religion so completely. Religion itself, like everything else can be and has been used positively. Just like science, just like weapons, just like everything else. The original back story of religion (and no I don't mean a church and worship, but the practice of moral teachings) is always what has moved humanity forward to a more civilized species.
Even if religion a useful to the elite for controlling the masses, it's the stories that religion is based on are fiction and not truth. The Church of flying spaghetti monster might be a useful tool, but their texts are fiction, the same for Protestantism, Catholism, Mormonism, Scientology, Islam, Shia-Islam, Hinduism, Shinto etc
If "we" decide what morality is, who is "we"? At the end of "rationalization, reasoned discussion and scientific inquiry" will all agree"? Of course not, they don't agree now. So "morality" then becomes what people with power say it is. This of course leaves the question "Can the powerful ever be wrong"? If morality comes from the powerful, the answer must be "No, the powerful can never be wrong"; a conclusion I can't accept.
Yes, I agree there is a knowledge of morality in all people. The problem comes in that though we know the "Right", we often do the "Wrong". If there is no God, then this is inconsequential (and if fact morality is trivial and just one person's idea against another). If there is a God then the question becomes more important. If morality is a human invention then it is the product of people with power who impose their morality. This then leaves the question "Can the powerful ever be wrong?" No.
Here is an example: Eskimos believe that when little children play along the shore of the Arctic ocean, God talks to them. Thinking it's no big deal, children will come home and casually mention what God said. Now it's adults' job to separate it from the rest of their children's talk and make corresponding conclusions. This is 100% illogical. But there is something very profound in it.
i think you are missing my point that i brought up at first. even if god exists, religion is not god. it is the organized worship of god and i think that is an important distinction.
@Re5Publica That's where I say: We must combat not just religion, but any ideology that does not let be challenged and changed by other thing (better) when shown wrong - something that all religions, socialism, capitalism, nazism, culture and tradition share.
There are no real obligations in the world, just suggestions. The suggestion that we all treat each other as we would treach ourselves (and that idea predates any religion) seems to have worked out pretty well. As for Wilberforce and the abolitionists, yes, they followed that suggestion while the majority of the flock did not and the 'good book' certainly did not in its support of slavery.
It is not despite theology, but because of theology that we got rid of slavery. Name me one abolitionist atheist back when slavery was around. The atheists of Ancient Greece and Rome (yes, there were atheists in those days) were not anti-slavery at all. In the American Civil Wear, those who fought against it were just as much believers as those who fought for it. Perhaps more so, because even Southerners beep inside knew, simply as human beings, that there is something wrong with this (cont)
@Quixoticah - I think what Charlie was getting at is that Pope Urban used the Bible to refute Galileo's observations, Southern slave owners were known for quoting scripture to justify slavery & the Bible calls for the stoning to death of homosexuals since they are an abomination... It might be that his comment was a refutation of using holy books as a basis for proper behavior, when they have gotten so much wrong. I think Charlie was saying we should look elsewhere for guidance on morality.
@Graffight - What do you mean about contradictions being "only apparent"? And, wouldnt human error cause problems, if it is explaining "the word of God"? Wouldnt it then be misconstruing something? And, why would God let this happen? Why would he want his words to be misconstrued, especially as to cause fighting, unrest, possible prejudice, killing, etc? Why would he want discord to reign regarding his wishes? It is not clear even among those who practice different kinds of Christianity.
I do have a short fuse for those who deal with the entire diversity of human experience by calling it "stupid." If Jews pray next to a wall and Muslims - with their behinds in the air and Hindus - to elephant-headed Ganesh, and Scottish men wear skirts (kilts), and Indian women - saris, and people in New Guinea - almost nothing, and Japanese eat with chopsticks, (cont.)
This guy fails to acknowledge the difference between slaves in the Bible and slaves in recent years. Slaves in the Bible, old testament specifically, were more like servants who gave their service and works voluntarily in return for food, shelter, and protection. This is why there are laws in the Old Testament for treatment of both slaves and the masters. There are contradictions between the Old Testament and the New Testament, but this guy also failed to recognize why. Humans had become tarnished in their morals. God gave them brutal laws to weed out the evil. When the time came, he sent his son down to fulfill the Old Testament and to change the way men lived by God’s law. If you’re an atheist and are persuaded most effectively by logic and reason as I am, I would encourage you to read about Eucharistic miracles and also the shroud of Turin. 95% of scientists that studied the shroud of Turin believed in Jesus’s resurrection after studying it. There are several Eucharistic miracles that have occurred that cannot be explained by science.
Theists and patrons of Religious Morality, even those who study the philosophy behind it, always end up making bold assertions, and claim them as axiomatic. I was talking with one the other day, and he kept insisting that; "Either God exists or true evil does not". He claimed this to be axiomatic full-stop, and refused to elaborate as to why; it's the classic circular reasoning that they always start with. They insist on *starting* the debate from that position, because without it, their entire argument quickly falls apart for the reasons that Sam Harris outlines, and more. Existence without God isn't without value, and secular morality can, and does, exist. But if you want to convince a Religious Moralist of this, you won't be able to.
Jose, On the question of morality, I don't presuppose God and then look for morality but the opposite, I observe what seems to be a universal concept of human morality and argue back from that given to "what type of being could impose such a thing". If the answer is "another human being" (or group thereof) I will always ask "who are you to advise my behavior?" because we are essentially the same type of being. It would take a being of a higher order to do that. To me that would be God.
@Pomme843 If your definition of religion is the worship and the habitual practice of attending a building (church,mosque etc) than I would agree with you. But the dictionary meaning of the word is much different, The actual word religion basically describes ones personal set of moral beliefs and any other collection of beliefs which one does not require evidence to believe in. It is moral courage that inspires one to defy the odds and stand up for what one believes in, such as Ghandi, or King.
From a Christian view point the Old Testament law served its purpose and a "better covenant" fulfilled it in Christ (New Testament) upon which Western Civilization was founded and flourished for nearly 2000 years. I would not say its influence dominates today but began to recede in the late 19th century and as you can imagine I don't think the 20th century is one we want to repeat nor is western culture today one that is healthy for "humans".
@frankroto Exactly. And those who get the taxes are also slaves to someone else, just as bosses of corporations are "wage slaves" to someone else. In a sense, everybody owes something to everybody. Freedom by money isnt ideal, but humanity has never enjoyed this current level of personal freedom on this scale in the past. ever.
Jose, It is probably no surprise that I see this differently. The only source of true morality must necessarily come from beyond man (God). When two men disagree, which one can effectively say on his own authority "this is right because I say so"? Adding more people to one side or the other merely increases the noise level. Morality seems vastly different than personal choice (ie music) in that true morality is something that binds on people everywhere and they seem to know it to be so.
@enticed2zeitgeist "The original back story of religion (...the practice of moral teachings) is always what has moved humanity forward to a more civilized species." No. Religion is not always what has moved humanity forward. Religion has often been what has held back humanity. Morally, and knowledge-wise.
I'm thinking on a societal level and also philosophically that is is there a coherent rational systematic reason for a society to be good when the only truth they know is the "survival of the fittest".
i wish mankind can just skip this whole debate about religion, and finally move forward to a better place. imagine all the money, time and lives wasted due to religion, all the false hopes it has given and the millions of people devoted their entire lives to it. it's time to be more productive and channel all that positive energy into something more productive, something more "real", with real measurable results. i wish that religion can be replaced simply by "doing good to others".
There's many things that cannot be explained by religion NOR by Atheism. So why anyone would devote so much time to mock someone else's beliefs is beyond me.
@Mastikator Adding to the reply by @Plissken07, there is a strong biblical basis for concluding that the amount of time as we humans measure it between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 was enormous. So, the bible itself is telling you that the idea of a "day" in Genesis is not literal. These short comments preclude longer discussions, but I would say that the bible has much more to offer on the topic than the prevailing stereotypical view.
Christianne, I think I failed to hit the nail on the head for you. I think you may be confusing "norms" and "mores". I know we would agree there is a difference between skirt and hair length choices or "kissing a child vs gouging his eyes out for sadistic pleasure". True norms don't change from society to society. When you say "morality is treating others well" you presume we agree on the definition of "well" which is my point: there is a universal understanding of true moral truth.
@EpicPhalosophy, it's not illogical. It's narrow. The specific things they attack deeserve the attack. But they throw away the baby with the bathwater. There are other things in religion... in life, never mind religion. There are things that wither and die whenever voices become shrill, or nothing illogical is allowed, or there is only deadly seriousness (it's not called deadly for nothing.) (cont.)
"his content is focused on the negative impact of religion and the absence of any viable reason to believe" Even if all religions are wrong, this in no way proves Gods non-existence. God is proven by the teleological argument. The multiverse hypothesis is entertained by science just to explain the fine tuning problem. “If you discovered a really impressive fine-tuning … I think you’d really be left with only two explanations: a benevolent designer or a multiverse" Atheist Steven Weinberg
The exception is socialism, which transforms into communism through creative labor (or at least that's what we were taught in Soviet Union, Marx is a bit vague oh this point.) The excellent youtube video is: Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism is Totalitarian | George Reisman There is also a very good 18-part series Heaven on Earth The Rise and Fall of Socialism also on youtube.
@Faerlon123, I've read Communist Manifesto. We had to read it in 7th or 8th grade. It was in school curriculum in Soviet Union. Yes, it is about a different type of economic system. But not just that.Marxism puts economics as the primary force, the "basis", and everything else as consequences - the "superstructure." Including religion and belief and all that Marx was atheist. His grandparents were Jewish, his parents - Christians (not observant, just to fit in), and he - atheist (cont)
A Very noticeable difference between authentic people who are truly existentially motivated is the capacity to forgive. So, how do you teach people to be flawless in every way so as to not need forgiveness or more importantly how do you NOT teach forgiveness when forgiveness is the only way toward our very existence. Atheism doesn't function in that realm and therefore is really not a way to resolve any problems with society.
"Elephant-headed god Ganesh exists and must be worshipped." Let me put it this way: A God that only exists is not a true God. A God that only does not exist is also not a true God. Ganesh exists and not exists. Once one takes and absorbs and understands this illogical statement, one will be on the way of understanding religion. (cont.)
@MrTopgearguy1, that comes form standard Marxism: Marx and Engels. Followed by Lenin. Marx describes human history as progressing through as series of periods: "primitive communism", slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, communism. Each stage in the beginning is progressive compared to the previous one, but later "gets stuck," and eventually resolves itself into the next stage through violent revolution. (cont.)
first you would have to presuppose that their is an absolute morality and also presuppose the existence of god. both of those things on their own is a tough mountain to climb. but if you were somehow able to prove that both (let alone either) existed you would still have your work ahead of you in explaining why it is that god is the source of absolute morality and just to pile on, you would have to explain why a specific god is superior to other proposed and/or unproposed gods.
I imagine that you can say that about any past society. Our increasing scientific knowledge and the receding religious influence, or dogma in general, lead to an ever improving human society. We can only hope that we'll meet the Vulcans soon.
Part II You mention Art. Many will disagree with me but I see art as a mere reflection of a once great past. (There are of course exceptions to this rule) It seem to that modern art is essentially ugly and un-relate-able to the average man. Architecture no longer emphasizes the vertical dimension but tightly enclosed space and does so for reasons of efficiency. Music, though I enjoy much of it, doesn't compare in complexity to its classical heritage which 100 years ago most all appreciated.
I agree that in modern times we can at least have an attitude of comparative religion and comparative ethics to gain greater understanding. However I have three objections. 1) the Concept of God or gods is a 360 degree conceptual idea of what it means to be human. In Monotheism there is a tendency to consolidate all of polytheism into one God. And in polytheism there is a denial of that consolidation. So polytheism is unconsciously monotheistic and Vice versa. But if you have a monotheistic god that god will either be beyond good and evil or good and evil. In polytheism the God is representative of one human principle. 2) Slavery is an economic arrangement and a social evolution. We categorize it is a great evil but somehow don’t object to minimum wage slavery. And ignore abject poverty in capitalist society. The Bible does have versus in regards to slavery but the value can easily be translated into our contemporary circumstances of employee and employer. The fact that we don’t is a Testament to the degree our society has censored Karl Marx who made the direct comparison. The idea that we somehow transcended slavery the moment we abolished it is a myth. We all must deal with our social privilege and position or lack there of. And at the same time that Paul affirmed slavery he wrote this Galatians 3:27-29 “there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” This line was used by the abolitionists pastors against slavery. What western scriptural religion is about is a record of moral issues and revelations not a definitive absolutism. The fact that religions are literalist, absolutist, dogmatic is a big problem. But it’s not like that does not happen in secular society. It does, obviously. We can’t exactly create an ethical system like we create science. Because ethical system require normative values. Moral relativism is actually the rule when we look at it anthropologically and historically and even within a contemporary society. We can debate moral values and systems but it is not a falsifiable science. I abandoned religion not because I do not appreciate religion but because I learn more by comparing them. I still think religious ideas have great value. In contemporary times I think we have moved way beyond to the point that literalism is dysfunctional. But the incredible knowledge within religion we have not transcended. I think I could probably rewrite the Bible into a short book in regards to its most important points. But expanding on the nuances of those points is a perennially problem. But a shorter synopsis could be accomplished. We could for example appreciate Pythagoras’s and Christ love they neighbor/enemy principle. But skip Pythagoras’s prohibition on eating beans.
I'm sorry but I don't think you get me. I was using "survival of the fittest" morality as a short cut to describle how Harris is saying morality can be a byproduct of evolutionary development. I get the impression you don't agree with him either.
(I'm not really blaming Harris for not making sense of this. It's not his fault, just his problem. Some people are tone-deaf, or altogether deaf - it's not their fault. But when a deaf man makes a lecture saying that sounds don't exist, that becomes his fault.) There are some internal contradictions which are relevant and can make one reject a religion. After coming through the dark night of the soul. But Sam Harris wouldn't see those from ordinary irrelevant ones. (cont.)
People have free will. Don't blame God for crap people choose to do with their free will. If you think it should be stopped then YOU do something about it. Don't just sit around and complain that God isn't doing anything. You have free will too. Use it for good. Your reward will be in Heaven. Their punishment is in Hell.
I WISH T B T Why? Why DO "people have free will"? Who else is there to blame if not God? Why didn't God stick with Plan A - let's make humanity perfect? Instead, it (ineffably) had to be Plan B - let's set up dear, innocent Adam and Eve to fail. God clearly LOVES evil or, most accurately, SIN. If you claim otherwise, then how is your God omniscient? Or omnipotent? BTW Your: "that God isn't doing anything" isn't a cause for complaint, it's a simple fact that applies to all claimed deities. If just one of them actually woke up enough to do some proper manifesting (like smiting, etc.) then I'd be the first to believe. Their group siIence is rather significant. Of course, what if it happened and the manifesting deity wasn't yours? Wailing and gnashing of teeth I suppose. This does remind us that we are all atheists as regards most deities.
I wouldn't know. My only contact with religion were two old ladys that rang my door bell back when I was 12. The things I know about your holy book mostly came from people citing it, like Sam Harris. If you believe him and the quotes of deuteronomy, I looked up, you need to read the bible with one blind eye to see a loving god. Morality is present in most humans, especially those without religious beliefs.
I'm an atheist. I am also the type of person where if I saw someone drop a 20 dollar bill, I would chase them down and give it back to them. I am strongly against murderers, thieves, liars, and the likes. I have morals because I am an intelligent, thinking human being. I need not answer to God or anybody else; I have to answer to my own inner consciousness. I couldn't really live with myself if I did some of those things.
I just do what is RIGHT. I think everyone should too, just without God.
100% you dont need religion to be a moral person, just look at history how many sickening things have been done in the name of religion. Look at what the priests in catholic churches did to kids as an example.
Just to piggyback. Murdering, stealing, and lying are not in anyone's self-interest. There all a sign of evasion from thought and reason. The symptom is a dependency on the victims of those crimes, not to mention having to remember all of the lies. The subject of morality is about teaching people how to live. Morality is not a set of commandments. Commandments want you to abandon the use of your mind. Anti-mind is anti-human. Anti-human is anti-life.
@user-ky5dy5hl4dSame reason you write the first letter in names in capital.
@user-ky5dy5hl4dwhy did you even bother asking then if it was so obvious to you
Probably the best anti-theist speaker today.
castroy64 does not mean atheism is not true.
castroy64 and Abrahamic religions in the last 100 decades have murdered nearly 2.2 billion people equaled to the population. Your self righteousness is fading like your religions values.
@castroy64 Except they werent atheistic, but you probably don't care /shrug.
In case you actually do care - A little education for you: ruclips.net/video/igdIoXYVQ_k/видео.htmlm46s
castroy64 More were killed in the colonial campaigns and slaveries by Christian Europe.
castroy64 Also there is no heaven. When you die you are gone forever. Truth doesn’t care about your feeling little fella.
The bible is full of crap
Nah
Dr. Flow so you think slavery is a good idea? If i catch my neighbor cutting his grass next sunday should i kill him? If the bible is the perfect immutable word of god...why did it need the new testament jesus adventures that rebuke most of the old?
I disagree I thought it was really funny and one of the best fictional comedy book I have ever read. :)
Jose Luis Benavides, Compare it to the Quran... what do you think?
Try reading the Quran and you'll see what real crap looks like.
slavery is a prime example of a moral teaching that believers can't defend. we are all supposed to be god's children. how can one group of children ferociously mistreat another group of children for many decades, while god the father watches and chooses to do nothing? keep in mind he's supposed to be omnipotent and could stop the mistreatment at any time. I've never heard any religious person give a reasonable explanation to this.
I'm glad there are still people like this in the world.
Religion in its present form doesn't deserve to exist
Sujay Rao Mandavilli
Sujay Rao Mandavilli quite right Sujay!
@castroy64 Are you trying to make the argument that those regimes would have been peaceful if they involved modern religion more in society and governing? In that case, you're an idiot.
Does Salvation from Gods Judgement deserve your exist today?
Just so long as you understand that Atheism and evolution are two sides of the same religion.
@odat83 "Theology was on the side of the slave-holders" And there, ladies and gentlemen, you have religion in a nutshell.
Says the president of the confederacy.
@@philc5499 Taken from the cult handbook the bible.
@@FactStorm So why were all abolishonists Christian, along with all who fought against the confederacy?
@@philc5499
1) *Yawns*, as expected..all the classic, age-old logical fallacies used over & over again.
2) By your logic, mustaches are bad because Hitler & Saddam were murderers with mustaches.
3) Cite your source that every single abolitionist was a Christian, and EVEN IF - what does that have to do with their stance? The implications are grand and the presumption is absurd. Had one been/identified as a Buddhist, then how would you feel? How would you statement change?
4) Slavery was in-part justified because of biblical passages found in Exodus, Leviticus, Genesis and more. If the bible has been one objectively-true book with timeless wisdom and morality, then it wouldn't stipulate slavery.
5) One can identify with any religion and sect and still fight against indecency - affiliation with any given cult is irrelevant. If anything, that proves their humanity in more modern times than biblical ones - and how they know better than to take a primitive, amalgamated Middle Eastern book as "divinely-inspired truth". This is a book that says that says that a 600 year old man got two of each animal on an ark. This is a book that says the gays are sinful and should be condemned. I wouldn't take that pile of trash seriously..does it have some poetry and nice parables? Sure..but is it based on cosmic truth? Nope.
It also justifies genital mutilation @@FactStorm
YOU, stranger, has just nailed it. Thank You.
Why when you go to the library the bible is in the non-fiction section?
Because we have been forced to believe it's facts when it's just stories.
Because it's true
@@jakeashergaming2010 with no evidence?
@@219Tucker cringe
JakeasherGaming there is no evidence
Gods are poor moral guides because authoritarian dogma can be deliberately twisted by misguided people. gods are merely an attempt to personalize moral codes in the form of a father figure who is always watching, able to inflict punishment on law breakers by magical means, and whom one would feel shame for disobeying as one would one's own father. Rationality has to be part of the moral equation, and real rationality always involves a recognition that social animals like humans are mutually dependent and therefore compassion is essential to our relationships.
You deserve a RUclips Nobel prize
It is amazing that anyone in the 21st century embraces any of these ancient religions. We are way past the point where all of them should be abolished.
Jesus, come inside me. Fill me with your holy... "presence."
Hope you're barren!
Jose,
I am not an art scholar either but most artists I know do art because they are unsatisfied with anything else. Many of the great painters were penniless throughout their careers often becoming celebrated after their deaths. Money makes life easier but it doesn't stand in the way of true passion and talent.
2:43 schrodinger's jesus?
Part 2
In my view human rights can no more be established by groups or individuals than I could declare that theft is no longer an evil or that charity now is an evil. We cannot "declare" human rights, we can only recognize pre-existing universal moral truths. Moral truth can only derive from "among" us or from "beyond" us. If from among us, it is merely provincial and malleable. If it is from beyond us, we are looking at a universal Law-Giver.
The question I have, is does the subjective nature of morality make it any less meaningful than if it were somehow declared by a "Devine Law-Maker"?
And would you personally consider Euthyphro's dilema a fundamental flaw with the notion of "divinely ordained law and morality"? Would it not invalidate the idea that Godly morals are fundamentally objective?
@@NateAnderson69 Nate, The dilemma is a false one.
Morality which is ungrounded in objective truth becomes self defeating. One party says it is wrong to steal from my store. The other party (as we have seen so graphically in recent years) says it is perfectly right to steal from your store because I have been mistreated by your society. With objective morality a conclusion can be derived. With subjective morality no conclusion can be reached for both claimants possess the same status. Hence one cannot overrule the other. Virtue and morality must then necessarily be meaningless.
To quote another: "Thankfully, the Bible provides a third option to which Christians assent. God's nature, His divine character, serves as the standard of goodness, which He follows. Since He is pointing to His own nature as the standard, that standard does not exist above or outside Himself."
This is the answer to Euthyphro's dilemma.
@@BillyBike416 Hey again Bill,
I think it's very interesting that many who participate in the philosophy of religious morality often describe the alternative to their assertions as only being nihilism, full-stop. I think that we should consider the value of secular morality, however.
It's really convenient and simple to just assert that without God, morality is meaningless with the only alternative being nihilism. Secular morality does exist in the absence of nihilism, as well as religious morality too, however.
It seems like your answer to Euthyphro's dilemma is, and correct me if I'm in any way wrong, "God's nature is all good, and morality is a reflection of his nature", which seems to be a bit of a roundabout way of saying "a thing is moral because God says it is". This doesn't really highlight a flaw in the dilema, rather the answer in which you provide to invalidate it; this may seem like a leap, but hear me out.
If subject action is moral because it is inherently moral, and God is merely articulating that fact, then morality exists without the existence of God; he's simply the law enforcer, not the maker.
But if morality is only moral because God says it is, then morality in and of itself is arbitrary.
You say the latter is true, but that God's nature being all good and all moral is what informs this decision.
God's nature is moral, and therefore his laws are moral. But who decided what God's nature was? Did God decide? If so, then subject action is moral because God says it is, and all we've done is push the issue back a step without answering the actual question. If God did NOT decide, then again, morality supercedes him. Speaking to the notions of a Judeo-Christian God, this would also invalidate the presumption that he is the alpha and omega.
Ultimately, claiming that God's nature being moral is what deems him to articulate and authoritate morality is just an acceptance that he deems what is moral, not because it is intrinsically good, but because he says it is.
But what defines those things and actions as being truly moral? Again, if their only explanation for being moral is circular reasoning, it ultimately takes out any of the inherent value from the commandments and moral rules that God puts forward.
At that this point, we aren't discussing morality and ethics, we are talking about arbitrary commandments that have nothing to do with intrinsic morality.
And if you claim that "his laws are moral because his nature is moral, and his nature is moral because those moral virtues are universal, and they're universal because God commands them, and God commands them because they reflect his nature", it just creates an unending loop.
I think that morality can simultaneously be subjective, as well as objective within the confines of the subjective nature in which said morality is being applied in, if that makes sense.
Morality is a reflection of a few key things, those being the intelligence of a given species, the biological and anthropological obstacles that said species has to overcome, and that species capacity for empathetic thinking.
While philosophical notions like the "social contract" night encompass a part of what it is to be moral, I think many secular moralists give it too much credit, and ignore the role of emotion in moral decision making.
Any ways, given the parameters in which morality can develope, it stands to reason that, yes, morality can cultivate and manifest in different ways, depending on different species and cultures, there are certain unalienable truths that be determined through exercise of reason, as well as empathy. These are the objective moral truths that reside in the subjective nature of morality.
It isn't easy to determine these truths, and like you perfectly articulated, disagreements are bound to crop up. But that's why we discuss morality, and that's why we should challenge preconceived notions.
To arrive at moral conclusivity may be harder to do than if operating under theistic moral assumption, but that doesn't make it invalid, incorrect, or less true than the moral conclusions drawn to through religion. The simplest answer often isn't the correct one, in my opinion.
I respect your beliefs, but personally I remain unconvinced that morality is entirely dependant on theistic belief.
It is lamentable, indeed, that man deifies a manmade book.
Religion is the original blasphemy, maybe?
Which book is that?
Sam Harris in another lecture says that "religion" (the word) stands for a whole load of different things. In this, he is absolutely right. And of all these things, good and bad, the best is the death of ego. The elimination of arrogance. This is truly religion at its best.
Can atheism do that?
(cont.)
well said!
ruclips.net/video/e4JivBhin0c/видео.html
The Golden Rule is Not that Simple
Nope
i was referring to churches as "places of worship" but i'd extend this to mosques and temples as well. not sure what you mean on the other stuff.
The union went to war singing "My eye's have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord" "he died to make men Holy let us die to make men free"
God sent Moses back to Egypt to liberate the slaves from the Pharaohs does not sound like an endorsement of slavery to me.
+Tom Arico Then Why is it not a Commandment
Seems important enough
So? The book of Exodus has clear guidelines for taking, keeping, and trading slaves. In the book of Numbers, the Christian god commands his people to lay waste to neighboring cities and take all the virgin women as slaves. The New Testament admonishes slaves to treat their Christian masters especially well, that they might partake in their holiness. Jesus, himself uses slave analogies in his preachments. Have you even read these disgusting books?
is this aimed at me?
+ToaxnHoldem no it's aimed at the original commentor.
Good, cause im not a christian
@charlieapeshit Brilliant. After reading this statement or at least coming to the same understanding of history it blows me away that people can still succumb to the Christian faith. Carry on
If you believe that this worlds judgements of Good And Evil are enough, then don’t believe on Jesus. But if You believe in Gods Judgement that We Need Jesus and The Holy Spirit. Then Believe in Jesus as Good that Took on The Evil due to our name, and the promise is that You will receive the Holy Spirit. For this world is Not Holy. But we can be Holy, By Belief and Salvation.
And when informed that Shelly is talking about revolution, replying, "Wind is not revolution. Wind blows straight, and revolution is revolving, rotating, cycling." And when told that it means revolution of people, responding, "People are not wheels to be rotating. This is not how human locomotion is structured."
You'd say, "This man has no idea what this poem is about."
(cont.)
Eugenics was the outgrowth of a secular/scientific worldview which developed around a humanist philosophy during the period of 1860 - 1900. Upon review, its philosophic underpinnings were rejected by most ethicists. The definition I found for morality was "the differentiation between good and evil acts". Regarding "human rights", are they something that you could grant to me? Can you create new human rights and grant them to other people? How are they derived? Is it a matter of a majority vote?
only we can decide such a thing. who else could? having objective morality is like having objective musical tastes or beauty. there will rarely be unanimous agreement but such is the world. but you do the best you can and continue to evolve our ideas. for example, we used to believe that slavery was moral but we have since learned otherwise through experience. the only way powerful people can decide what is moral is if we, the people, allow them to. people must not follow anyone blindly.
@Plissken07 That is from a non-Christian perspective. If you on the other hand believe that the Bible is the (inspired) word of God, why should its commands not be taken literally? Are the Ten Commandments also metaphorical? Is Jesus a metaphor for something? Is Abraham a metaphor?
A Way to Save Ourselves
It takes two to Tango. There is usually fault on both sides. At first, we often realize we were not quite right with our simple conclusion about the problem. Then we begin to look at both sides and then there are more sides. Soon the issue has become very complex, and it begins to include the big picture - the whole picture.
There is always one word that can be used to describe the problem: Unfairness. We have gone from simple to complex and then back again to a simple solution for all conflicts. Get rid of the unfairness - all of it.
Fairness is simple. Unfairness is complicated. Fair people are simple people. Fair people are most powerful. Power is simple. Unfair people are complicated. Unfair people are less powerful. Are you on the side of fairness or unfairness?
It has been said there are no rules in war. In an unfair world, war would be despicably evil. Fairness has rules. We must be fair with our punishment. If we had fairness for all, there would be no wars.
Put all this aside for a minute. Just relax and see what happens next. Take no action for a minute. Stop all your thoughts.
We want everyone to be fair to everyone. We want the unfairness to stop happening to us. Ask the all powerful all for help to make it happen. Fairness is good. Unfairness is evil. Is there a problem? Who is being unfair? We all need to surrender to being fair to everyone everyday.
The all powerful all creates unity and agreement. Stop worrying. Trust that this will work. Fair people do not cause the problem. Unfair people cause the problem. Maybe we need to take action. We could tell them to leave from our place. We can terminate our friendship with unfair people. We could refuse to talk to unfair people. We could refuse to do anything for them. We could shun them. Be careful. Unfair people are harmful to fair people. Fair people need to protect themselves from unfair people.
Our Governmental laws are so complicated that they are incapable of stopping the unfairness. They are incapable of establishing justice for all. The unfair elite have created laws to benefit themselves. Their system has become a racket - a scheme to gain wealth and power at the expense of others. It has become an in group exploiting the out group. We need fair minded people in government to stop the unfairness from government.
Imagine a system of government that is designed to get rid of all the unfairness, both inside and outside itself. Imagine religions also are about getting rid of all unfairness, both inside and outside themselves.
I argue that all the mass shooting and killings were caused by unfairness. I argue that all wars were caused by unfairness. We already know it is unfair when some terroristic event happens. We need to stop the unfairness to the people that have become terroristic. Love will not stop the hate that is being created. Our laws will not stop the unfairness. Stopping unfairness will. We all need to agree to be fair to everyone. We all need to surrender to being fair to everyone everyday.
We can easily see how factions, groups, support groups, cults, religions, political parties, nations, etc. are a major part of the world of people. These various groups or alliances create various beliefs that are unique to themselves. More and more, these beliefs are about the in group being right and the others being wrong and evil to the in group in some way. These beliefs are not based on facts. Rather, they are based on falsehood. The in group believes that only the in group knows and tells the truth and the others are enemies to the truth. However, this is not true at all.
We are in a world of people that are enemies to each other. All too often these groups are about gaining power over the outsiders in an attempt to defeat and then rule them. These people become less and less concerned about actual truth and fairness. Hate of the outsiders becomes the norm. Unfairness becomes the norm. More and more the in group believes it has the real truth and everyone else is delusional or brainwashed believing deception. However, it is the in group that is believing falsehood. More and more, the entire human family is believing falsehood. These ingroups become unconcerned about fairness. They become mean and cruel. This is happening to the other groups also. The world of humans becomes insane from delusional thinking and unfairness. Unfairness to others becomes the norm.
I argue that the cause of all of this is a tolerance to unfairness. We allow unfairness in our religions. We allow unfairness in our politics. We allow unfairness in ourselves. Unfairness has become the norm. Denial of truth about ourselves and others becomes the norm. More an more, people refuse to admit the truth.
Being born into this unfairness makes humans hateful, delusional and unfair themselves. It becomes very understandable that all unfairness must be stopped. Unfairness should not be allowed to happen to anyone from the time they are born until the time they die. It needs to become the norm that humans are required to admit the truth rather than denying the truth.
We need to form a movement and a religion with the main purpose to stop all unfairness. This must be done in a fair and helpful way to all. It is not the peoples fault that they were born into this devastating unfairness. However, it is the responsibility of all to put an end to unfairness , both within ourselves and also in others.
Join us. We are The Way of fairness. Share this message everywhere.
I don't see your point. Would you please clarify?
It is somewhat disingenuous of Sam Harris to say that the God of Abraham never envisioned a time when there would be no slaves
Especially since he doesn't appear to exist.
But, to be fair, I suppose one could argue that after the rapture, slavery would not longer exist. Up until then however, he seems fine with it.
@Loveseekingmissile - not so much the tone and the pitch, but the way he puts his thoughts together in a coherent manor. I listen to smart people speak regularly and I can tell the difference between someone who is smart and who is not...this guy is not stupid. He may be wrong...but he's not stupid.
"Most of them [fine tunings] are one percent sort of things. In other words if a thing is one percent different everything gets bad. And a physicist could say maybe those are just luck. On the other hand this cosmological constant is tuned to one part in ten to the hundred and twenty, [1 in 10^120]. Nobody thinks that's accidental. That is not a reasonable idea that something is tuned to 120 decimal places by accident" Atheist physicist Leonard Susskind
Yes Flew was a logical thinking man
morality is not something to be imposed. it is an abstract concept to be discussed and developed, because some aspects are greyer than others. morality is not universal and it changes over time and over different cultures. it's as changing as it is subjective. as for humans deciding this, i'd vaguely quote sam harris who said at ted talks, "who are we to decide what is moral? who are we not to decide this? who are we to say that we know so little about human well being?"
@zassounotsukushi I strongly disagree with you. Morality, in my understanding, is totally inside the realm of science. As long as we can say that X is better than Z, the same way as when we can say that something is fixed or other is broken, based in our experience and give values to different states, we can use science to make predictions, hypothesis(and then thesis then theories) and use it to make predictions and/or say that this will be better than that to the growth of a community.
Here is what Marx said about religion: ""Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness."
("Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right")
(cont.)
"How is opposition resolved? By making it impossible. And how is religious opposition made impossible? By abolishing religion."
(The Jewish Question).
But I found that the "demand of real happiness" ends up creating far more misery than illusory happiness of religion. Particularly when there is abolishing of religion by force. What am I supposed to do with this knowledge?
...but the fact that it was as likely as unlikely, and not at all uncommon, lends authority to its use as an illustration of the possible results of the moral contradiction he was addressing.
Where else would our social behavior have come from? He doesn't have to argue that really, it's just the way it is. We evolved to where we are, with no intervention and pure survival skills. It's obvious we helped each other or we wouldn't be here.
If I'm an atheist, I'm an atheist, and there should be no need of saying anything about it. We should discuss this at a massive scale and get this over with once and for all.. so that whoever chooses to be a realist can be a realist.
Imagine someone saying, "Leaves are not ghosts. In fact, there are no ghosts! There are no enchanters either, and leaves are not stricken by pestilence."
And just a little later:
Wild Spirit, which art moving everywhere;
Destroyer and preserver.
That’s religious language. I can just see Sam Harris going "Destroyer and preserver? One cannot be both. Contradiction!"
(cont.)
i would even propose that education is absolutely fundamental to the solutions to most social issues that are relevant today. almost every social problem a country faces stems from people's ignorance about the problem.
The remote joke was so on point.
Link to the full lecture anyone??
Yes there are serious thinkers today but it of course matters what they are thinking about. One of the byproducts of a materialistic, frenetic society like we have is that culture has become a mile wide but an inch deep. We know "more and more about less and less". Go to any university and read the titles of the last (say) 5 years Phd theses. You will find them (necessarily) arcane and unrelated to Life. The branches of knowledge today are so diverse that the can seldom speak to each other.
[certainly relieved some of the stress I felt from my first encounter with death.] My ex-wife thinks the same. For sure the belief that life goes on provides some stress relief. She is happy to exchange a day or two of relief for an entire life of panic, thinking that I or other loved ones that do not endorse his religious views will burn in hell forever. It is not a clever choice, but who can argue in favor of rationality with a person who choose to ignore reason and embrace fantasy?
@DaReegz I never said that we should make children believe because that only creates a negative impact of fear...
i think, to a certain degree, that i get what you are saying. i think some of that stems from a lack of incentive. the artists of those times were good but most don't realize that they did it for a price. i'm not art scholar but i do know that mozart or leonardo davinci did what they did because someone was willing to pay generously. much like today, many pieces of art back then was considered a commodity. i think the incentive to pursue art has simply been stifled.
Sebastian,
The Bible is a complex book and much more than a set of moral behaviors. Yes, there are parts of the Bible we no longer follow as the Biblical story is progressive. You will note the Bible consists of two "Testaments" and understanding them is key to understanding the whole. You probably have noted that we (Christians) no longer keep Jewish holidays, we eat shellfish, we don't worship on Saturday, we don't circumcise for religious reasons but for (supposed) health reasons.
the theory of evolution doesn't attempt to explain morality. it is an explanation for how we went from simple life forms long ago to the varied and complex species we see today. it's attempting to answer a completely unrelated question. it doesn't even attempt to explain how life began, just how it changed.
The student loans I took out in my unsophisticated 20's is sanctioned slavery. LOL.
that could be. i don't mean to say that all artists were in it for the money. many of these artists over the centuries may very well have still went on to create their masterpieces but how many would have known of them. for example, bethoven's 9th symphony was a commisioned work. i guess my overall point is that because art has become so commercialized, many (but definitely not all) artists are a dime a dozen. since the internet became widespread their has been a massive flood of musicians.
I have respect for Sam Harris's arguments however, I can't stand how so many of his followers and admirers trash talk religion so completely. Religion itself, like everything else can be and has been used positively. Just like science, just like weapons, just like everything else. The original back story of religion (and no I don't mean a church and worship, but the practice of moral teachings) is always what has moved humanity forward to a more civilized species.
Even if religion a useful to the elite for controlling the masses, it's the stories that religion is based on are fiction and not truth. The Church of flying spaghetti monster might be a useful tool, but their texts are fiction, the same for Protestantism, Catholism, Mormonism, Scientology, Islam, Shia-Islam, Hinduism, Shinto etc
If "we" decide what morality is, who is "we"? At the end of "rationalization, reasoned discussion and scientific inquiry" will all agree"? Of course not, they don't agree now. So "morality" then becomes what people with power say it is. This of course leaves the question "Can the powerful ever be wrong"? If morality comes from the powerful, the answer must be "No, the powerful can never be wrong"; a conclusion I can't accept.
Yes, I agree there is a knowledge of morality in all people.
The problem comes in that though we know the "Right", we often do the "Wrong". If there is no God, then this is inconsequential (and if fact morality is trivial and just one person's idea against another). If there is a God then the question becomes more important. If morality is a human invention then it is the product of people with power who impose their morality. This then leaves the question "Can the powerful ever be wrong?" No.
Here is an example: Eskimos believe that when little children play along the shore of the Arctic ocean, God talks to them. Thinking it's no big deal, children will come home and casually mention what God said. Now it's adults' job to separate it from the rest of their children's talk and make corresponding conclusions.
This is 100% illogical. But there is something very profound in it.
i think you are missing my point that i brought up at first. even if god exists, religion is not god. it is the organized worship of god and i think that is an important distinction.
@MrTopgearguy1, thank you very much. I am glad someone understands.
Morality comes from neither religion nor non-religion.
@Re5Publica That's where I say: We must combat not just religion, but any ideology that does not let be challenged and changed by other thing (better) when shown wrong - something that all religions, socialism, capitalism, nazism, culture and tradition share.
There are no real obligations in the world, just suggestions. The suggestion that we all treat each other as we would treach ourselves (and that idea predates any religion) seems to have worked out pretty well. As for Wilberforce and the abolitionists, yes, they followed that suggestion while the majority of the flock did not and the 'good book' certainly did not in its support of slavery.
It is not despite theology, but because of theology that we got rid of slavery. Name me one abolitionist atheist back when slavery was around. The atheists of Ancient Greece and Rome (yes, there were atheists in those days) were not anti-slavery at all. In the American Civil Wear, those who fought against it were just as much believers as those who fought for it. Perhaps more so, because even Southerners beep inside knew, simply as human beings, that there is something wrong with this
(cont)
@Quixoticah - I think what Charlie was getting at is that Pope Urban used the Bible to refute Galileo's observations, Southern slave owners were known for quoting scripture to justify slavery & the Bible calls for the stoning to death of homosexuals since they are an abomination...
It might be that his comment was a refutation of using holy books as a basis for proper behavior, when they have gotten so much wrong. I think Charlie was saying we should look elsewhere for guidance on morality.
@Graffight - What do you mean about contradictions being "only apparent"? And, wouldnt human error cause problems, if it is explaining "the word of God"? Wouldnt it then be misconstruing something? And, why would God let this happen? Why would he want his words to be misconstrued, especially as to cause fighting, unrest, possible prejudice, killing, etc? Why would he want discord to reign regarding his wishes? It is not clear even among those who practice different kinds of Christianity.
I do have a short fuse for those who deal with the entire diversity of human experience by calling it "stupid."
If Jews pray next to a wall and Muslims - with their behinds in the air and Hindus - to elephant-headed Ganesh, and Scottish men wear skirts (kilts), and Indian women - saris, and people in New Guinea - almost nothing, and Japanese eat with chopsticks,
(cont.)
This guy fails to acknowledge the difference between slaves in the Bible and slaves in recent years. Slaves in the Bible, old testament specifically, were more like servants who gave their service and works voluntarily in return for food, shelter, and protection. This is why there are laws in the Old Testament for treatment of both slaves and the masters.
There are contradictions between the Old Testament and the New Testament, but this guy also failed to recognize why. Humans had become tarnished in their morals. God gave them brutal laws to weed out the evil. When the time came, he sent his son down to fulfill the Old Testament and to change the way men lived by God’s law.
If you’re an atheist and are persuaded most effectively by logic and reason as I am, I would encourage you to read about Eucharistic miracles and also the shroud of Turin. 95% of scientists that studied the shroud of Turin believed in Jesus’s resurrection after studying it. There are several Eucharistic miracles that have occurred that cannot be explained by science.
Slaves in the bible were beatable, and cant fucking leave.
Not remotely ok
Theists and patrons of Religious Morality, even those who study the philosophy behind it, always end up making bold assertions, and claim them as axiomatic.
I was talking with one the other day, and he kept insisting that;
"Either God exists or true evil does not". He claimed this to be axiomatic full-stop, and refused to elaborate as to why; it's the classic circular reasoning that they always start with.
They insist on *starting* the debate from that position, because without it, their entire argument quickly falls apart for the reasons that Sam Harris outlines, and more.
Existence without God isn't without value, and secular morality can, and does, exist.
But if you want to convince a Religious Moralist of this, you won't be able to.
Sam Harris is a superhero. We must end religion to advance as species.
Jose,
On the question of morality, I don't presuppose God and then look for morality but the opposite, I observe what seems to be a universal concept of human morality and argue back from that given to "what type of being could impose such a thing". If the answer is "another human being" (or group thereof) I will always ask "who are you to advise my behavior?" because we are essentially the same type of being. It would take a being of a higher order to do that. To me that would be God.
@Pomme843 If your definition of religion is the worship and the habitual practice of attending a building (church,mosque etc) than I would agree with you. But the dictionary meaning of the word is much different, The actual word religion basically describes ones personal set of moral beliefs and any other collection of beliefs which one does not require evidence to believe in. It is moral courage that inspires one to defy the odds and stand up for what one believes in, such as Ghandi, or King.
From a Christian view point the Old Testament law served its purpose and a "better covenant" fulfilled it in Christ (New Testament) upon which Western Civilization was founded and flourished for nearly 2000 years. I would not say its influence dominates today but began to recede in the late 19th century and as you can imagine I don't think the 20th century is one we want to repeat nor is western culture today one that is healthy for "humans".
@frankroto
Exactly. And those who get the taxes are also slaves to someone else, just as bosses of corporations are "wage slaves" to someone else. In a sense, everybody owes something to everybody. Freedom by money isnt ideal, but humanity has never enjoyed this current level of personal freedom on this scale in the past. ever.
Jose,
It is probably no surprise that I see this differently. The only source of true morality must necessarily come from beyond man (God). When two men disagree, which one can effectively say on his own authority "this is right because I say so"? Adding more people to one side or the other merely increases the noise level. Morality seems vastly different than personal choice (ie music) in that true morality is something that binds on people everywhere and they seem to know it to be so.
@enticed2zeitgeist "The original back story of religion (...the practice of moral teachings) is always what has moved humanity forward to a more civilized species."
No. Religion is not always what has moved humanity forward. Religion has often been what has held back humanity. Morally, and knowledge-wise.
yes we do. all it takes is a little effort. are u into MMA? if not what sport do u like? if your into MMA, who do u got on diaz and st peirre?
I'm thinking on a societal level and also philosophically that is is there a coherent rational systematic reason for a society to be good when the only truth they know is the "survival of the fittest".
who said i dont beleive in unicorns? have u ever seen clash of the titans? super unicorn right there
i wish mankind can just skip this whole debate about religion, and finally move forward to a better place. imagine all the money, time and lives wasted due to religion, all the false hopes it has given and the millions of people devoted their entire lives to it. it's time to be more productive and channel all that positive energy into something more productive, something more "real", with real measurable results. i wish that religion can be replaced simply by "doing good to others".
There's many things that cannot be explained by religion NOR by Atheism.
So why anyone would devote so much time to mock someone else's beliefs is beyond me.
@Mastikator Adding to the reply by @Plissken07, there is a strong biblical basis for concluding that the amount of time as we humans measure it between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 was enormous. So, the bible itself is telling you that the idea of a "day" in Genesis is not literal. These short comments preclude longer discussions, but I would say that the bible has much more to offer on the topic than the prevailing stereotypical view.
Christianne,
I think I failed to hit the nail on the head for you. I think you may be confusing "norms" and "mores". I know we would agree there is a difference between skirt and hair length choices or "kissing a child vs gouging his eyes out for sadistic pleasure". True norms don't change from society to society. When you say "morality is treating others well" you presume we agree on the definition of "well" which is my point: there is a universal understanding of true moral truth.
@EpicPhalosophy, it's not illogical. It's narrow. The specific things they attack deeserve the attack. But they throw away the baby with the bathwater.
There are other things in religion... in life, never mind religion. There are things that wither and die whenever voices become shrill, or nothing illogical is allowed, or there is only deadly seriousness (it's not called deadly for nothing.)
(cont.)
"his content is focused on the negative impact of religion and the absence of any viable reason to believe"
Even if all religions are wrong, this in no way proves Gods non-existence. God is proven by the teleological argument. The multiverse hypothesis is entertained by science just to explain the fine tuning problem.
“If you discovered a really impressive fine-tuning … I think you’d really be left with only two explanations: a benevolent designer or a multiverse" Atheist Steven Weinberg
The exception is socialism, which transforms into communism through creative labor (or at least that's what we were taught in Soviet Union, Marx is a bit vague oh this point.)
The excellent youtube video is:
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism is Totalitarian | George Reisman
There is also a very good 18-part series
Heaven on Earth The Rise and Fall of Socialism
also on youtube.
This is one case where diversity training seems appropriate. Or perhaps anti-smugness and anti-arrogance training.
@Faerlon123, I've read Communist Manifesto. We had to read it in 7th or 8th grade. It was in school curriculum in Soviet Union.
Yes, it is about a different type of economic system. But not just that.Marxism puts economics as the primary force, the "basis", and everything else as consequences - the "superstructure." Including religion and belief and all that
Marx was atheist. His grandparents were Jewish, his parents - Christians (not observant, just to fit in), and he - atheist
(cont)
tom you make a damn good point. communism, fascism, even atheism practiced as an ideology can be just as dangerous as any religion.
A Very noticeable difference between authentic people who are truly existentially motivated is the capacity to forgive. So, how do you teach people to be flawless in every way so as to not need forgiveness or more importantly how do you NOT teach forgiveness when forgiveness is the only way toward our very existence. Atheism doesn't function in that realm and therefore is really not a way to resolve any problems with society.
agreed!
"Elephant-headed god Ganesh exists and must be worshipped."
Let me put it this way: A God that only exists is not a true God. A God that only does not exist is also not a true God.
Ganesh exists and not exists.
Once one takes and absorbs and understands this illogical statement, one will be on the way of understanding religion.
(cont.)
@MrTopgearguy1, that comes form standard Marxism: Marx and Engels. Followed by Lenin.
Marx describes human history as progressing through as series of periods: "primitive communism", slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, communism. Each stage in the beginning is progressive compared to the previous one, but later "gets stuck," and eventually resolves itself into the next stage through violent revolution.
(cont.)
first you would have to presuppose that their is an absolute morality and also presuppose the existence of god. both of those things on their own is a tough mountain to climb. but if you were somehow able to prove that both (let alone either) existed you would still have your work ahead of you in explaining why it is that god is the source of absolute morality and just to pile on, you would have to explain why a specific god is superior to other proposed and/or unproposed gods.
I imagine that you can say that about any past society. Our increasing scientific knowledge and the receding religious influence, or dogma in general, lead to an ever improving human society.
We can only hope that we'll meet the Vulcans soon.
Part II
You mention Art. Many will disagree with me but I see art as a mere reflection of a once great past. (There are of course exceptions to this rule) It seem to that modern art is essentially ugly and un-relate-able to the average man. Architecture no longer emphasizes the vertical dimension but tightly enclosed space and does so for reasons of efficiency. Music, though I enjoy much of it, doesn't compare in complexity to its classical heritage which 100 years ago most all appreciated.
i think i get what you are trying to say. could you elaborate?
I agree that in modern times we can at least have an attitude of comparative religion and comparative ethics to gain greater understanding.
However I have three objections.
1) the Concept of God or gods is a 360 degree conceptual idea of what it means to be human. In Monotheism there is a tendency to consolidate all of polytheism into one God. And in polytheism there is a denial of that consolidation. So polytheism is unconsciously monotheistic and Vice versa. But if you have a monotheistic god that god will either be beyond good and evil or good and evil. In polytheism the God is representative of one human principle.
2) Slavery is an economic arrangement and a social evolution. We categorize it is a great evil but somehow don’t object to minimum wage slavery. And ignore abject poverty in capitalist society. The Bible does have versus in regards to slavery but the value can easily be translated into our contemporary circumstances of employee and employer. The fact that we don’t is a Testament to the degree our society has censored Karl Marx who made the direct comparison. The idea that we somehow transcended slavery the moment we abolished it is a myth. We all must deal with our social privilege and position or lack there of. And at the same time that Paul affirmed slavery he wrote this Galatians 3:27-29 “there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
This line was used by the abolitionists pastors against slavery.
What western scriptural religion is about is a record of moral issues and revelations not a definitive absolutism. The fact that religions are literalist, absolutist, dogmatic is a big problem. But it’s not like that does not happen in secular society. It does, obviously.
We can’t exactly create an ethical system like we create science. Because ethical system require normative values. Moral relativism is actually the rule when we look at it anthropologically and historically and even within a contemporary society. We can debate moral values and systems but it is not a falsifiable science.
I abandoned religion not because I do not appreciate religion but because I learn more by comparing them. I still think religious ideas have great value. In contemporary times I think we have moved way beyond to the point that literalism is dysfunctional. But the incredible knowledge within religion we have not transcended.
I think I could probably rewrite the Bible into a short book in regards to its most important points. But expanding on the nuances of those points is a perennially problem. But a shorter synopsis could be accomplished. We could for example appreciate Pythagoras’s and Christ love they neighbor/enemy principle. But skip Pythagoras’s prohibition on eating beans.
could you reword that? i'm not sure i understand.
I'm sorry but I don't think you get me. I was using "survival of the fittest" morality as a short cut to describle how Harris is saying morality can be a byproduct of evolutionary development. I get the impression you don't agree with him either.
(I'm not really blaming Harris for not making sense of this. It's not his fault, just his problem. Some people are tone-deaf, or altogether deaf - it's not their fault. But when a deaf man makes a lecture saying that sounds don't exist, that becomes his fault.)
There are some internal contradictions which are relevant and can make one reject a religion. After coming through the dark night of the soul. But Sam Harris wouldn't see those from ordinary irrelevant ones.
(cont.)
People have free will. Don't blame God for crap people choose to do with their free will. If you think it should be stopped then YOU do something about it. Don't just sit around and complain that God isn't doing anything. You have free will too. Use it for good. Your reward will be in Heaven. Their punishment is in Hell.
If the only thing stopping you from doing bad things is punishment in hell then it's probably good you aren't in any educated jobs
I WISH T B T Why? Why DO "people have free will"? Who else is there to blame if not God? Why didn't God stick with Plan A - let's make humanity perfect? Instead, it (ineffably) had to be Plan B - let's set up dear, innocent Adam and Eve to fail. God clearly LOVES evil or, most accurately, SIN. If you claim otherwise, then how is your God omniscient? Or omnipotent?
BTW Your: "that God isn't doing anything" isn't a cause for complaint, it's a simple fact that applies to all claimed deities. If just one of them actually woke up enough to do some proper manifesting (like smiting, etc.) then I'd be the first to believe. Their group siIence is rather significant. Of course, what if it happened and the manifesting deity wasn't yours? Wailing and gnashing of teeth I suppose.
This does remind us that we are all atheists as regards most deities.
I wouldn't know. My only contact with religion were two old ladys that rang my door bell back when I was 12.
The things I know about your holy book mostly came from people citing it, like Sam Harris. If you believe him and the quotes of deuteronomy, I looked up, you need to read the bible with one blind eye to see a loving god.
Morality is present in most humans, especially those without religious beliefs.