"This isn't going anywhere." Translation: "You aren't saying what I want you to say in order for me to recite the apologetics I've been taught & sound smart."
Totally. That clearly went off in a direction he hadn't anticipated almost right away. Does the fact that I rather enjoyed how frustrated he got mean my moral compass is damaged, I wonder?
When someone starts with an obnoxious, smug tone, refuses to answer questions, is immediately combative when challenged, resorts to ridiculous extremes and pretends that there are simple answers to complex issues you can tell they have no interest in having an honest, conversation and a productive discussion.
It's more like the caller thought the issue is simple yet the hosts aren't honest about it or something, and that it'll be easy to show them how wrong they are and then suddenly realized there is no way to even begin to demonstrate the argument and got stuck with it.
I think he got it. I really do. But I think it kinda blew his mind, and he started asking bizarre questions near the end to string out his arrogant facade.
Moral is subjective and depend entirely on the group you are trying to socially connect it, be it religions, cultures or more. Like what we considered Free choices maybe work in certain group, but when it comes to certain cultures with strict CONTROL, it maybe disruptive and thus it becomes immoral to them, but moral conscious to the rest of the world. Before 1920, the marriage age of US were 13-16 years old with Delaware at 7 years old. Is it morally wrong to have marriage at that low? Yes if we are using modern standards, but to social interaction at the time, it is NOT. However, when people want to increase the marriage at to 18 years old, most religious people PROTESTED because it disrupted theirs theirs group social interact and they often used Bible's examples to quote why it is right, but ignore the fact that the Bible were written 2000 years ago and the age is even lower. Moral has evolved with society or more like evolves with acceptance of social interaction advance overtime. Slavery were normal and accepted before because most people accepted as such, but not now. Whether it is morally wrong? Yes because we enslaved others, but to majority people at the time, it is not because enslavement is part of life for them, part of the custom, part of cultures in a sense.
@@CuongNguyen-le5ic I believe that there are both objective and subjective morality is. Morality by definition belonging to a species whose beliefs are based on subjective experiences will always have some aspects of it that are subjective however the rules and guiding principles of that morality can be objective as well once you determine the foundation upon which to build that morality. hope that makes sense I'm going on a couple hours of sleep so I'm not at 100% brain capacity right now.
In other news, this is one of the most frustrating conversations to listen to. Tracie is explaining herself very clearly and he is being extremely disingenuous
The Christian caller is actually not being disingenuous, he's just stupid i.e, lacks critical-thinking and basic comprehension skills. ... No matter how normal and/or intelligent a religious person appears, all suffer from a form of mental illness. Because religion is a mental illness.
@@MrBernardhard I'd say he was being disingenuous but only because he wasn't actually calling to have a discussion. He wanted to lead her down whatever path he thought up before hand so he could try and manufacture some stupid "gotcha" moment. When she didn't play ball and asked him to actually define what he meant he never stopped trying to keep leading her to say what he wanted her to say. I don't think the guy was just being a stubborn block head here.
@vctjkhme there was no depth to his reasoning though...there was merely misunderstanding of morality with arrogance. I often see ignorance reinforced with prideful arrogance from Christians.
If this guy is a "Christian" then he believes that he's heading for an everlasting pleasure garden in the sky, a raging eternal fire or a temporary purgatorial locum. I.E. he thinks and communicates in "Baby Talk". Enough said.
He was trying to put words in her mouth to guide her into an argument of his own creation but she didn’t allow him to make assumptions for her and therefore didn’t fall for it because what he was saying made no sense. I bet he practiced this in his head for days thinking he knew exactly where it would go and when it didn’t go as planned he had nothing else to say.
TheNocturneMoon yeah but T wasn't just cleverly avoiding a trap, she was being obtuse and evasive and wasting time. she could have just as easily said "i get what you're trying to ask me, but i disagree on A and B, and here's why" and they could have had a much more interesting debate about objective vs subjective morality. T is being very difficult here.. i understand she defines morality in terms of evolved traits that demonstrate X andY, but that stuff was all irrelevant to his question since he had no idea what she was talking about, and doesn't accept that view. she wasted so much time . she's either dense or disingenuous. come on traci, you really don't know what a christian thinks morality is? you cant make an educated guess about what he's asking, and continue from there?
TheNocturneMoon Yep. Lol. "So, survival is important! You're saying it's important!"... Ha haaa. It's "important" to survive if surviving is important TO YOU! It's not innately important to the universe. What a dishonest piece of shit that guy was. Lost the argument statement by statement and then hung up. Lying to himself that he made a single point.
I'm genuinely afraid of people like that. All that's holding them back from the most horrifying, vile, barbaric, bloodthirsty kinds of nightmarish actions is their faith that their owner's eyes are on them....
This might be one of my favourite AE interactions. Tracy's just so patient and well-spoken, even though this dude on the line is frustratingly dishonest.
Luke's final statement that , " this really isn't going anywhere " can only be translated to mean , " you're not allowing me to steer you in the direction that I want to take you ". Had Luke actually listened to the host during the conversation instead of bloviating he would have recognized that fact early on in the call and known he would not be successful. Instead he went from failing to flailing and ended with his " panties in a bunch ".
Hammer 001 Lol. Bloviate ; to talk at length in an inflated or empty manner. Or as the late great R n' B soul stylist James Brown so succinctly put it in song circa.1972 , Luke was simply " Talkin' Loud and Saying Nothin' ".
I believe theist callers like Luke know that they are not going to be successful unless they trip up and intimated the hosts. So they bebel on until they run out of steam.
Tracie asked him like 5 times: "what do you mean by morality?" He dodged the question every time then asked Tracie what she means by morality. She then goes on into giving her definition, which he failed to comprehend (didn't even attempted to comprehend) and then says "oh this isn't going anywhere". I'd call that dishonesty even if I had never seen it before.
This was like a fencing match between an expert armed with a rapier and an opponent wielding a small banana. "This isn't really going anywhere" means "this isn't going the way I had planned it". "You're not engaging with what I'm saying" means "You're refusing to step into the clumsily constructed trap I have spent hours preparing". "I don't believe you guys are atheists" means "I have been badly mauled so I gotta put in some kind of last remark, no matter how meaningless and obdurate, that might make people think I wasn't completely and absolutely destroyed." This wasn't a debate - it was a plane crash.
I gotta agree that not every1 should be forced to follow Luke's Bible or whatever specific scripture. However, the lady made the appeal to nature fallacy. she also begs the question a lot. she "sneaks" in new terms to answer questions. She says morality is looking at tendencies, fairness, empathy, equity, cheating etc. but that just begs the question on who defines those terms, n WHY is any1 morally obligated to follow any terms, such as those, especially for the many people who are able n willing to not. she also can't answer what makes fairness true, she says it just is.
@@airplayrule "However, the lady made the appeal to nature fallacy." No, she does not. An appeal to nature says something is good just for being natural. That is not what she said. She merely states that our sense of morality developed because it was selected for, and this sense of morality has served the species and the individual. That is merely factual. She did not claim that another (artificial) system of morality could not be better. "she also begs the question a lot. she "sneaks" in new terms to answer questions. She says morality is looking at tendencies, fairness, empathy, equity, cheating etc. but that just begs the question on who defines those terms" Humans did, who else? And in other languages, you have different terms. But most social animals have a sense of fairness, of "WHY is any1 morally obligated to follow any terms, such as those, especially for the many people who are able n willing to not." There are two superimposed answers: 1. Most people have an inherent tendency to follow these moral rules because not doing so will lead to trouble with other members of society and a reduced chance to propagate your offspring. So we will follow these rules because we evolved this way. 2. Human society invented formal moral rules based on these inherent moral rules and by taking part in society we agreed to follow these rules. "she also can't answer what makes fairness true, she says it just is" It is a nonsense question, ike "What makes green true." fairness is fairness, it cannot be true or false. l She did not answer "It just is true." that would be false, but she said, "It just is."
@@karstenschuhmann8334 "She merely states that our sense of morality developed because it was selected for, and this sense of morality has served the species and the individual. That is merely factual." -It is not factual. humans could've been around for a billion years. they could've been more advanced too. Selected for...that implies it was already there, but doesn't say where it came from. did it initially form randomly via genetic variation? so it's arbitrary then. n where is this moral gene? exactly. n again, that's beginning the question. u say morality multiple times when it is the question. how do u know the word morality, when u or she is using it, is actually moral? what if the whole world disagrees? n most important, WHY is any1 morally obligated to follow what ever answers u give here IF they're ABLE to disobey it without guilt or punishment? " She did not claim that another (artificial) system of morality could not be better." then she's not talkin about morality, just arbitrary stuff that fits the niche, like what Stalin did, n sweatshop profiteers etc do. R A P E may 1 day be accepted as moral. "Humans did, who else? And in other languages, you have different terms." WHICH humans? Stalin? the leader of North Korea? what if 1 of them took over the world n convinced every1 that what ever they say, such as life sentence for any1 they dislike such as u or her, to harsh labor after all your wealth is taken for the state, is moral, n good, n well being, n any1 who disagrees, lacks empathy n fairness, n any rebellion is violating the non-aggression principal, n society's morality, n any other terms u wana throw in like fairness, ethics etc. n your definitions of all terms u, me n her mentioned are defined wrong if it disagrees with them...would they be OBJECTIVELY moral n if so, how do u know, who's mind does that standard come from, n WHY should those leaders be morally obligated to change if the world agreed to decide they don't have to? "But most social animals have a sense of fairness, of" did u forget to finish that sentence? i agree that most animals have a sense of fairness, however, assuming there's no supreme being with a supreme moral standard, u have no way to justify that claim. you're beggining the question by sneaking in the word fairness. see my above paragraph. "Most people have an inherent tendency to follow these moral rules because not doing so will lead to trouble with other members of society and a reduced chance to propagate your offspring. So we will follow these rules because we evolved this way." Sentence 1 ignores a lot, including what you're replying to where i said "for the many people who are able n willing to not." there's super rich, powerful people who do break laws AND OR CHANGE THEM to suit their "impulses", which according to your above sentence 2, dictates morality, even though it's an appeal to nature fallacy. some people get off on causing harm. Stalin n the N. Korean leader probably do, n get away with it. i explained this. Stalin took power by jailing or terminating any1 who got in his way, n he lived a great life where he kept increasing his wealth, power, fame, n reproduction ability doing this, n of his soldiers by allowing, for example, an estimated 2 MILLION German women, children etc to get R A P E after WW2, all in line with your so called morality. "Human society invented formal moral rules based on these inherent moral rules and by taking part in society we agreed to follow these rules." Yea, like Stalin, or the humans in the society of Saudi Arabia who maintain their morals that keep sodomy as a capital punishment, n don't allow femini*m. according to you, they're being moral, n if u disagree, YOU'RE being immoral, as are any citizens under their rule who broke the agreement. "It is a nonsense question," Downplay fallacy. " ike "What makes green true."" non sequitur fallacy. "fairness is fairness," circular reasoning fallacy. "it cannot be true or false. l She did not answer "It just is true." that would be false, but she said, "It just is."" this whole sequence contradicts what she, n you, are saying. so it's not unfair to make femin*ism, meat eating, n atheism capital offenses as long as i get society to agree n make it a law. it's not immoral because it's not immoral. thanks. Please proofread before reypling, n ask yourself, are u just making claims without proof, and or using 1 claim or term to justify another for yourself or her (circular reasoning) and or making an appeal to popular opinion n force or nature fallacies (which implies that if every1 agrees to pass a law that says R A P E on women by the leader is legal because every1 agrees it just is moral, n cites how it happens in nature n helps society pass on genes more). Why do u keep making all these fallacies? P.S if i told u that all the major sciences n religions stemmed from Vedic scriptures for countless millenia, n that this is possible via divine revelation, n that most people have a VERY limited, flawed, n biased understanding of this, the Vedas, n ALL the major religions, n I've tons of detail n evidence to better explain n prove this paragraph, would u accept it, or be open to the details n evidence, or what?
@@airplayrule "It is not factual. humans could've been around for a billion years. they could've been more advanced too." That is what all the evidence points to. If you have evidence that points to something else publish it in a peer-reviewed journal and become famous. Otherwise, we stick with the established model. "Selected for...that implies it was already there, but doesn't say where it came from. did it initially form randomly via genetic variation?" 1. As I have pointed out some sense of morality exists for many social animals not only humans. 2. Variations are random, properties selected for are not. "so it's arbitrary then. n where is this moral gene? exactly." No, it is not arbitrary it was selected for. "n again, that's beginning the question. u say morality multiple times when it is the question. how do u know the word morality, when u or she is using it, is actually moral?" Morality is a social contract based on our common sense of fairness. It is agreed by society and it will change as we learn. "what if the whole world disagrees?" If the whole world disagrees with your morality you will likely end up in jail. That is mainly an issue for Religious people that base their morality on their interpretation of a divine standard. We are talking about religious radicals. "WHY is any1 morally obligated to follow what ever answers u give here IF they're ABLE to disobey it without guilt or punishment?" Because I have empathy and I do not want to harm other people. >>"" She did not claim that another (artificial) system of morality could not be better."" "then she's not talkin about morality, just arbitrary stuff that fits the niche" It is what society agreed on and it is in constant development. Behavior that used to be perfectly fine 200 years ago wild be seen as immoral or even criminal today. "like what Stalin did" No, Stalin did exactly the opposite, of a society agreeing on moral behavior, he did not care for any sense of fairness and empathy. "n sweatshop profiteers etc do." Obviously not for the same reason. R A P E may 1 day be accepted as moral. This was accepted until quite recently, at least within marriage. And the bible seems perfectly fine with turning prisoners of war into sex slaves. >>""Humans did, who else? And in other languages, you have different terms."" "WHICH humans? Stalin? the leader of North Korea?" Obviously not they use different languages and these words were defined centuries or even millennia before. In general, a word is defined to transmit a certain meaning and if it is useful and agreed upon by others it will be continued to be used this way. "what if 1 of them took over the world n convinced every1 that what ever they say, such as life sentence for any1 they dislike" That would be seen as law, but not as moral, we have seen this a lot in history. Well, religions managed and still manage to convince their followers that immoral things are moral. "such as u or her, to harsh labor after all your wealth is taken for the state, is moral, n good, n well being, n any1 who disagrees, lacks empathy n fairness" Well, as long as this was not a religious colt it would still be seen as immoral. Please do not continue in these very long monotone and aggressive sentences. "n any rebellion is violating the non-aggression principal" Well, most dictatures try to condemn resistance and religion is helping them in this effort. "n society's morality, n any other terms u wana throw in like fairness, ethics etc. n your definitions of all terms u, me n her mentioned are defined wrong if it disagrees with them...would they be OBJECTIVELY moral n if so, how do u know, who's mind does that standard come from, n WHY should those leaders be morally obligated to change if the world agreed to decide they don't have to?" Make real sentences and think about my points, that is just Blablabla. >>""But most social animals have a sense of fairness"" "i agree that most animals have a sense of fairness" Fine, all social animals including humans have a sense of fairness and empathy. "however, assuming there's no supreme being with a supreme moral standard, u have no way to justify that claim." That is simply an observation, no reason to justify the result of an observation. "you're beggining the question by sneaking in the word fairness" Häää? It is simply an observation. The concept of fairness is well-defined and simple to grasp. There is absolutely no reason to sneak in any absolute morality here. >>""Most people have an inherent tendency to follow these moral rules because not doing so will lead to trouble with other members of society and a reduced chance to propagate your offspring. So we will follow these rules because we evolved this way."" "Sentence 1 ignores a lot, including what you're replying to where i said "for the many people who are able n willing to not." there's super rich, powerful people who do break laws AND OR CHANGE THEM to suit their "impulses", which according to your above sentence 2, dictates morality, even though it's an appeal to nature fallacy." Please try to make your point without rambling. It is simply an observation without an inherent value judgment. "some people get off on causing harm. Stalin n the N. Korean leader probably do, n get away with it. i explained this. Stalin took power by jailing or terminating any1 who got in his way, n he lived a great life where he kept increasing his wealth, power, fame, n reproduction ability doing this, n of his soldiers by allowing, for example, an estimated 2 MILLION German women, children etc to get R A P E after WW2, all in line with your so called morality." So there are psychopaths. I agree, how does this contradict anything I said? If anything it contradicts the idea of a good giving absolute moral. >>""Human society invented formal moral rules based on these inherent moral rules and by taking part in society we agreed to follow these rules."" "Yea, like Stalin, or the humans in the society of Saudi Arabia who maintain their morals that keep sodomy as a capital punishment, n don't allow femini*m. according to you, they're being moral, n if u disagree, YOU'RE being immoral, as are any citizens under their rule who broke the agreement." If anything at all, the state of Saudi Arabia is good according to theists, since they are following a divine commandment. The question, of whether fairness was true, is a nonsense question. A behavior can be fair or not fair. So we can discuss if someone was treated with fairness. So we would need to apply fairness to a situation in order to see if it was true. "Please proofread before replying," The fact that you are mainly rebelling speaks for the assumption that you do not do so at all. "are u just making claims without proof" Yes, you are. "and or using 1 claim or term to justify another for yourself or her (circular reasoning)" Yes, you are. "and or making an appeal to popular opinion n force or nature fallacies" A sense of fairness and empathy was useful for survival, so it was selected, that is simply a fact. It is no justification and no value judgment, and can, therefore, be no nature fallacy. "(which implies that if every1 agrees to pass a law that says R A P E on women by the leader is legal because every1 agrees it just is moral" That does a religious book. "n cites how it happens in nature n helps society pass on genes more)." Please use full sentences and stop rambling and misrepresenting. You reacted to a strawman and not my response. "P.S if i told u that all the major sciences n religions stemmed from Vedic scriptures for countless millenia, n that this is possible via divine revelation, n that most people have a VERY limited, flawed, n biased understanding of this, the Vedas, n ALL the major religions, n I've tons of detail n evidence to better explain n prove this paragraph, would u accept it, or be open to the details n evidence, or what?" If you have evidence that points to something else publish it in a peer-reviewed journal and become famous. Otherwise, we stick with the established model.
@@karstenschuhmann8334 i had to break up my replies into 3 parts. this is part 1... -Just because you OR any1, including a peer reviewed author, says something is factual or has the evidence pointing to it, that doesn't make it factual, n that includes even me, who used to think like u...plus i said humans COULD've been around for a billion years n more advanced too...u were supposed to answer with that hypothetical. yes, i have evidence, n yes there is a peer reviewed article AND science articles with this evidence. it will be cited in a vid. 1. As I have pointed out some sense of morality exists for many social animals not only humans. -So u say morality exists...n your proof is that it exists in humans and animals. thats circular reasoning again, as i confronted. Variations are random, properties selected for are not. -Strawman fallacy here, beacuse I never argued against this. but anyway, if EVERYTHING is just the result of the laws of physics without a designer, then so is the unproven theory of abiogenesis, all genes that emerged after it, and the entire nich that some genes are able to reproduce in, etc. In fact, everything u have ever said n thought, n will think n say, including all your comments, your claims about morality, God, etc are ALL the result of the laws of physics. youre like a moist robot. u could be in a Matrix simulation. No, it is not arbitrary it was selected for. -youre contradicting the fact that the genetic variation, according to u, IS RANDOM. Darwin himself said we could've evolved totally differently. it is arbitary according to u. also, u are ASSUMING n ACTING LIKE our survival n reproduction is objectively moral. but why. we're hurting the planet n other animals. some humans believe ending it all is the only way to totally cease all suffering for humans, animals, n the planet, n think disagreeing with them is insane. you're equating fitting the niche to survive n reproduce, with morality, just because u and or whomever, says so. Morality is a social contract based on our common sense of fairness. It is agreed by society and it will change as we learn. -more circular reasoning mixed in with appeal to popular opinion there. by your logic, atheism violates common sense n is thus immoral, because 97% of USA isn't atheist n 93% of the world isn't atheist or agnostic. according to u, if we "learn" that R A P E maximizes survival, well being, n reproduction n EVERYONE agrees with that, then fighing the opinion is immoral. if it became law, then fighting it can also land u in jail as the unfair outlaw who lacked empathy for the lonely guy who forces his genes upon women because he was so ugly he got 0 women while supermodel men get many. I'm asking what If the whole world disagrees with YOUR morality...so you will likely end up in jail. That is mainly an issue for Religious people that base their morality on their interpretation of a divine standard. -We are talking about religious radicals? no, that's your assertion. stats show most man made war n murd*r came from secular atheistic leaders, in spite of them being a tiny minority. so now you're making up unfactual claims n resorting to confirmation bias. in fact, most people want only laws passed that they FEEL is moral, n want jailed only those who violate it. n like u said, if the world disagrees with u, YOU go to jail n by your own logic, that's not immoral. Notice how u ignore the part of my question here where i said WITHOUT guilt..."WHY is any1 morally obligated to follow what ever answers u give here IF they're ABLE to disobey it without guilt or punishment?" u simply say "Because I have empathy and I do not want to harm other people." - I'm not talking about u! U strawmanned n ignored the question! "Behavior that used to be perfectly fine 200 years ago wild be seen as immoral or even criminal today." -n 200 years later, it could come back. again, you and her are talking about arbitrary things based upon popular opinion, or in some cases a powerful minority, who MAKE things into law. that's NOT morality OR agreed upon by society n if it was, then ANYTHING can result from that INCLUDING what Stalin did, especially IF he got the world to agree! u SAYING he was unfair n lacking empathy is YOUR OPINION, which is u contradicting yourself AND contradicting the whole "there's no objective morality" claim! R A P E n Stalin can be dismissed IF there's a supreme being with a supreme moral code. "R A P E may 1 day be accepted as moral." "This was accepted until quite recently, at least within marriage. And the bible seems perfectly fine with turning prisoners of war into sex slaves." -U ignored how R A P E, as explained here n elsewhere, was not immoral n will not be immoral if the world accepts it, ACCORDING TO WHAT U SAID. n you strawman me by bringing the Bible into it! i ONLY mention the Bible when saying it is NOT something every1 should have to follow! "WHICH humans? Stalin? the leader of North Korea?" "Obviously not they use different languages and these words were defined centuries or even millennia before. In general, a word is defined to transmit a certain meaning and if it is useful and agreed upon by others it will be continued to be used this way." -youre arguing semantics now. n if the world agreed upon those 2 leaders' definitions, then according to u, THEY decide how to define morality n all the other terms we mentioned n others u wana sneak in, from morality to fairness, etc "what if 1 of them took over the world n convinced every1 that what ever they say, such as life sentence for any1 they dislike" That would be seen as law, but not as moral, we have seen this a lot in history. Well, religions managed and still manage to convince their followers that immoral things are moral." -Bringing religion into it is strawmming here. saying religious people are immoral is begging the question with your OPINION. saying it's law, not moral, is contradicting what u said earlier about "MORALS" come from society n agreed upon laws, etc. And i said if they AGREE it is moral, NOT only they agree it is a law. "Well, as long as this was not a religious colt it would still be seen as immoral." I literally asked u about this, saying IF THE WORLD AGREED it was moral. "Please do not continue in these very long monotone and aggressive sentences." I was waiting for the personl attack fallacy. this is also a 2 wrongs make a right fallacy, n it is untrue. i honestly can't see how questioning things is monotone or aggressive. "Well, most dictatures try to condemn resistance and religion is helping them in this effort." that's a strawman with my words...n available stats. also, most people n societies, including secular atheists, say this about ANY1 who disagrees with laws they approve of. Dems n GOP, for example, often love to point out how the other side wants big government sometimes, even after saying theyre against big government. both are hypocrites while pointing out the other hypocrites only.
Being a theist leaves this guy at a disadvantage with respect to morality. Theists don't understand that morality is understanding WHY something is wrong rather than just accepting someone else's assertion that it's right. If you're just doing as you're told you are not being moral, you're just being obedient. In order to be moral you'd have to evaluate the nature of what you're being asked to do and then decide whether it is something you personally consider to be decent. This requires a judgement which must be informed by an understanding of the consequences of your actions. A good example of this is explored in the film 'A Few Good Men'. Here we find an example of two soldiers who obey orders in the belief that doing so is the moral imperative from a professional point of view. It is in their minds a matter of duty. In the end when the younger man says "I don't understand, we didn't do anything wrong", his senior colleague tells him "Yes we did. We should have known better". Refusing to obey the immoral commands of a god is something theists are incapable of. This reduces the unfailingly obedient to be morally apathetic at best.
Melchior Magni I didn't redefine morality, I explained what it is. It is not a process, it is to be ethically competent. Right and wrong are values which we apply to situations or actions. It would be impossible to determine the right or wrong of a situation without being a morally competent agent. So my point is that even to declare a god or its pronouncements to be good, you would first have to make a moral evaluation of why it should be deemed good. Simply doing as you're told is not enough. That would not be moral. As to your maths analogy, I'm not sure how it relates to what I actually wrote but the conclusion you arrived at is inaccurate in any case. If he doesn't know why he's carrying the one, he is performing a mathematical task, but knows no more about maths than a computer does. He is not "calculating" it. To BE mathematical would require an understanding of why he should carry the one. That is why computers could follow any ethical rules you program them to and still not be considered moral. We are not just computers.
Melchior Magni morality is the process of determining right from wrong, there are many examples where Society has deemed things right such as slavery, or execution for minor crimes and other things that in our society today are considered inherently wrong. If we accept what we are told is right from wrong as in for instance just saying the Bible says it's okay so it is moral then we are not in fact being moral. Morality is about examining what benefits a social species as a whole that's what Tracy is trying to say. Humans as a social species to be considered moral must work together, show compassion and empathy because if we just went on killing each other or stealing what we wanted then we would not have progressed to the level we are at now where the thousands of people come together and build buildings and cities, build stores we can shop in, places for us to work do you have a fair share of our resources. and it is still not a perfect system. but the point that is trying to be made here is that morality must be based on communal benefit Not an absolute. And often things change environmental changes, understanding of science And other things have changed our morality. At one point if you disagreed with somebody or two men love the same woman you could actually duel to the death and at the Survivor would not be held accountable for murder if both men had agreed to such a duel. But today the Survivor would spend his life in prison for murder because our laws and our sense of right and wrong have evolved Greatly and just the past hundred and fifty years. We have abolished slavery and laws of inequality so morality cannot be an absolute if it is ever-changing and it is something that very much involves processing and evaluating our actions.
robtay1963 Why do people keep saying morality is a process? Deciding what is moral or immoral is a process, (primarily of thought) but morality in itself is not. Morality is a judgement we make on why that determination was arrived at. An action may be either moral, immoral or amoral, and which it is depends entirely on the attitude we adopt in committing to it. There may be an absolutely correct position to take on every conceivable moral question, but it remains a moral irrelevance if we haven't all the necessary information to determine what that position is. So the best we can do is to be as dutifully thoughtful as we can in determining the correct decision in each situation. Morality is specifically, caring enough to take responsibility in attempting to reach the best understanding. Leaving it to someone else would be irresponsible. That's why we could not display such apathy and claim to be moral at the same time.
Schell 01 I agree with you but I was explaining it in terms I hope we're simple to Melchior how are morality has evolved as a whole in society. Things that were once, they accepted have changed over time and those are usually things that help build a better community and a better world. I wasn't refuting your point I was refuting his point that there were moral absolutes. And I agree that apathy is not a good moral decision.
ConfusionFusion Yes, robtay1963 (rather than Melchior Magni) explained perfectly well that he and I agree in principle, and I was aware that we did even before his explanation. The only reason I took issue with what he wrote is that I considered it an error to describe morality as "a process". So I think you have somewhat misunderstood the point I was making. I wrote "morality is" because I was accused of redefining morality after I explained why I think theists don't demonstrate it by simply adhering to text. So I assure you that I was very careful in my choice of words (however much tthat might evidence a deficiency in my command of English). I wasn't just saying what morality "involves", I was attempting to explain what it actually is. This is not to say that you're wrong in stating that "being a moral agent involves understanding". It just doesn't address the crux of my initial post, which was to define morality. That said, I thank you, Melchior Magni and robtay1963 for caring enough to think about what I wrote.
This call should have ended after the 10th time Tracey asked him to define morality. He clearly wasn’t there to have a conversation. He had a one-liner that he kept trying to tee-up for what he thought was a homer in.
"Hi, Luke. Do you have the rest of the hundred dollars you owe me?" "I paid you some money which means I made a payment to the debt which strictly speaking means the debt has been paid which means I owe you nothing more."
If a supernatural being provides you with "moral guidelines" to follow, and then threatens you with punishment if you do not follow those guidelines...and promises eternal reward if you do follow them, then you are not moral. You are merely doing these things to benefit yourself. In this situation you are a selfish person, not a moral one. The claim that a god is needed for morality is completely illogical.
Even that is confusing, John 3:16 says all you need to do is believe in him (can be read as god or jesus) to get eternal life. But then in john 3:36 is adds the part that we need to obey the Son too. WTF. This stupid book. Couldn't god just say in 1 line what the criteria are for getting into heaven?
@Mike fu so in a socialist model in which wealth is evenly distributed among all citizens, no one gets into heaven because no one is more or less wealthy than anyone else. Also, in a capitalist system, poor people can't get into heaven since they don't have any possessions to sell. This whole system, soup to nuts, is complete and utter bullshit
John McAllister The theist could reply by saying that, in a way, all secular morality is selfish because even altruistic acts are done because the person wants to, and so there is some positive mental state experienced by that person. So, in this way, there are no truly selfless acts, and so the humanist is acting selfishly at all times. It's not really a good argument, but it's nonetheless the response that you'll get if you say that a Christian is selfish but a humanist is not: they will compare the reward of heaven with the reward of feeling good after behaving altruistically, and show that because there are rewards in both systems, one is not intrinsically selfless. So, selfishness is not a useful or productive thing to argue for. It is better to point out other flaws such as how the inflexibility of the theist's god's commands leads to obviously immoral actions. If the theist then says that God can't fault someone for choosing not to obey His commands because that person is doing their best and exercising their God-given conscious, then you can point out that this is functionally equivalent to the humanist view of morality, so that God's commands are superfluous.
John - that is exactly what I noticed when I was a believer. The Bible said in some places that we had to ACT good according to what we were told to do because we did not have the capacity to be good on our own because of original sin. Then it other places it said that we would KNOW what good was because we were believers. These two statements would not have been so bad by themselves, but they continually appeared in settings that contradicted the other. Humans could not know what good was without God. But we had to be good in our hearts. Of course this became twisted around sometimes to say that God would give us new hearts so that we could then know automatically what good was. But then how could we then fall back into sin? Did not make sense then and still does not. We could never really be sure that we we doing good things and if we were, were we doing good things for the right reasons? There is much more to this, but you get the idea. Eventually believers began to think that anything they did had to be good since God told them they knew what good was. Twisted logic.
@Mike fu Or other people put their words in his mouth. It's the advantage of a fictional character, it's all fantasy, so what does a bit more bullshit change anything..?
@@alpinion323 When you answer your own question with a dumb answer, then it shows that the dumb answer is probably not the correct answer to the question.
Tracie warned him at the onset that this conversation wouldn't go the direction he wanted it to go because she knew her definition of morality was MONUMENTALLY different......and that's EXACTLY what happened.
People hear what they want. It kills me that people feel like they can answer a question with a question. Keep up the good work actually answering questions with logical statements , atheist experience.
Scoops Da Vinci When he does not give any answers it is not acceptable, sometimes I agree to answer certain questions another question is necessary. All he does is deviously attempt to push the direction of conversation to where he can corner them but all credit to them they stuck to the point and allowed him to show his deviant nature.
marie-rose daly "Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, "Yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down, down. Amen!" If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it." -- Dan Barker
Nearly everything that you are, is a result of your upbringing, environment and culture. They ask because they want to make sure that they are talking about the same thing.
"Where is it supposed to go?" Haha! Tracie got him by saying this. She didn't wanna play in his game of "let's call atheists moral nihilists-- see what I mean?".
Sidenote to the dog morality thing: My dog _DEFINITELY_ understood justice. If she thought that someone bigger was acting aggressively toward someone smaller (e.g. I am on my feet and a friend is sitting down and I lean over them too quickly) she'd rush over to "defend" the smaller person regardless of who was doing the threatening and who needed "protecting". Being part of her "pack" did not get you off the hook from a frantic scolding (she was about the size of a cat, so scolding was pretty much all she could do, lol). Wrong was wrong and she refused to let perceived injustice happen just because you were a family member and the other person wasn't.
Morality to me is whether or not we follow the rules of the society we live in. You can't be faulted for not following rules you don't know about. For example, if you are born in a country that still allows slavery, you would absolutely think slavery was moral. I think we are born with instincts that might be taken as moral behavior, I don't think anyone teaches their kids to stop a child about to walk into oncoming traffic, we just do that by instinct.
She is flying way over his head. He was attempting to pigeon hole Atheists as amoral or immoral. He was trying to suggets that his good book is the only way to morality.
@Charlie Cross "No no, you misunderstand. See, those verses are taken out of context." I swear, that bullshit cop-out makes me want to rip my ears off every time I hear it 😑
Luke is also known as Billy from TX (along with other places). He calls, asks an otherwise strange question, acts weirder, eventually leaves when no one rises to his bait..
It's always so frustrating that so many callers are unable or unwilling to accept cognitive devices like analogy, metaphor, comparison, etc. You have to wonder, though, if they were accustomed to thinking with those types of methods, would they have cause to call in to begin with?
I know. It seems like they view it as a “sin” or blasphemous to consider other methods of explanation. Also It seems the more fundamentalist they are the more they are likely to do something like quoting scripture to answer a question that has nothing to do with scripture. They can’t think “outside the box” as the saying goes.
I agree that without these pedagogical devices we're at a disadvantage in trying to communicate ideas to each other. But practising them is only the first step. We also have to understand their limitations and how they can be misused. An example is only a distraction, if it doesn't fit well with the principle you're trying to illustrate. (That was, I hope, a good example.) Analogously, a bad analogy is like a bicycle that needs repair. It may seem to ride okay at first, but in slightly rough terrain the wheels may fall off. (That, I think, was a marginal analogy at best. It doesn't really say anything interesting about the nature of analogy, only that it may fail. And bicycles have many properties which are wholly irrelevant to explaining how an analogy works.) The right choice of analogy can be great for getting someone up to speed on an unfamiliar idea. The problem with them is that they always break down sooner or later, and the analogy itself doesn't tell you when to expect this. Take Ohm's Law of electricity for example: E = IR. It describes the observed relationship between voltage, current, and resistance in an electrical circuit. If you don't know what these terms mean, it's hard to picture how to apply Ohm's Law. So we often use an analogy with water flowing through pipes. Voltage is like water pressure, current is like the volume of water per second flowing through a pipe, and resistance is like the diameter or friction of the pipe. Using this analogy, we can kind of get that a lot of pressure can push a lot of volume through a big pipe, but not much pressure or a small pipe won't flow a lot of volume per second. That's a pretty useful analogy, as far as it goes. But it breaks down if you push on it too hard. Water evaporates. Does electricity do that? The analogy doesn't tell us whether that's a reasonable question. Gravity affects water pressure. Does it affect electricity? And so on. So we have to be aware of the need to let go of the analogy as soon as we've picked up the intended concepts. "Reasoning by analogy" is fallacious, and unfortunately common.
He cannot conceive of morality in the way Tracie describes. In his world humans are special and unique from the other baser animals. He cannot equate them
“I don’t believe you guys are atheists because you’re trying to incorrectly say there’s something of value” It was a 15 minute lecture on morality as an evolutionary and biological tendency and this dude didn’t listen to a single word of it
Humans are by nature gregarious creatures! We need our own species'.. Tests have shown when human beings are isolated from their peers,it causes psychological problems,as for morality,it exists in us all,you don't need to brow beat it into a child, empathy in humans is inherent...
I think the caller was trying to steer the conversation in such a way as to trap John and Tracie and make them look as bad as possible and they would not allow him to do that. When Tracie stuck to her argument he eventually grew very exasperated, muttered some sort of insult and with his tail between his legs, fled like the coward that he is.
"We're not getting anywhere with this" Nah bro, you aren't going anywhere with this. She wasn't making a judgement call, she was saying that IF survival is a goal that is important to a social species, THEN a sense of fairness and morality is a tool that they have, use, and enforce. If someone steals or hurts someone else they are shunned and/or arrested, aka removed from society.
Caller was an idiot but she never answered the question...... asking why you're a moral nihilist or why you're not one is very different from asking what role morality plays in society and evolution.
Lukes strategy was put the hosts in a box labelled ......ist, then attack asserting that he had absolute morality because of an old book and that they couldnt have morality because they didnt read the book. Once youve labelled someone you can argue that they must conform to your definition - which is essentially a strawman. Well done to Tracie for not being led down that path.
Harm. The difference between moral and immoral is harm, or the potential for harm. If I'm doing something that has the potential to cause undue harm to someone else, that would be immoral, it would be wrong. If there is no potential for any kind of harm, it is moral, it is not wrong. Religions obviously disagree with that paradigm - in both directions, it should be noted - but those differences are subjective. Do no harm. Help where you can. The rest of the time, mind your own business. That is my moral code. It doesn't need to be complicated.
I appreciate your view/understanding that morality is a product of evolutionary selection in social beings. It’s one of the tools evolved to help us survive as a species. We can choose to use this morality tool to further ourselves or not. Much respect to you.
One of the most noticeable traces of intellectual dishonesty is the characteristic answer starting with "So..." followed by whatever the argument was, slightly changed to fit the agenda of the intellectually dishonest. Distort their arguments, to the point they fit what I want them to say. In other words, is the old "put words into someone else's mouth"
Thank you Tracie. You spend the whole conversation demonstrating an authentic mortality. You proved this by your first seeing Luke as an equal, capable of understanding your words. Thank you for poviding him the space & opportunity to better define & present his query. For being very open & transparent in an objective explanation of morality when clearly he could not better define or introduce context to his ask. For recognizing his commitment to all least his inadvertant interest in understanding, to spite his concerted efforts to fall down his own spiral. For exhibiting empathy and respect in the face of the assertion that you were not capable of such. More days than not, I find the pretentiousness & posture from wishery very difficult to suffer. Thank you for reminding me that all we have to offer this deficit in understanding is our better nature...our morality. The secret sauce of religion: The assertion from ego that without religion, we are ALL somehow incapable of the possessing the know better or the do better for ourselves or others.
He called up saying he wanted to ask about their view on morality. Seems like what he really wanted to do is tell them what he thought their views on morality must be.
Well, when you've been reading from a script for your whole life, you lose the ability to do anything else. Luke has had a script to guide him through life, and when he tries to make other people play along and they don't, his script breaks down. A "moral imperative" is something that MUST happen, or be true, at ALL times or illogical behavior follows. If you've ever known a human to behave unfairly, then you know first-hand that fairness is NOT a moral imperative. It is unfair to steal your neighbors food, yet circumstances may necessitate that logically, in order to survive, you MUST steal your neighbors food.
Well put, you sir win my respect. This caller had no basis for his argument and it was so frustrating to hear him spit out nonsense. It is survival of the fittiest and I think his time has come.
This is one of the most awesome explanations of morality that left the theist just stammering. It is so contrary to the theist's framework, he simply doesn't know how to process it.
Thiests can only accept the idea that a supernatural being is the only entity that can have morals. But they can't agree among themseles what is moral or not.
Rats also show empathy and will go to comfort another distressed rat rather than go for easy food. But Bible-bangers want to insist people - specifically people of THEIR religion - are the only ones who can be moral because of the need to feel special. And superior.
Something about this guy really rubbed me the wrong way. I was yelling at my phone to hang up on him 3 minutes In. Because it’s clear he was calling in with what he thought was a gotcha question. But they didn’t fall for it
I enjoy the way that Tracie gives detailed explanations and callers generally must be lying on the floor, because it always goes right over their heads.
Theist: "Are Atheists immoral?" (Of couse they will say "yes" cuz obviously they are.) Atheist: "No, we have the same sense of morality as you guys." Theist: "But that's not the answer I wanted you to give me." Atheist: "Well, it's the truth." Theist: "But why aren't you immoral without God?" Atheist: "Because we don't need one to be." Theist: "But that isn't what I want Atheists to be." That's pretty much Theists in a nutshell.
I think Tracy would be more effective if kept her comments more to the exact specific point she is highlighting. She offers great teaching moments, but they can confuse the caller to the point that the conversation breaks down. For example, she perfectly isolates the first issue "I can't answer your question until we define morality", and basically defines it herself as "reciprocal behavior between members of the same species". When the caller became confused, stating "No, no........ I'm talking about people", she continued to teach the science of social evolution, the silver fox experiment, etc. It would have been better to state a simple "I define morality as the biologically embedded tendency to reciprocal behavior" (or similar), and gotten back the caller's actual original question. I've noticed this from Tracy in a number of videos. She may well do it intentionally, using the caller as an reason to give a teaching moment, but losing the entire point of the call. She's a great teacher, but I think it would be better to set aside sections for her to teach, a when fielding calls, focus on the call. Matt does a fabulous job of focusing on the original point of a call. Yes, he absolutely teaches and informs, and corrects....... but always as narrowly focused support for something he says, and always sticking with the main thoughts of the call.
Stanley Slawski I've noticed this same thing over time, and haven't been able to really determine what sometimes feels off about her responses. To some extent, I feel as though she is misjudging the callers' points of confusion in many cases. It feels as though she is always operating on level 100 and doesn't realize the callers are on level 12. So she ends up going even deeper into something to explain when she should do the opposite. On aother note, I feel as though she should know exactly what the callers are getting at in their thought processes, but it almost feels like she's intentionally avoiding speaking about it in plain terms. Maybe she thinks that callers understand more abstract concepts than she gives them credit.
Great point about "operating at level 100". In fairness, Matt's often talked about how their objective is to talk to the listening audience much more than an individual caller, and if Tracey was to talk at level 12 to the same question for the 3,428th time - then they may as well just play a loop tape. Maybe she brings in the teaching moments (besides not just getting bored herself) to bring in a little bit more, piece by piece, to those repeated viewers who may be beginning to question things.
Stanley Slawski it does help me understand what's so wrong about his framing of the questions so I'm not complaining me. Tracie is like a hot teacher 😂 sorry
"This isn't going anywhere."
Translation: "You aren't saying what I want you to say in order for me to recite the apologetics I've been taught & sound smart."
Now only sound Stupidly Ignorant ...............
Those who know the least say it the loudest.
Totally. That clearly went off in a direction he hadn't anticipated almost right away.
Does the fact that I rather enjoyed how frustrated he got mean my moral compass is damaged, I wonder?
Morality: USA 5 murders per 10,000 of the population. Japan (not Christian or religious) 0.3 murders per 10,000.
Also dont forget
"I dont believe you all really atheist"
Translation: you dont fit the characteristics of atheist that I have come up with
When someone starts with an obnoxious, smug tone, refuses to answer questions, is immediately combative when challenged, resorts to ridiculous extremes and pretends that there are simple answers to complex issues you can tell they have no interest in having an honest, conversation and a productive discussion.
Sounds like Bill O'Reilly. I'm a conservative, but I've never liked that guy. At least he was pretty good about giving people the last word.
It's more like the caller thought the issue is simple yet the hosts aren't honest about it or something, and that it'll be easy to show them how wrong they are and then suddenly realized there is no way to even begin to demonstrate the argument and got stuck with it.
Agree 🔥🔥
95% prank call
So in other words a Christian
🕺 Luke dancing around the questions.
🤺 Luke deflecting.
🕵️ Luke looking for a way to win the argument.
💀 Luke giving up.
Luke finding out Vader is his father.
Tracie’s explanation is wonderfully clear. It’s too bad that it’s lost on Luke.
I'm not convinced he was trying to understand or even listen
I think he got it. I really do. But I think it kinda blew his mind, and he started asking bizarre questions near the end to string out his arrogant facade.
@@NEMOfishZ92 same. he just wanted to speak because he has the ability to speak.
She did a great job at withholding opinions to keep things super clear. Luke was obviously attempting to bait her
Synopsis: I have a category I want to squeeze atheists into that depends on a certain specious definition, and you're not allowing me to do that!
This guy also tried to argue that there is no such thing as atheists, because only the christian god is true, which means jews are atheists
I'm surprised comment section is working. I just scrolled down in case anything. :p
Jessica Braga it’s the same god is it not
Moral is subjective and depend entirely on the group you are trying to socially connect it, be it religions, cultures or more. Like what we considered Free choices maybe work in certain group, but when it comes to certain cultures with strict CONTROL, it maybe disruptive and thus it becomes immoral to them, but moral conscious to the rest of the world.
Before 1920, the marriage age of US were 13-16 years old with Delaware at 7 years old. Is it morally wrong to have marriage at that low? Yes if we are using modern standards, but to social interaction at the time, it is NOT. However, when people want to increase the marriage at to 18 years old, most religious people PROTESTED because it disrupted theirs theirs group social interact and they often used Bible's examples to quote why it is right, but ignore the fact that the Bible were written 2000 years ago and the age is even lower.
Moral has evolved with society or more like evolves with acceptance of social interaction advance overtime. Slavery were normal and accepted before because most people accepted as such, but not now. Whether it is morally wrong? Yes because we enslaved others, but to majority people at the time, it is not because enslavement is part of life for them, part of the custom, part of cultures in a sense.
@@CuongNguyen-le5ic I believe that there are both objective and subjective morality is. Morality by definition belonging to a species whose beliefs are based on subjective experiences will always have some aspects of it that are subjective however the rules and guiding principles of that morality can be objective as well once you determine the foundation upon which to build that morality. hope that makes sense I'm going on a couple hours of sleep so I'm not at 100% brain capacity right now.
Tracie is so good at slowing down these theist know-it-all speedballs.
Perfectly put
That guy got high on religious crack before calling.
Srsly how much coke did he plow before that call
@@ejflor1313 AAAALL the coke. All of it.
@@ejflor1313 It's obvious he did not share the 8 ball.
In other news,
this is one of the most frustrating conversations to listen to. Tracie is explaining herself very clearly and he is being extremely disingenuous
When are they ever not disingenuous? There's always "that" type of guy
The Christian caller is actually not being disingenuous, he's just stupid i.e, lacks critical-thinking and basic comprehension skills. ... No matter how normal and/or intelligent a religious person appears, all suffer from a form of mental illness. Because religion is a mental illness.
@@MrBernardhard I'd say he was being disingenuous but only because he wasn't actually calling to have a discussion. He wanted to lead her down whatever path he thought up before hand so he could try and manufacture some stupid "gotcha" moment. When she didn't play ball and asked him to actually define what he meant he never stopped trying to keep leading her to say what he wanted her to say. I don't think the guy was just being a stubborn block head here.
there is a difference between stupid and disingenuous
@vctjkhme there was no depth to his reasoning though...there was merely misunderstanding of morality with arrogance. I often see ignorance reinforced with prideful arrogance from Christians.
Very difficult for a believer to accept that atheists are more moral than them.
Christians think they're morally right by default, doesn't matter their actions or worldview they just chose the right team
It blows their tiny closed minds
Typical- he tried to orchestrate the whole process. He’s not listening, just script reading.
Atypical Atheist Experience caller.
"I don't think you're really engaging with what I'm saying!"
Translated:
"That's not what Matt Slick said you'd say! You're cheating or something!"
Typical of?
@@arthousefilms I believe he is too, but typical is a word which has a specific meaning. It is typical ....
@@arthousefilmsSimply stating 'typical' is only generalising without providing any reason for that. (And comment was directed at OP).
Never waste your time trying to explain something to someone who is committed to misunderstanding and misrepresenting you.
Exactly, when people start denying basic facts it's time to stop
If this guy is a "Christian" then he believes that he's heading for an everlasting pleasure garden in the sky, a raging eternal fire or a temporary purgatorial locum.
I.E. he thinks and communicates in "Baby Talk". Enough said.
…unless you have an audience you can win to your side by doing so.
In this case, however, we got to see the whole dialectical process from start to finish. For that alone it was far from being a waste of time.
@@knighty6y744completely agreed when women say they can be men and vice versa
He was trying to put words in her mouth to guide her into an argument of his own creation but she didn’t allow him to make assumptions for her and therefore didn’t fall for it because what he was saying made no sense. I bet he practiced this in his head for days thinking he knew exactly where it would go and when it didn’t go as planned he had nothing else to say.
And she knew it the whole time.
Yeah, he was really annoying too
I'm surprised comment section is working. I just scrolled down in case anything. :p
TheNocturneMoon yeah but T wasn't just cleverly avoiding a trap, she was being obtuse and evasive and wasting time. she could have just as easily said "i get what you're trying to ask me, but i disagree on A and B, and here's why" and they could have had a much more interesting debate about objective vs subjective morality. T is being very difficult here.. i understand she defines morality in terms of evolved traits that demonstrate X andY, but that stuff was all irrelevant to his question since he had no idea what she was talking about, and doesn't accept that view. she wasted so much time . she's either dense or disingenuous.
come on traci, you really don't know what a christian thinks morality is? you cant make an educated guess about what he's asking, and continue from there?
TheNocturneMoon Yep. Lol. "So, survival is important! You're saying it's important!"... Ha haaa. It's "important" to survive if surviving is important TO YOU! It's not innately important to the universe. What a dishonest piece of shit that guy was. Lost the argument statement by statement and then hung up. Lying to himself that he made a single point.
Tracey may not be a Christian, but she has the patience of a saint.
Oh look, a theist who doesn’t understand empathy, that’s so unusual! *sigh*
I'm genuinely afraid of people like that.
All that's holding them back from the most horrifying, vile, barbaric, bloodthirsty kinds of nightmarish actions is their faith that their owner's eyes are on them....
Don't put people, believes and facts into opposing boxes.
If you do... that is only you
"a theist" is what? sigh
@@gruntymchunchy1527 I have no idea what the fuck this means, and can only reach the rational conclusion that english isn't your first language
The next step is proving that empathy ought to be valued. This, of course, isn't possible.
@@gruntymchunchy1527 A theist is someone who believes in a god or gods.
This might be one of my favourite AE interactions. Tracy's just so patient and well-spoken, even though this dude on the line is frustratingly dishonest.
Luke's final statement that , " this really isn't going anywhere " can only be translated to mean , " you're not allowing me to steer you in the direction that I want to take you ". Had Luke actually listened to the host during the conversation instead of bloviating he would have recognized that fact early on in the call and known he would not be successful. Instead he went from failing to flailing and ended with his " panties in a bunch ".
Hammer 001
Lol. Bloviate ; to talk at length in an inflated or empty manner. Or as the late great R n' B soul stylist James Brown so succinctly put it in song circa.1972 , Luke was simply " Talkin' Loud and Saying Nothin' ".
I believe theist callers like Luke know that they are not going to be successful unless they trip up and intimated the hosts. So they bebel on until they run out of steam.
Tracie asked him like 5 times: "what do you mean by morality?" He dodged the question every time then asked Tracie what she means by morality. She then goes on into giving her definition, which he failed to comprehend (didn't even attempted to comprehend) and then says "oh this isn't going anywhere". I'd call that dishonesty even if I had never seen it before.
An indoctrinated goddamn idiot. He knows very well what Tracy is saying it's just not what he want to here.
Luke stay off the meth.
This was like a fencing match between an expert armed with a rapier and an opponent wielding a small banana.
"This isn't really going anywhere" means "this isn't going the way I had planned it".
"You're not engaging with what I'm saying" means "You're refusing to step into the clumsily constructed trap I have spent hours preparing".
"I don't believe you guys are atheists" means "I have been badly mauled so I gotta put in some kind of last remark, no matter how meaningless and obdurate, that might make people think I wasn't completely and absolutely destroyed."
This wasn't a debate - it was a plane crash.
It is even better, he brought a box of soggy noodles to the fight.
@@pavel9652Hey my noodly FSM resents that. Ramen.
luke came to a gunfight with a squirt gun.
He always does. And he always comes with the same question. He's really a simpleton.
And his squirt-gun (as always) WAS EMPTY .................
Luke came to a gun fight with his head up his a**
NOT a good thing to do ...............@@renocicchi7346
a empty one.
Tracie's explanation of morality was so on point. Luke never had an opening to drop his societal godly premise.
I gotta agree that not every1 should be forced to follow Luke's Bible or whatever specific scripture. However, the lady made the appeal to nature fallacy. she also begs the question a lot. she "sneaks" in new terms to answer questions. She says morality is looking at tendencies, fairness, empathy, equity, cheating etc. but that just begs the question on who defines those terms, n WHY is any1 morally obligated to follow any terms, such as those, especially for the many people who are able n willing to not. she also can't answer what makes fairness true, she says it just is.
@@airplayrule "However, the lady made the appeal to nature fallacy."
No, she does not. An appeal to nature says something is good just for being natural. That is not what she said.
She merely states that our sense of morality developed because it was selected for, and this sense of morality has served the species and the individual. That is merely factual. She did not claim that another (artificial) system of morality could not be better.
"she also begs the question a lot. she "sneaks" in new terms to answer questions. She says morality is looking at tendencies, fairness, empathy, equity, cheating etc. but that just begs the question on who defines those terms"
Humans did, who else? And in other languages, you have different terms.
But most social animals have a sense of fairness, of
"WHY is any1 morally obligated to follow any terms, such as those, especially for the many people who are able n willing to not."
There are two superimposed answers:
1. Most people have an inherent tendency to follow these moral rules because not doing so will lead to trouble with other members of society and a reduced chance to propagate your offspring. So we will follow these rules because we evolved this way.
2. Human society invented formal moral rules based on these inherent moral rules and by taking part in society we agreed to follow these rules.
"she also can't answer what makes fairness true, she says it just is"
It is a nonsense question, ike "What makes green true." fairness is fairness, it cannot be true or false. l She did not answer "It just is true." that would be false, but she said, "It just is."
@@karstenschuhmann8334
"She merely states that our sense of morality developed because it was selected for, and this sense of morality has served the species and the individual. That is merely factual."
-It is not factual. humans could've been around for a billion years. they could've been more advanced too.
Selected for...that implies it was already there, but doesn't say where it came from. did it initially form randomly via genetic variation? so it's arbitrary then. n where is this moral gene? exactly.
n again, that's beginning the question. u say morality multiple times when it is the question. how do u know the word morality, when u or she is using it, is actually moral? what if the whole world disagrees? n most important, WHY is any1 morally obligated to follow what ever answers u give here IF they're ABLE to disobey it without guilt or punishment?
" She did not claim that another (artificial) system of morality could not be better."
then she's not talkin about morality, just arbitrary stuff that fits the niche, like what Stalin did, n sweatshop profiteers etc do. R A P E may 1 day be accepted as moral.
"Humans did, who else? And in other languages, you have different terms."
WHICH humans? Stalin? the leader of North Korea? what if 1 of them took over the world n convinced every1 that what ever they say, such as life sentence for any1 they dislike such as u or her, to harsh labor after all your wealth is taken for the state, is moral, n good, n well being, n any1 who disagrees, lacks empathy n fairness, n any rebellion is violating the non-aggression principal, n society's morality, n any other terms u wana throw in like fairness, ethics etc. n your definitions of all terms u, me n her mentioned are defined wrong if it disagrees with them...would they be OBJECTIVELY moral n if so, how do u know, who's mind does that standard come from, n WHY should those leaders be morally obligated to change if the world agreed to decide they don't have to?
"But most social animals have a sense of fairness, of"
did u forget to finish that sentence? i agree that most animals have a sense of fairness, however, assuming there's no supreme being with a supreme moral standard, u have no way to justify that claim. you're beggining the question by sneaking in the word fairness. see my above paragraph.
"Most people have an inherent tendency to follow these moral rules because not doing so will lead to trouble with other members of society and a reduced chance to propagate your offspring. So we will follow these rules because we evolved this way."
Sentence 1 ignores a lot, including what you're replying to where i said "for the many people who are able n willing to not." there's super rich, powerful people who do break laws AND OR CHANGE THEM to suit their "impulses", which according to your above sentence 2, dictates morality, even though it's an appeal to nature fallacy. some people get off on causing harm. Stalin n the N. Korean leader probably do, n get away with it. i explained this. Stalin took power by jailing or terminating any1 who got in his way, n he lived a great life where he kept increasing his wealth, power, fame, n reproduction ability doing this, n of his soldiers by allowing, for example, an estimated 2 MILLION German women, children etc to get R A P E after WW2, all in line with your so called morality.
"Human society invented formal moral rules based on these inherent moral rules and by taking part in society we agreed to follow these rules."
Yea, like Stalin, or the humans in the society of Saudi Arabia who maintain their morals that keep sodomy as a capital punishment, n don't allow femini*m. according to you, they're being moral, n if u disagree, YOU'RE being immoral, as are any citizens under their rule who broke the agreement.
"It is a nonsense question,"
Downplay fallacy.
" ike "What makes green true.""
non sequitur fallacy.
"fairness is fairness,"
circular reasoning fallacy.
"it cannot be true or false. l She did not answer "It just is true." that would be false, but she said, "It just is.""
this whole sequence contradicts what she, n you, are saying. so it's not unfair to make femin*ism, meat eating, n atheism capital offenses as long as i get society to agree n make it a law. it's not immoral because it's not immoral. thanks.
Please proofread before reypling, n ask yourself, are u just making claims without proof, and or using 1 claim or term to justify another for yourself or her (circular reasoning) and or making an appeal to popular opinion n force or nature fallacies (which implies that if every1 agrees to pass a law that says R A P E on women by the leader is legal because every1 agrees it just is moral, n cites how it happens in nature n helps society pass on genes more).
Why do u keep making all these fallacies?
P.S if i told u that all the major sciences n religions stemmed from Vedic scriptures for countless millenia, n that this is possible via divine revelation, n that most people have a VERY limited, flawed, n biased understanding of this, the Vedas, n ALL the major religions, n I've tons of detail n evidence to better explain n prove this paragraph, would u accept it, or be open to the details n evidence, or what?
@@airplayrule "It is not factual. humans could've been around for a billion years. they could've been more advanced too."
That is what all the evidence points to. If you have evidence that points to something else publish it in a peer-reviewed journal and become famous. Otherwise, we stick with the established model.
"Selected for...that implies it was already there, but doesn't say where it came from. did it initially form randomly via genetic variation?"
1. As I have pointed out some sense of morality exists for many social animals not only humans.
2. Variations are random, properties selected for are not.
"so it's arbitrary then. n where is this moral gene? exactly."
No, it is not arbitrary it was selected for.
"n again, that's beginning the question. u say morality multiple times when it is the question. how do u know the word morality, when u or she is using it, is actually moral?"
Morality is a social contract based on our common sense of fairness. It is agreed by society and it will change as we learn.
"what if the whole world disagrees?"
If the whole world disagrees with your morality you will likely end up in jail. That is mainly an issue for Religious people that base their morality on their interpretation of a divine standard. We are talking about religious radicals.
"WHY is any1 morally obligated to follow what ever answers u give here IF they're ABLE to disobey it without guilt or punishment?"
Because I have empathy and I do not want to harm other people.
>>"" She did not claim that another (artificial) system of morality could not be better.""
"then she's not talkin about morality, just arbitrary stuff that fits the niche"
It is what society agreed on and it is in constant development. Behavior that used to be perfectly fine 200 years ago wild be seen as immoral or even criminal today.
"like what Stalin did"
No, Stalin did exactly the opposite, of a society agreeing on moral behavior, he did not care for any sense of fairness and empathy.
"n sweatshop profiteers etc do."
Obviously not for the same reason.
R A P E may 1 day be accepted as moral.
This was accepted until quite recently, at least within marriage. And the bible seems perfectly fine with turning prisoners of war into sex slaves.
>>""Humans did, who else? And in other languages, you have different terms.""
"WHICH humans? Stalin? the leader of North Korea?"
Obviously not they use different languages and these words were defined centuries or even millennia before. In general, a word is defined to transmit a certain meaning and if it is useful and agreed upon by others it will be continued to be used this way.
"what if 1 of them took over the world n convinced every1 that what ever they say, such as life sentence for any1 they dislike"
That would be seen as law, but not as moral, we have seen this a lot in history. Well, religions managed and still manage to convince their followers that immoral things are moral.
"such as u or her, to harsh labor after all your wealth is taken for the state, is moral, n good, n well being, n any1 who disagrees, lacks empathy n fairness"
Well, as long as this was not a religious colt it would still be seen as immoral.
Please do not continue in these very long monotone and aggressive sentences.
"n any rebellion is violating the non-aggression principal"
Well, most dictatures try to condemn resistance and religion is helping them in this effort.
"n society's morality, n any other terms u wana throw in like fairness, ethics etc. n your definitions of all terms u, me n her mentioned are defined wrong if it disagrees with them...would they be OBJECTIVELY moral n if so, how do u know, who's mind does that standard come from, n WHY should those leaders be morally obligated to change if the world agreed to decide they don't have to?"
Make real sentences and think about my points, that is just Blablabla.
>>""But most social animals have a sense of fairness""
"i agree that most animals have a sense of fairness"
Fine, all social animals including humans have a sense of fairness and empathy.
"however, assuming there's no supreme being with a supreme moral standard, u have no way to justify that claim."
That is simply an observation, no reason to justify the result of an observation.
"you're beggining the question by sneaking in the word fairness"
Häää? It is simply an observation. The concept of fairness is well-defined and simple to grasp. There is absolutely no reason to sneak in any absolute morality here.
>>""Most people have an inherent tendency to follow these moral rules because not doing so will lead to trouble with other members of society and a reduced chance to propagate your offspring. So we will follow these rules because we evolved this way.""
"Sentence 1 ignores a lot, including what you're replying to where i said "for the many people who are able n willing to not." there's super rich, powerful people who do break laws AND OR CHANGE THEM to suit their "impulses", which according to your above sentence 2, dictates morality, even though it's an appeal to nature fallacy."
Please try to make your point without rambling.
It is simply an observation without an inherent value judgment.
"some people get off on causing harm. Stalin n the N. Korean leader probably do, n get away with it. i explained this. Stalin took power by jailing or terminating any1 who got in his way, n he lived a great life where he kept increasing his wealth, power, fame, n reproduction ability doing this, n of his soldiers by allowing, for example, an estimated 2 MILLION German women, children etc to get R A P E after WW2, all in line with your so called morality."
So there are psychopaths. I agree, how does this contradict anything I said? If anything it contradicts the idea of a good giving absolute moral.
>>""Human society invented formal moral rules based on these inherent moral rules and by taking part in society we agreed to follow these rules.""
"Yea, like Stalin, or the humans in the society of Saudi Arabia who maintain their morals that keep sodomy as a capital punishment, n don't allow femini*m. according to you, they're being moral, n if u disagree, YOU'RE being immoral, as are any citizens under their rule who broke the agreement."
If anything at all, the state of Saudi Arabia is good according to theists, since they are following a divine commandment.
The question, of whether fairness was true, is a nonsense question. A behavior can be fair or not fair. So we can discuss if someone was treated with fairness. So we would need to apply fairness to a situation in order to see if it was true.
"Please proofread before replying,"
The fact that you are mainly rebelling speaks for the assumption that you do not do so at all.
"are u just making claims without proof"
Yes, you are.
"and or using 1 claim or term to justify another for yourself or her (circular reasoning)"
Yes, you are.
"and or making an appeal to popular opinion n force or nature fallacies"
A sense of fairness and empathy was useful for survival, so it was selected, that is simply a fact. It is no justification and no value judgment, and can, therefore, be no nature fallacy.
"(which implies that if every1 agrees to pass a law that says R A P E on women by the leader is legal because every1 agrees it just is moral"
That does a religious book.
"n cites how it happens in nature n helps society pass on genes more)."
Please use full sentences and stop rambling and misrepresenting. You reacted to a strawman and not my response.
"P.S if i told u that all the major sciences n religions stemmed from Vedic scriptures for countless millenia, n that this is possible via divine revelation, n that most people have a VERY limited, flawed, n biased understanding of this, the Vedas, n ALL the major religions, n I've tons of detail n evidence to better explain n prove this paragraph, would u accept it, or be open to the details n evidence, or what?"
If you have evidence that points to something else publish it in a peer-reviewed journal and become famous. Otherwise, we stick with the established model.
@@karstenschuhmann8334 i had to break up my replies into 3 parts. this is part 1...
-Just because you OR any1, including a peer reviewed author, says something is factual or has the evidence pointing to it, that doesn't make it factual, n that includes even me, who used to think like u...plus i said humans COULD've been around for a billion years n more advanced too...u were supposed to answer with that hypothetical. yes, i have evidence, n yes there is a peer reviewed article AND science articles with this evidence. it will be cited in a vid.
1. As I have pointed out some sense of morality exists for many social animals not only humans.
-So u say morality exists...n your proof is that it exists in humans and animals. thats circular reasoning again, as i confronted.
Variations are random, properties selected for are not.
-Strawman fallacy here, beacuse I never argued against this. but anyway, if EVERYTHING is just the result of the laws of physics without a designer, then so is the unproven theory of abiogenesis, all genes that emerged after it, and the entire nich that some genes are able to reproduce in, etc. In fact, everything u have ever said n thought, n will think n say, including all your comments, your claims about morality, God, etc are ALL the result of the laws of physics. youre like a moist robot. u could be in a Matrix simulation.
No, it is not arbitrary it was selected for.
-youre contradicting the fact that the genetic variation, according to u, IS RANDOM. Darwin himself said we could've evolved totally differently. it is arbitary according to u. also, u are ASSUMING n ACTING LIKE our survival n reproduction is objectively moral. but why. we're hurting the planet n other animals. some humans believe ending it all is the only way to totally cease all suffering for humans, animals, n the planet, n think disagreeing with them is insane. you're equating fitting the niche to survive n reproduce, with morality, just because u and or whomever, says so.
Morality is a social contract based on our common sense of fairness. It is agreed by society and it will change as we learn.
-more circular reasoning mixed in with appeal to popular opinion there. by your logic, atheism violates common sense n is thus immoral, because 97% of USA isn't atheist n 93% of the world isn't atheist or agnostic. according to u, if we "learn" that R A P E maximizes survival, well being, n reproduction n EVERYONE agrees with that, then fighing the opinion is immoral. if it became law, then fighting it can also land u in jail as the unfair outlaw who lacked empathy for the lonely guy who forces his genes upon women because he was so ugly he got 0 women while supermodel men get many.
I'm asking what If the whole world disagrees with YOUR morality...so you will likely end up in jail. That is mainly an issue for Religious people that base their morality on their interpretation of a divine standard. -We are talking about religious radicals? no, that's your assertion. stats show most man made war n murd*r came from secular atheistic leaders, in spite of them being a tiny minority. so now you're making up unfactual claims n resorting to confirmation bias. in fact, most people want only laws passed that they FEEL is moral, n want jailed only those who violate it. n like u said, if the world disagrees with u, YOU go to jail n by your own logic, that's not immoral.
Notice how u ignore the part of my question here where i said WITHOUT guilt..."WHY is any1 morally obligated to follow what ever answers u give here IF they're ABLE to disobey it without guilt or punishment?" u simply say "Because I have empathy and I do not want to harm other people."
- I'm not talking about u! U strawmanned n ignored the question!
"Behavior that used to be perfectly fine 200 years ago wild be seen as immoral or even criminal today."
-n 200 years later, it could come back. again, you and her are talking about arbitrary things based upon popular opinion, or in some cases a powerful minority, who MAKE things into law. that's NOT morality OR agreed upon by society n if it was, then ANYTHING can result from that INCLUDING what Stalin did, especially IF he got the world to agree! u SAYING he was unfair n lacking empathy is YOUR OPINION, which is u contradicting yourself AND contradicting the whole "there's no objective morality" claim! R A P E n Stalin can be dismissed IF there's a supreme being with a supreme moral code.
"R A P E may 1 day be accepted as moral."
"This was accepted until quite recently, at least within marriage. And the bible seems perfectly fine with turning prisoners of war into sex slaves."
-U ignored how R A P E, as explained here n elsewhere, was not immoral n will not be immoral if the world accepts it, ACCORDING TO WHAT U SAID. n you strawman me by bringing the Bible into it! i ONLY mention the Bible when saying it is NOT something every1 should have to follow!
"WHICH humans? Stalin? the leader of North Korea?"
"Obviously not they use different languages and these words were defined centuries or even millennia before. In general, a word is defined to transmit a certain meaning and if it is useful and agreed upon by others it will be continued to be used this way."
-youre arguing semantics now. n if the world agreed upon those 2 leaders' definitions, then according to u, THEY decide how to define morality n all the other terms we mentioned n others u wana sneak in, from morality to fairness, etc
"what if 1 of them took over the world n convinced every1 that what ever they say, such as life sentence for any1 they dislike"
That would be seen as law, but not as moral, we have seen this a lot in history. Well, religions managed and still manage to convince their followers that immoral things are moral."
-Bringing religion into it is strawmming here. saying religious people are immoral is begging the question with your OPINION. saying it's law, not moral, is contradicting what u said earlier about "MORALS" come from society n agreed upon laws, etc. And i said if they AGREE it is moral, NOT only they agree it is a law.
"Well, as long as this was not a religious colt it would still be seen as immoral."
I literally asked u about this, saying IF THE WORLD AGREED it was moral.
"Please do not continue in these very long monotone and aggressive sentences."
I was waiting for the personl attack fallacy. this is also a 2 wrongs make a right fallacy, n it is untrue. i honestly can't see how questioning things is monotone or aggressive.
"Well, most dictatures try to condemn resistance and religion is helping them in this effort."
that's a strawman with my words...n available stats. also, most people n societies, including secular atheists, say this about ANY1 who disagrees with laws they approve of. Dems n GOP, for example, often love to point out how the other side wants big government sometimes, even after saying theyre against big government. both are hypocrites while pointing out the other hypocrites only.
Being a theist leaves this guy at a disadvantage with respect to morality. Theists don't understand that morality is understanding WHY something is wrong rather than just accepting someone else's assertion that it's right. If you're just doing as you're told you are not being moral, you're just being obedient. In order to be moral you'd have to evaluate the nature of what you're being asked to do and then decide whether it is something you personally consider to be decent. This requires a judgement which must be informed by an understanding of the consequences of your actions.
A good example of this is explored in the film 'A Few Good Men'. Here we find an example of two soldiers who obey orders in the belief that doing so is the moral imperative from a professional point of view. It is in their minds a matter of duty. In the end when the younger man says "I don't understand, we didn't do anything wrong", his senior colleague tells him "Yes we did. We should have known better". Refusing to obey the immoral commands of a god is something theists are incapable of. This reduces the unfailingly obedient to be morally apathetic at best.
Melchior Magni
I didn't redefine morality, I explained what it is. It is not a process, it is to be ethically competent. Right and wrong are values which we apply to situations or actions. It would be impossible to determine the right or wrong of a situation without being a morally competent agent. So my point is that even to declare a god or its pronouncements to be good, you would first have to make a moral evaluation of why it should be deemed good. Simply doing as you're told is not enough. That would not be moral.
As to your maths analogy, I'm not sure how it relates to what I actually wrote but the conclusion you arrived at is inaccurate in any case. If he doesn't know why he's carrying the one, he is performing a mathematical task, but knows no more about maths than a computer does. He is not "calculating" it. To BE mathematical would require an understanding of why he should carry the one. That is why computers could follow any ethical rules you program them to and still not be considered moral. We are not just computers.
Melchior Magni morality is the process of determining right from wrong, there are many examples where Society has deemed things right such as slavery, or execution for minor crimes and other things that in our society today are considered inherently wrong. If we accept what we are told is right from wrong as in for instance just saying the Bible says it's okay so it is moral then we are not in fact being moral. Morality is about examining what benefits a social species as a whole that's what Tracy is trying to say. Humans as a social species to be considered moral must work together, show compassion and empathy because if we just went on killing each other or stealing what we wanted then we would not have progressed to the level we are at now where the thousands of people come together and build buildings and cities, build stores we can shop in, places for us to work do you have a fair share of our resources. and it is still not a perfect system. but the point that is trying to be made here is that morality must be based on communal benefit Not an absolute. And often things change environmental changes, understanding of science And other things have changed our morality. At one point if you disagreed with somebody or two men love the same woman you could actually duel to the death and at the Survivor would not be held accountable for murder if both men had agreed to such a duel. But today the Survivor would spend his life in prison for murder because our laws and our sense of right and wrong have evolved Greatly and just the past hundred and fifty years. We have abolished slavery and laws of inequality so morality cannot be an absolute if it is ever-changing and it is something that very much involves processing and evaluating our actions.
robtay1963
Why do people keep saying morality is a process? Deciding what is moral or immoral is a process, (primarily of thought) but morality in itself is not. Morality is a judgement we make on why that determination was arrived at.
An action may be either moral, immoral or amoral, and which it is depends entirely on the attitude we adopt in committing to it. There may be an absolutely correct position to take on every conceivable moral question, but it remains a moral irrelevance if we haven't all the necessary information to determine what that position is.
So the best we can do is to be as dutifully thoughtful as we can in determining the correct decision in each situation.
Morality is specifically, caring enough to take responsibility in attempting to reach the best understanding. Leaving it to someone else would be irresponsible. That's why we could not display such apathy and claim to be moral at the same time.
Schell 01 I agree with you but I was explaining it in terms I hope we're simple to Melchior how are morality has evolved as a whole in society. Things that were once, they accepted have changed over time and those are usually things that help build a better community and a better world. I wasn't refuting your point I was refuting his point that there were moral absolutes. And I agree that apathy is not a good moral decision.
ConfusionFusion
Yes, robtay1963 (rather than Melchior Magni) explained perfectly well that he and I agree in principle, and I was aware that we did even before his explanation. The only reason I took issue with what he wrote is that I considered it an error to describe morality as "a process".
So I think you have somewhat misunderstood the point I was making. I wrote "morality is" because I was accused of redefining morality after I explained why I think theists don't demonstrate it by simply adhering to text. So I assure you that I was very careful in my choice of words (however much tthat might evidence a deficiency in my command of English). I wasn't just saying what morality "involves", I was attempting to explain what it actually is.
This is not to say that you're wrong in stating that "being a moral agent involves understanding". It just doesn't address the crux of my initial post, which was to define morality.
That said, I thank you, Melchior Magni and robtay1963 for caring enough to think about what I wrote.
dude wasn’t even listening and wonders why the convo wasn’t going anywhere
This call should have ended after the 10th time Tracey asked him to define morality. He clearly wasn’t there to have a conversation. He had a one-liner that he kept trying to tee-up for what he thought was a homer in.
Heeey! :D
And the sad thing is he keeps calling in asking the same questions. Most people would've realised the answer by now.
@@laydieelle7069 most people, unless those people are theists.
'Hi Luke. How was your day. Would you like pizza for dinner?'
'That's not the question, so I'm right, so I win.'
"Hi, Luke. Do you have the rest of the hundred dollars you owe me?"
"I paid you some money which means I made a payment to the debt which strictly speaking means the debt has been paid which means I owe you nothing more."
If a supernatural being provides you with "moral guidelines" to follow, and then threatens you with punishment if you do not follow those guidelines...and promises eternal reward if you do follow them, then you are not moral. You are merely doing these things to benefit yourself. In this situation you are a selfish person, not a moral one. The claim that a god is needed for morality is completely illogical.
Even that is confusing, John 3:16 says all you need to do is believe in him (can be read as god or jesus) to get eternal life. But then in john 3:36 is adds the part that we need to obey the Son too. WTF. This stupid book. Couldn't god just say in 1 line what the criteria are for getting into heaven?
@Mike fu so in a socialist model in which wealth is evenly distributed among all citizens, no one gets into heaven because no one is more or less wealthy than anyone else. Also, in a capitalist system, poor people can't get into heaven since they don't have any possessions to sell. This whole system, soup to nuts, is complete and utter bullshit
John McAllister The theist could reply by saying that, in a way, all secular morality is selfish because even altruistic acts are done because the person wants to, and so there is some positive mental state experienced by that person. So, in this way, there are no truly selfless acts, and so the humanist is acting selfishly at all times.
It's not really a good argument, but it's nonetheless the response that you'll get if you say that a Christian is selfish but a humanist is not: they will compare the reward of heaven with the reward of feeling good after behaving altruistically, and show that because there are rewards in both systems, one is not intrinsically selfless. So, selfishness is not a useful or productive thing to argue for.
It is better to point out other flaws such as how the inflexibility of the theist's god's commands leads to obviously immoral actions. If the theist then says that God can't fault someone for choosing not to obey His commands because that person is doing their best and exercising their God-given conscious, then you can point out that this is functionally equivalent to the humanist view of morality, so that God's commands are superfluous.
John - that is exactly what I noticed when I was a believer. The Bible said in some places that we had to ACT good according to what we were told to do because we did not have the capacity to be good on our own because of original sin. Then it other places it said that we would KNOW what good was because we were believers. These two statements would not have been so bad by themselves, but they continually appeared in settings that contradicted the other. Humans could not know what good was without God. But we had to be good in our hearts. Of course this became twisted around sometimes to say that God would give us new hearts so that we could then know automatically what good was. But then how could we then fall back into sin? Did not make sense then and still does not. We could never really be sure that we we doing good things and if we were, were we doing good things for the right reasons? There is much more to this, but you get the idea. Eventually believers began to think that anything they did had to be good since God told them they knew what good was. Twisted logic.
@Mike fu Or other people put their words in his mouth. It's the advantage of a fictional character, it's all fantasy, so what does a bit more bullshit change anything..?
That wasn’t very fair as you blew all his gotcha moments up before he ever got to use them 😂😂
xD
If people believe that their morality comes from their religion, then that makes them very dangerous individuals.
Not necessarily, they might just not know there can be another source
They get the morals from a immoral book I just throw my hands up but then they say that was back then
Where does it come from then? Utility? How is that any less dangerous? That's how we get soylent green.
@@theboombody ...you just answered your own question ...and then said it was a dumb answer.
@@alpinion323 When you answer your own question with a dumb answer, then it shows that the dumb answer is probably not the correct answer to the question.
I love her answer about what morality is; seems he’s never heard anything like it
this was tiring to listen to. this guy is just trying to win talking points
Veto Bandito they always are
You folks are so incredibly patient with people it is genuinely stunning. I legitimately cannot fathom doing what you do o.O
Tracie warned him at the onset that this conversation wouldn't go the direction he wanted it to go because she knew her definition of morality was MONUMENTALLY different......and that's EXACTLY what happened.
as a recent ex-religious person, Im so glad I found this video. It's a great primer on morality. Thanks Tracie!!
People hear what they want. It kills me that people feel like they can answer a question with a question. Keep up the good work actually answering questions with logical statements , atheist experience.
Answering a question with a question is sometimes necessary. In fact, hosts do it almost every week. It would do you well to remember that.
Scoops Da Vinci When he does not give any answers it is not acceptable, sometimes I agree to answer certain questions another question is necessary. All he does is deviously attempt to push the direction of conversation to where he can corner them but all credit to them they stuck to the point and allowed him to show his deviant nature.
marie-rose daly
"Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, "Yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down, down. Amen!" If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it." -- Dan Barker
marie-rose daly
If you think my post is religious you need to read it again, it is most definitely atheist.
Nearly everything that you are, is a result of your upbringing, environment and culture. They ask because they want to make sure that they are talking about the same thing.
"Do Dogs Have Moral Tendencies?" is going to be the subject of my PhD. thesis in my next life.
"Where is it supposed to go?" Haha! Tracie got him by saying this. She didn't wanna play in his game of "let's call atheists moral nihilists-- see what I mean?".
THAT'S dishonest
He demonstrably had an end point towards which he was trying to guide things. THAT'S DISHONEST.
funny how he stumbled, with the dog example. he knew that a dog can't be a christian. and the hole morale argument would fail if he agreed with that.
Nuance is not Luke's thing
Common sense isn’t either, lol.
Neither is thinking about what is actually being said.
Life is random, cruel and pointless so sing and dance and don´t hurt your fellow travelers.
You don't really want me to sing...it would be cruel and hurt the ears of my fellow travelers! ;)
Thank you and enjoy your ride .
@@sandrastott9933 see condition #2
religious folk are so good at not explaining themselves
sacred crates true... side effect of religious indoctrination and denial of the logical arguments.
Are you generalising, alot?
sacred crates They also do not seem to know what they have just uttered either!!!
I love how Tracy drives this guy crazy, just explaining herself clearly and trying to actually have a conversation instead of following his script.
Sidenote to the dog morality thing: My dog _DEFINITELY_ understood justice.
If she thought that someone bigger was acting aggressively toward someone smaller (e.g. I am on my feet and a friend is sitting down and I lean over them too quickly) she'd rush over to "defend" the smaller person regardless of who was doing the threatening and who needed "protecting".
Being part of her "pack" did not get you off the hook from a frantic scolding (she was about the size of a cat, so scolding was pretty much all she could do, lol).
Wrong was wrong and she refused to let perceived injustice happen just because you were a family member and the other person wasn't.
Your dog is awesome.
Morality to me is whether or not we follow the rules of the society we live in. You can't be faulted for not following rules you don't know about. For example, if you are born in a country that still allows slavery, you would absolutely think slavery was moral. I think we are born with instincts that might be taken as moral behavior, I don't think anyone teaches their kids to stop a child about to walk into oncoming traffic, we just do that by instinct.
Wow ..Tracie's explanation was incredible. Bravo.
She is flying way over his head. He was attempting to pigeon hole Atheists as amoral or immoral. He was trying to suggets that his good book is the only way to morality.
@Charlie Cross "No no, you misunderstand. See, those verses are taken out of context." I swear, that bullshit cop-out makes me want to rip my ears off every time I hear it 😑
Luke is also known as Billy from TX (along with other places). He calls, asks an otherwise strange question, acts weirder, eventually leaves when no one rises to his bait..
It's always so frustrating that so many callers are unable or unwilling to accept cognitive devices like analogy, metaphor, comparison, etc. You have to wonder, though, if they were accustomed to thinking with those types of methods, would they have cause to call in to begin with?
I know. It seems like they view it as a “sin” or blasphemous to consider other methods of explanation. Also It seems the more fundamentalist they are the more they are likely to do something like quoting scripture to answer a question that has nothing to do with scripture. They can’t think “outside the box” as the saying goes.
I agree that without these pedagogical devices we're at a disadvantage in trying to communicate ideas to each other.
But practising them is only the first step. We also have to understand their limitations and how they can be misused. An example is only a distraction, if it doesn't fit well with the principle you're trying to illustrate. (That was, I hope, a good example.)
Analogously, a bad analogy is like a bicycle that needs repair. It may seem to ride okay at first, but in slightly rough terrain the wheels may fall off. (That, I think, was a marginal analogy at best. It doesn't really say anything interesting about the nature of analogy, only that it may fail. And bicycles have many properties which are wholly irrelevant to explaining how an analogy works.)
The right choice of analogy can be great for getting someone up to speed on an unfamiliar idea. The problem with them is that they always break down sooner or later, and the analogy itself doesn't tell you when to expect this.
Take Ohm's Law of electricity for example: E = IR. It describes the observed relationship between voltage, current, and resistance in an electrical circuit. If you don't know what these terms mean, it's hard to picture how to apply Ohm's Law. So we often use an analogy with water flowing through pipes. Voltage is like water pressure, current is like the volume of water per second flowing through a pipe, and resistance is like the diameter or friction of the pipe. Using this analogy, we can kind of get that a lot of pressure can push a lot of volume through a big pipe, but not much pressure or a small pipe won't flow a lot of volume per second.
That's a pretty useful analogy, as far as it goes. But it breaks down if you push on it too hard. Water evaporates. Does electricity do that? The analogy doesn't tell us whether that's a reasonable question. Gravity affects water pressure. Does it affect electricity? And so on. So we have to be aware of the need to let go of the analogy as soon as we've picked up the intended concepts. "Reasoning by analogy" is fallacious, and unfortunately common.
The cringe of willful obtuseness was massive here. It was almost as if he were deliberately twisting her words and trying to misunderstand her
He cannot conceive of morality in the way Tracie describes. In his world humans are special and unique from the other baser animals. He cannot equate them
“I don’t believe you guys are atheists because you’re trying to incorrectly say there’s something of value”
It was a 15 minute lecture on morality as an evolutionary and biological tendency and this dude didn’t listen to a single word of it
My cats are smarter than Luke.
A sperm is more intelligent than Luke 😑
my pet rock is smarter than Luke
yesterday i was shitting and the shit have more brain cells then this caller named luke...
My cats FLEAS are smarter than Luke...
Best comment I've seen in a while😊
I don´t know about dogs, but elephants experience a huge range of emotions and moral behaviour including grief. I saw this documentary on PBS.
Crows too. Also, PBS.
Fun fact, elephants see us the same way we look at dogs.
Yes , if his theist pals need a two thousand year old book to tell them how to be moral then it is they who are latently amoral or even immoral .
Luke sounds self absorbed ....
Skimming Stones arrogant is the word I would use.."ignorance breeds a confidence seldom seen with knowledge" Charles Darwin.
fσr chríѕt, dσn't fσrgєt hє'ѕ ѕєlf αbѕσrвєd fσr chríѕt
Religous people think morality comes from religion
Other people think morality comes from being a decent human being
Humans are by nature gregarious creatures!
We need our own species'.. Tests have shown when human beings are isolated from their peers,it causes psychological problems,as for morality,it exists in us all,you don't need to brow beat it into a child, empathy in humans is inherent...
The Force definitely wasn't with Luke this time around, and his jedi mind tricks didn't work on Tracie
I think the caller was trying to steer the conversation in such a way as to trap John and Tracie and make them look as bad as possible and they would not allow him to do that. When Tracie stuck to her argument he eventually grew very exasperated, muttered some sort of insult and with his tail between his legs, fled like the coward that he is.
"We're not getting anywhere with this" Nah bro, you aren't going anywhere with this.
She wasn't making a judgement call, she was saying that IF survival is a goal that is important to a social species, THEN a sense of fairness and morality is a tool that they have, use, and enforce. If someone steals or hurts someone else they are shunned and/or arrested, aka removed from society.
Caller was an idiot but she never answered the question...... asking why you're a moral nihilist or why you're not one is very different from asking what role morality plays in society and evolution.
Not all but a lot of theists (probably a majority) on these calls sound angry, arrogant yet fearful, confused, and frustrated.
People often get angry when they get challenged.
Lukes strategy was put the hosts in a box labelled ......ist, then attack asserting that he had absolute morality because of an old book and that they couldnt have morality because they didnt read the book. Once youve labelled someone you can argue that they must conform to your definition - which is essentially a strawman. Well done to Tracie for not being led down that path.
Wow! Christian hangs up because the atheists' won't follow his script! The weird arrogance of these amateur apologists is breathtaking.
Tracie is making complete sense and the caller is making complete nonsense!
shocking! :D
(0;
Is that you Jon?
Because they don’t want to listen they only want to talk and they don’t try to understand anything that’s explained to them
This guy had two things: a script and a bad attitude. And the more Trace refused to let him steer her with his script, the worse his attitude got.
I love how calmly John asks questions to reply off the top.
Harm.
The difference between moral and immoral is harm, or the potential for harm.
If I'm doing something that has the potential to cause undue harm to someone else, that would be immoral, it would be wrong.
If there is no potential for any kind of harm, it is moral, it is not wrong.
Religions obviously disagree with that paradigm - in both directions, it should be noted - but those differences are subjective.
Do no harm.
Help where you can.
The rest of the time, mind your own business.
That is my moral code.
It doesn't need to be complicated.
This guy is nuts, he keeps trying to cubbyhole the lovely Tracie into a definition of his own making. He does not get it.
You leave Tracies cubbyhole out of it
Note the complete shutdown once the scientific angle is introduced.
I appreciate your view/understanding that morality is a product of evolutionary selection in social beings. It’s one of the tools evolved to help us survive as a species. We can choose to use this morality tool to further ourselves or not. Much respect to you.
Tracie, every word that comes out of your mouth is legendary. Thank you.
One of the most noticeable traces of intellectual dishonesty is the characteristic answer starting with "So..." followed by whatever the argument was, slightly changed to fit the agenda of the intellectually dishonest. Distort their arguments, to the point they fit what I want them to say. In other words, is the old "put words into someone else's mouth"
Kerplunk you are absolutely right
I ADORE TRACIE. And these two hosts work so well together. Love both.
"So what you're saying is…"
Matt Rankin right!?he keeps asking so as if what Tracie is saying is not close to sensible stuff
Never heard morality put in terms like that. Very thought provoking and intriguing, for sure.
To quote Aron Ra - " so the questions haven't really improved"
'Agree with my premises, dammit!'
'This isn't going anywhere'.
The caller tries to come across as an intellectual but actually seems thicker than Barry White`s bowel movement the day after Thanksgiving.
Nicely put. Thanks for making me spit coffee on my laptop! :)
Andy Potter you should pray for Jesus to turn coffee into money 😂😂
Great... now that's in my head... :P
thαt'ѕ α whσlє lσt of ѕhít..... .
My brain!!!!
Visuals man WTF
The clarity in talking points coupled with that level of confusion is astounding.
AXP thank you for the comments
Quick! Let's comment on Tracie's physical appearance while we still can!
Great explaination of morality.. thanks Tracie
Goodness, caller's trying to box atheists in a certain streak.
Thank you Tracie.
You spend the whole conversation demonstrating an authentic mortality.
You proved this by your first seeing Luke as an equal, capable of understanding your words. Thank you for poviding him the space & opportunity to better define & present his query.
For being very open & transparent in an objective explanation of morality when clearly he could not better define or introduce context to his ask.
For recognizing his commitment to all least his inadvertant interest in understanding, to spite his concerted efforts to fall down his own spiral.
For exhibiting empathy and respect in the face of the assertion that you were not capable of such.
More days than not, I find the pretentiousness & posture from wishery very difficult to suffer. Thank you for reminding me that all we have to offer this deficit in understanding is our better nature...our morality.
The secret sauce of religion:
The assertion from ego that without religion, we are ALL somehow incapable of the possessing the know better or the do better for ourselves or others.
Luke...the force is not with you...
I love how she equates a sense of morality with a nose or an eye. It's really that simple. You don't need god for morality, you're already moral.
The caller professed utter astonishment at this. If he wasn't so set on working from a script, it might even have gotten him thinking.
even ants have moral tendencies. also this guy doesnt know how to listen...
He doesn't know how to not be a douchebag!
He called up saying he wanted to ask about their view on morality. Seems like what he really wanted to do is tell them what he thought their views on morality must be.
This caller.. I can’t
L R This caller also can't lol.
L R ik 😧 to frustrating
Eazy KNotZ too
Nobody can.
This dude can't wrap his head around simple questions, but he knows the most complex of all answers.
Must be a christian.
Well, when you've been reading from a script for your whole life, you lose the ability to do anything else.
Luke has had a script to guide him through life, and when he tries to make other people play along and they don't, his script breaks down.
A "moral imperative" is something that MUST happen, or be true, at ALL times or illogical behavior follows.
If you've ever known a human to behave unfairly, then you know first-hand that fairness is NOT a moral imperative.
It is unfair to steal your neighbors food, yet circumstances may necessitate that logically, in order to survive, you MUST steal your neighbors food.
Ahhh 🤔
Well put, you sir win my respect. This caller had no basis for his argument and it was so frustrating to hear him spit out nonsense. It is survival of the fittiest and I think his time has come.
I've never heard a man get so confused by such a simple analogy
is it me or do these people sound the same? I mean voice/tone. i swear its the same people calling in with different names
This is one of the most awesome explanations of morality that left the theist just stammering. It is so contrary to the theist's framework, he simply doesn't know how to process it.
Thiests can only accept the idea that a supernatural being is the only entity that can have morals. But they can't agree among themseles what is moral or not.
Rats also show empathy and will go to comfort another distressed rat rather than go for easy food.
But Bible-bangers want to insist people - specifically people of THEIR religion - are the only ones who can be moral because of the need to feel special. And superior.
I got an ad for “the great passion play”. I love when this type of thing happens
Something about this guy really rubbed me the wrong way. I was yelling at my phone to hang up on him 3 minutes In. Because it’s clear he was calling in with what he thought was a gotcha question. But they didn’t fall for it
I enjoy the way that Tracie gives detailed explanations and callers generally must be lying on the floor, because it always goes right over their heads.
She denied him a window for his nonsense.
Existance fulfills it's purpose in existing, we just happen to be a part of that existance.
You don't need a God to have meaning in your life. I have family, puppies. They have great meaning, great value to me.
the callers have their own event horizon
way to go Tracie!
All he had was his original talking points, as soon as the discussion required thought, he was lost....
Arrogant ignorance, one of the most defining characteristics of these cultists.
It's everywhere today.
Theist: "Are Atheists immoral?" (Of couse they will say "yes" cuz obviously they are.)
Atheist: "No, we have the same sense of morality as you guys."
Theist: "But that's not the answer I wanted you to give me."
Atheist: "Well, it's the truth."
Theist: "But why aren't you immoral without God?"
Atheist: "Because we don't need one to be."
Theist: "But that isn't what I want Atheists to be."
That's pretty much Theists in a nutshell.
I think Tracy would be more effective if kept her comments more to the exact specific point she is highlighting. She offers great teaching moments, but they can confuse the caller to the point that the conversation breaks down. For example, she perfectly isolates the first issue "I can't answer your question until we define morality", and basically defines it herself as "reciprocal behavior between members of the same species". When the caller became confused, stating "No, no........ I'm talking about people", she continued to teach the science of social evolution, the silver fox experiment, etc. It would have been better to state a simple "I define morality as the biologically embedded tendency to reciprocal behavior" (or similar), and gotten back the caller's actual original question.
I've noticed this from Tracy in a number of videos. She may well do it intentionally, using the caller as an reason to give a teaching moment, but losing the entire point of the call. She's a great teacher, but I think it would be better to set aside sections for her to teach, a when fielding calls, focus on the call.
Matt does a fabulous job of focusing on the original point of a call. Yes, he absolutely teaches and informs, and corrects....... but always as narrowly focused support for something he says, and always sticking with the main thoughts of the call.
Stanley Slawski I've noticed this same thing over time, and haven't been able to really determine what sometimes feels off about her responses. To some extent, I feel as though she is misjudging the callers' points of confusion in many cases. It feels as though she is always operating on level 100 and doesn't realize the callers are on level 12. So she ends up going even deeper into something to explain when she should do the opposite.
On aother note, I feel as though she should know exactly what the callers are getting at in their thought processes, but it almost feels like she's intentionally avoiding speaking about it in plain terms. Maybe she thinks that callers understand more abstract concepts than she gives them credit.
Great point about "operating at level 100". In fairness, Matt's often talked about how their objective is to talk to the listening audience much more than an individual caller, and if Tracey was to talk at level 12 to the same question for the 3,428th time - then they may as well just play a loop tape.
Maybe she brings in the teaching moments (besides not just getting bored herself) to bring in a little bit more, piece by piece, to those repeated viewers who may be beginning to question things.
Stanley Slawski it does help me understand what's so wrong about his framing of the questions so I'm not complaining me. Tracie is like a hot teacher 😂 sorry
Um. She tried. Maybe you should go back and listen again. The caller refused to understand anything she said.
@@joshsonic26 yes!