"Your Moral Compass is Broken" Theist Insists All Killing is Evil | Matt Dillahunty and EveWasFramed
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- Caller Sophie proposes that killing human beings constitutes a universal evil. Hosts Matt Dillahunty and EveWasFramed decide to challenge this moral definition by presenting thought experiments involving scenarios such as killing in clear-cut self-defense and killing an attacker in order to save innocent lives.
They press Sophie to directly answer whether these hypothetical situations would still qualify as evil under her proposed definition. Sophie sticks to her stance that killing humans is universally evil no matter the context, but also wants further clarification on some scenarios before giving a firm response.
This disconnect leads to increasing contention, with the hosts challenging Sophie over what they perceive as intentional evasion on Sophie's part to skirt directly engaging with their hypotheticals. Meanwhile, Sophie feels the hosts are not providing enough clarity around the specifics and continue asserting she needs more information before responding.
SUPPORT THE NETWORK
---------------------------------------------------
Patreon: / calltheline
Become a Channel Member:
SUPPORT PRODUCTION
---------------------------------------------------
Paypal: www.paypal.me/...
Cashapp: cash.app/$jimm...
Amazon Wishlist: www.amazon.com...
MORE LIVE SHOWS & CLIPS
---------------------------------------------------
/ @callthelinex
CONTACT US
---------------------------------------------------
contact@qnaline.com
HOSTS
---------------------------------------------------
Jimmy Snow: @JimmySnow
Matt Dillahunty: @SansDeity
Arden Hart: / theardenhart
Katy Montgomerie: @KatyMontgomerie
Forrest Valkai: @RenegadeScienceTeacher
Dr. Ben: @FamilyDrBen
Aron Ra: @AronRa
Shannon Q: @ShannonQ
John Gleason: @godlessengineer
Dave Warnock: iamdyingoutlou...
ADDRESS
---------------------------------------------------
The Line
110 N Interstate 35
Suite 315-1027
Round Rock, TX 78681
United States
SHOWS ON THE LINE
---------------------------------------------------
Sundays: The Sunday Show
Monday: Skeptalk
Tuesday: Dying Out Loud
Wednesday: The Hang Up
Thursday: The Trans Atlantic Call In Show (TACIS)
Look out for “HOSTility” and “Cus I Wanna” any day, any time
#CallTheLine
Sophie: “Killing is universally evil.”
God: “Hold my beer.”
yup, by that logic there is literally none more evil than their own cloud sitting geriatric
😂🍻
Exactly..Killing another human is evil...unless "God says it's OK. Apparently, she's never read the Old Testament. @@D-Pocalypse
Elisha: Hold my Bear!
Meh, they’ll just come up with some special pleading bullshit like “it’s not evil when god does it”.
"If you agree with my premise."
-"I don't."
-"Doesn't matter, I'll resume as if you did. Now that you have agreed to my premise:"
-"It's wrong."
-"Doesn't matter. So: Therefore god."
-"No."
-"Stop interrupting my script, it's very rude."
It's incredibly frustrating how many callers go this route. If I'm making an argument and someone disagrees with a fundamental, critical premise right from the outset, I want them to interrupt me and we'll go from there. On here, it's often interpereted as the hosts being rude.
Yeah nvm, lets just let every caller go on and on and on even though the hosts disagree with one of the first sentences out of their mouth, surely *that's* productive! /s
@@Boomer04888 Yeah, they're just stupid.
If they start with something like "Fish are mammals." there's NO reason to let them go on and on for 15 minutes with their pitch. Like, for what? In the end, it's a "No. I disagree. You are stupid" regardless.
I had this with a scam callers before. I was bored and wanted to waste their time so I just went along with them.
One asked what colour the light on my router was I told him purple (which was true for that router) and he started calling me a liar because it didn't account for it in his script
The other one told me the press window + r. I told him I didn't have a window key because it's a mac and they didn't know how to respond
The last one I spoke to her in all the french I could remember from highschool. Bless her heart she tried to follow her script with me speaking a language she couldn't understand
@@kasocool2812Yeah, there's a lot of those. The best is when you can break them with something they *can* grasp.
Like "What color is the router?" - "Don't know. I'm colorblind.".
Or, a classic cult excuse: "Have you ever looked at a tree? - No. I'm blind since birth."
As, they KNOW those things exist. BUT: It's NOT in their script. So... error 404.
Reminds me of Darth Dawkins.
So by her own logic, God is evil.
Absolutely. Good created evil also
Of course. And it's inevitable in its own definition. If it's omnipotent, it has to be evil too.
They'll tell you that as he's the creator, he has all power on human life...therefore he's not evil.
@@Raptor3388ummmm to create evil HES gotta kinda KNOW evil therefore he is evil…..guess that’s too deep for ya. But yea god is evil…..he’s fake and made up but whatever floats your boat
It does not apply to God considering that he just takes spirits back to him. Difference between us killing and God doing it is that we have zero control over what happens to the person after and we just broke something that we can't fix.
This caller is incapable of having an honest conversation. Religion ruins minds. Agree with a previous post that she is one of the worst callers ever.
I don't think she is even dishonest. I think she is just dumb.
Sophie's real brain script: "Like I said: I stopped thinking a long time ago when mommy and daddy told me about the angry man in the sky who will torture me forever unless I love him and do whatever he says regardless of its immorality."
Yeah, exactly; another Dunning-Kruger graduate, thumping the ONE book they pretend to read, oblivious of everything, significant to no one...
"Like I said" or "I was just saying" is a huge red alarm for me. Basically never hear it in conversations/debates with people who are being intellectually honest / arguing in good faith
Exactly!! It’s wrong to kill another human, except if you’re Abraham and God orders you to kill your son. Sure, God stopped him AFTER he was sure Abraham had made up his mind to do it, and God was pleased. WTF?!?!
@@lrs0620That book is just dripping blood.......................and god was pleased...
@@mrcurly1147 Damn, that book tasty.
People like Sophie exist. And that should terrify you.
Scares the fk out of me, honestly.
She breeds and votes and drives a car.....
People are just dishonest and they dont care about the truth. They want validation. Thats Sophie and people like her 100%
@@ericwilliams1659 cant tell the difference between dishonesty and someone stupid?
@@deathdealer312 Forever September
People who believe they are forgiven by a god for the mistakes they make often don't have to learn how to become better human beings from the experience.
What a great apologist! Too bad her religion forbids her to teach or speak out, but her inability to listen, misrepresent her interlocutor’s opinion, think in dichotomies, reject nuance, and offer dishonest positions truly makes her a stellar example of apologetics.
Presup dipshit reads script... about 80% of the callers are like that. They are also going directly against scripture (specifically Jesus teachings about using free will to WANT to follow him) but they never read a word of the Bible so they don't know anything about that.
Ironically, listening to her try to teach about her religion gives me sympathy for the rule saying she shouldn’t.
I guess the global flood is... real bad. Like... real, real, real bad.
I believe she is allowed to teach other women. She just isn't allowed to teach men
@@IanM-id8or I don’t think that’s in the Bible.
Sophie is evil. She killed my patience with her obstinacy.
*Forgiven killed my patience with beloved obstinacy. ;-)
@@irrelevant_noob 👍Oh gee! Shame on me. 🥺 🙏
This woman is one of those people who has a idea and nothing will change her opinion.
The problem is that she has no idea. She has no thoughts. She has nothing.
It's like claiming that
*if* for any n, m (let's say, n and m is from *N*): n*0=0 and m*0=0
*then* [n*0=m*0]/0 => n=m
How do I define "0"? Well, it's quite simple: "0" is the "G0d"!
And if you don't believe me then try to disprove that! 👀
Kinda like the people who hang in the 24/7 Stream chat getting enraged at the idea of society and the state being debauched concepts; their worldview is simply too attached to the idea otherwise, and so rationale goes out the window
@@nsf001-3do you eat meat or use any animal products?
Matts husband is NOT a woman. This is true!
Oh goodness, I forgotten about this caller. I truly think she was one of the most annoying ones I’ve ever heard in the history of the show.
Tell me about it. She was gonna live and d!e on that script, dammit.
Really? I still remember Jamie and Mr. D.
She's up there. I think the guy that goes on and on about the calendar is top of the list. Eli is up there, too.
@@sonja4164I call him Mr. D for Deliceux. It’s always “Mr. [something related to food or cooking].”
Believe it or not, there’s more annoying callers out there. On this show and the Atheist Experience!
Sophie, if killing a human is evil, is god killing the entire world except for 8 people and a boatload of animals evil?
I need a one word answer, yes or no?
They won't answer that. if if they do come out with "they were evil, so god destroying evil is ok"
It's like arguing with a toddler.
except a toddler wouldn't know any better
Except a toddler would know better*
when someone insists that their pronouns are some stupid, obviously not actual pronouns like "forgiven/beloved" you can already tell that they are not acting in good faith and entering the conversation to be intentionally conflictive
Or, is not playing cards with a full deck.
Better than saying im a they them...... That is called multiple personality disorder......
Yuck. I didn't even notice the first time I watched. Thank you for pointing that out.
@@themanwithnoname1839 They/them can be used in the singular, and chances are you've already done it at some point.
@@themanwithnoname1839how so? Singular they had been used for a few hundred years.
Sophie is completely irrational
Kinda like the "secular humanists" in the 24/7 stream chat who turn vitriolic at the idea of criticizing their precious state paradigm, which they can only defend with appeals to emotion and character attacks
I think I recognize her. She's called into a number of shows and always acts the same way. It's hard to tell if she's being genuine but is just flat out obnoxious and dense, or if she's trolling for rage reactions.
I think she’s probably genuine. Just not a good listener
@@zedmann1680 She definitely has a script and was determined to stick to it
@@SSJ3Mewtwo yeah, the script thing gets in the way of listening, understanding, and responding appropriately
She has definitely used this script a few times before on this and other shows. Sophie follows a weak and embarrassing flowchart.
I would go for willfully ignorant
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
Is that something a Jedi would say, or - since that itself is an absolute - have you just blown your cover?! 🙂
By the way, aren't SIth the more human of the two sides? They embrace their emotions and allow those emotions to empower their actions. The Jedi try to suppress theirs and act without feeling. Amusingly, they always fail and, in most battles, win only when they become emotional.
@@AJPemberton The sith don't display emotions. What are you talking about? They are never happy, never sad, only angry and sadistic. I seem to recall Anakin slaughtering a whole room of younglings. Kylo commited patricide. Luke spared his father, and regained control.
That's called foreshadowing
Slavery is absolutely wrong.
@@AJPembertonthis statement to me demonstrates that evil is not absolute and subject of opinion as it depends on the point of view and circumstances.
How does theism help define evil?
Someone you never met claimed to have communicated with "god" and wrote a book which no-one has good reason to believe.
Yeah, that sounds about right.
sarcasm
Isn't God the character who drowned an entire planet because some people were doing things he didn't approve of? I don't think I'll be taking my morality from that particular fiction.
Again, I bring forth my Moral Incompleteness Theorem:
Any moral system sufficiently complex enough to manage human behavior will have scenarios that cannot be resolved within that system.
Morality is based upon goals and there is always a scenario where multiple goals are put in conflict.
We call them "moral dilemmas."
I'd go a step further into full moral error theory and say that no one is capable of perfectly understanding, articulating, or performing any moral system anyway.
That being said, utilitarianism seems to have the fewest of these contradictions.
Dim byd na fydd paned o de yn ei ddatrys.
@@chrisevans1255 A cup of tea might be nice, but it doesn't solve the problem.
@@dhwyll You may not be making a strong enough tea. There is no moral system complex enough to manage human behaviour, since human behaviour is evolved and therefore emergent, contingent, ephemeral. I rail against moral relativism, not because I believe I can conquer weak or absent ethics, but because my conscience drives me to try... to make the world even a fraction more humane, not less. There is no solution, there is only striving.
Rage, rage, against the dying of the light.
Morality is implicitly outwards facing, it's the consideration of ones actions and behavioral consequences on a scale bigger than oneself. Defining how one ought to act in relation to others, rather than short sighted concerns and outcomes for oneself..
Religion inevitably tries to remove the focus off of the consideration of one's actions upon others and the inevitable consequences for each action, by replacing it with an fear for athority, a fear based purely on what happens to you if you take any action prohibited by this athority. Replacing any consideration for why one action may be more appropriate over another, replacing the consideration of wellbeing, with an all-encompassing Fear for yourself, fear of punishment for acting.
This is as far from the concept of morality one can get..
Years ago when I was a kid I used to watch "The Night Stalker". In one episode, an android (I believe) was asked what was the difference between good and evil. The android could not answer, and it was explained that there are no differences. One person's good is another's evil.
I think I was morticia addams who said "what's normal for the spider is chaos for the fly"
Based on Sophie's definition of evil it would be evil for a doctor or nurse to administer a drug that only after the fact is found out that the patient is fatally allergic to. It would be evil for a parent to give a child a nut not knowing they have an allergy, and as in Matt's example it would be evil to have any kind of accident that results in the killing of a human.
by her definition every act born in some way from an evil act is evil, so stopping evil is evil, but letting evil happen is also evil, so everything is evil in some way.
Haha.. Sophies trying to play mind games with no mind
😂😂😂
first thing sophie needs is to be able to think
Sadly, I think that train left the station a loooong time ago.
Agreed, I feel like critical thinking really needs to be taught more in school. It is the most frustrating thing in the world to talk to someone who doesn’t know how to think.
@@russellg9622 Religious parents object to critical thinking being taught as it conflicts with their religion.
So according to Sophie's logic, if her call frustrates me to the point that I commit suicide, then her call is evil...
Is she poking you? Endlessly ranting at you? Yelling at you? Talking down to you? In that instance yes it would be evil. Lol.
Like if i tell you that you are worthless and to go self delete yourself and you do it, that is evil.
Listening to theists get more and more frustrated with Matt for not following their script is my kink
Although I disagree with the callers assessment I think she won this debate. Matt just bullied her down the path he wanted to take and then dismissed her argument as absurd which is literally a reductio ad absurdum fallacy.
I wouldnt say it's "evil" to stop someone offing kids by lethal force but I argue that any immoral act is immoral such as using lethal force to defend yourself. It may be the preferred method (or less immoral possibility) in the situation but the ends don't justify the means.
Also they kept calling it a thought experiment and she did in fact give her answer based on her definition which is what they were asking for. She should have said "yes...I think that would be evil but only because that isn't reality."
No they get frustrated that Matt is a smartass hiding behind his ability to silence someone with a button; his chance to "play god". He's ironically only cogent in scripted videos, or debates where he can form his arguments ahead of time
@@nsf001-3 lol it's funny how the mute button doesn't get used with callers who listen and engage honestly, but sure we'll go with the tired old _atheists want to make themselves gods_ routine instead
@@nsf001-3
Don't you ever get tired of being utterly wrong? You know full well they were perfectly clear why they shut her down and what she was saying every time they did and everything she did to encure it.
It's why you don't call in to face him yourself. You know perfectly well it won't ever work that way unless you artificially force his hand intentionally by responding as you have in this post and thereby proving us right again by your own behavior.
@@Daedalus1111
She didn't win a thing. Her deal was all killing is evil and it's evil to kill someone about to kill a bunch of others therefore it's an act of evil in its entirety. Killing in self defense of yourself or another is evil because it starts in evil.
Killing someone by accident is evil(while attempting to avoid the killing of another included)
In your words each of these scenarios under her logic is immoral in their entirety not just the initial act. She said that. "You can't define your evil without good" then pointed to how each scenario starts with an considered evil act therefore you can't follow it with saying it is good after.
I.e you can't say it's immoral to kill people and still consider killing for someone else not.
This isn't hard to understand, you just doesn't appear to have paid enough attention to pick it up entirely.
In her ludicrously defined universal evil, accidents are evil(all contexts) ex the swerving out of the way example. That in its entirety to her was an act of evil. And yet you 'think, she won something? 🤷♂️
Tell me you're joking.
Also when you use the term Win in this context you automatically disqualify yourself. How many times does it take to get tge point across that it's Not about Winning something, this is not a Sport. It's about making sound arguments and defend what you think is real. If you can't do that you're done.
So as an idea who are you going to follow. The person that states accidents are evil.
Or the person that states that's absolutely ridiculous, such system can't ever work, here's example 1/3 to demonstrate why.
🤨 even his cohost chimed in multiple times with how a system that allows for considering accidents as universally evil doesn't work 🙄
I can’t take Sophie seriously at all. She knows, as we all do, that killing someone in self defense who is clearly trying to kill you or others (or is already doing so) is perfectly fine. Definitely not “evil.” That killer or would be killer is committing the evil act - not the person defending themself or others. This conversation was beyond silly - all due to Sophie’s weird obstinance.
I can't even understand her goal in insisting on this weird definition of evil. Just how was she going from there to arguing for God's existence?
@@donnievance1942
Matt should have pressed her on providing a definition for “evil”- I don’t think she ever did so
Killing someone in self defense is simply a justification for committing an immoral act, but I wouldn’t consider it moral.
“Evil”, though, is a very ambiguous term that in my vocabulary does not always equal immorality. “Evil” can describe aesthetics that have zero to do with morality. It can just be synonymous with dark or ominous when describing music, film, art, etc.
I think you meant "Forgiven knows"
They should've asked her if killing in self defense is ever _justified._ If she goes along with that then she has to concede that "evil" as she defines it can potentially be justified.
@@medalion1390
I think she was on that path. If I were to be charitable to her position: I think she was just using “evil” as a description of harmful acts. You can justify committing a harmful act if it dissuades a worse harmful outcome: as in self defense or in the thought experiment that Matt proposed.
Holy shit she’s using the exact same script as last time.
I enjoy how you worded that.
"Is it wrong for Matt to kill me in this hypothetical situation where there's no other option?"
"Yes, because there's always another option, even in hypothetical situations where we've _specifically_ stated there's no other option."
🤦
That's evading the question and does not further our knowledge.
"Denying the hypothetical" in this context is my litmus test for someone being either stupid or malicious
Hypotheticals are theists worst nightmares 😂
To be fair if you think there's always another option, the question just does not make sense to you. So, you cannot really answer it.
"Imagine a hypothetical book which has a strictly negative number of page. Say, -120 pages. How much time would it take for you to read it ?"
"Well, in reality there's no book with a strictly negative number of page..."
"I don't care, this is a thought experiment, just give an answer ! (and if you don't i will mute you and shout at you for several minutes)"
@@sebastien5048 Yeah but the caller was being deliberately dishonest when it came to Matt’s scenario.
Let’s say someone has taken a classroom hostage, barricaded the door, and told the negotiator they’re going to press the detonator to the explosives they have strapped to them in five seconds, and meanwhile there’s a sniper on a rooftop across the street with a clear headshot. To simply assert that taking them out is an evil act because “There’s always another way” is just dodging the question.
I love when someone twists themselves into knots when their script doesn’t go as planned
Got it. Killing another human being is evil. Universally evil, ok. What if, as another example, you give your only son to be killed for someone else? Oh right, evil. By definition. . .
Odd how the people with obviously fake pronouns are always the worst callers...
Funny how religious "love" always seems to manifest as bigotry and mockery of people who are different from the person.
Odd how people who want to dismiss pronouns as "fake" are totally void of self-awareness
@@nsf001-3forgiven is a verb, not a noun or pronoun. Beloved is an adjective is also neither a noun or pronoun. If you are gonna be a condesebding tool at the bare minimum at least make a statment that makes sense.
Ill give you another wild idea, all words are fake and made up.
Evil doesn't exist. What a person considers evil is just something that the person is opposed to.
What I consider evil is more than just something I'm opposed to. For example, I'm opposed to long line-ups at theme parks, but I don't think they have enough importance to be considered evil, nor are they a product of malice (harmful intentions).
While I usually wouldn't use the word 'evil,' I interpret that it implies both malice and importance, in addition to opposition. Sometimes, malice is unnecessary to qualify an act as evil if malice is swapped out for indefensible negligence. You could make the case that there's some way to avoid creating long line-ups for theme park rides, and that therefore letting the long lines continue to exist is evil, but it still doesn't work unless you can also make the case that these long lineups actually have important consequences - like if they actually made the people in line rage and attack each other or something.
So no, evil is a word that serves an important social function - it tries to get at problems in our social structure. The problem is just that it's antiquated and associated with religious thinking which used to be more predominant in terms of how society addresses its problems. So it needs an update, but the function is important and trivializing it as you do is wrong because this trivializes all sorts of wrongdoing.
@Disentropic1 My apologies. I was trying to simplify a complex discussion.
Something evil is just a human construct. Animals, for example, kill each other, but they don't consider that evil. It's just being an animal. The bottom line is that nothing is good or evil. There are many shades of everything.
The point of a thought experiment is to think. That's where these people go off the rails.
Thinking is dangerous -- it might change your mind.
"Sophie (forgiven/beloved)" oh im SAT for this
The trolley problem always get them
This caller again. She was nuts the first time. Nothing has changed.
Not nuts just dishonest and disingenuous lol. She knows she's a troll.
This caller asserted that since someone killing someone else to stop them from harming children begins with an evil act, therefore the entire following scenario would then be evil. That's like saying that if someone stabs me, and a doctor sews up the wound to save my life, that doctor was committing an evil act because the entire scenario was set into motion by an evil act.
That is not only the most useless definition of "evil" I've ever heard, it's also treacherously stupid and simplistic. Frankly, listening to someone that possesses such a detached view of morality is scary.
Somewhere in the recesses of her mind she knows the entire point of her call is to sound scary. She's angry that she's been scared so often, can't address why, and sees an opportunity to do it to others
Wait, it's even worse than the pseudo-Kantian deontology I thought she was at?
Unbelievable. I didn't know you could stretch the genetic fallacy this far.
I have no idea how you connected those things but impressive mental gymnastics on your part. You know why vigilantism is illegal? Morality is a human construct and it can be whatever you choose it to be. The more lines you will go over the bigger range of morality you will have. That is why police has so many rules and some people will end up breaking them because they think exactly like you. Do you think George Floyd was killed just because or was it because before he beat up a pregnant lady with a gun? One of the cops in the group was known for being not so friendly towards past criminals.
@@gandalainsley6467 Seriously? That's your great moral defeater, "he was no angel"?
@@FelisImpurrator So now Matt was wrong and you agree with the caller?
The fact there is people like Sophie out there in the world is just mind boggling.
My eyes roll all the way back into my skull whenever these callers give these stupid “pronouns” 🙄
Pronouns are stupid to begin with.
They should have tried to refer to beloved as forgiven requested.
@@dodumichalcevski non-binary people exist
@@dodumichalcevskiThat's not how society, language, or history work.
@@FelisImpurrator
Actually it is how language works.
You cannot prefer a different language and force others to use it.
You cannot prefer pronouns just like you cannot prefer adjectives.
Its set language
A doctor tries to save someone's life, he needs to practice surgery, the patient dies despite the best efforts of the doctor. The doctor is still responsible of the death that was caused by the surgery. Is that evil ?
How are they responsible if it happens in spite of their fullest ability and no incompetence is involved?
If the Doctor has a last name of Frankenstein, then yes, he's evil because you & I both know he didn't "try" because he needed the patients body parts from a freshly dead donor.
Moral(good/evil) is always subjective, and this is very hard for theists to conceive.
I'm an atheist but I do not agree with that at all. If we genuinely believed that morality was "in the eye of the beholder", why would we fight so ardently to defend our values?
@@TryingtoTellYou I think you have answered your question.
Objective values(Truth/false) are evidenc-based, no need to defend ardently.
Subjective values(good/bad-evil, morals) are opinion-based, need to defend ardently.
To assert this, you would need to explain how you got an 'ought' from an 'is'. We ought to defend opinions is not a logical deduction from opinions have no innate defense.
@@TryingtoTellYou It is you need to explain where this "we ought to defend opioions" came from.
This call made my head hurt
Sophie is dishonest. Not worth anyone's time. She hasn't thought about this topic critically.
So she is dishonest because she does not think like you? Pretty sure there is a word for that in English what you described.
Ahh the frustration on Eve's face around the 14-15 min.. Precious 🤣🤣🤣
They should have asked her "Is deliberately drowning 99.9% of all life in existence evil?", when she answers yes, "Has that ever happened?".....
So many theists have to go to great lengths to shut off their ability to honestly and accurately assess hypotheticals. It's essential for them to stay stuck in their belief.
It's hilarious how Sophie claims that killing is universally evil, yet she worships one of the greatest mass murderers in fiction.
I loved EWF’s facial expressions whenever Sophie said something ridiculous
Sophia doesn't seem to be able to tell the difference between past participles (forgiven) and adjectives (beloved) and pronouns.
No *_way_* we could expect any reasonable understanding from her of how to define a word.
Language is totally arbitrary so it proves nothing except maybe a lack of academic prowess
It proves that humor is subjective, does it not@@nsf001-3?
If a pregnant woman has a miscarriage and her baby dies, has the mother committed "evil." I feel caller Sophie would answer "Yes." And that makes me very sad.
Evil is a word from Fairy tales... Reality is much more complicated...
Matt you dont understand. A thought experiment only works when the other person actively thinks. Shes using a script because she doesnt have thoughts of her own.
at like 10:45 Matt is literally just explaining the trolley problem to Sophie, and the fact that Sophie doesn't recognize that tells me Sophie hasn't really taken the time to research either morality or the "atheist world view" being described.
Matt defined evil as the consequences of our actions are in conflict with a preferred goal. And then he defined it as..... If the moral system is a better world, and an action demonstrably results in a not better world then this could be considered evil.
The only time Matt utters the word GOOD, was when he was talking about whether something was good or evil from a moral standpoint. Which was not part of his definitions of evil.
Sophie then states that Matt saying a "better world" implies GOOD. And then goes on to state over and over that Matt uses the word Good in the definition of evil, and thats a problem for Sophie. Sophie's not the brightest crayon in the box is she.
But even if the claim _was_ true, it would not really matter since it would be equivocating "good" in the moral sense (good vs evil) with "good" in the comparative (good vs bad / better vs worse)...
@@irrelevant_noob Agree completely. I'm not sure how Sophie got it in her head that if the word GOOD is used in the definition of evil, despite what context its being used as, that it renders the whole thing as false. That makes no sense. When speaking about evil, it seems almost impossible not to use the word Good. Just like you always hear the expression "the fight between good and evil."
I just realized you had literally just made that exact point in your comment..........sorry. lol
I wish they would have asked "Would it have been evil of Matt to let Eve kill the children when Matt could have stopped her."
*LMAO* "then your definition is shit!" I LOVE IT. Couldn't agree more. :)
They should've asked Sophie if she would kill Eve while she was actively shooting children. As inaction would be considered evil.
Sophie must really hate the armed forces who defend her right to spew such nonsense.
One of the definitions of evil apparently is: characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering.
It appears that she doesn't define evil as an act. She sees it as a force. As a darkness drawing everyone involved into its shadow. It's not human in her reality. It comes from the underworld, or maybe God. Who knows.
Theists are always taught that evil is a supernatural intelligent entity, just as they are taught that there God is. Atheists usually reject the existence of all supernatural entities and phenomenon. Evil exists as an action verb...not as an noun.
She doesn't have a position of her own - just the desire to pigeon hole someone into a specific argument she feels she can win.
Bad faith caller. That's the most charitable interpretation of this absolute train wreck of a human.
That’s where I was going. Never even denied having a script.
Common sense says no. Hurting humanity is evil if it is intentionally selfish & careless for life.
Cool script, but I think Sophie should save it for Hollywood.
According to Sophie, SA isn't evil because SA isn't "killing another human."
"Is there a universal definition of evil?"
No
"Oh so you think evil has no definition."
Bruh that is all these people are.
Self-defensive killing is evil? That's batshit crazy.
On the topic of universal evil, one cannot even argue that genocide is universal evil because there have been quite a few groups who have engaged in genocide that thought it was noble from their ideological position. Granted, the majority of us would consider that evil, wrong, bad, or immoral, it still wouldn't be considered a universal evil.
Imagine having Sophie as a spouse...
The US constitution was specifically as a secular document because of hundreds of years of brutal war and persecution of christians in Europe. Which many people had migrated to America to escape violence. Christians are free to practice their beliefs but not persecute others. Which is what many want.
Darth Dawkins strategy of "i'll answer your question just as soon as you accept my entire argument"
I think Sophie was a cop in Uvalde.
Oh no!!!!! Sophie the Spider thought she built a lovely web before she called, but clever Matty would not enter her flimsy trap! Poor, sad, misguided Sophie!
Sophie is another one of those people who can't figure out how pronouns work
Sophie is the kind of woman who would refuse to interact with the lever even if that meant that the trolley killed less people.
I just came across this. I wish someone would have asked her if it would be evil to stand by and watch children being murdered when you have the ability to stop it.
Well that was insane. But Eve seems awesome. I'm unfamiliar with her content, but I'll have to go searching for it now.
In other news, I think we need Jimmy to go on that YT show where people choose their favorite snacks & candies.
If you are able to find her yt channel please let me know. I'm interested as well. Unfortunately I have tried looking but was unable to find it. I suspect she might go by something else or may not have a channel on yt
She probably smokes after love ... elegant French cigarettes at that.
This is what happens when you don't spend any time thinking about your worldviews.
This is what happens when someone talks a philosophy class and gets a C-
Reminds me of that famous post about the grad student working on IQ research. Basically, anyone with a sub 90 IQ is incapable of understanding a conditional hypothetical.
Nah, I had to rewind this 3 times to make sure I'm not deaf... Did Sophie literally just say Murder Of A Human is Universally Evil??? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I love Matt ́s logic bomb approach. Absolutely the best teacher l never had.
I enjoy these shows because what I learn most is HOW people think. Often how disorganized their thinking is. It has motivated me to try to be more aware of WHY I believe the things I do.
Even her own Bible says there are exceptions for accidental deaths. Exodus 21:12-14
There is real evil and its called stupidity.
Sophie is one of many like her and that's an issue
This caller gives me déjà vu. I swear there was a gentleman who called with almost the exact same tree. And just the same as the this call, they were unwilling to present or justify their point of view.
Oh god! I just noticed the pronouns. 🤦♂️
😂 I just did after your comment
“You can’t define evil as something that runs counter to making a better world cause better implies good and you can’t define evil by appealing to good.” That’s the thing she kept saying. I had to go back and listen multiple times cause I couldn’t hear Matt say the word good once and she kept harping on that
sophie, your imaginary god is super evil.
Matt talking with his mouth full is universally evil.
We can easily spin this on to Sophie and her theistic view.
If the scenario is evil in general, as in trying killing the kids in the first place. Who or what initiated that evil deed? As she is a theist, then her beliefs would pin this on God, who created the world for the evil people to exist. The evil has to start from some singularity and then grow. So her god MUST be responsible for all evil if they insist that god IS the prime mover! There is no other option for a theist.
I guarantee she was working her way towards "therefore abortion is always evil".
I'm trying to digest this women's concept. What I think she trying to propose is that the act of killing is always evil, regardless of the circumstances. Even in the case of self-defense, it can be viewed as an evil act. Some definitions of pacifism agree with that viewpoint - that no violence is ever justified.
No point doing hypotheticals with dime store apologists. Their scripts they’ve memorized can’t allow for them to say things they ACTUALLY believe.
Hopefully Sophie's thought process will mature.
Should of asked her if killing yourself to save someone else is evil. Then asked her if "suicide by roman" to save humanity is evil.
They never let the caller finish, as bad as she was at arguing. They started cutting her off like 8 minutes in and never let her go.
" I just want to bamboozle you with questions, rather than make a case for my God". Am I right ?
I love how she reworded your definition of how we determine good and bad/evil to include the word Good. said that you were insinuating Good in your definition and then said that it was a b s definition, just wow.
2:00 - When Sophie learns that all words are defined in relation to each other, especially antonyms, forgiven will shit belovedself.
I recall a great flood that allegedly killed all the world but seven people and some zoo animals.