The Delusion of Atheism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 вер 2024
- Atheists claim to have morals, but do they have any foundation to believe that? Today we'll cover this question along with metaphysics, logic and free will!
___________________________________________________________________________
MY SOCIALS
Discord Server: / discord
TikTok: / sanctus.dominus
___________________________________________________________________________
Before you say “Atheism isn’t a worldview”. It most certainly is. When you call yourself an Atheist, you presuppose that logic exists and that sentences and words have meaning and that truth and epistemology exists as well. Because you use all these principles in calling yourself an atheist…. This is called a world view.
@@UnderWaterExploring Atheists are quite literally shown in the video which they accept that the world has no meaning and therefor, absurd. Just like how it would be absurd for you to give value to things of which no transcendence is possible due to the non-existence of a transcendent being. Do not take my word for it, rather take the word of the following atheist philosophers: Sartre, Camu, Nitzsche, Schopenhauer, Feuerbach, Foucalt, Stirner, etc. This is why they must create their own metaphysics to renounce the existence of the metaphysics. This video is not saying you MUST be a theist, rather by being an atheist, you are condemned to follow the schools of thought of pessimism, nihilism, existentialism. Those which also depend on the rejection of existent things. Just like the same principle of the rejection of God which atheist presuppose.
I could be an Atheist and say that logic doesn’t exist. Therefor Atheism is not a worldview that necessarily includes the acceptance of logic or any other thing. It is a single stance on a single claim of Theism, only a part of, not itself a worldview.
@@UnderWaterExploringwhat you said is a whole lot of nothing. the argument sanctus posits is that even though as an atheist you presuppose logic, yet you have no way of justifying it; that is an inherent flaw of your atheism.
and atheism isn't a worldview, no matter how many times christians lie that it is. Atheism is the conclusion a particular god or gods don't exist. That's it.
Unsurprisingly, no one needs your imaginary friend to have logic, meaning, truth, etc. Not one christian, or other type of theist, can show that their god is required for any of this. And atheists have many different worldviews. My particular one is mostly epicureanism. Your false claims fail yet again.
"Before you say “Atheism isn’t a worldview”. It most certainly is. When you call yourself an Atheist, you presuppose that logic exists and that sentences and words have meaning and that truth and epistemology exists as well. Because you use all these principles in calling yourself an atheist…. This is called a world view."
@@noelyanes2455 Curious how that "argument" doesn't seem to exist. Let's see what the latin means: "the holy posits", and posit means "assume as a fact; put forward as a basis of argument."
All you have is nonsense dependent on the presupposition that your imaginary friend exists. Curious how you can't show that this is true. And dear, we don't presuppose logic, we know it works. Alas, nothing to show your imaginary friend exists at all.
" what you said is a whole lot of nothing. the argument sanctus posits is that even though as an atheist you presuppose logic, you have no way of justifying it; that is an inherent flaw of your atheism."
Hey, I'm an atheist and I'd love to have a Skype discussion with you about this. I think it could be very interesting, and I'd be happy for you to use it on your channel.
Im available on discord, the link is in the video description
@@SanctusApologetics Thank you, though it says the invite link is invalid or has expired.
@@ollieollyoli5805 I’ll fix it, thanks
@@ollieollyoli5805 how did it go?
@@k0v4cCurious as well
Just bumped into this channel and I must say its one of the most refreshing apologetics channels out there. Your clear, poignant, precise education and "no fluff" or commentary is soo well received. Bravo !! Keep up the great work and if you have a way we can support you (Patreon ? ) please post as I will contribute to your faith journey in helping others understand . Keep providing great content my brother in Christ - THANK YOU
I really appreciate your support! I do have a membership option on my channel if you wanted to support me there. I’m glad you enjoy the content, God bless!
@@SanctusApologetics will do and keep it going.. you are more valuable than you know . May God continue to bless you
Amazing ,Just Amazing to witness such support for that young brother in Christ . I am so happy and thankful to GOD for making you both comunicate in so Christian way . I Pray for both of you taht GOD May sustain and keep you , that HE May lead and guide you ,to open the door for The Spreading THE Truth and The Gospel of Our BLESSED LORD JESUS CHRIST To reach many many people through you both Amen in JESUS PRECIOUS NAME AMEN
The problem with foundations are, they have no foundations or have foundations that are just made up.
I don’t think you need religion to have ethics and morality. I think both are born out of millions of years of behavioral (and later cultural) development in social groups. It’s conducive to a healthy society (group) to have morals and ethics. Archaeological remains of Neanderthals show clear proof of groups taking care of their sick, injured, and chronically disabled. They didn’t need religion to teach it to them, they recognized the intrinsic value of working together to support each other and how that practice allowed the group to keep going.
It’s helpful to the Judeo-Christian narrative to believe humans are born as and predisposed to evil, but fail to recognize the equal capacity for compassion, empathy, and tenderness that was always there in the human psyche.
No matter the size of the bowl, the smallest hole at its base means it shall hold no water.
That analogy just came to me upon seeing 3:16 The image of the scales with holes in the bottom to let rainwater through.
As for the issue of epistemological presuppositions (I can trust my senses, deductive reasoning and causality) it is more of a problem with philosophy rather than atheism. Atheism is just the disbelief in a deity. And unjustified presuppositions are just as much of a problem to theists, you too presuppose that your senses are to be trusted when you read your bible, and that your state of mind is sound when you rationalize God. You could say that your holy book claims otherwise, but you'd need to use your fallible deduction and reasoning to accept that claim. Basically circular reasoning
Remember my friend immanuel kant critique of pure reason, we can't reason god, it is very transcendental, its hard to reach God because God's work in mysterious way,
"[E]ven those who appreciate the metaphysical depth of Thomism in other matters have expressed surprise that he does not deal at all with what many now think the main metaphysical question; whether we can prove that the primary act of recognition of any reality is real. The answer is that St. Thomas recognised instantly, what so many modern sceptics have begun to suspect rather laboriously; that a man must either answer that question in the affirmative, or else never answer any question, never ask any question, never even exist intellectually, to answer or to ask."
G.K. Chesterton, _St. Thomas Aquinas_
What you might call unjustified presuppositions, is just the basic recognition of all those who believe that red is red, that they have hands, that their wives, in all appearance, are not Russian spies, that this basic epistemic trust is necessary for a good life and that it can be reasonably given. They recognize fundamental skepticism as the universal acid that it is, eating away at everything that is holy, good, true and beautiful, and laugh at its demand to the unique uncontested privilege to remain unquestionably foundational.
There are three positions people have held on the question of whether there is a God: There is a God, there is no God and I don't know if there is a God; theism, atheism and agnosticism.
The agnostic also lacks belief in God, so this cannot be a sufficient definition to identify the atheist. If he is an atheist, his disbelief is warranted by argument that there is no God.
This more recent move by atheists to redefine their own position to a mere lack of belief, shows either that they lack the sufficient knowledge or conversational good-will to call themselves agnostics, or that there is no good argument for positive disbelief in God.
@@Quekksilber I think you are misdiagnosing the reluctance of atheists to call themselves agnostics. The God proposition is an unfalsifiable one, meaning it is impossible for atheists to conclusively disprove the existence of God, but it’s also impossible for theists to conclusively prove it. So when an atheist calls themselves an atheist, even though they don’t *know* for sure - what is really supposed to be implied by that is that they are as sure that God does not exist as a theist is sure that He does. There’s also two separate beliefs being covered by the label; one regarding belief on a god or creator in general, and another to do with the truth claims of particular religions. So someone styling themselves an atheist might be fifty-fifty on the question of whether there was a ‘prime mover’ or intelligent entity behind the workings of the universe; but be 99% sure that none of the Earth’s religions are true. So yeah I guess in that case they are technically agnostic, but that term wouldn’t really capture what they are getting at.
@@Quekksilber while I resonate with the title of agnostic atheist, I don’t actually care the for label itself, only the definition. In my endeavor, I have not seen any evidence or amalgamation of evidence that has convinced me of the existence of a god. But I do not claim that such a being cannot exist and I do not claim that such a being does not exist. Whatever you want to label that, I do not care. The agnostic atheist title just happens to have the definition that fits me better than others.
@@kaboomboom5967 "God's works in mysterious ways" is fallacious because you're just admitting to your own ignorance and if you cannot answer for your god, then discussion with you is useless and so the status quo remains.
Actually I agree with much of what you are saying:
- Yes, morality is subjective.
- Yes, at the bottom logic is effectively arbitrary.
- Yes, there is no free will.
But this doesn't just hold for atheists... in fact, it has nothing to do with atheism. The same arguments in favor of this world view are just as effective when people believe in God. Using God to instill "objectivity" anywhere in these is a non-argument. The same is true about trying to instilling objectivity using evolution.
I also don't agree with your conclusion that this leads to a depressing and nihilistic life. In fact, it is the opposite, it can be freeing.
- When morality is subjective you (like everyone else) are able to follow whatever view feels right for you. If you feel the need, you might impose this on others, and as long as this is acceptable in your moral framework, there is no issue there. Similarly, if another wants to respond to your imposition, they may do so in accordance with their own moral framework.
I would go so far as to say that all morality is subjective irrespective of the doctrine you happen to subscribe to, Christianity, evolution or otherwise. I hate to use this argument but, if you were born in a different time or place, you would at the very least think differently about the origin of morality (this is clearly true as there is some disagreement among people with different life experience already). The reason morality might appear objective is because we are not so different as human beings, we have the same needs etc. The animal kingdom shows us that their are all kinds of moral systems, and a simple thought experiment about machines or aliens should make things even more clear. Perhaps the issues comes from a naive belief that somehow humans are a special case... that of course, human morality is the only morality! This is just an argument from definition, it doesn't leave any room for an ever-changing universe - this seems like a recipe for disaster in the long run!
- Regarding logic, there are an infinite number of axioms to choose from that might form the basis for "a mathematics", each will have different ways of deriving consequences (or proofs) some won't even have proofs or truths or falsehoods. The vast majority are not in line with our sense data and so are not useful, or are completely inaccessible or incomprehensible. We have settled on one that is comprehensible and useful, there is nothing objective about that. And yes, i am using logic in my arguments here - but not because I have any objective basis to do so, only because this happens to be the system that we have agreed is useful for reaching truths (as we have defined in the system we are working in that happens to be logic). Otherwise we wouldn't be getting anywhere! Although taking this point seriously, we aren't getting anywhere using this system either - any body who claims to know where we are going (or whether we are going) with all this is deluding themselves. I suppose that means me then!
- Regarding free will, you should listen to this: ua-cam.com/video/ZgvDrFwyW4k/v-deo.html
it will be easier than writing a long comment, let me know what you think, but I hope it is clear why nihilism and depression is not the only direction one could go - of course, it wont be your choice whether you go this way or not! I happen to be one of the lucky ones :)
You're making the grave mistake that this criticism comes from an honest and open place.
I feel like atheist is still materialist and leap of faith, yeah he/she just didnt believe in god but he/she knows in their mind that there is no god, atheism have critic by immanuel kant that is critique of pure reason, he critic logic/reason/critical thinking by david hume, science is not objective because there is a chance that will not working its not really absolute, there is nothing absolute in this world other than God,
But atheist leads to materialism thats really wrong in my opinion, it makes people have less value and make people have no worth,
So slavery wasent wrong wgen it was permittes?
"When morality is subjective you (like everyone else) are able to follow whatever view feels right for you. If you feel the need, you might impose this on others, and as long as this is acceptable in your moral framework, there is no issue there. Similarly, if another wants to respond to your imposition, they may do so in accordance with their own moral framework."
Say that into the face of a woman, stripped naked and shaved, with her terrified children clinging onto her, that there is really no issue with her soon-to-be-murderers releasing Zyklon B into their lungs, because everybody is free to impose their morality on others as they feel the need.
You, of course are disinclined to hold to their morality, but unfortunately lack the power to impose your morality on them. As a last word, you tell her how glad you are that you "don't agree with [the] conclusion that this leads to a depressing and nihilistic life. In fact, it is the opposite, it can be freeing."
When you can impose yourself on others by force, without any reference but to yourself, this is the essence of nihilism. This is the will to power. If you decide to not get depressed about it, fine, but the underlying creed remains in full force: Nothing is true, everything is permitted.
Why can i not post a rebuttal to others comments. Someone made a valid point that showed that i was wrong about something i corrected it and now i cannot respond
I have been having the same problem.. I think I found the reason why.. Google - Learn about comments that aren’t showing or have been removed - for an answer.
It seems to be down to utube over reacting .. and taking down comments.. that might be perceived as harmful content.. and it seems like they keep getting it wrong.. There's nothing new under the the Sun
Did you maybe send a link? UA-cam filters them out automatically.
UA-cam filters are going crazy
Sort comments by Newest and your posts should reappear. YT has been screwed up like this for quite awhile now and it’s _very_ annoying.😡
It's absolutely unreal that Sam Harris is allowed to speak without constantly being laughed at.
Don't worry. That is rapidly being corrected.
Most of the new atheists are fraud
He’s really brilliant in one respect…all while having an enormous blind spot. The most clever are clever at hiding from God.
His comments regarding Trump have done rather a lot to change that.
Thank you for your content brother! God bless - Hunter
I think in order to truly perceive morality you need to be capable of feeling empathy. It’s interlinked. If a person can’t feel empathy then they wouldn’t feel bad for hurting or harming other individuals which therefore would mean that they wouldn’t be able to grasp the concept of morality. Since the average human being is born with the ability to feel empathy that would mean that the majority of the worlds population is able to perceive morality. That in turn could mean that morality is indeed objective to humans.
The length of the comments is evidence that you have produced a good, thought-provoking video.
I once saw a new-born calf. It could stand, but kept bumping into the wall of the barn. It could see, but hadn't yet learned that when you see a barrier, you can't go through it. We all went through this in our infancy; it's how external reality imposes itself on us. When we got older, natural law imposed itself on us with, unfortunately, less force. It is instructive for me to see Richard Dawkins arguing with the gender-construct people. The central point of Dawkins' worldview is that evolution primes us to desire acts that result in reproduction, and this is the opposite of what gender-construct people want to believe.
I am someone who went from an atheistic perspective to a theistic, natural law perspective. There are points to the natural law that we all desire to deny, but when a person can set aside those desires in his pursuit of truth, he finds truth, which is the accurate assessment of reality. Aristotle and Thomas Jefferson were two non-religious people who recognized the reality of God and the natural law.
This only really applies to hyper specific western post-enlightenment ideas. You don't particularly appear to address any of the various atheistic extrapolations of say, Nirīśvaravāda, Buddhism, Epicureanism, Samkhya, Tao, or Confucianism. Atheism does not presuppose naturalism, it has no presuppositions of its self, its simply a declaration of a non-position, namely a voidance of theism.
A couple of things. Yes, if you are an atheist, it is much more rational to assert that there is no objective value in the cosmic sense than to believe in objective morality. There is no divine arbiter of our moral standards. There are, however, shared commonalities of moral standards held widely across cultures because they are just inherent to human nature. Things like not killing, raping, or stealing are very basic ethical standards held widely by humanity because they help us create what we perceive as functioning societies. We know this through a process of trial and error of societies that have attempted to ground their values on ethical standards in the past that we now see as repugnant. They say an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, so we mutually agree to these specific standards to avoid having what happens to others happen to us. At a fundamental level, there is a certain reciprocity to moral development. We subconsciously insert ourselves into the moral loop because it is more beneficial for our survival more often than not. Humanity also has a natural inclination for survival and prosperity of its own race, and so we tend to find anything in opposition to that repulsive.
You are correct that if there is no objective standard, we cannot tell people how they ought to act in a cosmic sense. But the vast majority of us have subconsciously agreed to insert ourselves into the moral loop because we have an inclination towards our own survival, the survival of our families, and the prosperity of the human race. As such, anyone who deviates from this moral loop will be scrutinized. And if there is no dictator of oughtness, that also means there's no one telling us we can't stop those people from acting in ways that the majority of us deem inappropriate.
To me, it seems that wanting to believe in God in order to have objective morality is just wishful thinking and denies the ontology of the moral landscape. If morality truly is subjective, it would provide a better account for why there is so much moral discourse within the world when it comes to more complicated issues. Sure, at a basic level as I said above, we have shared standards by consensus, but when you get into the nitty-gritty, there are just moral questions that objectively do not have objective answers. Even Christians would agree with this, as the Christian idea of the stronger brother and the weaker brother suggests that certain actions can be sinful for one Christian but not another. Let me ask you this, is it objectively wrong within the Christian framework for a believer to eat meat sacrificed to an idol? It depends upon their conscience and the context.
If objective morality is written on our hearts as God has said, you would expect there to be much less disagreement within the world about what constitutes right and wrong. It also oversimplifies morality into a series of black and white assertions; the reality is much more nuanced than that.
Fair point. But I think there are some issues in the wording.
Perhaps philosophy is like a big burger with more fat than meat, more clever wording than actual wisdom. This is perhaps inevitable due to human psychology’s predisposition to self-preservation over truth.
Nevertheless, regarding your comment on morality I offer this:
IS MORALITY OBJECTIVE
I believe that we often, in intellectual discourse, confuse the term objective with universal. Objective reality refers to what exists, such as trees or your body or a building. If we examine an objective universal, we could say that the human body has a torso and legs (excluding abnormalities and defects). However, if we were to say it is an objectively universal truth that all humans have pale skin, this would be false, even though there is some objective truth to it. Not all humans have the same skin color, so then this is an objective truth that is not universal but general, and if we scrutinize even further, some objective truths only exist in particular cases, such as anomalies.
Subjective truth can be universal or particular. Subjective truth refers to our experience of reality, subjectivity is experience itself.
A personal subjective truth is that McDonalds has the best burgers. This is based on my personal experience.
But to say that being in below freezing temperature would be cold could be seen as a universal truth, though, because the sensation or phenomenology of coldness is based on experience, this could be seen as a more or less subjective universal truth.
Objective truth refers to what is being experienced.
Subjective truth refers to the experience itself.
MORALITY AND GOD
Let’s examine morality. What is it? More or less morality is seen as a guide for human behavior, how one ought to live. Think of it as a GPS guiding us to our true purpose (essentialism).
My view is that morality is objective AND subjective. The subjective truth of morality is the pleasant experience we have when we encounter something good or we do something good. This may also refer to human conscience.
The objective aspect of morality deals with essentialism. According to essentialism, the universe is governed by a moral force that is external to all created beings. This external guide of what is right and wrong what we mean when we refer to God or morality. The issue of God and morality is merely a word game. When various religions of a monotheistic tradition refer to God, whether by the Dao or Logos, they refer to an external order of how things ought to be.
The objective aspect of morality refers to the order in something.
The subjective aspect of morality is the pleasant experience of that order. Morality then is beauty.
MORAL AMBIGUITY
Regarding moral ambiguity in scripture, it is a spectrum.
As stated before, objective truths can be universal (all humans have a torso and extremities) or personal (I have brown hair).
The same can be applied to morality.
Some things are moral to all created beings, which we will refer to as righteousness.
But then there are some things only moral to a specific group or individual.
For example, it is right for me to be intimate with my wife. But it is wrong for someone else to be intimate with my wife.
Regarding food offered to idols, I’m not entirely sure what the gist is. However I think this is what Paul was referring to.
SUMMARY
Morality is objective AND subjective.
Morality is God, morality is beauty.
Morality is universal, general, and personal.
Personal morality is also called destiny.
Same old same old atheist argument. You contend that society has rules, but don't explain why I should follow the rules.
You also contradict yourself in your own argument. First, you appeal to a common morality, but then you say God can't write the law in our hearts because there is no common morality. You logic is non-existent.
@@purplesamurai5205 Wow very sophisticated response, well done.
@@thetheatreguy9853 Thank you
Great video! Love your content and the images you use are perfect!
Why do you try to write philosophy on your lap and straw man atheism by focusing on oversimplified and weakest points of it, instead of dealing with the issue seriously?
Frfr that my morality is my opinion doesn't mean that it is not valuable, to me
@@arex3632 Absolutely, the fact that theists present moral relativism's definition and then immediately go to its effects and how dangerous and absurd it is shows that they cannot even look at it from a different perspective, and it's simple straw manning. If you think negatively of moral relativism, you're still presupposing the existence of moral objectivism, you look at it from this lenses, otherwise you couldn't say that something is absurd, so you're not even giving a chance to some other positions. Moral relativism isn't about having an excuse to do things that you know are bad, but rather about an ontological foundations for morality. Is it transcending humanity, is it fixed and existing regardless of the human mind, or is it ever-changing and dependent on conditions? The point is that it doesn't matter what's the ontological status of yourself in relation to the universe, your experience remains the same and is just as valuable and real.
This wasn’t attempting to disprove atheism, only attempting to show that it isn’t a sign of progress in society, or necessarily beneficial.
@@PL9050 Sure, and nowhere did I say that it is trying to disprove atheism or that it's a sign of progress. I'm simply saying that he's obviously still straw manning and oversimplifying what are the necessary implications of atheism. He cherry picks exactly the things that suit him, like existential philosophy and other, and then concludes that being an atheist must be horrible. Very comfortable.
If the majority of a population deems a course of action is most beneficial to the majority even to the destruction and death of the minority of the population, is that a good moral choice?
I am an atheist - I think that what is the most important thing between theists and non-theists is that we treat each other with dignity and respect and work together to make this world the best we can make it.
I do not believe you are delusional. Just Presumptive of atheistic belief. I firmly believe in judeo Christian values and believe religion evolved as a metaphorical representation of human values and flourishing.
Godspeed, brother.
ok but by what standard?
@@kyriacostheofanous1445 Survival.
@@kyriacostheofanous1445 watch “can science answer moral questions” by Sam Harris.
Humans evolved a sense of morality in order to co exist as stronger communities/tribes.
If a member of a tribe harms another, it weakens the tribe as a whole.
If you want to survive droughts or harsh winters, you needed every member at their best. Not in fighting or harmed at each other's hand.
It's not a hard concept to grasp.
What about the expansionist tribe next door that wants to kill all of your males (inc. infants) and take your women?
If they did that, did they do a bad thing or was it just a case of actions being taken that were simply inconvenient to your tribe?
Then you realize it’s an illusion created by evolution and therefore NOT binding - in fact humanity causes the rest of the world to suffer due to our “progress.” Remember in Covid when everyone stayed indoors? Wildlife flourished.
With that logic, would frequent human sacrifices by the aztecs be moral since it made stronger aztec communities?
@@kalimatuhuTo the Aztecs, yes. In my opinion, morality is a progressive thing. So yes one tribe might see some horrible acts as morally good but in the future deem it as horrendous.
You could apply the same logic to the Bible. God commanded many horrible acts. Killings of innocent women, children, and animals.
@@kalimatuhu Yes, and the other guy explained why.
4:50
Whats your point? That ultimate skepticism means we cant ultimately be sure of anything? Yes, and? This isnt an argument youre just describing the material world and our ability to perceive it.
Therefore your ability to perceive it would also be unsure
@@kalimatuhu yes, and?
@@aych131 therefore you have no argument, since you are unsure of your own statement, and yourself...
@@kalimatuhu the babies interpretation of skepticism. This is not a statement of one's own knowing but of the nature of knowledge. Brainlet
@kalimatuhu this is a middle schoolers understanding of skepticism. It's not a statement of personal knowing but of the nature of knowledge.
This is very cool video,
If morality is subjective then truth has subjective value because we gain axiologixal claims from moral claims
How is that we get axiological claims from moral ones?
@@fergem33 because axiological claims come from a grounding foundation found in moral codes such as pleasure being good and pin being bad is an axiological claim which is derived from an ethical theory
keep making these videos God calls us to be bold as lions and ppl who are close to satan love to censor the truth or completely distort it
Your Bible has multiple translations, who's to say those translators have not "distorted the truth" themselves?
@@nyx.augustus”There have been multiple interpretations of communism, therefore true communism has never been tried.”
Theists believe immorality is wrong because of damnation, atheists believe immorality is wrong because of free will, both are flawed, a theist expects reward for being moral, to a athiest, morality is subjective, which leaves a rather large grey spot where immoral motivations are the basis for somone's morality or that morality is subjective and you have the free will to chose whether or not to be moral.
Where did this argument come from, deists are not theists and ALOT of christians believe in faith without works and just want to make "their creator" happy.
This is why theism ends up more IMMORAL then atheism - an evil action is justified as "good" because a theist will be rewarded by acting upon it.
For any action that you consider to be morally right or wrong, ask yourself this: does God have a reason for commanding this action to be right or wrong. If God has no reason, then his decree is rather arbitrary, and I fail to see how this system of morality is any more objective than a naturalistic system. But if God does have a reason, then we have an independent foundation for morality outside of God, for it is that underlying principle that makes something right or wrong. Even sn atheist could appeal to that principle.
Precisely
Morality is entirely subjective
Free will is a myth
Logic is just a set of rules we made up to best find what is true. True is that if you depend on it, 100/100 times you will get the desired outcome.
There is no delusion.
Grand Delusion of Atheism, Objective truths exists, morality comes from God and is the ultimate source of morality. Without God morality is subjective.
@@Shockz161 yeah, that's what i said, morality is subjective because there is no God. Where does the problem lie?
@@Narko_Marko the problem lies in the fact that several prominent ones don’t accept what you just did. Props for your integrity.
@@billBingiS Most I've listened to hold the similar view: genetically modified skeptic, Alex O'Conor, Matt Dillahunty, Mindshift... These are youtubers i most recently listened to the most and they all think free will doesn't exist and that morality is entirely subjective, logic is a bit more nuanced but they all think logic is made by humans and there is no objective standard that it is based on.
Which prominent figure did you base your statement on?
@@Narko_Markou didn't mention God, infact, u didn't even attack anything.
Belief and non-belief are simply choices.
This is a very professionally made video for such a small channel. I am impressed. Keep up the good work.
5:17 I think you’re referring to quantum mechanics, that is for the purposes of this context- the observations of how nature below the scale of atoms move/behave to impact larger physical mechanisms (atoms, molecules, cells, tissues, plainly how the physical world behaves and operates) is in theory able to potentially be analyzed and possibly even predicted. This creates a slight argument against free will that ultimately folds in on itself as we are not currently able to make predictions of how these extremely small objects behave.
One lives. One makes contact with reality. And despite that, the idea "God exists" does not form in our minds.
It's not delusion.
It's just the lack of that idea.
This is insufficient to make one call themselves an atheist though, as the agnostic has the same idea lacking in his mind. Such an atheist either lacks the knowledge or conversational good-will to call himself an agnostic, or he acknowledges that there are no good arguments to justify positive disbelief that God exists.
The same argument could be made by someone who says that "hierarchy and government exist" does not form in their minds. It's not delusion. It's just the lack of that idea.
Yeah, fine, play with words for as long as you want but being an anarchist logically involves consequences, both in your worldview and in real life. Such consequences of this worldview were discussed in the video.
Why should I not murder? It is because for everything I try to prove, I have to assume that anyone can agree with it, but obviously the person who I am trying to murder will not agree with it, because if they did it would not be murder; I would have to contradict my assumption when justifying murder that they can agree with it, leaving any proof I make in favour of the murder result in contradiction and falsehood.
You are right in pointing out David Hume's error in regards to the problem of induction, but this error is not essential to atheism. I am not a sensualist-nominalist like Hume, and I hold that entities always act in accordance with their natures, because to not act in accordance with their natures would imply a contradiction, which could not happen in reality. If I were to be so skeptical as to deny the evidence of my senses, then I would at least have to trust them enough to understand there are brains, vats, or the possibility of evil. There is no other premise to built knowledge on other than our senses.
I don't see how determinism is essential to atheism.
While I am curious to have a conversation about what was claimed in this video, if you have decided that you will not change your mind about Atheism not being a worldview even when Atheism is not a worldview and you have Atheists telling you it is not a worldview, then that conversation is not going to be productive for either of us.
Sanctus: writes comment explaining how it is a worldview despite atheist claims as the claim of God’s non existence has epistemological, moral, and other effects on a person’s worldview that are contingent on atheism, thus making it a worldview (contingent on the atheist belief, editing this in a minute or so after posting).
Atheists: Nuh uh
@@campaigningmc7812 First, when someone uses bad reasoning and logic, I am fully justified in pointing it out. Second, both you and the speaker in this video can choose to ask me what I base the different parts of my worldview on instead of relying on telepathy and failing.
A world view (initially from Kant) is a set of assumptions about what is real. Materialism is a world view that says the material universe is all that is. This is, effectively, atheism. It IS possible to be atheist with a different world view, but mostly atheism and materialism in western world are virtually interchangeable.
@@TheLlywelyn Nope... atheism does not have anything to do with materialism. Atheism is only about one thing and one thing only: The rejection of the claim that god exists.
There are spiritual atheist, Atheism that believe in gnomes, yeti, the luminate and all kinds of weird theories.... but the only thing they share is their unbelief in any gods.
@@dfasht1304 "Logic dictates what is bad reasoning" If it were that simple, we would not have this debate.
The problem starts with problems in the propositions. Add on Three valued logic and most people would get lost very easily.
Take the Kalam argurment
P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2. The universe began to exist.
C Therefore, the universe has a cause.
However consider
P1. For anything to have a beginning there has to be a time where it did not exist yet.
P2. There was no time before the big bang of the universe
C Therefore, the universe does not have a beginning.
Plug the latter into the Kalam, and you can see it renders P2 false.
If I have an eternally living soul and a free will at my disposal, I certainly don't feel that to be the case. Every outcome seems to be determined by my internal disposition and the external cues that act upon it, including my own thoughts as well as even writing this.
Beliefs are COMPLETELY different than actions. Theists and Atheists behave exactly the same.
One problem with your argument. "Do you like Coffee or Tea?" Is not a moral question. There is no right or wrong choice unless we're measuring its impact on our health.
Otherwise, this argument unravels Atheism instantly. We have an innate drive towards morality and towards purpose which would not be possible in an atheistic worldview were we to simply be evolved primordial goo. Richard Dawkins recently stated he likes "Christian culture" but is still an atheist. So his atheism, like most others, is just a buffet of values taken from Christianity that suit the person’s personal comfort without being accountable to the God whose character those values come from. They certainly don't come from society naturally as history shows, and we didn't just decide to be altruistic one day, as Christianity was in Africa and Asia teaching a radically different message to local religions centuries before it was replaced by newer ones.
Yet so many people reaping the benefits of Christianized nations still refuse to believe in God because "If God is good, then why is there so much evil?"
If there is no God, there is no such thing as good or evil. We are all just matter and energy, and if we're all one big cosmic accident from trillions of coincidences, then there's no right or wrong, and we have no value or purpose. There's no difference between ripping apart offspring before birth, or your child falling into a river or getting bone cancer. There's no difference between your wife staying faithful or your wife cheating on you. It simply is. There's no point of life other than to survive, and we have no obligation to anyone or anything other than self preservation, because when we die we return to dust and none of it matters anyway.
If there is no moral God above the universe who created it for a purpose, there are no morals and there is no meaning. Right and wrong therefore are perspectives based on an evolved clump of cell's interpretation of the ideal conditions for its own self-preservation relative to its habitat. And even then, this behavior is not reciprocated in other lifeforms. Animals make judgements based on instincts and survival. Humans can make moral judgements contrary to instincts and survival, like the existence of the tobacco industry. Why is this?
It's not because the universe is our God, or that morality is coded in us by the cosmos. Matter and energy do not have sentient wills to make decisions. Furthermore, the belief in "karma", as if our deeds create some kind of moral force in the fabric of reality, is unsupported by science and philosophically untenable.
Nobody lives like that - as if right and wrong are just perspectives, or as if we have no purpose - because everyone has a conscience where God's morality is printed on us and everyone has a longing for meaning in their life. These are a reflection of God's nature. You can't use science to quantify love, or justice, or holiness. These intangible concepts exist beyond our capacity to obtain them because they are attributes of God's character. But we are capable of reflecting them because we are created in God's image, which means we are moral beings capable of making moral decisions in a moral universe.
The same fire that warms us also burns us; the same water that quenches us also drowns us. Every single decision we make is between right and wrong, good or evil, life or death, God or sin. And sin is nothing more than separation from God's laws and God's nature. Because love is the nature of God, God created free creatures who could choose to freely love Him or reject Him - because love can only be given freely. God knew we would reject Him, and the consequences would be suffering and death. But God also knew He could redeem us, so He became a man to share in our human suffering, to teach us how to overcome our sins, to bury them with Him, and to rise again to show that all who trust in Him will overcome death and inherit eternal life with Him.
Eternal life is nothing more than an intimate relationship with Christ in the presence of God. We cannot simply enter His presence as sinners, because God is holy and anything unholy will burn to a crisp around Him. But Christ clothes the believer in His righteousness, so that when God sees us, He sees Himself instead of separation from Him. That is the depth of God's love, mercy, and grace for us.
But God is not just love, but also wrath. He is not just mercy, but also justice. He is not just grace, but also judgement. And He is not just peace, but also war. And God will wage war on those deserving of judgement to bring justice to the world and satisfy His wrath against sin. Because God is holy and cannot allow evil to reign forever. In the mean time, God allows adversity to strengthen us and bring us to a place of spiritual maturity. Like coal becomes a diamond under pressure, and gold is purified in a furnace, conflict builds character. And a seed must be buried before it brings new life.
Through God's divine revelation He reveals His purpose for us: it's not happiness, as if we are His pets meant to chase pleasure for 70 years; His purpose for us is holiness, to conform us to the image of Christ. And holiness is perfected in adversity. It is appointed to every single person to suffer and come to a place of spiritual maturity so they are able to understand a fraction of God's love for His creation; then He will entrust us with the rest of it [the cosmos, which can only be seen in eternity with our resurrected bodies]. Until then, the world is going to get darker so we see evil for what it truly is. Then God’s light and truth will be magnified.
If atheism is true, suffering has no solution or purpose, and there is no justice in the world. Consequently, there is no morality, and therefore there is nothing wrong with suffering and there is no need for justice; they are all fabrications of an evolved meat sack's interpretation of reality. Who cares if children get bone cancer? Some kids suffer, some don't. We all return to dust and none of it matters anyway! That's the logical conclusion of atheism: nihilism. And the most renowned atheist philosophers all came to that conclusion.
But because we all know there is a God because of the moral law - whether we choose to follow that moral law or not - we know that this God has told us what He plans to do about the problem of evil. And He promises a perfect body in the perfect world. Until then, everyone must turn away from their iniquities, seek God, and establish a relationship with Him. Because when He returns, He is going to separate the believers from the unbelievers, and those who do not trust in God or do not want God will find themselves in the one place that God isn't.
God doesn't send anyone to hell; hell is the consequence of living a life outside of the presence of God. It is a choice to leave His presence to be your own god and decide what is right or wrong in your own eyes. God is too loving to force anyone into His presence against their free will, but if God is good, then separation from Him leaves you with the absence of good. All that's left over is evil, corruption, depravity, greed, lies and darkness. Separating from God is choosing death over life. Don't blame God for "sending you to hell". Our own hardened hearts send us there when we refuse to see the truth and walk into the light.
Indeed we can be “good people” without “religious beliefs”, but God never told us to be religious. He said to love Him first and then love others. If you don't love God, He sees your good deeds wrapped in unrighteousness because you’ve separated from Him. Nobody can be promoted by ignoring the boss's calls. Nobody can enter a kingdom if they claim to be the King's son without wearing the crown or the ring or the robes. Likewise, Nobody can enter heaven without building a relationship with Christ here on earth. If you truly seek to be good, He will make Himself known to you. This is why millions of Muslims report having a dream of Jesus and leaving Islam for Christianity.
Paradise is not a place where all your wishes come true as if God were a genie. Paradise is the perfect holy presence of God who makes us perfect and holy like Him. Heaven is not a reward for good people, but a gift for sinners who love Christ. We are heirs to the Kingdom of God who will reign with Him over this world and the rest of the cosmos, which He has ordained as our inheritance to cultivate throughout eternity. On the other hand, Hell is what's left for those who choose not to be with Him. It is not torture, but torment - mental anguish knowing you gave up your eternity with God to be someplace where none of the good things you had in life exist - everything good comes from God. Your good deeds are not good enough to get you through the door if they're wrapped in the rags of your unrighteous separation from God. Only those who are robbed of that chance like children are redeemed, because we are all held accountable for what we know, and responsible for the choices we made with the options we had. Nobody who is online has any excuse! We have more access to archaeological, scientific, mathematic, prophetic, and empirical data about scripture than anyone in human history. So why are there more unbelievers today? Perhaps we want spirituality without accountability?
Christianity elevated the status of women, freed slaves, created modern science, universities, and ethics and morals. The ten commandments and sermon on the mount on their own make the Bible true for all of our lives. But the TRUTH is He who has given it to us, and what He asks of us in return. Through developing that relationship His purpose is revealed for our lives.
Religion is man's attempt to reach God. Secular humanism is man's attempt to replace God. Christianity is God reaching down to restore mankind's relationship with Himself.
Well written....
It's not a moral question though. Under atheism, both questions have equal morality.
No argument he has given has "unravelled atheism," either instantly or otherwise. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god. If there is no evidence for a god, then it's entirely natural to be an atheist. It's actually the default setting; you have to be indoctrinated from childhood to believe there is a god. He has presented exactly zero evidence that there is a god, thus he has not "unravelled" atheism.
I like everyone that happens to exist am forced to think and do the types of things that my type of genetics and my types of life experiences force me to think and do throughout my life. And I am only able to believe in the things that I become convinced of being true and real.
All of the most important questions cannot be measured. you have to take a stance
Atheism is a valid statement when it's applied to the Abrahamic religions. Because those religions claim God is the creator of reality itself. But then nothing can exist outside of reality or precede reality per se. There could be gods like those of the ancient world who created earth or planets or whatever because they're not all-mighty, their power is constrained and limited and therefore stuff can exist without them or precede them.
With God in the Abrahamic point of view this does not apply. God can't create all that exists and yet exist before creating existence itself. It's pretty basic argumentation really. Would like to see someone attempt to debunk this or prove both statements as true.
Keep up the videos dude!!! I LOVE them!
Unfortunately, neither atheists nor believers can "exit themselves" from a metaphysical perspective. So, the objectivity of the world has to pass through our subjective perception. There is absolutely no experience that could confirm that anything exists outside of our perception, or that our memory isnt constantly changing.
However, this perception, even if it was fake, also seems to follow certain patterns. The question, therefore, is not to be certain of the objectivity of the world, but to be certain of it given a certain frame of thought that is imposed to us. That "framed" objectivity might be a subjectivist illusion, but it's the best thing we can work with. And neither believers nor atheists can exit it. We can play with metaphysical concepts, of course, and we should, but there is a two-leveled reality : one that is accessible, the scientific frame, and the one that is out of our reach, which is the metaphysical objectivity.
Sorry for the lengthy introduction paragraph , but that will help you to grasp where I get my morals from.
This scientific frame informs us that cooperative species are the most successful, and that most of us would rather live in a world of small constrains regarding our behaviour instead of being rejected by society, or risking to get killed. The morality system I subscribe to deribes collective morality from selfish interest. Which does not mean you couldnt experience feelings such as genuine love or friendship, because that is in our current biological nature to be social animals. Just because these feelings are scientifically explainable, it doesn't make them any less real.
Perception otherwise known as consciousness is consciousness of reality. Consciousness is not a floating abstraction, as consciousness is based upon a metaphysical reality. U cannot have consciousness on its own. Thus, there is an objective reality and consciousness is just what we use to perceive it.
This is just the classic primacy of consciousness argument, the argument that our mind creates reality instead of the primacy of existence argument. The primacy of consciousness argument can simply be disproved on the basis that it is a rejection of the law of identity.
@@alexandermcdonald9029 Ultimately, consciousness has to relate to reality because it is a part of it. However, who are we to say that our subjective consciousness is a reliable source to understand objective reality ? You almost cannot derive any metaphysical truth (except the fact that you exist, in one way or another and that what you perceive has a form of existence too. But to what extent ?), because you'd have to exit your own subjectivity. Specifically, you cannot use any law to dismiss metaphysical points of view, because we derived all of these laws from a reality that could very well have been simplified/distorted or created by our subjectivity. Which is why causality is so useful in science, but impossible to prove in philosophy.
@@tamanwar203 This is just Cartesian doubt and it’s not a valid way to say we can’t trust our sense. U cannot just say “well u might be wrong” u have to point to where I am wrong otherwise what u are saying is completely meaningless as an argument. Also, your argument is self-defeating as well. If you cannot trust that anything is objective then u cannot trust the truth of that claim.
@@alexandermcdonald9029 I never said nothing is objective. I said you have no way (in most cases) of knowing if something is absolutely true or not. All we can do is thinking in relative terms. If I had to pick up an analogy, before we discovered Antarctica, we had no way of knowing if it was real or not before going there and mapping it, but you could not say it didn't exist. To me, it's similar to metaphysics. We can come up with hypotheses, but nothing in the realm of the absolutes is certain. What you can do, however, is to establish objective truths if you define your framework. That is to say : "if my memory isn't failing me", "if you exist outside of my senses", "in the context of our known universe", etc. Which is why you can work with science and not with metaphysics : because science has a definite frame.
My humanity is the basis of my morality.
actually your wrong its mine.
You're presupposing that being humane is objectively good. I'm not saying it isn't, but without God it's not objective, it's just your preference.
@@BerishaFatian your own moral principles are also subjective. and they change, just like everyone elses. its ALL about personal preference, but its the way that our personal principles align with a societys overall collective understandings of morality that determine whether or not that society and that individual lives a better or worse life or not.
"but without God it's not objective, it's just your preference."....... but even with your chosen god its still not objective because you dont have any way of showing that your god is the real god and everyone elses gods are all not real
its only objectivity in this aspect if everyone on earth all believe in the same god. but that isnt the case, so its kind of stupid to claim that without god its not objective because even you have no way of proving that your god is real and all others are not real
god is irrelevant when it comes to morality, because all the things people believe about gods are all based on words written by human beings (i say this only because i have zero reasons to believe that they were written by anyone or anything besides humans)
you are presupposing a whole ton of more things than you accuse the op of presupposing here.
do you agree or disagree with that?
i ask that because you are the only one between you and the op who made actual presuppositions....
you presupposed a god, and presupposed that a god means objectivity in some way, and presupposed that someone else claimed that being humane is objectively good when they did not make such a presupposition at all
do you believe your god is objectively moral? if so, what do you base that on? honest question....im an open minded person, willing to admit being wrong...
can you admit possibility of being wrong here?
if so, then is it reasonable to say you shouldnt claim that without god its not objective?
@@BerishaFatian I really meant that I am human and that that is the source of my morality. We are social animals. Morality existed long before we created gods. Being good is good for the group and benefits all members. We have no need for objective morality. Practical morality is good enough.
"Humanity" is a made up and pretty worthless concept.
So you believe in god because it makes you feel better about the world you live in?
I don’t think the world is supposed to be fair nor is there any reason it should be- and that’s a big thing to accept becoming an atheist. Maybe there is no divine purpose behind everything, but that’s okay. You say things are “meaningless” if god is not real - but in reality, meaning comes from within. Just cause there is no grand purpose doesn’t mean that life is without meaning, it just shifts it onto different things.
To value human well-being you've already assumed value. How would you prove that human well-being has objective value? You can't without God.
It doesn't have "objective value", yes. But who cares? I don't. I simply value it, and I'm fine with it being subjective, because my community also values human well-being.
@@enammemberseptember7366 Good for you. Subjective meaning is a luxury of the (relatively) rich, by and large, though.It's when suffering digs its heals in that objective meaning becomes most important, I think.
@@grantbartley483 No, it isn't. Judging from your name, you are American, if we assume you are an average American, you are MUCH richer than me. I live in South Africa, while I'm not poor (I literally have the Internet and have time to watch Christian vs Atheist videos on YT), I know MANY poor people, some of which my childhood friends, trust me, poor people don't GIVE A FVCK about the meaning of life at all (objective or subjective) .
They are too busy trying to survive and raise their kids. Thinking about the meaning of life at all shows that both of us are VERY privileged.
@@enammemberseptember7366 I don't disagree. Maybe I should say then that it's when rich people fall into suffering that they worry about objective meaning. I'm English.
@@enammemberseptember7366 you have to sneak in Catholicism to claim this.
2:47 If Sam renders the product of evolution to be his objective basis, then evolution occurring differently and leading to different moral rules doesn't make Sam's morality non-objective.
3:06 It doesn't necessarily follow that an atheist's morality is subjective. Sam's moral realism isn't the only possible moral realism. I'm fine though admitting that morality is subjective.
3:11 Yes, there is no binding factor for a psychopath, because they don't understand empathy. They don't understand, if they hurt someone else, that others are reasonable in hurting the psychopath, because he turns himself into a danger for everybody around him, if he doesn't care about another person's subjective suffering.
I have a perfect foundation to tell you that I don't want to be hurt by you. If you don't care about that, then please remain a Christian. You might as well be a psychopath.
The foundation for logic is that at least one pattern has been observed.
No, the foundation for logic is that it is meaningless to say that the same thing both is and is not at the same time in the same sense. (That's Aristotle's definition of a contradiction, btw.)
@@grantbartley483 That is an application of logic, not the foundation for it.
@@ChipsMcClive What do you mean?
@@grantbartley483 Saying that the concept of contradiction is the foundation for logic is like saying that a pawn can move 1 square forward from its position is the foundation for chess. The foundation for chess is steeped in the history that preceded its first game. The foundation for logic is steeped in history that preceded Aristotle.
@@ChipsMcClive True, there are different meanings to the word 'foundation'; maybe one would need to say what one means by it before trying to say what the foundation of logic is. One could with equal validity say that language is the foundation for logic, for without language, there can be no logic (and logos means word in Greek). Or minds are the foundation for logic... Etc. Thanks.
Objective Morality: There is no objective morality. If someone claims something is an objective moral, they are either wrong, or they mean something besides objective morality. Some label things like moral consensus, or generally agreed moral axioms as being objective. Though this is still just a form of subjective morality. Note that God's existence would not make morality objective, as God would still be subject of its subjective morality.
Induction, and solipsism: We don't know that reality is actually as we perceive it, or that the future will be like the past. But, it is useful to think and act like it is. If God did exist, it wouldn't change that. Even presupposing that we can know that God isn't part of the simulation. There's nothing contradictory about God existing, and being in a simulation. Likewise, there's no reason God couldn't make the future unlike the present, or create inconsistent physical laws.
Free will and the source of emotions: Again, we don't know if we have free will or not. But again, it's useful to think and act like we do. If our feelings are just chemical and physical, it doesn't stop our feelings from existing, and they're certainly difficult to deny. I've never known of even an ardent nihilist that's able to pretend they don't have feelings. This isn't something that is helped by invoking God (are you seeing a pattern here?). A nihilist could just as easily say they only love because they were programmed to, no better than a supernatural robot. Of course, you probably care about this just as much as an atheist cares about the evolutionary origins of their feelings.
Re: Morality: Natural law ethics avoids that.
Unwise people love using universal claims to disprove universal claims.
The issue of logic is an interesting one. First of all logic is not some property of the universe rather it is a mathematical framework which we base models off of that then produce predictions of the universe. So logic is not something that has to be assumed though that does not mean there are no implicit assumptions made when using logic practically so your point does stand. When making judgements about the universe or rather the stream of input we call the universe we need to translate that input into logical propositions which is where the subjectivity and arbitrariness comes in. This is basically just the problem of induction as induction is the extraction of propositions from analysing patterns in data. There is no reason for it to work but it seems it does. After all im typing this with a phone containing components produced through the application of this method countless times in different fields of study. A leap of faith must occur to form any theory that can make predictions about reality. We must simply take the leaps of faith that are the most practical and synergistic with existing systems. Furthermore i believe it is a bit odd that you seem to call this part of the atheistic worldview, these are assumptions every human makes and to exempt yourself from it would be a death sentence (you merely assume that the apple in front of you is edible because it has been every time, baseless induction)
Comment Feedback!
W
W
W
Deep jungle natives, human beings have also the knowledge of right and wrong ( The free will) Who taught them? Who gave them the free will? Surely, not evolution. It's inherited from the power soul, the image of God .
No, free will doesn't exist and yes, evolution as we know gave it to us to distinguish right from wrong, not that it is objectively outside of human perception good and evil, but rather so we don't hurt ourselves as a species so we follow the "natural path" that every species had, and you can theorize about how was behind evolution or what deity was behind it, but at the end of the day it's all a human perspective and reason was invented by humans to make sense of the world. Things are simply because they are.
If God is truly transcendent and all-powerful then we can never truly grasp the nature of God, humans imagine good as a giver of good and as a human figure. Aliens would probably imagine God as being in line with their morality depending on the environment they were raised in. Also, humans can definitely promote progress without a God, because God is really only used as a way for the gullible people to submit without any question really. Any smart person would know that we can never truly know the existence and/or nature of such God but still progress with an objective moral view.
The atheists I discuss with actually affirm subjectivism, and would self affirm themselves as a hedonist/nihilist
Cool, so this is one is quite easy. I'll respond in sequence as presented here.
1. The idea of objective morality for theism is a meaningless semantic trick. While we all agree that Sam Harris doesn't establish an objective morality, the concept of God doesn't get you any further. If what is good isn't determined by what God thinks, and nor is what God thinks is what determines good, then the only alternative is that the good is what God is or what God necessary possesses. However, this is a descriptive fact about God, and so no objective prescriptive derivations can be attained. To understand why this is a problem, consider the following: There exists an anti-god whose basic properties are equivalent to that of God, and only his moral nature differs. In this world, murder becomes good by virtue of the fact that anti-God endues as an objective standard. With this mirror image in mind, we still know intuitively that murder cannot be moral. On theism, though, good is just a synonym for God's moral nature, and so the nature of good is just what God is. This is why objective morality, on theism, is a meaningless word game. The fact that God is//has (moral attribute x) doesn't entail that god is a standard of anything, and it doesn't provide us with any reason for why we ought care.
2. You said that because evolution could have been different, any appeal to evolutionary morality can't be objective, and so I take that to mean that you, at least, need something that couldn't be different to count as an objective moral standard? So, this criteria could apply to a number of things, including an anti-God. And that's granting your criteria, which as of yet we have no reason to accept, it seems to me.
3. God doesn't provide you with a foundation of morality, or an objective ought, anymore than utilitarianism does. You still have to bootstrap goodness to both of these things before you can derive any objectivity. Your only justification, so far, for supposing that God's moral word is objectively true is to say that he/his word is necessary. Now, I guess utilitarianism isn't necessary, but, as we've seen, anti-God can be necessary, and anti-God isn't an objective standard of good. You need to explain, without semantic trickery, what properties your god has that make him a "standard" of "good", and show why we "ought" care.
4. Logic doesn't need to be anything prescriptive, and so it doesn't need a prescriber. The constants of logic are true in the sense that some sentences have a truth value. The actualization of logic is necessarily instantiated in things that exist, and so the universe is necessarily logical. To say that the universe requires a logic giver only adds further metaphysical cost.
5. Yes, it's possible that we are brains in the matrix movie, but you could also be a brain in the matrix believing there's a god. Non-argument.
6. A few things. First, you're conflating atheism with reductionism. Also, the fact that some things seem to work some way given some particular resolution (atomic level, for example), doesn't mean that, therefore, the atomic level governs a lower resolution level. That doesn't follow in any worldview, including atheism. A tornado can be reduced to air molecules. Hydrogen and Helium differ by one atom. It doesn't follow from this that the whole/function is reducible to the parts.
7. If determinism is true, it doesn't follow that the practical consequences of law, for example, shouldn't apply. Even in a libertarian view, we know that something like childhood abuse causes an increase the likelihood of criminality. Therefore, on either determinism of libertarianism, we need to enforce consequences.
8. Whether or not love is biochemical or not doesn't make it meaningless, whether or not it's down to evolutionary predispositions or a soul. That's just an assertion, a non-sequitur, and a proposition void of evidence, just like every other point you've made here tonight.
Bonus: I suggest you read the counterarguments to all of your views. I know your arguments very well. You, however, don't seem to know any of the good counterarguments. Decent atheist philosophers, such as Graham Oppy, aren't appealing to evolution or Sam Harris. I'm going to assume that you've had your head stuck in the sand, and that you're not deliberately infantilising the atheist position.
1.1) Appealing to an unproven, hidden conscious entity does not make morality any more objective. God is a subject, so even if He gives moral codes to humans, they are by definition subjective.
1.2) What is right or wrong cannot be justified rationally because morality is based not on reason but on sentiments and emotions, which in turn are based on neurobiology. We share similar moral values because we have similar nervous systems.
2.1) The foundation of logic and causality involves defining concepts and gathering data, respectively.
1) Dogs can bark.
2) Meeka is a dog.
3) Therefore, Meeka can bark.
See... it's not a matter of opinion, nor of evidence, but of definition. No god is needed.
3.1) Claiming that atheism denies free will is a strawman argument. Atheism has nothing to do with free will.
3.2) Saying "doing something immoral being predetermined implies it is meaningless" and "loving being predetermined implies it is meaningless" are non sequiturs.
3.3) Imagine someone loves you for some reasons or causes. That love is not a free choice then. No one can choose a specific emotion to feel at a specific time. If we could, then we would be able to eat something repulsive by changing our negative emotion or attitude towards eating it to a positive one.
3.4) Also, imagine someone loves you with completely zero reason or cause. Even then, it is not free because it happens randomly, not by choice. It would be even more dangerous than determined love because if someone can love you without reason, then they can also love others randomly or without reason, out of control.
And there it is again.
It took only 1 minute to misrepresent atheism (it’s not a worldview).
Why are there no theists in existence that can make an actual argument against atheism WITHOUT straw manning it first 🤷♂️
Look at the pinned comment. You may not think it’s a worldview, but to simply say that you are an athiest requires principles such as logic, metaphysics, ect… These principles are what make up a world view.
@@SanctusApologetics Why is this so difficult for theists?
Atheism IS part of a worldview.
Atheism IS NOT a worldview.
Why can’t theists be honest about that?
Oh right…if they were honest about it they would be left with the burden of proof.
And they don’t have any.
@@SanctusApologetics Eh... no. As Atheism is about only one topic... the existence of any deities. There is nothing else that distinguishes theists and theists. They could have a plethora of different worldviews.... they only share one thing, the disbelief in a god.
Logic and metaphysics are irrelevant here.
@@Wmeester1971 Atheism implies that logic exists because if it didn’t then the phrase “I am an Atheist.” wouldn’t be possible, because it implies that it is a logical statement….
@@SanctusApologetics "Atheism implies that logic exists".
Really?
Logic exists, just like earth and the universe exist. It however has bearing on the position of atheism or theism for that matter.
As far as I mostly agree with you, there's a point that I don't. Duns Scotus wrote that the law of nature can be changed by God - He simply needs to say 'fiat' and killing your neighbour will be right and abstaining from doing so - not right. The only natural law principle that cannot be changed is the commandment to love God. Ockham on the other hand stated even this principle can be changed and a new commandment - to hate God would be right if God decided to. So, to conclude, the morality itself is objective because it comes from God but it can be changed.
Christian morality is no less subjective. Do you like pain or pleasure? Do you prefer an eternity of pain or an eternity of pleasure?
W
W
Logic and existence by definition are the attribute of god 😊
Not sure if I follow
This video is based on a misinterpretation of what atheism is.
It’s not a worldview, or a foundation for morality, or even a belief system.
All that atheism is, is merely not being convinced that a god exists.
There are atheists from all walks of life that have different beliefs, morals, etc. so atheism is irrelevant to those subjects. 🤷
I disagree, metaphysical claims such that God doesn’t not exist, entails metaphysical and metalogical consequences. To say God does not exist is to seize to have a foundation to logic, morality ect… So your conclusion that God does not exist in turn affects your whole world view and anyone that claims atheism/ secularism. I’m simply showing the consequences of any atheists world view, doesn’t matter your walk of life or philosophy.
Atheism absolutly is a proposition, to say atheism isn´t suposed to account for morals, metaphysics etc. (which is right) doesn´t change that Atheism can´t justify these things despite atheists appealing to these things, so this comment is missing the critic.
@@SanctusApologetics you seem to be pretty damn dishonest actually. 🤷
@@Dreamcaster06 it’s not that is “isn’t supposed to”, it’s that it literally doesn’t, because it’s only a response to theistic claims.
Theists claim that a god exists. All that atheism is, is not being convinced of that claim. That’s it. Sorry not sorry that you cannot fathom that truth? 🤷🤷🤷
@apersonontheinternet8354
The guy: gives a detailed response answering your objection
You: nuh uh, you're dishonest
I have a much more optimistic understanding of Atheism.
Hume only argued that we have no a priori reason to believe in regularities in the world. He still pointed out that we do believe in regularities because we are simply built that way. Our brains see regularities, and naturally begin to expect them in the future. He was pointing out how weird it was that there was no a prioristic or demonstrative reason for this, and that it came down to this "habit of the mind".
In the same way, Nietzsche pointed out how weird it was that there is no objective basis to morality.
On Freedom, Hume did believe we are free - the word freedom would not have any meaning if we werent free. When presented with simple choices in life, we do choose, freely, and that is just what freedom means. We are a product of physical processes, but that is compatible with freedom, many atheistic philosophers have argued this.
Evolution is also a weird thing that explains a lot of human behaviour but by no means all of it. We are also explained by our culture, our beliefs, our desires to express ourselves, and these are up to us to choose.
The tradition of atheism is far from only nihilistic. Some of it might be nihilistic, but thinkers like Hume and Nietzsche are doing something far more virtuous. It is a corageous realisation and facing of facts. We are made of atoms, there was an evolutionary process that shaped us, we do not have grounding for morality. These are facts, and it took great courage to face this and make sense of it. We are still making sense of it. What we do from here is up to us, we are still writing history, but having a clear understanding of things is the first step.
Yeah, it sucks when you don't know the meaning of life, how the universe came to be, or what happens after you die. That's why people have came up with their own explanations through religion. As an atheist, this is why I believe religion is good thing, despite its untruthfulness. Morality is based on the behaviors of our tribal ancestors who stayed in groups, looked out for each other, and kept each other alive. Of course killing is bad in that scenario, because it would mean the end of your loved ones and ultimately your species. Each person has their own morals once they grow and obtain rational thinking, which can be warped through their experiences in life and what they've been taught. Morality has changed over time even for religious people. I hope this clears up why atheism isn't as delusional as you might think 😂
All of these “problems” are present in religion as well.
I am technically not an atheist and am an agnostic. That is to say, I have no idea whether or not god is real, but it know for a fact that none of the gods proposed exists based on the evidence provided. But, I completely agree with this video, you bring up interesting philosophical points, however it doesn't expose any delusion in atheism.
Then clearly you didn't pay attention
Name of second song?
These were my burning questions that led me from atheism to agnostic, to then Christ ❤️
Me a Hindu ascetic: inb4 shitstorm between religious people and ardent Atheists.
If I had to pick a religion to follow I would pick Hinduism.
@@eddardstark5034 Why? Genuinely Curious.
@@eddardstark5034 yes and than follow caste system and reincarnate as a pig.
@@eddardstark5034 and than follow caste system
@@soLevels he probably like caste system
There's a huge difference between personal well-being and doing whatever feels good or comfortable.
Working out may be uncomfortable or painful, but we know it's healthy. Just as we know, eating good tasting sugary food and smoking may make us feel good or calming, but we know it's bad for us.
It works the same way with morality. Keeping good morals feels uncomfortable and uneasy a lot of the time, but ultimately, it's both good for yourself and/or others. Whereas bad morality may feel good but are typically selfish and harmful for yourself and/or others.
What makes ”good” morality good, and what makes ”bad” morality bad? Or is this just subjective. According to atheism there is no higher authority who decides what is truly good/bad, right/wrong, moral/immoral. Can you show me a scientific study showing what good and bad morals are? Obviously this is completely subjective to the individual mind, and if there is no higher mind then there is no standard if morals.
Great video, but the sound was a little low!
Christian:"The truth is scary and I don't like it!"
Atheist: "If its the truth its the truth."
Christian: "How can you say that do you want their to be no meaning to your life!"
Atheist: "That sounds like your opinion to me buddy."
Christian: "..."
Atheist: ᕦ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)ᕤ
Huh
What
Bro had a convo w himself
@@paxcity Beats having them with Christians might as well talk to a wall.
5:44 Why does it become meaningless?
Morality has clear Christian roots, but is not limited to them, as it could've also been the result of evolutionary psychology. In other words - doing what's best for the survival of the tribe.
About your point about what Sam said - why or how human wellbeing is virtuous - again, what's best for the society you live in (best meaning its long term survival), which includes both the physical and the psychological dimensions.
Also, where did it come from if not from humans? If you're trying to explain God as A being (as opposed to "being" itself), you've already lost the argument, since there is no such creature in space and time.
Maybe focus on some of Sam's other points, like when he made the point that Abolitionists acted in spite of the texts (since the Bible and all religious texts clearly condone slavery), not because of them, in their efforts to free the slaves.
What about the murder of "witches" or homosexuals? Will you make the same argument that Muslims make - "just a few bad apples" or are you going to admit (to yourself) that these people were immoral despite having access to what you'd refer as "your moral guide"?
Was the genocide of the Amalekites a moral thing to do or not?
Was the Catholic church's support of the Nazis moral or not?
It's not for everyone and it has questionable, bizarre and, in some cases, barbaric texts which don't belong in the minds of people living in the 21st century.
That being said - I don't like the way things are going. It would seem that faithlessness is turning out to be a bad solution. That doesn't prove the Bible right, just proves the "New Atheist Movement" wrong (not factually), or at least wrong in the sense of the consequences of "freeing those minds". Now they've got gender and race as their gods...
Apply the Socratic method to what you think (without being biased, I mean, it wouldn't mean anything if you're biased and you know you are :D) and believe and see what you end up with.
Love the new philosophy content!
You started with atheism leaves free will moralty and purpose all thing that don’t exist universe is amoral and just is
Great video, common sense goes past even the most educated
Don't just quote Nietzsche! Read him!
" The fool says in his heart, ' There is no God ' " ( Psalm 14:1, 53:1). The screed of the nonsensical Atheist. And for UA-cam dispatching AntiChristian, AntiChrist , Anti-Catholic Trolls desiring debate by commenting on My Comments, Do NOT even remotely bother Me, because, I Myself WILL NOT respond to such malarkey. 🇺🇸🇺🇲❤️🇻🇦🇻🇦✝️☦️🌫️🌎🛐🙏⛪📖🕊️👼😇‼️
This is just a bad video,you shouldve spent more time actually learning about atheism than taking sam harris debates.First off,nobody claims divine objectivity,atheist claim that subjectivity of the mass becomes objectivity until disrpoven by a rational argument,meaning that it is wrong to kill,because killing is seen as bad by most people,and we do NOT need religion for this,just emotions(emotivism) and clear mind.Second thing is that you straw man atheist logic and science using hume who is outdated,science is based on observing outcomes,and outcome which happens under every testing becomes a law,on that we base our logic,if I throw stone at glass I know it won’t float based on umderstanding of gravity which has been tested and proven to happen in 100% cases.As for free will,thats for some athiests,but even then,you again mix religion and atheism,most of athiests would put a killer into prison just so he doesnt continiue making crimes,and not to punish him,while religion teaches that he should be punished,if not by human,then by a god.Also solipism was debunked,again you use outdated concepts,but even if its not it still disproves religion and proves atheism.
Also none od these claims disprove atheism,they just try to disprove its pragmaticality
He is not disproving Atheism he is just saying atheism doesn't promote progress
If thats the truth though, shouldnt we accept this nihilistic view of the world then?
Sanctus you are wrong because the bible is not objective the bible is made by the limitations of human lenguage and the errors that humans did and that ends up making even new religions that came out of the bible and different version of the bible meaning that the etich and moral from the bible is made from humans not from God himsefl and sence we perceve everything with the body not soul then God lied about he creating the universe if that is the truth making every religious person a atheist and practically free will was never a thing with the body even of we accept the bible or believe in it we don't have free will with the body.
Meaning that if I believe in the bible I'm reliant on the bible not me every religios person is just a atheist.
And even more if people don't have evidence because if peopoe don't evidence then is not true still making every religios person a atheist.
And sence the bible have errors and with does erros lied then we can't truts in something that lied because if it have even just one error the all the bible can be a error well and it is because it haves errors.
I base my morality on suffering. If a life form is suffering against their will then it's immoral that they are. And if they're not suffering against their will then it's not immoral that they are. And I know that it's immoral to force another life form into the type of existence where they will suffer against their will because they might not want to suffer at all and that's why it's immoral to force them into existence and that's why I'm an antinatalist. And if no life forms existed at all then that would be just fine because then no life form would know or care that they didn't exist.
Then is it moral to allow people to cause themselves or others suffering? Because if you stop them against their will they will suffer.
@@Theboar2 it's immoral for anyone to cause another life form to suffer against their will and it's not immoral for anyone to cause themselves to suffer, just as long as their suffering doesn't cause another life form to suffer against their will.
@@Theboar2 it would be best if no life forms existed at all because then no life form would suffer against their will.
@@AnonymousWon-uu5yn But that wasn’t the question. Is it immoral to allow suffering if you can stop it? Because I would say that what is moral is that which causes the least amount of suffering for me and those I care about in the long run because if I allow my child to only eat candy even if I don’t cause him any suffering I’m still a bad parent. Wouldn’t it be right to take away his candy even if he will get sad and suffer for a bit?
@@Theboar2 it is immoral to have children because it is immoral to force a life form into the type of existence where they will suffer against their will.
In my experience.. atheists cannot tell the difference between Nature and God.. I tried removing the word - NATURE - from the dictionary definitions of Nature.. and the definitions become ambiguous.. So we don't see things as they are... we see things as we are.. and atheists saw - God - in the dictionary definitions of Nature.. just as others might do too..
The Bible also employs ambiguous terms in the same way.. so it can speak both to the foolish.. and the wise.. in the same sentence.. just as there are two ways of understanding what is written below.. With the word NATURE removed.. it becomes a possible definition for the word GOD too.. I tried it out in forums.. The response it had on atheists was interesting.. They respond to it exactly as they respond to the word GOD.. Just goes to show.. it's all in the Mind..
What do you think.. when I remove the word NATURE from the dictionaries definition below.... is this referring to God.. or to Nature.. or is it no longer clear..?
“A creative and controlling FORCE affecting the world and humans. - Personification of the Power or Force that seems to regulate the physical universe - A personification of the Force as a controlling and regulating maternal being, sometimes creative and caring. It can also be viewed as the generous provider of all things....” or - “the Force that is responsible for physical life and that is sometimes spoken of as a person: It refers to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. It ranges in scale from the subatomic to the cosmic. the sum total of all things in time and space; The entire physical universe - The power, force, principle, etc. that seems to regulate the physical universe often personified,”
This is another definition of nature.. I put together from many sources.. that also sounds a lot like God.. Again it is ambiguous..
The Sum of ALL natural Processes - The Ground of ALL Being - Omnipresence, the Supreme.. or Ultimate.. Reality. The Creative and Controlling Force in the Universe - The Life Force - The Force regarded as causing and regulating the Phenomena of the World by the Universal Laws - It is both Outside.. and Inside.. Space-Time. Not subject to the cycle of Birth and Death - The Ultimate, the Absolute, Infinite and Eternal….. ENERGY and FORCE…
BUT.. What line of reasoning suggests.. this FORCE does not exist?
CAN ANYONE TELL ME..?
OK.. back to watching Star Wars on the telly.. in order to further my religious education..
I came across some quotes from Atheist Richard Feynman.. concerning the wonders he saw in Nature..
He inspired me to make a comparison between concepts like.. God and Nature..
So.. I inserted (or GOD) ... to make the comparison clear.. and to demonstrate how GOD and NATURE.. can mean the same.. and even atheists agree.. it seems..
I found some atheists in a forum.. who were only too willing to confirm this.. even if it was unintentional.. and unwilling.. on their part.. They had no doubts.. that the definition I was presenting to them.. was a definition of God.................. That it could be a definition of Nature.. never even entered into their mind..
Notice how Richard Feynman refers to Nature as - SHE - giving it a human personification.. as the writers of the Books of the Bible do.. when they speak of the Animating Force.. that some might call GOD.. as a... HE.. rather than as an.. IT.
Of course it is intended to be understood metaphorically.. It's the language of the poets.. and should NOT be taken literally..
Richard Feynman wrote.. “Nature (or God) uses only the longest threads to weave her patterns, so that each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization of the entire tapestry.”
“I think nature's (or God’s) imagination Is so much greater than man's, she's never going to let us relax”
“Nature (or God) has a great simplicity and therefore a great beauty”
Since an atheist cannot distinguish between concepts like NATURE and GOD.. Can we take it as a fact.. they mean the same..?.
And this only leaves us with the question..
Does the FORCE of Nature exist?
AND.. that is an easy question to answer.. isn't it?
While the really hard question is..
“Why Nature is mathematical is, again, a mystery.” uttered Richard Feynman..
"From the intrinsic evidence of His Creation, the Great Architect of the Universe now begins to appear as a pure mathematician." - “The universe can best be pictured as consisting of pure thought, the thought of what for want of a better word we must describe as a mathematical thinker.”
- concluded.. James Jean
“
On a fundamental level, you are egregiously wrong.
Nature exists in the natural world, and hence reality.
Your god is nowhere to be found in the natural world, hence not a part of reality.
Hard to get them mixed up. One can either examine it or one cannot.
Simply replacing nature with god does nothing to bring a god into existence, especially if it cannot be defined coherently or in a meaningful way different than nature.
Atheists have no problem separating the two, it appears the conflict is a you problem, not an atheist problem.
@er-zv1bj Well my friend.. if you can be specific concerning the evidence you would like me to provide.. I will try my best to please you..
IF.. by - evidence - you mean... Evidence that the the concepts of God.. and Nature.. can be seen to be almost the same..
Isn’t it by means of MATHEMATICS.. that the evidence of the - PURE THOUGHT - that governs our universe.. is revealed..as fact.. ?
“The Highest form of PURE THOUGHT is in mathematics.” - said Plato
“I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favour of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter ARE NOT PHYSICAL OBJECTS in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.” - wrote Werner Heisenberg
“The stream of human knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality. The universe begins to look more like a Great Thought than a great machine. MIND no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter. We are beginning to suspect that we ought rather to hail it as the CREATOR and GOVERNNOR of this Realm.” -
"From the intrinsic evidence of his creation, the Great Architect of the Universe now begins to appear as a PURE MATHEMATICIAN." - “The universe can best be pictured as consisting of PURE THOUGHT, the thought of what for want of a better word we must describe as a MATHEMATICAL THINKER.”
..was proposed by Sir James Jeans
AND.. “Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine.” - Sir Arthur Eddington exclaimed…
While Freeman Dyson added.. "Mind and intelligence are woven into the fabric of our universe in a way that altogether surpasses our understanding.”
Dyson was a theoretical physicist and mathematician known for his works in quantum field theory, astrophysics, random matrices, mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics, condensed matter physics, nuclear physics, and engineering.
Is this the sort of evidence you are seeking.. ?
I you want more.. feel free to ask...
"One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened REALITY is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams." - remarked Salvador Dali
To which Buddha responded..
“We live in illusion and the appearance of things. There is a reality. WE ARE THAT REALITY!
When you understand this, you see that you are nothing, and being nothing.... YOU ARE EVERYTHING!
That is all.” ― said Buddha
“God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that.” ..added Joseph Campbell
AND here is the Evidence.. When Eric Clapton met Jimi Hendrix..
ua-cam.com/video/KPJgtQwtVVA/v-deo.html
*
The issue is one of the tangible, the concrete. Nature is a word we use to describe phenomena that we regularly observe. God, by contrast, is nebulous, open to interpretation and not clearly existent in the same way as nature.
@britt3371 RESPONSE TO - "Nature exists in the natural world, and hence reality. "
The concept of - nature - does NOT exist in the natural world.. It is a concept invented by humans.. as a means to better understand.. and communicate their experiences in words.. so in what sense.. is it different to the concept of God..? Since both are concepts representing a mysterious FORCE.. that arises from the Infinite.. and is far beyond our understanding..
As for reality.. it is all in our minds.. It is a mental image of the world around us.. generated by the brain.. that is different for everyone. We see things not as they are but as we are.. We create reality.. and reality.. as we know it... could not exist with out us.. that's a fact.
Further than the eye can see.. and even further than the mind can imagine.. IT is all part of you.. Isn't that true..?
According to science.. Everything is connected.. and we are a part of a far greater WHOLENESS.. that is Infinite and Timeless?
OUR sense of separateness is an illusion..
“We live in illusion and the appearance of things. There is a reality. WE ARE THAT REALITY. When you understand this, you see that you are nothing, and being nothing, YOU ARE EVERYTHING.
That is all.” ― said Buddha..
"One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened REALITY is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams." - remarked Salvador Dali
RESPONSE TO - "Your god is nowhere to be found in the natural world, "
That perception would change.. if we started thinking in terms of the Infinite.. and our relationship to it..
"Is it not written in your Law, `I said: "YOU ARE GODS?” .. asked Jesus.. quoting Psalms 82:5..
If we are gods.. How can you claim.. "Your god is nowhere to be found in the natural world, ".. when it is obviously wrong..
The god-man concept is an ancient philosophical understanding..
We have the god-man that was spoken of by Friedrich Nietzsche… the The Übermensch - ("Beyond-Man")
“Every church is a stone.. On the grave of a god-man: It does not want him to rise up again.. under any circumstances.”
Simply a concept that we are a part of something far greater than ourselves.. and we could become far greater than we are presenly..
Nothing supernatural about that.. and it is obvious to many people.
Yours is the atheist's way of seeing things.. it is their belief.. but we don't all see the same.. it would be a nightmare if we did..
Nature.. or God.. if one is religious.. loves diversity.. so.. thank god for atheists..
Pantheism is the belief that God and the universe are the same things rather than separate things. In other words.. 'God is ALL, and ALL is God.
However.. I tend to think outside of the universe.. The Infinite is much more interesting to me..
"The source and limit and the constitution of all things is God. " - Corpus Hemeticum tells us..
So how can the - "The source and limit and the constitution of all things" - not be part of reality..?
”Science is reticent too when it is a question of the great Unity - the One of Parmenides - of which we all somehow form part, to which we all belong. The most popular name for it in our time is God - with a capital ‘G’ -
Source - Erwin Schroedinger.. "The - I - that is God'” & 'The Oneness of Mind'
"God is a metaphor for THAT which transcends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that.” - added Joseph Campbell
And.. THAT which transcends all levels of intellectual thought.. exists.. We can be 100% sure of that... Einstein said so.. so it must be true..
"To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is SOMETHING THAT OUR MIND CAN NOT GRASP and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious."
"That deep emotional conviction of the presence of A SUPERIOR REASONING POWER, which is revealed in the INCOMPREHENSIBLE UNIVERSE, forms my idea of God."
“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."
So.. God.. just like nature.. is a human concept.. concerning the Animating FORCE.. not a man in the sky..
If you choose to call the animating force.. NATURE.. Then why shouldn't others call the same force.. God.. ?
Here's a challenge.. could you tell me what YOU believe the word God refers to.. and show me the evidence that supports your understanding.. ?
I don't believe you can answer this question.. but you are welcome to prove me wrong..
*
The Old Testament of Moses.. along with the theist god concept that accompanied it.. was made obsolete by the New Testament.. because it was seen to be full of faults.. meaning the writers of the New testament.. and the prophets who came after Moses.. knew the god concept of Moses was not real.. because it it had been the real thing.. they would not have criticized the Old testament so harshly.. They tore it to bits.. taking entire religions with it.. but no one wants to talk about this.. because it is not politically correct.. it seems.. but it is true.. The writers of the Bible did things that Richard Dawkins could only dream about..
The problem was.. and always has been.. people never listen.. and so Revelation tells us.. The Beast recovered from the Sword Stroke (the tongue of Christ).. Do you fancy having another go?
So.. there was never any supernatural beings to disbelieve in the first place.. since the Bible teaches YOU ARE GODS.. No miracles either just allegory and metaphors.. and I can prove that easily.... However.. you are free to disagree..
"Certainly, then, there occurs a setting aside of the proceeding commandment on account of its weakness and ineffectiveness.” - ”For if the first covenant had been faultless. No place would have been sought for a second." - “"But their mental powers were dulled. For to this present day the same veil remains uplifted at the reading of the old covenant, because it is DONE AWAY WITH by means of Christ. In fact, down till today whenever Moses is read, a veil lies upon their hearts."
I REST MY CASE.. the god concept of the Old Testament died.. more than 2000 years ago.. only atheists and theists are keeping it alive.. why don't you just let it die?
You would probably call the writers of the Bible atheists.. because they artfully re-defined the god concept into - the Spirit of Loving kindness.. Righteousness.. Justice.. Peace.. Wisdom.. Truth and Freedom.. that either exists.. or does not exist.. in human hearts and minds.. so labels like theist.. and atheist.. are no longer relevant.. the god concept has moved on.. just as everything moves on eventually.. it is just many did not see it.. they were - metaphorically speaking .. deaf dumb and blind.. There were no miracles or supernatural beings.. to disbelieve in... just wild imaginings.. based on false assumptions..
“They have not known, and they do not understand; In darkness they keep walking about; All the foundations of the earth are made to totter. I myself have said, 'YOU ARE GODS , And ALL of you are sons of the Most High.” - wrote the poet David in Psalms 82:5
Jesus was leading by example when he became the god man.. and Nietzsche.. proclaimed the very same prophetic message.. His anti-christ rant was just a wind up.. because he hated religion.. as did Jesus.. and many others..
“Every church is a stone.. On the grave of a god-man: It does not want him to rise up again.. under any circumstances.” - The Übermensch - ("Beyond-Man")
- by Friedrich Nietzsche
@er-zv1bj "WROTE - "The question is whether a noun is a concrete noun that is rooted in experience""
Do you mean.. like this.. caught on video.. Jimi Hendrix Experience.. its a perfect example of a god man..
Jesus and Nietzsche would have been proud of Jimi.. because he went far beyond the rest of us.. and became god-like.. in the eyes of the world..
When Eric Clapton met Jimi Hendrix... Isn't this concrete enough?
ua-cam.com/video/KPJgtQwtVVA/v-deo.html
*
Well if you're going to bring brussel sprouts into this, that just changes everything!! 😂. ✝️ ❤
If what we perceive through our senses is verifiable information that can be confirmed by others and can be tested by others, then it is a part of reality. But if your experience of reality is altered (ie being drunk or high) and you encounter something that cannot be confirmed or tested by others, then it most likely isn’t a part of reality.
Can you confirm the existence of other without appealing to that very same empirical data
How is it verifiable if we can't trust our senses or so called intellect? What we perceive via our senses and try to evaluate cannot be verifiable. Who are these 'others' anyway? Others with fallible senses and minds.
who are you to say that the reality we perceive isn't an illusory filtration of external sense data?
@@marcokite I’m not the one saying we can’t trust our senses, you are. What is real and factual can be observed by everyone and test by anyone.
@@Dreamcaster06 I don’t understand what you’re trying to ask, sorry.
There is definitely free will, this is ofc anecdotal and maybe long-winded for some, but there is still a point to it; so in all my life i never committed a serious crime, but here now in my later my twenties i fell away and did some bad things i.e theft and fencing it for some time, but i stopped as i knew it was sinful i could feel it in my essence other than in my rational, but now lets say i was predisposed i would've been because i was a troubled child/delinquent etc, but i wasn't i did it with own free will, and i stopped with my own free will and with the grace of God. ☦
At least in the circles I happen across, this doesn’t disprove their “there’s no free will” claim.
if god exists it's incompetent or not all powerful, that is, is not a god. This follows by the simple logic that if it was a god, everything would be perfect, no one and nothing would need to die or suffer. Since perfection does not exist, it demonstrates god is incapable of perfection, and therefore, it's not a god, fir sure, not in the sense we give it to the word.
If you want to make the argument that we don't know what perfection is or what the reasons for things to happen are, that is irrelevant, if god was capable of perfection it would expressed as perfect for anything and every body, because it would not matter, it would achieve the result it wanted regardless, because it is omnipotent.
Free will is also another argument that makes zero sense with a god, because everything is done by god's will so there isn't a choice and there isn't a good or a bad, what happens is all god's nonsense, nothing else.
@@WilliamSanderson86 all nonsense, there is no valid counter argument for when something is declared omnipotent, when it's omnipotent nothing is outside its capabilities. If it is uncoerced love it wants, it just creates that dimension and makes it real, because nothing is outside its power. The issue of real, coerced does not even exist
@@WilliamSanderson86 what you are describing is an imperfect god, and therefore, not a god. An engineer maybe, but not a god
istg this video is a masterpiece i hope you become a gr8 life and after-life
YOOOOOOO sanctus face reveal
Good stuff.
3:19
You presuppose that beleiving in objective morality would be an atheists position. This is not necessarily the case.
Regardless, moral oughts cannot be derived from 'is' statements. This is humes guilotine.
3:34
Preference for coffee is not a moral question or statement. The question is completely amoral unless your own sense of morality dictates goodness based on coffee consumption. Since youre presupposing objective morality then the coffee question doesnt make any sense since it wouldnt be a moral question while killing preference would be.
This video is painfully stupid.
You only committed ≈ten clear logical fallacies, I was expecting much more. Before organized religion, our ancestors overcame the odds of survival by trusting their senses for ≈295,000 years. You want me to put my trust in an idea that has only existed for a few thousand years instead of reason, empathy, and social good? You don't need a theistic foundation to be a good person, If you're only good because of a theistic foundation then you need help.
Atheism seems to stem from a form of existentialism.
If there is no inherent meaning to life, no objective morality, then any claim to morality is something emerging from human desire, and does not actually apply to the world we inhabit, if there even is a world to begin with.
Essentialism comes across as theism in a way.
The inherent meaning that bestows order to all things is basically God, as God has been described in various monotheistic religions.
Atheism in this sense is moral relativism, which leads to anarchy, of morals and of logic as well.
Completely wrong. If you have defined atheism by his misrepresentation of it, you may be able to twist this sort of conclusion from it. But you have to presuppose he hasn't misrepresented what it is. And he has misrepresented atheism. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god, due to lack of evidence for that god.
Moral relativism can arise from a state of atheism, but it doesn't always; many atheists are moral absolutists, they just don't believe that morality came from your god. Many atheists also believe there is meaning to life outside of their own assigned meanings, again, they just don't believe your god assigned it meaning. And in any case, moral relativism is in no way whatsoever indicative of a lack of morals, it is simply the position that morality is a process of the mind that arose naturally from cooperative instincts, and can be refined and defined by the human mind, usually via empathy and sympathy, and that it can be applied to different degrees depending on the need. Let me ask you this: have you ever sat on a jury? Have you ever had to mitigate a punishment or sentence based on the circumstances of an act, and/or in light of an individual's personal history? Have you ever had to choose between the wants or happinesses of two different people? Then you've exercised moral relativism. I'd wager you exercise it every day.
A vast majority of human beings, atheist or otherwise, strive to give their lives (and the lives of others) meaning, and a vast majority of people, including the vast majority of atheists, consider the lives of others to be valuable. Your notion that it is otherwise is kind of gross, actually. You have zero evidence to believe that. I know a lot of atheists. Almost all of us are completely logical people (that's why we're atheists; logic dictates we cannot believe in what cannot be proven), none of us is an anarchist, all of us are moral people, some of us are extremely involved in the well being of others. Shame on you for your denigration of people you don't know, and yes, for your LACK OF FAITH in your fellow human beings.
typical theist. None of the claims made in this video are substantiated by facts or further logic. The creator of this video has clearly been raised under a preconceived notion that God is real, and has made no attempts to be sceptical about that “fact”. Logical fallacies riddle this video like a disease.
Morality is about minimizing conflict, not for nothing, it's the foundation of the legal systems, nothing else. In fact morality changes with time, and it does not deal with a track load of issues, as a consequence, it misses 4 times out of 10 to give you the right answer.
My employer says "not for nothing" a lot. Often, he adds "ol boy" at the end. I like the phrase. That is all, good day.
GG
An argument can be made to every sentence in this video: “You just explained a few alternative beliefs, why are you saying they all follow this single cherry pick”
I find it mildly humorous that you suppose that morality is not objective because it depends on an individual's subjective view of morality, but at the same time, apologists such as yourself purport that even though there is no concrete, definitive and objective proof of God, and I use the word objective to mean that God exists independently of our perception of him, that he still exists. No, he exists in your mind and you haven't proved that otherwise. If in the future, we meet an advanced civilization, and they happen to have a record that describes a God identical to the God of western religions, ok, maybe you guys would be on to something. At the very least that would strongly support the idea that the God that we are familiar with does not rely on our existence and it would therefore be more likely that such an entity exists. I know many of your religious followers reading this will snap back with, "well morality can't exist without God." Just know that this syllogism is inherently entheymemic, meaning it suppress the minor premise namely: morality as we understand it depends on the existence of a supernatural being. Because it is entheymemic, it does not reach a necessary conclusion. You must first prove that 1) a supernatural being can exist and 2) that without the existence of a supernatural being, morality cannot exist. Rather than do either, you simply state that God exists (without proof his existence) and therefore morality must exist. Based on what?
The reason for my atheism is because. Heaven sounds horrifying, and at least in hell i shall keep my individuality. And if god doesnt exist then YAY! I can rot in peace, i hope my story ends when my heart stops beating and i want to remain there in soul and body amongst the grass and wind.
why does heaven sound horrifying to you?
Your arguments about objectivity are semantics. If you see a person standing in the street, are they standing? From your perspective yes, but from a spaceship looking at the Earth moving, and the person moving with it? The frame of reference changes. So when these atheists speak of objectivity being based on society which evolved and humans which evolved, they are correct, because they speak in a context of the current frame of reference. In the current day and age, we know what is objectively moral and what is not, and how this morality was established is irrelevant for this argument.
Of course, what YOU are looking for here is absolute objective morality, which, let's be frank, does not exist. Even if you argue that God is the one making the rules ... God both demands "do not kill", but then does some killing himself, and has killed in the past both indirectly and directly - my most hated example being the innocent firstborns of Egypt. Unless that didn't happen, but then we're cherry-picking ...
If a person is standing in the streets the person is standing in the streets, it doesn’t matter how other people see it. It doesn’t matter if the earth is moving, it does not change the fact that the person is standing in the street. There is objective reality no matter how you view it.
If God makes laws regarding conduct and ethics these are still subjective in a way, but they hold infinitely more weight than ethics and customs subjective to individual humans. Why should God follow the laws and rules he imposes on humans? This makes zero sense. He imposes laws and rules upon every living creature: the birds act as they are supposed to, the dogs act as they are supposed to, man acts as he is supposed to. God does not have to abide by any rule or law. God does as he wants, he does not need to follow anything anyone dare try to impose upon him, he is completely independant, but he does impose laws and rules uppn creation.
@@chairman3427 correct, points in favor of absolute objective morality not existing. Hence the arguing how atheists here don't have an objective foundation for morality is moot. We base our morality on "societal evolution" or "God's commands" is equally subjective.
@@chairman3427 "standing" and "not moving", is semantics. "subjective in a way" is still "subjective". Your comment only helps illustrate that there is no difference in the objectivity of morality of atheist and non-atheists.
@@k0v4c of course it is semantics, like trying to define any other word. If a person is standing, they are standing, it is not any more subjective as the shared ”objective” world amongst humans is subjective. A person can stand on a train and be moving, that does not negate the fact that the person is standing still.
Morality can never be truly objective, as any person can chose to deny any moral code, but in atheism there is no moral code that should logically be elevated above the rest, and that should be applied universally. There is no reason for somebody like Jeffrey Dahmer to logically adopt my morals on atheism, because all forms of morality would be the same. From a theistic perspective there is a perfect authority to give moral laws to humanity, and this creates a hierarchy between the ethics between different people, and a logical conclusion to the morality that shoule be applied to universally in all peoples can be logically decided.
@@chairman3427 I understand that perhaps you and others may see there is a distinction in value when the morality is put forward by a deity as opposed to being put forward by people ... however, ultimately it comes down to consensus. Are we accepting these morals or not.
There is no hierarchy of value. There is no divine morals and other morals. Something is either moral or it isn't. And it's up to us, humans, to decide and accept or reject.
If it were not so, we could have a God declaring murder as moral, and if we had other people saying murder is not moral, the followers of this God would simply claim superiority in hierarchy of morals, and freely murder people.
Well, looking at Sam Harris for an account of objective morality without religion is a pretty bad place to try to start.
This young man has some growing up in the Universe to do.
Another Christianity propaganda Chennai
This is good
Respectfully, this is brain rot. I'm not going to write a whole essay but yes morality is subjective and even if you believe in god I would still say its subjective. Morality being subjective doesn't mean morality doesn't exist. I agree with the second chapter in some ways but don't understand how this is an actual case against Atheism. I believe Free will is an illusion but in order to explain this I would need to write a lot.