If an apologist claims you can't justify objective morality under atheism, the solution isn't to try to come up with a way. Rather it's to demonstrate that you can't have objective justification under either perspective. If an apologist claims their morals are objective because they come from god, than their standard is dependent on their opinion that doing what god says is good.... There is no answer they can give that won't ultimately lead back to some subjective opinion they hold
There is no objective justification under either perspective, but you're wasting your time trying to demonstrate that to a religious person. They will never believe that their morality is anything other than objective.
@@exiledfrommyself Their biggest issue is learning the difference between morality and laws. What their g0d is actually handing down to them are laws (rules/orders). Objectively, you are or aren't following a law. But, even a g0d would have created a law based on their own subjective bias. For example... It didn't have to create pigs, make them so tasty, and then make a law against eating them. It subjectively chose to.
As an evolved ape, with further thousands of years colored by culture, is there any mystery why there’s a range of morals with a few that seem super useful for survival like no-murder? If we define ought as some kind of universal, yeah I could see why that’s difficult to do.
The ought doesn't need to be universal. It needs to be objective, to fill the is-ought gap. But, that's the problem Hume found with the gap. Everyone just fills it with subjectivity, so the ought isn't objective.
Here's another way to get an "is" statement from an "ought to" statement: 1."ought" statements are statements about the moral disposition of actions. Amoral actions are not considered in "ought" statements, you may take an action which is amoral, it is permissible to take an amoral action, but you never "ought" to take an amoral action. Therefore if it is true for any given subject that you ought to do something, it is the case that that subject is morally significant . I think it's worth noting that statements in this form do not work in the other direction. For example, if I make the statement that a given subject is morally significant, it does not follow that I ought to take any particular actions either for, against, or neutral to the subject
You didn't solve the problem. "Therefore, IF it is true for any given subject that you ought to do something" You haven't given a justification for why we ought do anything. You've just said that IF it is true that we ought to do something than it is the case that the subject is morally significant. You haven't demonstrated that we ought or ought not do anything. You can't, because no fact about the natural world can tell you what we ought or ought not do.
One realization that I've had about people is we seem to have a tendency to oversimplify complicated things and overcomplicate simple things. Morality's quite simple in my mind. Human beings are capable of suffering. Suffering is undesirable so we ought not to be responsible for it. When we can look at another and understand the simple fact that they are really a variation of you, there will no longer be a need for commandments, rules or laws. We'll be able to intuitively navigate the landscape of morality.
I've always thought this too. Just from a few objective facts of physical reality (we feel pain and don't like it, we have empathy, we're a social creatures) you can pretty much generate all the major moral positions, because it's really just a word we use to describe how we feel about the actions and behaviours of people and how they impact other people. It's not much deeper than that and there doesn't need to be some grand universal "truth" grounding it for it to be the way things are.
Ok, so “You ought to tidy the garden.” Yes, that implies there is a garden. The problem is still “Why ought you tidy that garden?” In a way it’s circular. You’re just starting at a different point. You’re still left with, “There is a garden, so you ought to tidy it.” Well, why? That ought still doesn’t come from the existence of the garden, and the existence of the garden isn’t caused by that ought. The ought still comes from within the one saying you ought to tidy it. Somebody else might prefer an untidy garden, and say “you ought not tidy the garden.”
I’m replying to myself here because my phone won’t let me edit my comment. Those two aren’t the only possible oughts. Another person might prefer a burned garden, and say “you ought to burn the garden.” Another could say, “You ought to destroy the garden,” not having a preference as to how. Another could say, “ you ought to make the garden larger.” My point is there are countless possible oughts for a given is.
@@Nutterbutter123Something about the UA-cam app on iPhone. Maybe I’m just missing it, but there doesn’t seem to be an edit option anywhere. When I’m at home, I go to my computer to edit if needed, but I’m not at home.
If humans generally have peferences for particular moral positions (boo murder), it seems like there must be reasons for this. As it happens we don't need to guess about that, because we have evolutionary game theory that explains why we have these preferences in terms of functional benefits to us and our society. So there are objective reasons for these impulses. Is that moral realism? I think one of the common misconceptions we have about physicalism in particular is that the physical is just about objects or states of affairs. 'Is' statements. There's more to it than that though, the physical also includes space and time, and therefore spacial relationships, physical causation and physical processes. Evolution is a physicalist account of a generative process, so generative processes are physical. Game theory shows that goal oriented behaviours also emerge from physical states and processes. Does that mean we do actually get ought from is?
Getting an ought from an is: if normative "oughts" are limitted to what is actually possible, AND something is modally necessary in a specific situation, I think that modally necessary "ought" is necessary and "is" what "ought" to be done because that is the only possible course of action in that instance.
When trying to derive an ought from an is, are we allowed to assume the truth value of the is statement? If so, I can think of exactly one ought you can get from an is. 1. It is the case that objective moral laws exist, where a moral law is a statement about what you ought to do. 2. Therefore you ought to follow objective moral laws. Now this is completely definitional, it's pretty much just saying if it is true that there are things you ought to do, then you ought to do those things , and relies on assuming that objective laws exist. Without that assumption, I don't believe that you can ever make an is to an ought statement. I can think of one more very serious problem with this. And that is that even if you could confirm the truth of premise one without question, and accept that the conclusion follows from the first premise, there would never be any way for a finite being to ever know what moral statements were objectively true and which ones weren't, which leaves us in precisely the same position we are on the front side, namely having to use our own subjective rationality to decide what is and isn't moral.
To say that divine command theory is not subjective because God is analogical is to say it is also not objective because God is analogical. It solves a problem, but makes it worthless.
It all depends on your moral philosophy whether you can get an "ought" from an "is". If moral realism is true, the "ought" statements are actually statements about the state of some aspect of reality, which means that an "ought" statement is an "is" statement about that aspect of reality, much like statements about the weight of a carbon rod or the elasticity of a spring. In that case you can get "ought" statements from "is" statements because "ought" statements _are_ "is" statements, just disguised by using different words.
To a religious person: *Harmless things become bad if god says he doesn't like it and what's worse is that harmful things become moral and even good if god tells you to do it*
I think the theist would respond that if God says something is bad it is definitionally not harmless, even if you don't understand how it is harmful. Likewise if God says something is good, then it is definitionally not harmful regardless of whether or not you understand how it is not harmful
@@sordidknifeparty Well I've heard apologists defend mass murder, slavery, & rape.... They generally agree that those actions do cause harm and that they're wrong, but suddenly become okay with it if they think god told people to do it
@LilySage-mf7uf I can make an atheist argument for all those too. Does that make atheism bad too, or just the atheists who use their beliefs to justify their bad actions?
There's no strict is/aught distinction. Every "is" smuggles in an aught (because "is" is under-determined -- it would be a cruel joke if the world doesn't work they way it aught to). Every "aught" smuggles in an "is" (because it presupposes things).
It seems to me that one clear is you can get from an ought is as follows: 1. You objectively ought to do X. 2. Therefore it is the case that objective moral laws exist This could perhaps be considered the trivial case
@@TheHuxleyAgnosticI'm not sure what you mean. The first premise is just a hypothetical "ought" statement Which we assume to be true for the sake of seeing if we can derive an "is" from it. So in other words the first statement says if we assume that it is true objectively that you ought to do anything, then it must be true that objective statements about morality exist, since the first premise is such a statement. This is no way demonstrates, nor does it attempt to demonstrate, that statements such as "you ought to do X" can be objectively true, rather it simply acts to demonstrate that there are certain "ought" statements which if assumed to be true yield deductively certain "is" statements as a consequence. Is that a little more clear?
@@sordidknifeparty Well, the is-ought problem is exactly the opposite ... to get an objective ought from an objective is, without filling the gap with subjectivity. So, you're assuming the very thing that's in question.
@@TheHuxleyAgnosticI addressed the "ought from an is" argument in a different comment. In this one I'm addressing a separate question that Alex posed as to whether it was possible to get an is from an ought.
@@sordidknifeparty But the entire point is to stick with pure objectivity. Simply asserting stuff, with no actual grounding in objectivity, can get you whatever answer you want, any which way. Assertion: pizza is objectively good ... therefore you objectively ought to eat pizza. It totally misses the point of the problem.
Ought implies can. There are oughts that are not binding because they are impossible to satisfy. That means an ought that we take seriously is embedded with the fact of a possible satisfaction.
"You cannot get ought from is" This statement is false in absolute sense. But it is useful approximation for MOST of discussions. It's a good assumption to have by default so when someone tries to cross this boundary we can quickly recognise a need for additional proof.
@@dvillegaspro No, I mean like the Israelites who were practicing slavery. Weird how he skipped banning that bit but made sure we knew we'd be killed for gathering firewood on the holy day.
It's ironic that the ones who say that rely on *Divine Command Theory* (the hallmark of terrorism) Under their perspective, any action no matter how vile can be called moral simply by saying *"god told them to do it"*
There is no "ought". There only is a "how I would like it to be". Consider: there is a state of "what is". What exists. Any state of "what ought to be" is either identical... or is is different from that. If it is identical... there is no need for an "ought"... everything _is_ as it _ought to be._ If it is different... it does not exist, at least not in the same way as this "state of what is".
People desire not to be harmed, so if your actions are causing harm than of course people who don't want to be harmed are going to take steps to prevent you from doing that....this occurs regardless of whether gods exist or not
If I say X is wrong because X causes harm to others, they would say it's just your *opinion* that causing harm is wrong But they don't seem to realize that nothing changes by adding god to this If they say X is wrong because god has declared it to be wrong, than it's just based on their *opinion* that it's wrong to do what god has said not to do....not to mention their *opinion* that god exists in the first place
Well, minus a theistic foundational basis for existence, there’s no concrete definition or foundation for moral ethics, but that doesn’t at all mean that atheists can’t be moral. That’s mostly a built in feature of humanity, and a rewarded sentiment of society. The same could be said of teleological ideation.. You don’t necessarily need God to derive meaning, but objective and higher meaning would give it a basis for its substantiation rather than solely being reduced to human desire to find meaning to handle life’s challenges and suffering.
your eyes are blinded by the god of this world I pray the Father would open your eyes to the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ, my friend 1 Corinthians 15:1-4
Apologists think they can win moral arguments if just keep uncharitably asking "why why why" The same thing can easily be done to them: Why is going against god wrong ? Any answer they give will merely be their subjective opinion
Morality was there way before religion was. Every since there were groups of humans, we have had a sense of right or wrong - pain caused by others (whether physical or emotional) eventually led to social norms of what is right or wrong for that group. Those observations became one of the cornerstones of most religions. I would hope most atheists are actually agnostic.
IS: God, who is identical to Goodness, subsists as the fundamental structure of reality. OUGHT: We ought align our actions with the nature of reality, which is inherently good.
6:10 No, it's not at all fair to say that most people have moral realist intuitions at all. Honestly that made me stop wanting to watch this video. I really think you need to listen to what some anti-realist philosophers have to say on this topic. I would really strongly suggest looking into some of Lance Bush's criticisms regarding this claim.
I can lay out a chess board in a particular position and can say what the player ought to do based on how the board is, this is because we understand that what we're trying to achieve is to win the game. Morality is much the same, we can say what we ought to when we acknowledge the goal is to enhance the wellbeing of any conscious creature. If you don't agree that that's what morality means then I'd love to hear your definition, but either way we're not talking about the same thing.
The first issue is, the anaolgy between winning the chess game and enhancing the well-being of conscious creatures. How did you get to that point? The second issue is, someone says they dont care about winning the game they just want to move the pieces, hpw do you say that what they are doing is wrong?
Even if the definition you give is correct, the difficulty is in identifying the well-being of a living creature. Is my well-being enhanced by eating delicious meat for which another animal suffered? Whose well-being do we prioritise over others? Is longer life more well-being? Is being dead not preferable to being alive if I'm suffering?
@WaqasAli-ct7ly the chess analogy is to demonstrate that 'is + goal = ought'. If a person plays chess the way you described, we can objectively say they are playing wrong, because they have the wrong goal according to the rules of chess.
@DavidBrown-ts2us thats what im saying. Who decided that our goal in morality is to enhance the well being of creatures? You are starting off with a premise without any good reason as to why we should take that premise. Its the same mistake Sam Harris falls into in the moral landscape
@@WaqasAli-ct7lywell, if we prioritize the well being of other people, we increase the likelihood of that person surviving and then reproducing. In the end, whatever you believe, empathy is what our goal is based on and so we have the goal, we learn the rules of the world, and thus the optimal “play” can be discovered
Dear Theist, If, at the highest and widest level of reality, there hasn’t ever been, and there can’t ever be, any gods or goddesses, what explains your morality?
Everything anyone values is based on exclusive effects and rarity to create and preserve possibilities for the future. There is nothing that can happen in the universe incidentally that humanity can not potentially cause or stop DELIBERATELY. Humanity is more valuable than anything because it has the same effects as anything plus everything else. Knowledge is why humanity can produce these remarkable effects. There can be nothing more priceless in the universe than Humanity, persons, knowledge and all that sustains them. If it is irrational to destroy a valuable thing to create a less valuable thing, then it must be immoral to diminish a priceless thing to create a less than priceless effect. All moral actions can be understood this way and it's as objective as math. The only subjective input is the knowledge and will to act morally. We need no subjective commandments nor given rights from clergy, kings, nor gods to understand moral rights and wrongs. The more we understand about nature and each other, the more obvious it becomes. The more we bow our heads to pray for answers, the more big bullies guide us to believe absurdity and commit atrocity and fecklessly ignore tragedy. God is just a really bad guess that all children make and grown ups learn to ignore.
Why is this always so complicated and wordy. Or maybe I am just dumb. If objective "morality" comes from god - then why does every religion have different moralities, why do the members of said religion CONSTANTLY violate them and ...last but not least, apparently slavery and taking women against there will is okay..among other things that we punish today and apparently violate god's morality by doing so? Sure, I grew up in a family that went to church etc - but my morality was taught by avoiding what hurts people...and not "because god tells us". Today I am also avoiding harm to animals by not consuming this and I see that as a moral thing. The church certainly didn't tell me that
I don't know you so I think it'd be rude to call you dumb. However you may just not have the required experience to understand the "wordy" words they're saying. I understood all of it easily but I have been reading philosophy for years. To your first claim, theists don't see other religions as true so from their perspective their god has the authority on morality and other gods are false idols. So that's the problem with that view. You are looking at it from an unbias perspective which is great, but in order to understand why they think that you need to shift your point of view to theirs.
Religious folks think that their morals are granted by God but then pick and choose which ones to obey. If you compromise on your "objective" morality, then surely it becomes subjective...
I don't think it matters if a god or gods exist. The point is that a religious person still has no authority to tell me that he/she knows what the god wants us to do.
People who state that athietst cant have morality are silly. Free will can absoluetly exist in an athiest worldview. The ability to choose what pizza i want or who i want to date is not defined from god. You dony need a god to have free will. Morality can absoletly exist and does within an athiest worldview. Dont murder is nessary for cooperation. And it would stand to reason that if i want to live a safe society it would behoove me not to engage in that. Out of survival and a logical want to live in a productive envirnment.
If you’re considering the ‘ought’ as a universal ought (a moral principle of the universe), then I think there’s a difficulty there. How could one person’s mind, finite in time and space, with access to only an infinitesimal fraction of knowledge of that vast universe that it has been born into also be the source of a universal truth? A single person could decide: “it’s wrong to sit on chairs”, but that doesn’t make it an ‘ought’ does it? It’s just one finite mind’s idea, not universal.
Neither do I .Ought seems to suggest an emotionanl imperative. Guilt, obligation, compassion, justice, fair play, are all emotional pushes that guide (coerce?) us to behave in a moral/ ethical manner.
morality is a strategy for social relationships. it's a strategic dynamic which emerges from fundamental rules, not a law of physics or religious physics. from a secular, mechanistic perspective, morality is a game theoretic strategy, emergently produced by a genetic collective, to maximize benefit for that collective. it has selected for emotional and social incentives towards behavior which benefits the group (i.e., "good" behavior; "good" is relative to a particular utility function). religious morality contains proxies for this premise, but largely centered around a cult of personality for gods, and to a varying lesser extent, religious leaders. there is extreme ambiguity about the mechanistic relationship between god and man, because in many important ways, religious dogmas categorize god as being undefinable or impossible to understand; so we can't know how the fulfillment of god's will relates mechanistically to the wellbeing of the collective-- we can only know the dogma that following god leads to heaven and turning away from god leads to hell, and also that there are general consequences for the community in the earthly realm based on these behaviors. or, one might be so emotionally invested in god, that the emotional urgency of maximizing god's expressed mode of benefit subsumes the emotional urgency that one has for one's self and one's community, such that they only care about what's good for god, and that's the only point of concern. since religion tends to be based on a stable set of dogmas, which are proxies for evolutionary moral systems, religion can assume a greater stability of moral classifications (categorical imperative)-- that x behavior is a sin, independent of context. eg, some say that abortion is evil because of the dogma of a soul's presence in a body, and destroying a body with a soul is murder. an approach to secular morality would be some brand of utilitarianism, of maximizing the benefit of a collective. different people in the same community can have different utility functions, because ultimately, adherence to a function depends on the self-interest of an individual. this even applies to social dynamics. the premise of "caring about other people" is that, through our evolutionary development, our self-interest is profoundly interwoven with the self-interest of others; because of survival logistics, and because of the emotional triggers based on social perception. i assume that one of the biggest difficulties in discourse about morality is that 1) it's complex, and 2) it's extremely non-romanticist. the social infrastructure of religion has had thousands of years to establish itself, which generates extreme social and cultural exposure to its principles; and it's much simpler to understand, which is logistically useful and less emotionally difficult. and one sense of romanticism is that it's an emphasis on a particular idea based on its aesthetic attributes, which has significant implications for thought, more generally. because religion is socially embedded and utilitarianism isn't, religion has had a lot of time to develop aesthetic appeal; and since utilitarianism contradicts many aesthetically appealing aspects of religion, it has a negative aesthetic appeal. people will tend to find utilitarianism disgusting, *even in cases where you can deduce that utilitarianism creates explicitly superior outcomes*. the difficulties of trying to understand a non-traditional or anti-traditional mode of thought are drastically compounded in social settings, for many reasons. there are various cultural and religious taboos for saying things which contradict pre-existing sensibilities, and which aren't compatible with a particular social setting. this is already a pretty long comment, so last thought will be abbreviated and simplified. extrapolate chesterton's fence into chesterton's sawtooth. imagine a linear sequences of theoretical solutions, with later ones being better than earlier ones. a solution initially may be terrible for many reasons, maybe because it's poorly understood, or because it requires extensive development. a given solution sucks when it's new, and rocks when it's old. in the sawtooth, each spike's tip represents an old solution; and the plummet into the point between two adjacent teeth represents the transition from an old strategy into a new strategy.
You could possibly have a valid argument as such: P1: Everything God says is true P2: God says; "You ought to love your neighbour" C: It is true that you ought to love your neighbour I guess this trick is that God introduces oughts, theists dont jeed to contrive an ought from an is, God introduces it for them
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities -his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood by what has been made,so that people are without excuse.” The word of God has stated you know He exists,but are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. There is a day of judgement ,and these words explain your answer, “ if only you had revealed yourself I would have believed “,will be met with the condemnation it deserves. BUT,there is “Good News”…
The Enduring Christ "If it were an error, it seems as if the error could hardly have lasted a day. If it were a mere ecstasy, it would seem that such an ecstasy could not endure for an hour. It has endured for nearly two thousand years; and the world within it has been more lucid, more level-headed, more reasonable in its hopes, more healthy in its instincts, more humorous and cheerful in the face of fate and death, than all the world outside. For it was the soul of Christendom that came forth from the incredible Christ; and the soul of it was common sense. Though we dared not look on His face we could look on His fruits; and by His fruits we should know Him. The fruits are solid and the fruitfulness is much more than a metaphor; and nowhere in this sad world are boys happier in apple-trees, or men in more equal chorus singing as they tread the vine, than under the fixed flash of this instant and intolerant enlightenment; the lightning made eternal as the light." G. K. Chesterton "The Everlasting Man"
I’ve recently been watching quite a few atheists discuss philosophy/theology/reality/etc.They all have slightly different angles, but I find that all of them are guilty of the same thing: 1. It’s not that they CAN’T believe in God, it’s that they WON’T. They are entirely capable (often admittedly so) of soundly reasoning that God exists, they just simply refuse. 2. They spend all of their time nitpicking unimportant factors and ballooning obtuse non-issues to prop up their refusal (such as being a semantic pedant, arguing word choice/definition rather than substance/intent). It’s sad to watch such brilliant minds use all of the cerebral capacity that they can muster to just to find a comma or an apostrophe they take issue with and saying “Aha! See?! Look at that comma! There must not be a God!” A dreadful waste of intellect and life.
What is the evidence that should convince these atheists that a god exists? also a sidenote: most atheists do not go "ooh a punctuation error, there must not be a god" because most self-described atheists are agnostic and don't claim to know that no gods exist. They just haven't been convinced of the existence of any such entity.
If Yahweh made man.... In his image, w his heart.... & Yahweh breaks his own commandments... Then by virtue of perfect CREATION, not only should Yahweh NOT punish his creation for breaking his commandments, HE SHOULD EXPECT & rejoice in his CREATIONS breaking his commandments.... because what is good for the FATHER is good for the SON. OTHERWISE, Yahweh proves himself to NOT BE the ONE TRUE CREATOR. Yahweh can break his law all he wants... but at the moment he does, he proves that this law is not ABSOLUTE or objective. Yahweh breaking his own law proves he is not the ONE TRUE CREATOR. The ONE TRUE CREATOR has the power to enact his will w out breaking his own laws. The ONE TRUE CREATOR is the primordial source of intellect & wisdom and would lead by example, not by hypocrisy. The ONE TRUE CREATOR has no need to make commandments. I realize that you have relinquished your divine sovereignty unto the theology of Abraham... and you would like to see me do the same to justify your decision. But I retain my divine sovereignty as I declare that ALL creations have direct access to the ONE TRUE CREATOR. ALL words are God's words. For there is no sound uttered without the empowerment of the breath of life from the CREATOR. ANY sentient being which makes demands or commands proves themselves to NOT BE the ONE TRUE CREATOR. for the ONE TRUE CREATOR has the power of CREATION.... & with such, has no need of demands. Creation is the expression of pure freedom. The ONE TRUE CREATOR would not place artifical limits, such as arbitrary demands externally... he would build those limits into the structure of CREATION ITSELF, such as the "speed of light". Yahweh is not the ONE TRUE CREATOR. IT IS NOT HIS CREATION. The Actual ONE TRUE CREATOR has nothing to be vengeful or jealous of, for ALL THINGS ARE HIS. That Yahweh is jealous & vengeful is more proof that he is NOT the ONE TRUE CREATOR. JESUS spoke out against the broken Theology of Abraham, and his followers killed him for it. They could not eradicate his story, so they integrated it into their dogmas in order to manipulate the masses into relinquishing their DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY unto the church. I do believe in the Christ Consciousness. But I do not capitulate to distortions of it imposed by Followers of Abraham. And my perception of Christ does not require the approval or validation of your perception... just as your perception does not require the validation of mine. The actual ONE TRUE CREATOR requires NOTHING FROM YOU. Every CREATION that we as CREATORS extend is a testament to HIS GREATNESS. CREATORS CREATING IS HIS WORSHIP, accepted. 😂😂😂 Followers of Abraham are a blood cult of Sin Worshippers.... who use sin to manipulate CO-CREATORS into relinquishing their DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY unto the church, using mass psychosis and mass Stockholm syndrome, through the dogma of the broken theology of Abraham. The ONE TRUE CREATOR is UNITED, NOT DIVIDED. ♥
@@tan_x_dx what makes u think that I think there's only 1 creator? We are all CO-CREATORS WITHIN THE GOD-HOOD. We all create our own worlds through the motion of our consciousness, called perception. Our consciousness is a direct link to the OMNI-CONSCIOUSNESS. We are a fractal extension of the ONE TRUE CREATOR. I define the ONE TRUE CREATOR as the collective cosmic consciousness to which all consciousness contributes. Not sum "sky daddy". ♥
@@DarkLight-Ascending What makes you think there's only ONE collective cosmic conciousness? Why would there be only one? Why can't there be more? You seem to be making this stuff up.
@@tan_x_dx let's work this through..... The collective consciousness.... of alllll creation.... is the collective cosmic consciousness.... there is no consciousness seperate from the primordial consciousness. We are all extensions tge GOD-HOOD. Every ONE "makes up" their own theology, as we are all CO-CREATORS. YOU make up yours. I make up mine. They make up theirs.... as is our birthright as DIVINE, SOVEREIGN SENTIENT SINGULARITIES. ♥
Atheism is a religion of feelings/emotions. So ought inevitably becomes what I want. This way of viewing reality is supported with ideas like trans ideology. It's fascinating to watch..
@@bobhill4364 Doesn't Christianity use masculine gender terminology to identify their sxlss g0d? Don't they believe that sxlss g0d transitioned into a human male for a time?
You don't realize your religion's ought is based on what you want....if it's based on what you think god says, than that right there is your want - you wanting to do what god says
If an apologist claims you can't justify objective morality under atheism, the solution isn't to try to come up with a way.
Rather it's to demonstrate that you can't have objective justification under either perspective. If an apologist claims their morals are objective because they come from god, than their standard is dependent on their opinion that doing what god says is good.... There is no answer they can give that won't ultimately lead back to some subjective opinion they hold
An then that will lead to some kind of special pleading by the theist.
There is no objective justification under either perspective, but you're wasting your time trying to demonstrate that to a religious person. They will never believe that their morality is anything other than objective.
@@exiledfrommyself Their biggest issue is learning the difference between morality and laws. What their g0d is actually handing down to them are laws (rules/orders). Objectively, you are or aren't following a law. But, even a g0d would have created a law based on their own subjective bias. For example... It didn't have to create pigs, make them so tasty, and then make a law against eating them. It subjectively chose to.
@exiledfrommyself If the creator of the universe makes rules and commands, wouldn't they be "objective"?
Or you could just reject the claim.
As an evolved ape, with further thousands of years colored by culture, is there any mystery why there’s a range of morals with a few that seem super useful for survival like no-murder? If we define ought as some kind of universal, yeah I could see why that’s difficult to do.
The ought doesn't need to be universal. It needs to be objective, to fill the is-ought gap. But, that's the problem Hume found with the gap. Everyone just fills it with subjectivity, so the ought isn't objective.
Evolution is about the weak dying. Nothing about that says killing is bad for survival.
Here's another way to get an "is" statement from an "ought to" statement:
1."ought" statements are statements about the moral disposition of actions. Amoral actions are not considered in "ought" statements, you may take an action which is amoral, it is permissible to take an amoral action, but you never "ought" to take an amoral action.
Therefore if it is true for any given subject that you ought to do something, it is the case that that subject is morally significant .
I think it's worth noting that statements in this form do not work in the other direction. For example, if I make the statement that a given subject is morally significant, it does not follow that I ought to take any particular actions either for, against, or neutral to the subject
You didn't solve the problem.
"Therefore, IF it is true for any given subject that you ought to do something"
You haven't given a justification for why we ought do anything. You've just said that IF it is true that we ought to do something than it is the case that the subject is morally significant. You haven't demonstrated that we ought or ought not do anything. You can't, because no fact about the natural world can tell you what we ought or ought not do.
One realization that I've had about people is we seem to have a tendency to oversimplify complicated things and overcomplicate simple things. Morality's quite simple in my mind.
Human beings are capable of suffering. Suffering is undesirable so we ought not to be responsible for it. When we can look at another and understand the simple fact that they are
really a variation of you, there will no longer be a need for commandments, rules or laws. We'll be able to intuitively navigate the landscape of morality.
I've always thought this too. Just from a few objective facts of physical reality (we feel pain and don't like it, we have empathy, we're a social creatures) you can pretty much generate all the major moral positions, because it's really just a word we use to describe how we feel about the actions and behaviours of people and how they impact other people. It's not much deeper than that and there doesn't need to be some grand universal "truth" grounding it for it to be the way things are.
Basic survival ethics in groups shouldn't be hard concept to understand. Animals and insects routinely exhibit the behavior. We just gave it a name.
Ok, so “You ought to tidy the garden.” Yes, that implies there is a garden. The problem is still “Why ought you tidy that garden?” In a way it’s circular. You’re just starting at a different point. You’re still left with, “There is a garden, so you ought to tidy it.” Well, why? That ought still doesn’t come from the existence of the garden, and the existence of the garden isn’t caused by that ought. The ought still comes from within the one saying you ought to tidy it. Somebody else might prefer an untidy garden, and say “you ought not tidy the garden.”
I’m replying to myself here because my phone won’t let me edit my comment.
Those two aren’t the only possible oughts. Another person might prefer a burned garden, and say “you ought to burn the garden.” Another could say, “You ought to destroy the garden,” not having a preference as to how. Another could say, “ you ought to make the garden larger.”
My point is there are countless possible oughts for a given is.
@@tweetdriveryou ought get a phone that lets you edit comments 😎
@@Nutterbutter123Something about the UA-cam app on iPhone. Maybe I’m just missing it, but there doesn’t seem to be an edit option anywhere. When I’m at home, I go to my computer to edit if needed, but I’m not at home.
The ought comes from what you would think is moral to do to someone you care for.
@@jacobdittmer5512Or what you think is moral to do t ppl the garden? The point is the light is 100% subjective.
If God can make the immoral moral simply by commanding it (see: Biblical genocide, rape, slavery, etc), then objective theist morality does not exist.
If humans generally have peferences for particular moral positions (boo murder), it seems like there must be reasons for this. As it happens we don't need to guess about that, because we have evolutionary game theory that explains why we have these preferences in terms of functional benefits to us and our society. So there are objective reasons for these impulses. Is that moral realism?
I think one of the common misconceptions we have about physicalism in particular is that the physical is just about objects or states of affairs. 'Is' statements. There's more to it than that though, the physical also includes space and time, and therefore spacial relationships, physical causation and physical processes. Evolution is a physicalist account of a generative process, so generative processes are physical. Game theory shows that goal oriented behaviours also emerge from physical states and processes. Does that mean we do actually get ought from is?
Getting an ought from an is: if normative "oughts" are limitted to what is actually possible, AND something is modally necessary in a specific situation, I think that modally necessary "ought" is necessary and "is" what "ought" to be done because that is the only possible course of action in that instance.
When trying to derive an ought from an is, are we allowed to assume the truth value of the is statement? If so, I can think of exactly one ought you can get from an is.
1. It is the case that objective moral laws exist, where a moral law is a statement about what you ought to do.
2. Therefore you ought to follow objective moral laws.
Now this is completely definitional, it's pretty much just saying if it is true that there are things you ought to do, then you ought to do those things , and relies on assuming that objective laws exist. Without that assumption, I don't believe that you can ever make an is to an ought statement.
I can think of one more very serious problem with this. And that is that even if you could confirm the truth of premise one without question, and accept that the conclusion follows from the first premise, there would never be any way for a finite being to ever know what moral statements were objectively true and which ones weren't, which leaves us in precisely the same position we are on the front side, namely having to use our own subjective rationality to decide what is and isn't moral.
To say that divine command theory is not subjective because God is analogical is to say it is also not objective because God is analogical. It solves a problem, but makes it worthless.
It all depends on your moral philosophy whether you can get an "ought" from an "is". If moral realism is true, the "ought" statements are actually statements about the state of some aspect of reality, which means that an "ought" statement is an "is" statement about that aspect of reality, much like statements about the weight of a carbon rod or the elasticity of a spring. In that case you can get "ought" statements from "is" statements because "ought" statements _are_ "is" statements, just disguised by using different words.
To a religious person: *Harmless things become bad if god says he doesn't like it and what's worse is that harmful things become moral and even good if god tells you to do it*
I think the theist would respond that if God says something is bad it is definitionally not harmless, even if you don't understand how it is harmful. Likewise if God says something is good, then it is definitionally not harmful regardless of whether or not you understand how it is not harmful
@@sordidknifeparty Well I've heard apologists defend mass murder, slavery, & rape....
They generally agree that those actions do cause harm and that they're wrong, but suddenly become okay with it if they think god told people to do it
People will do any level of horror if they are told it's for the greater good.
And there is no greater good than your gods implicit will
@@dominicparker6124or a perfect utopia for humanity by those who don't believe.
@LilySage-mf7uf I can make an atheist argument for all those too.
Does that make atheism bad too, or just the atheists who use their beliefs to justify their bad actions?
There's no strict is/aught distinction. Every "is" smuggles in an aught (because "is" is under-determined -- it would be a cruel joke if the world doesn't work they way it aught to). Every "aught" smuggles in an "is" (because it presupposes things).
It seems to me that one clear is you can get from an ought is as follows:
1. You objectively ought to do X.
2. Therefore it is the case that objective moral laws exist
This could perhaps be considered the trivial case
@@sordidknifeparty What's objective, about 1?
@@TheHuxleyAgnosticI'm not sure what you mean. The first premise is just a hypothetical "ought" statement Which we assume to be true for the sake of seeing if we can derive an "is" from it. So in other words the first statement says if we assume that it is true objectively that you ought to do anything, then it must be true that objective statements about morality exist, since the first premise is such a statement. This is no way demonstrates, nor does it attempt to demonstrate, that statements such as "you ought to do X" can be objectively true, rather it simply acts to demonstrate that there are certain "ought" statements which if assumed to be true yield deductively certain "is" statements as a consequence. Is that a little more clear?
@@sordidknifeparty Well, the is-ought problem is exactly the opposite ... to get an objective ought from an objective is, without filling the gap with subjectivity. So, you're assuming the very thing that's in question.
@@TheHuxleyAgnosticI addressed the "ought from an is" argument in a different comment. In this one I'm addressing a separate question that Alex posed as to whether it was possible to get an is from an ought.
@@sordidknifeparty But the entire point is to stick with pure objectivity. Simply asserting stuff, with no actual grounding in objectivity, can get you whatever answer you want, any which way. Assertion: pizza is objectively good ... therefore you objectively ought to eat pizza. It totally misses the point of the problem.
Ought implies can. There are oughts that are not binding because they are impossible to satisfy. That means an ought that we take seriously is embedded with the fact of a possible satisfaction.
"You cannot get ought from is"
This statement is false in absolute sense. But it is useful approximation for MOST of discussions. It's a good assumption to have by default so when someone tries to cross this boundary we can quickly recognise a need for additional proof.
"You need God to know killing is bad"
"Okay, so I think it's bad that God commanded the slaughter of the Amalekites"
"Wait not like that"
Next atheist comment: “Why doesn’t God stop bad people from doing evil?”
“You mean like the Amalekites?”
@@dvillegaspro the Amalekite children and animals were doing evil ?
@@LilySage-mf7uf Of course, they were the first to attack Israel
@@dvillegaspro No, I mean like the Israelites who were practicing slavery. Weird how he skipped banning that bit but made sure we knew we'd be killed for gathering firewood on the holy day.
@@dvillegaspro killing children is evil
It's ironic that the ones who say that rely on *Divine Command Theory* (the hallmark of terrorism)
Under their perspective, any action no matter how vile can be called moral simply by saying *"god told them to do it"*
They believe that vileness is in line with good because their god by definition is good.
Man he looks like Ramsey Bolton from Game of Thrones in the thumbnail.
U might like a recent upload here chat gpt compares the logic of my theism to that of followers of Abraham.
There is no "ought". There only is a "how I would like it to be".
Consider: there is a state of "what is". What exists. Any state of "what ought to be" is either identical... or is is different from that.
If it is identical... there is no need for an "ought"... everything _is_ as it _ought to be._
If it is different... it does not exist, at least not in the same way as this "state of what is".
If you can't justify ought claims, you have no justification for morality.
People desire not to be harmed, so if your actions are causing harm than of course people who don't want to be harmed are going to take steps to prevent you from doing that....this occurs regardless of whether gods exist or not
If I say X is wrong because X causes harm to others, they would say it's just your *opinion* that causing harm is wrong
But they don't seem to realize that nothing changes by adding god to this
If they say X is wrong because god has declared it to be wrong, than it's just based on their *opinion* that it's wrong to do what god has said not to do....not to mention their *opinion* that god exists in the first place
Yup.
Link the main video in these clips
Well, minus a theistic foundational basis for existence, there’s no concrete definition or foundation for moral ethics, but that doesn’t at all mean that atheists can’t be moral. That’s mostly a built in feature of humanity, and a rewarded sentiment of society.
The same could be said of teleological ideation.. You don’t necessarily need God to derive meaning, but objective and higher meaning would give it a basis for its substantiation rather than solely being reduced to human desire to find meaning to handle life’s challenges and suffering.
Not all theists are created equal, yall. I think you would find my theism much more logical & possible then the blood cults of Abraham.
Blood cult?
Christianity @@keitumetsemodipa3012
@@keitumetsemodipa3012 yes, all followers of Abraham are a blood Cult of Sin Worshippers.... thanks to your dogmas. But, I still love you!!!
your eyes are blinded by the god of this world I pray the Father would open your eyes to the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ, my friend 1 Corinthians 15:1-4
Your theism, as in designed by you or…?
Apologists think they can win moral arguments if just keep uncharitably asking "why why why"
The same thing can easily be done to them: Why is going against god wrong ?
Any answer they give will merely be their subjective opinion
in other words, morality dependant on a subject (god) is subjective
Because God *is* morality. They're the same.
@@didimockets Why? Is it by definition?
@@LilySage-mf7uf Why is a circle round? Because it's part of its essence. Study Aristotle and Aquinas.
@@didimockets Your subjective opinion god exists & your subjective opinion that it's moral to do what god says
Where's the full interview?
Morality was there way before religion was. Every since there were groups of humans, we have had a sense of right or wrong - pain caused by others (whether physical or emotional) eventually led to social norms of what is right or wrong for that group. Those observations became one of the cornerstones of most religions. I would hope most atheists are actually agnostic.
but this is a dichotomy between good and bad, rather than the good and evil that religions propagate
@@anonymoose478 I would propagate that good and bad became good and evil once people put the religion du jour stamp on it.
IS: God, who is identical to Goodness, subsists as the fundamental structure of reality.
OUGHT: We ought align our actions with the nature of reality, which is inherently good.
6:10
No, it's not at all fair to say that most people have moral realist intuitions at all. Honestly that made me stop wanting to watch this video.
I really think you need to listen to what some anti-realist philosophers have to say on this topic. I would really strongly suggest looking into some of Lance Bush's criticisms regarding this claim.
Get back to me when they’ve solved the Euthyphro.
Euthyphro’s dilemma has been solved decades ago
Religious morality is hilarious. When introducing a morale code, the first thing they do is lie about where it came from.
Atheists morality is hilarious, introduce a morale code then the first thing they do is lie about where it comes from
I can lay out a chess board in a particular position and can say what the player ought to do based on how the board is, this is because we understand that what we're trying to achieve is to win the game.
Morality is much the same, we can say what we ought to when we acknowledge the goal is to enhance the wellbeing of any conscious creature. If you don't agree that that's what morality means then I'd love to hear your definition, but either way we're not talking about the same thing.
The first issue is, the anaolgy between winning the chess game and enhancing the well-being of conscious creatures. How did you get to that point?
The second issue is, someone says they dont care about winning the game they just want to move the pieces, hpw do you say that what they are doing is wrong?
Even if the definition you give is correct, the difficulty is in identifying the well-being of a living creature. Is my well-being enhanced by eating delicious meat for which another animal suffered? Whose well-being do we prioritise over others? Is longer life more well-being? Is being dead not preferable to being alive if I'm suffering?
@WaqasAli-ct7ly the chess analogy is to demonstrate that 'is + goal = ought'.
If a person plays chess the way you described, we can objectively say they are playing wrong, because they have the wrong goal according to the rules of chess.
@DavidBrown-ts2us thats what im saying. Who decided that our goal in morality is to enhance the well being of creatures? You are starting off with a premise without any good reason as to why we should take that premise. Its the same mistake Sam Harris falls into in the moral landscape
@@WaqasAli-ct7lywell, if we prioritize the well being of other people, we increase the likelihood of that person surviving and then reproducing.
In the end, whatever you believe, empathy is what our goal is based on and so we have the goal, we learn the rules of the world, and thus the optimal “play” can be discovered
Dear Theist,
If, at the highest and widest level of reality, there hasn’t ever been, and there can’t ever be, any gods or goddesses, what explains your morality?
Everything anyone values is based on exclusive effects and rarity to create and preserve possibilities for the future.
There is nothing that can happen in the universe incidentally that humanity can not potentially cause or stop DELIBERATELY. Humanity is more valuable than anything because it has the same effects as anything plus everything else. Knowledge is why humanity can produce these remarkable effects.
There can be nothing more priceless in the universe than Humanity, persons, knowledge and all that sustains them.
If it is irrational to destroy a valuable thing to create a less valuable thing, then it must be immoral to diminish a priceless thing to create a less than priceless effect.
All moral actions can be understood this way and it's as objective as math. The only subjective input is the knowledge and will to act morally. We need no subjective commandments nor given rights from clergy, kings, nor gods to understand moral rights and wrongs. The more we understand about nature and each other, the more obvious it becomes. The more we bow our heads to pray for answers, the more big bullies guide us to believe absurdity and commit atrocity and fecklessly ignore tragedy.
God is just a really bad guess that all children make and grown ups learn to ignore.
Magic is ought.
Why is this always so complicated and wordy. Or maybe I am just dumb. If objective "morality" comes from god - then why does every religion have different moralities, why do the members of said religion CONSTANTLY violate them and ...last but not least, apparently slavery and taking women against there will is okay..among other things that we punish today and apparently violate god's morality by doing so?
Sure, I grew up in a family that went to church etc - but my morality was taught by avoiding what hurts people...and not "because god tells us". Today I am also avoiding harm to animals by not consuming this and I see that as a moral thing. The church certainly didn't tell me that
I don't know you so I think it'd be rude to call you dumb. However you may just not have the required experience to understand the "wordy" words they're saying. I understood all of it easily but I have been reading philosophy for years. To your first claim, theists don't see other religions as true so from their perspective their god has the authority on morality and other gods are false idols. So that's the problem with that view. You are looking at it from an unbias perspective which is great, but in order to understand why they think that you need to shift your point of view to theirs.
Religious folks think that their morals are granted by God but then pick and choose which ones to obey. If you compromise on your "objective" morality, then surely it becomes subjective...
Atheists folks think their morals are granted by the collective aka laws but then pick and choose which laws they follow
I don't think it matters if a god or gods exist. The point is that a religious person still has no authority to tell me that he/she knows what the god wants us to do.
Unless said God revealed what he wants us to do
People who state that athietst cant have morality are silly. Free will can absoluetly exist in an athiest worldview. The ability to choose what pizza i want or who i want to date is not defined from god. You dony need a god to have free will.
Morality can absoletly exist and does within an athiest worldview. Dont murder is nessary for cooperation. And it would stand to reason that if i want to live a safe society it would behoove me not to engage in that. Out of survival and a logical want to live in a productive envirnment.
I don’t understand why oughts can’t come from our minds
If you’re considering the ‘ought’ as a universal ought (a moral principle of the universe), then I think there’s a difficulty there. How could one person’s mind, finite in time and space, with access to only an infinitesimal fraction of knowledge of that vast universe that it has been born into also be the source of a universal truth?
A single person could decide: “it’s wrong to sit on chairs”, but that doesn’t make it an ‘ought’ does it? It’s just one finite mind’s idea, not universal.
Neither do I .Ought seems to suggest an emotionanl imperative. Guilt, obligation, compassion, justice, fair play, are all emotional pushes that guide (coerce?) us to behave in a moral/ ethical manner.
morality is a strategy for social relationships. it's a strategic dynamic which emerges from fundamental rules, not a law of physics or religious physics.
from a secular, mechanistic perspective, morality is a game theoretic strategy, emergently produced by a genetic collective, to maximize benefit for that collective. it has selected for emotional and social incentives towards behavior which benefits the group (i.e., "good" behavior; "good" is relative to a particular utility function). religious morality contains proxies for this premise, but largely centered around a cult of personality for gods, and to a varying lesser extent, religious leaders. there is extreme ambiguity about the mechanistic relationship between god and man, because in many important ways, religious dogmas categorize god as being undefinable or impossible to understand; so we can't know how the fulfillment of god's will relates mechanistically to the wellbeing of the collective-- we can only know the dogma that following god leads to heaven and turning away from god leads to hell, and also that there are general consequences for the community in the earthly realm based on these behaviors. or, one might be so emotionally invested in god, that the emotional urgency of maximizing god's expressed mode of benefit subsumes the emotional urgency that one has for one's self and one's community, such that they only care about what's good for god, and that's the only point of concern.
since religion tends to be based on a stable set of dogmas, which are proxies for evolutionary moral systems, religion can assume a greater stability of moral classifications (categorical imperative)-- that x behavior is a sin, independent of context. eg, some say that abortion is evil because of the dogma of a soul's presence in a body, and destroying a body with a soul is murder.
an approach to secular morality would be some brand of utilitarianism, of maximizing the benefit of a collective. different people in the same community can have different utility functions, because ultimately, adherence to a function depends on the self-interest of an individual. this even applies to social dynamics. the premise of "caring about other people" is that, through our evolutionary development, our self-interest is profoundly interwoven with the self-interest of others; because of survival logistics, and because of the emotional triggers based on social perception.
i assume that one of the biggest difficulties in discourse about morality is that 1) it's complex, and 2) it's extremely non-romanticist. the social infrastructure of religion has had thousands of years to establish itself, which generates extreme social and cultural exposure to its principles; and it's much simpler to understand, which is logistically useful and less emotionally difficult. and one sense of romanticism is that it's an emphasis on a particular idea based on its aesthetic attributes, which has significant implications for thought, more generally. because religion is socially embedded and utilitarianism isn't, religion has had a lot of time to develop aesthetic appeal; and since utilitarianism contradicts many aesthetically appealing aspects of religion, it has a negative aesthetic appeal. people will tend to find utilitarianism disgusting, *even in cases where you can deduce that utilitarianism creates explicitly superior outcomes*.
the difficulties of trying to understand a non-traditional or anti-traditional mode of thought are drastically compounded in social settings, for many reasons. there are various cultural and religious taboos for saying things which contradict pre-existing sensibilities, and which aren't compatible with a particular social setting.
this is already a pretty long comment, so last thought will be abbreviated and simplified. extrapolate chesterton's fence into chesterton's sawtooth. imagine a linear sequences of theoretical solutions, with later ones being better than earlier ones. a solution initially may be terrible for many reasons, maybe because it's poorly understood, or because it requires extensive development. a given solution sucks when it's new, and rocks when it's old. in the sawtooth, each spike's tip represents an old solution; and the plummet into the point between two adjacent teeth represents the transition from an old strategy into a new strategy.
Remove that stach it doesn't suits you keep beard + stach
Yahweh is a desert War God of Hypocrisy, not THE ONE TRUE CREATOR.
Is murder wrong because the God's say it is wrong? Or is murder wrong because it is wrong?
Is speeding wrong because laws says it is or is speeding wrong?
God only exists as a supernatural mythic narrative.
Atheism exists as a cult to the deprave who do anything to not find God
You could possibly have a valid argument as such:
P1: Everything God says is true
P2: God says; "You ought to love your neighbour"
C: It is true that you ought to love your neighbour
I guess this trick is that God introduces oughts, theists dont jeed to contrive an ought from an is, God introduces it for them
A non-cognitivist will tell you that the second premise is not true or false, it is simply not apt for truth and this contradicts the first premise.
@santisalvado thats just the non cognivist's opinion
Even the Bible doesn't support P1, especially when people claim Jesus is God. Plus, it also has contradictory orders, like gncdng all your neighbors.
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities -his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood by what has been made,so that people are without excuse.”
The word of God has stated you know He exists,but are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.
There is a day of judgement ,and these words explain your answer, “ if only you had revealed yourself I would have believed “,will be met with the condemnation it deserves.
BUT,there is “Good News”…
what?
If you're going to assert everyone knows God exists then why try to convince people he does
@@S.D.323 it is not me who asserts everyone knows God exists,it is declared in the word of God ( Holy Bible).
@@chrismachin2166 right so what is more likely that all 1 billion atheists are lying or that this one book is incorrect about something
@@chrismachin2166 how do you know it is the word of god?
fantastic
The Enduring Christ
"If it were an error, it seems as if the error could hardly have lasted a day. If it were a mere ecstasy, it would seem that such an ecstasy could not endure for an hour. It has endured for nearly two thousand years; and the world within it has been more lucid, more level-headed, more reasonable in its hopes, more healthy in its instincts, more humorous and cheerful in the face of fate and death, than all the world outside. For it was the soul of Christendom that came forth from the incredible Christ; and the soul of it was common sense. Though we dared not look on His face we could look on His fruits; and by His fruits we should know Him. The fruits are solid and the fruitfulness is much more than a metaphor; and nowhere in this sad world are boys happier in apple-trees, or men in more equal chorus singing as they tread the vine, than under the fixed flash of this instant and intolerant enlightenment; the lightning made eternal as the light." G. K. Chesterton "The Everlasting Man"
I’ve recently been watching quite a few atheists discuss philosophy/theology/reality/etc.They all have slightly different angles, but I find that all of them are guilty of the same thing:
1. It’s not that they CAN’T believe in God, it’s that they WON’T. They are entirely capable (often admittedly so) of soundly reasoning that God exists, they just simply refuse.
2. They spend all of their time nitpicking unimportant factors and ballooning obtuse non-issues to prop up their refusal (such as being a semantic pedant, arguing word choice/definition rather than substance/intent).
It’s sad to watch such brilliant minds use all of the cerebral capacity that they can muster to just to find a comma or an apostrophe they take issue with and saying “Aha! See?! Look at that comma! There must not be a God!” A dreadful waste of intellect and life.
What is the evidence that should convince these atheists that a god exists?
also a sidenote: most atheists do not go "ooh a punctuation error, there must not be a god" because most self-described atheists are agnostic and don't claim to know that no gods exist. They just haven't been convinced of the existence of any such entity.
You're predicating your excuses for why we don't believe on your belief that a god exists. How did you conclude your belief is correct?
@@exiledfrommyself belief in what?
EDIT: nvm I don't think you are actually replying to me, my bad
It doesn't sound like you've been actually paying attention, if the best you can do is provide a strawman.
First I’m lit!
God is a fictional character.
Atheism is a fictional religion
This is such shite
If Yahweh made man....
In his image, w his heart....
& Yahweh breaks his own commandments...
Then by virtue of perfect CREATION, not only should Yahweh NOT punish his creation for breaking his commandments, HE SHOULD EXPECT & rejoice in his CREATIONS breaking his commandments.... because what is good for the FATHER is good for the SON.
OTHERWISE, Yahweh proves himself to NOT BE the ONE TRUE CREATOR.
Yahweh can break his law all he wants... but at the moment he does, he proves that this law is not ABSOLUTE or objective.
Yahweh breaking his own law proves he is not the ONE TRUE CREATOR.
The ONE TRUE CREATOR has the power to enact his will w out breaking his own laws.
The ONE TRUE CREATOR is the primordial source of intellect & wisdom and would lead by example, not by hypocrisy.
The ONE TRUE CREATOR has no need to make commandments. I realize that you have relinquished your divine sovereignty unto the theology of Abraham... and you would like to see me do the same to justify your decision. But I retain my divine sovereignty as I declare that ALL creations have direct access to the ONE TRUE CREATOR.
ALL words are God's words. For there is no sound uttered without the empowerment of the breath of life from the CREATOR.
ANY sentient being which makes demands or commands proves themselves to NOT BE the ONE TRUE CREATOR. for the ONE TRUE CREATOR has the power of CREATION.... & with such, has no need of demands.
Creation is the expression of pure freedom. The ONE TRUE CREATOR would not place artifical limits, such as arbitrary demands externally... he would build those limits into the structure of CREATION ITSELF, such as the "speed of light".
Yahweh is not the ONE TRUE CREATOR. IT IS NOT HIS CREATION.
The Actual ONE TRUE CREATOR has nothing to be vengeful or jealous of, for ALL THINGS ARE HIS. That Yahweh is jealous & vengeful is more proof that he is NOT the ONE TRUE CREATOR.
JESUS spoke out against the broken Theology of Abraham, and his followers killed him for it. They could not eradicate his story, so they integrated it into their dogmas in order to manipulate the masses into relinquishing their DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY unto the church.
I do believe in the Christ Consciousness. But I do not capitulate to distortions of it imposed by Followers of Abraham. And my perception of Christ does not require the approval or validation of your perception... just as your perception does not require the validation of mine.
The actual ONE TRUE CREATOR requires NOTHING FROM YOU. Every CREATION that we as CREATORS extend is a testament to HIS GREATNESS. CREATORS CREATING IS HIS WORSHIP, accepted. 😂😂😂
Followers of Abraham are a blood cult of Sin Worshippers.... who use sin to manipulate CO-CREATORS into relinquishing their DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY unto the church, using mass psychosis and mass Stockholm syndrome, through the dogma of the broken theology of Abraham.
The ONE TRUE CREATOR is UNITED, NOT DIVIDED. ♥
What makes you think there's only one creator?
How can you look at the universe and rule out the possibility of teamwork?
@@tan_x_dx what makes u think that I think there's only 1 creator? We are all CO-CREATORS WITHIN THE GOD-HOOD. We all create our own worlds through the motion of our consciousness, called perception. Our consciousness is a direct link to the OMNI-CONSCIOUSNESS. We are a fractal extension of the ONE TRUE CREATOR.
I define the ONE TRUE CREATOR as the collective cosmic consciousness to which all consciousness contributes. Not sum "sky daddy". ♥
@@DarkLight-Ascending What makes you think there's only ONE collective cosmic conciousness? Why would there be only one? Why can't there be more?
You seem to be making this stuff up.
@@tan_x_dx 😂 show me on the doll where the Bad theism touched you. 😂
@@tan_x_dx let's work this through.....
The collective consciousness.... of alllll creation.... is the collective cosmic consciousness.... there is no consciousness seperate from the primordial consciousness. We are all extensions tge GOD-HOOD.
Every ONE "makes up" their own theology, as we are all CO-CREATORS.
YOU make up yours. I make up mine. They make up theirs.... as is our birthright as DIVINE, SOVEREIGN SENTIENT SINGULARITIES. ♥
Atheism is a religion of feelings/emotions. So ought inevitably becomes what I want. This way of viewing reality is supported with ideas like trans ideology.
It's fascinating to watch..
Atheism isn't a thing. You're an Anazi, an Astalanist, and an endless list of A other things; it doesn't tell me anything about what you actually are.
At least you agree atheist institutions should be tax-exempt like other religions are.
@@weedlol Most of them already are.
@@bobhill4364 Doesn't Christianity use masculine gender terminology to identify their sxlss g0d? Don't they believe that sxlss g0d transitioned into a human male for a time?
You don't realize your religion's ought is based on what you want....if it's based on what you think god says, than that right there is your want - you wanting to do what god says