your calmness and pleasant speech would even make a phone book interesting... that you discuss a very interesting topic with very sound logic makes me quite addicted to your discussions :) on the other hand I can only imagine how long it would take me to find the appropriate weak spots in a "typical" apologetics argument, so please keep up these very well thought trough discussions!
I really wish I’d found Scott’s channel years ago. I’d already deconverted a few years before this video was published, but he would have helped me deal with some lingering questions a lot sooner for sure.
An excellent job rebutting that guy. Always mind-expanding to watch and listen carefully to your videos. Sometimes, I just don't have time to go through them as thoroughly as I wish, but when I do, it's well worth it.
@ghuegel What's your objection to critiquing the most commonly held moral philosophy in this country, whilst offering what I consider a better alternative? As I said, I'm planning on doing another follow-up focusing on different aspects of this. Do you have questions about my own moral views? What are they?
Powerful video. I particularly liked the bit about how making an unfalsifiable argument also gives it no explanatory power. I know many people who hide behind that veil but I had no means to describe it. Now they have no excuse. Thanks again, and great video!
Brilliant!!! And subbed!!! You have a very enjoyable way of making your point (by using logic, which is a nice and welcome change). Too bad I found this so late in the game, more than 3 years later.
Can you guys imagine TBS in a public debate? He would be amazing. Also, I like how he argues philosophically because that's generally the approach of most theists. He takes them down on their own ground.
That was worth watching all the way through. That comparison to the aluminum ruler in the last minute was priceless, and I will be sure to use that myself.
@Tiberius, yes, in theory, I think science is quite capable of telling us what we subjectively value. (It may even be able to tell us values we didn't know we had). However, that's in principle. Accurately doing this in practice may take some time.
@Epydemic2020 The point is that I would make a mutually exclusive claim about the objectivity of certain values. You claim to "know" a priori that human life is objectively valuable (for example), and I would claim to know a priori that human life is *not* objectively valuable. But that's just one example. Others might affirm the objective value of certain qualities or things that you wouldn't. A Wiccan could claim to know, a priori, that trees are intrinsically valuable. Who's right?
Though I have no doubt that others before me have provided the same critiques to the same points, my thoughts, examples, analogies and arguments are my own and not the recitation of anyone else's work that I am aware of, unless I state otherwise (e.g., the Euhtyphro Dilemma).
Hitchens, interesting, that was the exact thought I had. A clearly stated and concise argument; as concise as this specific topic could possibly be. The aluminum ruler end was truly beautiful. At one point the argument almost seemed as if it were carried too far, but I was uncertain on this first pass of the video. I'll step away and watch it again and see if I still perceive that moment in the same way or if I just took it wrong. A reference to Epicurus would have been nice & simple though.
@Epydemic2020 Which videos are you choosing between? Personally, I (and my viewers probably) prefer we moved on to either objections to *my* moral philosophy, or your response to the second half of my last video, discussing the use of God as the S.o.M... Either way, take your time. I'm gonna try to hit some other topics in the meantime.
@Graffight It's a little removed from it's context in this video, but if you refer to my last video to Epy, I give a syllogism about this. It makes more sense if you think of this argument as support for that syllogism.
Thank you. I hope you don't mind that I occasionally spout parts of your videos verbatim to my religious friends when they reuse to stop talking and I no longer have the patience to come up with my own arguments. I like to think that the parts of those discussions which are my original words are this compelling, but as an atheist, I can't believe in something when evidence refutes it. Please never stop making these.
Great vid. I do think there are intrinsic triggers we often lean on in dire moments of decision which normally comes down to fear or a lack of (trust, education, repatition etc) but I still see them as intrinsic & subject to the self. One such gathering of introspective equlity was the Cyrus scroll & the Dec of Human Rights yet it still put's human life over the envorinment around them & does not seem to qualify as objective at all unless it took into account all life - period + the environment
Actually, the foot is defined to be 0.3048 meters and the meter is defined as the length of the path traveled by light in a vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second (chosen so that the speed of light is exactly 299,792,458 m/s).
I heard a story from The Ricky Gervais show where they were discussing the Cambodian midget fighting league. The headline reads "Lion Mutilates 42 Midgets in Cambodian Ring-Fight" 42, sound familiar?
Scott - I've been following this debate since the beginning, and you've done an excellent job of expressing your points. If all values are subjective then, including human life and well being, what would you personally do if someone, say, robs you? Who are you to force your subjective values on him? Or is he infringing upon your values? If so, is the protection of everyone's subjective values objectively valuable?
Nit pick: Distance itself is impossible to define without picking some abritrary physical constant as a basic unit. Since 1960 the standard foot has been defined as 0.3048 meters and a meter has been defined as 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of the orange-red emission line of the krypton-86 atom in a vacuum. Prior to 1960 the US and UK standard feet were slightly different lengths (by a few millionths of an inch).
The foot is defined in terms of the meter, which is defined in terms of the speed of light and the second, and the second is defined in terms of "the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom."
@MajorObvious Just note, I appreciate your response. I have been thinking on this for awhile and I am open for someone to poke hole in my ideas so I can move on. :)
@Epydemic2020 No I wouldn't argue that. It's just a hypothetical example. I don't know what Wiccans believe, other than that they have a profound respect for nature. It could easily be the case, however, that someone is a Wiccan precisely BECAUSE they "recognize" intrinsic value in trees, etc... which would not be any more a posteriori than your own contentions about objective value.
@tecnoblix I second this. Scott could be massively popular. Good looks + soundness + calmness + pop culture flare + intelligence + fair = the best force against religious idiocy yet.
The distinction you make between "human life is valuable" and "I value human life" is quite profound. You've made it before, of course, but not so clearly and succinctly. I might use that in the future...
@autumnsylver That's a great point that probably goes unnoticed. If we lived off of Carbon Dioxide instead, suddenly oxygen isn't so valuable anymore, from our perspective at least, (and that really IS the point isn't it?)
Re. discussion of "value" around 7:00 I completely agree that "merit, importance, worth, usefulness" etc. require a subject. But how about "rarity" as an objective property of something? I'm just test driving this idea and haven't thought it through, but could one not argue that the rarity of something gives it inherent, objective value? An obvious example might be gold. I guess one of the problem's with my argument is that some substances are rare yet not considered valuable. For instance, works of art I've created from my own ear wax are rare, but not valuable.
The monetary value of something material or purchasable is partially based on rarity, yes. However, it is not the only factor that determines its monetary value. Factors such as other properties of that material thing, or demand for that material thing all play a role in determining its value. Gold, for example, is not only rare, but it's also stainless, unaffected by air and other reagents. That's why if you let some gold lay around for a long time and you come back, you can be sure that you little to no gold to rust or other chemical bonding. However, I don't know where you are going with this because moral values are distinct from monetary values of physical objects. I don't mean to jump the gun, but you could be heading right into a fallacy of equivocation. Anyway, I don't think you give your works of art enough credit. You'd be surprised at what price people buy weird things off of ebay. You could give it a try.
+Oners82 I'm gonna jump in 4 months later. Rare is a measure that requires a subjective comparison. Gold may be considered rare, but to what? While gold is rarer than water, it's not more rare than a unicorn or a living dinosaur. Rare is a subjective trait or characteristic because it requires one to assess what it is rare to. One of something may be either rare or abundant depending on what you are comparing it to, even though the number "ruler" does not change.
+Oners82 Also, you are a disgrace to enlightenment principles. You indulge exactly the same attitude as the religious who selectively acknowledge/dismiss reality/logic.
@jessemaurais I was ponder the same questions, "How can one person alone act morally?" and the only thing I could come up with was the question being off base. By attempting to evaluate the morality of a single persons in 'isolation' you are necessarily injecting an additional perspective, which would not exist in the actual scenario. I imagine TBS would claim operating definition or right/wrong could still be used and as such render the single persons actions objectively moral/immoral
well this is awful. I spend my time nonreciprocating on AP courses...by watching philosophical argument....just,wow. I do enjoy all your videos! You're a very enlightened person, and you argue things in ways i didn't imagine-and with composure at that!
@brettppalmer Oh man! This reminds me, I totally planned on adding an annotation in my video with a link to your 2-part discussion of the story from Kings, which I think is excellent, and comprehensive. Gonna add that now.
Scott, it is impressive the amount of times people prove your points while arguing against you :P It is a pleaser to listen your reosoning; to bad you don't post videos anymore
isn't the term "objective values" an oxymoron? Coz i thought if its called a value, everyone has a different 'value' attached to it, but if everyone perceives it differently than how can it possibly be objective? Any thoughts TBS?
@Carnife What TBS claim is that if objective values exist, it is impossible for a human to tell that value from a subjective one. I would claim that objective values are independent of a single subject and rather produced between subjects and their environment. Subjective values tend to be reproduced from these objective values but it's not always the case. To actually know what is objectively valuable is also as TBS points out difficult if not impossible.
Can you clarify one bit from 6:02-6:12 for me. You talk about how I will hold a contradictory position with you on say, the objective value of human life. Didn't you say that you failed to recognize any objective value at all? It doesn't seem to me to be the case that you recognize contradictory obj values to me.. but rather that you simply don't see recognize anything at all.
Yes. That's a thought. Interesting responses which have caused me to rethink my position. If something is objective then it is by it's very definition outside of what we can possibly know inherently. It is learned, and if it is learned then it cannot be an original state of being or an absolute truth. Btw, I think this is one of the best examples of Scot's arguments.
@ItsSolaFide Wait what? Subjectivity means that what is right for one person is not necessarily right for another. In other words he absolutely does not have so say that Hilters actions were okay.
When you think about it, all values we have are subjective. Even something like oxygen. We can consider it valuable because it keeps almost all life on this planet alive, but the value placed on it still comes from us. It has value because we assign it value. The same goes for everything we value.
It's amazing; I understand every point and every word you say in your videos, but I have to keep pausing for the information overload to sink in. If I made videos like this I'd need to either memorize my lines or use a teleprompter (though I admit I probably wouldn't think of half of your rebuttals).
Excellent video, I really like the ruler analogy. By the way, I was picking up some food one afternoon and as I was leaving the restaurant I happened to glance at their TV and I saw your face. Haha. It blows my mind you work on a soap. =) You should write a book and engage some public debates. You could join the ranks of Hitchens, Dawkins, and Dennett.
@violentlygraceful Yes, doesn't the entire thing make SO much more sense once you appreciate it for what it is: a "don't-fuck-with-God-or-His-prophets" warning story?
@theDracoIX Does that mean you'll no longer be trolling the comments sections of my videos? That I don't have to expect any more personal attacks, manic rants, or hollow, unsupported assertions? Hallelujah!
@Epydemic2020 "The greatest joy for a man is to defeat his enemies, to drive them before him, to take from them all they possess, to see those they love in tears, to ride their horses, and to hold their wives and daughters in his arms."
I still wish people would get worked up about the fig tree story... both theists and atheists never seem to think it's a problem. I vote for an analysis of the fig tree!
@creepyoldman2 Are you forgetting the video? The judge analogy? There's an example right there. If we're talking about the christian god, then yes, we're talking about a god that's supposed to "know best." If you want to debate whether or not he actually does, that's a different discussion. My response to TBS that he missed the point is still valid. If you believe that a judge who's been to law school should be able to administer punishment, why not a theoretically all-knowing, all-loving god?
SC has been bringing the hot for years on GH, OLTL, and B&B, but as TBS he provides intellectual orgasms. That's just fuckin' awesome. He's like a younger Nathan Fillion. Okay, I'm done with my fan squee. On topic, Scott has just validated most of my major positions during my twelve years of Catholic school, albeit much more eloquently. Thank you!
@xnightwishx18 If you've been following Scott then you might want to rewatch his Treatise on Morality... it explains very clearly why and how we justify enforcing moral values on people who don't want to follow those values. And no, protecting subjective values is not objectively valuable. He goes into detail about how idea of "objective values" is contradictory in itself; protecting subjective values is not an exception.
Along with the definition of value, value is a verb, and is a verb that subjective beings are the only things/nouns capable of doing, therefore, value-ing something is nessecarily subjective
Oh dear not Elisha's bears again. Brettppalmer made a brilliant rebuttal to that argument. If a story like that has to be defended so rigorously and so often perhaps it's the source material that's wrong, not the interpretation. Brilliant video by the way, good sound reasoning.
This guy would be an excellent public figure; articulates an argument so gracefully that it's impressive and very persuasive.
your calmness and pleasant speech would even make a phone book interesting... that you discuss a very interesting topic with very sound logic makes me quite addicted to your discussions :)
on the other hand I can only imagine how long it would take me to find the appropriate weak spots in a "typical" apologetics argument, so please keep up these very well thought trough discussions!
@memoryhero Yes, my schlong is the *actual* standard for a foot. But I decided not to bring that up.
😂😂
...it's 2020... and we're in the middle of an epidemic...
Epydemic2020 was a prophet
I really wish I’d found Scott’s channel years ago. I’d already deconverted a few years before this video was published, but he would have helped me deal with some lingering questions a lot sooner for sure.
An excellent job rebutting that guy. Always mind-expanding to watch and listen carefully to your videos. Sometimes, I just don't have time to go through them as thoroughly as I wish, but when I do, it's well worth it.
One of the most watchable 20 minute videos out there
@ghuegel What's your objection to critiquing the most commonly held moral philosophy in this country, whilst offering what I consider a better alternative?
As I said, I'm planning on doing another follow-up focusing on different aspects of this. Do you have questions about my own moral views? What are they?
Powerful video. I particularly liked the bit about how making an unfalsifiable argument also gives it no explanatory power. I know many people who hide behind that veil but I had no means to describe it. Now they have no excuse. Thanks again, and great video!
Brilliant!!! And subbed!!! You have a very enjoyable way of making your point (by using logic, which is a nice and welcome change). Too bad I found this so late in the game, more than 3 years later.
Can you guys imagine TBS in a public debate? He would be amazing. Also, I like how he argues philosophically because that's generally the approach of most theists. He takes them down on their own ground.
@IfWordsCouldSpeak It's not a shirt change. It's a clip from my last response to Epy. That's why I said, "roll tape!" right before.
I'm a straight heterosexual male, but when he said, "At 3 minutes and 7 seconds", I giggled and got excited
i miss his videos... he needs to make more... MOAR!
"Honesty is a Twelve-Inch Distance" would be a great album/song title
That was worth watching all the way through. That comparison to the aluminum ruler in the last minute was priceless, and I will be sure to use that myself.
@Tiberius, yes, in theory, I think science is quite capable of telling us what we subjectively value. (It may even be able to tell us values we didn't know we had). However, that's in principle. Accurately doing this in practice may take some time.
@Tapecutter59 Right, isn't this fairly consistent with the point I was making? It seems like more of a "fun fact" than a nit-pick.
@Epydemic2020 The point is that I would make a mutually exclusive claim about the objectivity of certain values. You claim to "know" a priori that human life is objectively valuable (for example), and I would claim to know a priori that human life is *not* objectively valuable.
But that's just one example. Others might affirm the objective value of certain qualities or things that you wouldn't. A Wiccan could claim to know, a priori, that trees are intrinsically valuable. Who's right?
Though I have no doubt that others before me have provided the same critiques to the same points, my thoughts, examples, analogies and arguments are my own and not the recitation of anyone else's work that I am aware of, unless I state otherwise (e.g., the Euhtyphro Dilemma).
Hitchens, interesting, that was the exact thought I had. A clearly stated and concise argument; as concise as this specific topic could possibly be. The aluminum ruler end was truly beautiful. At one point the argument almost seemed as if it were carried too far, but I was uncertain on this first pass of the video. I'll step away and watch it again and see if I still perceive that moment in the same way or if I just took it wrong. A reference to Epicurus would have been nice & simple though.
Scott have you ever thought about being in a comedy series? i think that would be great
@Epydemic2020 Which videos are you choosing between? Personally, I (and my viewers probably) prefer we moved on to either objections to *my* moral philosophy, or your response to the second half of my last video, discussing the use of God as the S.o.M... Either way, take your time. I'm gonna try to hit some other topics in the meantime.
@Graffight It's a little removed from it's context in this video, but if you refer to my last video to Epy, I give a syllogism about this. It makes more sense if you think of this argument as support for that syllogism.
The logic is impeccable, the ending is a kicker. I just want to up vote this, up vote this…
Thank you. I hope you don't mind that I occasionally spout parts of your videos verbatim to my religious friends when they reuse to stop talking and I no longer have the patience to come up with my own arguments. I like to think that the parts of those discussions which are my original words are this compelling, but as an atheist, I can't believe in something when evidence refutes it. Please never stop making these.
Great vid. I do think there are intrinsic triggers we often lean on in dire moments of decision which normally comes down to fear or a lack of (trust, education, repatition etc) but I still see them as intrinsic & subject to the self.
One such gathering of introspective equlity was the Cyrus scroll & the Dec of Human Rights yet it still put's human life over the envorinment around them & does not seem to qualify as objective at all unless it took into account all life - period + the environment
Actually, the foot is defined to be 0.3048 meters and the meter is defined as the length of the path traveled by light in a vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second (chosen so that the speed of light is exactly 299,792,458 m/s).
I heard a story from The Ricky Gervais show where they were discussing the Cambodian midget fighting league. The headline reads "Lion Mutilates 42 Midgets in Cambodian Ring-Fight" 42, sound familiar?
Scott - I've been following this debate since the beginning, and you've done an excellent job of expressing your points. If all values are subjective then, including human life and well being, what would you personally do if someone, say, robs you? Who are you to force your subjective values on him? Or is he infringing upon your values? If so, is the protection of everyone's subjective values objectively valuable?
@Carnife Am I wrong to translate "essential to the human species" to "something valuable to a human"?
Nit pick: Distance itself is impossible to define without picking some abritrary physical constant as a basic unit.
Since 1960 the standard foot has been defined as 0.3048 meters and a meter has been defined as 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of the orange-red emission line of the krypton-86 atom in a vacuum.
Prior to 1960 the US and UK standard feet were slightly different lengths (by a few millionths of an inch).
The foot is defined in terms of the meter, which is defined in terms of the speed of light and the second, and the second is defined in terms of "the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom."
@TurboDally Right?
@MajorObvious Just note, I appreciate your response. I have been thinking on this for awhile and I am open for someone to poke hole in my ideas so I can move on. :)
@TheWhiteRabbit1990 Lol....where exactly do you stand on the whole thing?
question....what age "does" small children refer to?
"...was never the RULER..."
I like the irony in that.
@Epydemic2020 No I wouldn't argue that. It's just a hypothetical example. I don't know what Wiccans believe, other than that they have a profound respect for nature. It could easily be the case, however, that someone is a Wiccan precisely BECAUSE they "recognize" intrinsic value in trees, etc... which would not be any more a posteriori than your own contentions about objective value.
@Largo64 I hear my brain saying "Aha!", "Of course!" and "Why didn't I think of that before?" often while listening to Scott's videos.
@tecnoblix I second this. Scott could be massively popular. Good looks + soundness + calmness + pop culture flare + intelligence + fair = the best force against religious idiocy yet.
Excellent work Matt. logical, almost concise, polite, with a wry sense of humour. :-) I wish I had your patience.
Matt?
His name is Scott I believe
The distinction you make between "human life is valuable" and "I value human life" is quite profound. You've made it before, of course, but not so clearly and succinctly. I might use that in the future...
Really nice one Scott. I'm shocked he didn't get it the first time. But hey, at least we got another vid out of it. :)
Surgically precise evisceration - very nice!
@autumnsylver That's a great point that probably goes unnoticed. If we lived off of Carbon Dioxide instead, suddenly oxygen isn't so valuable anymore, from our perspective at least, (and that really IS the point isn't it?)
Your observations are very...Objective! =D
Amazing video,I'll be sure to watch more of your stuff.
Re. discussion of "value" around 7:00
I completely agree that "merit, importance, worth, usefulness" etc. require a subject. But how about "rarity" as an objective property of something?
I'm just test driving this idea and haven't thought it through, but could one not argue that the rarity of something gives it inherent, objective value? An obvious example might be gold.
I guess one of the problem's with my argument is that some substances are rare yet not considered valuable. For instance, works of art I've created from my own ear wax are rare, but not valuable.
The monetary value of something material or purchasable is partially based on rarity, yes. However, it is not the only factor that determines its monetary value. Factors such as other properties of that material thing, or demand for that material thing all play a role in determining its value.
Gold, for example, is not only rare, but it's also stainless, unaffected by air and other reagents. That's why if you let some gold lay around for a long time and you come back, you can be sure that you little to no gold to rust or other chemical bonding.
However, I don't know where you are going with this because moral values are distinct from monetary values of physical objects. I don't mean to jump the gun, but you could be heading right into a fallacy of equivocation.
Anyway, I don't think you give your works of art enough credit. You'd be surprised at what price people buy weird things off of ebay. You could give it a try.
+Oners82 I'm gonna jump in 4 months later. Rare is a measure that requires a subjective comparison. Gold may be considered rare, but to what? While gold is rarer than water, it's not more rare than a unicorn or a living dinosaur. Rare is a subjective trait or characteristic because it requires one to assess what it is rare to. One of something may be either rare or abundant depending on what you are comparing it to, even though the number "ruler" does not change.
+Oners82 Yes, if there are other universes with less or none, then it would be rare.
+oners82
Dude if you're gonna be an intellectual coward, stop responding please and just quietly admit defeat. You lost, so grow up hey.
+Oners82
Also, you are a disgrace to enlightenment principles. You indulge exactly the same attitude as the religious who selectively acknowledge/dismiss reality/logic.
You really should do this semi full time. You are awesome.❤
@jessemaurais
I was ponder the same questions, "How can one person alone act morally?" and the only thing I could come up with was the question being off base.
By attempting to evaluate the morality of a single persons in 'isolation' you are necessarily injecting an additional perspective, which would not exist in the actual scenario.
I imagine TBS would claim operating definition or right/wrong could still be used and as such render the single persons actions objectively moral/immoral
New found respect for you mr Clifton. Clear and concise. ;]
Damn that was pretty good. You come up with all this yourself?
You, sir, make a fine teacher. This was an enjoyable video.
Dude! just saw you on Switched, I thought you did pretty well with the dancing considering, enjoying the vids, keep up the good work! :D
I certainly enjoy watching these videos. Thank you.
well this is awful. I spend my time nonreciprocating on AP courses...by watching philosophical argument....just,wow.
I do enjoy all your videos! You're a very enlightened person, and you argue things in ways i didn't imagine-and with composure at that!
@brettppalmer Oh man! This reminds me, I totally planned on adding an annotation in my video with a link to your 2-part discussion of the story from Kings, which I think is excellent, and comprehensive. Gonna add that now.
@brettppalmer Thanks!
THIS IS A LONG VIDEO.
Good stuff, Scott.
See you in DC!
HOLY FUCK!
Has it really been 9 YEARS?!?!
Frasure:- "should I turn the light off"
James Erl Jones:- "Surprise Me"
Scott, it is impressive the amount of times people prove your points while arguing against you :P
It is a pleaser to listen your reosoning; to bad you don't post videos anymore
"Unless you think I can transcend my own hardwiring. In which case I don't think that it'd be 'hardwiring.'"
Pwned dammit
isn't the term "objective values" an oxymoron? Coz i thought if its called a value, everyone has a different 'value' attached to it, but if everyone perceives it differently than how can it possibly be objective?
Any thoughts TBS?
I've seen you argue poorly (though profoundly) in the past on occasion but this video was perfect and circumspect.
@Carnife What TBS claim is that if objective values exist, it is impossible for a human to tell that value from a subjective one. I would claim that objective values are independent of a single subject and rather produced between subjects and their environment. Subjective values tend to be reproduced from these objective values but it's not always the case. To actually know what is objectively valuable is also as TBS points out difficult if not impossible.
Can you clarify one bit from 6:02-6:12 for me. You talk about how I will hold a contradictory position with you on say, the objective value of human life.
Didn't you say that you failed to recognize any objective value at all? It doesn't seem to me to be the case that you recognize contradictory obj values to me.. but rather that you simply don't see recognize anything at all.
Yes. That's a thought. Interesting responses which have caused me to rethink my position. If something is objective then it is by it's very definition outside of what we can possibly know inherently. It is learned, and if it is learned then it cannot be an original state of being or an absolute truth. Btw, I think this is one of the best examples of Scot's arguments.
@ItsSolaFide Wait what? Subjectivity means that what is right for one person is not necessarily right for another. In other words he absolutely does not have so say that Hilters actions were okay.
What did u study? ur pretty smart! And i liked the blind man analogy.
When you think about it, all values we have are subjective. Even something like oxygen. We can consider it valuable because it keeps almost all life on this planet alive, but the value placed on it still comes from us. It has value because we assign it value. The same goes for everything we value.
Why can't Liam on B&B be this smart :(
I love this guy ,brilliant !
@UncomfortableSilence I wish there was an edit comment button.
It's amazing; I understand every point and every word you say in your videos, but I have to keep pausing for the information overload to sink in. If I made videos like this I'd need to either memorize my lines or use a teleprompter (though I admit I probably wouldn't think of half of your rebuttals).
Excellent video and use of analogy and logic.
Excellent video, I really like the ruler analogy. By the way, I was picking up some food one afternoon and as I was leaving the restaurant I happened to glance at their TV and I saw your face. Haha. It blows my mind you work on a soap. =) You should write a book and engage some public debates. You could join the ranks of Hitchens, Dawkins, and Dennett.
@violentlygraceful Yes, doesn't the entire thing make SO much more sense once you appreciate it for what it is: a "don't-fuck-with-God-or-His-prophets" warning story?
@theDracoIX Does that mean you'll no longer be trolling the comments sections of my videos? That I don't have to expect any more personal attacks, manic rants, or hollow, unsupported assertions? Hallelujah!
@Epydemic2020 "The greatest joy for a man is to defeat his enemies, to drive them before him, to take from them all they possess, to see those they love in tears, to ride their horses, and to hold their wives and daughters in his arms."
Morallity is the subjective line between polar ends of dichotomies presented by an objective fact!
- Objective
- Value
Pick one.
@kamijk interesting, so why would 42 8 year olds be out and about unaccompanied by adults of any kind?
Values, and rulers, and bears! Oh my!
This claim runs counter to everything I had read or heard on the topic. Have any sources to cite?
@JemyM Food is "objectively necessary for life", not "objectively valuable".
I love your videos, they are very enlightening; you have a very good way of explaining things and have a godly vocabulary
I still wish people would get worked up about the fig tree story... both theists and atheists never seem to think it's a problem.
I vote for an analysis of the fig tree!
@creepyoldman2 Are you forgetting the video? The judge analogy? There's an example right there. If we're talking about the christian god, then yes, we're talking about a god that's supposed to "know best." If you want to debate whether or not he actually does, that's a different discussion. My response to TBS that he missed the point is still valid. If you believe that a judge who's been to law school should be able to administer punishment, why not a theoretically all-knowing, all-loving god?
ah, you caught me on an exam heavy week. Responses on the way, but it will take a while. Now I am not quite sure which video to respond to first.
SC has been bringing the hot for years on GH, OLTL, and B&B, but as TBS he provides intellectual orgasms. That's just fuckin' awesome. He's like a younger Nathan Fillion. Okay, I'm done with my fan squee. On topic, Scott has just validated most of my major positions during my twelve years of Catholic school, albeit much more eloquently. Thank you!
Holy crap you're droppin intellectual atomic bombs in this one. My brain, it hurts.
@xnightwishx18
If you've been following Scott then you might want to rewatch his Treatise on Morality... it explains very clearly why and how we justify enforcing moral values on people who don't want to follow those values.
And no, protecting subjective values is not objectively valuable. He goes into detail about how idea of "objective values" is contradictory in itself; protecting subjective values is not an exception.
Objectively mind-blowing!
Good reply. Now lets what actually is moral and valuable according to this framework. And how this is determined. That would be some good footage too.
This guy is brilliant
Along with the definition of value, value is a verb, and is a verb that subjective beings are the only things/nouns capable of doing, therefore, value-ing something is nessecarily subjective
Oh dear not Elisha's bears again. Brettppalmer made a brilliant rebuttal to that argument. If a story like that has to be defended so rigorously and so often perhaps it's the source material that's wrong, not the interpretation.
Brilliant video by the way, good sound reasoning.
I admire his tenacity to even dare step to you, TB. I'm sure you do too :P
The end was really nice.