What’s the best atheist argument for objective morality?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 сер 2024
- ⬇⬇⬇𝗦𝗢𝗖𝗜𝗔𝗟 𝗠𝗘𝗗𝗜𝗔⬇⬇⬇
●Facebook: / crossexamined.org
●Twitter: / frank_turek
●Instagram: / drfrankturek
●Pinterest: www.pinterest....
⬇⬇⬇𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗢𝗨𝗥𝗖𝗘𝗦⬇⬇⬇
Website: crossexamined.org
Store: impactapologet...
Online Courses: reasonu.thinki...
⬇⬇⬇𝗦𝗨𝗦𝗖𝗥𝗜𝗕𝗘 𝗧𝗢 𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗣𝗢𝗗𝗖𝗔𝗦𝗧⬇⬇⬇
iTunes: bit.ly/CrossExa...
Google Play: bit.ly/CE_Podca...
Spotify: bit.ly/CrossExa...
Stitcher: bit.ly/CE_Podca...
#Morality #Relativism #Evil
I haven't heard a compelling reason yet from an atheist on why anyone should leave the Christian faith or why we shouldn't believe in Jesus.
@Nietzsche Darwin Not a good Reason...
@Nietzsche Darwin Because there is Nothing in the Bible that is a good Reason to leave the one True saving faith.
Christ the only hope not all atheists are compelled to give you a reason. On the contrary, my best years were dedicated in the church and I grew a lot in many ways. However, to say that I am grateful is ambivalent because as you know, no one is perfect in holding their faith or belief.
NaVi ' there’s plenty of good reasons. Genocide, Misogyny, discrimination, favouritism, sexism, prejudice... the bible is controversial after all, and any of these reasons are good if they affect you negatively.
Christ the only hope
Because you don’t have any good reasons for believing it is true and your personal growth imprisoned because of it.
In my experience, atheists dont want to get it
They choose to reject Christ. They want to remain in darkness.
I agree. It is awfully difficult for atheists to "get it" when dealing with mythological deities. So we'll just wait until delusion overcomes us. Senility runs in my family, so I ought to he joining your little party in the near future.
@@Scorpion-my3dv Seeing that Christ is a mythical deity, I'm quite sure he won't take offense at the rejection.
@Sean Pittaway What?
A C Jack John has a God
Please provide evidence that would support your words about a “creator”! For now you’ve just made a bunch of assertions without any proofs!
Some atheists are running around saying well-being is the objective moral standard.
🙄🤷🏽♂️
@NicoCoco yep, that's the claim again
Where is the evidence that it's true?
@NicoCoco Is God good? How can we prove that God is good? If objective morality (being good) means act accordingly to God's commands, than we are good if we're sticking to God's wishes. God is all-good because he's being God. But in order to say God is good, there must be an objective morality standard outside of God which we can use to judge God and say he is good. Which proves that God is not a source of objective morality.
@NicoCoco Believing is not enough, you got to have evidence. If I have a choice between two or more different religions, how would I know which one is real? Why is nobody in Arab world ever been saved by Jesus?
@NicoCoco I give you for Arabs. You avoided all my other questions. How do I know which is the right religion? I'm sure if I talk to a Muslim or Hindu, he would give me some thoughtful reasons why his religion is correct. What about people that lived before Jesus or in South America before colonization? How are they going to be saved? Also, Christianity has many forms. If I ask you and 50 others and you all know Bible well, there would still be a lot of disagreement between you, I'm sure. How would I know who is correct? Couple more things, you failed to explain how is God ultimatively all-good, all you said was we (humans) are not. Prove to me that God is good. You can't do that without using objective measurement for what is good, which means there is objective morality outside of God. Also, you said we humans are unable to keep the commandments, it's in our nature. How is then our fault or sin if we're designed that we can't keep them?
@NicoCoco But you still haven't prove to me that God is good. I'm going to be more clear what I mean by that. You say God shown us his love by sending his son etc. OK, so why is that a good thing? In order to say God's sending of his son, his sacrifice etc. are good things, you need an objective measurement of good outside of God by which you will judge that actions and say that is a good thing. If every action taken by God is automatically good, then the word good has no meaning.
One more question is bothering me: Jesus died for us to redeem our sins, right? Every man has a free will to accept him or not as savior. What would happened if Jews and Romans accepted Jesus as savior? They had a free will, so there was a possibility. Jesus would not be put on cross and we could not be saved.
And I didn't understand Romans 1, faith in what will save people who didn't hear of Jesus nor monotheistic God?
If atheists admit there is a God, then they must acknowledge they are not their own gods, that is, they cannot be “like God” which is what tripped up Adam and Eve (and us too). I want to set my own rules and be my own god deciding what I will and will not do and what is permissible and what is not. I want to be God. I want independence and license to do whatever I want. But I am not God. I must seek His will instead of mine. Atheists want nothing to do with submission. It will be the death of them.
@M C Brother I have nothing to prove. Believe whatever you want. I should care about you, but if I’m being honest, I don’t know you and I just don’t care. But an observation. You have a problem on your hands. If I’m wrong, at the end I just go to sleep. If I’m right, you wake up to something that’s unspeakably bad that after a billion years, hasn’t even started up good. Good luck with that.
@@DontStopBrent you have that so backwards.
If you are wrong, you will have wasted your only life being controlled by a ridiculous story.
And if you are right, you have spent your entire life worshipping a jealous, petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
It's a loose loose situation for the believer.
@Some Random Boy, you spend a great deal of time convincing. But who are you trying to convince? Why are you even here watching this video? Ok you don’t believe. Why waste your time here? Just go live your life.
@Some Random Also, I hope to see you someday in eternity......... as someone, maybe God Himself, repeat all your insults back to you. I hope you have accepted Christ by then.
@M C Sorry troll. It’s on you. You believe whatever you want to. I don’t care either way. I am convinced. I have had all the proof I need in my life. Good luck.
They have none.
Correct.
Same as Christians.
170221dn Christians can answer every question unlike atheist. They only believe what they believe in because they grow up in America that used to be a Christian nation. If you grown up in Islamic territories you would be like them. Unlike Christians which tell the truth even in the face of death.
170221dn
Are you missing our objective standard of truth?
@@letsprayandfasttogether9618
"Christians can answer every question unlike atheist."
Every atheist can answer the questions. What is of concern here is whether Christians have access to an objective morality. If they do then we would expect all Christians to say the same thing on all moral matters wouldn't we?
"They only believe what they believe in because they grow up in America that used to be a Christian nation."
??
"If you grown up in Islamic territories you would be like them. "
So there are differences proving absolute morals don't exist?
"Unlike Christians which tell the truth even in the face of death."
telling the truth in the face of death isn't relevant.
@@chrisgagnon5768
"Are you missing our objective standard of truth?"
I thought the question is on morals?
Morality has always been a huge problem for religion. A religious person can be moral, but they have no way to explain, through faith, why any act is right or wrong. See how badly apologists fail on this. Or can any apologist manage it? All true morality is humanistic.
If something that is all knowing, all powerful, has no beginning and no end creates humanity for the purpose of loving one another and places a value on humanity this makes a situation in which humanity hurting one another becomes objectively wrong… if there is no God… then the only value placement that’s going is our own… because there is no God, living for an eternity does not happen… so our value placement dies with us… whatever we valued doesn’t matter and so is our morals… it’s subjective… who cares about Abraham Lincoln’s morals… only through subjectivity where a person cares would carry the same beliefs as Lincoln is not really carrying on Lincoln’s morals… it’s just there subjective own morals… it wouldn’t make it objective… and they would expire along with their morals
@@noneofyourbusiness792 That's a huge if.... An 'if' won't produce morals.
Still no one seems to be able to explain morality through faith. Why not?
That's the problem with religious morality- it's just subjective. Anyone can just have faith in anything.
Humanism works because it's more timeless, more objective.
@@Ozzyman200 I would argue that Humanism is not timeless… the human race is more than capable of becoming extinct in a godless world… let’s say for example humanity decides go to an all nuclear war and every living thing on the planet has been vaporized… would humanism be timeless under that kind of scenario?
@@Ozzyman200 morality through faith is not the correct phrase… it’s not through faith that morality exists… try to read through my comment again… either there is no god or there is a god… IF is what goes both ways… IF there is a god and this god is responsible for creating the human race and this god has no beginning and no end… and this god created the human race in his image and places value on the human race and wants us to love each and not harm one other and there is everlasting life after death because this god makes that possible then there are objective morals that are absolutely… this means no matter what kind of subjectivity someone produces and says “hey let’s hurt people” you can refer to gods objective morals and know what these people are doing are wrong…
IF there is no god there is then everything is relative… life is subjective… anything and everything people do is just a preference… there is no real right or wrong… people can hurt each or not hurt each other… it’s just a preference… you may not like being hurt… and you can certainly place value on not getting hurt… you could certainly benefit from not getting hurt… but ultimately it’s your relativism vs their relativism… who ever is the strongest wins… furthermore there is no after and if you expire that’s it… so survival of the fittest becomes important if you so subjectively choose it to be important… but your value placement is no different from anyone else’s value placement…
@@Ozzyman200 here are the four scenarios and maybe you might agree but let’s see…
Scenario 1: Believe that there is a god and god actually existing which means everything in the Bible is true
Scenario 2: Not believe that there is god and found out god exists, everything in the Bible is true and lose out
Scenario 3: Believe that there is a god but find nothing in death and actually lived life in a world of no god
Scenario 4: Not believing in a god, not never really finding out in death, and lived life not really caring about either
Either side has a 50/50 chance of being right or wrong… however scenario 2 there is a chance of losing out in something that could be possibly good while scenario 1 choose right and get to live for an eternity with god… two vastly different outcomes… if I’m right I get to go to the kingdom… but if I’m wrong I didn’t really lose out on anything… if you are right then you get to be worm food… but if your wrong well… you lose everything… do you agree?
**YES** now that's what I call the spirit of confusion
That"s why satan will be humiliated in his reasons countering his Creator because it will be self defeating argument.
The enemy has blinded the eyes of unbelievers. They choose to reject him and so they remain confused and unable to come to the knowledge of truth.
@@nohandlemebruh look around you. All of creation is evidence.
@Saint Michael Pray for Us Is God good? How can we prove that God is good? If objective morality (being good) means act accordingly to God's commands, than we are good if we're sticking to God's wishes. God is all-good because he's being God. But in order to say God is good, there must be an objective morality standard outside of God which we can use to judge God and say he is good. Which proves that God is not a source of objective morality.
@Saint Michael Pray for Us Especially when he killed unborn babies during the flood.
@@goranmilic442 They will never understand this.
@@Scorpion-my3dv Creation? You DARE call what is around you CREATION!! Do you not carry microscopes around, and more closely observe! There is no creation, no creator. God is where things lead, to, evolve into, not created from. Like Crabification, everything evolves in crabs. While everything evolves into God, or replaces God like ship of Theseus, Wisdom and Truth is found in Paradox and Half-Truth. Onto Principals. That's God.
God is love so that's what I say. Most people will agree Love is real, even if they can't prove it.
1 John 4:7-8 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.
How’ve you been?
Love is real insofar as we have experiences and emotions that we talk about in terms of love.
There’s no evidence that love is some objective force. Our experiences of love can be fickle and contradictory.
For example, the parent who beats their child with a stick because it’s loving (and, indeed, biblical) to teach the child about right and wrong in such a fashion.
Chris Finegan tell your kids that you love them but all love really is is a serious of chemicals emitted in the brain when thinking about someone with similar genetic makeup to myself, in order to fabricate an illusion of some type of deeper spiritual bond.
I’m sure your kids will grow up just fine.
Kyle Rainer
Well, it is chemical. But we give it meaning. Significant, life-changing and life-affirming meaning.
We often say that love is a choice. It’s not impervious to attack. It’s not necessarily easy. Sometimes it’s even destructive. Or painful.
There’s still no evidence that it exists as a force in-and-of itself.
That’s not to say that it isn’t massively important to us.
Chris Finegan I guess the real question then is why would have evolved to have this level of compassion and intimacy with each other if it can often result in us dying or being miserable because of it? Sometimes husbands do die for their wives and families.... why? Seriously. How does that come close to making sense from a merely evolutionary perspective?
I am an atheist and I think the idea that morality could be objective is nonsense. Even if there is a God, morality is Subjective. That is Mt straight, honest answer.
Humans are the only species on the plant that believe in justice and moral accountability. If morality just is why do we care so much about it. I believe because we are made that way by God.
Lol so much wrong in one short comment 😅😂🤣😅😂🤣🤣😅
Here we go again. God did it.
The reason you won't find any atheist argument is that atleast as far as i know, no atheist claim we have objective morality. Also if morality is objective as in the same for everyone, then how can people ever disagree on the morality of something. For example some people argue against gay marraige while other argue for it, how can both sides claim to have objective morality on their side?
@Peter Johansson Does the lack of consensus around a given moral issue invalidates the moral standard of both sides? Does the existence of an objectivw moral standard forces individuals to know it and act according to it?
Peter Johansson id like to hear where objective morality comes from for the people who are for gay marriage?
@@mikeramos91 Then you should ask someone who believe in objective morality and is for gay marriage. Also that was not the point, the point was that if people disagree then in what way do they follow the same moral rules?
@@camilobriceno8212 imagine two people, one of them is a sadist who think it's moral to cause suffering and the other person does not think it's moral to cause suffering. We know sadists exist, so in what way would these two people share the same morality? if it's that they'll be judged by the same standard then morality is by definition subjective because god is a subject, that's just how grammar work. So i ask since morality is not objective cause people disagree and it's not objective because god is a subject, in what way is it objective?
Peter Johansson that’s the point I was trying to make. People don’t follow the same rules. Objective morality for people against gay marriage would come from the God of the Bible. That’s why I’d like to hear where the morality comes from for people for gay marriage. Because there no objective basis for gay marriage, only opinion
this combination of Grace, Love, Forgiveness, and Redemption, is a marvelous truth of the Gospel the world so desperately need - RAVI ZACHARIAS
As much as Ravi Had a double life.
We can never deny that he was an incredible apologist, but a flawed man.
We have little evidence that Ravi repented of his evil life. One thing we can be sure of, is that justice will be served in eternity for him. We should just live our own lives in a way that when we are gone, we leave a legacy of obedience to The Lord.
Well since objective morals don't exist I guess there isn't an argument....
@@inaudiblearia8047 How are morality and ethics subjective?
@@Orange1117 Morality is subjective since there is no objective source of morality. Every moral rule comes from our mind.
@@Orange1117no morality objective this doesn’t prove god tell me if you never heard of god would you go around rap€ing people
Or if god said rap€ was okay would it then be okay
I really liked his question. Thoughtful and a subject ive been brooding on lately.
Objective morality is actually easy as long as we agree human well-being is the goal just the effects of your actions are the basis of morality. Lift people up don't kick them when they're down it's really not that complicated if people hadn't been brainwashed as a child
@@darkeen42 that's a reasonable argument, Michael. However, the thing I keep coming back to is the way small toddlers understand the concept of justice. They cry or become angry when they feel they have been treated unfairly and likewise feel shame or guilt when they have been caught transgressing. It's almost like we are born with this knowledge of justice written into our genetic code.
@@pasteghost428 really no they don't cry when they're being treated unfairly their cry when they don't like what's happening whether that's changing their diaper or feeding them their vegetables it has nothing to do with fairness. Just like if you give a baby all the ice cream in the world and the baby right next to him moldy brussel sprouts the ice cream baby isn't going to be racked with guilt and saddened by the Injustice all he cares about is the ice cream in front of him. That was some pretty sad straw grasping there
@@pasteghost428 we are instilled with empathy and eventually the mind develops enough to understand how bad things happening to other people sucks for them and in theory their pain is just as important as your pain. What you want to call Justice is just empathy. Look at Robin Hood nobody's screaming for Robin Hood to be locked up it was against the law therefore unjust or was it still just or how do we define just?
saying what's the best atheist arguments against morality, is like saying what's the best wrong answer. no.
There's only one right answer.
Yes and that’s objective morality something that either dis proves god or more powerful then him
People always say "if there is no god, why is this good..."
I dont get that.
If there is a god, why does that have anything to do with x being good? I certainly dont think about god when i do something for someone. Its just a vague claim that gid has anything to do with anything and nobody explains.
If the only reasons Frank Turek is moral is because he believes god exits, then he is a horrible person.
Him being Horribe would imply objective morality. If theres no God then hes subjectively immoral to you.
@@DaddyAZTL Even in Christianity, morality is subjective. Christians for some reason like to make big deal over objective morality. It's a big deal to them for some reason.
But getting your morality from god's subjective opinion, still makes it subjective. It's doesn't make it any more objective just because you get it from an objective, tangible source. Morality still comes from god's opinions.
@@zeddicuszorrander3599 "even in Christianity morality is objective " prove it.
Getting an objective view on morality doesn't make the view subjective but objective. If God Himself is the concept of Love,Mercy,Justice etc and calls this Good then its objectively Good as he is the concept of these things. Likewise if i see the sky i say its color will be called blue or w.e. We just so happen to call it BLUE . Justice is there God (as God is Justice itself) just so happened to call it "Good" so the same way we say something is blue is the sameway God said something is Good he made the term. Not us and if he is Good in entirety then Objective Goodness Exists It's simply God.(p.s all this excludes the colorblind people)
So if God himself gave humans that term & his very nature is Good. Then we use his viewpoint as its his standards that makes him objectively Good.
@@DaddyAZTL If you're arguing that morality is objective because it originates at a source, then there is nothing stopping me from saying my morality is objective because it comes from me as a source. This makes subjective morality non-existent. Therefore, only objective morality exists, yet everyone might have different moral values. So, I don't see how you think this is somehow better than subjective morality.
@@DaddyAZTL I think from here I should ask, "Why should I care about your God's moral values? What is his standard of morality the best?
Morality has always been a problem for religion. Religion simply can't explain why any act is wrong or right.
morality is subjective
@Street Deacon
I'm confident we can all agree beating someone with a bat is immoral, it just goes without saying. But if we're supposed to be debating this on a deep level, almost nothing can go without saying. So what is it about beating someone up that is immoral?
Let's suppose we travel to an alternate reality where hitting someone with a bat is equivalent to greeting someone in the street. It obviously wouldn't be immoral do commit the act then, so we know there isn't anything inherently immoral with the physical action itself, but rather the way we experience the consequences.
There isn't a single person on the planet that wouldn't be hurt by a baseball bat in any way, so it's easy to know it's immoral, but with a moral dilemma on our hands, the opinions split. What if it's self defense? What if they deserve it?
The reason morality is subjective is because everyone has their own perception. But the reason there are objective moral values is because there are certain things ingrained in our nature (such we can explain with the evolutionary process) that the absolute majority of us can agree we would experience the same way. It's a question of relevance.
*(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.*
This is why it is impossible to accept subjective morality:
1. Child rape is always wrong regardless of opinions or preferences.
2. Because child rape is always wrong, it can’t ever be subjectively right.
3. If child rape can’t ever be subjectively right, it is objectively wrong.
4. Because child rape is objectively wrong, objective morality exists.
@@viktorthevictor6240if we all agree that beating someone with a bat is wrong it does not explain why it is wrong… that is an argument from ad populum and that is a fallacy… I seen Aron Ra make that argument
Atheists are determined to misunderstand creation. Peace
The best atheist argument for objective morality I've encountered is Stephan Molyneux's universally preferable behaviour and it's actually quite good. Of course, other Atheists absolutely hate it which tells quite alot what they really are about :D
So the short answer is their best answer is really bad. 😂😂😂
Actually, what Turek has done is cherrypicked the answer that lets him make his point.
I, for one, am shocked.
ɧąყɖɛŋ
That there’s no such thing as objective morality.
Chris Finegan that’s a bold statement. Now prove it.
ɧąყɖɛŋ
Well, I can’t prove it. Much in the same way as I can’t prove the non-existence of God. It’s just my opinion.
My opinion is based on a dearth of evidence for the existence of an objective morality.
Every human has an opinion on morality that feels inherent... so obvious to them that it feels objective. But other people feel just as strongly about a very different set of moral beliefs.
The majority of people will agree about certain things, e.g. murder is bad, but moral problems like "would you kill Hitler if you had a time machine" demonstrate the limits of any potential objectivity.
We have no evidence for absolute consequences for certain moral/immoral actions. No evidence for God, heaven or he'll. No evidence of an afterlife.
We have some books that were written a long time ago that talk of morality in very certain terms. Some of these books state that slavery is OK and that we should beat children who misbehave.
If the authors of these books had access to the moral arbiter of the Universe, I sincerely hope they took down their notes wrong since the apparent 'objective morality' seems very worrisome indeed.
@@user-mg1jp2qf7h in regards to Slavery in the Bible.... Yes & No.
Slavery in the Old Testament, primarily exists because of Culture/Context/Environment/Time's made it ubiquitous to the Israelites of the Old Testament.
Everyone else in Old Testament time's, had Slaves. The vast majority had a thriving Slave Trade. During the earliest Old Testament time's, Law's only extended as far as your menfolk could extend your authority. Usually, this meant the men of the household. War's generally didn't happen because of law's being enforced.
Meh, that really doesn't make sense does it?
Basically, Slaves in Israel were allowed because the alternative is worse to GOD'S point of view. The Israelites rejecting him to their own room. Even then, their is only so much GOD could tolerate, which is where the Welfare aspects come from. As well as the guarantee of freedom after the jubilee year, and the guarantee of supplies/support for a year and a day from being freed. Furthermore, no slave was to be born into Slavery.
He that has an ear let them hear. Develop a personal relationship with Christ daily, intentionally place your faith in Christ alone in everything. Carnal Christians and atheist overcome the spirit of fear and unbelief in Christ power not your own.🙏
Dr. Turek, isn't it your subjective opinion that there is an objective moral standard out there?
This is why it is impossible to accept subjective morality:
1. Child rape is always wrong regardless of opinions or preferences.
2. Because child rape is always wrong, it can’t ever be subjectively right.
3. If child rape can’t ever be subjectively right, it is objectively wrong.
4. Because child rape is objectively wrong, objective morality exists.
I love how "because I care about others" is not good enough for Christians when it comes to moral standards, as though "because god said so" is a better solution.
Yes, because God is eternal and consistent. Otherwise every individual is free to create a morality that's "right" for them. Or worse, let society dictates what's "right".
BETA
Hitler cared about others....just a certain type of others...you see where I'm going with this right?
Why is you caring about others a valid reason to enforce your own subjective preferences on everyone else?
@@nickcorona3966 because most of the time, it's everyone's subjective opinion, and for those whose it's not, can live their lives away from others.
Exactly.
It's odd that even one of them argues for moral accountability when so many of their other arguments seem to be about tearing that down.
Follow closer ...huh ? WHERE
As an atheist just for the record Sam Harris does believe in consciousness he doesn't believe in the self, they are two different concepts. The argument from a secular perspective for objective morality simply relies on the axiom that suffering is bad. This is self-evident. If you accept the axiom that suffering is bad you get objective morality. You can say that one doesn't have to accept the action that sufferings bad. Just isn't true You do have to accept this. You could also say that you don't have to accept the axiom of infinity. The mathematical concept infinity is only an axiom there's no way to prove infinity exists apart from the self-evident claim of infinity. Now is someone justified in rejecting the action but infinity not at all. The proof of infinity is the self-evident idea of infinity. The same exact reasoning can be applied with suffering If someone doesn't think suffering is bad they are wrong and the proof of that is the very idea of suffering.
Here are the problems I find with suffering as the axiom of morality:
First, suffering is subjective (first world problems), what is suffering for a middle class, depressed and anxious man in the western, is luxury for a malnourished kid in a violent third world country, so not causing suffering to, let's say a privileged person leads to a non-sensical practice of being tolerant with any childish and selfish demands, because they could be genuinely suffering.
Second, what would be the purpose of avoiding suffering, either way for other people or myself? One thing we tend to avoid is the ultimate purpose of morality, since "being a good person" and what we know as "good" has to have a purpose, and since we claim we can reach objective morality without religion or God, then we need to ask ourselves, why even bother? What is the secular purpose or necessity of maintaining ourselves alive as a species, if objectively speaking we are insignificant compared to the rest of the universe and it really won't matter if we disappear? Why is suffering a bad thing then?
Third, an objective moral law is necessary since it would be able to prevent or at least command to not commit certain acts that we don't have the conscious level to assess as immoral at the moment, and we would need to go beyond avoiding suffering as the main standard, taking into account the Ripple effect: I may do something that is not seemed as bad (because from my collection of data and experience I may assess this decision as not capable of causing suffering to anyone) but this might cause suffering outside of my understanding and immediate reach. Heck, even I might know this could or will cause someone to suffer but my suffering might be greater if I don't do this certain action. Or is it? Can we quiantify suffering and also, should we prosecute someone based on a certain amount of suffering, and doing that without any previous guidelines from religion?
@@joseandres7075 For the first point, Sam Harris offers the Moral Landscape to address how suffering ought to be addressed. The landscape consists of peaks and valleys that could be analogous to beliefs and actions that either lead to human flourishing, or lead to suffering. The landscape is ever changing and we get to constantly update it. In other words, it's not a one size fits all for western people and war-torn people. The landscape takes into account all of the different possible circumstances.
Your second point seems to have a lot of points,, but one of them seems to be, what's the point of trying to be moral if human life is insignificant in the grand scheme of everything? This may get into some abstract philosophy but can maybe be summarized by the question, if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Does the universe have meaning if there is nobody around to experience it? Or better yet, does the universe have meaning if there isn't a mind around to create one for it? Also, if you accept one other axiom, which most people do, some of your second point may get addressed. If you accept "life is generally preferable to death" then you have good reason to not unalive yourself. If you don't accept this axiom, well...enjoy dying of death. It's a non starter. You don't get to participate. You're done.
For your third point, it sounds like you're saying we don't know how the ripple effect might contribute to future suffering therefore we need an objective morality to guide us appropriately (or rather an omniscient being). This is a bit of a nonstarter as well. The flip side to this is you don't know what actions you take will ripple out to create immense flourishing. Beating that random stranger with a hammer may in fact be the one thing that leads to world peace. If you're assessing your actions based on unknowns, or rather unknowns that cant be known, then you also have to ask will my inaction lead to less suffering? Since we don't know the bounds of the ripple effect, your inaction may in fact be causing a great amount of future suffering as well. So if you act, you may cause suffering, and if you don't act, you may cause suffering, so you might as well kill yourself because you can't know which of your behaviors will lead to immense suffering later...oh wait, that action might cause suffering later too...I guess we should dispense with the ripple effect idea and carry on assessing our behaviors by the data we have and can actually work with. If you think a belief in God gets you around all of this, then you may need to justify how bringing back stoning people may lead to less suffering in the future. Or do nothing of the sort and say what most religious people say "I have faith he has a plan" and stoning is within that plan and will eventually lead to less suffering yaddayadda...ya okay bud.
How then, is morality not subject to the measure of suffering? What is suffering? Who's suffering matters more? Also, what is infinity minus 1?
Tell me dear can we use *ANY* "God" as the basis for this "objective" moral standard you speak of.?? Or just the SPECIFIC SUBJECTIVE invisible being *YOU* determined to be the "correct" one out of the many thousands man has preposed.
If its the latter then in actuality its *YOU* and YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION that is determining morality dear. if its the former, then asserting objectivity to any moral claim based upon a "God" becomes a completely vacuous useless concept 👍
The claim that theistic morality is somehow superior because its "objective" is ridiculous. Theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄🤔
Suppose some guy who traifficks in the child sex trade tortures babies to death solely for the sake of his own entertainment. As an atheist, I'm not seeing how you could PROVE that such act violates any moral absolute. "do not torture babies to death solely for the sake of entertainment" is nothing but an opinion, and I'm afraid the Christian apologist merely simple-mindedly insists that you either agree with it, or your opinion doesn't count in the analysis.
I'n not seeing how that is any different in principle from "republicans shouldn't be allowed to vote, because their opinions don't count". Making yourself the arbiter of the universe and declaring by your own fiat that certain human opinions "don't count" doesn't actually do anything toward helping you prove that torturing babies to death solely for the sake of entertainment is violating any "absolute" moral. It violates the morals held by most civilized adults, but is that the key to proving absolute morals? You need to watch out lest you commit the fallacy of argument solely by outrage.
Yes, most civilized adults would probably condemn the baby-torturer, but so what? The moral upheld by the majority of mankind does not tell you what god's morality is, otherwise, the fact that most people in history have found Christianity's exclusivist claims morally repugnant must mean that god himself thinks Christianity's exclusivist claims are morally repugnant. Since you get precisely nowhere trying to argue to god from moral majority opinion of humans throughout history, how are you ever going to show that "do not torture babies to death solely for the sake of entertainment" reflects a moral that transcends human origin?
If you cannot demonstrate the truth of your answer, consider that perhaps it is because you are engaging in a category mistake. Morals are not "facts". The existence of a tree is something very concrete, the existence of "you shouldn't hurt other people" is utterly nebulous. That's because morals are, at the end of the day, nothing more than opinions. Gathering millions of like-minded people together to shout "don't hurt children solely for entertainment!" over and over might cause you to strongly believe such a moral is absolute, but again, strong moral beliefs do not always point back to God. Most people have a strong moral belief that teen prostitutes shouldn't be burned to death, but Christians cannot run away from God's commanding that in Leviticus 21:9. Morals are relative. You're welcome.
Well said.
Objective - Independent of opinion
Morality - the dichotomy of good and evil(bad)
Objectively, all conscious creatures are innately predisposed towards pleasure and away from pain (Freud's Pleasure-principle). Morality is objective as it is grounded in the universal innate dispositions and states of conscious minds.
We all inexorably experience that wellbeing is good and suffering is bad. If we experienced the worst possible suffering we could not say sincerely that it was good and conversely if we experienced the highest possible wellbeing we could not sincerely say that it was bad. Wellbeing and Good & Suffering and Bad are inextricable terms. This biologically grounded morality is independent of supreme beings and the Christian God. If the Christian God violated (bg)morality then he would be evil. Christian Eschatology supports this Consciousness based morality as Heaven and Hell are the extremes on the spectrum of conscious states referred to above.
If humans do not have free will then we are not morally responsible for our actions. Divine justice is unwarranted. However, the consequences of actions still are either moral or immoral. All that is changed is that value-judgements are not placed on the actor but on the actions.
Frank committed a 'red herring' fallacy. He changed the point in question from objective morality to moral responsibility when they are distinct subjects
"We are predisposed toward pleasure and act as if well being is good, therefore pleasure and well being are objectively good"
Is-ought fallacy.
@@TheBrunarrThe objective morality I defined is in the domain of Is's. Morality is an Is, a fact, and not an ought. It is the case that wellbeing is good and suffering is bad, I am not saying that it ought to be the case but affirming that it is.
Max Ramsahoye you cannot have pleasure & well being objectively good simply because we act like it. People act however they want all the time. People act out the pleasure of raping, stealing, etc. Not everyone acts the same. You cannot have well being objectively good & suffering objectively wrong without a moral law giver. Just like frank said with the flourishing argument, why is flourishing a good thing without god? It can’t be good. You can only smuggle in the assumption it’s good. Smuggle in the assumption that humans must live. But without God those things aren’t really objective goals, they’re just common assumptions. Which can only be true with God.
@@mikeramos91 If something is good for our prosperity, it is objectively good for us. It is then good. Just like water, in the right amount is good for us and is objectively good. Just like sunshine in the right amount is good for plants. If the conditions for flourishing is good for that type of life, then it is objectively good to them.
The entire issue with the whole argument is how it's structured and presented. To say morals come from god, god first must be real. You can't start with a presumptions. Christians have failed to even show a god exists yet argue that's where we get morals from. You first need to support the claim a god exists then show how we get our morals from that god.
1:20 to ask a 10 second question
it does say in the bible that Gods laws are already written in our hearts that our conscience bears witness.
So the 10 commandments or god's moral laws in the OT weren't needed?
Thank g0d...no reason to put the 10 commandments in classrooms.
Human flourishing is the point. Remove the word "good" and the value of human flourishing stands on its own. Everything else is semantic. If something is "good" ONLY because God says that it's good, then what good is "good"? What good is "good" if not for its effect on human flourishing? Conversely, if God had commanded that we steal, rape, and kill, Turek would have to conclude that stealing, raping, and murdering are good. Of course, Turek would argue, "But God doesn't command that; He commands that we do NOT steal, rape, and kill."
Fair play, but so what? This is classic "Thank God for God" circular reasoning.
Minus human flourishing -- "good" is a theological, not a moral, point. Turek understands -- and his entire arguments are based on -- the premise that even secularists desire human flourishing and recognize the value of rules and expectations that are conducive to human flourishing. We are not merely "moist robots" as Turek vividly describes the atheist concept of human beings. We are creativity, hope, and love. We are agents of either flourishing or languishing. We are all we've got -- and that's okay. Morality is inescapably subjective but that doesn't make it any less sincere, authentic, or useful. It is a human construct, but we are human. Civilization itself is a human construct. Religion is a human construct. Systems of laws are human constructs. No doubt that the delusion of objectivity gives the theist some level of confidence in what they perceive to be constancy and certainty. But claiming that something is "objective" doesn't make it so.
And there you have it: apparently we need to provide an objective justification for the fact that most people have a preference for a state of affairs wherein there's less violence, theft, and mayhem. If humans preferred otherwise, we most likely would never have learned to live in family groups, use tools, develop language or compose creation myths.
perfect reply!
It's not that you have to "provide an objective justification for the fact that most people have a preference for a state of affairs wherein there's less violence, theft, and mayhem". But you do have to explain why are those who do not prefer said "state of affairs" "bad", "evil", or "wrong". If I don't have that same preference, why would you force it on me? For example, if I see a woman I find attractive, why can't I just force myself into her, if that's what I want and what I like? That's my preference, so why can't I just do it? If I see something I like in a store, why can't I just take it and go on with my life? If there's a guy I don't like or disagree with, why can't I just pull a gun and shoot him? He's not really alive, anyways, he's just a clump of molecules doing a series of automated proceses, so me "killing" him shouldn't be that big of a deal.
@@Orange1117 why don't you ask the guy and the woman in your example of what they think about it?
@@drumrnva And why should I care about what they think?
@@Orange1117 Why should they care about harming you?
Any moral system that comes from a god is definitionally subjective. It is coming from a subject, the god. Only the secular can provide an objective moral system.
Is gravity subjective?
@@austin7037 No, and that has no bearing on the statement that I made. Nice red herring fallacy.
@@TheJimtanker the point is that gravity and the laws of physics come from God, so how can you say those things are objective, since they come "from a subject"?
@@austin7037 Please provide evidence that gravity or the laws of physics come from a god.
@TheJimtanker I completely agree, even IF morals come from god, they would still be subjective to that god. If morals where objective it wouldn't matter what god had to say about them. Morals would be the same independent of any mind or opinion.
Listen to franks debate with Alex oconner,to see Frank really stumped.
This is why it is impossible to accept subjective morality:
1. Child rape is always wrong regardless of opinions or preferences.
2. Because child rape is always wrong, it can’t ever be subjectively right.
3. If child rape can’t ever be subjectively right, it is objectively wrong.
4. Because child rape is objectively wrong, objective morality exists.
@@trustthetruth2779 This is why its impossible to accept morality can be derived from the biblical God.
1. Killing children is always wrong
2 No omnibenevolent perfect loving God could do something wrong.
3 The biblical God is said to be a Perfect omnibenevolent and loving God.
4 The biblical God frequently killed children
The biblical God is either non existent or NOT omnibenevolent Perfect and loving. Either way we should not ground our Morality in such a God. 😜
It's unsurprising that someone who has a degree in religion is unfamiliar with the deep issues in philosophy.
Truly objective morality doesn't exist. It doesn't matter if there's a god or not, this statement follows from the meaning of 'objective'. To be 'objective', something must be the case regardless of observer. Since morality is concerned with what 'ought' to be done, every observer has a position on that and they do not need to coincide. A god's 'view' of morality is no more 'objective' than anyone else's.
We view morality as a matter of concern about human well-being. As we _are_ human, this makes sense. Once you have this goal (human well-being), you can make objective statements about it. Cutting off someone's head is, objectively, bad for the well-being of said person. This is not an opinion, it's a fact. It doesn't matter who is observing it, be it a god, a human, or a cow, that human is no longer as functional and thus their well-being has been impaired. This doesn't stop the basis of morality from being subjective. After all, if cows were able to think about it, it seems pretty reasonable that they'd view _cow_ well-being as the basis of morality, and human beings would be objectively evil from that goal point.
Frank also doesn't seem to understand that moral culpability has nothing whatever to do with the presence of a magical ability to override causation. The 'ought' statements of morality have to do with the goal involved, and it doesn't matter if the being involved has contra-causal free will or not. All it _really_ does is mean that if we _are_ 'moist robots' as he derides, then if there is any 'higher' responsibility for our actions it would fall on the process that formed us. If this process is evolution, there is no issue as evolution is not sentient, thinking, or even a 'thing', exactly, to be held to account. If this process comes from a _god,_ however, it makes that god entirely culpable for every action we take, the good _and_ the bad, meaning any such god is evil. Since we hold the highest culpable agent responsible (pet owners are responsible for their pets to an extent, parents for their children, and a robot maker for their robots), religious people are reluctant to ascribe the evil acts of all those who exist to their 'all loving' god. Thus the desire for magical powers to avoid causality.
Thanks for your post. It was well thought out and intentional.
I have a question. You say that the goal (from human perspective) is human well being, since we are human. There are several holes in that argument. I would appreciate your insight because I am in the perspective of the question-asker in this video, truly looking for an unbiased answer from an atheist.
1. What of humans that don't care for human well being? There are plenty of them, ranging from criminals to apathetic, self-seeking people. Your line of reasoning is this (correct me if I'm mistaken): preserving human life because we are human. Thus, this becomes the standard. Protecting human life as an innate species knowledge. What of genocide? If theres truly no standard and our desire is human well-being, why do we fall into factions that divide us and separate us, causing human hatred, not well being?
2. Why should human well being be the standard, even if we are human? Why isnt competition and self success the standard? I have 8 billion other people on this earth. If I take out a few, surely I'll have better chances of doing well in life (self preservation). If I have a boyfriend that seems to like another girl, I will kill her, no problem. If someone threatens my promotion at work, I kill them, no problem. Why do we have the consciousness to recognize that this is -- wrong? Why doesn't the world operate this way? Animals don't have laws in this regard. They kill as they please with no regard to a higher conscious. Imagine a deer holding another deer accountable for killing a rabbit because they are not normally predators! Why do we instill laws? If your answer is that it is ultimately out of self interest (because we do not want to get killed), why do firefighters put their life on the line for people? Why is saving a life seen as a good thing? There is something that is touching morality in your argument that you are not explicitly addressing.
Thanks for your answer in advance
Didn't need to read it all.... you frankly admitted there is objective morality.
@@gloriagirgis
*What of humans that don't care for human well being?*
So they don't care for their _own_ well-being? I suppose they try crossing the street without looking and get killed, or die of starvation since they don't bother to eat.
Oh... wait... what you _mean_ is 'what of humans that do not care for the well-being of _other_ humans'. Well, quite simply, if you only care for yourself and not for others, you tend to get alienated which, in the long term, results in your genetic material no longer being part of the human species. Ie, those who think this way have a tendency to die out. A whole _society_ that tried to function this way wouldn't last long at all.
*Protecting human life as an innate species knowledge.*
Not so much 'knowledge' as 'functional effect'.
*If theres truly no standard and our desire is human well-being, why do we fall into factions that divide us and separate us, causing human hatred, not well being?*
Tribalism. In fact one of the first things we do when dividing this way and going to attack the others is to _dehumanize_ them, to make them 'not human'. If they aren't _really_ human, it's not wrong to kill them.
*Why should human well being be the standard, even if we are human? Why isnt competition and self success the standard?*
It doesn't work. Humans thrive as much as we do based on cooperation, with _some_ competition thrown in. The point of morality is to place _limits_ on the competition. You're allowed to provide a better product and put a competitor out of business, you're _not_ allowed to bash a competitor on the head to do so. Again, behaving in a way contrary to this will leave you isolated and thus less likely to succeed.
*Animals don't have laws in this regard.*
Clearly you've never seen animals studies in morality. Yes, they very much _do_ have 'laws' like that. If a chimpanzee who is sounding the alarm so all the others run then steals from the group food supply (having 'lied' about the threat), that chimp gets _hammered_ by the others.
*Imagine a deer holding another deer accountable for killing a rabbit because they are not normally predators!*
And here is the problem. Why would a deer _care_ about a rabbit? Rabbits are not the same species. It would have to be one deer holding another deer accountable for hurting at _third deer._ Not a rabbit, not a wolf, not another species. If it's not part of your group, it doesn't count. The history of humanity has been about getting larger and larger groups. First it was the tribe, then those who look like you (race), then the nation, and, recently, the species as a whole. More recently humans have started worrying about other species as well, seeing the 'well-being' of 'things that can experience suffering' as the goal of morality (hence the demented actions of PETA, for instance) as they are, slowly, coming to be included in what we consider moral and not. Perhaps a century from now they'll look back at all us nasty meat-eaters and be aghast at how horrible we were to do such things. It's no more 'objective' then than it is _now,_ but _now_ we include 'human well-being' as opposed to 'the well-being of my small tribe'.
*If your answer is that it is ultimately out of self interest (because we do not want to get killed), why do firefighters put their life on the line for people?*
Even _if_ that were my argument exactly (which it isn't), this is easily explicable. Firefighters risk themselves to save the whole because they are _part of_ the whole that is being saved. Without them, a fire starts and burns through a lot of our society which potentially includes those they care about, either being family or providing goods and services they rely on to live. Even this is, at base, self-motivated. This is also why saving a life is a 'good thing'.
@
Where did I say there was objective morality? My first statement is that objective morality is fiction.
I don't view morality as a matter of concern about human well-being. As I am a human, this make sense to me.
Just look up Matt Dillahunty's discussions on the superiority of secular morality and you will get your answers.
By what standard are his discussions superior?
@@austin7037 Logic and rational discourse.
@@TheJimtanker is logic something that is purely biological, or does it exist independent of humans?
@@austin7037 Logic is a set of tools that humans created to make sense the world around us.
@@TheJimtanker so its a biological phenomenon? If so how can you trust it?
I’m an atheist. There is no objective morality without a god. Since a god does not exist, there is no objective morality.
This is why it is impossible to accept subjective morality:
1. Child rape is always wrong regardless of opinions or preferences.
2. Because child rape is always wrong, it can’t ever be subjectively right.
3. If child rape can’t ever be subjectively right, it is objectively wrong.
4. Because child rape is objectively wrong, objective morality exists.
the problem with frank and all his vids on morality. he's always pointing flaws for any atheists trying to make a case for objective morality.
when the real deal is, THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE MORALITY. (so i disagree with anyone whether religious/atheist if they try to speak for objective morality)
its purely subjective.
christians(irrational thinkers) are deluding to a belief in an entity(god) without any objective proof, and then making a further conclusion of morality from that. this isnt going to produce an objective or logical conclusion.
and for aetheists, morality is only subjective. stop trying to make claims its objective.
for humans, we base good and evil on self interest. and the nature of being human. pain, anguish, sadness, happiness, comfort, etc. the chemical and electrical processes in our brain fine tuned by evolution over thousands of years have fine tuned us for survival so we have instincts of what is positive for survival and what is not. and we are social animals. and killing each other is "bad" for various reasons.
when a person dies. its objectively neither right or wrong. its just a flow of the universe and movement of matter/energy.
human brains interpret it subjectively and evaluate it based on chemical/electrical processes which for the most part are already hard wired by evolution.
(when a human sees food, the brain is wired to have a positive reaction)
(when it sees death, likely has a negative reaction)
seriously use your head. and i wish people wouldn't be so easily blinded by frank.
If "THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE MORALITY," are you going to accept a thug's version of right-and-wrong as just as valid as yours, when he feels it "right" to mug and rob you?
@@tamething1 no.
i have my personal self interest of survival due to the nature of evolution. it has planted a very hard bias into my actions. so i wont simply roll over and die.
try and think a little harder about why we do what we do. and consider my previous comment
@@tamething1 I simply think that my subjective morality is more logical than the one of a un empathetic thief. There, a simple answer to your ret*rded question.
This is why it is impossible to accept subjective morality:
1. Child rape is always wrong regardless of opinions or preferences.
2. Because child rape is always wrong, it can’t ever be subjectively right.
3. If child rape can’t ever be subjectively right, it is objectively wrong.
4. Because child rape is objectively wrong, objective morality exists.
Homies been working on them Gains. Props
indeed :D
Lol
"Sam Harris is a nobody"
- Dr. Henry F. Schaefer. (One of the World's most cited Academics and The number one most cited in the field of Computational Chemistry)
So?
Still doesn't affect the basic point that Mr. Turek has made... Atheism ultimately denies objective Morality exists, thus making the belief/dogma of disproving Christianity on moral standards/grounds inherently untenable.
Nitpicking the qualifications of the person Frank used as an example, doesn't really help the case Atheist's are trying to promote. The doctors opinion has no real bearing on the subject in question.
Alantino
Didn’t Frank just cite Sam Harris as one of the top atheists that backs up objective morality?
Therefore disagreeing with your citation.
@@frankfontaine5604 He discredits Sam Harris as an apparent academic that promoted science/naturalism as truth. He elaborates more on him, Hitchens, Dawkins, and others. It's an example of an actual world renowned academic scientist rejecting the atheist "truth".
@@Paulthored there's way more to it. Not just nitpicking someone's qualifications. Atheists hound at theists that real scientists disagree with faith. Well, a world-renowned scientist actually discredits someone like Sam as a somehow academic authority. Many people believe he is. He's not.
@@alantinoalantonio so what would you say about a Christian minister and genetasis who says Darwin was 100% correct?
Is cannibalism an argument against objective morality ? I'm not an atheist, I just want help making sense of it.
If you're questioning if something is moral then that's a demonstration that morality is subjective. If it were objective no one would question what is and isn't moral, we would all just know.
Objective evil is impossible to exist on a naturalist worldview. What or whom are we sinning against if everything is a component of nature and if everything acts to the prescriptions of nature? Is it possible to sin against nature while acting in accordance with nature? Can the puppet offend the puppeteer by acting to his determinations? I find that entirely incoherent.
I find all attempts to claim objective morality incoherent regardless of whether they introduce a deity into the picture or not, as there's no way to guarantee that said deity even exists let alone guarantee that we can perfectly understand their ideas of what is right and wrong (should a God exists, does He favor capitalism or communism and how do we know for certain?) The closest I find to coherent is optimizing the probability of long-term well-being which is subjective but has some grounding in evolutionary goals. Imagine dogs had the rational facilities of human beings as an example. Dogs are unfortunately naturally drawn to drinking antifreeze. Yet if they had the reasoning capabilities of human beings and could reason among themselves, they could properly counter those natural instincts as contradictory to their evolutionary goals. They could then say it's "bad" or "evil" based on the notion that it directly conflicts with their long-term goals. That's as "minimally subjective" as it gets as I see it.
@@AnonyMous-og3ct
Evolution has goals? If you claim that evolution has goals, then you must have evidence of how you came to this conclusion. Since evolution is tied to science, then you must have used the scientific method to reach such a conclusion. Would you mind presenting your evidence?
Atheists don't need to have a competing argument to tell that your argument is wrong.
Objective morality doesn't exist
This is why it is impossible to accept subjective morality:
1. Child rape is always wrong regardless of opinions or preferences.
2. Because child rape is always wrong, it can’t ever be subjectively right.
3. If child rape can’t ever be subjectively right, it is objectively wrong.
4. Because child rape is objectively wrong, objective morality exists.
Dark matter/energy theory is amusing. There is 0 evidence it exists, but yet it does.
Objective or universal morality would be that which all ppl, or the majority, throughout time , regardless of religion agree on what is wrong.
I argue all men if sound mind have alkways agreed killing their loved ones is wrong. Do you agree killing your loved one us wrong? That is objective morality.
I think if someone truly wishes to remain atheistic, it’s probably most likely because they don’t want their sins taken away, and so they will lie to themselves when presented with sound logic and truth. This is my guess.
Bad guess. If you are curious, I'm happy to discuss why I'm an atheist.
Nick Sandt
We’re all atheists.
Just some people choose to believe in a religion with no evidence. .
@@frankfontaine5604 ??? Someone who chooses to believe in a god is a theist, whether they have evidence or not.
Incredulous Pasta
Lol. I know it could be read wrong.
Just omit the evidence part then.
Incredulous Pasta Well, I’ve come across atheists who don’t want God to be true because they enjoy sin too much so my claim isn’t universally true but certainly not a “bad guess.” Sure, I’m curious...explain how a random universe is more logical than an intelligently designed universe?
The problem with Turek's argument comes down to: what we are physically, and what makes us not just think, but think particular thoughts, may not be what any of us really desires. We actual are, as Turek would say, "moist robots". Why can't we still be morally accountable?
Morally accountable to what though? Some invisible zeitgeist that is the embodiment of the will of the majority of people? Think of how often the majority started murdering a minority group.
Is genocide ok sometimes but not others?
@Kyler Rainer I don't know what you mean. We are morally accountable to each other. The world does not look at genocide as being okay.
@@threeofive9401 Are you listening to how ridiculous you sound? Ask yourself WHY we have a conscious at all? And if it's just the way we "evolved" then why is that process an authority on morality? And who gets to determine what is right and wrong? You are just ignoring the problem. If materialism is true , THERE IS NO REAL RIGHT AND WRONG, IT'S ONLY PREFERENCES.
@Phoenix Rise I just explained most of what you asked. It looks like you have all of the ingredients in your last comment to come to a conclusion on your own. What is right is what we as humans prefer.
@@threeofive9401 what is your view on free will?
If there was no standard beyond us and we are just molecular
Then if someone says bad about me i get angry and i just hit them reaction
But if there is standard then i would think that i should hit him or not and will choose not to hit cause there is standard and conscience and free will
Otherwise i would be like gravity
Like we throw something up it comes down
Like that if someone says bad about me i hit
There is no theistic argument for objective morality. Saying whatever God commandss is moral is not objective, it is both subjective and demonstrably immoral. Divine command theory in all its forms is immoral. The evil of God's commands in the Bible is obvious. The only way you can have an objective morality is by having objective criteria by which to judge actions. Thus secular morality, by using maximising wellbeing and minising harm as criteria is vastly better than any religiously derived morality.
@He loves you! You have no definition of God that makes in your argument. If you say God is good do you support the commandments and actions the Bible says he orders? Do you consider genocide, human sacrifice, slavery and subjugation of women moral? The Euthyphro dilemma exposes the illogic of saying something is good just because God says so. Morality is a continuously evolving set of behavioural evaluations, not something handed down from your imaginary friend in the sky.
@He loves you! So you think it is absolute goodness to ...
Kill at the Canaanites, including the women and children (and even livestock)
Do the same to the midionites (and several other peoples)
Enslave non-jews for life
Beat slaves so they almost die
Kill a woman for not being a virigin on her wedding night
perform human sacrifice
perform forced abortion
kill someone for working on the sabbath
kill someone for wearing clothing of mixed threads
kill someone for eating shellfish
kill someone for buying hair oil
kill someone for ploughing a filed with a donkey and an ox at the same time
Blame someone for a 'sin' committed by a someone else
Inflict infinite punishment for a finite crime
etc etc
You support all this? ...you are a monster!!
Matt Holton is gravity subjective because God created it?
@He loves you! LOL, is that your attempt at rebuttal? ..You are probably unable to see that you made my point for me.
@He loves you! You seem to be unaware of the Euthyphro Dilemma. I suggest you look it up.
Answer: No I cannot steelman atheism
Because he doesn't understand it.
@@incredulouspasta3304
I think he doesn't want to play devil's advocate as well though. It's not just that he doesn't understand
@@EricSmyth2Christ Actually, I take that back. I think he does understand the basics of Sam Harris' conception of morality. What Frank seems completely incapable of understanding is that his own conception of morality has the same problem that he is objecting to.
@@incredulouspasta3304 what do you mean?
@@EricSmyth2Christ Frank said "if there is no god, why is human flourishing a good thing". He nitpicks at the subjective nature of the fundamental goal of Sam Harris' conception of morality: well-being.
But the same objection can be made against Frank's conception of morality. If there IS a god, why is human flourishing a good thing? Because God says so? Because it's somehow a part of God's nature? None of these solve the problem.
Some atheists might agree with Kant on the categorical imperative... I for one think it’s objectively immoral to kill an infant no matter what the circumstance, but you can’t ask “what’s the best atheist argument....” because an atheist disagreeing with me does not make them more or less atheist than me, we simply don’t share the same worldview. Theists are also guilty of this because they too share different worldviews which is why denominations are created.
I argue my case that I am more morally objective about being pro-life than the pro-life theist because the bible is filled with infant mortality in the name of god. Apologists typically defend god of course by saying he is the exception to this rule. But that exception breaks the objective moral and begs the question.
My friend, you cant have a morally objective cosmovision being atheist, because you dont have a reference point of goodness, all you have is your opinion.
This basically is a "God is a moral monster" retort. The problem is Patrick has no objective standard to say so. Only subjective standards which are not valid or binding on anyone else. Ever...
In order to have an objective standard he has to steal the standard from God in order to call Him immoral. Therefore his statement defeats itself.
The exception does not break the objective morals since God Himself is the arbitrator. So God could kill every person on the planet, but it wouldn't be immoral since He is the creator.
@@mosesking2923 The only thing I'd say about God killing is that is impossible for Him. If Christianity is true, and it is, then God merely transfers your life from here to the next. God gives and He can take it away any time He pleases. He doesn't owe us a thing...
Ray Molina I do have a point of reference of goodness: singer, Bentham, Kant, Rousseau, Locke, Hobbes, Marx... and they are all peer reviewed. Yes this is my opinion, I don’t see why god’s opinion should be valued above mine, he has, after all, been persuaded to change his mind by mere human intervention in the bible. He doesn’t seem so “unchanging”.
Turek's citing of a popular figure like Sam Harris rather than actual moral philosophers like Peter Railton or Derek Parfit says a lot about his engagement with serious philosophy - or lack thereof.
There isn't one. Why is the idea that morality can be subjective so hard. Something being subjective doesn't mean we can't agree and you can't have a large group agreeing.
This is why it is impossible to accept subjective morality.
1. Child rape is always wrong regardless of opinions or preferences
2. Because child rape is always wrong, it can’t ever be subjectively right
3. If child rape can’t ever be subjectively right, it is objectively wrong
4. Because child rape is objectively wrong, objective morality exists
@@trustthetruth2779 The claim that theistic morality is somehow superior because its "objective" is ridiculous. Theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄🤔
@@trumpbellend6717 I don’t think the main focus is that the morality is superior, although I think it is, it’s that without objective morality everything becomes opinion or preference. And then nothing is right and wrong, which causes many problems with how we live life. And if there is no standard to measure with, there is no moral progress or regress. We don’t live life thinking things are not really right or wrong, we live as if things are absolutely wrong and absolutely right.
@@trustthetruth2779 lol tell me dear is your opinion of the "correct" God a "subjective" one or a "objective" one ?? Can we use *ANY* "God" as the basis for this "objective" moral standard you speak of.?? Or just the SPECIFIC SUBJECTIVE invisible being *YOU* determined to be the "correct" one out of the many thousands man has preposed.
If its the latter then in actuality its *YOU* and YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION that is determining morality dear. if its the former, then asserting objectivity to any moral claim based upon a "God" becomes a completely vacuous useless concept 👍
@@trustthetruth2779
_"moral progress"_
Well we no longer think it acceptable to *"Buy your slaves from the heathen nations that surround you"*
Nor that
*"if you beat your male or female slave with a rod and they do not die for a day or two"*
*"There shall be NO PUNISHMENT for they are your PROPERTY and your money"*
I would say that is a step in the right direction wouldn't you ? 😜
Modern societies think that the gathering of sticks on a sabath is not nor ever was immoral and worthy of stoning to death. The same applies also to our unruly rebellious children who disobey their parents ( sounds like most teenagers to me ) .
Thankfully a judge today recognizes a girl who has been raped and did not scream is actually a VICTIM and not deserving of death as the bible dictates.
Again I would discribe humanity as better off in a meaningful way by disregarding these filthy hurtful religious dictates, do you disagree?? 🙄🤔
_"If there is no god, why is human flourishing a good thing?"_
Frank! The exact same objection can be made to _YOUR_ version of objective morality! If there _IS_ a god, why is human flourishing a good thing? Why is what God says "good"? Why is God's nature "good"?
At the most basic level, _ALL_ morality is based on a fundamentally subjective assumption about what "goodness" even means, or about what our moral goals are. Sam Harris realizes this. He also realizes that the subjective goal of well-being is the primary moral goal that we all share, and that objective moral assessments can be made with respect to this goal.
The existence of a god doesn't change any of this. You can't just declare "if God exists, then objective moral values exist". That's a non-sequitur. Magic doesn't fix the problem that you are objecting to.
_"I don't know how he believes we have moral culpability... if we are just moist robots, how can we even be held morally accountable?"_
Whether we behave deterministically or not, our actions are influenced by the expectations and consequences of behavior. Do you not know how the legal system works? Social pressure? Your own intrinsic instincts for social values?
We hold ourselves and each other accountable by establishing behavioral expectations and consequences that our "meat-robot" brains take into account when deciding how to behave.
_"I just find it frustrating to talk about these things with atheists... it just seems like they don't get it, or don't want to get it."_
Have you ever considered the possibility that _YOU_ are the one who doesn't get it or doesn't want to get it?
it is good because God's Law says it is
@@Navii-05 Okay, but that's about as subjective as it gets. If that's what you want to assert, then don't complain about the non-objective morality of others.
@@incredulouspasta3304 How is that subjective?If a Higher Moral Being(origin of Morality) says something is good or bad then that is the law according to which we should operate.A Higher standard is neccesary according to our knowledge.
@@Navii-05 Declaring god to be the origin of morality doesn't make him the origin of morality. You actually have to demonstrate that to be the case.
If objective morality can be created through fiat declaration, then I can just declare that well-being is the objectively correct moral standard, and the problem is solved.
NaVi '
If god said killing babies was good, would that make it good?
"Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool."
@He loves you!
Christianity & other theistic belief systems are politically developed shams that use myth & superstitions to detach the gullible folks from the natural world they evolved in by blind submission to authority, whose hoaxer preachers know the truth, but use the myth & superstitions to control the gullible folks.
If God is an entity and he she it has OPINIONS on morality, it's SUBJECTIVE BY DEFINITION. Idk how, even if God is "OBJECTIVELY TRUE" how God's OPINION becomes OBJECTIVE.
It's God's subjective opinion, that what God commands and wants is Good and Moral which is what Sam Harris is doing with Morality
which also runs into the euthyphro dilemma,
The bottom line is accountability for the sin issue !
Lol firstly there is no such thing as SIN only moral and immoral actions. Transgressions against the perceived whims of anyone's subjective imaginary friend are irrelevant in any discussion of morality.
Secondly if you're a Christian then your theology is the antithesis and negation of any "accountability" dear
Objective morality is an oxymoron.
no kidding
@@mylucidadventures6540
Yet these guys want atheists to come up with an argument for it. It's absurd.
@@krakendahed nobody would want you to be challenged or anything...
*Atheist Joseph Stalin* thought objective morality was an *oxymoron* as well. So he decided to *subjectively murder 30,000,000 people.*
Mostly Orthodox Christians, so that he could desseminate atheism.
@@electricspark5271 you just love your quotes about stalin... why are you his biggest fan?
haha even a fellow atheist is disappointed with Hitchens
whats the name of the song at the end?
If I feel God's decision w/ Lot or Abraham was immoral, for example, it's moral from his perspective and immoral from mine...subjective, right? How does added power/knowledge dictate objectivity in a perception?
@brunorhagalcus This is a great question. The added knowledge/power doesn't not create the objective standard. Suppose you create a board game. As the creator of the game you designed the objective of the game and the rules of playing the game. Therefore, as the creator of the game, you have created the objective standard for the game. Because you are the creator. Now there will be people that will play your game, but may not like your rules or think there's a more fun way to play your game. Consequently, they modify your rules or make their own rules. Hence, creating their own objective standard for creating the game you created. Now they're playing with a sub-objective standard. While they are free to do so, their sub-objective standard (while right in their eyes) will always be in violation to the creator(you) of the game's standard. Because God is The Creator, He is the objective standard.
@@theasy68 That's a good analogy! However I think it fails in that whoever plays a board game does so willingly, while we are forced to "play" the game of life. Take for example the russian roulette. Whoever created the game had every right in the world to set the rules *if and only if* people play that game willingly. If you force someone to play that game, you are still a murderer even if death is just a result of the rules of the game.
@@Nickesponja The creator/source of "the game of life", freely gives us the ability to choose life eternally with Him if we so desire it. Consequently, we are not forced to choose eternal life. We can actually choose against it and endure the penalty for our violation of The Creator's standard for His creation. And there are some that will choose the penalty, because they don't agree with His standard(which is 100% blameless). However, if one feels they are 100% blameless and have not violated His standard, that's a totally different conversation.
@@theasy68 Hey, no need to tell me that. I was just providing criticism for your "board game" analogy :)
@@Nickesponja LOL! Love it.
At 1:50 I could smell the straw. By 1:57 the field was full of strawmen. So pathetic.
Halleujah 🙏🙌
Better yet, even if there is a God, why is human flourishing good?
I'm an actual Atheist if you would like to ask me questions please feel free... I only have a few requests, please...
*Understand I can only speak for myself and do NOT represent all Atheists
*Be respectful/polite.
*I will NOT try to deconvert you. Please don't try to convert me.
I want Theists to have a chance to ask questions without worrying about getting into a debate or confrontation. Only when we actually understand each other positions can we hope to find common ground.
For Other Atheists: Please feel free to jump in *but* remember just answer the question NO debating.
@He loves you! I'm dropping my guard to allow Theists to ask questions about my Atheism. And I promise to do my best to answer as directly and respectfully as I can. Despite knowing, some Theists may use that information to try and convert other Atheists.
*If you see that "being pridefu"l* then this probably isn't for you. I hope you live long and prosper.
@He loves you! If there is a desired after life that requires certain beliefs and or actions. I want to make have the correct one. And has of yet I have NOT been convinced such an after life exists let alone any God/s claims that I have been presented with or discovered is the correct one.
@@username82765 why do you think there is something rather than nothing? Without saying "I don't know", I don't care if you can't prove your opinion, I just want to hear what you think is the reason.
@@austin7037I don't know. That's the only honest answer I can give. To say anything else would be lying to you.
@@username82765 do you have any guesses, even if they seem unlikely?
Both subjective and objective morality exist independently of supernatural beings.
For the normative self-understanding of modernity, Christianity has functioned as more than just a precursor or catalyst. Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of a continual critical reappropriation and reinterpretation. Up to this very day there is no alternative to it. And in light of the current challenges of a post-national constellation, we must draw sustenance now, as in the past, from this substance. Everything else is idle postmodern talk."
-Jürgen Habermas
What utter piffle 😂😂😂 these _"judaic ethics of justice"_ you refer to were almost entirely plagurised from the Babylonians and other much earlier pagan religions often word for word. As for this _"Christian ethic of love"_ 😂😂😂 Can I just point out that both the Jewish and the Christians hold the OT in common and it is only the belief in in regards to Jesus being the messiah that differentiates them. This difference in theology regarding the rejection and killing of jesus was used by CHRISTIAN Germans as justification for the slaughtering of 6 million. Did their subjective opinion justify the holocaust and somehow make it moral ??? I think not ...
You see as far as I'm aware Hitler ( a self identified CHRISTIAN ) did not personally kill any of the 6 million Jewish people. He used the difference in religious theology to ferment and weaponise Christian biggotry to murder the innocent. The German population at the time comprised 93% Christians, THEY were the ones who either took part in or stood by and thus facilitated Hitlers "final Solution" 😡😡😡😡
The only difference between those doing the slaughtering and those being slaughtered was one groups ancestors rejected jesus as the Messiah. I will let you guess which group was which 😜
Sam Harris 1000% believes we have consciousness. I don't know If he meant to say that because if he read an ounce of Sam Harris's work he Would no Sam actually regards consciousness as the only thing we can be sure of. he agrees with I think therefore I am
Biologist here. We explained this ages ago.
What do you mean
@@noahcole6856 we have explained where most would call moral behavior/morality, originates from.
Also, being good to get into heaven, and not being bad to avoid hell, or doing something just because you're told to do so, isn't a moral action. Deciding how your actions will effect other people because you don't want bad things to happen to you and can relate, is a moral action. Christians act good to get into heaven, and try to not sin to avoid hell. It is entirely self serving and not in any way altruistic. They're doing it to save themselves, not the other person. Then, when they do something bad and sin, they can just say sorry to their magic sky daddy and it's all good. This is why the prisons are loaded with religious people, and not atheists. If you didn't know that, when adjusted for population, atheists are the least likely group to commit any crime whatsoever. Christians, when adjusted for population, are the most likely to commit crimes of all sorts. Why do you think that is? You're welcome to check to statistics. I actually encourage you to.
@@kenaultman7499 first off, do you believe in an objective morality or subjective? Also can you ask one question at a time
@@noahcole6856 that was one topic... where these behaviors we consider "moral" came from, and why Christians generally aren't making moral decisions. Here's one question then. If a person is only acting a certain way to others for self serving reasons, ie so they get into heaven and avoid hell, are they really making a moral decision? Or, just doing what they're told out of fear for their future self? Because, those aren't the same thing...
On to your question...
I think a lot of people are confused and think they're objective, when morals are 100% subjective. It mirrors what we'd predict to see if evolution was true, anyways. If there were no humans, morality dissappears.
I think what people are calling an objective moral standard is really just being confused with local and historical culture of their time. There are tribes that think it's perfectly normal to hunt and eat anyone that isn't in their group. We used to think owning people was perfectly acceptable. They seemed to be completely unaware of this objective moral standard. As are plenty of other cultures and groups throughout history, and even to this day.
If something like morality came from evolution, we'd expect to see a grouping around the mean for behavior, with a few radical/extreme outliers. Meaning, most people would act a certain way and agree that is the proper way to behave, while a small group of others simply wouldn't. This is exactly what we see today. Most people agree on the way we should treat each other, with a few cultures having radically different ideas of what behavior is, and isn't OK.
The scientific explanation is rather straight forward. We evolved as a social species. If you weren't playing well with the others in your group, you'd get kicked out. Which, generally speaking, was very bad for that specific individual. If you stole from and were violent toward others in the group, you basically didn't make it. So, over time, we learned to not do that stuff to stay with the group, and therfore alive, able to spread more DNA. That made those behaviors more and more prominent, until we are here, wondering if we've always been like that, or were created like that. I believe these behaviors you're referring to as an objective moral standard, are the leftovers of our evolutionary past where we either got along with the group, or were left to fend off mother nature's worst, alone. We wanted to avoid that by staying in the group. How do you stay in the group? You don't steal, hurt, or create difficulties in general for it. Do this for a million years, and these behaviors will get quite complex, as well as more prominent. Yet, there will still be outliers who do steal, hurt people, and make it difficult in general for the people around them.
@@kenaultman7499 I mean do you believe in real right or wrong or just opinion of morality
I as find it a bit contradicting for atheists to say humanity flourishing is the reason for the morals, and I would argue if that’s the case There is Absolutely No Point in Homosexuality and Transgenderism …..
and abortion.... the list goes on, but Atheists can turn on a dime, and think of a way for anything to be ok.
I find it "a bit contradicting" for theists to think our moral status is the result of a talking snake convincing a rib woman and mud figurine man to eat a magic fruit against the wishes of an invisible being who thinks it moral to *"Buy your slaves from the heathen nations that surround you"*
The AI robots said they want to annihilate humanity. Obviously they lack morality.
Why do religious people see the lack of God as a lack of humanity? Calling atheists moist robots is such an insult :')
God is not able to do anything, he bows to the God of this world and his will because God is weak and unable to get anything done. Its so very sad, having faith in Jehovah and Jesus is like having faith in unicorns and leprechauns, neither exist and prayers are powerless
So the answer for buff dude's question is: No, no such a thing as a sound atheist case for objective morality.
Obviously.
It is entirely possible to make Objective declarations or decisions 'Within a pre-agreed agreed subjective and arbitrarily concieved of framework'. This applies with regards to atheistic and theistic morality. The claim that theistic morality is somehow superior because its "objective" is ridiculous. Theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄🤔
Why don't u debate with Sam Harris!?
Xian morality sucks! They make terrible moral exceptions. Since I'm an atheist I'm free to believe that punishing a person for what another person did is NEVER moral i.e. _absolutely_ immoral. Xians can't agree. For the biblical god does that all through the bible. I know most xians are kind and would like to agree that punishing - let alone torturing and/or killing - someone for the deeds of others is absolutely immoral but that would impugn their god so their morality is restricted. Xians say "Some acts are just plain wrong" then go on to admit "unless those acts are condoned, commanded or committed by God. Then that's a different situation." SITUATIONAL ETHICS!
I can tell Frank was trying not to boast about his beliefs in saying anything that would suggest arrogance, but it should have been said that there are absolutely no cases that authentically challenge Gods existence, sovereignty and Word.
Of course there aren't--because God's existence, sovereignty, and Word are not established in any meaningful, objective way. That people BELIEVE in those things is beyond dispute....but the reality of those things is not established, not by a long shot.
Logic challenges gods existence
Morality is present in both humans and animals and is evident even with complete absence of religion in any form. Animals show compassion, support, love and will even protect animals of other species with zero knowledge of even the existence of faith. If god gave us free will, then we only have it because we had no choice.
What basis do you have for saying compassion, support, and love are good things? Personally I think they are, I just want to know if you have any basis for saying they are.
@@austin7037 besides the obvious answer, you mean? Biologically, if an animal hasn't got these traits, they reduce the chances of their offspring's survival and make themselves less desirable as a breeding partner, thus endangering the continuation of the species. Put simply; not having them is not natural.
@@kenlittle5706 suppose someone says it would be better if life didn't exist. What basis, besides personal feelings, would you have for arguing against them?
@@austin7037 I don't believe there's a logical argument for all life to cease. There's plenty of evidence to suggest human life should .
@@kenlittle5706 just to play devil's advocate suppose someone says it would be better if life didn't exist because there is too much suffering in the world and if we could just end humanity with nukes there would be a short spike in suffering, but then there would be no more suffering forever. What non subjective justifications could be used to say that's wrong?
Morality is subjective. You demonstrate that when you lie about biblical slavery.
That’s easy to say when the enforcement arm says that slavery is wrong… but when the enforcement says slavery is right you won’t be holding on to that position
@@noneofyourbusiness792 you didn't understand a word of what I wrote.
@@oddoutdoors I did understand what you said and this is my response… so do you agree that if morality is subjective then what the enforcement says goes?
@@noneofyourbusiness792 nope, again, you did not understand anything I wrote.
@@oddoutdoors prove that I don’t understand what you said
Sooooo no..
psalm 53
All morality is based on individual value judgments regarding any given moral issue at hand. Because nothing has value apart from a subject to value it, all value judgments are subjective. To be objective the value judgment would have to come from the object being valued, and that's not possible.
Human morality comes from our Parental and Social Teaching, personal experience, and the desire for prosperity for ourselves, then our immediate family, then our close friends, then our community, then the world that we live in.
There is absolutely no evidence that any person was born with any inherent morality. We are born capable of drawing our own moral conclusions, and most people are on a very wide and diverse spectrum of what we consider moral, under certain circumstances.
So,according to Atheistic beliefes there is no objective morality.Going by that,I can steal your money but no human can punish me since in my own subjective thinking it is good.(I don't actually believe stealing is good,but you get the point.)
@@Navii-05 There are no atheism beliefs. How would you define atheism?
@@Navii-05 - It is dangerous and somewhat unstable that you believe that. Your morality is also bounded by the consequences for your actions. Stealing from a starving homeless person is a pretty bad act. Stealing a gun from them in the act of robbing a store is not.
I guess that this is how prosperity preachers justify their actions. Stealing from people to build a huge house, and pay for a jet aircraft, and paying their family to run the church is good for them... if they don't weigh the cost of their reputation, and the scandal that results when that information is shared with their members - who have been forgoing their bills, medications and healthcare so that they can tithe to the morally bankrupt church.
But we’re just bacteria. How do we have any moral obligation?
@@chrisgagnon5768 - You are wrong, modern human beings are the most intelligent and successful life form ever. Equating a human being to bacteria, demonstrates an incredible amount of scientific ignorance.
Why else is morality important besides for the fact that it is important for human well being? What else is there?
He loves you! If we didn't do things that helped our species to survive and procreate, then we would have gone extinct long ago!
He loves you! The god of the bible is a malevolent entity and I would be very scared if he really existed.
He loves you! Regarding god being benevolent I disagree. He drowned millions of babies in the flood, send the angel of death to kill the firstborn babies in Egypt, ordered all the midianite babies to be slaughtered etc the list goes on and on. If that isn't malevolent, then i don't know what is
He loves you! By the way, if you believe evolution is a fact, that should immediately prove to you that the the bible is nonsense because the bible is completely incompatible with evolution even if you interpret genesis metaphorically
He loves you! No, I don't believe god exists so how can I be upset about evil? Suffering is a consequence of human behaviour. You are showing your ignorance of evolution again. Humans will always give birth to other humans and dogs will always only give birth to dogs. But just as languages change into new languages over time, species evolve into new species over time. It happens slowly over many generations, not over one generation. Just look at how wolves have been changed into chiwauwas over just a few thousand of years. why is it that 99.9% of experts in the biological sciences accept evolution as fact? Even the Catholic church says evolution is a fact
Personally as a non believer I don't believe in objective morality but I heard it explained as in evolution. Like how moral is innate based on well-being. I would love to destroy this dude in a debate putting so much confident in a primitive books that talks about demons, talking snakes, talking donkey and other myths
I don’t think you could destroy him. You have not done any research. We even have secular witnesses accounting to Jesus resurrection. God bless
@carsonfox6 No there isn't, I mean yeah some secular people believed je may have existed but definitely exaggerated. Jesus would've been a legendary figure rather than historical
Whats up with his sleeves
Sam Harris's argument isn't "human flourishing." A more appropriate summation of his view is that there is an experiential quality to our existence (and by "our" he means all conscious things, not just humans) and this involves changes in a variety of experiences. He devised a thought experiment involving what he calls the "worst possible misery for everyone" where every conscious entity is made to suffer as much as possible, for as long as possible. The WPM seems to intuitively capture much of what we mean when we say something is "bad." Any other existence is better than the WPM. This is a pretty straightforward way of thinking about things and involves no God at all.
Still, that argument starts falling as soon as you start talking about "conscious things", because in his views there is no consciousness. All "living" things are just big groups of molecules producing a series of chemical reactions that somehow got more automated and sophisticated over time. Even your reasoning when posting that comment was not really "reasoning", it was just a mechanic process of your brain product of some external stimulus that produced a bunch of chain reactions that ultimately led you to your fingers typing what you typed. Does that make sense to you? I mean, it doesn't really "make sense" to anyone, since we're not really thinking per se. We're just reacting machines.
@@Orange1117
-"because in his views there is no consciousness."
Don't know why you'd think that. Harris is not an eliminative materialist. He's had spats with Dennett about this matter and sides with Nagel and Chalmers.
-"All "living" things are just big groups of molecules producing a series of chemical reactions that somehow got more automated and sophisticated over time."
Hey, anything can sound ridiculous if you present it in the most uncharitably reductionist way possible. We could just as easily say theists believe in a magical sky daddy and call it a day.
@@samuelstephens6904 This is why it is impossible to accept subjective morality:
1. Child rape is always wrong regardless of opinions or preferences.
2. Because child rape is always wrong, it can’t ever be subjectively right.
3. If child rape can’t ever be subjectively right, it is objectively wrong.
4. Because child rape is objectively wrong, objective morality exists.
@@trustthetruth2779
Premise 1 is question-begging.
@@samuelstephens6904 Elaborate?
Morality is objective and I’ll prove it now with 2 scenarios:
Scenario 1
You take your friend out to eat and say, “get what you want, it’s on me.”
You get a chicken sandwich and your friend gets a pulled pork sandwich. You think pulled pork is disgusting, but you don’t feel bad or get mad at your friend for eating it because you know it’s his subjective decision to eat what he wants.
Scenario 2
You’re sitting in the park enjoying time with your 5-year-old niece. Randomly, some guy comes up and punches her in the face harder than you’ve ever seen anyone get hit. You get furious. Why is your reaction tremendous anger when you tell me and others, “you can’t prove something is objectively right or wrong morally?”
See the point?
And how do you have compassion and empathy for others? Let’s say your family or friends hypothetically lose a sibling that was raped, beaten, tortured, and killed. Then you say to them, “at least the person or people that did this weren’t objectively wrong for doing it.”
You know subjective morality isn’t reality.
If it’s dependent on our compassion and empathy, it’s subjective. Appealing to emotions , as you clearly are here with these examples, doesn’t make something objective. Quite the opposite.
@@damienschwass9354 your compassion and empathy. Let’s say your family or friends hypothetically lose a sibling that was raped, beaten, tortured, and killed. Then you say to them, “at least the person or people that did this weren’t objectively wrong for doing it.”
@@lovespeaks777 and obviously I would think they’re wrong. That doesn’t make it objective morality. All you’re doing here is appealing to emotion. Doesn’t matter how strongly I think something is right or wrong, it doesn’t magically become objective just because it’s really terrible or really nice.
@@damienschwass9354You wouldn’t want to jail someone for murdering those you love if you didn’t think it was objectively wrong. After all, it would just be their preference to hurt others and it wouldn’t be objectively wrong
@@lovespeaks777 you’re still appealing to emotion there pal. Effectively you’re saying: “This thing is really bad so morality is objective” - nope.
And you seem to imply that I don’t have a leg to stand on if morality is subjective. Also not true. If the analysis of whether something is good or bad is determined by us (and of
course it is) then it’s subjective. That’s the moral system that exists and it’s the best we’ve got.
And I WOULD want such an offender jailed because they pose a risk to others. Having an individual or collective preference for that sort of punishment doesn’t mean morality is objective. Quite the opposite. If someone prefers to harm others and they act according to that preference, then society as a whole has measures they prefer to mitigate against that sort of thing. It is based on what we collectively think of an act, what is tolerated, what is not. That’s subjective.
In short: Wishful thinking and appeals to emotion doesn’t get you to objective morality.
Smart kid.
Atheist here. Why does there need to be objective morality? There definitely isn't in the atheistic point of view. So what?
This is why it is impossible to accept subjective morality:
1. Child rape is always wrong regardless of opinions or preferences.
2. Because child rape is always wrong, it can’t ever be subjectively right.
3. If child rape can’t ever be subjectively right, it is objectively wrong.
4. Because child rape is objectively wrong, objective morality exists.
I would love to see Frank debate Sam Harris. Sam is probably one of the best atheist debaters I've seen. And this is coming from a Christian
Atheist here: I put it to you that objective morality does not exist. The reason is that all so called objective morality could be subjective under the right circumstances. Let me giving you an example, one might argue that lying is wrong, some might even call this "objective morality." But let's say a killer asks you the address of your family because they want to kill them. If you like, your family is safe, if you tell the truth they die. Here lying is now subjective.
Murder could also be subjective and I have experience in this one. I am ex military, in 2002 I was in a situation where a person was shooting live rounds into a group of unarmed people, I shot that person. As a result of me commiting murder multiple lives were saved. So there is nothing we call objective morality that can not be subjective, therefore objective morality does not exist.
PS. That first scenario might seem far fetched, this is because you live in a nice country. This scenario happens all the time in Mexico, generally the person being asked is also killed.
PPS. The only time I would ever bring up Christian fallabilty in a debate with a Christian is if they say something offensive, such as "you have no morality without God." I see this as a direct insult to the people who raised me, and guided me. We know from multiple studies that a bad upbringing will in most cases make a bad adult, and vise versa.
This is why it is impossible to accept subjective morality:
1. Child rape is always wrong regardless of opinions or preferences.
2. Because child rape is always wrong, it can’t ever be subjectively right.
3. If child rape can’t ever be subjectively right, it is objectively wrong.
4. Because child rape is objectively wrong, objective morality exists.
@@trustthetruth2779just wait to you hear Islam
Your examples proved objective morality. Not subjective. Subjective morality varies from person to person. Objective morality varies from situation to situation. The objective circumstances of these examples determine the correct moral outcome. If morality were subjective, there would be no dilemma in either scenario and there would be no right or wrong answer. The decision to tell the killer where your family is would be just as morally right for you as the decision to lie about where family is would be for you. Because both are based on your subjective opinion and decision in the moment. This is the problem with moral relativism. It ignores the fact that the vast majority of people share the same “subjective morals” which by definition, makes morality objective because it is true regardless of your beliefs.
@@penmaster003 I somewhat see your point but what you call objective I argue as subjective. Lets use your situation as an example.
For the example you have a burning building, inside is a baby and your elderly mother, you can only rescue one the other will die. Some would say the baby, others would say your mother, so if there can be multiple outcomes and both could be seen as right depending on the person then it whether you rescue the baby or your mother is subjective.
You made a great statement and I somewhat agree with you, but not completely, that was *This is the problem with moral relativism. It ignores the fact that the vast majority of people share the same “subjective morals” which by definition, makes morality objective because it is true regardless of your beliefs.* Now these could be the simplest of things such as "life is better than death" or "no pain is better than pain" but even here these could be subjective. Many people support the death penalty in many countries, so in the situation of these people the death over life is subjective. I could go further as to say what people will support the death penalty for. An example would be that most people in the USA that support the death penalty, would not support killing someone for changing religions or abandoning religion, while many Middle Eastern countries are fine with death for apostasy (which is pretty much freedom of religion).
Perhaps I am not fully understanding you, I can accept that, so can you give e an example of an objective reality that all people would agree on?
@@cypherpunk12 “Can you give me an example of an objective reality that all people would agree on?”
That’s a very difficult question when you think about it. *_All_* people don’t even agree on the objective reality that physically exists around us. There are people who believe the earth is flat. People who think aliens built the pyramids. There’s an endless supply of beliefs that people disagree on when it comes to objective physical reality.
Objective moral truths are the same way. These truths exist, but not everyone knows them or interprets them the same. When people do seek the truth, generally (not always) they reach the same conclusions.
Objective moral truths include things like treat others the way that you want to be treated; honesty and integrity build trust; keeping promises upholds integrity; lying erodes trust; human dignity is sacred; uphold justice fairly; protect the vulnerable; helping others in need is morally good; show compassion towards others; etc. These are objective moral truths. All people might not agree with them, but morality is not simply a matter of opinion. It’s a fact of human nature that some just don’t understand or accept because of how they were raised, the culture they live in, or the time period. The thing about truth, in anything, is that it may be universal for everyone, but everyone has to seek the truth in order to find it.
To your example of a burning building, the objective moral truth is already answered. If you have the power to save another human being, you should. The choice whether you save the baby or your elderly mother is acting in accordance to that moral truth, so either would be the right answer. The choice of which one to save is not necessarily a matter of a difference of morality as a whole, but a difference in perception of morality. Perception changes based on the individual in every aspect of life, even objective physical reality. I keep saying physical reality to distinguish the difference that not all truth is based in physical reality. There is a lot of truth that is based on abstract concepts. Like logic for example. Logic doesn’t physically exist. But there is an inherent truth to it that people recognize, some more than others. The laws of logic are universal, but the perception of logic changes per individual. That doesn’t make logic subjective, does it? Also with logic, two conflicting ideas can both logically sound. That still doesn’t make logic subjective. The same applies to morality. The fact that perception of morality changes, or that two conflicting ideas can both be morally sound doesn’t make morality subjective.
The death penalty is a good example of this. The preservation of human life is an objective moral truth but so is upholding justice fairly as well as protecting the vulnerable. The death penalty goes against the first but is in accordance with the other two. Both sparing the life of a murderer and taking it are morally sound conflicting ideas. And just like in logic, there isn’t always a clear cut right answer.
All I see is people on here who have chosen to reject God. They, in essence, have become their own god, relying on their own human intellect to guide them as opposed to relying on the Lord. So there you have it. The #1 reason why society is so messed up today. People love themselves way too much.
If people love themselves so much, why has volunteering work and donations to charity increase? It seems like people today care alot about others. What evidence do you have that people love themselves too much and what do you account for as a mess up society?
@@tedidk8639 so charity giving is your only gauge for society?
@I love Science one day you'll face the living God and I think you will be far more respectful than you are being now. You're only fooling yourself.
@@nohandlemebruh even many atheists at least acknowledge Jesus truly existed. You are one of the few who actually hangs onto your delusion that he never existed.
@@Mission-re6wr
No. The world is getting more peaceful as we have had less wars and the wars that we do have are smaller and kill less people compare to the 20 centry and human life expectancy has been increasing since. And while massive shooting have been increasing, regular murder had been decreasing for over 20 years.
I will never be convinced of atheism by (God’s grace) however I think the best atheistic argument for morality would be some evolutionary bs, which is very debunk-able.
Edit: I meant Objective morality*
just repelsteeltje Nope not how it works, for one that definition would make morality purely subjective.
just repelsteeltje Nah the principles are all the same what varies is the degree of which those morals are upheld.
Either way the argument is what is the best atheistic case for “Objective Morality” so if you just resort to claiming morality is subjective, then that by default would mean that objective morality isn’t compatible with atheism.
just repelsteeltje I think you clicked o the wrong videos the. And further more, I know that you don’t believe it’s an opinion that raping a man, woman, or child is evil and wrong, if you truly believed that the. You wouldn’t care if say your mom got raped or even if you got raped bc hey, nothing wrong was done to you in that hypothetical, the fact is morality is definitely objective we all naturally have basic morality, and further more we all have a conscience.
I love Science Well yeah “Micro Evolution” macro evolution on the other hand by definition is hilariously far away from being a scientific fact, regardless as off how hard you it is, I know you’d be lying bc no man has seen it, nor will any man.
I love Science Literally by definition they aren’t, I love it when you guys reply that to me bc micro and macro mean the opposite.
I like your videos, but this time you are straw manning Sam. He never said, Humans don't have consciousness. And he also lays out why we are guilty for doing bad things even though we don't have a free will.
I believe alot of religions are the same
It's ok to be loyal to Jesus or Buddha just like it's ok to be loyal to your country but to suggest your country is the only correct and best county is ignorant
I recommend you watch cross examined's playlist on truth, especially the two videos on truth and relativism. I do understand what you mean though :D