If You're Just Stupid . . . - The Atheist Experience
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 вер 2024
- Produced by the Atheist Community of Austin. The Atheist Experience # 803 Clip. Hosted by Matt Dillahunty & Don Baker. March 3, 2013.
Meet Eric from Sacramento, California. Eric believes if objective morals exist then God exists. Of course Matt points out he must prove that premise, and then asks him to define morality. As with all theists asking simple questions rarely leads to a simple answer. Usually proving they lack even the most basic logical construct for their arguments. It seems the caller is unaware that Matt has lectured extensively on secular morality, because the caller gets more ignorant as the call progresses. Matt finally gives every stupid caller what they deserve . . . a dial tone. Enjoy.
TalkOrigins Index of Creationist Claims Debunked: www.talkorigins...
Iron Chariots: An excellent resource for Counter-apologetics.
wiki.ironchario...
This video upload is in support of the Atheist Community of Austin and its Secular goals.
VISIT THE ACA'S OFFICIAL WEB SITES:
www.atheist-com... (The Atheist Community of Austin)
www.atheist-exp... (The Atheist Experience TV Show)
"The Atheist Experience" is a registered trademark of the ACA.
If you have to ask why we should care about other people if we don't have religion, then you aren't a good person.
yep
..are they serious? it wobbles the mind...
By the theist idea of morality from religion we would get:
A guy is about to hit an old woman upside the head and steal her purse. A big guy realizes this is about to happen, and tells the guy not to do it or he will whomp him upside the head (but only after he lets him get away with doing so) and the guy is therefore scared of the threat and so chooses not to steal from the old lady so he doesn't get whomped by the big guy and then claims himself more moral than the guy who wasn't going to steal from the old lady to begin with, without the threat.
+Larry Berry that's pretty much exactly what the religatards version of morality is akin to
Josh Porter You may still ask the question of what objective reasons we have for caring for other people, while still maintaining the intuition that we ought to.
the caller realized his argument was falling apart so he turned into a prank call, how pathetic.
no, listen to the call again but first pull your head out of your ass...... and be specific.
***** I hope you find your way out of the maze of ignorance and discover reason, Darwin bless you.
Darwin bless you my lost friend.
dude move on with your life and stop commenting, we are done.
mike dixie rect His argument was falling apart from the beginning.
"do u think drinking battery acid is good for u?" "no." "Um is that just your opinion, or do u have some actual evidence for that?" "Well God made battery acid." "oh you're done" lmfao
That was good, lol.
Uphonniq I can conclude that battery acid will have corrosive effects on my body without actually doing it, due to my knowledge of chemistry.
It was at that moment the caller knew he was defeated, so he got desperate.
And God said "Let there be battery acid." and it was so.
Ahh the tried and true "Well God made battery acid...." argument. Matt had to hang up, he was about to be destroyed if he let that guy finish.
...and after he created battery acid, God said: "Everything I've made is good for human health."
And the church said: Let there be Gullible people, so we can Enslave them and take their MONEY, And there where ................
And botulinum toxin type H.
Genesis 1 verse 666
I want a t-shirt that says :
"god made battery acid"
-- Eric. Sacramento, Ca
+phrenzy1 you gave me an idea for a meme, heres the plot:
Guy1- God made verything right?
Guy2- yes
Guy 1 with a smug ass face- then i guess god is a weed farmer.
i would laugh my ass off.
I was going to say that
I want a tshirt that says 'god created acid'
And; sponsored by duracell ...............
I used to have a shirt that had Santa holding a sign that said "I don't exist". I would like to make the same one with god holding that sign.
I don't see his argument as circular. I see it more of an irregular quadrilateral. Maybe a rhombus.
Take it outside, shape boy.
LOL
numberstation it’s definitely not a cube, no depth.
"Let me assure you that this is not one of those shady pyramid schemes you've been hearing about. No sir. Our model is the trapezoid!"
Its that fake triangle that gets rearranged into the triangle with a hole in it, his brain is the triangle with a hole in it
I'm so glad I watched the whole video. I'm literally laughing out loud.
"...[nervous silence]...God made battery acid."
That just made my day.
I wonder which day God made battery acid
@@OwenPlant532 Glad you commented because I'd totally forgotten about this one.
I wonder if he drank some out of rage-just to prove the point to himself.
+"Drinking battery acid is bad for you"
-"Well that's just your subjective opinion"
-+No, it's not my opinion...do you think drinking battery acid is good for you?"
-"No"
+"Well is that just your opinion or do you have evidence for that"
-Well god made battery acid"
Lol What?! What kind of response is that? hahahaha You dug your own grave with your argument on subjective morality and it back fired on you stupendously. Religion...
Surely an atheist living a
co-operative and constructive life for the sake of it, is better motivated than a theist who does it for personal award in heaven.
What really makes the caller's arguments so bad is that they're so damned dishonest. Matt explained the argument's failure in detail, but the caller just ain't gettin' it!
See, Matt actually uses "big" words many of his callers have never heard and most certainly do not know what they mean. So no wonder they do not understand a thing since they only know church blah, blah - the type you can only endure if you leave your brain outside on the church steps before you go in! Many have the problem that they also forget to put it back when they leave again. That is what one can clearly observe when they then go and call Matt. LOL
And while those asses are getting logically kicked, god's nowhere to be found suddenly. The questions forever unanswered.
This is the education and intelligence that religion derives it base from , If people are ignorant and uneducated it is easier to enslave them.
Look at Iran, iraq =anywhere in the middle east ignorance and failure of education allows religion to spread like virus, Which religion is.
Or the USA where Christian's people in positions of power have introduced religious doctrine in conflict with the constitution.
The USA is now a the United states of christian immorality.
51% of the usa population are now slaves to the state.
I have already requested my countries politicians to remove ourselves with interaction with the USA until they return to democracy. That`s includes sending Caroline Kennedy back to the slave state, remove the US embassy and remove all USA military and US passport holders and bar entry bye these pieces of shit.
You need to remember that MAtt Dillahunty is raging fucking racist .
You guys have so much patience.........
Wait. If God is sentient and morality comes from God, wouldn't that make morality subjective?
Of course it does.
Well assuming God is Omni-benevolent, as in, has a perfect reasoning, Its hard to qualify its "subjectivity"
Well that can't be the Bible god then, that god is clearly not Omni-benevolent at all it's a cruel vindictive unfair megalomaniacal god, at best.
it wouldn't MAKE morality subjective. it would just mean that god would have a subjective opinion about morality, but objective morality itself would still exist.
nahuelkid
How is that not subjective? It’s precisely the definition of it.
Here's a joke. A boy and his father went into a pet shop. The boy stopped, in front of a cage full of sleeping cats. The boy said, "they're christian cats". The next day, the boy wanted to go see the cats again. The boy said, "now they're atheist cats." The father said "But, yesterday you said they we're christians." The boy answered "Yes, but they opened their eyes".
I love you
MrHamtroll why?
Shitty joke..
Stick to praising god
agustin daniel I'm going to stick to praising freedom.
- If morality exists then god exists!
- what is morality?
- oh, its god's nature...
So...: if god's nature (=morality) exists, then god exists!
Right!
If unicorns' nature exists, then unicorns exists...
If santa Claus' nature exists, then... (I think you all got the point) :o)
Math
Stupidity is immaterial as well. Therefor it can be argued that God is responsible for stupidity.
It shouldn't even be an argument. If a god exists and is responsible for everything, then all the bad things are included as well as the good and the neutral.
No no! Bad and neutral are the Devil's doing! :P
AquaticBoardwalkEngineer, I actually meant that as a wise ass remark. As far as me thinking slavery is from the Devil? I think THINE'S head is up thine ass if you believe any of this hypocritical fiction. And where did I "leave out leave out some of the best teachings that a loving caring god has to offer." I was brought up Roman Catholic and NEVER heard of this loving God you speak of. was taught in a vengeful jealous God that should have no other God's put before Him. You see even though I said fuck that God and the loving God you speak of I still capitalize His names out of respect for those who believe. I do not. So much for your assumption that I think slavery is from the Devil. I do not know how you think you got to know anything about me from my 9 word sarcastic remark. If you need to believe in this Fairy Horror Tale to get you through life, so be it. DO NOT include me in it! I'll put my head back up my ass now.
Scientists provide proof. Something religion has never produced.
Not only scientists, but students can reproduce their experiments. It is an open system. There are no prophets, leaders, secret hand shakes.
*Attempts secret Scientist handshake on Louis Tournas*
Only mathematics and logic use the term proof.
@@louistournas120 Or biases.
''Well god made battery acid''
*instant hang up''
That was hilarious!
I remember that this was one of the biggest issues for me when I became an atheist. I found it completely terrifying that morality might be subjective and not objective And then I did some research and thinking of my own and learned that morality existed before religion and you can contribute to the morality you want based on the idea that it is best to do what is best for the most amount of people in any given circumstance. It took me a long time for that to sit well with me but at some point you have to accept the world we live in and not the world we wished we lived in, only then can you actually try and create the world you want to live in. This is the whole premise of the Enlightenment
Two kids were arrested, one was drinking battery acid and the other was eating fireworks.
The cops charged one and let the other one off.
'I wanted to ask ya'all's about gaaaawwwd?'
LOL
I know right? Them responses and retorts whenever he made himself known. I was dyin'.
Out of all the debates and TV shows and documentaries I've watched, I have yet to see an actual program where a Christian wins an argument with an Atheist or doesn't get dumbfounded halfway into the conversation. Honestly, I would like to see something like that so if any of you happen to have any resources, feel free to pass them by me, I'd appreciate it.
It'll happen once there's actual evidence.... sooo.... never. :|
I am open to learning knowledge from all types of people, im 19 and never learned anything worthwhile from religious people
Malyssa c: Here's the issue with that . . . Belief and faith is the conviction of something being true regardless if evidence supports it or not. Gods only exist in beliefs because no feasible evidence has been found to support their existence. So all that's left then is to determine whether the logic behind a deity's existence.
For Example:
You have an entity that boasts power over everything (omnipotence) and knows everything that has happened, will happen, or has plans (omniscience). So let's look at both of these:
Omnipotence Paradox
Is this "god-like entity" able to create something it cannot lift? This question poses a problem because yes and no both indicate a lack of all powerful. Reason being: 1) If the answer is no, then it has obvious limits and ergo it's power is limited to what it can create, not what it can't. So if it can't create it, it's not omnipotent. 2) If the answer is yes, the entity is still limited physically in that it created the object, but it lacks the power to lift it. So if it can't create the object, it's not omnipotent . . . if it can't lift the object, it's still not omnipotent.
Omniscience Paradox
Also called "God's Plan" to use the Christian reference, but they think we have free will. But God's Plan and Free Will are mutually exclusive . . . here's why: For us to have absolute free will, we humans must only be at the mercy of each other, and all other random events beyond our control. If things are according to God's Plan, then that imposes on our free will in that he's set things up to result in a specific event or decision on our part. That being the case, he's modifying the situation, resulting in a decision he wants us to make for whatever reason, but in that situation we have no Free Will because he's limited our options to the ones he wants. Let's take prayer for example, the most useless thing in any religion, where you ask a deity for help or guidance. But if what you're asking for doesn't coincide with the Plan, the god's going to ignore it (which could be anywhere from a new car, to curing a loved one of cancer). In reality, if you want the new car, you have to earn money for it, or trade what you have for it. For cancer, you go into chemo or radiation therapy, but it's not guaranteed (although it does improve your chances over doing nothing). If a God's Plan is in effect, why does he/they want there to be atheists, as we wouldn't become thus unless he wanted us to according to his plan? For following his/their plan, are we going to be punished upon death for doing what we were instructed to do? If the deity/-ies didn't know we were going to become atheists, then how can we say they're omniscient?
To butcher Epicurus' speech:
If god knows, and does nothing, it's part of his plan (you have no free will).
If god doesn't know, and does everything, he's imposing on free will
If god knows, and does everything, we're slaves (still no free will).
If god neither knows, nor does anything, then what pray tell makes him a god?
Xenomorpheus pretty good summed up!
to bad that most christians believe the third of the 4 possibilities, and they don't have a problem with being a slave...
mahe4
I should have changed that to "We have no free will" editing now.
Morality is simple. when you think about taking an action subconsciencely you say to yourself "would i be ok if this was done to me or someone i love? If the answer is no then youre doing something immoral.
al zolez that's a weak definition of morality. It's more like the definition of empathy.
empathy is part of the foundation of morality. sure i put it as simply as possible but it absolutely applies. To suggest Morality comes from some higher intelligent power is idiotic. There is absolutely nothing to back that except ignorance.
No need for a God to know the Golden Rule.
@Doctor Drywell Masochism and sadomasochism don't address morality.
@@mr.nobody9697 To your point, IF morality did come from a higher power, what's to stop them from asserting that murder and rape are moral? The Bible already instructs people how to treat and keep slaves. Does that make slavery moral in Christianity? Thankfully, we've determined, as a social species, that slavery is immoral.
this quote needs to be put in the bible "God made battery acid and He thought that it was good"
GAAAD made battery acid! lol
im still trying to figure out how christians claim morals from a god who didnt want man knowing good from evil, so much so that he condemned man for accessing _the_ _one_ _thing_ that showed him the difference
My favorite quote for a period of time was
"Banish me from Eden when you will; but first let me eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge" - Robert G. Ingersoll
Kind of resonated well with what you said!
GOD: (sighs) Well, I might as well (b)elaborate on what I damned you for getting...
premise 1: if god exists, then god exists.
+phrenzy1 premise 2: if no one can demonstrate concretely that a god exists, then god exists.
LOL
Did you mean 'Gawwwd'?
+davids11131113 I don't think he did, but the caller definitely did.
+phrenzy1 premise 2: god exists.
Conclusion: god exists.
God is spaghetti. Spaghetti exists. Therefore the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.
All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster (pasta be upon Him). The First Flour. The Supreme Semolina. The Pope of Pasta. The Minister of Marinara. The Nadir of Noodle. The Top Tortellini. The Paternal Penne. The Perfect Pasta. The Wonderful Wonton. The Sublime Soba. The Fabulous Pho. The Futuristic Fusilli The Majestic Macaroni. The Lofty Lo Mein. The Voluptuous Vermicelli. The Unfettered Fettuccine. The Universal Udon. The Raging Ravioli. The Canonical Cannelloni. The Zen of Ziti. The Big Bucatini The Gentle Gnocchi. The Linguine of Love.
lmfao hahaha I'm saving this comment
Ramen
That's heresy. Every good follower knows that the Spaghetti Monster floats rather than flies...
Clemente Moreno dude your one word response was a bigger laugh than his whole noodlistic tirade
"God made battery acid" LMFAO!!
Sensory gating at its best
Sensory gating?
@Pisstake Piss taking?
It was game over after the caller gave his initial definition of morality.
Intelligence has limits, stupidity does not! Never forget the religious have more than 2000 years of wilful ignorance, than we do ;0)
As an experienced RN who's worked acute and critical care and has been involved in countless codes, I can assure you that you're correct. A cascade of multi-system failures that result in hypoxia, anoxia, and metabolic changes that include combinations of metabolic and respiratory alkalosis or acidosis will induce abnormal brain activity, aka hallucinations.
For the record, most patients recall nothing.
~Kaycee, CNRN,CRRN
I can confirm.
I have almost died bare minimum a dozen times that I can strongly remember as things were getting critical and I haven't walked towards the light or went to hell even once...
Thankyou
Did I hear right? God made battery acid??? Must have been for the battery in his car. I wonder if it was the Ford Flintmobile Deluxe model. The Flinstones only had the standard Flintmobile.
If he was as smart as people say, he would have gotten the patent on that, and he wouldn't have to rely on conning people to give him money.
Yahweh-dabba-doo!
god made battery acid
CHECKMATE ATHEISTS !
Bananas
Checkmate athiest.
David Bakies
Chess is real.
CHECKMATE
'What's your definition of morality?' 'What God dictates.' ....no, that's a dictate, and while dictates MAY be moral, that's not morality because a dictator can also dictate heinous directives, it's 'not moral' because if you're just obeying dictates then you're not excercising any morality at all you're just a trained robot. Just look in the Old Testament for many examples of that.
Morality is doing what is right no matter what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told no matter what is right
How are you (and the rest of society) deciding what is right or wrong. Some people thing it is wrong to have an abortion or it's wrong for people of the same sex to be intimate with each other. Morality is about well being for the society as a whole including the animal kingdom. Morality is an ever changing concept and it is subjective. For example: is it morally correct for us to kill a mouse, I would say if the mouse is carrying a disease that can harm us or the mouse is possibly going to contaminate our food supply then it is morally right to kill it but if it is just going about its life and will someday just be food for a cat or some other creature then it would be morally wrong just to kill it because it is a mouse!
OMG, Matt has so much more patience with people than I would. This is an amazing example of self-control.
Mmm
Lllłl
The caller(eric) is yet another example of how religion and/or a belief in a (by definition) imaginary god poisons the mind. ;O)
Katalyzt
Caller: "God made battery acid."
Me: **sitting here for 5 minutes trying to discern just where in the HELL he was going with that**
Well I have dogs who apparently have figured out some moral code to live by themselves, they're sisters and a bit competitive and squabble sometimes over things, but in general get along well with each other. And neither of them have ever read the bible.
Dogs are descended from wolves and wolves have communities where looking out for each other is beneficial for several reasons, such as group hunting and protection. Evolutionary biologists believe that morality evolved as a result of this group mentality.
NeuroticDummy
If you go back to 1850, you'll find Herbert Spencer saying that first. He's the guy who coined "survival of the fittest," one of the most misunderstood concepts in history. According to Spencer, an individual's fitness was determined by what kind of organism it was. To simplify, animals that lived in groups (like wolves, cattle, people) were fit when they worked as part of their group. Solitary animals like tigers were fit when they were big, strong, fast and agile enough to keep themselves fed and alive. So if you're a herd animal, "plays well with others" is a lot more important than most people understand.
NeuroticDummy Well yea that's pretty obvious, any group of living things will find it not very beneficial for survival if they all kill each other off. Humans and all kinds of other animals and even insect colonies could be shown to have a kind of 'morality', and not only applying to just their own species but all kinds of symbiotic relationships exist throughout nature.
qhsperson davids11131113
I haven't read anything by Herbert Spencer, but I'll definitely look him up. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
As for 'survival of the fittest' doesn't mean individual fitness, it means survivability within a group. It's groups, never individuals. I am perfectly aware of this. In regards to the domestication of the dog, it was a result of a mutual benefit.
I guess my post was very unclear since two people have misunderstood what I was trying to say, so I'll try to rephrase. Sorry about that.
Two different species benefiting off of each other is a symbiotic relationship. Individuals within a species benefiting off of each other is different to the symbiotic relationship mentioned above because of them obviously belonging to the same species. Co-operation within a species does seem more 'logical' in terms of knowing the needs and benefits from having a social relationship with other individuals of this group.
Thank you god for making the internet.
Thank scientists for inventing it.
Verifed InTest I was joking... I was playing off the end of the call... I even used a lowercase "g"... I thought it was obvious... I guess I'm just too witty for my own good.
Derek TDH Good point.
I thought Al Gore made the internet
Steven C Yeah! Wait I thought DARPA and the CIA / NSA complex made the internet so they could monitor and eventually control us all.
Well god made battery acid!!
John Frederic Daniell just went from past member of the Royal Society to Infinite, Transcendent, Omnipresent, Omniscient and Immortal being...
If morality comes from god an god is a sentient being then morality is subjective.
Well said, that's always my position on this argument.
Beware the asshole who can kill anyone, rape anyone or commit any atrocity and be forgiven,...... and smile.....free!! Sounds like Hannibal Lechter! (The real ones who walk the halls of power!) This kind of power attracts the psychopath and sociopath alike! The smart fishy swims far away!!
And that subjectivity is demonstrated in the bible to a degree(miraculously!) exceeding 100%.
617bluemeanies, The smart fishy can only swim so far. ;)
"May god had made battery acid."
Pure gold,this guy thoughts are pure gold.
Seems to me that what Matt and the others often fail to set out at the start is that morals are our code (rules) for living in ways that foster individual and group well-being. All societies have developed moral codes based on some universal principles - be nice to others and help others; do no harm to others; reciprocate; observe authority; look after your own health; preserve tradition. (All can be rationally debated as to their scope and application; the validity of an authority etc.) It is likely that such principles have guided moral development from way before the Abrahamic faiths came into being - they would simply have articulated and codified rules that were in action from long ago. These rules are all based on facts about human well-being - and facts are objective (all humans need food, warmth, shelter, freedom from threat etc; we all thrive better in communities). This is what it means to be able to say that morals are objective, and have nothing to do with any fantasy supernatural entity - they evolved with us from aeons ago. The existence of moral codes has nothing to do with any supposed God. And without fantasy Gods we would all be able to get along just the same - there would be no "free-for-all" or "anything goes", any more than there was in the millenia before the Abrahamic faiths. This also means that morals are not relative. It has always been harmful to others to kill, rape or enslave them - it wasn't OK for the early Jews, Christians or Muslims to do it then, any more than it is now. What has changed is the scope of our application of the morals. There was certainly a time when we only applied them just to our close group / tribe - but we know better now, and they should apply universally. There is no such thing as moral relativism, and moral codes have formed and can exist without any God or gods.
If a person can't weigh the consequences of their actions to be able to determine if their actions are wrong or right, then they qualify as Stupid. Whether a god approves or not...
This caller is confused, it's the 'Christian moral system' which says you can do anything you want, and it's OK it's all forgiven, as long as you're a Christian believer. Christianity actually has no real moral requirements, at all.
MyOnlyFarph said: "The Emnite Shyamalan twist for the final episode of the atheist experience is that every single caller was in fact an atheist Poe playing a practical joke on the cast for secret internet lulz."
The funny thing is, it's really hard to tell the difference between an atheist pretending to be stupid an a creationist trying to be smart.
Why care about others? We're tribal animals, we evolved to empathize with our species and when coupled with a self aware mind that is more flexible than more primitive life forms we're able to be sympathetic to things other than us, like animals.
Furthermore you can find examples of animals that are not inherently tribal and so are more prone to doing things like stealing from one another as do many species of Squirrel. Hominids however survive on the basis of the tribe and so strength within the group and caring for each other is a strong trait.
Beyond that its easy to rationalize how treating others well will do well for us if we consider what would happen to us in a similar situation. You know, golden rule and all that.
+BollocksUtwat What if aliens landed and were from a more mature race than us. They lived in a society without crime, poverty or famine but had no concept of religion. Would we judge their civilisation as being moral?
colinp2238 I wouldn't know. We would certainly judge them next to our values but we know that everyone judges things differently. Its a certainty that there would be many people who would judge them a dangerous species because of their absence of religion because there are people who think that way.
BollocksUtwat True also many would judge out of fear.
This tendency toward support is an evolutionary advantage, supporting and sticking together in most places, even the warzone. I care about others because I want them to care about me, in other words, that's something I can demonstrate to them and expect in return. Those with the tendency towards advantageous survival tactics like these have gained the grounds of reproductive control, while those without advantageous tendencies are, dead. I see nothing "objective" about my morality, but something that helps me stay in-place with other humans and not seclude myself. God, aka Zeus, is a projection of this humanism that exists to comfort individuals who are fearful and worried, and the tactic to shun non-believers is to mentally place themselves in relative success--the only thing we have to base personal morality and success off of is relative to what others do. Thus it is why the typical theistic response is "I'm glad I'm not going to hell!" yet they probably are going to hell based on thousands of other religions, and the sheer stupidity of believing the one religion that wasn't presented to them in actual reality, while another one may have sufficed.
Vertical Horizon
*why should you care about them?*
Empathy.
I was a devout Christian from early early childhood. I went to scriptures class in my entire school life, went to bible studies at 2 different churches since 12. Been to sermons at the 4 different churches. Read the bible in my own time cover-to-cover 3 times. Even read the Quran. Ive studied biblical archaeology for awhile. I lived a very devout life. But i have looked at the evidence. Studied the evidence. Ive rejected the god of the bible. And ive rejected the god of the Quran.
9:30 Reason for caring for others. 1. If I help others they may return the favor in the future and help me in a way I cannot help myself. 2. I want to be treated well and others will not treat me well if I do not treat them well. 3. I have empathy and seeing others in pain hurts me emotionally.
i dont like when people say "y´all"
Why? It's an accent, that would be not liking when people talk like "French".
Yes its an accent, and i dont like all accents.
Whats the issue?
Aldo Solares Clearly you gave a fuck since you commented.
Get out of here if youre so pissed
Herman Asplund I don't like it when people don't use apostrophes. lol
Yea well that just takes to much time. Shaun Mosher
GOD MADE BATTERY ACID!
I always wonder what percentage of these callers are as genuinely deluded as they sound or are just trolling the show
It's America ... they are genuinely that deluded.
At the end I think what Matt was reaching for was that we can have subjective opinions about objective concepts. In other words, using the example with battery acid.....A person could subjectively enjoy drinking battery acid, but drinking acid causes objective harm (if the word harm has any meaning). The damage done is not subject to any persons opinion.
"God made battery acid." BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Oh my fucking god! That last statement made the whole video worth it. I literally got light headed from laughing so hard! Thank you for making my day. xD
“Secular moral systems are superior. Period! It is because they are the only moral systems. Christianity (or religion) does not offer a moral systems, they offer moral pronouncement.”
Love you guys! :)
morality isn't based on human nature, it's based on intelligence. the higher intelligence a person possesses, the higher sense of morality he'll have.
And on the eighth day, God said, "Let there be battery acid..."
The problem Matt keeps having with this discussion about objective morality is that the callers don't know the definition of "objective" that he's using.
They think objective means: handed down from some authority, or true regardless of any variable.
Matt's objective is different.
Matt is using objective to mean the goal.
Objective like in a mission, or game. The thing to strive for.
Then he says he determines the objective of morality is well-being, setting the goal of morality as the maintenance or increase of well-being.
"Morality is immaterial, therefore god." Hey, guess what else is immaterial. Immorality. Also hate, evil, etc.
"Well god made battery acid". LMAO
It terrifies me to my core how so many supposed Christians willfully admit they’re only behaving appropriately because of the expected divine reward. I’m genuinely curious how many religious people would lose their minds and resort to barbarism if religion as a whole was somehow disproven…
For real. I’ve noticed this as well. Hearing the sheer number of christians who openly admit they would do horrible things if not for threat of eternal punishment is a terrifying realization that we actually do have a necessity for religion.
Chimpanzees are closer related to humans then to other apes and their psycho to the core. What makes them terrifying is that they are the most close to humans in behaviour @@timg7627
"God made battery acid."
Me: a) that doesnt solvent anything.
b) Argument from Look at the Acidities
Gawd daimn😂
Matt is absolutely right. Morality is about well being. We care about the well being of others because of empathy. We want to be treated well and so we treat others the same way. Why do christians find this so hard to understand? Don't they have values? Do they really not care about the well being of others? Do they only behave because god told them to?
@Dirk Knight Protestants and catholics are both christian.
@Dirk Knight all religion is poppycock.
@Dirk KnightThe catholic church is one of the most corrupt and vile organizations the world has ever known. Priests raping children. The virgin Mary story? And that isn't bullshit the church made up?. I was raised protestant and my husband was raised catholic and now we are both atheists.
@Dirk Knight Spoken like a true believer. Myl highly religious protestant parents totally believed that protestantism was the truth, too. Everybody believes their own faith is the one true one. Thr TRUTH is that none of them are true. God isn't real, its a man-made construct.
@Dirk Knight I see all religions exactly the same way. None of them to me are of any more value than the other. None are true.
I would suggest morality is, indeed, subjective. We tend to make up rules of morality. My rules may not, probably won't, match your rules. There's a good explanation for this, it's because we made up the idea of morality and continue to write the rules. For example, slavery was only seen as wrong in the last few centuries. This was added to our definition of morality, as opposed to having always been there. We continue to use and improve our concept of morality, and that's a good thing.
From a moral standpoint, Christians either have not really thought about it, or they have and are being disingenuous. Here's why.
If I am good towards others because I want to avoid hell or I want to get to heaven then I'm doing it for purely selfish reasons. I'm not being good for good's sake - my underlying goal is to avoid hell or secure a seat in heaven.
On the other hand, if I am good towards other people because I think that is the right thing to do, because I thought about it and concluded it is the only moral course of action, then I am actually good. I am being good for good's sake. I am not acting under divine order, blackmail or bribe, but making a amoral assessment. No normal person needs God to be good, we can all be good for good reasons.
nikolaneberemed - Absolutely! You said it very well! Thank you!!!
Again proving my point that you're merely trying to tell people with different values than you and living in a different historical context what was good, reasonable or beneficial to them. In Rome, slaves working as teachers or even servants were often afforded affluent lifestyles. Further if someone takes pride in serving and dying for their country in a conscripted army, are they not a content slave? Everything youve said is egocentric subjective bullshit as when asking "Would I be ok with it"
Quote: "Do you not understand logic?"
Apparently you do not?
Premise1: thunder and lightning = Zeus being angry
Premise2: we had a thunderstorm today
Conclusion: Zeus exists
Do you accept this argument?
When you get an opportunity you should study Roman history. The insight you will acquire into the world you live in will be astonishing.
A great suggestion, Brakathor ... but that would mean they'd have to read TWO books.
"And on the two millionth day, God made battery acid, and it was good".
Something important to remember is the distinction between CANNOT BE KNOWN and IS NOT KNOWN. There's much we don't know, but that doesn't mean that we can't learn or make progress. So when I say morality is objective, the superiority of a particular action in a particular moral dilemma compared to other options CAN BE KNOWN, but that doesn't mean it is.
If unicorns exist, leprechauns exist.
Unicorns exist, therefore leprechauns exist.
Damn, this is easy. :)
The majority of the world would answer yes. They're called Theists. That goes back to my line "whether they realize it or not." Whether I or you or any one person would want to, but more importantly, would be happy being a slave is irrelevant though. I met this guy at a work search centre, so clearly in love with his own suffering: 64, shit jobs his entire life, but he couldn't face retirement. The point is the same action makes one man fulfilled and the other miserable; an act is not objective.
No, not many things fit into this category because nothing does. That is exactly my point. When people claim objective moral values, they are explicitly stating that these values exist independent of mind, else they are not talking about objective moral values.
"An apple is healthy" has nothing to do with morality, but cheating is rebuked in many societies and is viewed as morally wrong. "Many societies," or "most cases," however, does not warrant the label of being objectively right. What if your partner values polygamy? That isn't the question. The question is as to whether or not either conviction is morally wrong or not, and if it can then be said universally.
You may say an action is moral when two people perform an action of reciprocal empathy, but mostly you can never say any one SPECIFIC action is an action of reciprocal empathy. Slavery SOMETIMES was in fact. A good example is charity or pity. Some people are happy to take it, others might be offended. Moreover, if two people commit an act of reciprocal empathy that's damaging to a third party, is it still moral? If you think yes, you can't argue so without knowing more: no objective golden rules
14:20 "Well god made battery acid."
Too fucking funny. This is the honest intellectual level of most people that attempt to use logic to apologize for theism.
I'm not making the conflation, moral objectivists are, and I'm throwing it back back at them in how they over simplify as you're doing."Pain bad = pain immoral" I'm not making an ad populum argument either. Since all morals are subjective, that means what I'm telling you is that wellbeing is relative to the individual. You don't want to accept that because you want to tell other people how to live and what's good for them. Simple example: the result of beating one's kids differs from kid to kid.
If a person is not playing by the rules of chess, they are not playing chess.
You just can't conflate objective health practices with morality. This doesn't mean you've found an objective basis for morality, it just means you're confusing two things. Healthwise are breast implants a bad idea, or many body mods for that matter: tongue rings, excessive plastic surgery? But is performing these procedures on people for money immoral? It's frankly not your say. People will do whatever they want regardless. If it gives them pleasure, it's more immoral for you to stop them.
I have watched the Sam Harris vs. William Lane Craig debate on morality, and unlike most people, I'm not an individual who is too ignorant to find merits in certain points made by people I largely disagree with. can YOU think for yourself? Craig honestly has the bare bones point about this issue nailed down: that you would NEED a godlike entity for innate morals to exist in nature. If you want to convince me that evolution itself is a moral action, "morality" becomes completely superfluous.
14:23 "Well, God made battery acid."
God's Battery Acid Drink recipe:
1. First, fill a cup with ice.
2.Then, pour in the Monster and the Gatorade.
3. Add a sachet of sherbet powder.
4. Mix it all together.
5. Finish the drink by adding in lots of fizzy sweets.
The good thing about objective morality, is that you don't need to care about other people's feelings.
A refutation of the premises jumped out at me and I'm kind of surprised Matt or Don didn't pick up on it: one of Eric's first statements was that morality is immaterial; that it does not exist in atoms.
I see this as immediately false. We *are* a collection of atoms. If there were literally *nothing* there, no atoms, nothing to act *nor* be acted upon, then there is no morality. That one *needs* this physical reality to even begin discussing morality is justification enough to say that morality is indeed material. The premise is in err.
They started to touch on this in the last half of the discussion via objectivity vs subjectivity, but that's the refutation that jumped out at me from the outset.
Let me get this straight. You don't think the wellbeing of the society you live in and it's people benefits you specifically? The bare line definition of morality doesn't even matter since the word is virtually meaningless, and not at all useful. It's purely subjective simply because in and of itself "morality" CANNOT be a justification for anything. "Abortion is wrong because it's immoral." The argument is circular. Basically "It's wrong because it's wrong.": meaningless and purely subjective.
I hate when Atheists try and do what this guy does in respect to morals. Towards the end he says "Yeah some societies support genital mutilation, but its WRONG... not objectively, it's wrong because I say so." If groups of people find it wrong and you don't, how how can you possibly say you hold objective knowledge over the issue? Put it this way: if everyone who thinks it's wrong suddenly dropped dead, does the genital mutilation community not by default obtain an objective mandate?
To Correct ( He looked confounded) Don slightly at 7:15 about morality is that Morality or Altruism is very well explained in "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins.And Yes Don was right with his possible hint of how we got our morality will be through in depth self analysis or knowing about ourselves as a species with more tuned in Research on sorts of aspects like Genetics,Evolution and list goes on and on.Simply put it is Inherent and as Dawkins puts it our minds are extremely susceptible to the environment we grow up in.
Incidentally, some clarification about morality: Adam Lee, favorite atheist author of mine, has an essay on his Daylight Atheism blog on Patheos entitled “The Ineffable Carrot and the Infinite Stick” that debunks the moral argument quite well. In a nutshell, morality is a set of rules created and enforced by mutual agreement which act to increase overall happiness by preventing people from acting greedy in prisoner’s dilemma situations. No need for God.
HA! "Caller: Eric - 'Sacremento', CA" on the screen
This is the very core of why it's so hard to reason with many indoctrinated followers of any religion - they've never learned and were trained to reject what the most important terms like morality or truth actually mean. Everybody keeps assuming that this is the very base of common knowledge and it should be, but in reality for a vast majority *it's really not*.
So the very first questions to ask whenever a debate about religion or atheism comes up is how they define morality and truth. If there already is a disagreement right there, going any further will be most certainly utterly fruitless and a complete waste of time.
There is an obligation to be moral, because we live in a society.
No obligation anywhere; geography has nothing to do with it.
Hello, fellow Barnaby.
I love Matts comparison between health and morality
jomps As I understand it, he borrowed it from Sam Harris. And yes, I agree, it's a good comparison.
Most people, most Believers, assess the "morality" presented in the Bible in terms of their internal sense of right and wrong. For example, God's Commandment, "Thou Shalt Not Kill", is considered moral based on the readers internal sense that killing is wrong.
I agree with almost all of Matt's points but one. Doing something good for someone else has nothing to do with survival. It's not ingrained in me that giving a few bucks to the starving kid in the street might somehow benefit me or my species... Helping those who can't help themselves is a maternal or paternal instinct, and helping a number of people with something like building a house or something is the need to belong and to prove your worth. It has nothing to do with survival. Yes, what you have done benefits the group as well as you in the end, but that has nothing to do with why (or what you were thinking) when you did it.
> Doing something good for someone else has nothing to do with survival.
Think much more basic dude - I'm a caveman, wandering around the forest hunting for food. I come across another caveman who's being attacked by a bear. If I help him, maybe he'll return the favor. Maybe he'll have some food to share with me. Maybe we can even team up and go hunting together, watching each other's backs in case we run into trouble. That's the very basis of how and why societies form. Your chance of survival is typically much higher in a group than it is alone .
Altruism does have to do with survival. Humans are not the only animals that display altruism either. There are many species that will come to the aid of a fellow member of the species even if they're not genetically related. This is beneficial because if you're prone to help people who need help, you're more likely to recieve help when you need it yourself. this contributes to your survival. Also altruism towards members of your species also helps proliferate your genes, because you share many genes with a member of the same species.
It helps to think of an individual as merely a vessel for proliferating genes. If altrusm helps the genes of a species survive it will be naturally selected for, even if alttruism isn't beneficial for the survival of an individual. In fact the individual would be better off if they weren't altruistic at all, because then they would never have to pay the price of giving help, but they would still likely receiive it from others - this would help that individual to survive for longer than the altruistic individuals but it would not help the survival of the genes the species share overall and would not be naturally selected for unless the benefits of being non-altruistic outweighed the benefits gained by altruistic behavior.
Zero Helix that's an interesting point.
StreakyBaconMan
Ok... I never said helping is not beneficial. I'm saying that we don't do it for that reason. We do it for the shiny happy feeling that comes along side doing a good thing. You give a dog a treat so he'll run around and go crazy till he gets it. You give a woman a handful of nice flowers to see her eyes start to twinkle, and you add an extra scoop or two to an ice cream so the little kid's eyes bug out as she's grinning from ear to ear.
It's chemistry, the rush of endorphins when you've accomplished something, or made someone smile. These things might help you or your race survive in some manner, but that has nothing to do with why you do it.
lukus black it's not one or the other though, it's both. I gave you a pretty simple of example of this in a previous reply.
I'm doing what you're not able to do, what in fact you would need to do if you expect to prove that there is such a thing as objective morality. I am looking at the plural contexts of a societal labor system, beneficial and detrimental. This is what historians are payed to do just by the way. You're applying modern day values to ancient times. You're a great person to talk to though, because you're demonstrating so effectively how moral objectivism is based on specious reasoning.
Incredible. He thinks regurgitating his Sunday school crap makes sense.
"god made battery acid" lost me there
LOL
To join in this conversation. The existence of so many fossils found predominantly in sedimentary rocks isn't an embarrassment to uniformitarian assumptions. Yes, fossilization occurs mostly do to sudden events but not necessarily catastrophic events. You're right. The turbulence of a global flood wouldn't result in an orderly fossil arrangement. But disorder is NOT what we observe. The fossils are arranged in order. We have only single-celled fossils then we have more and more complex fossils-
When I said,"And that is what we observe" I was referring to disorder.This disorder is in the sense that many fossils demonstrate sudden (and therefore catastrophic) rapid fossilisation processes.Within the process of a global flood,there would have periods of huge turbulence during which fossil graveyards could form,death throes of birds and marine life fossilisation. When turbulence subsided we would have a more orderly settling of sedimentation.So intially chaos,followed by settling.
Rome wouldn't have been Rome without slavery. There's no evidence that it was a contentious issue at the time. Some slaves in fact lived extremely comfortably; slavery was objectively beneficial to them. Was the expansion of Rome itself objectively beneficial to humanity? There are many contexts to look at it. I think it was beneficial in many ways. Slavery made sense at that time in our history, and I've just proved how in some ways it can be objectively beneficial; do try again, though.