For me, the simple fact that they claim that God gives us morals, but that we've seen in the Bible, and History, that people have done things so heinous, in the name of God, or religion or just because they were different yet faced no Godly punishment...makes the argument factually false. The best they can come up with is "Well, you can IGNORE morals, therefore it's still a valid argument" which could not happen if God GAVE us morals.
@@MaxxJagX What really grinds my gears is that theses people who say they value truth and morality so much avoid answering my simple moral questions all the time (less then 18% for christians and less then 7% for muslims) and then say to me I am the one who has no grounding for my morality and dont know right from wrong. Atheists and agnostics are nearly 100% at answering the questions and find them so simple, some even think I have some kind of trick coming because why would I ask such an obvious question.
@@macmac1022That's not fair, though. Atheists don't have to make up excuses for an immoral god. Of course they will have an easier time answering questions pertaining to morals!
@@Finckelstein LOL. The non answer response I often get is how do you know its wrong? or what is wrong with watching a child drown if you are of sound mind and are able to save them with no risk to yourself? I answer their questions then they end up with but those objective moral duties do not apply to god. Then I ask if math is objective and 2+2=4 for god. Then they say but that is different and I ask how and I have not gotten a good answer for that yet :)
"Years ago, anthropologist Margaret Mead was asked by a student what she considered to be the first sign of civilization in a culture. The student expected Mead to talk about fishhooks or clay pots or grinding stones. But no. Mead said that the first sign of civilization in an ancient culture was a femur (thighbone) that had been broken and then healed. Mead explained that in the animal kingdom, if you break your leg, you die. You cannot run from danger, get to the river for a drink or hunt for food. You are meat for prowling beasts. No animal survives a broken leg long enough for the bone to heal. A broken femur that has healed is evidence that someone has taken time to stay with the one who fell, has bound up the wound, has carried the person to safety and has tended the person through recovery. Helping someone else through difficulty is where civilization starts, Mead said." We are at our best when we serve others. Be civilized.
I serve others at the pub because when I go to church, I steal the notes from the offering bag but rattle the coin so people think I am putting money in. Occasionally, there is enough to assist a dozen of us become spirit-filled.
@@Steve-sg3uz Theism has no oughts either. It is, just like atheism just an answer to a single question: Do you believe in one or more gods? Everything else has to be more specific. The claim that morality comes from religions is flat out laughable. Your religions have caused so much misery in the name of your gods I can't take you clowns seriously when you're trying to monopolize morality. Stop borrowing from secular morals and live by the bible's horrendous morals for a few days and see how many years in prison you get. And no, it's not e cultural preference to help. It's an emergent property in our evolutionary journey as great apes. You can see the same step in many other animals, no gods needed. They simply lack the tools to help as efficiently as we can
@@Finckelstein Christianity has a ton of oughts. Honor your mother and father. Love your enemies. Etc. Atheism has zero oughts. Can you touch taste or see God? No. Can you touch taste or see a moral? No. Both are supernatural. As an atheist you are believing morals exist while saying God does not. That's illogical. Also, no atheist have any foundation for what is evil. Evil is also a religious concept. Atheists can only state what they feel is wrong. They have no objective outside foundation for what is wrong. Atheist arguments for what is moral are100% circular. It's wrong because you say so and nothing more. Emergent doesn't mean anything because you are still arguing it's good because you say so. Nothing more. With atheism, good an evil are just social constructs that feel good for most. Remember, in atheism we're just sacks of insignificant atoms here by pure random luck. If we fight each other and cause major losses on each side the universe hasn't lost any atoms. With atheism it's just your ego that makes you think we are important.
There’s actually clips on UA-cam of stray cats coming to the rescue of defenceless babies and infants when they were in danger. That alone shows that other animals have some sort of empathy for other animals even if it’s just on a basic level.
There are social instincts in many species. And those instincts are present during encounters with other species. The very young individuals adapt easily to any benign being in their environment. Why shouldn't they?
I'm not a young man. I've lived long enough to see and know how evil/corrupt/sinful we can be (all have sinned). I admitted this at a very young age because I did not stick my head in the sand and try to deny the fact that all people are capable of doing bad things (sinful acts). Look at what is going on in this evil world and don't deny the truth. We live in a bad place, evil/sin runs rampant. The proof is in the taste of the pudding. The opposite of evil is good. God/Jesus Christ is good, and he is our only hope of salvation. This evil world, atheists and the devil offer no hope (a better place where only righteousness dwells). Jesus Christ/God does. Faith is all one needs to be saved = believing that Christ Jesus is who he says he is. Loving and trusting him because he is the only one who has the power to save souls. One day every need shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.
@@paulgemme6056Aaron Ra's explanation, though in short summary form, makes way more sense than an overlord who makes us do good things, because he threatens us with eternal damnation if we disobey. I left that thinking a long time ago, especially the threat of eternal fire for the sin of not believing in him.
@@mildredmartinez8843 There is not any in between. There is the kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness. Jesus is the Christ, the Prince of Peace, the King of Glory (the Light). The devil (Satan) is a liar and the father of lies, The prince of darkness, the accuser of the brethren and the god (little g) of this evil world. God/Jesus Christ offers hope, the free gift of eternal life - to know him (no religion needed). Just faith, faith plus nothing. The devil, atheists and this evil world offer no hope (just death).
@@mildredmartinez8843 Just planting seeds, what kind of soil the seeds fall on are out of my control. Jesus Christ is the answer and our only hope. No religion needed. Just faith, faith plus nothing.
Arons intro was seriously the best answer to the morality question, theists think their God wrote morals on our heart when in reality its our intelligence along with compassion. Intelligence tells us to stand together, compassion tells us to do it for even the weakest & when that happens for generations & generations, it somewhat is passed down through the gene pool. Combine that with us being able to pass down knowledge. Morals weren't always here, because living things weren't always here... God's morals just like ours are subjective if a God exists, IF a God exists it makes no sense if you can be everywhere & anywhere, whilst holding the power that he does means it should be able to prove its here without any shadow of a doubt. Not in parables & riddles, but in a direct & comprehensive way. Also IF a God exists, none of the ones us humans have created are the correct one, otherwise why would he even be disappointed in something as insignificant as Sin...
As an atheist I hold myself accountable to the following, in no particular order: 1) the secular laws & rules of our Federal, State and local governments 2) my own conscience and the basic idea of empathy 3) the understanding of the utility of group cohesion - which is stabilized & encouraged by working & playing well with other members of my group
@@duanejohnson9798 Thank you! So now that I figured out what works for me, why would I want to add a layer of complexity to it with unproven Iron Age superstition? Ergo hard pass on Christianity pending hard evidence of its truth & utility.
The main question for any theist to answer is, "Are you personally ONLY being a good person because you think a deity exists"? Or could be asked, "Would you become an evil person, and hurt others, tomorrow, if you found out, today, that no deities exist"?
I don't know about AronRa (although it may be the case) but Paul has on a number of occasions revealed that he was at one time a serious Christian. Now he's an Atheist. So there's your answer.
@@themanwhowasthursday5616 I'm not sure about AronRa either. But yes, Paul is one who is still a good person without any "god". But the question is directed to staunch religious people who insist atheists can't have justification to behave.
There is no 'good' or bad person if no God exists. There are no objective moral values or duties to violate IF no God exists. Worse, if no God exists, we are just soulless chemical animals with no possible free will apart from chemically determined behavior. No moral right or wrong or even free-willed moral choice.
@@EdithBromfeld You seem to have a really low idea of humanity. You are correct when you say there are no objective moral values or duties, if no god exists. The thing is, there doesn't need to be! Even if we are "soulless chemical animals", so what? I don't see a problem with that. We can still be happy, we can still enjoy ourselves, and we can still uphold our own subjective moral values. The system still works regardless.
@@tan_x_dx *"Even if we are "soulless chemical animals", so what?"* Are you sure it's not you who has the the really low idea of humanity? How can you be satisfied with that as against the Theistic/Christian conception of the human being being created in the image of God?
“Aug 29, 2017 - Joel Osteen, who runs the 16000-capacity Lakewood Church, has been criticized on social media for not opening his doors to Hurricane Harvey flood victims.” I guess god hardened pastor Osteen’s heart. 😅 Or perhaps the reason people have empathy has nothing to do with religion.
Not that I am defending the guy, but what is a gotcha or trap question? Because I try and use the socratic method and I get told I use gotcha/trap questions all the time just trying to use the socratic method.
@@macmac1022 Unless he’s been sheltered so that he’s never heard of the evolution of compassion, which, when I was a theist I was very familiar with, or if he’s just too dense to comprehend Aron’s plain description, his, “What do you hold yourself accountable to?” is either a “gotcha” attempt or a wholly ignorant irrelevancy . . . I say, “Both”.
@@macmac1022gotcha/trap questions are a type of rhetorical trick; whereby you ask a question intended to lock the respondent into a set of answers that doesn’t accurately reflect their position. It’s an intellectually dishonest tactic… An example of a gotcha question that Matthew tried to ask was, “So you would say that the thing you hold yourself accountable didn’t always exist…?” Aron correctly didn’t accept the premise of the question. When you start a question with things like, “Wouldn’t you agree that….”, “So you say…”, “Can we assume…”, etc; there’s a good chance what follows is a gotcha question. These aren’t actually questions designed or intended to seek information or to get clarification from the other party. They are designed to force the respondent into agreement, or to make it appear that they don’t correctly understand their own position.
@@macmac1022In a real conversation, you ask open ended questions and your follow-up questions in turn are responsive to what the other person says. This guy keeps asking leading questions to get the phrasing he wants as part of a predetermined script. The Socratic Method is a teaching tool, not a way to have an actual discussion. Sometimes people will imagine these dialogues with a strawman in their heads but then forget that other people are…other people, and their answers can surprise you.
If Jesus died for everyone's sins, wouldn't that include the original sin? (I'm recalling from Catholic services in my youth with people singing, "Lammmmmb of God, you Take away the sins of the worrrrllllldddd.... Have mercy on usssssss.....") If Jesus died for my sins, what do I need to be forgiven for? If Jesus payed for my sins, any single one of which would damn *ME* to an eternity of torment and hellfire, and he also paid for all the sins of all of the people who are far more evil than myself....then why the fuck does he get to hang out "up there" on a cloud instead of being poked with sharp things, in the basement where the air conditioning is broken? ...One fine day in Paradise, Clay Man's wife, Rib Woman, was tricked by the talking snake into eating the fruit of the magical tree. Because of this, the all powerful god (who knew it was going to happen anyway) had to create a mini-me 1/3 scale replica of himself to sacrifice to himself to act as a loophole for himself to forgive his favoured creation; which, created in his perfect image, perfectly (as he does all things) naturally turned out flawed. ...an outrageous, melancholic parade of absurdity...from the first fucking verse
@@TheSnoeedog I would think so but they will say you need to accept jesus to get that forgiveness. He got the get out of jail free card :) BUT if he is omnipresent then he is always in hell as well as heaven and on earth and everywhere.
@@macmac1022 hmmmm.... That doesn't address the conflict re: Jesus dying for the original sin. Not my original sin, or yours, but *THE* original sin (whether it's phrased "apple eating," "doubting god's lies," "placing their trust in the only trustworthy individual they've come to know" or deigning, as toddlers, to play with the loaded handgun that daddy left on the ottoman). If Jesus takes away the sins of the world, a)the people who don't accept jesus as their lord and saviour don't exist on some parallel plane b)he removed the sin from both Adam and Eve, vitiating this phantasmagorical fairy tale about original sin, total depravity and a general need for salvation. I don't need to accept a saviour if I'm not born broken and corrupted by sin. N'est ce pas?
Based on other calls from Matthew, he actually believes that the bible is completely unambiguous. He thinks the clarity of his own interpretation is exactly the same in the minds of all other people. That's the most patently delusional thing I've ever heard.
Saying your morals come from a non corporeal entity living outside space and time is a nonsensical empty claim. Morality is an internal dynamic from which choice and action are derived.
I am accountable to my fellow human beings. Aren't we all just accountable to eachother? Actually every creature I interact with is going to judge me for what I do to it, human or not.
@Mar-dk3mp Which version of which god? You religious superstitionists really need to be more specific when you make your silly, unsupported assertions. And try to make your empty threats more threatening. Your's is barely laughable.
Accountable: subject to the obligation to report, explain, or justify something; responsible; answerable. In a general sense, I hold myself accountable to myself, my fellow humans, and any agreements I make with myself and others.
Matt's deep seated need to externalize his morals is emblematic of his desire to abdicate his personal responsibility and accountability. Like any xian these days. They want to be told what is right and wrong from authority rather than be forced to take an active role.
I can't see any reason for you to infer what you've inferred. On the contrary I would suggest that it's a desire for universal justice. That's to say that those who have willingly and calculatingly refused their responsibility to their fellow human beings do not escape confronting their accountability. The only possible way for this to be ensured is by the existence of God. Atheism has this singular major flaw namely that there is no justice for those who never stood a chance and there is possible escape into oblivion for those whom justice requires confronting what they have done or failed to do.
@@themanwhowasthursday5616 The theist and the atheist live in the same reality. Both the theist and the atheist would agree, that without an intelligent entity to step in, an immoral person could "get away with it". We live in the same universe in that there is no justice inherently woven into the fabric of reality. For the theist, a god needs to actively step in and deal with this immoral behaviour. The difference is that the atheist does not think there is some kind of cosmic judge out there, watching every person and judging them. The atheist looks at what happens in reality, and unfortunately, sometimes the bad guys get away with it. It sucks, but we don't make the assumption that somebody "out there" cares about us. But certain theistic approaches are not much better either. In Christianity, an immoral person could be saved and receive absolutely no punishment whatsoever. This is not justice, especially since the aggrieved parties never receive any recompense - only the god gets the apology. Alternatively, the immoral person who is sent to hell is tortured for all eternity. That's not fair either. In fifty million years, that person will still be burning in agony over things which are rendered trivial given the vast amount of time. Will anybody even remember what the crimes were? Will anybody care after fifty million years? Infinite punishment for finite crimes is not justice either.
@@themanwhowasthursday5616 Depends what you mean by 'justice'. Is it just punishing the wrongdoers to hurt them for their actions, or is it reforming them to make them better members of society? Most religions seem to take the former approach to 'justice', which is really just vengeance, and doesn't serve anyone, save for giving the victims a minor endorphin rush (but, then, also creates further victims, who now deserve vengeance against the avenger, thus creating more victims and so on and so on.)
@themanwhowasthursday5616 What universal justice? The Christian God literally flooded the world, sent his people to kill infants and is planning to send people & infants again (cause the theology isn't clear, only church doctrine tries to be apologetic) to eternal hell fire. Bro can't even act morally. How is he the standard of universal or any form of justice?
@@themanwhowasthursday5616The major flaw in christianity is the abhorrent ‘only way’ doctrine - that ‘non BELIEF’ ( not ‘deeds’) results in ETERNAL damnation; that is the very antithesis of “universal justice”.
Lol. It's morality itself that doesn't actually exist. Morality is just an imaginary fantasy made up to control and manipulate ppls behavior. It isn't real.
Me: Don't cause unnecessary pain, suffering or harm. Cause benefit or help when practicable. Coöperation and compassion were selective during our evolution as hunter-gatherers. I see an imposed, external, deontological rule-book as an impediment to the development of an internalized moral code.
I hold myself accountable to society as a whole. When I say that, I don't mean what people in society SAY they want because people can be fooled into asking for things against their own interests. I mean the things that make society better for everyone.
I don't get how theists can say they are held accountable when they can be granted forgiveness for anything. How effective would our legal system be if we changed to defendants just have to apologize for their crimes? It's the same as having no rules at all because nobody is really ever held accountable.
@@uninspired3583 I thought it was something about Jesus not having wheels as a mode of transport and Balaam getting a lecture from the donkey again. John 8;42. . . . I came not of my own accord. . . .
Atheist: "According to my subjective, personal moral view, it's _absolutely_ immoral to dump a 64oz soda over a stranger's head just to be a bully. What does your 'objective,' god-given morality say about that?" Xian: "I agree totally. That's _never_ moral." Atheist: "I also feel that it's never moral to make two bears attack and rip apart 42 children because they teased a man about his bald head. You?" Xian: "No, I am forbidden to judge that act to be absolutely immoral. God does that in the bible so for me to evaluate it as absolutely immoral would be to admit that God acted immorally, a strict taboo." Atheist: "Do you want to change your earlier answer about the soda or stick with your weird moral priorities? Let's just cut to the chase: are there _any_ acts your 'objective' morality can judge to be absolutely immoral?" Xian: "Just one, I guess: disobedience."
I never realized, until Matthew began talking about “Truth” how much that concept grates on me. Especially when theists use that word in connection with their assertions.
There is no morality or rules aside from those we make for ourselves as individuals and a society. That's why history has been a long and painful process of us working this crap out, because it's more complex than just simple black or white.
I hold myself accountable to the law, to society, to my friends but most importantly myself, I have to look at myself in the mirror every day and be happy with who I see.
Once again, Matthew from OH is digging for gotchas. Thanks Paul and Aron for posting this. While he has zero interest in learning at this point, this is a very long winded lesson for others. Just start with the crux of what you are trying to get to in the beginning already Matthew!!!
An issue not addressed by Matthew and such is why their "omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent" god allowed its most devout followers - Roman Catholic and Protestant - to persecute and burn each other alive because of a disagreement regarding transubstantiation.
I like to do away with phrasing like “allowed to happen” or “let happen” because if we’re being honest, in a world where the Christian god is real he CAUSED those things to happen. Nothing you said is actually wrong or a bad argument, I just like reminding people that (Abrahamic) God isn’t just watching this movie, he wrote it.
What the dark ages , burning witches and such until 1892, Almost 2/3 rd`s of Europe's population was wiped out by themselves, They only stopped because they were running out of victims not because they had a moral epiphany. The USA where are still doing it just before WW1, Understandable since the USA was built on genocide and land theft.
Atheist- "God is causing everything so it's all his fault" or "God Lets it all happen sense it's his fault"..... i swear and you all get on an high horse and lecture theist on morality or "take responsibility for our own action". Meanwhile you ignore Freewill and the fact that all our choices on Earth are ours and ours alone... yet you blame God. Just as you would call God a SlaveMaster if he controlled our every action. Second they didn't burn each other alive over transubstantiation if your going to cringe arguments at last get it right. Whats next you gonna pull he Spanish inquisition out... which for the record to all you reddit atheist lasted from 1478 and 1834 and of the 150,000 that were prosecuted with Hersey only between 3,000 and 5,000 were executed. (Because unlike what reddit would tell you Inquisitors weren't aloud to torture or execute people, these were the most educated and scholarly men in Europe at the time. They educated people and brought them back on the right track.) For reference more people were killed in one month of the atheist French Revolution then over 300 years of "religious persecution"... thats not even touching China, Pol Pott, Castro, every communist/atheist nation. Honestly if i wanted to i could touch on abortion bring up how all that baby murder is pressed forward by non theists (less then one percent of all pregnancy's are because of rape, incest or life of the mother so don't try to pull that bs out.)
@@miroo4097 "...they didn't burn each other alive over transubstantiation if your going to cringe arguments at last get it right" Between 1530 and 161, 360 men and women were burnt alive at the stake in England for heresy (denying the doctrine of transubstantiation) and in Europe between 30,000 and 50,000 people were put to death by the Spanish Inquisition. "Meanwhile you ignore Freewill..." as did god when he gave all those "Thou Shalt" and "Thou Shalt Not" commandments. The "Ah but atheists have been much worse" argument might be worth making, except atheists never killed anyone for being the wrong sort of atheist. Christians slaughtered the "wrong sort of Christians" because their god never clarified which were the right sort. They all thought they were! In fact, they behaved exactly as they might if their god were imaginary - the fictitious creation of people with different ideas as to what a god should be like and require them to do.
To ourselves. I have to live with my decisions, for the rest of my life. I like me, and I want to continue to like me. It’s more powerful than you think, theist.
Each other! Thats who we hold accountable! im guessing you, your family, pets, and friends *don't* want to be killed so therefore your morals are dont kill!... no God needed to make that conclusion
Thank you Aaron for explaining in simple teams how evolutuon hast contributed to our sense of empathy, morality and empathy. Hadn't heard it explained that way before and it makes total sense. The greedy, selfish make no contribution to the well being of the group and are for the most part weeded out.
Accountability is not the authority you answer to when you answer for actions. If you have accountability for your actions you have it regardless of your state of being observed or not. Only being good when you are being watched is spotlighting not having accountability for your actions
"accountability" can smuggle in authority, when I can simply live by my values. I don't wonder who will hold me accountable for being generous, I just value generosity, so I do it.
"Accountable" is the problem here. To be accountable means an owed behavior to some other superior entity. It goes back to a judgemental "god" in that case. Morality then shrivels to obedience to that authority rather than being the right thing to do.
There are few individuals among our species who can survive alone for long periods of time. Most people need to cooperate for their survival. Let's not forget, we need each other to birth the next generation. This simple understanding goes for all species. Our natural environment demands it. Accountability, justice, and moral constructs, are individually determined values exhibited across a range of infinite parameters. When our individual accountability, justice, and moral constructs crossover, intercept, etc., we find that cooperation we desperately need to survive.
You don’t have to have an abstract reason to behave well. We automatically behave as we were taught by our parents and by society. People don’t stop and think through every moral choice. It’s mostly automatic, people end up calling it “common sense” or “gut feeling”. Works the same for theists and atheists both. rationalizations are post hoc.
Guy asks question. Aron gives several minute response. Guy pauses and then says "I'm not saying I didn't understand you but can you sum it up into..." he really just wanted a one word answer. He expects that "I hold myself accountable to God" should be the standard level of simplification for everyone.
Fair enough - but WHICH god? I wish theists would get together and decide on which of their countless gods is the head honcho. We need a game show! "Will the REAL one & only true deity who created the universe please stand up"? 🤩
The only kind of morality that Christians seem to understand is the Carrot And Stick model. I guess because it requires a benefactor and disciplinarian (an excuse to make up a god).
Each of us has a choice. We either hold ourselves accountable to ourselves, or somebody else will hold us accountable for our actions. That's the whole punishment reward thing. If we don't better ourselves willingly, somebody else will make our lives worse to preserve themselves and their own quality of life. However, this is the most simplistic version of morality, and I don't personally respect anyone who is good just to avoid punishment. When we see somebody in need, or when we see injustice, or we see hurt, and we go out of our own way to help, for no other reason than we can't stand by and watch, for no other reason than harm to somebody else is harm to us, then, and only then, are we moral people. Holding myself accountable is something I do without thinking. I am accountable for my actions, and I am accountable to everyone. I see that, I feel that, and I accept that. If I hurt somebody, it would mean nothing to me if some nebulous force forgives me, if the harm is still done, because I will feel it every day going forward. In other words, asking who I hold myself accountable to is a silly question, because I hold myself accountable to everyone. Were I to hold myself accountable to only one, that would be worse in every possible way.
25:50 - "if they're deceived and don't know any better I believe God will have mercy" - John 3:3 - "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
I am accountable to my family, my friends, perhaps the society that I live in. I am accountable for the deeds that I have done. Accountability does not rely upon a deity of questionable provenance but on the person who's accountability is in question.
Every morning, I simply want to be able to look into the mirror, seeing a good person, knowing my deeds do not affect others' life in a negative way. Do I believe I would deserve any reward for it? No, a "thank you" already gives me that fuzzy warm feeling. Knowing I was able to help someone simply makes me feel good. THAT is the reward. Being free from that stupid-and utterly infantile-belief in some magical being is so eye-opening. Alas, way too many succumb to the irrational threat of eternal damnation-poor people.
"They can say anything they want all day, but I'm right because GAWD communicated to ME and just my chosen version of the TRUTH!!" Awesome, my Atheist Bingo card is now complete!!
Sometimes it seems as if people don’t understand that people live in a SOCIETY and that as much as some people and groups want to pretend we are not accountable to society and people comprising the society, we are.
The thought process is exactly the same it's just there is no appeal to an external authority. We're simply deciding to go with a different source. The overwhelming obsession with it having to be given to us from something devine is weird and silly. It can simply start to exists via observation and interaction with other living creatures. Then the inevitable nuances are added in and it comes down to what specific things you do/don't care about and to what degree you do/don't care about them. Aron talking about a knob instead of a switch is perfect because it's always a sliding scale depending on numerous factors.
I hold myself accountable for anything I do that the rest of humanity will FUCK ME UP for doing. The thing is: no personal empathy is even required to understand that there are consequences to abusing our fellow human beings.
Morality is a social construction. Morality results from rational choices. Morality results from a complex interaction of genes, neural processes, and social interactions. Hence the origins of morality are both neural and social.
I’ve never felt like there was a special creator, I’m a player in a social species, I love compassionately, been married 20years, care deeply about the plight of strangers, no god taught me this, it was evolutionary biology and great parents
It gets tedious to me when Apologists keep claiming that God has written "morality" on everybody's heart, and then demand that an external "authority" has to be identified. When Evolution can achieve the same inherent empathy within everybody's "hearts". Without any need for an external authority.
Nor do these people have a good answer for people who flatly do not have empathy through natural means. Psychopaths and sociopaths are real, and if christian beliefs about morality were true, simply would not exist.
@@RussianPrimeMinister You are dead wrong. In fact you invert the facts upside down. Psychopaths would not be wrong if no objective moral values or duties existed (requires God) to be right or wrong about. If evolution causes morality, evolution would have selected all non-empathetic or moral behavior out of the gene pool. Psychopaths have seared their conscience, suppressing the good in service to their dark desires. Perfectly compatible with theism.
You are simply dead wrong. Nobody argues right and wrong require God be 'identifiable' - only that God exist. No God = no moral realm or objective moral values or duties to be right or wrong about.
It's so so crazy, a social species developing social codes for the survival of the group over the petty desires of the individual. LUDICROUS I SAY~!!!! /s
Who do you hold yourself accountable to? I hold myself accountable. To who? To myself. What? No, who do *YOU* hold yourself accountable *TO?* I hold *MYSELF* accountable to *MYSELF* 🤯 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Okay, I get where Aron is coming from and he's right. Empathy, compassion, remorse, those things are innate. But the idea of holding oneself accountable sounds to me like a more systematized breakdown of morality. There are moral systems and philosophical stances in regards to morality. In that sense I'd say I hold myself accountable to my best understanding of moral obligation that I discern through reason, empathy compassion and a sense of equity. One can be morally virtuous but you need not hold yourself accountable to that. It's a moral virtue to give a needy person money. It's a moral obligation to not kill him.
To add to Aron’s explanation of the evolutionary advantage of human’s ability to empathize and operate cooperatively, there is another feature we have evolved that made us superior group hunters: That is the ability to run nearly indefinitely (provided we continually eat and drink to fuel our metabolism). We are able to chase faster animals like horses and big cats until they will collapse and die of exhaustion. Yes, humans are in fact the greatest long-distance runners in the animal kingdom. 😈
I don't understand Matthew's argument, probably because Matthew doesn't understand what he is arguing for. Who does Matthew hold himself accountable to, if not himself? If he is arguing he holds himself accountable to a deity..he would first need to show evidence of a deity..he did not do that. So Matthew holds himself accountable to himself just like atheists do..
Most religions are based on self inflicted pain and denial of self pleasure, so, the idea that someone would say that all the various sects and religions are not confused but actually "just want to do what they want" is absolutely absurd.
@@TheKiroshi maybe if we define God as at least the collective of human consciousness, but not limited to that. Does that help? So we deduce that the collective of human consciousness exists objectively, so anything beyond that, including God, would also exist objectively. Hard to put into words what should be experienced first hand.
@Chriliman -- already no, because there is no "collective" part of human consciousness or anything. We are individuals, all things are singular, its only to our fault-prone minds that make you think in groups and catagories. Also, even in your idea that "collective consciousness" exists, no, that doesn't mean everything else is also objective. Your experience is that of mine, you are a fault-prone mind and youve mistaken experiences for "god" which is not objective, youre defining subjectiveness, and you are not accountable to reality because your experience aren't all real, your brain plays tricks on you all the time.
@@TheKiroshi all experiences are real in the sense that they happen in objective reality, the question is whether our experiences align with reality in a good sensible, healthy way. An insane persons experience is real, but they aren’t aligned with reality in a good sensible, healthy way. In a sense their experience is handicapped, but still real.
@@Chriliman -- 1; you are genuinely doing a lot of harm when saying someone "insane" has an experience that is real. And you also contradicted yourself literally in the next sentence, these ARENT healthy experience, so are they "not" objectively real? Also you're just wrong, "objective" does not mean "experience". Objective means it can be measure, it is empiralically demonstrated, objective means it can be confirmed. You cannot measure someone's hallucinations, you can bring them and they wont feel anything there. 2 - no, "all experiences" are no real. Your memory is not perfect, false memories exist, hormones make everyone crazy, fictional stories are creative "lies" Engaging with the idea that its defined by what is "healthy" is just kicking the can down the road. You do not believe in objective reality. You do not agree the world is 100% consistent
The emotional benefit is selfish or at least tribal - "my/our god alone is the right one; I/we alone hold the moral high ground." One gains an empowering and comforting feeling if one can believe it (a religion). And a lot done to bolster that belief (regular conditioning at mass; apologists).
I find it genuinely terrifying this is so hard for theists to grasp....
For me, the simple fact that they claim that God gives us morals, but that we've seen in the Bible, and History, that people have done things so heinous, in the name of God, or religion or just because they were different yet faced no Godly punishment...makes the argument factually false. The best they can come up with is "Well, you can IGNORE morals, therefore it's still a valid argument" which could not happen if God GAVE us morals.
You may notice that many theists in the US wear Red Hats. They don't grasp very much, if anything, at all. Most of them are as sharp as a beachball.
@@MaxxJagX What really grinds my gears is that theses people who say they value truth and morality so much avoid answering my simple moral questions all the time (less then 18% for christians and less then 7% for muslims) and then say to me I am the one who has no grounding for my morality and dont know right from wrong. Atheists and agnostics are nearly 100% at answering the questions and find them so simple, some even think I have some kind of trick coming because why would I ask such an obvious question.
@@macmac1022That's not fair, though. Atheists don't have to make up excuses for an immoral god. Of course they will have an easier time answering questions pertaining to morals!
@@Finckelstein LOL. The non answer response I often get is how do you know its wrong? or what is wrong with watching a child drown if you are of sound mind and are able to save them with no risk to yourself? I answer their questions then they end up with but those objective moral duties do not apply to god. Then I ask if math is objective and 2+2=4 for god. Then they say but that is different and I ask how and I have not gotten a good answer for that yet :)
Nobody needs a weekly book club about a violent mythic character to be a decent person who contributes to human flourishing.
"Years ago, anthropologist Margaret Mead was asked by a student what she considered to be the first sign of civilization in a culture. The student expected Mead to talk about fishhooks or clay pots or grinding stones.
But no. Mead said that the first sign of civilization in an ancient culture was a femur (thighbone) that had been broken and then healed. Mead explained that in the animal kingdom, if you break your leg, you die. You cannot run from danger, get to the river for a drink or hunt for food. You are meat for prowling beasts. No animal survives a broken leg long enough for the bone to heal.
A broken femur that has healed is evidence that someone has taken time to stay with the one who fell, has bound up the wound, has carried the person to safety and has tended the person through recovery. Helping someone else through difficulty is where civilization starts, Mead said."
We are at our best when we serve others. Be civilized.
I serve others at the pub because when I go to church, I steal the notes from the offering bag but rattle the coin so people think I am putting money in.
Occasionally, there is enough to assist a dozen of us become spirit-filled.
A) Atheism has no oughts to serve anyone.
B) That's just a cultural preference to help.
@@Steve-sg3uz Theism has no oughts either. It is, just like atheism just an answer to a single question: Do you believe in one or more gods? Everything else has to be more specific.
The claim that morality comes from religions is flat out laughable. Your religions have caused so much misery in the name of your gods I can't take you clowns seriously when you're trying to monopolize morality. Stop borrowing from secular morals and live by the bible's horrendous morals for a few days and see how many years in prison you get.
And no, it's not e cultural preference to help. It's an emergent property in our evolutionary journey as great apes. You can see the same step in many other animals, no gods needed. They simply lack the tools to help as efficiently as we can
@@Finckelstein Christianity has a ton of oughts. Honor your mother and father. Love your enemies. Etc.
Atheism has zero oughts.
Can you touch taste or see God? No. Can you touch taste or see a moral? No. Both are supernatural. As an atheist you are believing morals exist while saying God does not. That's illogical.
Also, no atheist have any foundation for what is evil. Evil is also a religious concept.
Atheists can only state what they feel is wrong. They have no objective outside foundation for what is wrong. Atheist arguments for what is moral are100% circular. It's wrong because you say so and nothing more.
Emergent doesn't mean anything because you are still arguing it's good because you say so. Nothing more.
With atheism, good an evil are just social constructs that feel good for most. Remember, in atheism we're just sacks of insignificant atoms here by pure random luck. If we fight each other and cause major losses on each side the universe hasn't lost any atoms. With atheism it's just your ego that makes you think we are important.
@@Steve-sg3uz Though ought not believe in a god or you’re not an atheist.
There’s actually clips on UA-cam of stray cats coming to the rescue of defenceless babies and infants when they were in danger.
That alone shows that other animals have some sort of empathy for other animals even if it’s just on a basic level.
There are social instincts in many species. And those instincts are present during encounters with other species. The very young individuals adapt easily to any benign being in their environment. Why shouldn't they?
There's a wonderful video of the My Hero Cat Saved My Son set to the Superman theme. Can't count how many times I've watched it.😻
@@starfishsystems From an evolutionary perspective, those who don't are more likely to not survive and reproduce.
Aron really nails it there in the beginning. Our morals grow with us as we learn and develop.
How Aron laid it out at the start was great, I think up till now I never heard the essentials summarized and presented in a better way 👌
I'm not a young man. I've lived long enough to see and know how evil/corrupt/sinful we can be (all have sinned). I admitted this at a very young age because I did not stick my head in the sand and try to deny the fact that all people are capable of doing bad things (sinful acts). Look at what is going on in this evil world and don't deny the truth. We live in a bad place, evil/sin runs rampant. The proof is in the taste of the pudding. The opposite of evil is good. God/Jesus Christ is good, and he is our only hope of salvation. This evil world, atheists and the devil offer no hope (a better place where only righteousness dwells). Jesus Christ/God does. Faith is all one needs to be saved = believing that Christ Jesus is who he says he is. Loving and trusting him because he is the only one who has the power to save souls. One day every need shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.
@@paulgemme6056Aaron Ra's explanation, though in short summary form, makes way more sense than an overlord who makes us do good things, because he threatens us with eternal damnation if we disobey. I left that thinking a long time ago, especially the threat of eternal fire for the sin of not believing in him.
@@mildredmartinez8843 There is not any in between. There is the kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness. Jesus is the Christ, the Prince of Peace, the King of Glory (the Light). The devil (Satan) is a liar and the father of lies, The prince of darkness, the accuser of the brethren and the god (little g) of this evil world. God/Jesus Christ offers hope, the free gift of eternal life - to know him (no religion needed). Just faith, faith plus nothing. The devil, atheists and this evil world offer no hope (just death).
@@mildredmartinez8843 Just planting seeds, what kind of soil the seeds fall on are out of my control. Jesus Christ is the answer and our only hope. No religion needed. Just faith, faith plus nothing.
Arons intro was seriously the best answer to the morality question, theists think their God wrote morals on our heart when in reality its our intelligence along with compassion. Intelligence tells us to stand together, compassion tells us to do it for even the weakest & when that happens for generations & generations, it somewhat is passed down through the gene pool. Combine that with us being able to pass down knowledge. Morals weren't always here, because living things weren't always here... God's morals just like ours are subjective if a God exists, IF a God exists it makes no sense if you can be everywhere & anywhere, whilst holding the power that he does means it should be able to prove its here without any shadow of a doubt. Not in parables & riddles, but in a direct & comprehensive way. Also IF a God exists, none of the ones us humans have created are the correct one, otherwise why would he even be disappointed in something as insignificant as Sin...
Aron is just the leader of a religious sect called atheism... and you are his adepts nothing positive about that.
Matthew, never bring a knife to a gun fight!
Matthew showed up to a gun fight, naked from the waist down, faeces in his hair and eating glue with a spoon. It can't even spell the word gun.
As an atheist I hold myself accountable to the following, in no particular order:
1) the secular laws & rules of our Federal, State and local governments
2) my own conscience and the basic idea of empathy
3) the understanding of the utility of group cohesion - which is stabilized & encouraged by working & playing well with other members of my group
I can't disagree. You nailed it.
@@duanejohnson9798 Thank you! So now that I figured out what works for me, why would I want to add a layer of complexity to it with unproven Iron Age superstition? Ergo hard pass on Christianity pending hard evidence of its truth & utility.
The main question for any theist to answer is, "Are you personally ONLY being a good person because you think a deity exists"? Or could be asked, "Would you become an evil person, and hurt others, tomorrow, if you found out, today, that no deities exist"?
I don't know about AronRa (although it may be the case) but Paul has on a number of occasions revealed that he was at one time a serious Christian. Now he's an Atheist. So there's your answer.
@@themanwhowasthursday5616 I'm not sure about AronRa either. But yes, Paul is one who is still a good person without any "god". But the question is directed to staunch religious people who insist atheists can't have justification to behave.
There is no 'good' or bad person if no God exists. There are no objective moral values or duties to violate IF no God exists.
Worse, if no God exists, we are just soulless chemical animals with no possible free will apart from chemically determined behavior. No moral right or wrong or even free-willed moral choice.
@@EdithBromfeld You seem to have a really low idea of humanity.
You are correct when you say there are no objective moral values or duties, if no god exists. The thing is, there doesn't need to be!
Even if we are "soulless chemical animals", so what? I don't see a problem with that. We can still be happy, we can still enjoy ourselves, and we can still uphold our own subjective moral values. The system still works regardless.
@@tan_x_dx
*"Even if we are "soulless chemical animals", so what?"*
Are you sure it's not you who has the the really low idea of humanity?
How can you be satisfied with that as against the Theistic/Christian conception of the human being being created in the image of God?
We can see empathy now with helping the victims of the hurricane. No god required
Essentially, next time it could be me. That’s all you need for empathy.
“Aug 29, 2017 - Joel Osteen, who runs the 16000-capacity Lakewood Church, has been criticized on social media for not opening his doors to Hurricane Harvey flood victims.”
I guess god hardened pastor Osteen’s heart. 😅 Or perhaps the reason people have empathy has nothing to do with religion.
But you're discounting all of the people "praying for them." Surely that is doing something, right?
@@Gandhi_Physique
Besides mañana, praying is the next best way to do nothing.
In fact, Gods allowed the storm as a test and/or judgment.
Matthew seems to be trying his best to ask “gotcha questions” or score “gotcha” points.
Not that I am defending the guy, but what is a gotcha or trap question? Because I try and use the socratic method and I get told I use gotcha/trap questions all the time just trying to use the socratic method.
@@macmac1022 Unless he’s been sheltered so that he’s never heard of the evolution of compassion, which, when I was a theist I was very familiar with, or if he’s just too dense to comprehend Aron’s plain description, his, “What do you hold yourself accountable to?” is either a “gotcha” attempt or a wholly ignorant irrelevancy . . . I say, “Both”.
@@macmac1022gotcha/trap questions are a type of rhetorical trick; whereby you ask a question intended to lock the respondent into a set of answers that doesn’t accurately reflect their position.
It’s an intellectually dishonest tactic…
An example of a gotcha question that Matthew tried to ask was, “So you would say that the thing you hold yourself accountable didn’t always exist…?”
Aron correctly didn’t accept the premise of the question.
When you start a question with things like, “Wouldn’t you agree
that….”, “So you say…”, “Can we assume…”, etc; there’s a good chance what follows is a gotcha question. These aren’t actually questions designed or intended to seek information or to get clarification from the other party. They are designed to force the respondent into agreement, or to make it appear that they don’t correctly understand their own position.
@@macmac1022In a real conversation, you ask open ended questions and your follow-up questions in turn are responsive to what the other person says. This guy keeps asking leading questions to get the phrasing he wants as part of a predetermined script. The Socratic Method is a teaching tool, not a way to have an actual discussion. Sometimes people will imagine these dialogues with a strawman in their heads but then forget that other people are…other people, and their answers can surprise you.
@@xmillion1704 OK, is my question is it an act of justice to punish people for crimes they did not commit a trap question?
the concept of 'assuming responsibility' for one's own actions is foreign to christians according to their dogma of substitutionary atonement.
Just ask them this simple question. Is it just to punish people for crimes they did not commit?
If Jesus died for everyone's sins, wouldn't that include the original sin?
(I'm recalling from Catholic services in my youth with people singing,
"Lammmmmb of God, you
Take away the sins of the worrrrllllldddd....
Have mercy on usssssss.....")
If Jesus died for my sins, what do I need to be forgiven for?
If Jesus payed for my sins, any single one of which would damn *ME* to an eternity of torment and hellfire, and he also paid for all the sins of all of the people who are far more evil than myself....then why the fuck does he get to hang out "up there" on a cloud instead of being poked with sharp things, in the basement where the air conditioning is broken?
...One fine day in Paradise, Clay Man's wife, Rib Woman, was tricked by the talking snake into eating the fruit of the magical tree. Because of this, the all powerful god (who knew it was going to happen anyway) had to create a mini-me 1/3 scale replica of himself to sacrifice to himself to act as a loophole for himself to forgive his favoured creation; which, created in his perfect image, perfectly (as he does all things) naturally turned out flawed.
...an outrageous, melancholic parade of absurdity...from the first fucking verse
@@TheSnoeedog I would think so but they will say you need to accept jesus to get that forgiveness. He got the get out of jail free card :) BUT if he is omnipresent then he is always in hell as well as heaven and on earth and everywhere.
@@macmac1022 hmmmm....
That doesn't address the conflict re: Jesus dying for the original sin. Not my original sin, or yours, but *THE* original sin (whether it's phrased "apple eating," "doubting god's lies," "placing their trust in the only trustworthy individual they've come to know" or deigning, as toddlers, to play with the loaded handgun that daddy left on the ottoman). If Jesus takes away the sins of the world, a)the people who don't accept jesus as their lord and saviour don't exist on some parallel plane b)he removed the sin from both Adam and Eve, vitiating this phantasmagorical fairy tale about original sin, total depravity and a general need for salvation. I don't need to accept a saviour if I'm not born broken and corrupted by sin.
N'est ce pas?
@@TheSnoeedog I agree, I was just saying what I think their response will be, never said it would be good :)
the idea of getting morals from some fantasy being is just utter nonsense
And if I *was* going to get my morality from a fictional character, there are FAR better options than the god of the bible.
There's a whole genre about that, fables are fictions with a moral message..
What they get is submission to authority. There's no exercise of "moral" evaluation in that.
I hold myself accountable to myself and I try not to cause harm to anyone else's wellbeing as I go.
Based on other calls from Matthew, he actually believes that the bible is completely unambiguous. He thinks the clarity of his own interpretation is exactly the same in the minds of all other people. That's the most patently delusional thing I've ever heard.
Cats, dogs and other animals show empathy and concern.
Yes. I've even seen video of a pet fox (from a fur farm) trying to defend her human who was recovering from surgery.
@@George89999 there's a video of a random cat saving a puppy from drowning in a river.
Saying your morals come from a non corporeal entity living outside space and time is a nonsensical empty claim. Morality is an internal dynamic from which choice and action are derived.
Oh, good heavens, Matthew from OH. The hosts are much kinder and more patient than I could ever be. Maybe this time he'll listen.
Any pet owner can tell you how much compassion nonhuman animals have. You can even see it in tiny creatures like jumping spiders.
I love Aron Ra's description of the development of empathy.
I am accountable to my fellow human beings. Aren't we all just accountable to eachother? Actually every creature I interact with is going to judge me for what I do to it, human or not.
Same thing as everybody else: I’m accountable to the consequences of my actions.
wrong you will be accountable of God for your action, so I would not be a frustrated atheist if I were you.
Yes, if morals were up to "god", mankind has already lost.
@Mar-dk3mp Which version of which god? You religious superstitionists really need to be more specific when you make your silly, unsupported assertions. And try to make your empty threats more threatening. Your's is barely laughable.
@@exceptionallyaverage3075 the One you will face one day. Another reason to do not be you, onto this sick religious cult
@Mar-dk3mp
As someone already asked, _which_ God? How do you know you are doing what God wants, since others are convinced God wants the opposite?
Accountable: subject to the obligation to report, explain, or justify something; responsible; answerable.
In a general sense, I hold myself accountable to myself, my fellow humans, and any agreements I make with myself and others.
19:34 Live long and prosper, Paul.
Matt's deep seated need to externalize his morals is emblematic of his desire to abdicate his personal responsibility and accountability. Like any xian these days. They want to be told what is right and wrong from authority rather than be forced to take an active role.
I can't see any reason for you to infer what you've inferred.
On the contrary I would suggest that it's a desire for universal justice. That's to say that those who have willingly and calculatingly refused their responsibility to their fellow human beings do not escape confronting their accountability.
The only possible way for this to be ensured is by the existence of God.
Atheism has this singular major flaw namely that there is no justice for those who never stood a chance and there is possible escape into oblivion for those whom justice requires confronting what they have done or failed to do.
@@themanwhowasthursday5616 The theist and the atheist live in the same reality.
Both the theist and the atheist would agree, that without an intelligent entity to step in, an immoral person could "get away with it". We live in the same universe in that there is no justice inherently woven into the fabric of reality. For the theist, a god needs to actively step in and deal with this immoral behaviour.
The difference is that the atheist does not think there is some kind of cosmic judge out there, watching every person and judging them. The atheist looks at what happens in reality, and unfortunately, sometimes the bad guys get away with it. It sucks, but we don't make the assumption that somebody "out there" cares about us.
But certain theistic approaches are not much better either. In Christianity, an immoral person could be saved and receive absolutely no punishment whatsoever. This is not justice, especially since the aggrieved parties never receive any recompense - only the god gets the apology.
Alternatively, the immoral person who is sent to hell is tortured for all eternity. That's not fair either. In fifty million years, that person will still be burning in agony over things which are rendered trivial given the vast amount of time. Will anybody even remember what the crimes were? Will anybody care after fifty million years? Infinite punishment for finite crimes is not justice either.
@@themanwhowasthursday5616 Depends what you mean by 'justice'. Is it just punishing the wrongdoers to hurt them for their actions, or is it reforming them to make them better members of society? Most religions seem to take the former approach to 'justice', which is really just vengeance, and doesn't serve anyone, save for giving the victims a minor endorphin rush (but, then, also creates further victims, who now deserve vengeance against the avenger, thus creating more victims and so on and so on.)
@themanwhowasthursday5616 What universal justice? The Christian God literally flooded the world, sent his people to kill infants and is planning to send people & infants again (cause the theology isn't clear, only church doctrine tries to be apologetic) to eternal hell fire. Bro can't even act morally. How is he the standard of universal or any form of justice?
@@themanwhowasthursday5616The major flaw in christianity is the abhorrent ‘only way’ doctrine - that ‘non BELIEF’ ( not ‘deeds’) results in ETERNAL damnation; that is the very antithesis of “universal justice”.
empathy🤗easiest answer there is
Matthew's whole strategy was not answering questions and just keep bombarding the hosts with questions until a gotcha
Myself. I'm more moral than the xtian god. I actually exist.
Your existence has no bareing on how moral person x is….
I would say Gandalf is more moral than Hitler
Lol. It's morality itself that doesn't actually exist.
Morality is just an imaginary fantasy made up to control and manipulate ppls behavior. It isn't real.
@@adamcroft80holy shit, are you saying hitler isn’t real?
@@bobby9192 yep precisely. Didn’t you know that?? 🤣🤣
@@adamcroft80 I had my suspicions, but I wasn’t there and only heard from whitenesses 60 years after the event
Me: Don't cause unnecessary pain, suffering or harm. Cause benefit or help when practicable. Coöperation and compassion were selective during our evolution as hunter-gatherers.
I see an imposed, external, deontological rule-book as an impediment to the development of an internalized moral code.
Is your last line referring to dental implants?😁
Along with myself; the legal system, my friends and family, and others around me hold me accountable for my actions.
I really appreciate AronRa laying down in evolutionary terms why the Prisoner's Dilemma paradox exists.
The law and my conscience, don't need a biblay for morals!
That answer on social morality at the start was one of the best ever heard. Thank you
Such a fascinating conversation. Really enjoyed.
"you ain't beating all of us."
-PERIODT 😂😂
I hold myself accountable to society as a whole. When I say that, I don't mean what people in society SAY they want because people can be fooled into asking for things against their own interests. I mean the things that make society better for everyone.
I don't get how theists can say they are held accountable when they can be granted forgiveness for anything. How effective would our legal system be if we changed to defendants just have to apologize for their crimes? It's the same as having no rules at all because nobody is really ever held accountable.
Good discussion, thank you.
We already have laws that make us accountable for our actions.
We are all accountable to ourselves.
I feel better when I am in a chord. I like how Aron worded that.
For the bd sm fans out there
@@uninspired3583 I thought it was something about Jesus not having wheels as a mode of transport and Balaam getting a lecture from the donkey again.
John 8;42. . . . I came not of my own accord. . . .
@@VaughanMcCue it's a joke. Look at the way the original post spelled it out
@@uninspired3583 _"it's a joke."_
"John 8;42. . . . I came not of my own [Honda A]ccord. . . ."
Achord : Nonmusical..
Wow, serpentine remorse; brought a tear to my eye.
Same
Ditto
We must be really 'Bad' if we empathize with unhappy snakes 🤪
Dishonesty at full tilt!
The old my religion is right ploy hey😂
As an atheist I am fully responsible for my own actions.
Atheist: "According to my subjective, personal moral view, it's _absolutely_ immoral to dump a 64oz soda over a stranger's head just to be a bully. What does your 'objective,' god-given morality say about that?" Xian: "I agree totally. That's _never_ moral." Atheist: "I also feel that it's never moral to make two bears attack and rip apart 42 children because they teased a man about his bald head. You?" Xian: "No, I am forbidden to judge that act to be absolutely immoral. God does that in the bible so for me to evaluate it as absolutely immoral would be to admit that God acted immorally, a strict taboo." Atheist: "Do you want to change your earlier answer about the soda or stick with your weird moral priorities? Let's just cut to the chase: are there _any_ acts your 'objective' morality can judge to be absolutely immoral?" Xian: "Just one, I guess: disobedience."
I hold myself accountable to other people around me, and to the laws that I am required to obey or face consequences.
I never realized, until Matthew began talking about “Truth” how much that concept grates on me. Especially when theists use that word in connection with their assertions.
We most likely naturally developed morals and ethics as instincts as we evolved as a species. No gods needed or shown to be involved whatsoever.
There is no morality or rules aside from those we make for ourselves as individuals and a society. That's why history has been a long and painful process of us working this crap out, because it's more complex than just simple black or white.
A perfect example of absolute brainwashing
I hold myself accountable to the law, to society, to my friends but most importantly myself, I have to look at myself in the mirror every day and be happy with who I see.
Once again, Matthew from OH is digging for gotchas. Thanks Paul and Aron for posting this. While he has zero interest in learning at this point, this is a very long winded lesson for others. Just start with the crux of what you are trying to get to in the beginning already Matthew!!!
An issue not addressed by Matthew and such is why their "omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent" god allowed its most devout followers - Roman Catholic and Protestant - to persecute and burn each other alive because of a disagreement regarding transubstantiation.
I like to do away with phrasing like “allowed to happen” or “let happen” because if we’re being honest, in a world where the Christian god is real he CAUSED those things to happen. Nothing you said is actually wrong or a bad argument, I just like reminding people that (Abrahamic) God isn’t just watching this movie, he wrote it.
What the dark ages , burning witches and such until 1892, Almost 2/3 rd`s of Europe's population was wiped out by themselves,
They only stopped because they were running out of victims not because they had a moral epiphany.
The USA where are still doing it just before WW1,
Understandable since the USA was built on genocide and land theft.
Atheist- "God is causing everything so it's all his fault" or "God Lets it all happen sense it's his fault"..... i swear and you all get on an high horse and lecture theist on morality or "take responsibility for our own action". Meanwhile you ignore Freewill and the fact that all our choices on Earth are ours and ours alone... yet you blame God. Just as you would call God a SlaveMaster if he controlled our every action.
Second they didn't burn each other alive over transubstantiation if your going to cringe arguments at last get it right. Whats next you gonna pull he Spanish inquisition out... which for the record to all you reddit atheist lasted from 1478 and 1834 and of the 150,000 that were prosecuted with Hersey only between 3,000 and 5,000 were executed. (Because unlike what reddit would tell you Inquisitors weren't aloud to torture or execute people, these were the most educated and scholarly men in Europe at the time. They educated people and brought them back on the right track.) For reference more people were killed in one month of the atheist French Revolution then over 300 years of "religious persecution"... thats not even touching China, Pol Pott, Castro, every communist/atheist nation. Honestly if i wanted to i could touch on abortion bring up how all that baby murder is pressed forward by non theists (less then one percent of all pregnancy's are because of rape, incest or life of the mother so don't try to pull that bs out.)
@@miroo4097Call The Line, explain it to a much wider audience than just the people reading this comment thread.
@@miroo4097 "...they didn't burn each other alive over transubstantiation if your going to cringe arguments at last get it right" Between 1530 and 161, 360 men and women were burnt alive at the stake in England for heresy (denying the doctrine of transubstantiation) and in Europe between 30,000 and 50,000 people were put to death by the Spanish Inquisition.
"Meanwhile you ignore Freewill..." as did god when he gave all those "Thou Shalt" and "Thou Shalt Not" commandments.
The "Ah but atheists have been much worse" argument might be worth making, except atheists never killed anyone for being the wrong sort of atheist. Christians slaughtered the "wrong sort of Christians" because their god never clarified which were the right sort. They all thought they were!
In fact, they behaved exactly as they might if their god were imaginary - the fictitious creation of people with different ideas as to what a god should be like and require them to do.
"I have a house full of snakes." - I was waiting for Aron to say something dorky.
Paul's intense stare is real
To ourselves. I have to live with my decisions, for the rest of my life. I like me, and I want to continue to like me. It’s more powerful than you think, theist.
Each other! Thats who we hold accountable! im guessing you, your family, pets, and friends *don't* want to be killed so therefore your morals are dont kill!... no God needed to make that conclusion
Myself and society
Thank you Aaron for explaining in simple teams how evolutuon hast contributed to our sense of empathy, morality and empathy. Hadn't heard it explained that way before and it makes total sense.
The greedy, selfish make no contribution to the well being of the group and are for the most part weeded out.
Just wait until Matthew discovers how much older than Christianity the Avestas are!
Accountability is a notion of retributive justice. Compassion is about awareness of the neighbor and the community.
Accountability is not the authority you answer to when you answer for actions. If you have accountability for your actions you have it regardless of your state of being observed or not. Only being good when you are being watched is spotlighting not having accountability for your actions
"accountability" can smuggle in authority, when I can simply live by my values. I don't wonder who will hold me accountable for being generous, I just value generosity, so I do it.
"Accountable" is the problem here. To be accountable means an owed behavior to some other superior entity. It goes back to a judgemental "god" in that case. Morality then shrivels to obedience to that authority rather than being the right thing to do.
We weed out selfish liars? We have some work to do.
There are few individuals among our species who can survive alone for long periods of time. Most people need to cooperate for their survival. Let's not forget, we need each other to birth the next generation. This simple understanding goes for all species. Our natural environment demands it. Accountability, justice, and moral constructs, are individually determined values exhibited across a range of infinite parameters. When our individual accountability, justice, and moral constructs crossover, intercept, etc., we find that cooperation we desperately need to survive.
You don’t have to have an abstract reason to behave well.
We automatically behave as we were taught by our parents and by society.
People don’t stop and think through every moral choice.
It’s mostly automatic, people end up calling it “common sense” or “gut feeling”.
Works the same for theists and atheists both.
rationalizations are post hoc.
Dogs are very adept at communicating when they are in stress, and also when they are content and happy.....
Guy asks question. Aron gives several minute response. Guy pauses and then says "I'm not saying I didn't understand you but can you sum it up into..." he really just wanted a one word answer. He expects that "I hold myself accountable to God" should be the standard level of simplification for everyone.
Fair enough - but WHICH god? I wish theists would get together and decide on which of their countless gods is the head honcho.
We need a game show! "Will the REAL one & only true deity who created the universe please stand up"? 🤩
The only kind of morality that Christians seem to understand is the Carrot And Stick model.
I guess because it requires a benefactor and disciplinarian (an excuse to make up a god).
Each of us has a choice. We either hold ourselves accountable to ourselves, or somebody else will hold us accountable for our actions. That's the whole punishment reward thing. If we don't better ourselves willingly, somebody else will make our lives worse to preserve themselves and their own quality of life. However, this is the most simplistic version of morality, and I don't personally respect anyone who is good just to avoid punishment.
When we see somebody in need, or when we see injustice, or we see hurt, and we go out of our own way to help, for no other reason than we can't stand by and watch, for no other reason than harm to somebody else is harm to us, then, and only then, are we moral people. Holding myself accountable is something I do without thinking. I am accountable for my actions, and I am accountable to everyone. I see that, I feel that, and I accept that. If I hurt somebody, it would mean nothing to me if some nebulous force forgives me, if the harm is still done, because I will feel it every day going forward.
In other words, asking who I hold myself accountable to is a silly question, because I hold myself accountable to everyone. Were I to hold myself accountable to only one, that would be worse in every possible way.
25:50 - "if they're deceived and don't know any better I believe God will have mercy" - John 3:3 - "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
I can't get away from Matthew from Ornery Hymen. Every clip offered today has been him lol
I am accountable to my family, my friends, perhaps the society that I live in. I am accountable for the deeds that I have done. Accountability does not rely upon a deity of questionable provenance but on the person who's accountability is in question.
Myself and the people of society , why do you have to apologize to god instead of the people your wronged ?
It's easier..
Every morning, I simply want to be able to look into the mirror, seeing a good person, knowing my deeds do not affect others' life in a negative way.
Do I believe I would deserve any reward for it? No, a "thank you" already gives me that fuzzy warm feeling. Knowing I was able to help someone simply makes me feel good. THAT is the reward.
Being free from that stupid-and utterly infantile-belief in some magical being is so eye-opening. Alas, way too many succumb to the irrational threat of eternal damnation-poor people.
ty
"They can say anything they want all day, but I'm right because GAWD communicated to ME and just my chosen version of the TRUTH!!"
Awesome, my Atheist Bingo card is now complete!!
Sometimes it seems as if people don’t understand that people live in a SOCIETY and that as much as some people and groups want to pretend we are not accountable to society and people comprising the society, we are.
The thought process is exactly the same it's just there is no appeal to an external authority. We're simply deciding to go with a different source.
The overwhelming obsession with it having to be given to us from something devine is weird and silly. It can simply start to exists via observation and interaction with other living creatures. Then the inevitable nuances are added in and it comes down to what specific things you do/don't care about and to what degree you do/don't care about them.
Aron talking about a knob instead of a switch is perfect because it's always a sliding scale depending on numerous factors.
I hold myself accountable for anything I do that the rest of humanity will FUCK ME UP for doing.
The thing is: no personal empathy is even required to understand that there are consequences to abusing our fellow human beings.
Morality is a social construction. Morality results from rational choices. Morality results from a complex interaction of genes, neural processes, and social interactions. Hence the origins of morality are both neural and social.
I’ve never felt like there was a special creator, I’m a player in a social species, I love compassionately, been married 20years, care deeply about the plight of strangers, no god taught me this, it was evolutionary biology and great parents
Many Atheists hold themselves accountable period. Full stop.
Help people when it doesn't there's no reward for me
It gets tedious to me when Apologists keep claiming that God has written "morality" on everybody's heart, and then demand that an external "authority" has to be identified. When Evolution can achieve the same inherent empathy within everybody's "hearts". Without any need for an external authority.
Evolution has written 'morality' on our hearts
Nor do these people have a good answer for people who flatly do not have empathy through natural means. Psychopaths and sociopaths are real, and if christian beliefs about morality were true, simply would not exist.
@@RussianPrimeMinister You are dead wrong. In fact you invert the facts upside down. Psychopaths would not be wrong if no objective moral values or duties existed (requires God) to be right or wrong about.
If evolution causes morality, evolution would have selected all non-empathetic or moral behavior out of the gene pool.
Psychopaths have seared their conscience, suppressing the good in service to their dark desires. Perfectly compatible with theism.
You are simply dead wrong. Nobody argues right and wrong require God be 'identifiable' - only that God exist. No God = no moral realm or objective moral values or duties to be right or wrong about.
@EdithBromfeld well objective morality doesn't exist and neither does your god, so...
Matthew is soooo Deluded! Religion warps the brain.
It's so so crazy, a social species developing social codes for the survival of the group over the petty desires of the individual. LUDICROUS I SAY~!!!! /s
Who do you hold yourself accountable to?
I hold myself accountable.
To who?
To myself.
What? No, who do *YOU* hold yourself accountable *TO?*
I hold *MYSELF* accountable to *MYSELF*
🤯
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Okay, I get where Aron is coming from and he's right. Empathy, compassion, remorse, those things are innate. But the idea of holding oneself accountable sounds to me like a more systematized breakdown of morality. There are moral systems and philosophical stances in regards to morality. In that sense I'd say I hold myself accountable to my best understanding of moral obligation that I discern through reason, empathy compassion and a sense of equity. One can be morally virtuous but you need not hold yourself accountable to that. It's a moral virtue to give a needy person money. It's a moral obligation to not kill him.
Um ahhh, well, hmmm…
Each other?
Its called a conscience. We dont blame god for all the bad things we do
They don't either. They blame SATAN!!😮😮😮😂😂😂
You dont actually have such a thing as "bad things" without God
@@martinbogdan3992so God is the bad thing ?
matthew, the thing that you look toward for your ultimate morality endorsed slavery and never condemned it.
To add to Aron’s explanation of the evolutionary advantage of human’s ability to empathize and operate cooperatively, there is another feature we have evolved that made us superior group hunters:
That is the ability to run nearly indefinitely (provided we continually eat and drink to fuel our metabolism). We are able to chase faster animals like horses and big cats until they will collapse and die of exhaustion. Yes, humans are in fact the greatest long-distance runners in the animal kingdom.
😈
I don't understand Matthew's argument, probably because Matthew doesn't understand what he is arguing for. Who does Matthew hold himself accountable to, if not himself? If he is arguing he holds himself accountable to a deity..he would first need to show evidence of a deity..he did not do that. So Matthew holds himself accountable to himself just like atheists do..
Most religions are based on self inflicted pain and denial of self pleasure, so, the idea that someone would say that all the various sects and religions are not confused but actually "just want to do what they want" is absolutely absurd.
Cats won't be able to take out a human, but they can certainly cough up in their shoes.
And they find our shoes in complete darkness! 😒
I’m accountable to objective reality, which includes myself and others including God in whatever way it exists.
What's objective about your god? If youre accountable to "objective reality" what provision does every single thing experience that is a god?
@@TheKiroshi maybe if we define God as at least the collective of human consciousness, but not limited to that. Does that help?
So we deduce that the collective of human consciousness exists objectively, so anything beyond that, including God, would also exist objectively.
Hard to put into words what should be experienced first hand.
@Chriliman -- already no, because there is no "collective" part of human consciousness or anything. We are individuals, all things are singular, its only to our fault-prone minds that make you think in groups and catagories.
Also, even in your idea that "collective consciousness" exists, no, that doesn't mean everything else is also objective.
Your experience is that of mine, you are a fault-prone mind and youve mistaken experiences for "god" which is not objective, youre defining subjectiveness, and you are not accountable to reality because your experience aren't all real, your brain plays tricks on you all the time.
@@TheKiroshi all experiences are real in the sense that they happen in objective reality, the question is whether our experiences align with reality in a good sensible, healthy way.
An insane persons experience is real, but they aren’t aligned with reality in a good sensible, healthy way. In a sense their experience is handicapped, but still real.
@@Chriliman -- 1; you are genuinely doing a lot of harm when saying someone "insane" has an experience that is real. And you also contradicted yourself literally in the next sentence, these ARENT healthy experience, so are they "not" objectively real?
Also you're just wrong, "objective" does not mean "experience".
Objective means it can be measure, it is empiralically demonstrated, objective means it can be confirmed. You cannot measure someone's hallucinations, you can bring them and they wont feel anything there.
2 - no, "all experiences" are no real. Your memory is not perfect, false memories exist, hormones make everyone crazy, fictional stories are creative "lies"
Engaging with the idea that its defined by what is "healthy" is just kicking the can down the road. You do not believe in objective reality. You do not agree the world is 100% consistent
The emotional benefit is selfish or at least tribal - "my/our god alone is the right one; I/we alone hold the moral high ground." One gains an empowering and comforting feeling if one can believe it (a religion). And a lot done to bolster that belief (regular conditioning at mass; apologists).