Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
You can do acts of good. But you cannot have a true understanding of unconditional love without Jesus.
I think it's important to remember Man is fallible and arrogant. Man cannot conceive that he is not the apex. That he is not in complete control. So it's the hardest thing in the world to bend a knee. This is why when I talk to athiests I try to share my faith experience. I tell them that my faith was a process. It took me 20 years. to accept God's love. God had to break my arrogance.
Since when has it mattered what atheists believe? It's like asking what thieves consider as honest.
You can never talk morals with an atheist, as they cannot be honest by nature.
Where do you think morals come from?
Opinion
11Opinion
What the guy who made this video considers 'objective morality' is nothing more than subjective morality with an appeal to authority (to his particular god) as the creator of his particular moral system. Ask him if any other religions have objective moral systems. If they do, how can they coexist at the same time and exactly that atheist moral system lack in order for them to be considered objective. If they don't it just confirms 'objective morality' is merely an appeal to authority.
This video is shit. There are some many things that are just flat out wrong and the rest is meaningless pseudo intellectualist platitudes devoid of any semblance of an argument.
As for how do atheists determine what's right and wrong, the answer is just like anyone else, really. Take Christians. How many different denominations are there? Why did followers of each of those denominations pick their domination over others? Why Christianity over any other religion? Did something in that one specific religion and that one specific denomination speak to them and they concluded that was the correct one? How is that any different than atheists picking what they consider to be right and wrong? 'Real', 'hardcore' believers in *insert faith here* are very, very few. Most people believe in whatever religion they do, because they like the moral conclusions of the religion. How many Christians still really believe that evolution is wrong or that the Earth is 6000 years old. People like and care about the 'don't murder' bits and skip over 'those who wear clothes woven with multiple materials will go to hell' bits.
Everything you've written here is "just flat-out wrong". They don't engage in appeals to authority, and they don't discuss religion at all. The point they make, and this is the ONLY point they're trying to convince you of, is that any system of ethics needs a foundation in the same manner a house needs a foundation in order to stand!
Their entire worldview rests on the idea that a moral system can have a neutral arbiter who get's to choose what's good and what's bad. That is exactly what an appeal to authority is.
> they don't discuss religion at all.
Did we watch the same video? The conclusion is bad thing=bad, good thing=good therefore god exists.
> any system of ethics needs a foundation in the same manner a house needs a foundation in order to stand!
And again, did we watch the same video?
That is NOT what an "appeal to authority" means. At all. When a person appeals to authority, they're basically trying to argue that a belief of theirs must be true, or is at least plausible, because so-and-so who happens to be a very clever guy, believes it too. Example: "It (what I believe) has to be true, because Stephen Hawking said so, and he knows a lot about this stuff, he's an expert, a scientist, so there!"
You equate the concept of God with "religion", which is absurd on so many levels. Do you realise that Buddhism is a religion, but a person doesn't need to believe in any God or gods in order to be a Buddhist?
The video doesn't go into religion at all, it just isn't a part of the case they argue here. I don't think you watched the video at all, even though it's only about five minutes, because if you had you'd know this.
> That is NOT what an "appeal to authority" means. At all. When a person appeals to authority, they're basically trying to argue that a belief of theirs must be true, or is at least plausible, because so-and-so who happens to be a very clever guy, believes it too. Example: "It (what I believe) has to be true, because Stephen Hawking said so, and he knows a lot about this stuff, he's an expert, a scientist, so there!"
How is 'thing good/bad cuz god says so therefore it's 'objective'' not an appeal to authority?
> The video doesn't go into religion at all
Yeah, all those famous non religious... gods...
> it just isn't a part of the case they argue here.
It's the crux of the argument. The reason why he started making up random nonsense just to justify his inherently faulty conclusions.
> I don't think you watched the video at all, even though it's only about five minutes, because if you had you'd know this.
I've seen the video several times. It's Christian propaganda which presupposes that bad thing=bad is objective and then just says that proves god exists.
you don't have to be religious to know what is right or wrong, I'm an atheist is that I believe there is no god, moral standards were what you set yourself, and there is just as many people that lie from all types,
"... moral standards were what you set yourself...
Well, that's just it. They're not. Moral relativism, which is what you seem to endorse here, would allow someone who is unhinged to argue that, overall and from his perspective, the Nazis were actually good people, because all they wanted and set out to achieve was for the betterment of the Master Race. Don't you believe that only those who are actually worthy should be allowed to live? Isn't that "right"? Don't you accept the premise that the handicapped just drain our valuable resources without offering anything of value in return?
"During the last war there were priests praying for the defeat of the other side". No, I never said anything like that. You might have me confused with someone else, but even if that was the case, well, okay. So what? What's your point?
And no, the simple truth is that the vast majority of wars (ex. World War 1, World War 2, the Boer War, the Crimean War, the U. S. Civil War, etc, ad infinitum) were SECULAR! Even if they had been "religious", again, what's your point? I didn't mention religion at all, that's not what this is all about, it's irrelevant.
And why is my above comment "a load of rubbish"? Can you explain that to me? Am I actually wrong about this?
tell me one thing, why if there is a god, who as the bible says created the heavens and the earth, no there is nothing more powerful than that, can't cast satan out, tell me why according to the so-called ten commandments one of thou shalt do is to commit adultery, then why did he have to have a son by a married woman there are things from both sides, I don't tell you how or what you should do, why do you have to tell me what I should do or not do,
Through scripture we're commanded to remind those of the living GOD that will ultimately Judge ALL of us @ the ending times. Satan has already been crushed and defeated by the lord while he was on the cross. Soon after the ending time of all judgement Satan and his herd followers will enjoy eternity in Heavens junk yard together infinitely.
Once again you're bringing religion into this discussion, and you're assuming that I adhere to certain religious (specifically Christian) beliefs, when I actually do not. The makers of the video are Christian, but the case they make within doesn't in any way rely upon the Bible, and they don't promote a specifically Christian message.
Presumably by logical analysis and deduction; any intelligent being is capable of coming up with their own moral framework. We were not endowed with sense, reason, and intellect with the intention that we forego their use.
My browser doesn't support HTML 5 EMEs; I wasn't aware you'd posted one. Care to explain WHY you assert that you can't invent your own moral framework?
Well, among other reasons, your framework will be based almost exclusively upon your own personal, and therefore very subjective, idea of what is just. For example, a sociopath may truly believe there is nothing inherently wrong with manipulating and exploiting others for his own satisfaction, and will invent evermore sophisticated and clever ways to justify his atrocious behaviour.
Most people will see such behaviour for what it is - wrong. They will rightfully condemn it, but if you were to ask those people why, well... what would they say? Most, I'm guessing, would struggle to explain in a clear and concise manner their reasons, but they would also say that they just know, at an intuitive level, that people shouldn't mistreat others.
Atheists not only do not believe in God, but they generally (like 99% of them) don't believe in the supernatural, that we have souls and free will, and that we're basically nothing more than our physical form, "molecules in motion" as I've heard some describe it.
Well, if that's the case, then nothing at all matters, and they should never complain about injustice, because we're nothing more than chemistry, and in the end we will all just find ourselves in the grave anyway. Yet... they don't do that. Why not? Why do so many (not all, of course) of them care so much about, for example, the "rights" of others? What difference does it make? If I were in their shoes I just wouldn't bother, and I'd spend all of my time on myself and having fun.
Of course it would be based on your subjective perceptions- so is absolutely everything humanity ever does. If you honestly think that religion is somehow an exception, then I'd ask you to explain why God tolerated all the horrible things humans did in His name, after being explicitly Commanded not to. Given that, in fact, I'd ask to explain why you think that *God* is somehow "objective", despite all the horrible things HE did.
As to the atheists, their lack of belief in a higher source of morality would make them MORE likely to live by their own codes, not less; if humanity is as high as authority gets, then we'd have an even bigger responsibility to do things right. If nothing exists beyond this life, that puts a HIGHER value on our actions, not a lower one.
You're misrepresenting my position here. I never mentioned "religion". That's irrelevant. My point is that in order to have a functioning system of ethics, something beyond the individual or even society as a whole has to serve as the foundation for it. In other words, you can't just expect everyone to make it up on their own, and that is one of the points that are made in the video.
Yes, 'God', for lack of a better term, is that special something, that objective foundation that you will not find within yourself.
If nothing exists beyond this life, then we're just here one moment and gone the next, and it has no inherent value or meaning. Money has value because we tie it to something else (i. e. labour, it is the payment that is made to someone who has contributed to society via work, and is one of the many reasons why a UBI will never work).
If you really believe what you've written here, then explain to me why Hitler was a bad guy. I mean, didn't he just want what was best for Germany and the Master Race? Other people got in his way, so he had to remove them didn't he? Sure, his methods may have been rather graphic and unpleasant for some, but those people just didn't matter, because the end goal (i. e. Lebensraum, the perfection of humanity via eugenics, the elimination of undesirables like the handicapped) was noble.
Prove me wrong, demonstrate here why I'm wrong about the Nazis without resorting to an objective moral standard. WHY is murder wrong? Why can't it be right? What about theft, torture and other obscenities?
You're complaining about atheists; the lack of religion is implicit, since that's the only thing they all have in common. Further, WHY does something beyond the individual and society have to serve as the foundation for a system of morality? What do you think Utilitarianism is?
Further, if nothing exists beyond this life, then it has exactly the meaning WE give it. Our role, if there are no gods, is made MORE important, not less, because we are the ultimate arbiters. Why would something only have value if it lasts forever?
What makes you think I deny the existence of objective moral standards? I merely said that our knowledge of them is inherently subjective, because our perceptions are. If a god that WAS entirely objective came and told us of those standards, our perceptions of them would be STILL be limited, since we could only be told by those perceptions.
And I turn the question back to you: if God is indeed objective, then why were the actions of the Exodus justified? In what way was the slaughter of thousands of innocent Egyptian children justified, to resolve a crisis that Yahweh *caused*? Why do you hold an omnipotent, omniscient deity to a LOWER moral standard than you hold humanity?
I wasn't "complaining" about atheists; I was simply asking how they determine what is right or wrong if they also believe there are no objective moral standards.
Something beyond the individual (and society in general) has to serve as the foundation for morality, because otherwise what we may consider to be objectively right or wrong will fluctuate over time, and we'd also end up with a great deal of disagreement over the specifics. Some people may believe there is nothing at all wrong with slavery, but such a person wouldn't be ostracised. No one promotes or condones rape, or murder. Genocide is objectively wrong. I could go on, but if you believe in moral relativism, that we ourselves come to our own individual conclusions, then a society that is built upon it will fall apart very quickly (like ours is right now).
"If nothing exists beyond this life..." - Well, first of all, you don't know that for sure, and many would disagree with you there, and secondly, if this really is all there is then our presence here on this earth for the short time we have is ultimately pointless, because there is no way we can ever really make a difference to anything.
"What makes you think I deny the existence of objective moral standards? I merely said that our knowledge of them is inherently subjective, because our perceptions are." - NOS
It's possible I misread you there. Most atheists that I have met have told me they believe morality to be just another societal "construct", and purely relative. I don't agree with this, because I just can't. It's an absurd position to hold.
Okay, now we're getting somewhere- you claim that there has to be an external focus for morality because otherwise moral considerations would shift over time. All right. Except they already DO. Religion hasn't been immune to that, either; attempts to silence dissent by killing anyone speaking out against orothodoxy has been going on since time immemorial, and even religious people today claim that was wrong- though it wasn't seen as such at the time. Nor was slavery, murder, or even genocide, even under direct command from God- which says that religion can't be a source of objective morality either, since what it calls right and wrong shifts over time, even within the same faith. You're arguing against your own case here.
As to nothing existing beyond this life, of course I don't know that; that's why I used the word "if". But you haven't answered my question about that: if this is all there is, then how is it less important than if it's just infinitesimal sliver of experience before the afterlife? It would be MORE important. If consciousness ceases with death, then what we do now is all that matters, because we'll never have another chance.
The anti-nihilist trope, also atheists can ask you why God allowing so much evil to happen.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z1BzP1wr234 I've seen this clip. It's entertaining, funny at times even, but ultimately it's wrong. As I recall it (I'll watch it again, just to be sure), the makers of this clip didn't take into consideration that our acknowledgement of the existence, the reality of evil, ITSELF constitutes evidence that there simply must be an objective moral standard in the first place against which we can well and truly say that something is wrong.
Why do people believe that Hitler was a monster, that he was evil? By what standard do they measure or compare this? Don't you think he was just misunderstood, and that all he wanted was unity in Europe, the eradication of Bolshevism, and living space for the Master Race? What's wrong with that?
After all, aren't we just "molecules in motion", mere chemistry and electricity, so who are we to judge him? Atheists don't believe we are anything more than just our physical bodies, that we have no free will (we just think we do), and that this is all there is. Well, if that's the case then nothing we do matters at all, and we should all just live as we see fit.
Google the anti-nihilist trope, you think that atheists are evil? here also a nice video. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2r6oXukz_Cc
Abrahamic God is not against killing animals, there was animal sacrifices in the Temple.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon's_Temple#Sacrifice
The trope is called like that, you can google it, they the universe is so hostile to life?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMYIl5b-paY
Everyone develops a moral compass. You’re projecting your feelings about religion onto others.
It’s important to recognize that just because you require God to tell you what's right or wrong doesn't mean everyone else does.
Atheist don't believe that, atheist have no believe in the existence of god (s).
Because the farthest they believe is physical they believe good and evil comes from us and only us, they don't believe in influences and spirituality in general
Because we are social animals. And as such we have it in us to care for the members of our society. Not for the members of our species, for the members of our society. It's an evolutionary trait that we share among all other social animals.
Where'd you get the idea atheists are immoral? Atheist means, you don't believe in a god.
The question flat out insinuated it.
"If atheists truly believe there are no objective moral standards" THAT, alone, tells me that you assume we are immoral!
"how do they determine what's right and wrong, good and evil?" This confirms it!
they still follow the laws of their country which is still based on religious values to some degree
I don’t know what they think they’re confused people
That's just it; there is no right or wrong
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions