Atheist Debates - Morality

[@claudiaquat]

That's the toughest looking golf course I've ever seen.

[@thehaloofthesun]

claudiaquat you’ve clearly never been to South Park.

[@EmperorsNewWardrobe]

claudiaquat thats not a tough golf course. It’s a tough scuba diving course

[@hewhowatches5711]

Pretty sure that's the fairway

[@bugsplat2755]

@@hewhowatches5711 Damn course designers. They simply do not understand a balls attraction to water, and waters generous donation of +2 strokes to my scorecard.

[@chrisjohnson4380]

Guys, you're completely missing the picture. It's obviously an ice skating rink that is in hibernation over summer.

[@rogertheshrubber2551]

As Matt's beard slowly turns him into a wizard. The proof is that you can plainly see him teleport around in the video. (Great series)

[@UTU49]

Dear Matt Dillahunty, I hope you know how much you are contributing to the world. People like you are providing what people like Dawkins have failed to provide: a calm, rational, humanist, constructive presentation of the Atheist perspective.

[@WessCNY]

When you die and go to heaven Matt will be standing there, he will say "Were you expecting someone else?"

[@Stevevick-ve6kh]

As a Believer that repented & Believed the Gospel Message before he died in his sins I hope so ! But if a atheist stillll....... .... Not hardly !

[@Stevevick-ve6kh]

Anti Theist sounds just like something the devil would say except , he decided he wanted to be “GOD “ , but to do that he’s got to try to over through GOD ! His process is Lying , murdering , stealing , oh he is in a very bad since of denial about everything , Like Democrats , see he’s found a resting place with u. But sure your not gonna acknowledge that , huh ! It will be brought to light one day soon, of ya Decision.

[@Stevevick-ve6kh]

Anti Theist Christian 1st , American 2nd! Choices , choices , choices ! Choice !, I Heard the Gospel message of Jesus Christ ! My choice , .... it is the most truthful loving information that I have ever come across . I said yes ,in my heart , It is true . I repented , acknowledged in my Heart that He is God . That I was the sinner He died on the cross for . His spirit of truth entered my body , & I know the Bible is true ! But only the KJV Bible , that’s another subject though . I was saved & my life changed . My desire is to tell as many ppl as I can this story till I die , Acts 2:36-42 If u have considered that same story & said no , u will not believe it , That was your choice ! Even though it will go down as the worst decision you will ever make in this life . Should you stay your coarse .

[@Stevevick-ve6kh]

Anti Theis Still your choice to believe such info ! How much peace of mind do you have ?

[@Stevevick-ve6kh]

Anti Theist Choice !

[@steveneaton9611]

Thank you again, Matt. Now I know the right counter arguments to use in the break room at work. My girlfriend was a Jehovah's Witness when we first met, had been her whole life. Was completely devoted. She met me we started watching some Matt Dillahunty Atheist Experience and Aron Ra. Now she thinks all religion and Gods are laughable. Couldn't have done it without you guys. I think anybody could be converted if they just had an atheist friend that sat down with them and watch KZbin. By sitting down and watching and letting the geniuses speak for you, you can be sure to not get your facts wrong and you can be sure that any argument the person you're watching these videos with can be addressed with a small amount of patience and friendship. You will at the very least, plant the seeds of admitting agnosticism.

[@steveneaton9611]

And when I said converted there, I meant to say de-converted.

[@tkvsevolod]

Wow dude great job of de-converting her out of that cult. You're lucky she would even consider thinkin differently. Most jws would just completely ignore videos like this, or say it's from the devil or something of that sort. Completely brainwashed people who can't think for themselves.

[@gendergoo1312]

Very cool story. I think probably the most important factor is having an atheist friend to watch videos with. If someone is left to themselves to challenge their faith, they'll likely get uncomfortable and scared about what it means to abandon their faith, and just turn right back to it. Having someone there to meet them at their de-conversion shows they aren't alone. All atheists need to know that they're not alone.

[@andrewtall2047]

***** It is a sad fact that many people tend to be open to believe only what people around them profess to believe, and that the truly deconvert people you frequently need to make sure that they are proximate to deconverted people - it is exactly the reason why so many cults ban contact with non-believers and encourage shunning of those who leave the cult.

[@gendergoo1312]

Andrew Tall It is sad. I guess I should add to that, that de-conversion will only "stick" if the people that de-convert, do so of their own volition, after reviewing the facts. Someone conned into atheism will be conned right back into religion. I've come across a couple arguments in my repertoire that have been proven faulty and so I've abandoned them. If I'm going to assist in someone's de-conversion, I want it to be with an intellectually honest discussion.

[@SansDeity]

Yes, I'm aware of the various color problems. I'm not sure why this happened or how I can fix it, but I'll look into it.

[@greenjelly01]

Don't stand in the shade, with a bright sunny background. The camera balances color for the sunny area, which makes the shady area bluish. Also, the subject is dark and underexposed.

[@tekhiun]

It's called white balance, usually cameras do it automatically , which seems to be the case here . The camera adjusted for the light on the background, which is why you are slightly blue. You can set it up manually, just look it up on your camera manual and this website is quite helpful too www.wikihow.com/Adjust-Your-Digital-Camera%27s-White-Balance.

[@amazingbollweevil]

I really appreciate that you take the time to find a good setting for these videos, but honestly, it's your content and delivery that is so compelling. I hope you eschew visual effects in your future submissions because your stuff is otherwise excellent for audio book listening.

[@crediblemusic]

Auditioning for the blue man group.

[@straubdavid9]

Thanks Matt, the only thing that mattered to me was the content - I don't let minor distractions detract from that. Btw - I didn't really have any distractions, so got your message clear as a bell.

[@MichalisCatinas]

Well done Matt! A beautiful mind at work. Great info and arguments as always, thank you. Warm regards from Greece.

[@juan3141]

this is my new favorite video of all time for many many reasons (:

[@cineverse442]

Yaa he just F*ucked religious beliefs upside down right and left

[@TheIronwil]

This might be my favorite video from you yet. I liked the comparison of ethics between a child who was threatened/bribed over one who has an explanation of how their behavior affects others. This illustrated the disconnect many theists seem to have with the moral argument - motivation. Later you talked about how doing unto others as you would have done unto you, and how this doesn't necessarily reflect what another person might want. This is the only point in your presentation where I'd see a logical hole for a theist to drive a wedge into, though I don't personally consider it a hole. Here's my two cents on why I agree with you, but see a possible avenue for misunderstanding: Your first comparison was between two children whose motivations differed, and why that's important to the development of morality. This resonated strongly with me, and offers a possible explanation of why so many fundamentalists seem to think we'd all run around causing as much harm as possible without their divinely prescribed moral system. I've heard Ray Comfort state he'd be in jail if he wasn't a Christian. Without the threat of hell and the promise of heaven, he feels he himself would turn to harmful actions. This could be a silent adherence to the second part in the quote you mentioned where the fool has said in his heart there is no god, where atheists can do no good. Or it might be something more inherently pathological, but either way it is demonstrably false. It's true to state that someone might not be adequately served by the Golden Rule, given they might have different preferences than you, and it's also true to state that children can be better taught through the Golden Rule than through threats or bribes. I don't think children generally have the maturity to understand not only the consequences of their actions as it would relate to them, but also to understand this in relation to others whose preferences they don't know, so your original comparison was an excellent one (in my opinion), while leaving just enough wriggle room for apologists to make an issue of it when related to the inadequacy of the Golden Rule in a complex social environment. As you mentioned, this is a complex issue that will have complex answers. I think it's necessary to have rule of law, or the threat of punishment, along with the understanding of the consequences of actions in relation to others. A combination seems to be the only viable answer at this point. Some people will be swayed by understanding morality as it relates to them and others, and some will require the stick and carrot. However, I agree wholeheartedly that if you're discussing morality, then the only "moral" decision comes from consideration of consequences, not via avoidance of threat or attainment of reward.

[@northernlight8857]

What kind of camera was used to film this? And I must say you are good in finding beutiful natural backgrounds in your videos. Your work is greatly appriciated. Thank you.

[@soupalex]

TIL: Matt Dillahunty has the power of instantaneous teleportation. Hail Matt!

[@billkeon880]

One objection to the claim that we teach children everything about morals. All the recent work by psychology (as popularized by Steven Pinker) says that we are not blank slates and have a great deal of genetic predeterminants for intelligence, behaviours, moral dispositions etc. Animal biological studies also show innate tendencies for cooperation, reciprocity, shame, shunning - a primordial grounding for human moral behavior. Morality seems to have a evolutionary basis and in that way starts as a kernel of objectivity. It is also tempered by rational decision-making to flesh-out these questions, but the genetic grounding seems to be solid.

[@whittfamily1]

I agree with you. I think Matt emphasizes nurture over nature too much. Both interact to produce the morality of a person.

[@drg8687]

You also see tiger mom smacking the cub when it acts like an asshat. I’m guessing you never saw lord of the flies?

[@dracdrum]

Great stuff man, I have been consuming all of these! Thanks for making them!

[@GodWorksOut]

Almost all of your debates come down to morality lol Thanks for making this video and keep up the good work!

[@CopalFreak]

Is it any wonder? "Morality" encompasses a large fuzzy, vague, and general concept that MUST be skipped-over, cherry-picked, and individually-customized by theists just so they can accept their own doctrines. If they, as individual humans, believe it's morally wrong to take a life for any reason, but their primary doctrine talks about rules saying they are/were required to kill somebody if they see them working on a Sunday, they have to be able to explain that...not just to those who ask questions about it, or call them out on it, but also to themselves. In a way, 'morality' (of the self, of which being 'honest' is a quality) is what it all boils down to anyway. If theists truly accepted the generally accepted and followed a set of basic 'morality' rules set forth by their own societies (don't lie, cheat, steal, etc), they could not follow their own doctrines and be honest at the same time. To do so, they would have to be completely honest, and that would not allow them to have the financial, political, and social clout they enjoy now because most of the things they have to say or do to gain or keep those things require that they deceive, steal from, or kill others (if not directly, then in some round-about way that also breaks a firm set of morality rules). Just my thoughts on it.

[@BaalBuster]

And thank goodness he does. High time we took back our morality from religion.

[@juanllorente3504]

+CopalFreak There many kind of theist. I see millions of believers in the world and I do not see them not accepting the rules democratically imposed by society. A different thing is that they have to agree with everything that the majority of the people decides. They do not have to do that, and you do not have to do that either. Christians societies have evolved all of them into democracies. Those societies that are oficially atheist are the ones in which the values of freedom have been more damages.And with this I am not saying that you are an enemy of freedom.

[@CopalFreak]

+Juan Llorente Theism is an enemy of freedom. It requires the placation of a deity in order to gain personal reward, has the threat of punishment for non-compliance, and uses group enforced peer-pressure and fear-mongering to impose it. That is not freedom, that is coercion. Christianity is not democratic..a god demands that you follow his rules, or else...even if you don't agree with them because they are immoral. Religious people make excuses for many of the rules they are supposed to follow but don't. They do not specifically have to agree with everything that the majority of people decide, they just have to agree with the doctrine of whatever particular sect of religion they are involved in. That said, if they don't like it, they can just leave that church and find another (most of the time...there are several exceptions in which they cannot leave without threat of serious consequences such as being ostracized or killed). There are no 'officially atheist' societies that I am aware of. If you are referring to 'officially atheist groups' or organizations that exists in the United States, what damages are you talking about? Those 'officially atheist' groups are trying to PROTECT freedom for the majority, by not forcing ALL children in public school to say religion-specific prayers, so that it's fair to those that are not a part of that specific religion and those that are not religious; thereby respecting the rights of ALL people in the fairest way possible. Despite the constitutional laws in the U.S. that clearly say that publicly funded schools cannot endorse or espouse any specific religion, Christians keep insisting they have the right to force their religion onto everybody. Those 'officially atheist' groups are trying to ensure that women have the same rights as men, and that the arbitrary rules of invisible and immoral deities do not govern our societies and impose rules that are damaging to societies as a whole. Rules and laws that prevent people from harassing, torturing, or killing others because of their difference in religion, gender, skin color, nationality, or sexual orientation. Laws are in place (in most countries) to prevent these things, but religious people are the majority that are breaking those laws, and they are doing so specifically in the name of their religion. It is only very recent in U.S. history that people of the same gender can get married, and it was not too long ago when there were rules in place that prevented people of different skin color from being married. Those rules were put into place because of RELIGION. Those 'officially atheist' organizations are trying to do more good for the RIGHT reasons, as opposed to religious organizations who only do what their perceive as 'good' when it falls within their particular realm of morality and rule-sets. ( e.g. they only help other people for personal gain (karma, soul-saving, social acceptance, etc), or they will help one group of people, but not another...like a Christian group typically would not publicly donate time and money to an outwardly atheistic or Muslim cause, even if the cause itself is the most important, unless it specifically empowered their group in some way. (political for instance). Religions are in no way, democratic. Individuals do not get to 'vote' on which rules in their holy book they follow and which ones they don't...some choose to override the legal laws in their area because of their religion (killing people because of they are a different religion..even though it is against the law, they feel their deity gives them the right to do so).

[@juanllorente3504]

Theism evolve in way in which societyies that were overewhelmingly christians became democracies. Along with comunism came atheism and were atheism has become official there is nothing but authoritarian criminal states that has destroyed anything that has to do with freedom. Stop living in the past and focus more in the recent history of humanity. Believers do not try to impose anything. Atheist do.

[@douglasschnabel4480]

So many advances in morality and ethics, like vastly improving the treatment of women and getting rid of slavery, have occurred in spite of religious teaching and not because of it. Secular morality is not perfect, but it is responsive to changes in culture and understanding and gives us a change to progress beyond bronze-age thinking.

[@kevrocks01]

I am a social worker and one day a suicidal caller called in. I got the call and thankfully so, because I had to send the police out to take her to the hospital, thereby saving her life. The caller mentioned she had talked to one of my co-workers, (a devout christian). I confronted my co-worker and she said, "it's not my day to take calls". She blindly transferred the call and it went to another of my co-workers voice mail. Did jesus say it wasn't his day to heal people? So the christian couldn't be bothered and the Atheist saved the callers life. So who has moral/ethics and who doesn't? Try and defend this persons behavior, because you can't. Further, my co-worker stopped talking to me because I reported her to management. Wouldn't a good christian have realized their mistake and gone to their brother to seek forgiveness? Matthew 18:15 - Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

[@kevrocks01]

What exactly is a real christian? I've heard so many times that other christians aren't real christians. Having a bad day, are you serious??? Someone almost died and called this lady for help but has to wonder if she's having a bad day. I swear, the christian bullshit just never stops flying.

[@kevrocks01]

Thank you and I wish you well

[@TheZooCrew]

+BiggerThanHeidi Some of those features are terrible and others are irrelevant. You're ignoring the vast majority of the bible and apparently living in a bubble. If that you're definition, then there's no such thing as a "real christian."

[@rtek5]

+BiggerThanHeidi I think I can accept what you say to a point. I had a coworker that said he was a Christian and went to church semi-regularly. He was often cantankerous, cussed liked a sailor and even hinted once he approved of what happened to MLK.

[@juanllorente3504]

+Kevin Kurtz Believing doesn't make you good, and being a good doesn't mean that you are always right

[@Mariomario-gt4oy]

Great video. Keep them coming!

[@hardheadjarhead]

“Do unto others as they would have you do to them” could lead to a person to being taken advantage of. The Golden Rule can’t be boiled down to a simple sentence.

[@slackjaw703]

It never ceases to amaze me that people can't see our morality evolve over time. We have greatly improved over the centuries, and hopefully will continue to improve as we grow and evolve. The only thing that can stop us is religion.

[@slackjaw703]

@BruderShaft1 Source? Because you’re wrong. The exact opposite is the case. As a matter of fact, this is the very best time to have lived upon this earth as a human. People always seem to believe the opposite is the case, having not lived in the times they’re glamorizing, or even looking back at past years they did live in with rose colored glasses. When you look at the empirical facts, we are indeed living in the golden age for humans. That said, our morality keeps improving, as does out medicine, policing, living standard, availability of food & clean water, job safety, etc, etc, etc., so in one hundred years we should be much better than today.

[@slackjaw703]

@BruderShaft1 Really? Name a single time in history when we have had devastating wars & genocides, brutal dictators, racist, misogynist, homophobic, ignorant leaders (like Trump) & horrific forms of government. I’ll wait. After that, you should really do a little investigating as to what time period has been the very best time period go be alive as a human, ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. You have to look no further than the population explosion to understand that many more people are living as compared to dying than during any other time in our past. Thanks to advances in science, medicine, some forms of government & morality overall, we are thriving as a species. We still have so far to go, but we are farther along now than we’ve EVER been before.

[@MrRhomas913]

Bottom line: why do I care about someone else at all? In the end, I want to thrive and if I can do something that will get me ahead, I will do it. I want to maximize my well being. For example, a coworker develops a useful spreadsheet; I take it and re-brand it as my own work and submit it up the food chain and get recognition. I advanced my well being despite doing what most would think is immoral.

[@friedfrog5447]

Matt would probably say you still did something wrong

[@MrRhomas913]

@@friedfrog5447 - I think you hit the nail on the head. We can all say that what I did was wrong...but what is the foundation of saying that it is objectively wrong? If morality is determined by the majority then we could have a society that is morally wrong about something from an outsider's perspective but held as moral by the majority of the society. e.g. the majority of the population of the Aztec kingdom could feel that it is morally right to sacrifice people to their Gods while the nearby Teotihuacan society may consider it immoral. Dillahunty seems to be saying that a moral system is "objective" if we define goal(s) and then strive to reach those goal(s) through setting rules. The problem is that the goals are set by the majority and they can change. I would use the word "objective" to mean universal and eternal and I am in more in line with Hitchens where we are hard-wired to be moral - that is that man is basically good - which puts me in a quandary since it conflicts with Dawkins (selfish Gene) and Darwin (Survival of the Fittest) and puts me in cahoots with Christians (who believe God is love, God created man, therefore man is good; and their moral law is love your neighbor as yourself).

[@friedfrog5447]

@@MrRhomas913 *Dillahunty seems to be saying that a moral system is "objective" if we define goal(s) and then strive to reach those goal(s) through setting rules.* Exactly. And someone else could have their own goal or come to different conclusion while having the same well-being goal. Matt comes off as arrogant a lot of the time. And as usual, the instant knee-jerk reaction from so many atheists is just to attack and be condescending to anyone who disagrees with them.

[@NelemNaru]

> _For example, a coworker develops a useful spreadsheet; I take it and re-brand it as my own work and submit it up the food chain and get recognition. I advanced my well being despite doing what most would think is immoral._ How would you feel about coworkers taking your work and rebranding as their own? Probably not very good. If you don't want to live in that kind of society, then the moral thing is to not contribute to that kind of society. Simple. Because you live in a society, your actions affect others and their actions affect you. This was explained in the video. Your example of well-being was shortsighted.

[@NelemNaru]

@@MrRhomas913 > _We can all say that what I did was wrong...but what is the foundation of saying that it is objectively wrong?_ If we agree that well-being is the goal, then we can objectively observe actions and their consequences, and make conclusions about whether it benefits well-being or not. If well-being is not your goal and you want to go around killing people, then you would not be welcome to participate in a society that cares about well-being. A society that doesn't care about well-being will not survive. Well-being can be debated, and there is always a tension between individual and collective well-being in doing so. Sacrificing people is objectively not conducive to their well-being, even if the majority is mistakenly convinced their own well-being will be increased by influencing the gods. It has been shown that killing innocents who could grow up and contribute to society is not overall beneficial. There is always room for improvement, which is why morality is not absolute. "Objective" does not mean universal and eternal, "absolute" does. The goal itself is subjective, but once we agree on a goal, we can make objective comparisons according to different contexts.

[@apsarator]

I am European and was born into a 100% secular community. I did not even know, that religion even existed until i was 10 years old. I consider,although i live in Asia now, the society i was born into as to be highly morally, without cynicism and bigotry - and without the necessity of a commander in heaven

[@justinboggin9086]

There is an aspect of the apologist argument that if morality is subjective or made by man then it isn't good enough, wrong, etc. It strikes me as anti-humanity. We aren't good enough to decide for ourselves what is right or wrong. We cannot make a functioning society without being told how. I personally reject the premise entirely. Anti-humanity is not a worthy starting position for any kind of constructive decision making.

[@nitehawk86]

I agree, this is the same line of reasoning that leads to "morality is whatever god says it is". I believe Matt has asked the question, "If God says it was moral to do X, would you do it." The answer is always "Yes". Even when X = murder, rape, etc. If reason cannot reach a person like that, I suppose nothing can.

[@robertmiller9735]

Hardly surprising. Christianity is inherently anti-human.

[@TheZooCrew]

Loads of apologists love to espouse the canard that "subjective" and "meaningless" are synonyms. It would take more than a few blows to the head from a baseball bat to make me believe such obvious garbage.

[@leechesinmybreeches29]

Ever heard of empathy?

[@leechesinmybreeches29]

Oners82 Yes why?

[@macgrunt8598]

great product placement matt.

[@richardblais5232]

Where do I get my morals from ? I don't have any ... I make judgements based on my conscience, but morals are man-invented rules that no one agrees on - just like God.

[@juanllorente3504]

+Lionel Richards Actually we agree on many things. There are many laws that regulate moral issues that believers and not believers agree to be right.

[@C3l3bi1]

Juan Llorente some agree on others dont depends in the society you live in

[@juanllorente3504]

Depend the society in which you live and also depends of what you believe. My point is that if someone religious, based on his morals reach to the conclusion that death penalty is bad. Nobody would say that the argument of that person is not rational because is based on religious beliefs.

[@C3l3bi1]

Juan Llorente agree

[@richardblais5232]

Your point is insane ... ANY conclusion that is based on ANY religious belief is irrational ... you cannot make decisions based on non-existant mythological beings and expect to be rational ...

[@DRayL_]

Very cool backdrop for this well constructed and insightful video, Mr. Dillahunty.

[@lostdarkside]

I define morality to the degree to which a situation is voluntary or not . Because is objectively there are only two transactions a human can engage in ... voluntary or coercion

[@theuncalledfor]

As far as I know, the definition of "objective" is "independent of any mind". When using this definition, morality cannot possibly be objective, as it only even exists in the presence of at least two minds.

[@Konstruktivismus]

+theuncalledfor Is science objective? A scientific knowledge only exists in the presence of minds? Is anything objective according to this definition? I think the main problem isn't whether ethics are objective or not, but what objective even means in the language. Why do we attribute objective to some hypotheses and to some not.

[@pumpuppthevolume]

where do u get your morality if not from god my answer where do u get your morality if not from Zeus

[@pumpuppthevolume]

***** moral is just the word we use for someone who is promoting well being

[@pumpuppthevolume]

***** well yeah it's not always as clear cut as math......ant yet it's completely clear that cutting a kid's legs off is harmful and giving the kid food is the opposite of harmful.....and even a psychopath can recognise this even if they might not be compelled to promote well being......and if someone can't recognize that cutting someone's legs off for no reason and against their will as harmful ....they r completely detached from the human experience

[@pumpuppthevolume]

***** like I said psychopaths can distinguish between harm and well being..........I am saying that if someone actually thinks that removing a kid's legs is actually not harmful .....they completely lack an understanding of what harmful means or anything else probably and all that is necessary for someone to understand what harm is ....is just having a barely functioning cognition

[@pumpuppthevolume]

***** so examples r not evidence ...... XD what I am talking about is ...harm.....it's an actual thing no matter how we struggle to define it and no matter how it evolves and it depends no a thousand factors ....there r actions that r in fact harmful and those that r the opposite of that ....and moral and immoral r just different words for that

[@pumpuppthevolume]

***** haha no evidence that harm is immoral ....like I said what I mean by immoral is literary smth that is harmful .....u can even forget that word because u already have a better non convoluted hijacked word....harm ......and like I said it can depend on social constructs and whatever and yet there is such a thing just like our understanding of some phenomenon can depend on all sort of stuff.....there is in fact a thing like removing a kid's legs for no reason against his will ...which is harmful ....and it cannot be called anything else....because it is only limiting the kid and it is not providing any benefit

[@natanaellizama6559]

The problem is that the morals as a conduct for the benefit of society is valid because it benefits the individual. So, the major consideration for the individual is himself not the rules nor society. The rules and society matter only insofar as they are relevant to the individual. The question then remains, why act ethically/morally when it benefits the individual more to act differently?

[@tobybiscuits]

There was an episode in 60 min with babies and morality. Babies young as 6 months were picking puppets that were doing morally right things like helping another puppet.

[@whittfamily1]

Yes, we probably have predispositions to behave in some ways rather than others, but still we need to use reason to establish morality.

[@JohnCrawley1]

Awesome video

[@bookwermofthefandoms]

Go watch the video MattDillahunty: The Superiority of Secular Morality to have him actually explain secular morality

[@capoman1]

Keep them coming Mr. Dillahunty.

[@AlaricHolmes]

I enjoyed this monologue quite a bit. I don't think I learned anything _new_, per se, but I think it's beneficial to see these ideas presented in a clear and structured way such that one can see more easily how A leads to B, etc., etc. At 13:55, you assert that children don't come with morality prepackaged, but rather learn it from their parents, peers., and so on, but I'm not entirely sure that this is true. I've been intrigued by the implications of the work of people like Dr. Karen Wynn, and her husband whose name I can't recall off hand, in the field of very early child psychology and the experiments that she's conducted which, to my mind at least, indicate that even infants have rudimentary, very black-and-white senses of morality. The results would seem to indicate that we do in fact have senses of right and wrong -- although the correlations aren't 100%, and so that leaves the question open as to whether there are varying levels of morality with which individual infants are born (and some other questions as well) -- but that our morality expands and becomes more refined (shades of gray, to continue the metaphor) over time. I fear I'd do a disservice to their work by trying to go into serious detail here or even attempting to defend it, per se, but I would sincerely recommend at least looking into their work -- particularly, Dr. Wynn's -- unless you already have and have, for whatever reason, dismissed it or found it wanting in key areas, which I'd be interested in hearing about, since I'm more interested in the truth than I am in any particular worldview.

[@TheZooCrew]

+Alaric Holmes There's a fine distinction here. Children may have an inherent sense of "fairness," but we have to learn through interaction what is actually fair. That's a bit different.

[@j.adanin7456]

Brilliant.

[@billkeon880]

great video as usual. Work by psychologists and anthropologists (like Steven Pinker and Pascal Boyer) show that even in preverbal children, we can demonstrate a well grounded moral sense. Our subconscious moral feelings and drives are evolved brain functions that are inextricably wound up with the way we process information and think about our world. In this sense there is an objective morality (which could further evolve over time) as well as our reasoning capacity, which helps us navigate through new or complicated moral circumstances. Religion Explained by Boyer is absolutely excellent as well as most anything by Pinker.

[@jasensargent6176]

It’s just when we claim there is an objective morality while holding to a strict naturalistic, rationalistic, scientific and whatever else you may call it, it seems we are just holding to something that’s simply an unfounded social construct. And it truly seems tyrannical to enforce it upon other people. Saying that reality teaches that morality is objective is exactly what theists teach. But this touches something metaphysical and transcendent. I don’t think naturalists can logically hold to it as objective truth.

[@gnagyusa]

Q: What do religions and vacuum cleaners have in common? A: They're both human inventions and they both *suck*.

[@juanllorente3504]

+lnpilot Why ois impossible to debate with atheist without having lots of them being irrespectfull with other peoples ideas? Because athism always result in lack of tolerance to the others and limitations on freedom individuality.

[@gnagyusa]

Juan Llorente Ok, what exactly do you believe and *why*? What evidence do you have?

[@juanllorente3504]

+lnpilot I don't know if you remember the video. but I believe in that source of morality that Mr. Dillahunty said that we call God and that we call it something else. I believe that we have to search for that source of morality and this search is not different that the search the scientist. After you discover something there is gonna be something else. If you think that the name of that source of morality is not God but Rick and that you believe that is your duty has human being to search for the things that are right. Go ahead, go and look for Rick I am perfectly find with that. I do not have evidence of my believes, but we all have believes. You might believe that abortion is good or bad for our society, but you do not have evidence of that. You might believe that voting one party or the other is gonna be the best for our country, but we do not have evidence of that. Indeed there are many things that we believe despite of the fact that there are many evidence against those believes. For instance I believe that the world is plenty of evidence that indicate that socialism does not work and still we have Bernie Sanders as a serious candidates to be the president of the USA. Perhaps socialism can work despite all the evidences. I don't have evidence of God because I do not even know how Gods look like. I just believe that we have to look for him. I believe in a sphere of reality that are not just empirical, morality is that reality. The God I believe in is defined by the own reality so those that are actually trying to explain the physical world are also trying to find God. I do not have problem with them. The fact that we do not have evidence of things, does not mean that believing in them is irrational. I do not think that morality is irrational, and I do not believe that the reason of morality might be found in the field of science. I also believe that is terrible that some people is prevented to search for the truth because of religious reason. Do you really believe that are secular society do not prevent us to search for some truths in the name of the new values that t our society maintain? I do not believe that and I have proofs of what I am saying.

[@gnagyusa]

Juan Llorente If you don't have evidence for god, then *why the hell would you believe in it*? If you don't require evidence, then *how* do you even decide what to believe and what not to believe? *What is your thought process*? Do you flip a coin? Do you just believe *everything that people tell you*? Then, I'm a Nigerian prince...send me your money. :) If there's no evidence for gods, then how is it any different from imagination? A god that has no observable effect on reality, is *indistinguishable from one that does not exist*. If I told you that you owe me a thousand bucks, I bet you'd demand evidence before you sent me the money. So, you require evidence for certain things, but not for others. Why are you so *inconsistent*? Atheism is simply being consistent about requiring evidence for *every claim*. _Without evidence, a sack of claims is worth the sack_. - lnpilot As for morals: How do you know that god is the "good guy"? You had to reach that conclusion somehow! So, you do have a sense of morals outside of god's influence. Or, did god just program you to think that he's the good guy? That's exactly what a mind-controlling dictator would do... Oh, and I sure hope your morals don't come from the Bible: genocide, child sacrifice, stoning children to death for misbehaving, torturing your children for eternity *simply for not loving your enough* (WTF?) all committed or commanded by the "all loving" god. Ahhem, *bullshit*. If you do take your morals from the Bible, please stay very far from me and my family...

[@juanllorente3504]

+lnpilot The answer is in my previous comment. We all believe in things without having evidences of them. Read the part about believing in things that are good or not and argue that part.

[@SavioursWon]

reality is not an arbiter it is just what is not what should be.

[@todbeard8118]

I get a kick out of watching Matt's debates when morality comes up. Matt really caught Jay Lucas off guard in their debate when Lucas thought he had Matt by the balls and then Matt pointed out the slavery issue. Lucas' jaw dropped. Watching Lucas trying to come back on that was hilarious because Lucas was either dishonest or misinformed in his response. I tend to think he was being misleading. Matt said he would address the slavery issue in his closing. And you could tell worrying about what Matt was going to come back with messed Jay Lucas up in the rest of the debate. And Matt did come back with a great response and explained Exodus 21: 20-22 and more scripture on the issue, like the champion he is. Matt was clearly the champ and Jay was the chump. Matt's always outstanding in his debates but he was really on the ball in this one. If you haven't seen it I suggest you watch it. I guarantee you'll be entertained.

[@iranpop80slover]

if a group of people can overpower another group of people , and to the suffering of them better their own lives and set means in a way that would prevent any backfire from the oppressed , in a secular atheist point of view , how is that immoral ? ( cuz we are basing morality on the material effects of what we do , what if what we do hurts others but will not harm us and would benefit us materially ) ?

[@zhv3062]

I've been creating and improving my Morals from the great stories I read in fiction. I like to think those that are Religious are just reading the same stories as I am and improving their morals as well. I just happen to have started with something that was clearly defined as Fiction and nothing more.

[@cdphil1974]

My big issue with ALL religions is that their moral/rules/scripts are based on books thousands of years old. Less than 300 years ago we were burning witches in our high streets - the world changes, our thinking changes, our education improves yet all these religions do not change or evolve. Almost every war or major man made attrocity in my lifetime seem to be formed from or developed with religious conflict. The more we learn the less religion makes sense, the more we evolve the less relevant religion becomes but still there are tens of thousands of lives lost every year due to it. I am not religious but feel I have a strong moral compass, live my life in harmony with my fellow humans and try to enjoy the short time I have on this wonderful planet and help those around me to enjoy it to. In another 2000 years time will someone discover an old copy of Harry Potter and use it as a foundation to live their life?! Peace, respect and love to all (even the haters and trolls I am bound to attract!).

[@Skute]

Hey Matt , Been watching/ listening to you for a long time. You've been very helpful of course. I was wondering ,however, why your patron account is per video instead of monthly. I wanted to support you but didn't want to have an unknown amount taken each month.

[@juanllorente3504]

Saying that believers believe that absolute moral does not depend on circumstances is using a very manipulative argument. To consider a moral situation in the most accurate possible way you may need to have an absolute knowledge of the event. Believers do not believe that killing someone is wrong. The morality of killing someone may depend on the circumstances and once you have a perfect knowledge of those circumstances the act can be morally asses. Not every case of what is right and wrong is equally complex. If you consider a case in which a person that is not mentally sick rapes people just because that person wants to get pleasure out of it, we don't need more information to know that that behavior is morally wrong.

[@MrTechFox]

With respect Mr Dillahunty,if I have understood your view on morality correctly, right and wrong are determined by how ones actions affect other people. I think that this definition does not capture what most people mean when they talk about right and wrong. If I were to encounter a homeless stray puppy in some back ally and then lure that puppy into my car with some treats, take it home where I torture it in the most painful and horrific ways imaginable for 16 hours straight before finally ending its life as gruesomely as possible. Further, lets say I enjoy my experience. As the only human involved in this encounter who received enjoyment at the cost of hurting zero other humans, on your view, shouldn't we conclude that nothing morally wrong was done? If instead you conclude that this action WAS morally wrong because of something along the lines of "it caused harm to the puppy", as most of us would feel is correct, then what conclusion does your view of morality have with regards to choosing to eat meat instead of being vegetarian, given that science shows we can live with either diet, why chose the one that causes suffering unnecessarily to animals? Thanks for your time.

[@Jarb2104]

I am not Mr. Dillahunty, but I would love to answer your dilemma. First, you are assuming all animals have the same level of consciousness as humans, I agree that animals are sentient and because they have nervous systems we see they can translate something similar to what we would describe as pain or several degrees of suffering. Now you would agree that a cow or a pig does not grieve in the same way an elephant or a dog would, so we start to clear the path to a better understanding. I disagree complete on the topic of raising cattle in a complete "inhumane" way, but that is as far as my disagreement goes. I can understand that a cow, pig, and other animals are not self aware, and their survival instincts are the only triggers we recognize in their attitudes, and I mean, they run away from harm and defend themselves, not because they have an intrinsic will to survive, and think of if it in that way, but because their instincts tell them so. In that regard, I can kill and eat animals for my own sustain, (which I have), with no dilemma in my moral paradigm, as long as I am aware of how the animal was treated from conception to dead.

[@Jarb2104]

It very much is, because it demonstrates self awareness, which is what you are trying to dispute in my comment.

[@Jarb2104]

***** You are proposing the claim that those animals have self awareness. I proposed one way in which we can determine that fact. Now unless you can demonstrated what you are claiming I can't believe in your god. Edit: sorry in your claim that those animals are self aware.

[@SnokenX]

MrTechFox - You say that meat and animal products are not nessesary for human survival in the modern day era. You are partially correct. In the western world with well stocked shelves with imported goods from all over the world and vitamin pills to correct the absence of B12 it is fully possible to live a fully vegan life while sustaining a good health. However in most developing countries living as a vegan is impossible. The human brain and nervous system is dependent on essential amino acids that the body cannot create on it's own and minerals and vitamins only found in animal products. In short, the human body is constructed to eat some levels of meat and there is not a single native population that live off a vegan diet. However living as a vegetarian is quite possible but also has it's drawbacks for at least 50% of the population. In many cultures meat is considered food for men, making meat unavailable for women. That is one of the reasons why anemia is widely spread in these countries which in term affects the womens reproductive health and the risks of child delivery. Also the children are born anemic and because the breast milk is low in essential amino acids due to a heavy vegetarian diet these children become susceptible to infectious diseases which increases child mortality rates. Knowing all this it is easy for me to consider killing animals to be morally defensible. However just as in killing human beings, intent becomes important. It is morally defensible to kill animal and human alike if the aim is to survive. If the aim is to gain pleasure most would agree that the same act would be considered immoral. Things become more difficult in the case of causing suffering. First of all suffering cannot be judged from someone on the outside nor do beings feel the same degree of suffering from the same type of stimulus. How we deal with suffering is based on how we view the world and how we have dealt with suffering in the past which makes comparing suffering between individuals impossible. But non the less this is often done when viewing the world through utilitarian glasses where the action that causes the least suffering is considered the morally right one. For instance: You have a pig and your family is starving and your wife is pregnant and exhausted. You bring your pig to the backyard, feed it it's favorite meal and the swiftly club it in the head so that it dies instantly without feeling any pain or expecting to die. The end result is minimal suffering on the pigs part and maximal gain for the family who now have food to survive. Thus the action becomes morally defensible. In the another example: the family is rich but in the mood for pig for dinner because they enjoy the taste. They go into the pen of pigs, pick up a piglet and swiftly slaughter the squealing animal while still in the pen in front of the other animals. Was it is still morally acceptable to kill that animal? No, because the killing act caused suffering both for the killed pig and the other pigs in the pen without easing any of the non-existent suffering of the human family.

[@BurakovAS]

Matt has addressed this very question many times. It basically comes down to moral virtue vs. moral obligation.

[@LouisGedo]

The one glaring shortfall of Matt's view is that he apparently suggests that only humans be given moral consideration when the correct and logically consistent view would suggest that all sentient individuals be given moral consideration. But of course Matt is a carnist (not meant to be taken pejoratively) who clearly appears to have the desire (understandably to me) to rationalize that carnist belief system.

[@SansDeity]

Louis Gedo Maybe if you weren't de facto opposed to carnists you'd see that I never suggested that ONLY humans be given moral consideration. But keep slinging mud and making false assertions, it's doing wonders for your argument.

[@LouisGedo]

Matt Dillahunty , Hi, thank you and I truly appreciate your response and I know you have addressed this concern in the past....but certainly not in any way that many of us feel it deserves. Beginning at about 1:19 of this video it is clear that morality for you pertains only to humans as your reference ONLY "people" in your consideration. I've been a follower and fan of you for years and I don't think carnists are bad people....simply carnism is a logically inconsistent position if we assert that humans deserve moral consideration....after all, the only rational reason one could assert that is based on the fact that the humans we offer consideration to are sentient. Well, humans aren't the only species of animal that are sentient and further absurd rationalizations such as 'in group tho' aren't valid because we'd reject that in the context of the human species of animal.

[@BigAssNigga311]

Matt is the man, that background is blowing my mind right now.

[@tobybiscuits]

If intent matters then how does intent contribute to evolution? A deer isn't going to care about intent of a lion. It isn't going to give himself up and say eat me you need to eat too. Human beings do things that really go against population survival like risking our lives to save .

[@Novashadow115]

Youjin An Except saving others is helpful for our survival. Genes dont care about individuals much at all. also, comparing us to deers and lions is absurd. we are a social ape. A highly social ape.

[@whittfamily1]

We have cognitive abilities which far exceed those of a deer and a lion. We are able to use reason to formulate a morality. They aren't.

[@J.T.Stillwell3]

+Matt Dillahunty it is fallacious to argue that one can derive oughts(prescription) from reality(description/is). Also life is not preferable over death nor pleasure over pain but rather these are preferred or not. In the words of Hume "Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the entire world (death) to the scratching of my finger" ( it's just unusual ). Yes it is the case that most people prefer x but that doesn't make x an objective moral ought. I would argue and have argued that secular ethics is not objective or binding and that whether God exists or not moral nihilism is the case.

[@PrimalCulture]

Please, show the fallacies committed on this video. ... here is a "moral ought"from the "holy book" -kill the non believers, their children, the animals too; just keep the virgins-

[@TheZooCrew]

*I would argue and have argued that secular ethics is not objective or binding and that whether God exists or not moral nihilism is the case* So why are you still alive? *Yes it is the case that most people prefer x but that doesn't make x an objective moral ought* Stop conflating "objective" and "absolute." "Objective" refers to an ideal. In chess, there are objectively bad moves according to the rules and goals of chess. When the well-being of yourself and humanity is the ideal, we can indeed make objective judgments.

[@TheTavo5150]

Matt never makes a deductive argument concerning the "ought" dilemma. He is making appeals to facts of the universe. It could be that he believes that the "ought" dilemma can be "solved" using a inductive argument rather a syllogism.

[@SansDeity]

It'd be nice if you were actually accurately responding to my position, rather than what you mistakenly think my position is.

[@MMDelta9]

"Also life is not preferable over death nor pleasure over pain" If that is the case, how are you still alive and not in constant pain?

[@oopsiepoopsie2898]

Got in an argument with a pastor 30 mins ago. 45 minutes in when I brought up the genocide of a group of people that god said was okay to genocide. he told me about how many people killed in the name of atheism under hitler. Even though Stalin would have been a better example.

[@exodiathecoolone]

Regarding "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you": an easier refutation is this: I want other people to give me $100 every time they see me. Do they want to give me $100? Do I want to give them $100? No to both, I'd expect the answer to be, therefore, what Jesus (supposedly) said there is bogus.

[@alandunlap4106]

If you want to get the plain truth, Be not concerned with right and wrong. The conflict between right and wrong Is the sickness of the mind. -- Sengtan, the third Zen Patriarch

[@MrHapraker]

The distinction I've noticed with the morality question is that believers can't separate being good from devotion and/or obedience to whichever higher power they prefer, and if this is the case, my answer was then that I had no morality if it was dependent on being a believer, and further that this wasn't a problem because I have a scale of ethics, just like them, that helps me understand right from wrong, and further, to rather do right than wrong. If they are still unwavering or confused at that point, I ask them to think of some time, or many times if possible, where their source of morality, whatever book or scripture or teacher, had no clear answer on how to handle a situation properly, how to act properly when faced with a problem or situation. They should hopefully be able to think of at least one, and everyone I have ever presented this to has. It is in those moments that we do the absolute same thing. I follow that with the idea that laws are not morals, and see where that takes us. Always an interesting exchange.

[@Ashalmawia]

right. they are authoritarian, valuing submission to an authority, rather than egalitarian, valuing mutual benefit amongst everyone for our own sake.

[@sprinkle2513]

The sense of morality is an instinct that is inherited and a product of evolution. It is found in social animal species and is related to the emotion of disgust. Those with high disgust sensitivity are more likely to be xenophobic, conservative, and religious.

[@juanllorente3504]

You are funny!!

[@b0hd3n]

Actually, religions do change. (Perhaps not as quick as some would like) But history proves it. By various branches, or offshoots of whole "new religions". History also proves morality also changes. (again, perhaps not as quick as many would want)

[@dlewisa]

Apologists like William Lane Craig say that us atheists have no basis for saying that the Holocaust was wrong and use their moral argument to do so. Could we not turn this around on them? If god has a "plan" and can use things like the Holocaust to bring about some ultimate good, then how can they say that anything is evil? How can/does a morally perfect being use evil for a good end? It seems that in christianity two wrongs (or perhaps several million) can make a right. Thoughts?

[@kizzume]

Great subject! Your goatee looks great, really really nice, woof (yeah, I know you're straight [or at least I thought you were], but oh well), I hope you keep that. Sorry for not commenting on the actual subject *yet*. I'm glad Mangled Marionettes commented on it and I saw it on my G+ feed; I didn't know you had a separate channel.

[@peterwyetzner5276]

I believe the pertinent expression is "cats and dogs living together."

[@MyBozhidar]

i treat the word "morality' as undefinable. but there are an endless number of moralities; in principle, one for each person and for the same person different moralities at different times.

[@Konstruktivismus]

+MyBozhidar In other words: morality has no meaning at all. If a word can be used to state something and its opposite, then it has no meaning at all. However, if you look how these words "moral" or "ethics" are used in the language, you will notice, that they have a meaning and that it makes no sense to apply them in every case. For example, saying it is moral to harm people as often and as much as possible, is just plainly wrong.

[@MyBozhidar]

+Konstruktivismus One of the most pernicious, defeatist, hurtful errors in our panhuman thinking is not knowing the fact that true-false or right-wrong answers do not apply [cannot or should not be used] for one class statements; includes opinions, wishes, conclusions, assumptions, theories, labels/labeling/etc. Eg, there's is satan, god, angel, justice, god is just/almighty/loving. Answers true or false or yes or no do not pertain to the above kind of utterances. I cannot and will not answer the question, Does god exist as yes or not or true or false. Sch a question is to ne unanswerable. When it comes to judging morality or a given moral value, such as torture [yes, some people value that moral value or an act], justice/etc., answers wrong or right do not apply. Clearly, what is to one an inalienable right to lie [for a given cause/necessity or defense, say, of god/bible/communism/fascism, to another all the above is or may be evaluated as abominations. So, to what kind of class of statements answers true-false pertain? Only to what one smells, sees, touches, hears, tastes or to be short, only to facts or descriptive statements. Eg, Russia drove german troops out of russia! You can now say, yes, no, or even don't know, but willing to check it out or just take your word for it! This casts light on how apologists entrap on verbal level those debaters who are not aware of the fact that there is no answer-- and which is demanded with stridency/impatience/selfrighteousness/anger by apologists-- to a question, Is god just, inerrant, alknowing, almighty/etc. Yes or no/true or false do not pertain here; these answers pertain only to what our five senses discover for us or to historical facts; such as there was ww1 and ww2!

[@MangledMarionettes]

I've been waiting for this particular topic for a while, excited to see it's being addressed here.

[@REDCAP32X]

Thanks for your OPINION

[@endoalley680]

Hello - Where do you do your videos from? Always a different but tremendous natural background. Must be a meaning in this.

[@mgrey9066]

Or he lives in Texas and has an appreciation of nature and uses it to give us something pretty to look at behind him.

[@theuncalledfor]

The Golden Rule is my personal basis for my morality system. I don't use the concrete version, though. I use an abstract version. Basically. "Treat others how they want to be treated (within reason)." That, along with a principle of equal rights for all sapient beings. This leads to a necessity for maximized freedom within reasonable constraints of security (all rules/laws must only exist to protect the rights and equality of everyone, and all rules/laws that need to exist in order to protect the rights and equality of everyone must be identified and implemented). Laws against homosexuality are immoral. Laws against polygamy are immoral. (Cheating on a partner that has only agreed to a monogamous relationship, with or without actual marriage, is still immoral, though.) Hurting someone else's feelings deliberately or neglectfully and without provocation is immoral. Demanding that someone else be excessively careful not to hurt someone else's feelings is immoral. Laws against recreational drug use are immoral (though accurate drug education is necessary, and a minimum age for responsible usage must be established; this includes alcohol). Laws against smoking are needed (smoking damages others' health and violates their right not to inhale the toxic, disgusting fumes), but smoking must not be forbidden entirely; it must merely be limited to areas that can easily be avoided by non-smokers, ex-smokers, etc. Furthermore, not the substance (tobacco/nicotine), but the method (smoking/fume inhalation) must be regulated - so the regulation applies equally to all substances that can be consumed in such a way. Substances that have more use as, say, a rape drug, or other kind of weapon, may of course be regulated/forbidden as well, as this would be a reasonable security concern rather than an intrusion into people's private lives. Substances just must not be forbidden to "save people from their own stupidity"/prevent them from getting high. Laws against irresponsible use of recreational drugs (driving under the influence, etc.) must of course persist/be implemented as needed. I hope this gives a general idea of how I determine whether any given action is moral/immoral, and possibly even convert a few people to my way of thinking. (Or else inspire them to give a reasonable corrective response if this way is in fact incorrect.)

[@theuncalledfor]

finalfantasy8911 I have no idea what you mean by "existentialistic". And I never said that the universe itself identifies with the golden rule. The universe cannot identify with anything because the universe is not a sapient, or even sentient, being. Morality does in even matter at all to the universe itself. Morality only matters when dealing with interaction between conscious beings. (By which I mean, things that can feel, have emotions, experiences, can feel pain or loss or happiness, or joy, or pleasure, etc.; anything that's "aware", than can suffer, or value its own existence. Anything that could resent you for taking something from it. I can't give a clear definition because something might come up that I missed. I would rather give a vague but correct description than a clear but wrong definition. Also, keep in mind that the criteria I mentioned are linked by logical OR operations, not exclusive or (XOR) or AND operations, that means any one criterion is enough to qualify. The point is, morality is irrelevant to inanimate objects, and only animate objects (see above) are relevant to morality.)

[@oO_ox_O]

Empathy is taught? I am sure you didn't mean that, but it nearly sounded like that.

[@jojomojojones]

I'm an atheist but I have to admit that the theists have an advantage regarding the source of morality that secularists don't. Milton-Bradley is the authority for the rules of Monopoly.

[@SansDeity]

jojomojojones They have no advantage. Milton Bradley demonstrabl exists and is confirmably the authority behind their games - but only to the extent that people accept that authority - you can also have house rules that are improvements and many times rules modifications are used for tournaments, because they solve problems with the game.

[@kalibos]

Rocking a pretty sweet beard there Matt

[@that1grappler]

How would you define morality?

[@stevenpittman4324]

This discourse is helpfull to counter the arguments of t.v. preachers. So often their reasoning is hard to defeat in my mind. Thanks Matt.

[@johnhammond6423]

Our subjective morality has got to be more than just evaluating the consequence of my actions on others. I just can’t bring myself to hurt other people, I cringe at the thought of it. Surely this is an inherent part of my evolution as well?

[@izbo10]

To Christians, I tend to ask this question: Is lying wrong, you are obviously getting a yes answer. Then I ask was the teacher at Sandy Hook wrong for lying to the gunmen to save her kids and why so? I then explain that morals are based on judgment of what is best for society as a whole and not just because god said lying is wrong it is wrong. The irony is religion even realized religion is harm/benefit hence why it shifts the goalpost by talking about eternal punishment if you don't follow them. This is a big problem as it causes people to get wrong conclusions because they are told of harm that isn't actually there.

[@raindrop5533]

yup. this is the best time there ever has been I think.

[@CarbonOwl993]

Beautiful scenery.

[@krisaaron5771]

"Morality" is behavior that allows us to get along peacefully and work together with other humans for the common good of all. We evolved as a group species -- we can't survive long on our own, regardless of how strong or smart we are. One individual by themselves won't live long in the wilderness. He or she has to sleep eight out of every 24 hours -- while someone has to be awake and watching for predators. He or she needs a guardian watching for danger while they start a fire or clean a freshly killed animal for dinner. Morality comes from the trust we place in our companions and the trust they have for us. We can't trust someone who steals from others. We can't trust someone who kills anyone they disagree with. They need to be able to trust us not to give them false or intentionally incorrect information -- not to lie. Stealing, killing and lying are the "core" of morality. Shaming women who have sex before marriage (because they've supposedly violated "morality") is nothing more than a way to coddle fragile male egos by turning human females into possessions rather than treating them as people! If abortion is "immoral" then so is refusing to donate your non-vital organs and body parts to help keep a transplant recipient alive! No fetus is more precious, special and deserving of life than any other human at any age. Too often we confuse supposed "morals" with edicts handed down from religious leaders desperate for control and power. Witch-burnings, lynchings and public shamings are nothing more than the human equivalent of a buffalo stampede -- and involve just as much judgement and intelligence as a mass of terrified buffalo heading full speed for the edge of a cliff!

[@theboombody]

We can't survive long on our own, but we CAN survive long PRETENDING to honor commitments and changing our mind when we can get away with it. Many scam artists make their living that way. Maybe they're more evolved than honest people.

[@krisaaron5771]

@@theboombody Or maybe they're taking advantage of human gullibility by telling people what they want to hear while stealing from them. Scammers don't last long in a community --- they have to keep moving and constantly search for new targets while creating new scams. It's not an easy life, especially with children -- kids rarely thrive when constantly uprooted.

[@johnnelligan7093]

Matt, God given morality is not simply about carrot and stick, as you seem to present it. That said, there are consequences to all things. There is no naturalist explaination for morality and that is the point. You can argue that we can reason to create a society with the best possible outcomes, but you cant justify why we should have the best possible outcome to begin with, rather than ants or cockroaches. The fact is, even the humanist knows that one should not prosper while disregarding one's neighbor, because it is objectively wrong. But you can't say why as an atheist who believes everything is just the result of the same sort of chemical reactions.

[@jeffreyluciana8711]

Have a Blessed Day!

[@curtisfranks1556]

Morality is on a individual basis. The basic laws that intertwine with morality is fine (killing, stealing, assault, etc.) With these you can apply common sense when needed. Immorality on your likes, dislikes, beliefs that are applied on a personal level affects for the most just the person in question . Their well being alone is affected doesnt usually hurt anyone else. Immorality that does hurt everyone ( mentioned above). Personal ideas from someone elses idea of morality on another person is absolute bullshit and means nothing. Yeah christians we are talking about.

[@LM-yw7gn]

If a secular morality is concerned with human flourishing without the divine, why is intent so important? There's no God to see what's in the human heart, and I don't see how 'reality' is affected by intent-reality 'sees' only the act, not the intent.

[@janlim9374]

"Reality" is a poor method for discerning morality. The world can be a pretty awful place, full of people acting selfishly. That can be proven as real without a doubt. Morality can instead be based what we hope to be true -- a new reality much better that the current one. What behaviors can we do now that would make this hoped-for better world a reality? How might the perfect leader of this new world act? What would a perfect society look like? The results of actions for the purpose of a better future can't be proven definitively because they haven't yet come to pass.

[@linklawson5633]

A lot of Christian "morality" is nothing but PRUDISM anyway, which I think people can really DO WITHOUT. I mean, it's ohhhhhhhh don't cuss, don't masturbate, and women must never wear shorts, bathing suits, or miniskirts, and utter JUNK like THAT.

[@mysweaterlooksweird943]

Secular morality is Pog.

[@kashmir19851]

Matt... You are wrong. Don't do to others what they don't consent to. Its that simple... Right and wrong is derived from mirror neurons. You learn not to cause harm by trying it as a child. The one you hurt starts crying and by the use of mirror neurons you start crying too. So you experience the negative results of your actions on your own body.

[@amandine512]

The most common arguments made by believer for why God must exist in order for morality to exist stems from their desire for "ultimate", unalterable rules. They see secular morality as changing and therefore unreliable. But what they wish for and what actually is are not the same thing. Even among believers you have different ideas of what is moral or immoral. Rarely can any two believers, even of the same denomination, agree on what actions are moral or immoral. And things that were considered moral and just even just a few hundred years ago are now believed to be immoral. What is worse, is that most Christians can not tell you WHY something is immoral, but can only say it's forbidden by God. Is it immoral not to observe the Sabbath and keep it holy? According to the ten commandments it's forbidden, but ask a Christian to explain why it's immoral besides "God says it's wrong". There is no reason why it's immoral but they can't seem to understand that.

[@nitehawk86]

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

[@ateup880]

Only materials exist for atheist. Question, how much does hate weigh? Is there an atom for love? What's the chemical composition of the murder molecule?

[@Jay-vp3kk]

You don't even understand what an atheist is, else you wouldn't make any claim as to their beliefs at all.

[@ateup880]

Senatic oooooh.... I see....

[@ateup880]

You dont believe in any Gods and yet your telling me you believe in immaterial things?

[@Fluffykeith]

"You dont believe in any Gods and yet your telling me you believe in immaterial things?" ATE UP - Question for you...Are you attempting to imply that the only immaterial things that exist are Gods? Your initial post was asking about emotions like hate and love, suggesting that you put these in the category of "immaterial things"....and then you asked "You dont believe in any Gods and yet your telling me you believe in immaterial things?" You aren't making much sense.

[@ateup880]

How do you explain immaterial reality if there is no God?

[@JH-ti6pp]

Respectfully- you state that theists (in my case, a Christian) don't have an objective source of morality either. I understand where you're coming from there by stating that we believe our objective source is simply a book, subject to interpretation and so on. Being an atheist, that argument makes sense because your statement is based on the belief that there is no creator. So, to you, it's just a book. That's your view and I respect that. For a Christian, we believe God is our creator, that mankind is a creation, and that so is moral law, and that this book is the word of God. Based on our beliefs, moral law is absolutely objective. You need to rewind and just state that our belief in a God is silly and false, if that's what you believe, because you can't claim our objective moral law isn't objective if you've already written off God to begin with. You cant suggest that a Christian who truly believes in our God as our creator and the Gospel as the truth view the bible as just subjective material. You need to just stop at your belief that God doesn't even exist and leave it at that. There's nothing to argue regarding morality between two people if one doesn't even believe in God and the other does

[@Cant.Take.It.Anymore]

Any other geology lovers get lost in in the scenery?

[@ares106]

This mysterious white floating beard speaks the truth!

[@Yorker1998]

Let me know if you agree that Matt would absolutely tear William Lane Craig down in a debate on the existence of God. I'd say that is the perfect match up.

[@thefluffyone999a]

That coke zero carried the show.

[@GodWorksOut]

Dat pesky fly 3:31

[@Towndrunk26er]

Would it have been moral to smash that fly?

[@drunkenking2368]

We didn't need a God or a book to tell us that killing/stealing was wrong we just needed intelligence and empathy, yet earlier in the video you remarked that children need to be taught morality they don't come pre-programed. Is this a contradiction?

[@shortmotions]

+DrunkenKing23 He didn't say children need teaching morality, he was using an analogy to explain why secular morality is more effective. If you go back and listen to it the analogy had nothing to do with morality, it was to do with understanding the effects of ones actions.

[@Zeupater]

Ummm, no. There's no contradiction. I don't know about your experience with children or having been a child, but kids don't tend to have the reasoning faculties adults are capable of. In either case the case of the two kids was demonstrating a point. The same point can be made with adults, whether morality is genuine if one is threatened to behave a particular way or if one behaves based on rationality or how it affects other people. There was a legal code banning theft, murder, perjury, rape, etc. long before the time Moses is supposed to have lived. The 'Golden Rule' was articulated centuries before the existence of Christianity. The Greek Philosophers, the Egyptians, the sacred writings of Ancient India ... People were concerned with morality long before the Bible.

[@juanllorente3504]

There may be some external source of morality, we don't know what it is and we call it God

[@rainbowwizard1821]

The fact that there *may* be, doesn't equal there is. Through history, it has been shown that morality is a matter of personality and environments.

[@cvs-podcast]

Matt Dillahunty: Much of what you preach is true. Sadly it is all built on an implicit assumption which you (absurdly) explicitly deny: that we have free-will.

[@cvs-podcast]

@deadend *preach* /prēCH/ _verb,_ to earnestly advocate (a belief or course of action). _"my parents have always preached toleration and moderation"_ If there is no free will, then there can be no free reasoning, no free judgments; and so your comment is meaningless.

[@cvs-podcast]

@deadend If you prefer your usage of the word preach, then all you need to do is justify your absurd choice. Meanwhile, I remain free. Free to reason. Free to judge. And I freely judge that my usage of the word preach is more appropriate that yours. LOL

[@cvs-podcast]

@deadend Ok. So, to summarize: (1) I said that there was much truth in what Matt was "earnestly advocating" (2) You objected and then went on to say that Matt was "delivering a sermon or religious address to an assembled group of people." (3) You claim that you are unable to reason freely or judge freely. (4) I think you might be right where your own silly reasoning and arbitrary judgments are concerned. (5) I, meanwhile, remain free to reason, free to judge, and free to choose.

[@cvs-podcast]

@deadend You might almost be tempted to say that I am being irresponsible with my thoughts, words, and deeds; but that would necessarily imply that I have free will. LOL

[@cvs-podcast]

@deadend Your opinion is purely subjective, merely relative, and eminently fallible and changeable, as you MUST admit lest you fall in Monotheism. LOL

[@FaithfulBM]

You are describing a system where morality is based on human assessment of what is right and wrong based on each situation. That has no wisdom in it at all. Wisdom understands that morality must be based on him nature...which is sinful from birth. We do things that harm each other every day....and some don't even know it or won't admit it. If we are sinful by NATURE -- there must be a set of moral that humans REQUIRE simply because we are born flawed.

[@skipbellon4342]

I wouldn't want to live in a world without God, because what would that world be like? Answer: Just look around you... you are living in a world with no Omnipotent God. There could be a God, I'll admit, if you look at it from a different perspective. Life is God. Life populates the universe, so God is everywhere. We feel a comradeship with other living things, because we all realize, on a subconsciousness level, that we are all a part of life, or God. God has no effect on the laws of the universe, instead survives within those laws.

[@purumr]

what's your position on being vegan ? isn't a moral thing ?

[@Novashadow115]

Phoenix He isnt a vegan

[@AV57]

Matt avoids the topic of veganism and animal rights like the plague. It's the massive, glaring flaw in his stated moral philosophy. He's been challenged many times over the years on it and he seems to just wave his hand every time and play dumb, implying that animal rights isn't even a topic of morality, and therefore he doesn't have to address it.

[@t-rizzle0509]

AV 57 People who tend to do that are intellectually dishonest.

[@MrRhomas913]

Secular moral systems seem to be utilitarian?

[@MrRhomas913]

@deadend - who decides what works, the "learned experts" ? Under that argument, a society such as Nazi Germany could be categorized as a secular moral system.

[@MrRhomas913]

​@deadend - Easy there tiger. I can tell you don't get out much and you presume a lot. LOL a belt buckle...really, a belt buckle!!!! Ever read Mein Kampf? Hitler was not a christian but found Christianity useful to control people (see the writeup on wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler). Anyhow, I am just pointing out what I see as the weak link of a secular moral system which is that morality becomes subjective/utilitarian. It would be purely logical and utilitarian to kill those who are mentally deficient, or crippled, or in comas but for some reason we choose to keep them alive. A secular moral system could reasonably conclude that wellbeing/happiness/health is maximized by euthanizing those who are not contributing. Do we appoint "learned experts" or do we use majority voting to determine what the ethical rules are? Either could present a bad result. The learned elites of Communist Russia determined what was best for the masses (and not always to the masses benefit); and the masses of Stalin's Pale of Settlement would have likely voted to kill the Jews. All moral systems are imperfect.

[@potomastercam609]

Maybe matt is god, This video proves he has teleportation powers.

[@speakingconstitution]

Matt, listened to your lecture in another video, here is my tesponse... The longer I listen the more I realize that this guy is closer to teaching the truth of the morality spoken of by God as opppsed to the morality falsely attributed to God by Churchianity which is why I too no longer participate in churchianity, however, the difference between me & this speaker, I gave God a 2nd chance and actially read & studied His word in context away from the influences of any man. Case in point.. thou shall not kill. God is not strict, His word specifically tells us that there are different types of killing, that there is a difference between out right murder and the unintended consequences that cause another to die, such as manslaughter and according to God, the punishment is not the same for manslaughter as they are for murder. The later is death, the former is simply exile away from ones family where one still lives & works, they are just not allowed to return to their hometown until the time of their punishment has been fulfilled. So even God never sentenced a manslaughterer to be locked away in a prison, yet secular morality does, May the good speaker rectify that one as it would seem that he has not actually studied God's word but simply relied on mans false interpretation of God's word.