Former Atheist & Objective Morality | Nathaniel - Mexico City | Talk Heathen 02.15

[@tedgrant2]

In the ancient world, it was known that food is very important for life. It was thought that the gods needed food also and so feeding the gods became a regular activity. Some foods are cooked and if burnt, mostly disappears and smoke rises up towards the sky. It was thought that fire was a manifestation of the gods, "consuming" the food. See Leviticus 9:24 "there came a fire out from before the Lord and consumed upon the altar the burnt offering and the fat, which when all the people saw, they shouted and fell on their backs with their legs up in the air". They thought they actually saw God eating the food. Christians, today, have a very different idea. Instead of feeding their god, they imagine eating his raw flesh and drinking his warm blood. Yuk.

[@mads2357]

If I am in a world where everyone acts immoral it's much more likely I will be treated immoraly. Therefore if I try to make a moral world I benefit myself and my decedents more in the long run. And another way of addressing it. We are a social species. We need eachother to survive. Therefore through evolution we have, to varying degrees, just gotten an instinct to do the more moral thing instead of the selfish. There are circumstances where other instincts take over but usually we call moments where either instinct may take over in any given human for dilemmas or amoral situations. Example: eating a dead person is wrong but if you are starving and eating that person may save you, then it's not as wrong and discussion is to be had about the morals of it. Here survival and morality might tug in you in different directions. So both on a logical and a biological ground there is a good reason to act morally.

[@natanaellizama6559]

But you can't modify the world to any reasonable degree. You're just a person. The amount of effort you would need to perform in order to modify even a nil amount of the world's positions is extraordinary, while the benefit from doing so is even less. So it's a very bad strategy if you want to get the bananas, sort of speak. So no, logically your counter argument makes little sense Evolution does not dictate ethical behaviour. Animals are pretty amoral. Evolution favors the strategy that most favours your survival ( and that of your gene pool ) and that very well includes unethical behavior. For example, rape is a useful evolutionary strategy for some males, specially in war times. We don't do that anymore as in the last second in our evolutionary strategy in a large manner, but not because of "evolution." Evolution accounts for perfectly amorality. In fact, morality is as much a hindrance as immorality, amorality allows for a broader range of behavioral possibilities. So no, biologically amorality makes perfect sense and in fact it's what you perceive in the natural world

[@roelescamilla6022]

Should have asked him for an example of when acting “immorally” would be more advantageous then acting “morally,” when considering rational behavior and reasonable people.

[@ApocryphalDude]

God is pretty subjective.

[@brucebaker810]

Not Omni. But Maximally subjective. Only as subjective as it's logically possible to be. :-)

[@Noname-w7f1e]

Living morally usually leads to a better, more fulfilling life. The countries where this rule doesn’t work are usually the most religious ones...

[@natanaellizama6559]

Contentious I would say. What do you even mean by morally? For starters I think you would be confusing morality and ethics. Morality just means the local customs, the moras. Ethics speak about a universal code of behaviour. Do you mean ethics? If so, you'd have to wonder why that is. Evolution does not account for ethics; after all unethical behavior can perfectly explain natural behavior and can be a better evolutionary strategy. The simulations have been run - albeit in more simpler environments - and they show that a flexible "ethics" - one that is unethical and ethical, depending on the context - is the best strategy. Purely ethical behavior or purely unethical behavior does not lead you to the best trade-off.

[@goddessmelanisia]

1: Morality is subjective. 2: our morality is based in empathy. 3 Empathy is evolutionary advantageous, social animals have greater survival rates. 4 Hence, animals with mirror neurons flourish.

[@QueenBoadicea]

7:44 This sounds like a twist on the statement that a lot of theists make about or against atheists. They wonder why atheists aren't out sinning--raping, stealing, murdering, etc.--if they don't believe in God.

[@庫倫亞利克]

He made that point two minutes into the video, but yes, he was basically reiterating the old "atheists, what's stopping you from murdering and raping people left and right right now." Because I don't want to. Why is it such a hard question for them?

[@antediluvianatheist5262]

@Jason Stephens They usually just reply to me that disbelieving in god, does not change that god sets the rules. Still a good argument though.

[@natanaellizama6559]

Well, rape and murder are the most extreme forms of sinning. They are useful in these conversations because they are extreme, but I don't think that someone will want to go raping like a madman. The question is also not personal but generic. Rather than "why aren't YOU raping?" it's "is rape an ethical wrong?" There are indeed reasons why you wouldn't rape, or why someone else wouldn't rape, but are those reasons ethical? I don't think under atheism one is justified in not raping due to an ethical boundary, rather, you would be justified if that action is not in accord with your own predisposition, with your culture, it is inconvenient because of STD's, it is inconvenient because of the law, etc... those are practical, pragmatic reasons, not *ethical*

[@capthavic]

Why can't doing good things for others make me feel good in return? What about all the people who are theists and still do monstrously evil regardless or even because of that faith?

[@ToHoldNothing]

Caller says that truth only matters in a pragmatic sense, yet they can't apply the same logic to morality? Why shouldn't morality also be based on utility without necessarily becoming an egocentric principle where you only care about yourself and an in group? If we took his pragmatism to its logical conclusion, it doesn't mean selfishness is the virtue, it's considering benefits and utility on a larger scale than yourself, because we are not islands unto ourselves. The benefit to you to help someone is reflective in a social sense as well as your own personal virtue being consistent It's painfully stupid that he appeals to divine mandate and tries to phrase it in a way that sounds like the Kantian form, but really is just saying "God is the authority because we need an absolute mind for moral obligations, not just utility" I don't often interact with my neighbors, but if I was in a situation where I found one unconscious on the street, I would likely call someone to help, probably call an ambulance if we thought it necessary and such. I don't have to be invested in them as some in group like my family, they're suffering and it's generally an agreed upon principle with ANYONE that you should do unto others as you would have them do unto you (WAY older than Jesus, btw, goes back pretty much to Hinduism, a common human moral understanding of reciprocity). And I'd expect someone to do that as well: even if their motivation was rooted in, say, the Christian parable about the Samaritan (which is ironic, because Samaritans are fairly orthodox Jews in modern understanding), the mentality still applies technically of helping because it benefits you or is a general duty, often to humanity but sometimes phrased as a duty to God

[@natanaellizama6559]

Caller here: "Caller says that truth only matters in a pragmatic sense, yet they can't apply the same logic to morality? " Under atheism truth only matters in a pragmatic sense. The same logic applies to morality, which is why it destroys the concept of morality. A pragmatic morality is not a morality because morality demands it being upheld beyond its pragmatism. In other words, if you are moral BECAUSE it benefits you, you are not being moral, any more than if you are loyal because you benefit from it you are not really being loyal. Furthermore, a pragmatic morality IS a selfish one almost by definition. The question is practical for whom? Well, the answer is evident: To whoever asks themselves the moral question. In other words, if you morality is reduced to pragmatism, a moral question would be "Is this behaviour practical to me?" The answer is "It depends on what my goals are. Being tortured for the betterment of humanity is practical if your base - that is, of higher level - goal is the betterment of humanity; on the other hand, it is impractical if your base goal is your well-being". So the central question for pragmatism is: What is the base goal humans seem to have? I will tell you without a shadow of a doubt, it's certainly not "the betterment of humanity." In fact, under atheism, it is painfully obvious one would not expect that to be. After all, no other animal has the notion of universal betterment of MY race, or races in general as their primal motivations. That's - under a materialist perspective - evidently an artificial construct of humans and not their base, primal motivations. The base, primal motivations of animals is always self-centered: MY survival, MY genes, MY well-being -.

[@RegebroRepairs]

The main problem is that Nathaniel keeps conflating what would be a moral action with what action that you would want to take. That's not the same thing. But as a christian, he is used to "What god wants is moral", and without god he then thinks "what humans want is moral", and that's not how secular humanism works.

[@natanaellizama6559]

Ok, I'll bite. Secular humanism as I understand it, works on the base axiom that humanity is inherently valuable .That to me leads to an objective standard with a logical inexorability. Yet, an objective standard also logically leads to God because an objective standard presupposes a) an objective source of values, b) that source having authority. Only beings can have authority - we casually say that the law has authority, but that's inexact, as the authority comes from the humans that upheld the law -. So, if my logic is solid and my premises are solid - which I think they are -, secular humanism defeats itself. Also, to defend my position: When we talk about morality we're talking about ethics, not morality - morality refers to the local customs, the moras -. The concept of ethics is a universal code of behaviour. Without God -as a concept, not as a white man in the sky - there is no defensible arguments for having a universal code of behaviour. So we are left with a PERSONAL or societal code of behaviour. What is the best strategy for your behaviour? That is, what is the best code of behaviour? That depends on what the goal is. Whatever we desire is our goal, therefore, yes, without God - an objective source of ethics - we are left with making our own "ethics" - although that would not be universal, so not really ethics, it would just be a code of behaviour. If the desire is for hedonistic pleasure, then things like cheating, stealing, etc..., are not only permissible but rational and "ethical". Really, there would be no "evil" actions, just stupid ones per one's goal.

[@Gillockdown]

What I think is interesting is that Nathaniel seemed to understand that Theists and Atheists both have moral ideals. However, his claim seemed to be that Christians have an obligation to behave in accordance to their ideal, whereas Atheists can choose to act against this ideal for their own benefit. The reality is that each individual, regardless of their beliefs, can choose (and most do at times) to act selfishly. There would need to be some evidence of this being more prevalent among Atheists for his point to hold any weight.

[@natanaellizama6559]

> However, his claim seemed to be that Christians have an obligation to behave in accordance to their ideal, whereas Atheists can choose to act against this ideal for their own benefit. Hey man, glad for your response. It's not quite my argument, similar but not my argument. My argument is that atheists don't have an inherent source of a moral obligation(a moral ought), so while a certain action perceived as 'good' can be a smart decision, but then you're not having morality, you're having personal convenience. An atheist can be 'moral' because of empathy and social structure and those things are good for him, but he's not being moral, he's just being pragmatic. The moment acting morally runs counter to that individual's well-being, then he's rationally justified in acting immorally. I think that's pretty obvious if you think about it, because you're not acting from a moral obligation or morality, but rather a) your well-being, and b) in relation to your well-being social norms and your biology. My second point would be that we all know instances where we would benefit more from acting immorally all things considered(risk of getting caught, retaliation when caught vs reward) than not. An example would be you notice that someone dropped their wallet just before taking the bus and no one else would be able to see you grabbing the wallet should you chose it. In that instance, there are few reasons why an atheist would be rationally justified in NOT grabbing the wallet, and a strong reason for justifying his grabbing of the wallet. > The reality is that each individual, regardless of their beliefs, can choose (and most do at times) to act selfishly. There would need to be some evidence of this being more prevalent among Atheists for his point to hold any weight. As a side note I would point to atheistic regimes as indeed a source of selfishness and nihilism apparent in mass-murderous regimes in the last century. They weren't killing saying "we are killing because of atheism", but the underlying reasons that lead to such mass-murderous regimes can be attributed directly, I believe, to atheism and the annihilation of previous systems of belief that while maybe false and illusory, did gave a framework against such mass-murderous actions, and cutting it off without replacing it with a stronger framework of morality or societal value gave rise to nihilism, which gave rise to such philosophies of human value that allowed mass murder. I think that my point stands regardless of whether or not atheists act morally or not, because my point is that morality under atheism is as much a delusion as religion would be. You don't point to billions of religious people and say "see, there are religious people", you would say" yeah, but religion is still delusional and not a rational belief". I think that just starting from the premise that there is no inherent source of moral obligation(or an inherent value to morality) you arrive inevitably to the erosion of morality as a concept(good vs bad) and it's replaced then by pragmatism. So the rational process of deciding the value of an action is not whether the action is good or bad, but rather if it's conducive to your well-being or not, and as such, certain actions generally considered to be 'bad', can be rationally justified as THE BEST action.

[@Gillockdown]

Thanks for reading my comment and clarifying your position. I have a few things I would like to clarify as well. >My argument is that atheists don't have an inherent source of a moral obligation(a moral ought), so while a certain action perceived as 'good' can be a smart decision, but then you're not having morality, you're having personal convenience. An atheist can be 'moral' because of empathy and social structure and those things are good for him, but he's not being moral, he's just being pragmatic. The moment acting morally runs counter to that individual's well-being, then he's rationally justified in acting immorally. I can't speak for all atheists, but I would say that the inherent quality of my moral system is the well-being of humanity and not just myself. That being said, I think many people have acted in their own best interest at times and I don't see how a Christian, for example, is completely immune to selfishness. >My second point would be that we all know instances where we would benefit more from acting immorally all things considered(risk of getting caught, retaliation when caught vs reward) than not. An example would be you notice that someone dropped their wallet just before taking the bus and no one else would be able to see you grabbing the wallet should you chose it. In that instance, there are few reasons why an atheist would be rationally justified in NOT grabbing the wallet, and a strong reason for justifying his grabbing of the wallet. I would grab the wallet, look for some sort of identification, then try to contact the person to return it. I know because I've done this before and I didn't have to think twice about it. Being an atheist doesn't make me unable to discern right from wrong, but your argument seems to hint at the idea that it enables me to choose to act in a way I wouldn't if others were observing me. Realistically, this choice is one that everyone can make regardless of your moral system. I won't get into the "atheistic regime" vs "religious regime" argument because both groups have killed large numbers of people with at least some influence from their belief system. However, a religion alone (or lack thereof) doesn't cause you to kill others and doesn't prevent it either.

[@natanaellizama6559]

> Thanks for reading my comment and clarifying your position. I have a few things I would like to clarify as well. Thanks to you for engaging. > I can't speak for all atheists, but I would say that the inherent quality of my moral system is the well-being of humanity and not just myself. That being said, I think many people have acted in their own best interest at times and I don't see how a Christian, for example, is completely immune to selfishness. Maybe you are the exception but I think a point beyond contestation is that humans are selfish. Even altruists are selfish. There are certain truly altruistic people but they are very few. I would say less than 10% are true altruists. For example, you say you have as your inherent goal the well-being of humanity, but I would ask. Of the 168 hours of the week, how many are spent doing things whose goal is to improve humanity and how many to improve your own well-being(and your family)? For most people it would be, what? 2 hours doing altruistic things? People eat, sleep, go to work, have recreation, all in relation to themselves and their well-being. They choose a partner, they choose their jobs, they choose their actions with the goal of improving their lives, not of strangers. So, while let's say you are the 1% or so of people who is truly altruistic, I'm talking about the VAST majority. Either way, your moral system is not superior to others, as you would need an objective standard to judge those systems, and atheism cannot have such a system beyond the intrinsic goal of individuals, which is inherently selfish. > I don't see how a Christian, for example, is completely immune to selfishness. It's not that christians are immune to selfishness. What christianity(and most religions) do is it provides a framework to judge our inherent selfishness and combat it. Without it, there's absolutely no rational sense why we should condemn our own selfishness. After all, selfishness is by definition what is best for the individual. > Being an atheist doesn't make me unable to discern right from wrong, Of course atheists can be moral. What I'm arguing is that morality under atheism as generally though(good vs evil) is a delusion and not rational. It's an ideal. What's pragmatic, what's best for the individual is the goal, not an unjustified notion of "good and evil". Under atheism "good and evil" as concept has as much rational defense as "religious duty". You may feel empathy, have social behaviour, but that's just your framework; and religiosity is also intrinsic part of our framework as humans. So if you want to ditch religiosity as a delusion, then you also have to be willing to ditch other things as mere biological by-products. I'm not saying with this don't be empathic, but be RATIONALLY empathic. That is, be moral because it is self-serving, otherwise it's irrational, as going to church on sundays when you're an atheist. I'm curious, beyond biology, on what you ground right from wrong? If you mean to say "I'm a member of society and there are rules in society" that's just pragmatism, not morality. > Realistically, this choice is one that everyone can make regardless of your moral system. Sure they can, but they can't rationally and justifiably do it. How do you defend your action as rational? You let go money, which increases your well-being. Let's amp it up a little. Let's say it's a magic wallet that contains $100 million USD. Would your action not change? What would the rational defense for leaving the benefit of $100 million USD without any apparent risk, or any apparent risk to match the reward? I can't think of it being anything else than irrational under atheism. > However, a religion alone (or lack thereof) doesn't cause you to kill others and doesn't prevent it either. Both do if you truly believe the religion. If someone is truly a christian, unless he can rationally make a pathway for not engaging in immoral behavior commanded by religion, then he's dishonest at not being immoral. If it says "stone gays to death", unless you can rationally maintain that religion alongside that command(because they are tied) but not engage in that action then that person is being hypocritical in his actions, and either a) has no reason to believe in his religion, b) has no reason to NOT stone people. But conversely, the same happens with atheism. Atheism rationally leads to amorality, which is truly immoral. The judge of actions is not "good vs evil", but pragmatic: "beneficial or not beneficial" in relation to people's inherent goal of individual(and family) well-being. Feeling "bad" because society condemns an action as immoral, but that leads to your well-being is as irrational as feeling "bad" for having casual sex as an atheist. It's natural due to biology the first 5 times, but once a line is crossed, then the guilty feeling dissipates and you have every reason to engage in casual sex, or in the other example in societally condemning(or even societally accepted) immoral actions such as rape, murder, theft, etc..., depending on the net benefit in the reward/cost analysis rationally done. I agree, atheists DON'T do it, but that's because they're as deluded as a christian who defends immoral passages in his religion to maintain his worldview: it's an irrational belief and a delusion. So an atheist is confronted with 4 options: a) find a rational pathway between morality and atheism(as unlikely as a christian defending the stoning of gays as 'moral'), b) ignore the conflict and be hypocritical, c) understand it, and choose then to be atheist AND amoral(which is immoral), d) understand it and recognize then that the most moral and rational thing to do is to drop his belief in atheism. This doesn't mean believe in a religion, but at least you have to believe in an objective, supra-human source of morality that you OUGHT to follow(that is, a source of moral obligations).

[@SelcraigClimbs]

Natanael Lizama hey dude, just a quick reply: I think that adding the "good and evil" idea is a potential strawman. I would give a rough approximation of what Matt Dillahunty clarifies quite often. if we agree to base morality on wellbeing, then we can say there are objectively right and wrong ways to increase or decrease wellbeing. You can label a correct way of increasing wellbeing as "good" or an incorrect way as "evil" but you would have to define those terms and it gets messy. I'd rather just say it's a correct or incorrect way to increase wellbeing, therefore, a moral or immoral act. Good and Evil seem irrelevant to me

[@SelcraigClimbs]

Natanael Lizama "atheism rationality leads to amorality, which truly immoral" that seems like a pardox to me. How can amorality be equated with immorality?

[@Gnomig01]

We set morality out of empathy and survival of species. we have experimented over the last 30,000years w what helps our species thrive. being selfish isnt logical. We may be selfish in nature, but we can take our experiences and know how such selfishness effects our survival.

[@natanaellizama6559]

Whose survival? The individual or the group in long term? I'll give you an example. Why a business owner NOT pollute the planet that will cause long term issues with a segment of humanity(let's say that segment is not even in the same continent than him) in 200 years, but in the now he and his family will be set for life for a couple of generations at least?

[@Gnomig01]

Natanael Lizama that is a very good question...and certainly i would agree there are grey areas. In your example however I would still say that the business owner lacks morals. He is still making a decision to effect lives to provide his family comfort... However to modify your question, there would be a point where his families survival would certainly come first. If a person breaks into his home trying to murder the family, you are right in protecting your family. In opposition, if you had the vial of an antidote to save just your family, or give the vial to researchers that could save 100 people, i would say the moral choice is to save the most lives. But this is why morals are subjective, not absolute. Each person will also use their experiences and world views in developing their response to a moral dilemma.

[@natanaellizama6559]

@Trent Clancy Hey man, I appreciate the answer. I think that under atheism it's clear that the rational conclusion is that morality is a set of societal indoctrinated rules that may or may not be rational for that society, and more importantly may be rational or not for the INDIVIDUAL who lives in that society. That is, you shouldn't be moral, being moral is stupid. You should be an AMORAL person who may act in ways that are perceived moral or immoral depending on the context of such an action. That is, the question shifts from: "is this right or is this wrong?" to a liberated question of: "do I benefit from this or do I not?". The person in the example may ACT immorally based on that society's standards, but he may even act in a legal manner and so should not be concerned pragmatically about the punishment from it. He and his family benefit entirely from that action, and given that we are inherently self-centered primates under atheism, why the hell would you expect someone to act morally when acting immorally is more beneficial to that person? Because you hope his indoctrination kicks in without a rational justification? What's the rational justification for him to act morally in such a case? There's no rational justification for him to act morally and every rational justification to act immorally, and he could go both ways because he's an amoral primate who has a developed brain that can tell him which course of action is more likely to give him "bananas".

[@Gnomig01]

Natanael Lizama I think the best reply i can give you is this. If you look to the bible for morality, remember that it endorses slavery, physical abuse, treats women less than men, states that rape is okay if you marry her and pay her dad afterwords. If you agree that slavery, rape, abuse, and murdering neighboring towns is immoral, than you do not get your morality from the bible, you get it from society.

[@natanaellizama6559]

@Trent Clancy I'm not a christian(at least not in a traditional manner) so it's not a very relevant answer. I think the Bible has been corrupted, modified, mistranslated and misunderstood. I agree we don't get our morals from the Bible. Also, the question isn't "where do we get our morals"? In a way that's a useless question because there's always a source. The question is: are morals justified under atheism? And they are not. Actions PERCEIVED as moral within a society MAY be justified, but the actor is amoral. That is, an amoral actor can be good to his children for example and be a good father, which is perceived as moral, but he's not doing it because it's "the right thing to do", which is just short for "what societal indoctrination enslaves me to do", but the liberated sense of "this are my genes and a source of happiness for me, I need to take care of them and WANT to take care of them". It's an amoral motivation for a perceived moral action, and that's fine. The thing is also that your morals don't come from society exactly. What if you were living in a society that rewarded pederasty? Would it then be morally justified to abuse children? Well, then the atheist goes to biology: we are moral and care about society because that's what allowed us to survive. Fine, but that still doesn't say anything about a society that is immoral, and it doesn't obligate me to CARE about humanity's survival in the long term and as a whole, or anything like that; and they also forget that in their worldview we are evolved primates, acts of selfishness, competition and violence are as innate in us as compassion. Sociopaths are as evolved as regular people and someone who biology has given the sexual configuration of a sexual predator is as evolved as the rest of us. He may be more harmful to society and that justifies society in fighting against it, but it also justifies society fighting against other acts that are harmful to it but beneficial to an individual; for example Russia's take on homosexuality is that not having kids when you are able to harms society(which arguably it does) and so sexual predation and homosexuality are on par as equally unjustified to a society which is unintended for the atheist promoting this worldview. It also doesn't mean that while society can fight back against acts of individuals that are perceived as being harmful to it, the individual can also fight back against society if it perceives society's acts as being harmful to HIS well-being AND that the actor who does the moral judgement of the actions starts with the individual. The question is not: should society have rules, but rather, should an individual be metaphysically obligated to follow either those rules or those of his biology within his control to disobey according to his free will? Nitezsche's answer and the rational answer is: NO. A man makes his own rules and takes the consequences of them, but he isn't obligated any which way, which makes him amoral by conclusion.

[@wunnell]

He asks why should an atheist behave morally rather than immorally if it benefits them more ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. That last part is very important because, to be frank, he's not considering all things. For instance, an example might be stealing. His question might be why shouldn't an atheist steal if it benefits them but how does it benefit an atheist to live in a world where it's OK for other people to steal from them? In these scenarios, the thing that these people don't consider how the world they live in is going to be somewhere that they would be happy to live in if it's OK for everyone else to do whatever they want to that person? If you're going to talk about morality then you're talking about everyone, not making special rules for yourself. Of course, there's nothing to make someone live that way but there's no way to make a theist live by a god's rules either, which is why Christianity involves the promise of reward if you comply and punishment if you don't. Christianity inherently relies on people's selfishness.

[@wunnell]

People are inherently selfish. Everything is done for selfish reasons. People don't help others because it benefits others. People help others because it makes them feel good to do that. People may sacrifice themselves for the sake of others because the thought of living in a world where they didn't do that makes them feel bad. I may not be going to be around forever but I'm quite capable of imagining what the world will be like after I'm gone and imagining that world in various ways makes feel different things. Imagining that the world will be a good place after I'm gone makes me feel good now and so I do things to make the world that way, thus making it easier to imagine the future world being that way and thus making me feel better now.

[@natanaellizama6559]

@wunnell Sacrificing yourself because the thought of living in a world when not doing so makes them feel bad is a weak and stupid thing to do. WHY should I feel bad about it? It makes no sense to feel bad about it, it does not aid me to feel bad, so why give power to that bad feeling that will ultimately lead to my destruction? You're turning altruism to selfishness(which you are merely claiming, and not proving), and then turning it into weakness and stupidity from the actor's part.

[@wunnell]

@@natanaellizama6559 *"Sacrificing yourself because the thought of living in a world when not doing so makes them feel bad is a weak and stupid thing to do."* I disagree. I'd say that sacrificing yourself when doing so does not make you feel bad is more stupid. How is doing something that makes you feel bad smart? Even if you're right, people do stupid things all the time so it's hardly out of character for human beings. *"WHY should I feel bad about it?"* No one is saying that you SHOULD feel bad about it. The fact is that people DO feel bad about it. The question then is what SHOULD those people do about that? Is it better to sacrifice yourself and good about yourself at the end or live on feeling bad about yourself? A case could be made for either and only the individual can answer as to what would be better for them. Different people can and do feel differently about the same thing, in case you haven't noticed. *"It makes no sense to feel bad about it, it does not aid me to feel bad, so why give power to that bad feeling that will ultimately lead to my destruction?"* Maybe it makes no sense for you but, in case you haven't noticed, not everyone is the same. Different people are born with and develop different predispositions so what makes sense for one doesn't necessarily make sense for another. Every person has different core values and every person compares the outcome of an action against those values to determine whether to perform that action or not. The same action in the same situation will make perfect sense for some people because the outcome aligns with their core values while it won't for others. If you can't understand that then it's a problem with you. *"You're turning altruism to selfishness"* Yep. It is my hypothesis that people only ever do anything because it makes them feel good. Even actions that are clearly against a person's best interests in certain areas benefit them in others. *"which you are merely claiming, and not proving"* That's true. *"and then turning it into weakness and stupidity from the actor's part."* Which you are merely claiming and not proving.

[@natanaellizama6559]

​@@wunnell *I disagree. I'd say that sacrificing yourself when doing so does not make you feel bad is more stupid. How is doing something that makes you feel bad smart? Even if you're right, people do stupid things all the time so it's hardly out of character for human beings.* Because the doing something involves the total annihilation of being and you have an alternative, which is to take control of your own life. Something being in-character for human beings does not make it a good thing to do. Being and acting stupidly hinders your own life, and if you are fine with it, then you are free to do so, but you can't say it's not a stupid or weak thing to do. *The question then is what SHOULD those people do about that? * If you are giving your life then it is a matter of SHOULD. You are saying, nothing is or can be more important than this, because all of those things pre-suppose being alive. Yet the event of dying is obviously so bad, but if it's being deemed preferable, then it means there's no alternative to the alternative. There's a finality to it that makes it a should. I'm saying you should take control of your life and not feel bad about "not sacrificing yourself" because it's a stupid feeling to have, and you have control of your life. Only prolonged, inevitable suffering would be something to end your life, not an "I feel bad". Besides, who feels bad so badly about not killing themselves that they want to kill themselves of the pain of not killing themselves? In practice, it's not a relevant scenario. *The same action in the same situation will make perfect sense for some people because the outcome aligns with their core values while it won't for others. * But it doesn't. The core value is not that of killing themselves. It's a value, but it's not core to them. The core value for animals is their survival and the propagation of their being. That's what animals do. *Even actions that are clearly against a person's best interests in certain areas benefit them in others* Something benefitting the actor does not mean the action is not altruistic. The benefit is accidental not the motivation. * Which you are merely claiming and not proving.* It's not hard to prove. The biological drive of all living creatures is to propagate their being, which involves living. That's their core value, themselves. That's why animals kill one another, they value their own lives way higher than that of their victims, and viceversa. From that it's easy to prove that not being able to cope with the indoctrinated moral sense of reality is a machination above the natural drive of the animal. If they are unable to work around that for their own benefit, then they are being weak because their drive is not superior to that of the drive imposed to him for his control. If they are unwilling then they are being willful slaves to the wills of others, they are being stupid

[@QueenBoadicea]

4:30 Truth is valued only because of its usefulness? It doesn't matter if "truth" is true only that it's useful? What kind of warped thinking is this?

[@natanaellizama6559]

Yeah, under atheism "truth" has no inherent value, or it's an ideal, it's just what we call the association between a claim and the accuracy of its representation of reality. What's the value of truth besides its usefulness?

[@QueenBoadicea]

Oh, I think I understand. If something isn't true then it's a deception or a lie. But lies and deceptions can be useful. People tell their children that Santa Claus is real and children believe this to be true. The value of this lie? It brings families together for Christmas and causes children to be on their best behavior (for the short time they believe in Santa). But then they stop believing in Santa. They KNOW it isn't true. But they may remain good, solid citizens without this belief. So they learn a truth--Santa isn't real. What is the value or usefulness of this truth?

[@natanaellizama6559]

I mean, even if the truth were ALWAYS valuable, it would always be valuable because it's useful. If truth isn't valuable, then what is it good for? It's even almost a tautology. Under atheism there are no inherent values, only ascribed values, and those arrive from their usefulness towards a goal. Honesty is valued because it's useful to our goal; same with say loyalty, or empathy. But the moment these things stop being useful and become detrimental, then we are rationally justified in not use them, because to say truth is something we should strive for would make truth an IDEAL, something materialists can't justify. The ideal of Truth has no weight, no substance, it's just what we call something that's useful. Another example may be knowing on your deathbed that your children weren't truly yours. That's something that's "true", but it's not useful, so we don't value truth we value the usefulness that truth gives us, even if I were mistaken that there are instances were truth is more costly than not, it still would be true that the attribute we value of truthfulness is it's usefulness. Does this clarify?

[@QueenBoadicea]

Who gets to make these subjective judgments? Daffodils can come in varieties of yellow, white, orange and pink. (At least, I've never heard of a blue daffodil.) Is this true? Yes. Is it useful? Useful to whom? What constitutes "usefulness" or "value" in this scenario? Dendrologists may make a huge fuss over someone pontifically stating that there are blue daffodils and their response would likely be "Prove it". If it turns out not to be true, that person is a liar. If the person making the claim can't prove it, his word is definitely suspect. But ultimately what is the usefulness or value of the truth of yellow, pink, orange or white daffodils? We can't assign value or usefulness except by the limited nature of our own interests. But truth is truth regardless of its value or usefulness.

[@natanaellizama6559]

You are confused, I believe. It's true that truth is the truth regardless, but why does truth matter? As you correctly point out, the usefulness of the truth behind the color of a daffodil is variable and contextual. People don't give a shit about it, unless for some reason, it's important to them, in which case they value the truthfulness of the claim not because of it's truthfulness really, but because it's useful to their goal. Maybe their goal is to win a discussion about the colors of daffodils, in which case it matters a lot, or maybe their goal is something unrelated, like getting to home as fast as they can, in which case, the color of the daffodil is IRRELEVANT and not useful at all, even though it's truthfulness didn't change. The original point we talked about was the VALUE of truth not the objectivity of truth. Truth may be objective but useful, or a lie can be subjective and incredibly useful... to the person who's doing the judgement of the claim, its objectivity/subjective, truthfulness/deceitfulness and ultimately value to him/herself

[@brucebaker810]

Jamie's humor and style is a topic here. This isn't just "look at this thing Jamie did". It's a micro example for meta consideration. (Oops. ETA: it was Eric, not Jamie. But how the hosts handle conversational flow" is, also, an issue. So I'll let this stand.) Caller: "Let's say I want to have sex with a really attractive woman..." Eric (paraphrased for effect): "Let me just interrupt there. *ALTRUISM!* Uh. Er. Earlier in the show, while I opined on stuff, there was a word that didn't pop into my brain. Well someone in the chatroom just typed the word. So I figure I'll interrupt your "about to have sex with a pretty lady" story...to blurt 'Altruism. Yeah. That's the ticket!' " ...and, momentum broken, we don't get back to the sex with the lady thing. Maybe the sex story would've been more satisfying to the viewer than "aaand..., with help, Eric gets to check 'word missing from past rant' off his personal checklist"? Maybe let the story finish, then "obtw...that word I missed, earlier: altruism. Thanks dude1, dude2 and dude3 from chat. Okay, moving on..."

[@sharmila8357]

I was cringing when the caller started that "say I wanted to have sex with a really beautiful woman" line of conversation because with a theist, there is a 50 50 chance they are about to say that if they didn't believe in god they would just rape her. Theists can be scary.

[@natanaellizama6559]

@@sharmila8357 Lol, no. Actually I was going to say "...but she has AIDS. Do I use a condom? While my biological instinct is to not use a condom - hence why many people don't use condoms, it's precisely because of their biological drives -, I am not slave to my biological drives. So, saying I have the biological impulse X does not mean I have to do X or that doing X is rational"

[@kishintuchis4133]

IF YOUR MORAL COMPASS IS CHRISTIAN IT IS BECAUSE OF YOUR BELIEF IN HEAVEN AND HELL , AND ARE ACTING MORALLY ( THE CHRISTIAN VERSION ) BECAUSE OF YOUR FEAR OF HELL . SELF INTEREST IS THE BEST MOTIVATOR . ATHEISTS DONT BELIEVE IN EITHER HEAVEN OR HELL. BUT THEY STILL TRY TO BEHAVE PROPERLY BECAUSE ACTING PROPERLY IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO .

[@Xarai]

11:32 trump

[@blknitenca]

Another fake former atheist

[@davidhull2426]

Just write a list everyday, pin it up . Do what you want with your will. Pop out of your self now and again, almost like teaching yor younger self, possibly..🙄

[@kenchristiansen2080]

Why should an atheist act morally? Why should a theist? Your morals are laid out in an old book, that says don't kill, AND kill people. Don't steal, AND to steal after killing the rest of the tribe. There are no morals in christianity.

[@kimberlybaldridge5767]

Former atheist = not going to church for a few months 🤣🤣🤣

[@richybambam1995]

The caller's topic was not even addressed, he was asserting simply that without a objective moral compass that morals are subjective. They just attacked the idea of it being God he even tried to stay away from his own reasons for morality bit they knew he was right and just didn't want to admit it.

[@huckthatdish]

richybambam1995 you expect them to disagree with that tautology? Obviously if objective morals don’t exist then morality is subjective. That is definitionally true. That is not an argument for objective morality existing. It’s just an obvious conclusion of a simple premise. It says nothing of the truth of the premise. If objective morality exists, that’s great. But any argument based on the idea that it not existing sucks is not a convincing argument for its existence.

[@ToHoldNothing]

Objective morality is nonsensical, because morality is not like reality otherwise, including numbers and logical principles like law of identity, that are true regardless of minds existing. But morality doesn't exist without minds to conceive of it and apply in societal interactions and the like, so there cannot be objective morality, only principles that are remotely objective in the non metaphysical sense, more epistemologically objective

[@johnh226]

It is amazing how quickly skeptics strawman the topic of objective morality.

[@huckthatdish]

John H I don’t want to strawman anyone. If I misunderstand the topic of objective morality I want to be corrected. Instead of me arguing against my strawman conception, could you present the steelman argument so I can engage with that?

[@natanaellizama6559]

@@huckthatdish a) Ethics can't be explained without an objective source of authority per its own definition. b) The best strategy for an amoral evolutionary being - us, per atheism - is precisely amorality, not morality nor immorality; that is, a morality that changes according to the context and the trade-off. c) An evolutionary being has at its core a selfish motivation - hence, the selfish gene -, and therefore even the moral behavior we see is really truly not moral. d) The reason atheists uphold morality is because of them not freeing themselves of their cultural - and sometimes evolutionary - shackles, which means that a moral atheist is not an heroic atheist, on the contrary, is either a) a cowardly atheist - who chooses not to free himself -, or b) a foolish atheist - because they do not know themselves to be shackled -. On the other hand, you have a free atheist, who is not enslaved by cultural rules of slave morality - Nietzsche -, rather, he makes his own "morality", and that is a truly heroic atheist.

[@huckthatdish]

Natanael Lizama so for a, we would need to agree on a definition of morality for me to accept that. As for the evolutionary argument, c makes a false equivalency I want to highlight. It’s fair to argue genes are “selfish.” They clearly aren’t actually sentient but natural selection selects for genes that are good at continuing to exist. So it’s a fitting metaphor. But that does not necessarily mean individuals are selfish. There are many social species. And in social species, acting altruistically May mean you don’t get to pass on your exact genes, but your sibling who is extremely similar to you gets to pass on theirs. In this way populations with genes favoring altruism do better as a group and since they are all related to one another even though altruism doesn’t always favor the individual it favors the group they are a part of who are closer to them genetically than outside groups.

[@natanaellizama6559]

@@huckthatdish Well, you can do your research on the topic. I would link to a very reputable source, but it's in spanish. Maybe you speak spanish? What do you think that the general understanding of ethics is? I think my definition of a universal code of behavior is by far the working and most popular one. I'm not sure anyone would really disagree, but sure let's discuss it. What's the best definition? As for your evolutionary comment, I agree. In the video I mentioned it. The selfishness refers to the genes not the individual, yet it's still selfishness and still self-centered. And more than that, one can override that. One is not a slave to their biology and just as a person can decide to sacrifice oneself for their genes - and so be selfish and falsely altruistic - another can decide to in fact kill their offspring. There are many philosophical issues with the Selfish Gene, which does not surprise me because Dawkins is one of the worst philosophers I know of - I know he's not a formal philosopher - but parting from that premise my point still stands. Yes, we can broaden the scope a little bit to include your gene pool because it is YOUR gene pool. That is, if your gene pool weren't yours you wouldn't sacrifice yourself for it, you only sacrifice for it because it is YOUR gene pool, hence it being self-centered and ultimately selfish.

[@HappyHippieGaymer]

Natanael Lizama A) is false and nothing more than an assertion and does not follow the definition as you claim. B) false. Evolution of social creatures demonstrates that moral actions don’t magically become amoral because you don’t grasp the nuance of the evolution of morality. The study of social species shows that the assertion of amorality is nothing but an assertion. C) pretending that a moral action taken selfishly doesn’t make it moral means you don’t understand morality. D) your misunderstanding of morality is causing you a lot of confusion and causing you to make up some rather confusing nonsense that does not logically follow. There is no obligation for someone who doesn’t believe in a god to divorce themselves from their society. Your assertion of why atheists do or don’t do something is self defeating dribble. Atheist aren’t “shackled,” that’s nothing but an assertion that has nothing to do with atheism at all. Why would an atheist need to divorce themselves from something that has nothing to do with atheism? Your last self defeating point shows you simply don’t understand anything about morality, culture, atheism, or logical motivations. You simply are making up a fantasy that atheism magically needs to Devorce itself from a secular system for no reason. It must be very frustrating to lie to yourself so much that you have to make up that atheists are cowards because they understand that divorcing themselves from society is not smart nor brave. We do make up our own morality. Hence why people disagree with established laws, and why Christians pretend their religion is a source for morality despite the fact that they will flat out reject biblical morality. Your lack of understanding evolutionary morality is super cringe.

[@goalski134]

christians can’t answer this either. 1) god says good works won’t get you into heaven because he hates the boastful. 2) if you do something because god tells you to, that’s not a moral reason either. 3) if you do good works to get into heaven, you’re doing it for selfish reasons.

[@natanaellizama6559]

I'm not a christian so it's irrelevant. Are there no theism that can handle this issue better? I think theism overall, even if what you say it's true provides a better source for moral behaviour in this life. Even if it's truly being selfish and not moral, being fearful of say hell is better and more rational than being fearful of a society you can abuse, cheat and manipulate in your favour. With the idea of a punishment from an all-knowing God you know you can't cheat your way out. Besides under theism you could have the reason of just being moral. That is, just as using reason is a given that can't be rationally justified, morality can be a given as well. From theism we WOULD have an obligation given that we have a source of authority beyond ourselves(God). There's also the practical reason which is that given that God is the law-giver and that his laws can't be circumvented, the most practical thing to do is work with God's laws not against; there's also the concept of being moral is inherent to our being in a way our biologically makeup may be and it's something we can't really circumvent beyond a temporary measure. And there are plenty of other good arguments both in favour of morality from a practical standpoint and a moral standpoint that is more conducive to moral behaviour in a person than morality from atheism.

[@wunnell]

@Natanael Lizama, the problem is, though, that religious morality is supposedly superior because it comes from a god. If a religion is made up then its morality is made up by human beings so it is nothing special and possibly bad. It's this sort of thinking that leads people to fly planes into buildings. Your position reminds me of Jordan Peterson. He purports to be a Christian and many Christians hold him as one of their own but, as far as I can tell, he is really only using Christianity as a way to manipulate people into behaving the way he thinks they should. It seems to me that Peterson has determined what he thinks is best for human society, has seen that it aligns quite closely with Christian values, has realised that he won't be able to convince people to all behave that way by his own arguments alone and so seeks to make people self-regulate his desired behaviour through fear of a god that he doesn't think exists.

[@natanaellizama6559]

@wunnell > If a religion is made up then its morality is made up by human beings so it is nothing special and possibly bad. What about it is nothing special and possibly bad? That it's made up by human beings? Then that's true for any other morality. I agree that religious morality can be dangerous, yet the only WAY to even GET morality(as right and wrong) is through the existence of God. Anything else fails to provide an ontological foundation and it makes 'good and evil' to be meaningless concepts. If God is a delusion then also morality becomes a delusion. You may disagree with certain religious moralities, or even ALL religion's moralities(God != religion) but the ONLY way to get morality is with God. As for your Peterson argument I don't agree but I don't think it's very relevant to this argument I'm giving.

[@wunnell]

@Natanael Lizama *"What about it is nothing special and possibly bad? That it's made up by human beings?"* Yes, exactly that. The religious claim that their morality is special specifically because it is handed down by their god but if their god doesn't exist or if their morality didn't actually come from their god then their morality is not special and should examined and critiqued just like any other. *"Then that's true for any other morality."* Of course. I wasn't implying otherwise. The thing is though, if we're honest about the source then we can be honest in how we examine and critique it, rather than accepting it without question and defending it against reason the way religious people do. A perfect example is slavery in the bible. Christians pretty much universally believe that slavery is bad and they would not accept today what is described in the bible and yet, despite the fact that their god is supposedly perfectly moral and unchanging, they will defend slavery in the bible as being perfectly OK. *"the ONLY way to get morality is with God."* You'd have to believe in a god to make such a silly statement. If morality is defined in relation to a god then sure, you can't get that without a god. If that god doesn't exist though, the term "morality" is available to be used for something else that is not that. What is, is, whatever you want to call it. If there is no god then we are still here and most people want to live a fulfilling life. I care about how we do that.

[@wunnell]

@Natanael Lizama, I think that a pertinent question for any theist is, if there is no god, would you want to know that that was the case and then live your life as though that was the case or would you rather not know and continue living a comfortable delusion? In case you're wondering, if there really is a god then I would like to know but I'd have to know the nature of that god in order to determine how to proceed from there. As many atheists will tell you, I'd have no problem believing that a god existed if I was presented with convincing evidence but I'm not sure that worship is a possibility. I can make myself behave a certain way if a god requires it in order to not punish me for eternity but that that god might punish me for eternity is, in itself, a reason for me to not worship it. I feel like that anything worthy of worship - if anything could be - would not require that worship of us in the first place.

[@vanillagorilla8438]

Jamie is Not funny and find him very difficult to watch/like.... sorry!

[@RealityDiceSims]

Jamie made me laugh several times.

[@sharmila8357]

I lived his 'stamp collecting' comment