Matt Dillahunty: The Superiority of Secular Morality

[@Poseidon6363]

Secular morality is doing what is right, regardless of what we are told. Religious dogma is doing what we are told, no matter what is right.

[@Poseidon6363]

MrStripeyDog He wasn't doing what was right because he was mentally disturbed, and if you did criticize him he probably have you killed as well. Hitler's generals knew he was a lunatic and wasn't doing right but wouldn't criticize for fear of their lives. Joseph Smith thought he doing right through his faith and no one would dare tell him he as doing wrong because of their faith, and he killed them all.

Scanini You are a vulgar anti-theist, and brainwashed. That is a fact :)

Poseidon63 I debunk all atheists with a 100% track record. That is a fact :)

[@Poseidon6363]

MrStripeyDog The Internet, where religions come to die, QUICKLY

[@ndf3]

Oh dear, I'm guilty by association! I guess I have a sincere belief in god now... How do I know if it's working?

[@NYStateOfMind986]

"ballsacks" written on the chalkboard .. lol

[@BigZebraCom]

When I was in university I would arrive to class early. and I would often add ridiculous shit to the black board to see if the prof would notice. my favourite was a graph that shows the increase in 'ennui'' over time.

[@sandysutherland2182]

Yeh, Google'Billy Connolly: Scrotum!

[@WiiDSRebeL]

EDUCATIONballsacks

[@rhianondenniss6860]

" they've already changed their views based on society around them. Based on the secular views. " so much truth in those last few sentences

[@kyriacostheofanous1445]

Lies

[@bbbbgggg2338]

The Non-theistic teachings of Buddha (who was around 500 years before Christ) is proof that you don't need a God to be moral. Although he may have been Polytheistic, his teachings never ended with "because this god said so."

[@thegreatprophesizedantichr3762]

You don't need to say "Because this God said so." the teachings could have Still come from a God or Goddess or Thing. Buddhism is still a religion to another Realm.

[@Itsatz0]

Neanderthal is a good moniker for you. Aren't you embarrassed at displaying your stupidity in public?

[@thegreatprophesizedantichr3762]

I am, but that doesn't change my intelligence.

[@nexusnova6852]

+Brennon Dan Actually he was technically a agnostic apatheist. Also his name was Siddhartha Gautama, Buddha was a title given to him and several other people in religious Buddhist tradition.

[@Pranav-rp8wi]

@@thegreatprophesizedantichr3762 actually, budhdhism was one of the few Faiths in India that didn't recognize soul and didn't care about god at all.. it also threw out our old Vedic Varna system and rituals.. The whole focus was on suffering in this world and the cause for it to be desire...

[@rpcarnell]

if your morality comes from an imaginary deity, then your morality is imaginary. More elastic, bendable than secular morality. You can easily think God agrees with whatever it is you are doing. I have seen this again and again.

[@gingerellacookie5641]

Ygor Nimoy you actually have a point. I was diest liberal Catholic before becoming a Traditonal Catholic that believed in secular morality. However I was a believer in a God but I very much believe it's very possible to be a moral person without a belief in God.

[@Timmeh_The_tyrant]

Yes, but, humans do this to justify their actions with and without god.

[@KingofJacks86]

Awesome lecture, I was there sitting at the back of the hall, had the pleasure of sitting in the row ahead of AronRa, was an awesome day with a ton of great lectures.

[@narco73]

Just to help in future: This video has the lapel mic on the left channel and a distant mic on the right channel. Very frustrating to listen to on headphones.

[@ImBuddhaD]

Haha, awesome rebottle. Props to you mate. Cheers from Amsterdam

[@KatelynHg]

I couldn't help but notice on the blackboard behind him it said "ballsacks" in the beginning. In all seriousness though, thanks for putting this up-great presentation!! Matt Dillahunty is awesome!

[@boener82]

Why does it say "Ballsacks" on the chalkboard?

[@kingquadroon]

Why not?

[@Julian0101]

Because someone write it

[@SharedPhilosophy]

due to particles of dinosouaur fossils being on a dark surface from which light bounces off of which is interpreted by you brain as seen from your eyes

[@OmniphonProductions]

"...the illusion of certainty and the comfort of simplicity." BRILLIANT!!!

[@matthiasmuller7677]

No actually pretty ignorant. Religion ultimately rests on faith which is obviously not certainty. If you think a human jelly bean who spouts polemics at a bunch of uneducated teenagers is brilliant... then you're probably an uneducated teenager.

[@OmniphonProductions]

​@@matthiasmuller7677 I could also be a 45-year-old autodidact with a college diploma and an IQ of 143! I'm glad _you_ can tell the difference between faith and certainty. However, there are literally billions of people in the world who use the words, "Know," and, "Believe," interchangeably and consider the religious beliefs with which they have been indoctrinated since earliest youth to be absolute fact! They're not _actually_ certain, but they are so confident in their beliefs that no amount of reason or evidence will ever change their minds. That is the, "...illusion of certainty," to which Matt refers. Religion allows people to _think_ they understand _everything,_ while _actually_ understanding _nothing._ As for, "...the comfort of simplicity," God is a "one size fits all" answer to every question anyone might ever _have_ but be too lazy to actually _study._ I suppose, in that sense, one man's Epistemology _is_ another man's Polemics; after all, when one's position can't stand up to rational scrutiny, having someone _say so_ probably feels like an attack. Speaking of attacks, kudos on presenting two Ad Hominem (Personal Attack) logical fallacies in a single sentence; it really drives home the evidentiary and logical strength of your position.

[@matthiasmuller7677]

@@OmniphonProductions Every religion that I'm aware of explicitly states that faith is the ground it ultimately rests on. Who cares if some individuals don't correctly apply that? To conflate a religion with the behavior of its followers (who's thoughts you seem to know better then they do) is probably at least one fancy sounding fallacy. Btw your IQ means nothing, it's just processing speed. These are not complicated topics. If you're an outlier like that chances are that you're actually a little on the autitstic side and unable to see connections, only particulars. No offense, this is what KZbin comments are about 😉

[@matthiasmuller7677]

@@OmniphonProductions and what you quote about simplicity sounds very rational. The only thing that's irrational is that you again mix in psychological speculations for why someone might adhere to that. I could do exactly the same in the opposite way. Assuming that there is no final ground which all reality rests on but instead everything being just chaos and coincidence offers plenty of benefit for someone to BELIEVE in because it frees you from all purpose.

[@matthiasmuller7677]

@@OmniphonProductions and concerning the polemics. I listened to half the video. All I heard was shallow boring unsubstantiated nonsense. Empty words towards an audience of giggling 18 year old girls. Them and Dillhaunty should instead have discussed the thing they have in common: daddy issues! 😄 Theres another ad hominem for you (ad fatfuck rather)

[@DennisChaves]

I guess no one noticed "ballsacks" was written on the board before he started talking? hahaha

[@icikle]

I work in a callcentre, and sometimes I find myself talking in a way that Matt would to get a point across to people who just dont understand off the bat. Matt is amazing.

[@MentalHealthMMA]

Today I had the integrity of my Charity Foundation attacked by a Christian who argued its illogical for me to do Charity work. 1) because it is illogical to help anyone but yourself if I don’t believe in the Christian God. 2)) And since its illogical for me to want to help someone then I’m therefore incapable of helping people. 3) I’m immoral to the core. 4) Finally, my core immorality makes it so I will eventually use my Charity for immoral goals and things. And anyone involved in the charity work were all being deceived by an immoral person, a.k.a. Me. It broke my heart that he was holding a baby in his Facebook profile picture. I feel so sorry for his kid 😔 And I don’t mean that in a condescending way. It’s really sad that he’s going to indoctrinate a baby to believe he or she is incapable of being a good person without God.

[@keithhunt5328]

Your idea of a good person is derived from Christian religion.

[@urbanguard]

@@keithhunt5328 No, it's not.

[@lyzoldas]

13 minutes in I realize the chalkboard says "ballsacks" on it.

[@waratenko]

This stuff is seriously like therapy to me. Thanks Matt for doing what you're doing

[@greyeyed123]

Matt said "sagacity"! I love that word. So perspicacious.

[@BruceWayneofCamelot]

The difference between the average atheist and the average theist is that the atheist understands the thought process of the theist. The theist does not understand the thought process of an atheist. Atheism is a large intellectual step above theism.

[@BruceWayneofCamelot]

You're wrong about me being wrong. I did not say all theists.

[@BruceWayneofCamelot]

finalfantasy8911 That's called a contradiction.

[@BruceWayneofCamelot]

finalfantasy8911 I think you're a little fuzzy on what fits the definition of a contradiction. Also, I did not say "all theists". You misread my comment.

[@TheGunnCat]

+Eru Illuvatar Actually, I was an atheist a great deal of my life. I could spout out nonsense like this guy all day, as well or better than he can. Only when I accept Jesus in my own life, did I realize the true depth of ignorance secular perception has. It's easy to understand Godlessness. It exists all around us. The reason atheism is gaining such a wide following is that earth belongs to Satan. Temptation is always available. Humans have the audacity to believe that they are superior to God, and therefore ignore his rules, break his laws and allow sin into their lives, willingly ignorant, gratefully serving the Master of Lies. We are God's children. He has instructed us, and it's up to us to decide through free will which path we follow. The question is, will we sing like the children of Eru, creating harmony, or be prideful like Melkor and create rancor in the world? John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

[@BruceWayneofCamelot]

legunncat I read a lot of emotional dribble and Bible preaching in your reply. I am sorry that you've been brainwashed and that your emotions have usurped your rational thought process. Ask yourself honestly, do you think it more likely that your one religion is true and all others are false, or that you've bought in to the religion that your culture has adopted? You are still an atheist my friend. You are an atheist regarding all other religions. I truly hope that you open your mind and realize that _every_ religion is illogical, not just your own.

[@UV0023]

Sadly the sound recording was awful

[@rightpa]

Where is the hour long version he was talking about in the beginning?

[@thejoemonica]

Anyone else see "ballsacks" on the chalkboard? Love it.

[@lukehp7431]

"I'm Matt and I'm an enemy of religion" 😂❤️

[@gingerellacookie5641]

luke hp but actually Catholicism is the Religion for the intellectual

[@snakeeyes254]

Gingerella Cookie sure it is. 😂😂

[@brianmi40]

@@gingerellacookie5641 particularly if you're a priest who likes little boys. A great place to "work" so they'll shuffle you around if you get caught.

[@siim605]

@@gingerellacookie5641 There is no such thing as ANY religion for an intellectual. An intellectual thinks for themselves, instead of putting their faith in some book.

[@XmetaI4everX]

2:55 I've seen this kind of thing too. In an article written by a Christian, he readily admitted the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Noah story shared many similarities (both are about a man ordered by a divine forces to build an a ark and collect two of every animal for preparation of a worldwide flood) and that the Epic of Gilgamesh was dated older than the Old Testament story. But the conclusion boiled down to "since the Bible is the inerrant word of God, the only logical conclusion is that the Noah story was passed down orally and is thus older than the Epic of Gilgamesh." If you'd like to read it, here is the link: www.icr.org/article/noah-flood-gilgamesh/

[@dwendt44]

I usually wish they'd continue with the Q and A session. That is often as interesting as the presentation itself.

[@danielretzloff5653]

pardon if someone else has mentioned this but does it say "ballsacks" in small text after education on the board behind matt

[@jimmears]

You would think some one would fix the gotdammed microphone.

[@roder51]

+Jim Mears (Funniest Videos) That would never be a problem with the liars and thieves of evangelism

[@pepesilvia807]

Listen with headphones and only use the left one

[@inthebox555]

I love it that someone put "bullsacks" on the blackboard!

[@RockAustinDXtakerRk0]

Has Matt written anything on objective morality? I'd love to read it.

[@biophilist]

I am partially deaf and this is difficult for me to hear. Are Matt's ideas (or those of others) in this regard described in written form on the Internet?

[@ComradeFurious]

Who does the talk on Did Jesus Exist mentioned at 6:13? I'd love to watch that one.

[@gingerellacookie5641]

as an intellectual believer, I actually think athiests can be far more moral then many believers!

[@notreallydavid]

True! Except me - I'm an utter bastard. All best

[@AntitheistHuman]

Emm, to begin with not having the trouble to defend slavery because your belief endorses it yeah we have our mind in the right place. But lets be honest, why would anyone in the XXI century believe in religious ideology? Religions are literally debunked and additionally wanting them to be true is something that makes you inhuman and an immoral person. As simple as it sounds.

[@lovespeaks777]

For all of you that believe in subjective morality, I’m curious of your opinion on this. According to subjective morality, If someone believes something is morally right or wrong for them, it is subjectively right or wrong for them. Following that logic, someone could believe racism is right one minute, but then 5 minutes later believe it is wrong and that would be true for them. And they could change their mind endlessly but it would be true for them.

[@AntitheistHuman]

@@lovespeaks777 Morality is subjective, always, it requires living and thinking agents to feel and understand, there is no solid and ultimate "morality" EVEN if there were a god (time theists understand that and stop acting like retards) because it still depends on minds, but by acknowledging this we can make objective and firm conclusions about well-being and so on so we can live in society (example: what is wrong with killing me?: not only that it will stop my well being BUT also if you tried to kill me I would do my best to kill you first because you demonstrated your intentions against my being, so theists tend to ask that, why is it wrong to kill and I bring it back to you: if you try to kill me I will kill you first in self defense, so what is wrong with killing me? If you try, you are one who will discover the true meaning of good and bad). I'm curious about you people who belief god is morality, I'm curious how you sleep at night believing your "god" >>(all we know about it is your fairy tale book called the bible)

[@ivankawnartist]

The idea that no one tells you to be good and you simply choose to be is one of the most powerful states of mind.

[@markdaniels7174]

This is a great, albeit brief, presentation by Matt. I don't see how anyone can disagree with what he's said, but perhaps I'm being naive. I especially liked the finale, where he indicated that we (secularists) are winning, and in a sense have already won. When we abolished slavery, secular morality won. When we gave women the vote, secular morality won. And just this summer, when we gave gays the right to marry, secular morality won. (Like our humane treatment of blacks and women, that'll one day be seen as the right action, across the board.) Secularists create progress, and religions eventually catch up. Those were victories of secular morality over Biblical morality, and Christians now agree they were right. Although it's in their Bible, today no Christian (outside the KKK) would say slavery or treating women as second-class citizens is right.

[@CarnevalOne]

Atheists say slavery is morally right all the time. They support the prison system.

[@TNDStream]

@@CarnevalOne And Christians don’t? Seems to me a crap ton of Christians think the prison system is fabulous & keeps criminals off the streets. I do think prison systems shouldn’t be privatized to prevent exploiting prisoners for money. But the question is would you rather lock them up, kill them, or let them roam the streets? You got 3 options.

[@Julian0101]

@@CarnevalOne Nah, only christians try to defend slavery (holding another human being as property) all the time. For some reason they prefer to sacrifice their own morality than accept their favorite book is not infallible. The prison system is shit, and should be reformed, regardless if a god exist or not. BTW, nice stramanned tu quoque, if only you wouldnt feel so much shame of your own magical fairy.

[@Trevor_Austin]

A person who believes in morality, truth and justice. Well done and thank you Matt.

[@dallashumanist]

Why does the chalk board say "ball sacks"?

[@bobtracey7097]

Am I the only one wondering why 'BALLSACK' is written on the chalkboard?

[@Chancerph]

Matt Dillahunty is the new Messiah

[@sirsimplexton3151]

The best part of secular morality to me is that it is not reinforced by a divine shield. If we look at this statement: _"A woman's testimony is one half that of a man. Women may forget, therefore they should be given helpers in testimony. It is expressed by Allah the Almighty who created the woman. So, it is an unchanging rule."_ -- Sharia Law ... the worst part to me is this: _"It is expressed by Allah the Almighty who created the woman. So, it is an unchanging rule."_ That means that even a mountain of evidence to contradict these claims about women would merely bounce off the divine shield and barely make a dent. Divinity is allergic to truth, and anything allergic to truth is allergic to justice. It makes this law unable to evolve since it's protected by an immortal "God" with 1.6 billion followers who pray to him five times a day. Religion retards progress, since morality may be an extremely complex subject prone to wildly subjective interpretations, but if it's not based on our best and most objective attempts at understanding truth, then it is clearly unjust. I can't think of anything more objectively immoral than something which clearly contradicts our best and most objective attempts at understanding truth.

[@sirsimplexton3151]

It's difficult to state exactly how much religion had a part in putting a blockage towards black civil rights. There it's a bit more subtle than some law that blatantly states that Yahweh or Jesus favor white power. It seems to be affiliated at least in part, but I don't want to jump to conclusions. I also don't blame religion so much as the root for things like sexism, homophobia, racism, misogyny, xenophobia. Humans seem to segregate themselves into _"us vs. them"_ kind of groups repeatedly throughout history regardless of religious affiliation. The biggest problem to me of religion is that it can cement those kinds of hostile forces into stone. When people start getting it into their heads that their oppressive beliefs are divinely given to them by God, and that they're going to be rewarded for any hostile actions through a divine I.O.U. afterlife insurance policy, it's so hard to make progress, so difficult to get a consensus. It becomes so difficult to change people's minds even if you bury them in a mountain of truth contradicting their beliefs. Blatant examples in the U.S. are like fights to keep "Intelligent Design" pseudo-science out of scientific classrooms which unfortunately had to be a fight because of religious forces. Another is like same-sex marriage being such a massive issue and again, largely due to religious opposition from Christians who can't reconcile the notion that homosexuality is not a deliberate choice (that would mess up their idea of free will and deliberate acts of sin). The other big problem to me for religion is that even in a secular nation, like France, people can believe they are above man's laws and only need to obey what they personally interpret to be God's. Again this afterlife insurance policy makes people think this life on earth is just a brief test, and if they believe that strongly enough, they'll see their sole accountability to God. So then we see religious extremists who ignore the secular laws in favor of killing what they perceive to be a blasphemer -- vigilantes so thoroughly convinced they are delivering their God's justice with a fantastic reward awaiting them after they die for their actions. So religion tends to give men a set of divine laws (sometimes just laws they personally make up after finding a little justification for in some ancient scripture) that override the secular laws.

[@wmthewyld]

finalfantasy8911 people of faith have helped the world in the name of their faith more that atheist have helped the world in the name of atheism.

[@wmthewyld]

finalfantasy8911 it's called satire.

[@kristinaplays2924]

In my opinion secular morality is better because it can adapt so it can always get better, and you actually stand for your morality more because you've had to figure it out for yourself, AND the key thing which is you do as good as you can because you want the world to benefit and the people around you to flourish, NOT because you'll get punished when you die if you don't. It's about doing the right things for the right reason.

[@kristinaplays2924]

I do. Do you know what morality is? Why it makes a society better? A better morality is the key to a society where people are happier and less misstreated than in a society where people get harrased for their sexual orientation, religious background, etnicity, etc. If people had better morals the world would be a far better place than it is today. But some people are stuck at "I'm going to have this morality because it says so in my book", not because they have actually thought about their actions and cared about other people. Morality out of empathy is better than morality out of religion.

Krickistina plays Tell me what a 'better morality' is? I don't think you actually know what morality is.

[@kristinaplays2924]

Morality is a set of rules we make for ourselves in order to benefit us as a group. Better morality = more beneficial to all of us. What do you think it is? What God thinks of our sins? (I actually got that reply recently)

[@kristinaplays2924]

I never said that. I said morals are rules we make for ourselves, I probably should have expanded it to "morals are rules we make for ourselves based on our decisions". But they're not only individual choices, something that is concidered moral in one society isn't moral in another. You are affected by your surroundings. And by rule I mean for instance "I don't steal". Which is based on what I've been taught growing up mixed with the fact that I can imagine how it would hurt the person I'm stealing from, so I choose not to do it.

[@kristinaplays2924]

What do you think morality is then?

[@RadGnarRad]

I love Matt Dillahunty, and I cannot stop looking at the addendum on the chalkboard that says "ballsacks" lololol

[@matthewtenney2898]

As I approach the end of life, I have come to understand the centrality of "worth". Did I lead a life that was worth living. Was what I sought in life worthy of my seeking? What did I fail to do that was worthy while I pursued the unworthy? Love is the only answer. The "I - Thou" love not the "I- it" love.

[@capoman1]

The case for "morality" is pretty simple. Consider the analogy of driving; there are certain rules that you follow when you drive; why? Even without traffic laws, why do people on the road (almost all drivers) avoid traffic accidents? Why don't people just cross the center line into oncoming traffic? Because the action of driving has an IMPLIED goal of COMPLETING YOUR DRIVE IN TACT; and everyone else on the road has that same implied goal. Even those people THAT WANT to turn the road into a demolition derby UNDERSTAND that the road is filled with drivers that don't want that, and so recognize that DEMOLITION DERBY ON THE ROAD IS WRONG because it goes against the goals of 90+% of the people on the road, and you will be making the road a place that goes against the almost majority goal. You can do this same sort of analogy for any behavior that involves people interacting; including LIFE ITSELF. Like driving, living has the implied goal to "continue living," and hopefully "continue living on a road where we don't have to worry about head on accidents." So in life, IF YOU ARE DOING ANYTHING that makes "the road" a place that people fear, then you are "doing wrong." ---- Try it: Harming babies; wrong? The vast majority of parents and individuals don't want to live in a world where they fear for their baby or any babies are harmed; and they also wouldn't want their younger baby self to have been harmed, so harming babies "makes the road a scary place" for 99+% of people; SO YES, HARMING BABIES IS WRONG. Do WE NEED AN ABSOLUTE MORALITY or morality to explain morality? In math, do we need an absolute addition god to explain why 2+2=5 is "wrong?" That is about the substance of the "case for a necessary absolute morality giver (god)" is; it's really not needed to explain ethics and morality.

[@megaJman74]

+Mr. Mammal. things can only reasonably considered right or wrong by people because we are the only beings who have the mental capacity to understand the difference. that is what seperates us from animals and not a sole. we choose to coexist with each other in a way that is best for the majority of people.

[@capoman1]

***** Yes, you are correct, the road analogy does not address the immorality of TARM (Theft Assault Rape Murder). These can be addressed on a physical basis. Like the road analogy, each individual is like a car, we have a physical body and brain. Each of us maintains certain attitudes about "our bodies." We imagine property rights, ownership over our own body, our domain. Each physical individual will object to certain treatments of their body or property. So from this physical beginning, we can see an inherent preference for these cognitive individuals to DEMAND CONSENT upon acting on other bodies; a precedent or principal is set by the physical observed world - And a contradiction arises when one individual tries to defy this consent principle, the rapist convicts himself, when another watching individual seeks to physically stop the rapist or achieve vengeance for a rape, the rapist can only present the principal that "bro you can't harm me, I don't consent."

[@Itsatz0]

Hey shit for brains. Try driving on the right hand side of the road in England.

[@capoman1]

***** Touche. Takes a genius to come up with. Socrates would be proud.

[@Itsatz0]

capoman1 I didn't read your whole comment. I didn't realize we agree.

[@Sciguy95]

I stumped my mother once when I asked why, because I really wanted to know why I had to do something that legitimately served no purpose. She told me that it was because when a parent gives an order to their child that child has to follow that order. She had a horrible father that only cares about himself, so I asked her if that meant that if my grandfather were to show and order her to do something, that she would have to do it. She immediately said no. I then asked her why the rule she had just laid out only applies to me then and not her because she didnt specify any kind of age restriction. She didnt have an answer for that.

[@factshurtfeelings6149]

Cycle of abuse. There's a cool TOOL song about that called 'prison sex'. Interesting psychological phenomenon that abuse victims often become perpetrators. Occurs even with benign stuff like bossing your kids around. Most likely though your mother just getting off on the power trip because she can't/hasn't gotten any power elsewhere in life.

[@eleanorfitz2143]

Wow, this was really awesome and I couldn't agree more. Just because secular morality doesn't offer a simple answer like "god", does not mean that objective, absolutes are unattainable for any given situation. And while that might seem like the hardest problem to solve, it just shows how much work we still have ahead of us. As truth seekers we should not forget that ignorance can blind us, and we should continue to seek knowledge where it seems impossible. I think the reality of this "secular morality" will only become more obvious in time, but we can use the time we have to contribute to that discussion as best we can. So thank you Matt for remarkably doing so.

[@texasvet2729]

The simplicity of "religious morality" seems to be the sticking point for a lot of theists. They enjoy the black and white, absolute code.

[@Dm-mi3fj]

Bible Belt Atheist no 50 shades of grey in theism

[@robertw2930]

Eleanor Fitz It kinda reminds of a situation where you shoot the hostage to get at the bad guy seems immoral but done right can have the desired outcome (hostage injured and bad guy dead or detained , but as Matt Dilahaunty has pointed out in his talks is that he doesnt know who might be the oppressor or oppressed) So no matter what knowledge is more important then faith. People think of think duality as devil/God or satan/jesus advisary/authority. Why not present duality as a complmentary instead of always contradictory. Electricity needs to move in both directions does it mean that negative electrons are bad/evil !!! I think certainly not.

[@robertw2930]

mob rules then

[@robertw2930]

Now we have the contrapositive of that with people reporting things that were flat out fallacious {i.e hands up don;t shoot and I can't breathe etc..}

[@randylothrop975]

is there a stereo recording of this? The mono is making my brain hurt.

[@tangerinesarebetterthanora-v8k]

Secular morality is basically just Christian morality in the guise of Scientism.

[@Devious_Dave]

I've heard the first part ("Secular morality is basically just Christian morality...") but I can't make sense of "...in the guise of Scientism." Can you re-phrase / explain?

[@tangerinesarebetterthanora-v8k]

@@Devious_Dave it's because science explains natural phenomena and does it very well, but morality is another realm all together. many act like this isn't the case. you can't "see" morality without a value judgement where as you can see and measure biological processes without one.

[@Devious_Dave]

@@tangerinesarebetterthanora-v8k Thanks for explaining. Let's discard the word "scientism" and use things like observations & comparisons to assess societal fairness, benefit, etc.

[@calldwnthesky6495]

wrong. secular morality is a morale code which is superior to religious moral codes... sorry but that includes christianity. religions may have come with some of the first crude attempts to devise a code of ethics or morals... kept especially simple for the masses, in some cases. but we've come beyond that and should continue to refine secular morality to fit any expansion in our scientific understanding of ourselves, our universe and our place in it

[@tangerinesarebetterthanora-v8k]

@@calldwnthesky6495 secular morality isn't based off of the empirical findings of science though, yet it is pushed by those in the scientific community because they can't fully let go of their christian sentiment

[@IceKnight366]

12 minutes in and I'm still waiting for an argument for the title...

[@saosaqii5807]

Morality is just an mix of utilitarianism, survival and self interest.

[@avivastudios2311]

If your morality is self-interest then it isn't morality.

[@flameone4705]

@@avivastudios2311They don’t understand that oughts can’t be made using subjective consensus or preference. Secular morality 30 years from now won’t be what it is today because it is completely fluid.

[@thegreatprophesizedantichr3762]

Morality is not subjective, it is OBJECTIVE. The idea that it's subjective is opinion. Morality is understood from experiment. Do you want me to rob you? 99% of people would say no. Do you want me to kill you? Again most Everyone would say no. Do you want me to rape you or beat the shit out of you or torture you? Most people would say no. That is Morality. Not doing things to people b/c it's against their desires. But the problem is that people have taken this too far & said homosexuality or drugs is against their desires so now it's become more about desires than it has the hurting of other people. But they wouldn't like it if they were told who to love & to stop doing things that are proven worse than weed, such as sex. Morality in simpler terms is just (Hurting or not hurting other people.) Hurting yourself has NOTHING to do with morality b/c it's you & so you are allowed to decide what happens with yourself, you can destroy yourself & any action you take is negative in some way or another anyways. You can treat yourself however you want. You're no one else's property. You're no one else's rightful slave. If anyone HAS enslaved, they've done so, unrightfully. I've done drugs for years & haven't hurt one person. Not to mention I've barely even hurt myself. I'm smarter & stronger than when I started doing drugs, mostly just smoking weed, which is the only drug that can be abused constantly without any real side-effects, in fact, the more you use weed, the less it effects you. Oh well, thankfully there's a Creator & so people who try to make morality subjective, murdering & attacking others, will be punished & Justice will prevail.

[@puckerings]

"Morality is not subjective, it is OBJECTIVE." As Matt Dillahunty says, assuming that you can agree on a basis for morality (eg, human well-being), than you can make objective determinations of what is and is not moral based on that. However, the basis itself is necessarily subjective. There is no objective reason (in the sense that theists use it) to use human well-being as the basis for morality, but once you agree on that, objective determinations can be made, based on what we know about how the world works and how we interact with it. No creator needed.

[@thegreatprophesizedantichr3762]

Morality is not really subjective. If it is, then one could say there is no such thing as Morality & everything is acceptable. Murdering, Raping, Robbing.. or one could say there is only Morality & NOTHING is acceptable! Tearing all life away. Idgaf what the dictionary says about it being a code of ethics.. Morality, ultimately, is really the considerate or inconsiderate treatment of others. Morality is being nice, Immoral is being inconsiderate & bad.

[@puckerings]

If we can agree on what morality (not capitalized in English) is, then moral determinations can become objective. If we agree that morality is about maximizing human well-being, then we can objectively determine that murder, rape and robbery go against morality. But there is nothing that ultimately forces us to prefer to behave in a way that maximizes our well-being, so in that sense the basis of morality is subjective, if you look at morality as how we treat others, rather than treating others nicely, since that latter meaning presupposes the basis.

[@thegreatprophesizedantichr3762]

Again, I disagree. Morality is far from subjective. Murderers who find it ok to torture & murder, when they are captured, complain when they are tortured & beg for forgiveness & relief. Not all of them but eventually it seems they all give in. Especially in Damnation. Take robbers & rob them, they will not like it, most of them. So morality is really a term associated with right & wrong & we view these things as right or wrong for personal understanding of personal suffering & suffering is unwanted, so codes of morality are established to keep people happy & safe.

[@puckerings]

I'm drawing a distinction and you're just ignoring it. There is a difference between the basis for morality, and making moral determination based on that basis. You say morality is related to right and wrong - but the question is, right and wrong relative to what? There is no objective meaning to right or wrong, in the transcendent sense. But there is meaning to right and wrong with respect to human well-being, and so that can be used as a basis. And we can determine what things increase well-being and what things decrease it, and thus make objective determinations based on that. Murderers who find it okay to murder, who believe that murder is moral, are simply wrong from the perspective of human well-being.

[@MrHolodecker]

Go Matt Go! keep going my man! You are awesome!

[@Torn_Io]

My friend. Did you watch it all the way?

[@joshd2528]

Matt kills it...as usual!

[@aaaaalife]

It says 'ballsacks' on the blackboard behind him...

[@Sophie-ge7ti]

Some hooligan...

[@nitehawk86]

More importantly "Education Ballsacks", the more important kind of ballsacks.

[@BaalBuster]

Lol. I know. I've just paused the video to check. Yep. Ballsacks.

[@ozfizface]

Sapiosexual vandalisation ;D

[@Waterbottles711]

"ballsacks"

[@lancethrustworthy]

Hey Audio! Matt's wearing a personal mic. Why does he STILL sound lousy? WHY didn't you do sound check? Why didn't you fix it during the show? Why allow a show to be ruined by bad audio? Why don't you care?? Don't do this anymore.

[@darianhatcherdrums]

Is it just me that sees 'ballsacks' written on the chalkboard?! Lmao

[@anitabonghit2758]

im against all religions. but not equally.

[@johno9098]

Yes, there are religions that at least marginally have a better value system, morality, and reflection of reality than most others.

[@seaglider844]

I love it when Theists make our arguments for us....thanks mrtadreamer...case closed.

[@WestCoastWheelman]

Holy shit was it frustrating to watch Matt stumble his way though this. Anyone who purports to know anything about secular morality without at least a mention of the concept of "universally preferable behaviour" is doing the topic a great disservice. Google it, read it, ignore the source and analyze the argument The only thing we need for secular ethics is having enough empathy to deeply internalize what we all learned in kindergarten and first grade - treat others as you'd want to be treated yourself. It really is actually just that simple, stop making it more complicated than needed.

[@WestCoastWheelman]

Carl Eleck Behavior is not a term limited to animals in any way, and besides - humans are animals even if it was. Read the free e-book "Universally Preferable Behavior" by Stefan Molyneux if you are confused about the argument I made.

[@WestCoastWheelman]

Carl Eleck "If a human is an animal, anything goes." That is not an argument. Care to elaborate what that statement even means in relation to the concept of ethics? Read the book I mentioned - it's pretty short but I don't want to have to basically regurgitate it all for you here in a KZbin comment debate.

[@WestCoastWheelman]

Carl Eleck Sure you're an atheist, but with this last comment I'm now pretty sure you are also an idiot. You don't even make grammatical sense, let alone any common sense. Worse yet you're pretending I said I bunch of stuff I never said, falsely attributing your own blathering nonsense as my argument - which I never made. I am done with you. Just read the damn book, you clearly still need some help with this stuff. And don't reply to me again or I'm just going to delete it.

[@fallis07]

Sorry, it's not "Treat others how you would like to be treated", it's, "Treat others how THEY would like you to treat them" Not everyone is going to want to be treated exactly like you want.

[@abossman13]

I see your argument. But what happens when someone wants to be treated differently than YOU think you should be treated. For example if I have little regard and self respect for myself than I can justify treating other people the same way. So yeah i think it is a little more complicated than a 1st grade outlook in morality.

[@whitemisa]

Which God are you referring to? the Iranian sky god Ahura Mazda, The Bible God Jesus, Dagon, the great Egyptian goddess Isis, Aztec God Quetzalcoatl, Sumerian God Anu, Shiva, Hindu God Brahma, Thor, Thracian and Phrygian god Sabazius, the Arabian Moon God Allah, the Japanese God Hoori, Nemesis, Egyptian God RA, Source Energy, Greek Goddess Gaia, Inti, the sun god etc, etc,….?

[@elkhuntr2816]

The argument isn't "can you be good without God". If there is a God, yes of course you can be good even if you don't believe in God. The reason is: if there is a God, objective moral values, duties, and accoutability do exist even if you are an atheist. God gave everyone a conscience which gives you a moral instinct. But if God does not exist, there are no objective moral values or duties and there will be no moral accountability. From there, everything is subjective opinion, social norms, tastes, acceptable behavior, etc... But it isn't objective across all societies. Some societies such as the Nazis will make up a radically different value system that you will not be able to objectively argue against.

[@elkhuntr2816]

@Anon Ymous "You could be the most heinous person on earth and as long as you repent and accept Jesus before you die, you're saved. " Yes, even the "worst" person can be saved if they repent and accept Jesus. On the other hand the best, most "moral" person on earth, according to subjective human opinion, can not be saved based on their own efforts. This just shows how wrong our subjective opinion of morality is when measured against Gods. Even the best person in history falls far short. "Specifically, the Christian system is a way to AVOID moral accountability. " Absolutely, and thank God for that. If we all got what we deserved, we would all end up in hell. But God still gets perfect justice because what we deserve was given to Christ instead.

[@calldwnthesky6495]

@@elkhuntr2816 "god" doesn't deserve to be capitalized until this "god" has met its existential burden of proof

[@elkhuntr2816]

@@calldwnthesky6495 ""god" doesn't deserve to be capitalized until this "god" has met its existential burden of proof" You mean maybe he should become a man, declare who he is to the world, and prove it through miracles? Oh wait, he already did that. There is very good evidence that he exists. Start with the historical evidence for the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

[@calldwnthesky6495]

@@elkhuntr2816 i think my reply was meant for the other guy. in any case, you're a nut... and that's not ad hominen it's just the plain truth

[@BustinJustin951]

Who wrote "ballsacks" on the board?

[@MrMZaccone]

I like your post. Try this on for size, I think you'll enjoy it as it's very much an extremely clear version of the point you just made.

[@Lacocacolaman]

So who says lying is wrong? where do we get these ideas from?

[@YouareI-r8q]

Where did you come up with that definition for atheism?

[@JFREERADICAL]

I know Matt wanders a lot, but great camera work all around!

[@notreallydavid]

He's a fair-sized target, and doesn't move impossibly fast.

[@EspadaKing777]

This is really interesting, thank you for uploading. I'm doing Philosophy at uni, and I really like Ethics as a topic. I find myself with Matt on most things, and now I find he is a Cognitivist Realist! Awesome, i need to look up some of the debates he mentioned.

[@Majora96]

18:35 When comparing the results of actions, what makes one "better" than another? Aren't you holding some base arbritrary presumptions and then how is this an objective answer?

[@JeffmChicago]

That was very helpful.

[@revwillyg6450]

Are we just going to ignore that it says "ballsacks" on the chalkboard behind Him?

[@Kyeudo]

It says "Education ballsacks". Clearly, someone is a big brained thinker.

[@nickborelli9976]

Great ideas!

[@KanonHara]

What debate is he referring to in this video? Can I watch it on KZbin?

[@sayhi2yourmum4me]

Great talk

[@azminivanracer]

As I said before; I'm not trying to explain anything. I'm asking you to explain it. If evidence includes things like eye-witness testimony, where is it? As far as I am aware, there are no eye-witnesses to Christ in biblical and non-biblical writings. can you cite them for me? (for clarity on this point, what change in the disciples are your referring to?) I would also like to make the argument that prophecy and an empty tomb are not direct evidence of anything. would you like me to explain why?

[@mariasmith9233]

One point is that Music, just made by inflated Ego's can create more damage than good, without the actual person being aware of it. What amazes me, is that you have people that say words mean nothing, but in the same breath say that words mean everything. Words can be great but at the same time, they can also breed hatred, they can breed jealousy and animosity and nasty stuff because they are weapons also and they can be healers as well.

[@ChristianIce]

Morality is a construct of the mind, so it is by definition subjective. No mind, no morality. Problem is, there are 2 definitions of "objective" in english. From the latin, one is "sine opinione": unaffected by prejudice, not influenced by emotions or personal bias. The other is "ex re", meaning *Independent of the mind* The second one is mutually exclusive with "subjective", while you can use the first definition for something that is both subjective and objective. This problem doesn't occur in other languages, where you have two terms for the two different meanings. In italian, for example, we have "obiettivamente" and "oggettivamente" They both translate in "objectively" in english (check google translate), which means it's a flaw in english (and other) languages.

[@Corporations8MyBaby]

We do. Matt explained how in the video. Why not watch it?

[@Lacocacolaman]

interesting, what is the point?

[@johanvanderlinden4331]

He begins by saying it is impossible to discuss secular morality in such a limited period of time, and then he wastes the first 14 minutes telling stories about previous debates he participated in. He is over 14 minutes in before he even addresses the subject. This is what I dislike so much about Matt Dillahunty. I have no idea how he ever developed a reputation for seeking the "truth." The only think he seeks is a fight. It is all tribalism and us against them with Matt. It isn't about the truth. It is about who is winning a debate.

[@calldwnthesky6495]

have you ever heard him debate outside of TAE ? your claims are absurd

[@johanvanderlinden4331]

@@calldwnthesky6495 Yes, I've seen many of his debates. I've never seen him show the slightest interest in pursuing the "truth."

[@calldwnthesky6495]

@@johanvanderlinden4331 enjoy your fairytale you nut

[@Zerumix]

This is awesome

[@dorememe8548]

This was probably the first video I’d ever seen with Matt Dillahunty.

[@MutableJohn117]

I'm not trying to sound dumb or anything but I don't get the reference..

[@RockAustinDXtakerRk0]

@2:11 .. Why does it say "Ballsacks" on the board? LOL.

[@MysticalHydra]

Is there a link to audience questions anywhere?

[@jinxy72able]

Gagan Kalkat I was just wondering the same thing? What kinda fuckin class is this?

[@marcoomnigamer]

can you prove that?

[@luizr.5599]

At first, I disliked Matt. I thought he was impatient, harsh, even rude... But everyday the more, I feel like him, impatient about this shit.

[@chromefroze9584]

There's still the problem that what's considered moral isn't necessarily related to your own or others wellbeing, that's an arbitrary position. Even if you accept wellbeing as objetively morally good, the question remains ''whose wellbeing on whose expense''. Is your goal a minimum of wellbeing for everybody which likely demands some sacrifices of wellbeing from the (by privilige or otherwise) strong, or is it as much well being as possible for most people which likely would exclude some weak--

[@mariasmith9233]

What people can be convinced easily? I'm sorry, I am not sure what you are talking about, in what context exactly? Could you be a little more specific please?

[@Hipcubbiesfan80]

What year is this again?

[@bruceshand8052]

The sound quality is horrible and it even sounds like it has a laugh track.

[@kindlydols1215]

yooo, you guys clearly don't care about your message with this bad sound...

[@CaptainDummyTalk]

Horrible, horrible audio. I'll find some other version.

[@MaximilienDanton]

Did you find one?

[@YAMAHADIVERSION33]

I do agree that the sound quality can be inmproved. We do that by taking the line out of the sound system, and use that for the line in of the video recorder. But hey, I am from the Netherlands and I can still understand every word of it...

[@YouareI-r8q]

"Dictionarydotcom: 1. The doctrine or belief that there is no god." Now you're telling me "It is not a belief system." Which one is it?

[@Rico-Suave_]

Watched all of it

[@MrMZaccone]

Which of thousands of "manuals" is that?

[@MichaelJohnsonGeek]

Let me correct myself: How do you know that *INSERT FANTASTIC STORY* is fact and not fiction? What corroborating evidence do you have that says that *INSERT HOLY BOOK* is fact?

[@ciararespect4296]

Shame the sound is distorted bad mic

[@Seethi_C]

He never actually explained how you determine if an action is right or wrong

[@Contagious93812]

it's situational and it's based on well being

[@Seethi_C]

@@Contagious93812 So any action that increases well being or at least doesn’t reduce well being is ok?

[@Contagious93812]

@@Seethi_C No. The idea that any action which increases well-being and does not decrease well-being is acceptable fails to take into account the nuances of morality and the potential consequences of certain actions.

[@Seethi_C]

@@Contagious93812 So what are some factors other than well being that matter in the decision?

[@Contagious93812]

@@Seethi_C Consideration of fairness, individual autonomy, the recognition of human rights, empathy, compassion, integrity, honesty, sustainability, and the impact on future generations.

[@austinpore3834]

This was a great vedio but if I'm being honest the audio was a bit eccoy

[@SilverIcetail]

This audio is really low. I hope you amp it up a little later.