Richard Dawkins on absolute morality

[@BBOYMONI]

WHEN THE GLASSES COME OFF, SHIT GETS REAL!

[@MunisAwesome]

Once he takes off his glasses, you just know he's going to verbally own someone.

[@funnilyenough7340]

He actually didn’t answer the question. He avoided it. So he actually tricked the audience and anyone watching, like yourself

[@shashankphansikar7094]

@@funnilyenough7340 can you explain further ?

[@JaySeamus]

@@shashankphansikar7094 he avoided giving an account of the ontological nature of 'morality' - what exactly is morality if it's subjective.

[@scintillam_dei]

@@funnilyenough7340 Atheist fanatics care about style, not substance. They can only talk the talk, not walk the walk.

[@funnilyenough7340]

@@scintillam_dei I’d like to know what’s Dawkins thoughts are on forward thinking metaphysical software that can literally evolve a species, and on where it’s originated from? As he is a total bs artist. He says things are immoral? But can’t tell you were morality derives also 🤣

[@paulgribble3832]

I love the people who commented with Bible quotes and are just proving his point for him. They love to quote how much god loves them and all the peace-loving bits, but conveniently leave out the slavery part and how if you rape an unmarried virgin, you can go to the father and basically buy her... But, that's none of my business.

[@untoldhistory2800]

Wrong. A rapist was to be put to death. If a man had sex with a virgin he was forced to marry her to provide for her all the days of her life yet she was free to leave yet still be supported financially. That law was to protect vulnerable women from being used just for sex as a ‘one night stand’ or ‘just fun’. If a man wanted to have sex he had to be a man, make a commitment and take responsibility.

[@grahamyates2490]

@@untoldhistory2800 Well, even if the rapist had to marry the virgin under the law, he still had to buy her from her father. "“If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver ..." (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) Basically the 'woman is the property of man' thing, which really goes to support Dawkins' point that most societies have outgrown many of the "absolute moralities" contained in the Bible.

[@ilsagita5257]

​@@untoldhistory2800wtf no one wants narry their rapist 😮 Don't confuse rape with one night stand tf dude ..obe is with consent and the other isn't with ir Tho i don't support one night stand and hookups but what you wrote is absolutely nuts

[@untoldhistory2800]

@@ilsagita5257 you didn’t read my post and you haven’t studied the passage in its original Hebrew language. A rapist was condemned to death ☠️. Period. No woman was force to marry a rapist. You can’t be married to a dead person.

[@untoldhistory2800]

@@grahamyates2490 the daughter was property of the father, yet she wasn’t a slave. If the father was allowing the marriage to take place the future husband had to pay him money. You either study the historical context, Bible commentary and original Hebrew or come out with wrong conclusions. God created woman with the same dignity and autonomy of man. Men are commanded to love, nurture, protect and provide for their wives and to lead under Christ.

[@uilliambraith1055]

You know it was over by the way he took off his glasses.

[@1415gatewayable]

Yeah over for him 🤣 that was a retarded answer because Christians live by grace by the sacrifice of Jesus we no longer live solely by the law of Moses.

[@lewiswellsfootball9063]

@@1415gatewayable Jesus is fake lol

[@Ozzyman200]

Morality has always been a problem for religions. Whilst religious people individually can be moral, they cannot explain why any act is right or wrong based on faith.

[@brogadierthethird7790]

Before I dive deep, what do you mean been a problem? What do you mean we can't explain why any act is right or wrong based on faith? Want you to clarify these please!

[@Ozzyman200]

@@brogadierthethird7790 Fair enough. I'm saying that theists can't explain why any act is morally right or wrong based on faith. This is the problem. Perhaps they can, but have chosen to hide how they do it, but that does seem very unlikely.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/rpabda2rasqafs0 - I’d love to know your thoughts on this

[@Ozzyman200]

@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 Let's hear yours.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

@@Ozzyman200 okay People are good in their own eyes and the worlds eyes. The definition of good is perfection so God demands perfection. That is the definition of good. Since no one is perfect God died on the cross for you and me. All that is required of you is to believe in Jesus and turn from your wicked ways. God isn’t asking for much how loving is that! After you turn to Jesus If you fall get back up again. Proverbs 24:16 For a righteous man may fall seven times And rise again, But the wicked shall fall by calamity.

[@1987Riva]

This is one of his best videos. It's short and it hits the point so hard.

[@djmojo243]

Rivinath Jayasinghe what programme is this I'd like to see the entirety of it...

[@mansoor7571]

He is wrong he is self contridicting

[@oneluv66]

I don’t get why when such questions are raised to an atheist, they just dodge the question entirely, focusing on attacking religion instead.

[@Lamassu112]

He didn't dodge the question. You had your answer write there.

[@justonetime6179]

@@Lamassu112 what was the answer? Was it that he doesn’t want an absolute morality?

[@HeythemMD]

@@justonetime6179 Pretty much. He wants society to arrive to a designed morality through philosophical reasoning. He also pointed out that there is no absolute morality, since people, even religious ones, have a morality that's constantly evolving (slavery, role of women...)

[@Ba_A]

This is one of the best explanations about morality..... lovely!!

[@NM-zw7qu]

He’s a smart guy - he cleverly twisted the answer to include corporal punishment under “morality” and did not even touch on the subject on homosexuality, lying, murdering, pedophilia, abortions, fornication and all that creates a corrupt and immoral society and he did that because he knows that atheists cannot draw the line when it comes to these issues. How far can we go and say this is immoral and this is moral? He wants to be kind to animals yet very deliberately chooses to “not be kind” to the Creator who brought him to life.

[@truthserum3050]

@@NM-zw7qu 1. There is no evidence of a creator. 2. His parents brought him to life when they had sex. 3. Homosexuality is not corruption, homophobe. 4. We can draw the line, we're smart enough to realise when it is dangerous to human wellbeing and when it isn't. We're not perfect, but we're far from stupid. 5. Two men or two women in love isn't affecting human wellbeing, but what is affecting it is the homophobic attacks on them from people like you. Homophobes who make them depressed and suicidal and deathly afraid to come out and live freely as themselves, not what someone tells them to be in a muslim country. They're afraid to be thrown off rooftops and killed. 6. There is no evidence for any god and none have been able to provide sufficient evidence ever since the idea was born.

[@truthserum3050]

@Norbert Birkás 1. I don't know why there isn't one, all I can say is that I have not see any evidence of a creator. If this creator is all powerful, all knowing and wants me to know he exists, but I am not convinced, then either he's not able to convince me, not knowledgeable enough to convince me, doesn't want to convince me or he isn't real. 2. No one said sex is a bad thing. Did I say that? If sex is bad without marriage, then I'd need your evidence for this. I agree sex is bad if you aren't in a loving relationship. That would most probably be rape. 3. Dislike, hate, prejudice against homosexuals. I'm using the dictionary definition. 4. I don't believe perfection exists. I wouldn't even know what that would look like. We can only get better, not perfect. It's just abstract. 5. What negative effect is two people of the same sex being in love having on our society? (I edited this to be more specific) 6. All it would take is one sufficient evidence for god from god to convince the entire world because that evidence would have originated from the god itself. I would not depend on fallible human beings for the evidence of the existence of a perfect deity, I'd depend on the actual deity for that as it is the only being that knows how to convince me and is able to do so with a snap of his finger. Anything a human provides can be flawed, but what a perfect deity provides cannot be unless it was his intention for it to be flawed.

[@truthserum3050]

@Norbert Birkás How did you determine it's possible for it to be a person and what does our traits have to do with something incomparable to us? There is no evidence that an omnipotent and omniscient god gave. Had he attempted with the intent of convincing us, he'd not fail, no matter what, because at the end of the day, he knows and is able. I prefer to believe on evidence instead of mere trust. -- How did you determine the universe had a beginning? -- Did you rule out undetectable universe creating hot dogs? -- We have a goal to survive and that's a good enough basis for our moral. Killing people is objectively bad in light of that goal, a goal I'm sure we all have. We all want to survive. -- No, objective morality is not only possible with a god. You first need to demonstrate a god exists and that it is moral. -- God deliberately creates us knowing we'd distrust it. God put himself in this situation, a situation no one asked for. Don't blame anything on us, your god foresaw all of this and still let it occur. All of this was unnecessary. -- The world is not evidence of a deity, that's the watchmaker argument which has been debunked a gazillion times. The world is evidence of the world, not a god. No god fails to convince its creation. Any event that occurs is because of god because had god not pushed the first domino, it wouldn't have lead to all of this just how he knew it would. -- "For no reason"? They have no reason to believe god exists. It's not that we trust or don't trust. It's merely the fact that this god lacks evidence. You may as well be speaking to me about your imaginary friend, dude. Honestly. -- Dude, your god is creepy and psychotic. He deliberately causes A knowing it will lead to B, causes A, then blames us for B occuring. Logically, he is responsible for all that occurs as he had caused it by pushing the first domino and he had done so deliberately due to his foreknowledge. -- Can you present your god to me? You may as well be asking me to put my trust in allah if you're not going to provide sufficient evidence for your god's existence. So convenient that every single god in every single religion has to have a reason to conceal themselves from the world. -- If it's solid evidence for you, good for you. But, it's not for me and your god knew that before presenting the supposed evidences. He knows what to do right now to convince me and he's able to do it, but for some reason will not. You wanna guess why? That's all you can do from here. -- He's not present because not many people believe in him? This sounds so similar to the plot of thw Santa Claus movie with Tim Allen. 😂 Not many people were believing he exists, so he started to disappear lmaooo -- God knew they'd eat from the tree prior creation, so he's at fault for continuing to create that future. If he didn't like it, create a different future. If he can only create one future, don't create anything because it all fucks up. Don't create a mess just to fix the mess and play the hero.

[@khaledchatah3425]

@@truthserum3050 When u say evidence, What evidence do u need? Do u really need to see God to believe in him? Imagine if God came and told u i am God and did a miracle, u will absolutely say its my imagination, the guy is a magician of some kind. Because u already excluding in ur mind the possibility if him being God. U always repeat what the new atheists say like Richard Dawkins here, There is no evidence for God, before u say that explain what evidence u need and why u need it, i really doubt that u ever thought of this question. When u say love and such explain why a "good" relation ship has to include love. Why would u need love? Homosexuality can be cured, there are many people who recovered from it perfectly fine, gay sex has 22% more potential in transmitting sexual diseases, In fact the HIV was called a gay sexual disease but because its was considered offensive to gay people it the naming changed. Homosexuality only brought more diseases. Because someone desires something it doesn't mean that he is free to do its not wrong to do it. Why do u have to see something in an act to consider it right or wrong. Maybe u can't see it now and after decades for example u can see it. Isn't it time to think outside the box of Consequentialism? Primarily homosexuality is wrong because God said so we don't necessarily need a consequence to say something is good or bad as u may not know the consequences. One of the biggest advertiser of homosexuality admitted that homosexuality is not normal and can be cured. Richard Dawkins argument can be thrown right back at his face. He needs a morality to be argued? reasoned with? nice but lets see on what basis u do that? On ur desires? on people's desires? or evolution? because evolutionary no animal does homosexuality. Also certain animals or insects for example like the black widow kill their husbands.

[@hpxavier]

Legend says the ears of the guy who asked the question are still ringing to this day!

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

Have you ever lied, lusted, disrespected parents, stolen, thought bad thoughts, hated someone, sinned sexually etc All humans have sinned in thought, word or deed. Therefore, none of us are good and able to get into Heaven and will be justly judged and sent to eternity in Hell! But God out of His love sent his son Jesus (also God in Human flesh) to die on the cross for our sins and rise again from the dead (nobody can do that only God). Jesus said if you Repent of your sins and put your complete trust in Him for your salvation, you’ll have eternal life, given to you as a gift (this message is not to be ignored; seek God today). Your thoughts? John 14: 6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

[@revo1974]

@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 Have you ever told the truth, not been lustful, respected parents, have not stolen when you easily could have, thought good thoughts, loved someone, had consensual sex with your husband/wife, etc. Therefore, none of us are evil and able to get into hell. Explain how eternal punishment for finite crimes is just. Your god created us sick, but commands us to be well. We are all deserving of enternal punishment right out of the gates because of a sin committed by others (Adam and Eve). And there is no moral accountability in your system. Instead of being judged by our overall actions and deeds, we instead have to just believe Jesus is our savior. So a person who lives an overall bad life get to go to heaven for coming to Jesus in his final days. Meanwhile, a person who lived a mostly good life goes to hell because they aren’t convinced some guy who lived 2,000 years ago was god-incarnate.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

@@revo1974 Original Sin/Paying for other sins Nowhere In the Bible does it say we are born with original sin. Children who die up to age off accountability go to Heaven. Yes all the aborted Babies go to heaven, the young children who died in the flood go to heaven etc Young Children don’t know the difference between right and wrong so they cannot be judged; we will though Ezekiel 18:20- The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. All have sinned so no one is clean/good in God's eyes. Hell to big a punishment for small sins like lust. You are forgetting that God is Holy (the Holiest) so you cannot be in his presence without Him imparting his righteousness onto you by Jesus Christ death and resurrection. God is infinite- Consider this- if you sin (lets say slap) against your dog there is little to no consequence you sin against your sibling there is little consequence, sin against your parents they may kick you out of the house, sin against a police officer you may go to jail, sin against the president (attacking the president) in most countries you would be sentenced to death, sin against God you go to Hell and because God is infinite; Hell is infinite. So it’s not just the action/sin that matters but who you sin against. Or you could simply humble yourself and ask for forgiveness, but your love of sin won’t allow you to do that or pride (examine yourself and see which is it)

[@attackpatterndelta8949]

It’s the guy’s mate with the glasses who makes me laugh. He looks at the lad who asked the question, then looks back at Richard Dawkins with an expression of “Well he fucked that up, didn’t he?”

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/l6bSopWFep6FrNk I’d love to know your thoughts on this

[@sbellaharris]

Don't tell me you're a Muslim or Christian if you cherry pick the good bits from your holy book but left out all the bad bits. Doing so you're no longer believing in that religion, you're still believing in supernatural higher power but you're no longer Muslim or Christian or etc, you're in a completely new religion on your own. As soon as you found any verse that is wrong, even it's just 1 line from the book you should not believe in that religion anymore, you should not side & defend that religion anymore just because it's part of your culture. I know it's hard but human abandoned many cultures overtime because deep down in their heart they know that it's wrong.

[@lecu1967]

+G2K7AU05 How do you know what's good or bad in the Bible? You have your own absolute morality. If you think mine too is not absolute then how can you argue anything is good or bad? All you can say is "This seems to me to be good". There has to be absolute rules. If you say "There are no absolute rules" then you've just made an absolute rule.

[@camiloandresmartinezmonter228]

there are not absolute rules and even that rule is not absolute. Now you will say " that dont have logic sense, but you are using first order logic and sadly first order logic bivalent dont work well with absolutes (actually universe sets has problem there.. same with self references. In this case if you say that i put as a rule that there is not absolute rules, that is self reference and first other logic says.. or is false or is meaningless.. but second order logic say.. that set of absolute rules is empty. That happens cause the word absolute only have a meaning if its valid for all universe (remember i said universe dont work well in first order logic bivalent), And how we know is valid for all universe?. Basicly you use faith for think it does .. but i think that not all can be universal valid, and the few things that are universal valid are not neccesary 100% certain. You could say that all humans have a comun set of rules.. that is a human absolute (valid for the set of humans) but that don't mean they are absolutes, it could exist a planet with a intelligent life form that for them are not valid. Now to see if something is human absolute only have to think.. I could think the opposite of the statment, and is possible that such person exist?.. in terms of rules .. yes all rules or morals are not human absolute.. but its ok.. cause even if they are not absolutes we as society define society rules.. that not being human absolute we just take out the ones that dont follow those rules. PD: that means that set is not a member of itself.. that is where first logic have a problems defining things.. you could see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_paradox for more info PD2: actually i'm using wrong the word set saying "set of absolute rules".. actually that is a class not a set.

[@lecu1967]

+Ramon omaR Is slavery good or bad?

[@weirjwerijrweurhuewhr588]

There is no absolute answer to that question, so I can't give you a simple yes or no. My own personal opinion, and the opinion that is most widely supported across today's society is that slavery is indeed bad, which is why we outlawed it. However, almost every nation / empire before that has supported some form of slavery and viewed it as perfectly normal, so I don't doubt that if I had lived at a different time, say for example during the Roman empire, I'd have a totally different opinion on the subject.

[@camiloandresmartinezmonter228]

i think people dont like to see the big picture.. lets say for a moment anyone agree with slavery is bad... that means he is right and slavery is bad.. well not really in history there are people that tought slavery is good.. cause is not absolute... want show exist something moral absolute... show me something for that people had never go to prison, and is on realm of morality (ya a complete power of the system is complety inmoral for me... and yup i will not go to prison for say it on those case.. i will be death)

[@EnigmaHood]

The question is fallacious in the first place. He's making an assumption which isn't true. Atheism isn't a belief or an ideology. It's a stance on a claim, that's it. So it's entirely possible for an atheist to believe in an absolute morality. Buddhists for example are mostly atheist (at least when it comes to the christian god), but they believe in absolute right and wrongs.

[@chetanyasingh1204]

No they don't. Buddhists are Pantheists. They believe that God is in everything and therefore there are only different points of view, not right and wrong.

[@EnigmaHood]

@@chetanyasingh1204 Wow, replying to a 9 year old comment. But no, you're wrong. Christian god is a very specific god, and being a pantheist doesn't preclude being an atheist in regards to specific gods like the christian god. From another perspective, a christian is an atheist when it is in regards to Hindu gods, because they don't believe them. And no, not all Buddhists are pantheists either, many are atheist in regards to all claims of god.

[@chetanyasingh1204]

@@EnigmaHood Dude read mere Christianity by CS Lewis I hope you can change your mind. God is the source of all right and wrong because otherwise you wouldn't be able to justify any truth claims. All truth claims would be subjective. Even if you say that murder is wrong and that you devised that subjectively, why did billions of other people come to the same conclusion as you? It's because God has placed inside them a sense of right and wrong

[@EnigmaHood]

@@chetanyasingh1204 That's nonsense, the bible says nothing about animal abuse, but yet we know animal abuse is wrong. That proves you're wrong.

[@chetanyasingh1204]

@@EnigmaHood look harder

[@Lamassu112]

This video is pure poetry. I've rewatched it countless times. ❤️❤️❤️

[@VOD713]

Me too 💯

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/l6bSopWFep6FrNk I’d love to know your thoughts on this

[@rickg22]

The problem with religion is that it does not just say "just accept that a God may exist". No, it says "just accept that MY God exists and that MY Priests/Prophets are the only true prophets", even when there's a 99.9999% chance that the prophets/priests just made it all up and invented the morality to suit their own interests. Even to suggest that possibility is met with disdain and a violent call to punish the heretics.

[@Skeptic_Awe]

Ouch! He dropped the mic!

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/rpabda2rasqafs0 - I’d love to know your thoughts on this

[@johnmcmanus6719]

you know Dawkins is gonna wipe the floor with his question when he takes his glasses off 😂✊

[@ALSuBi3e999]

Richard didn’t answer the question, being an atheist means there is no way of any objective morality (nothing is good or bad) even those examples which he mentioned cannot be considered as evil from an atheist point of view.

[@arman_1024]

Good and bad would be relative. There’s no such thing as objective morality.

[@ReedBailey-mu5qy]

Wrong, atheist just simply see no evidence for supernatural entities. They’re morals are based on actions that improve the well-being of themselves and their society around them.

[@AsimKhan-vk1hi]

@@arman_1024no because even relative morality cannot exist in an atheist paradigm. You’re just molecules.

[@arman_1024]

@@AsimKhan-vk1hi haha, so said relative morality can’t exist amongst atheists?

[@SiKr007]

I also have a nice quote from the Bible for you; From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. -2 Kings 2:23-24: What a lovely verse! I would say it really brings out the beauty in Christianity"!

[@mike-0451]

Did you read entire chapter? It doesn’t begin there or end there. The entire story sounds like a folk tale, which is probably is. They were not scientists or non fiction writers. This is simply the way they understood the world. This verse doesn’t disturb me because that portion is clearly there to reaffirm that the Lord is still with Elisha. If you remember (which I don’t think you do since you didn’t read it), Elisha’s father was taken up to heaven, and Elisha has to deal with the aftermath and take action and move on. The entire story is meant to express a meaning. I don’t believe it literally happened, and that 42 boys were mauled to death by bears. The people of this time were not scientists. For them, symbols and rituals were the way they prescribed meaning to the world. For the Jews, being circumcised was very meaningful and important. It makes zero sense to our objectivist post industrial minds, but that is simply what we call cosmology. The story’s purpose is not about what happened, it’s about the meaning. Our scientifically oriented minds have dulled us down into think machines which are incapable of entertaining the abstract and spiritual. We have come to actually believe that our thoughts are nothing more than chemical reactions. That makes no sense to me. What we humans are capable of goes far beyond physical law. We are capable of feeling genuine distress from our own emotions. They can even drive us to suicide. Why would evolution produce a species that can, when left to their own thoughts, think themselves into the grave? I don’t think it’s a cosmic joke, but if you believe that, then you would be ascribed to a grand narrative worldview, which atheism doesn’t agree with.

[@deflategate1297]

U really believe that happened lol it's a story

[@deflategate1297]

@@mike-0451yeah there's a theroy about the bible is a farmers almanac and the beasts are like locations of stars to find your way.

[@deflategate1297]

It's prob a lesson to not bully and what u do will be consequences and reactions

[@finaldestination41]

This man is a Gem.I feel honored that I share the planet with this man.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/rpabda2rasqafs0 - I’d love to know your thoughts on this

[@EcclesiastesLiker-py5ts]

Without objective morality there is no morality. If morals are dictated by the whims of the individual then they are bent to fit the will of every criminal, terrorist and pervert, do you think the slave owners of the South did not think themselves moral? Do you not think Hitler and Stalin and Mao thought they were right? Morality is objective, it's real whether you want it to be or not. The very fact that atheists consider such things as the inquisition to be wrong shows that, at some level they must accept the lie of their position, for if only the individual decides morality, how can we say that it is wrong to torture?

[@noidentity3011]

When you ask the question"how do you know if torturing people is bad" , aren't you assuming already that, it is wrong to torture people? Why do you assume that it is wrong to torture people? Is it because of religious scripture? If it is because it is written in scripture , how do you know that whatever the scripture is stating is true? So aren't you are deciding whether the scripture is true or not? If you are capable of deciding the accuracy of the scripture why can't you create your own morality?

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/l6bSopWFep6FrNk I’d love to know your thoughts on this

[@gregevenden6515]

I think it's an elegant and appealing answer, and a strong argument on many levels, but it doesn't get at the heart of the question. Accepting that religious texts and organized religion is incorrect by whatever degree in its representations of a hypothetical absolute morality, what then can one point to, whether they're an atheist or theist, in terms of an absolute morality? Supposing there is a god and religious texts have misrepresented it, then that entity's divine morality would be absolute regardless of the falsity of the texts, nor does it make morality relative based on a lack of accurate representation in the texts.

[@conors4430]

We can’t point to an absolute reality, because perhaps there is absolutely no such thing as an absolute morality. Reality is what it is whether we like it or we don’t like it. Whether it makes us comfortable or uncomfortable. Even if an atheist can’t provide absolute morality, what does that prove? Nothing?

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/rpabda2rasqafs0 - I’d love to know your thoughts on this

[@didierleonard9936]

His point, ? Abolute morality is too absolute to be any kind of moral at all. The world is nor total white nor black… there s nothing good nor evil… there are only man made moral based on the consequences about harmless Orr not your action applies to something you interact with..

[@ninatravis7791]

Where is this from? I want to see the whole discussion before the Q&A.

[@lassejensen4525]

He didn't actually answer if atheists should decide about right and wrong. Even though "atheism" intrinsically does NOT imply lack of morality, I would still have liked his view on the concept of morals in itself, or the complete lack of it.

[@Skepgnostic]

"Would you commit murder, rape or robbery if you knew that no God existed?" He argues that very few people would answer "yes", undermining the claim that religion is needed to make us behave morally. In support of this view, he surveys the history of morality, arguing that there is a moral Zeitgeist that continually evolves in society, generally progressing toward liberalism. As it progresses, this moral consensus influences how religious leaders interpret their holy writings. Thus, Dawkins states, morality does not originate from the Bible, rather our moral progress informs what part of the Bible Christians accept and what they now dismiss."

[@ahlulhadith6367]

+Mrstealyourchill If you believe in libertarianism, where everybody hates the right to do anything as long as it doesn't cause harm, then I have a question to pose to you. If you agree with this, do you believe that a father and daughter having consensual sex with protection is morally acceptable?

[@lassejensen4525]

+Mrstealyourchill I agree with all that. But he still didn't directly answer the question "Should atheists decide between right and wrong, if they don't believe in absolute morality?" He talked about that morals can come from reason, which is a good answer in its own right. Probably more than what the man was looking for. However I simply would have liked Dawkins to make a quick clarification that, atheism, rationality and morals are all separate things and not necessarily related. The asker seemed to have mixed these things together. It's common to have these bad assumptions on some level, and I would like to see focus on that once in a while in the public debates.

[@Skepgnostic]

Most of the time atheists debating with theists think they are having the same conversation, but they are not. These conversations are often being had on two different frequencies, with both parties thinking they are on the same frequency. It's extremely difficult for someone who doesn't believe in magic (sorry, that's literally what it is) to rationalize or logisticize with one who does. You can't get people to see reason if they believe reason doesn't matter.

[@ahlulhadith6367]

Your just caricaturing theism to avoid the questions brought fourth.

[@samsendar5155]

A lot of Christian "morality" is nothing but PRUDISM anyway, which I think people can really DO WITHOUT.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/rpabda2rasqafs0 - I’d love to know your thoughts on this

[@sandroorlandoni2614]

A morality based upon an intelligent design... :-) Standig Ovation for Mr. Dawkins

[@WolfEyesatNight]

tell me what is intelligence please?

[@TheDizzleHawke]

@@WolfEyesatNight it’s a function or quality of brains.

[@mhdfrb9971]

An intelligent design made by the supreme intelligent Creator

[@didierleonard9936]

@@mhdfrb9971as the universe decay- 2nd law of thermodynamics, your “ creator” could not even make a perfect world. That is, he is not perfect at all. Why à so omniscient omnipotent would make anything imperfect ? Then more evident response: there is no creator at all.

[@simtomas-t6t]

death to apostasy is absolutely immoral

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/l6bSopWFep6FrNk I’d love to know your thoughts on this

[@salasvalor01]

I was just about to comment that this was probably the most cool and perfect reply Dawkins ever gave to a question, then I saw UnkownSoldier's statement. Dawkins is like Jimmy Page in how he has swag.

[@ItsRogerSmith]

*Hangs someone for apostasy* - Why? + Orders are orders (Gods order) Is this their morality?

[@samsendar5155]

A lot of Christian "morality" is nothing but PRUDISM anyway, which I think people can really DO WITHOUT.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/rpabda2rasqafs0 - I’d love to know your thoughts on this

[@themulticourse2460]

What makes it bad if God doesn't exist? Just because you say so?

[@mlester3001]

Human morality derives from our biological nature which predates both religion and reason. These two are layered on top of the biological nature.

[@scintillam_dei]

If that's true, cannibalism is justified.

[@truthserum3050]

@@scintillam_dei Is cannibalism good for human wellbeing?

[@scintillam_dei]

@@truthserum3050 For the one not dying of hunger; they would say it is good.

[@truthserum3050]

@@scintillam_dei This is why morality is demonstrably subjective. If one were starving to death and the only way to survive was to eat your friend next to you, it would be brutal, but necessary for survival. It's like killing someone in self defense. Killing people is bad, but it's justified in self defense. Eating people is bad, but it can be justified when you're stranded, starving to death. But that's not to say I'm happy about that. It's a horrible thing to have to do. Surviving is rough and tough.. sometimes, you'll have to eat your friend. 😂 It's circumstantial.

[@scintillam_dei]

@@truthserum3050 "demonstrably subjective" You demonstrated God doesn't exist? No, you didn't. Atheists' varied ethics are opinionated. Not mine because God is the Creator of reality, so his views are automatically objective reality. :-) And I proved my God is the true God in my series crushing atheists myths. I'd rather die than eat a human. But when you're an atheist who believes humans are just animals, then they're on the menu if convenient! Atheism is degrading. See my video on atheist morality, if atheists were consistent.

[@MrTonyInchpractice]

beautiful.

[@TheChunkyluver53]

It's not what you believe in it's what you act out

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/l6bSopWFep6FrNk I’d love to know your thoughts on this

[@allgood6760]

Can't argue with that.

[@minnie2352]

What in the strawman was that supposed to be

[@ClumsyRoot]

I agree with DavidPirtle: Why must morality be "absolute"? Humans undoubtedly benefit by adhering to certain basic moral principles, but there are almost always exceptions to those rules--occasionally, lying or killing or stealing is the RIGHT thing to do. The world is a complex place, and very often an unyielding moral code will lead to quite immoral behavior. Besides, how do we determine what those "absolute" moral values are? There is no consensus, even within individual religions.

[@michaelgreene7041]

The Dawkinsian version of the Hitchslap.

[@crabbieappleton]

@chrismac1980 I think that was his point: that morality is, in fact, relative to the culture and the time expressing it, and not absolute. The question, as stated, wasn't where atheists get their absolute morality (as the questioner denied an atheist absolute here), but by what justification can they decide right from wrong. And Dawkins' answer is our reasoned, thought-out discussion. I agree that he attacks the Bible, but it IS a major source of "absolute morality."

[@RyuHayabusa06]

There is no absolute morality, even if a god existed since moral law would be dependent upon it's will. For instance, murder is against the Mosaic Law in the Old Testament law yet thousands and thousands of children are murdered by the Israelites in the name of god. How can it be okay in one instance and not another? Because it's subjective according to the will of the Yahweh.

[@RyuHayabusa06]

Yes I have. I've debated numerous preachers, pastors, deacons, etc. as well as appeared on nationally syndicated radio programs as a guest. Instead of accusing me of not reading the bible, how about countering my comment? If you can, that is.

[@RyuHayabusa06]

You do the research. I'm not going to do it for you. As stated before, the Mosaic law forbids murder. However, murder is performed by Yahweh and his followers repeatedly, whether it's the extermination of the Amalekite children, the millions of innocent first-born Egyptian children murdered, countless children killed by the Great Flood, the illegitimate child of David and Bathsheba being killed, etc. Sometimes killing innocents is ok, sometimes it isn't. No absolute morality.

[@RyuHayabusa06]

Nice argument, dipshit. It's quite apparent that you know what I've said is true and have no way to counter. Christianity is nothing but mythology and deep inside you know it. Jesus isn't coming back and the Bible is nothing but ancient myths and mythologized Jewish/Roman pseudo-history.

[@maranatharae]

+RyuHayabusa06 It's absolute "according to the will of the Yahweh"

[@LucienLeeSeoul]

Good point. It's just that there is no act that is absolutely moral because an act's moral status changes according to the will of the Yahweh and his will may change.

[@faceless58]

Amazing how many people are saying he didnt answer the question adequately or its a "strawman". Yes truly the answer to the question is no we cant have absolute morality, his point is thats because there is no such thing and logical reasoned morality is far better. Atheist being able to "decide between right and wrong" is not a leap of faith as it is born from the decision making of moral thinkers from all generation before, and this process is the creation of logical morality.

[@HeythemMD]

@@taoufiqbenallah9029 Do you think atheist people are incapable of differentiating between right and wrong?

[@deflategate1297]

These are for crazy religious nuts most christians are not like this it's called balance in moderation

[@themulticourse2460]

You are saying it's way better. But if its true subjectively then you cant say a tribe being cannibal wrong for them it's right

[@Chrisplumbgas]

An atheist in theory can only claim a moral to be an opinion of the mob. Could you really say it is morally wrong torture and kill an innocent child for fun if the majority of people said it was ok? There is no higher authority.

[@Jim-de4dj]

The Religious would happily do it, they call it divine command, however in most modern 'secular' countries the Democratically elected Governments have removed this as an excuse, But hey they still try and protect their pedophile Priests and ministers from the Law. Morality you don't know the meaning of the word.

[@jedryan8950]

But is there no higher authority? Thinking as an honest atheist, regardless of Chris Wright's beliefs, I find no fault in his logic. If humans are the "higher authority" instead of a god or gods, it really is an argument supporting that general consensus is the standard. A more refined term for "mob mentality". If what you say is true about "the religious would happily do it, they call it divine command..." it isn't refuting his logic. Also, what is morality? How can you say someone doesn't know the meaning of the word? What is THE meaning of the word? Is there A (singular) meaning of the word? According to this person, that person, or you as an individual? Or all of you? Or all of you who happen to have the same beliefs? What makes them "correct"? The majority of "intelligent" people? Who are the "intelligent" people? The people who agree with you? I'm curious.

[@Chrisplumbgas]

Jed Ryan thanks for the comment, its good to have reasonable debate on these issues, even though our view on utimate reality ( theist ) may be different . We hopefully are looking at the same evidence whether empirical or philosophical and have to come to our own conclusions. Expression of why we come to our conclusions is good to be scrutinized and tested , but its better than the usual "your wrong and im right " attitude that so often is the case, as well as the " your f............... wrong you religious nutter.

[@jedryan8950]

Chris Wright Whatever lack of faith I possess, my faith in the argument that “All atheists are more intelligent than theists” has been shattered. You got butthurt atheists with an agenda going after religions (who I would recommend disassociating from), as their arguments often thrive on emotion rather than logic, and you have honest atheists who can acknowledge what is true, untrue, or unverifiable regardless of the source. To the public: Just because someone claims to be an atheist doesn’t equivocate to their words being trustworthy.

[@felipealvarez1982]

Absolutely the best "Morality" rebutal on youtube

[@scintillam_dei]

Absoltuely shit deflection and self-righteousness and a bandwagon fallacy of "when we collectively opinne something to be moral, it shall be treated as law even though it's just an opinion equivalent in objective force as vanilla being the best flavour"

[@troubadour0663]

@@scintillam_dei Well he's not a philosopher. He'll not treat these as a philosopher should. Sam Harris does argues about basing morality in an atheist world. Can't say I particularly care for his way. Dawkins did as best as he could with his knowledge.

[@scintillam_dei]

@@troubadour0663 Ham Sarris is in my series crushing atheist myths. He's a paper tiger.

[@troubadour0663]

@@scintillam_dei Alright. I don't understand what you mean by the first sentence but he's definitely the worst of the atheist bunch. I've never seen a man disavow religion so much on one hand and preach for religious persecution on the other. He is special kind of zealot.

[@scintillam_dei]

@@troubadour0663 I mean I mock him for his illogic and low standards in my series "The Politically-Incorrect History of atheism + Refutations of atheist Myths." I did that series in two versions: English then Spanish. I also dealt with Hawking, Dawkins, Tyson, Bill Nye the Sci-Fi Guy....

[@x13thmonkeyx18]

Well, if you think that this is a valid answer to the question of young man, then you have a serious problem with logic. The young man didn't even say anything about a specific religion. The question is about the relationship between morality and God. Stoning to death, killing converted people etc. are completely irrelevant. His real answer comes after those meaningless examples and is shortly this: "Yes, we atheists can't have an absolute morality." What does the absolute morality mean? It means that there is morality which is not dependent on people's opinion, not about "social contract", not subjective. Like, even if all the world says that rape is ok, it still is not. It's "really" wrong in and itself. It's not wrong because of our "social contract", not because of we fear that we'll be raped also, no. It's wrong in an itself. Therefore, the standard for morality is not our opinions, but still there is a standard for morality. If it's all about evolution, then it means those actions what we call "evil" or "wrong" are not actually evil or wrong, we just feel like they are because we've evolved in this way to protect ourselves from harmful people. If this is the case, then morality is nothing but a way of self-protection. And for a man who doesn't care about self-protection, there can't be anything evil or wrong. Therefore the standard of absolute morality has to be superior to human form of life and has to be conscious. We call these superior conscious people as gods. If this god is not the Supreme God, then this also means that morality is subjective; because there may be other gods who have different nature. But if we believe that morality is absolute, then we have to accept the existence of Supreme God, who is the ultimate source of all other things. This is not about a specific religion. It's just about theism. And what Dawkins says here about religions is basically not true. "Being kind to animals" is not a new thing for example, there are many Vedic scriptures supporting vegetarianism. (I'm a religious vegan by the way, and this man called Dawkins is an animal eater.) There are many scriptures that are opposed to slavery, violence etc. These things are definitely not new. In fact, the truth is just the opposite: The earliest scriptures that seriously discuss ethics are religious texts. But of course, we can't say that all religious texts are the same.

[@christoforosmeziriadis7016]

So morality is not dependent on people's opinion, but it is dependent on God's opinion. That's fuzzy logic

[@abuqatada2389]

Atheists have no response to the morality argument. That’s why they have to strawman

[@loremipsum2237]

@@abuqatada2389 I think morality is based on what will bring joy as I believe a life without joy is not worth living and what is moral is what brings joy so if your getting an abortion slightly offended some random people but made you overjoyed you did the morally correct thing but if it made you depressed but someone else slightly happy it was morally wrong as it results in a net loss of joy but that doesn't mean you are the only morally wright or wrong person whoever led to you making your choice is also doing something morally wright or wrong So whatever term is used for that is what I believe in

[@armandblake]

Please leave space for immortality. Absolute morality can become a dogma, we need to keep a door open to challenge the status quo

[@red-hn5iy]

Lol

[@brogadierthethird7790]

So should we keep a door open on child porn? Rape? Color based slavery? Cheating on one's spouse?

[@martinsoukup562]

Not dogma but a fact. Is gravity a dogma? Is DNA a dogma? Is photosynthesis a dogma? Or are those just facts that we can work with.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/l6bSopWFep6FrNk I’d love to know your thoughts on this

[@kalebball5144]

So strawman an arguement then provide no actual answer? By his reasoning you cant even make the judgement that what Hitler did was wrong, you cant make any judgment about anything. Oh the irony of that is atheism, steal from God to argue against him.

[@damienschwass9354]

@Kaleb Ball. You must have a really weird understanding of Dawkins' reasoning if you think it means he can't make a judgment on Hitler. And where was your god when the nazis were doing all the bad stuff? On holiday?! "Steal from God"- it would be interesting to know what you think he stole from god. I suspect it will involve you irrationally giving your god/ religion credit or ownership of some moral act.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

Have you ever lied, lusted, disrespected parents, stolen, thought bad thoughts, hated someone, sinned sexually etc All humans have sinned in thought, word or deed. Therefore, none of us are good and able to get into Heaven and will be justly judged and sent to eternity in Hell! But God out of His love sent his son Jesus (also God in Human flesh) to die on the cross for our sins and rise again from the dead (nobody can do that only God). Jesus said if you Repent of your sins and put your complete trust in Him for your salvation, you’ll have eternal life, given to you as a gift (this message is not to be ignored; seek God today). Your thoughts? John 14: 6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

[@michaelkeith5398]

If I were religious this would cause all sorts of cognitive dissonance.

[@SomeGuyNotKnown]

Why?

[@zorianmatthews]

how do you account for it being absolute though, with an atheistic world view?

[@HeythemMD]

It's not absolute, that's what's he's saying.

[@themulticourse2460]

​@@HeythemMDso why call tribes who are cannibal bad? Why call murder bad?

[@epicurhyss4014]

Dawkin's response completely slayed the question and deserves to go in the "hall of fame" of atheist replies. Besides, religion only gives lip service to absolute morality, but in actuality fails. "Do unto others" and "loving thy neighbor" vs prescriptions for slavery, killing of apostates and heretics, genocide. It contradicts it's own self can be seen to be subjective in the way it's teachings have evolved through the centuries.

[@untoldhistory2800]

No wonder he doesn’t dare debate William Lane Craig 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@damienschwass9354]

Yes, one is wasting one's time debating with the deluded.

[@martinsoukup562]

@@damienschwass9354 who is deluded?

[@damienschwass9354]

WLC

[@martinsoukup562]

@@damienschwass9354 why?

[@damienschwass9354]

@Martin Soukup. Because I think the belief that: A god created the universe billions of years ago.... then billions of years later created humans.... waited thousands of years before telling a very select group of humans to not eat shellfish and how to cut their hair... who is the standard for morality and tells some people to stone others to death for various offences... and hundreds of years later sends a sacrifice of himself so he can forgive people for breaking his rules... with no further intervention over the two thousand years since while there is misery and suffering, a lot of which is inflicted is his name... in which time most of those who have lived and died are now suffering in eternal hellfire...but he loves us all.... ...is VERY deluded. That's why.

[@adnour2702]

As a muslim we don't cherry pick because we believe that Quran is all divine from cover to cover. And It's not fair to have one opinion and further false claims of an atheist without having a counter-argument of a religious.

[@Skepgnostic]

Noureddine Adrar All the religious cherry-pick.

[@goktugblack]

They do. I live in Turkey. And you are blatantly lying.

[@05772-i]

Perfect answer. It’s as perfect as a mathematical proof.

[@themulticourse2460]

Don't compare strawman to mathematics, mathematics is much pure. He just dodged the question. You can't have objective morality without a higher authority.

[@mistertimair]

By digressing the shortcomings of religious ethics, Dawkins turned the answer into a complete red herring by failing to answer the question if he believes that absolute moral standards should exist. I personally believe that there are certain moral standards that should be considered absolute. To classify acts of rape or torture under either relative or utilitarian moral framework is abhorrent.

[@HumanProgress]

If you get your morality from religion then it becomes relativistic because there are so many religions to choose from.

[@HuyVo-gd2cj]

@@HumanProgress also to add, the questioner was referring to absolute morality in a sense of morality from god. In the first place, atheists can have absolute morality. Is it not that absolute morality simply means there is a right choice in a moral problem regardless of circumstances? That requires no faith in a deity. The question was disingenuous from the get-go.

[@clipshack8555]

As a Nihilist, he's literally just avoiding the question if some people think that stoning for adultery is perfectly fine on what actual basis can you say it's wrong? he even says it himself that it's "horrible" but clearly it's horrible for you not for them.

[@Skepgnostic]

Morality comes from our ability to empathize and sympathize, and from that perspective the notion of causing pain (or death) to another living thing is morally wrong. Ironically we need a holy book to tell us that something that is innately and morally wrong is infact ok...under specific circumstance (which would imply "morally relativism.") And Dawkins is not a nihilist. I don't think you know that means exactly.

[@clipshack8555]

@@Skepgnostic I know that Dawkins is not a nihilist he had nihilistic views though but not sure his current stance on that though, if people think stoning is fine and that's their opinion then that's fine, in my own opinion I don't like it but it has no significance

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/l6bSopWFep6FrNk I’d love to know your thoughts on this

[@themulticourse2460]

​@@Skepgnosticabsolutely not. Then why don't certain tribes feel cannibalism is bad? For them it's good. Who are you to say it's bad?

[@courierdude]

A perfect "Mic drop" for Richard! :)

[@SomeGuyNotKnown]

How is not answering a question a mic drop?

[@lymmy9609]

Stop asking scientists philosophical questions, please.

[@lymmy9609]

@@andrewbordeaux1344 you do know that science says nothing about morality or nothing about god, right?

[@damienschwass9354]

@lymmy. I understand your point but it sort of depends on what's being said or claimed about god, because science can have a hand in that game. For example, if someone says "God flooded the entire planet about 5000 years ago and it flooded above the tallest mountain" ... science tells us "no, a god didn't do that."

[@lymmy9609]

@@damienschwass9354 that's fair, but science still says nothing about the existence of god.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

Have you ever lied, lusted, disrespected parents, stolen, thought bad thoughts, hated someone, sinned sexually etc All humans have sinned in thought, word or deed. Therefore, none of us are good and able to get into Heaven and will be justly judged and sent to eternity in Hell! But God out of His love sent his son Jesus (also God in Human flesh) to die on the cross for our sins and rise again from the dead (nobody can do that only God). Jesus said if you Repent of your sins and put your complete trust in Him for your salvation, you’ll have eternal life, given to you as a gift (this message is not to be ignored; seek God today). Your thoughts? John 14: 6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

[@JFrazer4303]

Dawkins put the shoe down on that one.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/l6bSopWFep6FrNk I’d love to know your thoughts on this

[@ryanstar1823]

@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 really stupid

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

@@ryanstar1823 You know why the world is messed up? The world has turned its back on Jesus. The most misunderstood person to ever exist is Jesus. God came to set the captives free, to heal the sick, give hope for this life and the next. You cannot cope without Jesus no wonder sickness rates, depression, suicides are sky high. Don’t let another day go by without Jesus in your life.

[@quinto34]

@Belegaer No, the argument here is morality comes from discussion, reason etc. ..Has clearly nothing to do with relativism.. Paedophilia is not likely to be reasoned/discussed/argued as being normal in the feature.

[@jimmyw.8232]

“For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. “ “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this : while we were still sinners Christ still died for us. “ Romans 3:21 and 5:8

[@Skylon-u9w]

I often hear from Religious people, "you cannot have a moral compass and know right from wrong if you do not believe in God". The truth is there is no method of knowing right and wrong in Religious scripture. I care about right and wrong. I apply a modified version of the scientific method to my life to filter out false beliefs. I want to make sure there are independent confirmation of the facts. Have a substantive debate. Appealing to authority is not reliable and conducting your own research on the matter is rational. Because the evidence and strength of the argument is what matters not what position of authority a person has nor what someone claims to have used to believe in. Find out what is known about a subject both in support and critical of it yourself, in order to know which positions is based in reality. The wrong one will contradict with known knowledge, such as scientific theories, scientific laws,history or all other known facts are often times misrepresented unintentionally out of ignorance or intentionally to make it seem as if they have a strong case for their position when they really do not. A Scientific theory explains sets of facts and has to make accurate predictions of future discoveries utilizing it. Not same meaning as theory used out side of science by general public usually meaning guessing, hunch or educated ques and in science its called an Hypothesis. There could be competing Scientific Theories which explain the same sets of facts until more knowledge is understood usually ruling out all but 1. This is usually when the Scientific Theory is weak due to the phenomena not being well understood enough or a new discovery waiting to be better understood. Scientific Theories do not become Laws. Also make sure whatever belief you hold is falsifiable which means able to be proven right and wrong (verifiable). A false belief is believing in something which is wrong also known as a fallacy. I do not want false beliefs and I acknowledge humanity is susceptible in having them including myself. Which might unintentionally cause you and others problems or harm. Regardless false beliefs are irrational and I do my best to minimize them. I want as many true ones as possible but I know false ones may creep in from time to time. I am humble in accepting I could be wrong about any position I hold, why I seek out opposing views to my own, so to test them among reality. How do you know if whatever beliefs you have are right or wrong, maybe even immoral? Are they affecting you, loved ones and the larger society in a negative or positive way? I make sure to try spotting fallacies (false beliefs) in my self and in others. I will abandon whatever position I hold and adopt the correct one the evidence supports. Even if I am right I could still be wrong about certain details about it. Someone may also see errors you do not see and think of things you have not, another reason to learn other perspectives and seek constructive criticism. I have nothing against someone disagreeing with me, as long as they have good reasons to. Either refutes my position and provide evidence for their own or stop arguing against me. I will never get too comfortable with any position I hold. I am always leaving room for doubt and error. People tend not to question their deeply held beliefs, often times falling victim to confirmation bias. Why I avoid dogmatism/ fixed belief system, faith and absolute morality. I like learning from history and scientific knowledge about the human condition on what works or doesn't of things to avoid. Good people have done evil who thought they were doing the right thing. History and the present time is full of people who blindly followed religious dogmatic ideologies and or political ones even a combination of them both.

[@brogadierthethird7790]

I'm going to propose a question and pleasseeee do not think I'm snarky. Have you ever taken a philosophy class? Some of your definitions were a little off (such as your claim that false beliefs only = fallacies). You don't have to be religious to know there is a God. If you can, check out C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity" at your nearby library or buy it! Just read that first chapter, that's all (if you want to read more - do it). But the first chapter is not about proving Christianity, but is about how there is a mind behind our morality that we all seem to be aware of no matter who we are. We really can't have absolute moral right/wrong without God. The naturalistic worldview cannot point to any reason for the existence of facts or absolute morality. Meanwhile, a deist can. They don't have to know God to know that it's *always* wrong to steal, murder, rape ... but they know a God is out there that has given right/wrong.

[@arkaazizul6673]

I still didn’t find the answer!!

[@Peter_Scheen]

There is simply no absolute morality! It is based on the society you are in, whatever makes it tick is considered moral.

[@arkaazizul6673]

@@Peter_Scheen What bout a murderer? Or rapist?

[@Peter_Scheen]

@@arkaazizul6673 What are you about to do with somebody who leaves the faith? You kill them. At least many Muslims do so. What about a woman who is unfaithful? You kill them. Does it happen all the time and in all Muslim communities? No. So there is no absolute morality for every religious person gives the holy books such a twitch that it fits the ideas he believes to be true. I go by a simple rule. If I do not want it to be done to me, I will not do it to another.

[@nad1ax2]

@@arkaazizul6673 A human society simply cannot exist, or shall cease to exist, if there are not specific commands against things like murder, cannibalism, rape or incest. Oh wait! The latter two are not true, as proven by religious socities!

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/l6bSopWFep6FrNk I’d love to know your thoughts on this

[@collj86]

Why is it wrong to steal?

[@truthserum3050]

It's wrong because it can lead to conflict and it is also not your belonging. A simple exercise can be used "I don't like it when someone takes my things, therefore, to keep peace, I will not steal others belongings." It's very simple.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/l6bSopWFep6FrNk I’d love to know your thoughts on this

[@themulticourse2460]

​@@truthserum3050so do you like to be eaten? So why do you eat living beings? And it's subjective the tribes cannibalism is good them subjectively.

[@hardcorgamer007]

he didn't answer the question, rather , shift the focus on religion, L for dawkins

[@dburgessnotburger]

Still doesn't explain morality though.

[@simonalexander2971]

The question was: ''how can atheists determine right and wrong if they dont believe in something that's absolute?'' which wasnt only a complete strawman, but also something that Dawkins answered perfectly by explaining how the absolute morality of religious people is something undesireable, but he also explained that the morality we hold today is something recent.

[@themulticourse2460]

I searched for strawman fallacy and found this

[@ngrey651]

Cough-cough-straw-man-cough-cough.

[@jedryan8950]

You have good eyes, sir

[@jedryan8950]

Or rather, ears.

[@chandlersleziak6416]

How is this a Strawman?

[@jomana1109]

@@chandlersleziak6416 You seem to have lost your glasses dear...

[@chandlersleziak6416]

@@jomana1109 No I haven't.

[@March6371]

One word….owned Religion…gets older every day

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/rpabda2rasqafs0 - I’d love to know your thoughts on this

[@PikaPetey]

Richard Dawkins response to question with a classic strawman argument

[@bobtheatheist63]

He just said that you have to cherry pick the parts in the Bible you find to be relevant to our modern morality. He's not saying to throw out the Bible or any one thing entirely, but to instead build our morality from a variety of sources. We can acknowledge if something was originally derived from the Bible, but that doesn't mean it should an absolute source.

[@mediawolf1]

Here's the question posed, in full: "My question is for professor Dawkins. Considering that atheism cannot possibly have any sense of absolute morality, would it not then be an irrational leap of faith, which atheists themselves so harshly condemn, for an atheist to decide between right and wrong?" He did answer that question. He gave a well-reasoned argument with concrete examples for why he believes rationality to be a better path to derive our morality than religion. In addition he specifically addressed the questioner's espoused concept of "absolute" morality, pointing out the pitfalls he sees in it as compared to a morality that is "developed over historical time through a consensus of reasoning, sober discussion, argument, legal theory, political and moral philosophy".

[@Sharetheroad3333]

He gave a well reasoned argument. Do you even know what straw man means?

[@andrewhendrix3105]

It means Dawkins was addressing a different question than the one being asked, which he absolutely was. He cites the historical failures of human moral development as evidence against a prospective divine morality (a poor argument, mind you). He was not asked to defend his view on morality, or say why he thinks his view is more probable than a theistic one. He was asked how he copes with his belief that human morality is not absolute, in so far as there can be no objective right or wrong, but merely a normalization of an opinion held by the majority of individuals developed over millions of years via heritable social niches in natural selection. Humans who were social and caring were selected for, and over time as a species we became increasingly moral. His view is that we are moral not to be moral, but because being immoral is uncomfortable for us as a species. How then could you tell a murderer he was being immoral, if his programming was altered and murder was no longer displeasing to him? A child molester would not be immoral, but mal-wired. In his view of morality, violent crime is not inherently immoral. It simply causes displeasure in the binary (feels good/feels bad) spectrum of emotion for a majority of human beings as a mere relic of our evolution. He does not address this, and thus, has been rightfully accused of attacking the straw man.

[@mediawolf1]

"Considering that atheism" - the questioner is explicitly drawing and inviting a comparison between theism and atheism - "cannot possibly have any sense of absolute morality" - Dawkins will agree with this point in his reply - "would it not then be an irrational leap of faith, which atheists themselves so harshly condemn, for an atheist to decide between right and wrong?" In other words, isn't one or another form of faith required to derive any choice of morality? That is the question posed. My paraphrase of Dawkins's response would be: No. Here are the methods by which atheists arrive at their sense of morality. Here are a few specific examples which I presume or at least hope the majority of the audience would agree with me are moral goods, regardless of the method by which we individually arrived at them. From an atheistic point of view, they're not absolute; rather, they're subject to refinement and evolution over time. They're also not faith-based; they're the result of reasoned discussion, debate, philosophising, etc. (That is the explicit answer to the explicit question. Faith isn't the only reasonable source of morality.) And - I, Dawkins, assert - if we compare the overall results of this process to the overall results of faith-based morality, we see better results. Here are my reasons. Here are some unsavory examples of beliefs and behaviors we all would have to adopt if we treated theist-derived morality as absolute. Here are examples in which societies have demonstrably improved under atheist-derived morality. Given the context, I (KZbin commenter Mediawolf) don't think Dawkins was straying from the intent of the question by including an argument favoring reasoned morality over absolutist morality.

[@mrtaurus51]

Getting to know Richard Dawkins and his morality: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fYq8f4xopLCJjbc In the above vid Richard Dawkins interviews utilitarian Philosopher Peter Singer. The interview is not only revealing about the moral views held by Peter Singer, but it is also interesting to hear Richard Dawkins' reaction to the most controversial passage in this interview and other claims made by him. In this interview Peter Singer says a lot of sympathetic things about animal suffering, but he also makes the following statement: … 0:40 … but on the other hand because I don't think humans are special just in virtue of being a member of the species of homo sapiens I think that you have humans who are for example severely damaged at birth that it is not wrong to end their lives. So I think that in some cases human beings don't have a right to life, because they don't have the possibility of having a worthwhile and meaningful life. … " … Richard Dawkins comment: 1:14 "This seems to be to me completely logically consistent." Also check out the claims about infanticide made by Richard Dawkins at 24:13 and his question "where does it end?" Please notice that Peter Singer does not answer this question.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/l6bSopWFep6FrNk I’d love to know your thoughts on this

[@hintergedanke1069]

Thank you, Richard Dawkins!

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/rpabda2rasqafs0 - I’d love to know your thoughts on this

[@aleksandarrotar710]

I'm amazed how people here are defending immoral acts, and making it a philosophy. *"If a rapist view of rape is moral, does that mean it cannot be immoral?"* That is the stupidest thing I've seen in my entire life. Moral is not an individual thing, it's a tribal thing. If a rape victim isn't hurt, or doesn't complain, then it is not rape it is sexual intercourse. And saying that stoning is okay, sets you in that age. It was the best thing we had at the time but we, dare I say, evolved and made improvements by becoming less primitive than the criminals we punish, but I cannot say the same for god. Like hell for children who died before they could learn about the religion they were born into. Moral compass evolves, unfortunately slowly.

[@brogadierthethird7790]

Your quote that you called stupid, is what your worldview actually accepts and calls valid! Your philosophy literally argues that people like Martin Luther King Jr., the founders of America, Susan B. Anthony, Frederick Douglas, and so many more acted immorally because they went against their societal norms. I hope you see the *huge* flaw in conventionalism, and ditch it! Rape is always wrong, and it doesn't need to hurt someone for it to be wrong. It hurts God ultimately. But you basically described sexual intercourse, not >unwanted forced sex

[@Chiko-sc1gz]

Dude got wasted

[@allgood6760]

Morality is simple: treat others how you like to be treated... and I am not an atheist... in Yoga God EXIST... spirit /soul being🙏

[@themulticourse2460]

I don't want to be eaten still I eat. I don't want to do job of a sweeper still I throw waste. Why?

[@allgood6760]

@themulticourse2460 I don't agree with Dawkins but I listen.... why because I have a good attitude.

[@sullyx5142]

Being gentle, being kind are recent discoveries 😂🤣

[@Anythingthatsinteresting]

If morality doesn't came from religious text or belief, where it comes from?

[@Skepgnostic]

It comes from us. Just like religion.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/rpabda2rasqafs0 - I’d love to know your thoughts on this

[@ratonL]

I thought, if anything, it was a very interestingly posed question. I'm kind of disappointed he didn't actually answer it. :/

[@jedryan8950]

Same here. A lot of atheists hyped this dude, too...

[@DeveusBelkan]

The question asked how is it not a leap of faith to adopt moral principles that do not derive from an absolute authority. The answer Dawkins gave is that it is not a leap of faith to adopt morality that is based upon human reasoning. Faith is a belief held without evidence. If morality is the philosophy of ethical behavior, I do not need faith to trust that if I steal I am hurting someone -- I can reason that if someone steals from me, I would consider it an injustice. Put simplistically, the absolute authority that Dawkins defers to is the golden rule. Were you even paying attention?

[@ce6277]

We’ve seen Dawkins get his ass kicked on the subject in a debate format. There is no rebuttal to his straw man. Put him on the stage with William lane Craig and watch him squirm

[@laza6141]

explain cancer is children , why is God watching and allowing such things ?

[@truthserum3050]

@@laza6141 Because he's either 1. Not bothered. 2. Not able. 3. Doesn't know how. 4. Doesn't exist. Anything other than those 4 logical conclusions is an excuse to have the plot going. Anything an omniscient, omnipotent and self sufficient god does is pointless.

[@truthserum3050]

Christianity would still be false regardless of who wins the debate.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/rpabda2rasqafs0 - I’d love to know your thoughts on this

[@TheQuinbusflestrin]

I came here after watching an hour long debate on this topic between Harris and Craig. This man just dropped truth bombs in a minute which Harris couldn't come up during all that discussion.Pure Genius.

[@collj86]

Dawkins didnt answer the question

[@jarrygarry5316]

Harris is actually quite slow.I am not so big fan of him.Dawkins is more fast with his answer

[@truthserum3050]

@@h20taku60 It's objective in respect to the goal of human preservation. We care about our wellbeing, so we do what's best for us. This is why assaulting people is illegal.

[@truthserum3050]

@@h20taku60 Those who didn't care about preserving their life aren't here. 😐 We don't NEED to have it but given the fact that most people do not want to die and notice that being assaulted is unpleasant and that there's rapid escalation, to use Jordan Peterson's example, "I poke you, you slap me, I punch you-" problem, we set rules so that we avoid that because of course anyone with a rational mind and a will to survive doesn't want that. So, it's recommended that we all have this goal. Human wellbeing, whatever is good for us and not harmful. I don't know why they don't, why don't you ask them? 🤔 If your goal is to preserve the human race and you care about wellbeing, then, in light of that goal, it's an objective fact to say "stabbing you multiple times is not the best for you." or "Making murder illegal is the best for us." It's like if I were to have a goal and that goal was to become a professional footballer (I'm British, so I'm talking about SAHKURR lol), then, it is an objective fact to say that improving on my stamina and endurance is going to help me acheive that goal. Try to think.

[@truthserum3050]

@@h20taku60 Good under what context?? Good needs context. In context of human wellbeing, stabbing you is not good. Making murder illegal, making assaulting other human beings illegal is a good thing because it can help reduce the chances of it. If there were no rules, it'll all descend into anarchy. Rules were made by humans, rules that concern humans. God does not care. All the evidence you need is yourself and others. You don't like being hurt, so you avoid that. There are many human beings like that, and some of them have made rules that help us avoid being hurt, but it's not perfect ofc, people still get hurt and so we put them in prison. It doesn't need to come from a god. You need a little trust in yourself, mate. You're too dependant on an invisible being for your moral decency. Still calling it "subjective" just proves you weren't thinking about my comment. In light of the goal, human preservation and human wellbeing, it is an objective fact that killing people is wrong. If your goal is to survive, then stabbing yourself in the neck is not going to help you, is it? 😂 You're gonna fuckin' die if you do that. "goodness" in context of human wellbeing and preservation. If your goal is to survive, then approaching the hungry lion is not a rational step to survival. Hiding away from it is giving you a chance to survive. You cannot be seriously saying that hiding from a lion in order to survive under the context of human wellbeing is "an opinion". You keep ignoring the goal that many humans share. We decide what is best for us based on the goal we have. Our goal is to survive, so we know it's BEST for us not to go around murdering people as that is demonstrably in conflict with the goal of surviving. How else do you think we've made it as far as we did as a species?? WE SURVIVED! 😂 It's allll about the goal to survive, something that you keep ignoring. It's actually sad to me that I have to explain to people in 2022 why killing people is wrong under the context of the goal of human preservation and wellbeing. Do you not care about your wellbeing? If you do, tell me if it's objectively bad to walk towards a hungry lion in light of that goal. Please, do tell. 😂 We want to survive because we recognise pain and understand with our brain that we don't like pain, so we avoid it. Humans don't care about anything other than what we're dealing with, which is surviving on Earth and doing the best we can to not die. If someone doesn't want to do it, then that's not my problem. I can only try to convince them to live and think of things that make them happy. We're also emotional humans, we care about each other even in the least because we have commonality, we live together on this planet. We have suicide watch for a reason. Do you expect a utopia or something? The example was to showcase that something can be objective when you're given a goal. If you're wanting to be a professional swimmer, then it's objectively a fact that working on your endurace can help you achieve the goal of being a professional swimmer. Same as if your goal were to survive, then making sure you don't get killed and others don't kill others is an objective way to sustain the human race and not go extinct. It's not rocket science, dude. You're trying too hard to fit a god into all of this. "killing people is bad" is an objective fact when it comes to the goal of human preservation. We want to survive, so we make sure we do. What's so confusing about that? It's certainly better than what the Abrahamic religions provide. Stoning for adultery, beating your slave to the brink of death and go unpunished, etc. You need to think for yourself, not have a book do it for you.

[@derdriui]

From an article by Dennis Prager: '[In a debate] Professor Jonathan Glover, the British philosopher and ethicist, who said: “Dennis started by saying that I hadn’t denied his central contention that if there isn’t a God, there is only subjective morality. And that’s absolutely true.” And the eminent Princeton philosopher Richard Rorty admitted that, for secular liberals such as himself, “there is no answer to the question, ‘Why not be cruel?’”' Dawkins is just a loud, dishonest man.

[@ber74]

well this is a moral ethic view, it does not answer the question

[@TheBro47]

Dawkins removed his glasses like professor Grant when he first saw living Brachiosaurus in Jurassic Park

[@damienschwass9354]

LOL. And, of course, the absolute truth is that thanks to god's creative tricks, humans did indeed live alongside dinosaurs about 6000 years ago.... not just in Hollywood films.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

Have you ever lied, lusted, disrespected parents, stolen, thought bad thoughts, hated someone, sinned sexually etc All humans have sinned in thought, word or deed. Therefore, none of us are good and able to get into Heaven and will be justly judged and sent to eternity in Hell! But God out of His love sent his son Jesus (also God in Human flesh) to die on the cross for our sins and rise again from the dead (nobody can do that only God). Jesus said if you Repent of your sins and put your complete trust in Him for your salvation, you’ll have eternal life, given to you as a gift (this message is not to be ignored; seek God today). Your thoughts? John 14: 6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

[@mlester3001]

Without absolute morality, you get situational ethics which has led to such brilliant ideas as thinking that if it feels good, do it. With life experience we see the fallacy of such thinking.

[@jomana1109]

@@HeythemMD Lumping all religions under one umbrella is not an argument, especially when you have no basis to make moral claims. “Inequality” “Slavery” are vague terms that can be played with and hold no significance to the actual acts religion encourages, which promote “equality” & “freedom”. You’re not justified in criticizing anything. Religion is the promotion of a moral framework that takes into consideration the maintenance and improvement of people’s life in the long term. It promotes working through fleeting desires that cause harm to allow a Good life for yourself and everyone, it stresses how we aren’t all knowledgeable or wise to make most decisions for ourselves and you know that’s true. Examples: teen pregnancies, STDs, addictions, etc...

[@Skepgnostic]

Or, "I want it to be true, so it is. ."

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/rpabda2rasqafs0 - I’d love to know your thoughts on this

[@collj86]

As someone else had pointed out. Dawkins in a nutshell didnt answer the question. He just said how bad religion is

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/l6bSopWFep6FrNk I’d love to know your thoughts on this

[@Singebuggercat]

MMM, Dawkins. It's tasty, AND good for you! XD

[@oftin_wong]

What sort of numptie would pose such a question to mr Dawkins and expect to humble him ?

[@roberttelford745]

Someone reading 1500 year old books is my guess

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

Have you ever lied, lusted, disrespected parents, stolen, thought bad thoughts, hated someone, sinned sexually etc All humans have sinned in thought, word or deed. Therefore, none of us are good and able to get into Heaven and will be justly judged and sent to eternity in Hell! But God out of His love sent his son Jesus (also God in Human flesh) to die on the cross for our sins and rise again from the dead (nobody can do that only God). Jesus said if you Repent of your sins and put your complete trust in Him for your salvation, you’ll have eternal life, given to you as a gift (this message is not to be ignored; seek God today). Your thoughts? John 14: 6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

[@oftin_wong]

@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 no,...you are following the most daft religion known to man, god has himself tortured on a cross? The creator of the universe cant think of a better way to save his own flawed creation than having himself tortured on a cross ? Its morons like you that allow silly ideas to flourish

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

@@oftin_wong That is meant to show His love. God paid for your sins so you can get to Heaven by repenting and Believing in Him. Or the alternative is you cans spend eternity paying for your own sins in Hell (what do you want?) I know Atheists think Religious people are stupid but lets see what God thinks of Atheists. Psalm 14:1 The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good. So, what proof do you get? Romans 1:18-20: 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who [d]suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is [e]manifest [f]in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and [g]Godhead, so that they are without excuse.

[@oftin_wong]

@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 your god also commanded his followers to stone an old man to death for collecting sticks on the sabbath and to kill every caananite man woman and child and happily enslave the rest over a real estate dispute ...before you tell me that the caananites were child sacrificers and deserved it,.... I say to you, how is it any different for god to sacrifice his only begotten son? You could make the argument that sacrificing a child is an act of love...as you just did. And what innocent children then deserve death or enslavement for the sins of their parents ? Your whole christian ideology is built on child sacrifice and the fear of eternal torment in hell,..its barbaric Outdated and totally stupid ..thankfully its also imaginary And only suits mentally unstable people like yourself

[@emiliospowerballer1441]

In my humble opinion, religion its self never preached morality or absolute morality. It served as a tool to control people, applied similar to law. Because times change, and so do human values and as a result morality. Morality can never be absolute because as time moves on, and so do the circumstances we live. It wasn't really until Napoleon where morality took a turn and then until WW2 where our values have changed because as time changes, and so do the circumstances, our perspective and thus our values. Religion never taught morality, it was used as a tool of power justified by the idea of morality of the few applied to everyone else.

[@MarkoVukovic0]

Religion absolutely preaches absolute morality, and each one claims to be unerring in this. Thankfully, there is separation of church and state, otherwise religion would enforce their ideas of morality. There are still remnants of this absurdity unfortunately, like outlawing same-sex marriage and abortion. In my country (South Africa), it wasn't very long ago that one could not buy alcohol on a Sunday.

[@martinsoukup562]

Morality can be absolute if there is God.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

Have you ever lied, lusted, disrespected parents, stolen, thought bad thoughts, hated someone, sinned sexually etc All humans have sinned in thought, word or deed. Therefore, none of us are good and able to get into Heaven and will be justly judged and sent to eternity in Hell! But God out of His love sent his son Jesus (also God in Human flesh) to die on the cross for our sins and rise again from the dead (nobody can do that only God). Jesus said if you Repent of your sins and put your complete trust in Him for your salvation, you’ll have eternal life, given to you as a gift (this message is not to be ignored; seek God today). Your thoughts? John 14: 6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

[@MarkoVukovic0]

@@martinsoukup562 thankfully, there isn't one and we are able to use our own logic and reasoning.

[@martinsoukup562]

@@MarkoVukovic0 how do you know?

[@Tsadi9Mem9Khet9]

Moral reprobates have no place speaking on the topic of morality as though their point of view were valid at all, just as I would have no place speaking authoritatively to Richard Dawkins on the observable, testable realities of biology.

[@mohawkgamer4642]

Aye, he not be a TRUE SCOTSMAN!

[@aazhbd]

@Quintinohthree, No, I said that He couldn't have, but he could have chosen, there is a difference of fathering a son and choosing a son. He can't father a son, but could have chosen. And once again, see the good translation. Mohammad (pbuh) was the first muslim of the people around him as mentioned "among you" in the verse. Same goes with Moses (pbuh). The first Muslim was Adam (pbuh), and all the prophets followed the same Allah and the same message.

[@loly1969]

wow , what a complete answer , beginning to the end , dawkins sits n delivers

[@scintillam_dei]

He shits and deflects self-righteously wile appealing to a bandwagon AD NOVITATEM faallacy combo. His irrationallity upon irrationality is swallowed by the gullibile as if it were exquisite.

[@scintillam_dei]

@@keithboynton You're a liar.

[@junevandermark952]

"There is nothing divine about morality; it is a purely human affair." Author … Albert Einstein. And I suggest that it is as probable that humans will experience an afterlife, as it is probable that a crocodile will experience an afterlife. “We are all hallucinating all the time, including right now. It’s just that when we agree about our hallucinations, we call that reality.” Anil Seth … neuroscientist.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/rpabda2rasqafs0 - I’d love to know your thoughts on this

[@junevandermark952]

@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 This is what I think of the podcast ... “We are all hallucinating all the time, including right now. It’s just that when we agree about our hallucinations, we call that reality.” Anil Seth … neuroscientist.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

@@junevandermark952 A Dad and his son were fishing and having a great time. The Dad told the son to never jump in these waters as there are deadly creatures lurking below including many crocodiles. The son didn’t take his Dads instruction seriously because he couldn’t see anything on the surface. Because the weather was hot and the son wanted to cool off he jumped in the waters. The Dad quickly jumped in to save his child by throwing him back into the boat. However the dad was killed by some crocodiles in the process. Jesus is the Dad you are the child "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13)

[@junevandermark952]

@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 No greater love had a god for his son, than to send his own son to earth to be murdered. The stories are all nonsensical gibberish.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

@@junevandermark952 For every action good or bad there is a consequence. When you sin (break God’s laws) you earn the death sentence which will last forever (Because it is against an eternal God). But justice can be done if someone pays your fine. You cannot pay your fine because the fine is eternal and you need to be perfect . Now Jesus is eternal and perfect in that He is sinless and He paid your fine by His precious blood on the cross and He defeated death by rising from the dead. All you have to do is repent (Don’t be a hypocrite) and Believe in Jesus for forgiveness of sins against God. How Loving is that!

[@trumppower2192]

funny how he completely ignored the actual question I would of said yes I know all that now answer the question please 😂😂

[@EpsilonFilms]

How did he ignore the question?

[@trumppower2192]

EpsilonFilms in the sense that if God doesn't exist there is no meaning to anything life is a meaningless accident so who cares what way we treat others or animals are the worms going to judge us when we're in the ground lol😂😂😂

[@EpsilonFilms]

So the only thing keeping you from committing atrocities is the fear that you will be punished after you die?

[@trumppower2192]

EpsilonFilms Albert camus said that for me no because I believe I was made for a purpose so why would I want to kill myself it's not because I fear it I don't need to because it reassures me I have meaning outside anything I make up unlike atheists

[@trumppower2192]

EpsilonFilms I treat people and animals with love and kindness based on the fact that God created them and to disrepect them would be in turn disrepecting God.

[@collj86]

The question was as an atheist can you just say what is right or wrong? And dawkins just points out how bad religion is like stoning

[@freelancer5390]

if u don't understand what he says, please go back to sleep. i haven't heard such a complete answer in my life.

[@scintillam_dei]

@@freelancer5390 His answer is delfection and the bandwagon AD NOVITATEM fallacy combination. He is very irrational, but atheist fanatics treat him likea genius. He is just a hellbound paper tiger.

[@Athicuz]

@@scintillam_dei Actually no, he is giving a counter-argument about why religious people has the worst morality among all kinds of ideologies. Which furthermore responds the answer giving what morality actually is in an atheist point of view Which is "Inteligente design"

[@scintillam_dei]

@@Athicuz "worst" is your self-righteous opinoin. You bigots can't see yourselves from a third person point of view. You're just like the rednecks you mock. "an atheist point of view? Oh, not a communist one? Not a serial killer one? A hypocritial liberal extremist one like yours? Mys eries on atheist myths proves you're all hypocrites, as does my video "An ATHEIST who is actually CONSISTENT! Part 1 Morality."

[@scintillam_dei]

@@Athicuz Also, I crushed Dawkins' "climbiing Mt. Improbable" argument in my video "atheists are INSANE and anti-science." Feel free to distort my argument.

[@zorianmatthews]

As usual Dawkins hasn't a clue what he's talking about! He's discussing moral absolutism which by definition is 'the ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of other contexts'. He slips up here because he fails to realise there IS context for all the examples he gives, because not all morals are absolute He conveniently fails to answer the question as his worldview cannot account for absolute morality so he has to ignore it or ridicule it as a diversion. Sad!

[@ngrey651]

I don't believe this. He says "you cherry pick" and point to things and say "That's religion", and "you leave out all the horrible bits". I could make the counter argument he cherry picks, says "that's religion", and leaves out all of the GOOD bits, which make up, by the way, a MAJORITY of most religious texts. You can't say "you shouldn't cherry pick" when you yourself do nothing BUT cherry pick. Also, murder is always, ALWAYS objectively wrong. Rape. Always wrong. Child abuse. Always wrong.

[@Zookeeper1983]

He did good! :)

[@conors4430]

Also, the point is, whether you feel an absolute morality should or shouldn’t exist is irrelevant from whether it actually does. What we want to be the case and what is the case are two very different things. I don’t like the idea that everybody that I know will die, and some of them will die before me. But that’s the reality of the situation. Wishful thinking doesn’t change that.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

Have you ever lied, lusted, disrespected parents, stolen, thought bad thoughts, hated someone, sinned sexually etc All humans have sinned in thought, word or deed. Therefore, none of us are good and able to get into Heaven and will be justly judged and sent to eternity in Hell! But God out of His love sent his son Jesus (also God in Human flesh) to die on the cross for our sins and rise again from the dead (nobody can do that only God). Jesus said if you Repent of your sins and put your complete trust in Him for your salvation, you’ll have eternal life, given to you as a gift (this message is not to be ignored; seek God today). Your thoughts? John 14: 6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

[@anetchi]

Love it!

[@crabbieappleton]

@chrismac1980 I believe he did answer the question: morality comes from our reasoned, thought-out discussion.

[@loveyourneighborandenemy967]

so before all those discussions and thoughts was killing people okay?

[@poches8651]

@@loveyourneighborandenemy967 Now we know that it was not. What's your point?

[@loveyourneighborandenemy967]

@@poches8651 It seems to me that what u r saying is that we DISCOVER morality through discussion, thought, and so forth and I think that that is more plausible than what the comment above is saying. The comment above says that morality COMES FROM discussion, thought, and so forth, therefore implying that before those discussions and thoughts ever occured, morality never existed. That's why I asked, "So before all those discussions and thoughts, was killing people okay?"

[@poches8651]

@@loveyourneighborandenemy967 Ah, I see. Didn't look on it that way. Makes sense!

[@peachybeach]

Brilliantly put by Dawkins

[@WaveFunctionCollapsed]

Atheists : Oh he took off his glasses he is very pro Believer : then why he never debated WLC 🤣

[@Skepgnostic]

He must be scared to debate facts with wishful thinking.

[@TheFsDguy]

Haha, he completely avoided the question and started ranting on how God is evil (without providing any justification for this judgement- what the question was actually asking), classic Dawkins.

[@MusaKhanandalusian]

the stoning and cutting of hand is for criminals not for ordinary people. why doesn't dawkins look at the aggrieved people.

[@technospear]

Vanadime how did he avoid the question? I think you need to watch the video again using a louder volume..also understand the question properly

[@MusaKhanandalusian]

how did he answer it???

[@technospear]

Musa Khan if you are a basically educated person, you would watch this video in more detail and understand it...keep watching until you pick it up..its really simple

[@TashWigley]

+Musa Khan His answer provided evidence that many religious roots are not based on morality and are very unjustified when you consider the sentience and level of perception we have as humans, thus the idea of "absolute morality" cannot exist in religion either and is therefore a null and void term. By disregarding the term "absolute morality" as meaningless, the door is left open for, simply, human beings as a unit to work towards the highest level of morality possible, thus the answer to the man's question is: no, it is not a "leap of faith" for atheists to decide between right and wrong, rather, humanity is working on making the world much more moral than religion has ever allowed it to be.

[@NovaOnce]

It's quite sad that only less than a half of people applauded