![Atheists often hear the question, \"How can you be moral ...](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hCovYF51qHE/2.jpg "Atheists often hear the question, \\"How can you be moral ...") |
Atheists often hear the question, "How can you be moral ...
Posted by: TheThinkingAtheist
Video duration: 235 seconds
Global video hits: 257471
Atheists often hear the question, "How can you be moral without God?" The real question is, "How can a moral person accept God?" If the scriptures are true, God sets a terrible example for Goodness.
Related: atheist, atheism, agnostic, agnosticism, god, jesus, moral, morality, faith, religion, doctrine, church, prayer, old testament, new testament, bible, scripture
Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment
|
|
 |
Morality 3: Of objectivity and oughtness
Posted by: QualiaSoup
Video duration: 1032 seconds
Global video hits: 56685
Link to Slovic article: journal.sjdm.org TheraminTrees' channel: www.youtube.com Link to 'Betting on Infinity': www.youtube.com
Related: moral argument, objective values, objective duties, intuition, instinct, subjectivity, preferences, obligations, is-ought problem, william lane craig, speciesism, john leslie mackie, david hume, anselm, ontological argument, immanuel kant, thomas nagel
Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment
|
|
 |
Prager University: Happiness is a Moral Obligation
Posted by: PragerUniversity
Video duration: 312 seconds
Global video hits: 132066
Dennis Prager, best-selling author and nationally syndicated radio talk show host, makes the case that happiness is much more than a personal pursuit, it's a moral obligation. Help us build Prager University. Click on prageru.com
Related: prager university, prager, happiness, moral obligation, happiness hour, be happy, happy, joy, personal growth, dennis prager, prager university:
Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment
|
|
 |
Treatise on Morality.
Posted by: TheoreticalBullshit
Video duration: 1876 seconds
Global video hits: 190877
Sorry for the length of this, guys. Follow me on Twitter at: twitter.com
Related: morality, ethics, values, subjective, objective, morals, god, religion, jesus, christ, christian, atheist, atheism, right, wrong, good, evil
Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment
|
|
|
|
Scrapbooking Related Videos
You like it? Share it!
Social Bookmarking 
"4 Belly Fat Mistakes"
Controversial free video:
Do you make these
4 "dumb" diet mistakes?
5TipsToLoseStomachFat.com
Sponsors
|
Latest comments made on this video:
By: pppgggr. on 25 May 12, 10:16:08
You misunderstood what I said, and rain and the growth of plants can be explained by science, easily. A supposed "God" has nothing to do with it. I wasn't saying that Morale controls the entirety of the universe. I was saying that without? morale, society simply would not work. It'd be chaos in the streets. Without Morale, every sense of a sophisticated society that we have today, would fall apart.....And most humans are dependant on their society. Without it, we'd have far more starving people.
By: hiswords43. on 25 May 12, 06:16:29
so morale makes it rain? morale makes the palnts grow? no, god puts all of these things in motion and also sustains them. for " god sends rain on the wicked ,as? well as the righteous". but let me tell you plainly, they were made to be good all the time, and they were always chipping away at that. he finally said, enouph! you can not have even what you have left of the goodness i gave you! as jesus says " those who have much will be given more, but those who have little, even that will be taken"
By: pppgggr. on 25 May 12, 05:41:49
Evil is welcome in some cases, but a society where -EVERYONE- had nothing but evil thoughts would collapse in on itself. There'd be no collaboration. Our society relies on morale. If every person on the planet were immoral, it'd be very hard to have a working society, for nobody would trust one another, or they? would be too afraid to collaborate with other human beings.
By: hiswords43. on 25 May 12, 05:13:44
you seem to? think evil is not welcome in the world.
By: oneplusoneisthree1. on 25 May 12, 05:03:34
@WilliamofWare, he is trying to say that it doesn't make sense to say god works in mysterious ways. 1) It doesn't answer the question, which ways? 2) It leads to more ridiculing of the concept since it is circular without being satisfying. I happen to know as a recent theist convert that there are good answers in the holy scriptures no matter what scriptures? you open up.
By: WilliamofWare. on 25 May 12, 04:30:42
I see a squid in tremendous pain, a bird is slowly killing it in the shore. is it my duty to save the squid? I do not see why it should be the case. I don't understand why feeling an emotion is relevant to what we should do. Even if we lived in a place that generally greeted with enthusiasm killing jews, that wouldn't make right. I am not? sure what you're trying to say.
By: WilliamofWare. on 25 May 12, 04:20:53
"You have no idea what i was trying to say" this is what you wrote;"Sure we? can be morally ambivalent, we can not do the right thing, we can be "dicks" to people." just going by what you wrote Saying you cannot question god or? he moves in mysterious ways is not a double standard; they are ways of saying that God must have good reasons for doing what he does even if we don't know them. It is simple, if you want to show god is evil demonstrate that he owe us.
By: Muramasan13. on 25 May 12, 02:34:30
Excellent. The only thing I disagree with is the "jealous" part- "jealous" is derived from the Latin "zelotypus", meaning "fiercely protective", and this was the meaning that our word retained for quite some time after its derivation. This is what YHWH means when he describes himself as "jealous". Other than this minor error with the quotation, and the fact that YHWH disagreed with Lot's daughters raping him, very well researched and executed. @hiswords43: and what about the rest of the? video?
By: SuperMerlin100. on 24 May 12, 20:24:40
I don't see how it is avoidable. Just? try to explain why we should do X, without invoking any being's emotions (including God's). In other words it can't come down to "God wants us to do X".
By: pppgggr. on 24 May 12, 19:43:58
And on top of what I just stated, two? wrongs never make a right. Slaughtering the god damned planet is as evil as ever.
By: pppgggr. on 24 May 12, 19:41:39
If that was the case, society and man kind would have collapsed in on itself and there wouldn't have been need? for mass murder. The race would have gone extinct on its own.
By: KizerKat. on 24 May 12, 19:34:20
You have no idea what i was trying to say, i meant that humans have the capacity to do bad things. God, being all powerful and all good, doesnt, so why does he let us kill each other and fight to the death for him? Its not a double standard, Christians set the standard themselves? "you cannot question god" or "god moves in mysterious ways" these are the words of theists, they set the double standard.
By: WilliamofWare. on 24 May 12, 19:25:13
I think I addressed your point when I said that it is wrong to cause unnecessary suffering. Frankly, I do not see emotions as a criterion ? for duties.
By: WilliamofWare. on 24 May 12, 19:13:59
we cannot do the right thing? you mean you cannot do good deeds? I hope you're just being funny. Also, I don't? understand why you think you can be dicks to people, that's a pretty awful mentality. As for god not being morally obligated (rather than being a "dick") to do x, I don't understand why you hold God to one standard and you to another. And since you give no reason as to why this must be so, it seems you're using a double standard.
By: SuperMerlin100. on 24 May 12, 18:10:57
Animal mistreating animals is wrong for all of the reasons you listed, but it is also wrong because their emotions matter. On what basis do God's feelings matter? These reasons apply to a lesser extent to the feelings of humans and other animals. You could argue that next to God we matter only infinitesimally, but It would only take an infinitesimal amount of? effort on God part.
By: SuperMerlin100. on 24 May 12, 17:51:11
"their thoughts were only evil? all the time". I think pppgggr meant a realistic explanation. Not one that could barely pass in children's storybook. The explanation for how everyone became "Always Chaotic Evil" (tvtropes) [breeding with fallen angels] doesn't help. God could have saved everyone (including him) a lot of trouble if he? had acted sooner. Then killing wouldn't have become necessary he could simple have restored people's freewill. Or even earlier simply cockblock some fallen angels.
By: KizerKat. on 24 May 12, 14:40:57
Sure we can be morally ambivalent, we can not do the right thing, we can be "dicks" to people. But god can not. and if? he can then he is not all good and therefor is not god.
By: FryderykFChopin. on 24 May 12, 12:03:25
'In order to show God is morally? evil you must show he has obligations towards creatures.' Lets rephrase: in order to show that Hitler is morally evil you must show he has obligations towards creatures. Take? away all the flowery language concerning god and you are left with a being no different to any other. Indeed you would not be able to provide a single reason as to why you should view your celestial dictator any differently to Hitler or any other dictator for that matter.
By: hiswords43. on 24 May 12, 08:56:07
"their thoughts were only evil all the? time".
By: WilliamofWare. on 24 May 12, 06:57:11
"hes just a morally ambivalent dick." that cuts both ways. you should feed the poor, but they are not entitled to? your charity. Since you do not waste all your money on the poor that makes an ambivalent dick, no? or spend all your money on animal care makes you an ambivalent dick, too, I guess. Why don't you leave your family to educate poor children? because you're an ambivalent dick? The great Richard Dawkins? peter singer's buddy feels outrage towards the behavior of God? ha, ha, ha.
By: KizerKat. on 24 May 12, 06:35:50
So you're saying god isn't evil, hes just a morally ambivalent dick... makes sense. To quote the great Richard Dawkins "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive,? bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
By: pppgggr. on 24 May 12, 06:34:35
Excuse the? question mark in that last comment. Screwed up there.
By: pppgggr. on 24 May 12, 06:34:11
Explain? the great flood, where he murdered everyone down to the last infant?
By: hiswords43. on 24 May 12, 06:11:49
ever think he does it because you deserve it?? justice?