DEBATE: Can Atheism Justify Human Rights? | Cosmic Skeptic vs Subboor Ahmad 

Now thay you mentioned it It is funny abit ...

Fan bases and comment monitoring at work.

Except that they're deluded believers.

Confirmation bias destroyes lives

@Dxrk Zoom I hope you realise that can work both ways

I get what you are saying but tbf for making any type of argument, you need to assume that the premises are true...

Even if you grant all premises the conclusion could still be wrong. One can ask if the argument has any formal fallacy. For that you assume the premises as true and see if the conclusion follows from it.

@@Sebastian-nb4cu not true

The references Subboor Ahmad used in the debate: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (Declaration of Independence) “There are no gods in the universe, no nations, no money, no human rights, no laws, and no justice outside the common imagination of human beings.” (Yuvah Noah Harrai, Sapiens) “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men evolved differently, that they are born with certain mutable characteristics, and that among these are life and the pursuit of pleasure.” (Yuvah Noah Harrai, Sapiens) "Again (Natural selection), it does not prove to disprove moral ontology, it says nothing about it." Alex O'Connor's 'Cosmic Skeptic' video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnOsG... “Our core morality isn’t true, right, correct, and neither is any other. Nature just seduced us into thinking it’s right. It did that because that made core morality work better; our “believing in its truth increases our individual genetic fitness.” Excerpt From: Rosenberg, Alex. “The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions.” iBooks. “Is natural selection so smart that it was able to filter out all the wrong, incorrect, false core moralities and end up with the only one that just happens to be true? Or is it the other way around: Natural selection filtered out all but one core morality, and winning the race is what made the last surviving core morality the right, correct, true one. Which is it? It can’t be either one. The only way out of the puzzle is nihilism.” Excerpt From: Rosenberg, Alex. “The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions.” iBooks. Replay the tape a million times ... and I doubt that anything like Homo sapiens would ever evolve again. (Stephen J Gould) Alister McGrath & Bret Weinstein • Religion: Useful fiction or ultimate truth? www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRx2u... If, for instance, to take an extreme case, men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering. (Charles Darwin) “Brierley: Ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we’ve evolved five fingers rather than six. Richard Dawkins: You could say that, yeah.” Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. (Michael Ruse)

@@Sebastian-nb4cu A part of an argument is proving your premises

Timestamp?

When?

This video was uploaded 2 MONTHS AGO. However, it may have been produced 2 years ago. Coronavirus has been widely known among scientists so it would not be a surprise if he is well-read in some areas.

@@wadatamana your name made my day bro 😂😂😂

Lol nerd squad 😂

😹😹

He made this debabte woth looking amd not only listening to 😝

Looks stoned

i'll obliterate them both, although i have to say alex's logic makes much more sense than the beardy guys mental gymnastics and codswallop. unbiased enough for you?

He looks like timothee chalamet

I think the idea is that other forms of deriving morality are in their essence flawed because they have implicit biases.

Can it put you on a middle path?

@@blondboozebaron There is no absolute path. Knowing that, puts you at ease. What can harm others can harm me too.

@@rouzbehazshab Would you be interested if I made the attempt to draw one out for you? Draw one with words. A Venn diagram.

@@Oguzalp97 The bias is in the fact that like will protect like.

He eventually conceded that you can do that keep watching after this point and you will see it

@@uber70ppt94 Timestamp please

The claim that it was a category mistake by Cosmicskeptic is just wrong. We are not talking about the existence of God vs. the existence of human rights. We are talking about the BELIEF that human rights exist vs the BELIEF that God exists. Why would substituting one belief with another be a category mistake? Cosmicskeptics whole shtick was if it was "useful". THEY ARE BOTH BELIEFS. It doesn't matter if it is true or not or whatever Cosmicskeptic might say to convince you otherwise. And once all the Atheists realise that equivocating between one set of beliefs and another set of beliefs is not fallacious they see that Cosmicskeptics whole argument crumbles.

@@TheRevxPk that actually makes sense

Simon Wright it starts from 47:20

"I'm not a potted plant" was the apex of his righteous fury xd

Who are you referring to?

The patient one

@@justinrivera1618 hAHAHAHA

I have seen that patience in debate with mo hijab...

Lmao I have to say though, he is leaning toward the tired side than listening.

@@JoeyJoeJoeJr.Shabadoo 😂

To me he seems bored as f**k.

He also looks like gigachad lol.

Same. His arguments do raise great discussions, however, he wasn’t faced by a complementary opponent. I’d like to see another Mohammed Hijab debate.

Seems like a fairly sincere guy but his fans don't seem to understand Suboor's arguments so resort to only mentioning that he interrupted Alex a couple of times. None of their arguments were perfect but Suboor edged this debate imo.

You should check out Genetically Modified Sceptic, he is a big proponent of being respectful in all situations and trying to have the best most civil discussions we can between atheists and theists. He is an ex-fundamental. Really a huge inspiration.

@@Sam-ng3of I disagree. The points Suboor repeatedly brought up were sufficiently answered philosophically speaking by Alex, yet Suboor just kept asking them. Also, Suboor kept conflating terms like moral worth and moral agency or objective and collective subjective. And I've never in my life heard a philosopher dismiss another philosopher's argument by calling it "philosophic jargon", that was appalling. If Alex' point was insufficient to Suboor then he should have explained his contention, not repeated the original question or dismissed it in such bad faith. Other than that I really disliked the lack of nuance in Suboor's points. They seemed to be so simple Alex had to ask several times for him to expand or clarify. I didn't even notice the interrupting, but that also seems to have been a problem, since Suboor wasn't contending with Alex' arguments at all in those situations.

@Shaun Sharted Because many religions especially Abrahamic say that athiests should be killed. However yes we should look at the individual but it makes sense to me to dislike Abrahamic religions as a whole.

Nice analogy.

Saying A has twice as many inches as B is NOT a subjective statement because irrespective of the subjective length of inch, this statement will always be true if the length of A is twice to that of B. Your is a dis-analogy (qiyas ma'al fariq) because in the above case, the objective statement is independent of the subjective premise about the length of inch whereas what Alex is arguing is that his supposedly 'objective' morality will only be true if we accept his subjective premise. He never said that his position is true independently of the premise.

Thats why Alex's moral standards are impotent. Its too loose to be effective enough to define rights. The same with why metric system are a must.

@@samx4434 The UN human rights declaration makes enough sense

An inch is not subjective. It's objective. It refers to an objective length/distance. You cannot argue "yeah I reckon one inch = 900cm". That would be wrong in all times, places. What is subject is saying one inch or two or three is a short or long distance.

What was his misrepresentation? I’m too sleepy to watch the whole video lmao

Here 1:37:00

@@verosaraiva how is that a misrepresentation?

@@HosniBoun So I watched it. Alex is saying that Collective belief that Rape is wrong is Objective. But the other Guy says that it’s not, rather that it is Subjective because there’s people who like to indulge in rape. However that is a misrepresentation. Just because that person enjoys rape, doesn’t mean that the Collective view that Rape is wrong is subjective. Rape being wrong is in fact objective because the collective majority agrees it is wrong. All those who disagree are mentally ill. We base our morality on well-being. Those who don’t value well-being are mentally ill. So the subjective view of the mentally ill on the matter is irrelevant.

@@HosniBoun But of course, we derive our basis for morality and ethics on subjectivity. We need to be subjective to deem something as harmful to well-being. Once we all agree on this basis for morality, it THEN becomes objective.

Timestamp?

1:14:37

That isn't true though. The concept of racial justice is actually unjust. It is a collectivist notion of guilt and innocence that shares all the ethical flaws of the war crime of collective punishment.

@@brianmacker1288 no

@@brianmacker1288 Would you be prepared to debate Alex on that? I suspect not, and I suspect that statement won't hold water on closer inspection, but I can't be bothered.

@Rener Oslo I suggest you to watch that bit of the video again and see where the conclusion went. Alex admitted that if it was the case that belief in a god is beneficial then it would be better off to believe. But this is only relevant if you assume that belief is a choice (which it isn't) . How is that so hard to comprehend mate, watch the video again for fuck sake.

I think there's a lot that Ahmad doesn't understand...

​@Rener Oslo Justifying morality with human rights doesn't require you to be convinced that human rights actually exist on their own. Justifying morality with a god, on the other hand, requires you to be convinced that that god actually exists on its own. They're not "exactly the same type of justification".

@Rener Oslo I'm not convinced that morality is objective, but that there are objectively right and wrong ways to maximize pleasure or to reduce suffering. I think Alex holds roughly the same position. What exactly is the inconsistency you're seeing here?

The morality that Alex put forward is problematic as it's based on maximization of pleasure on a societal level. Simply look back to Nazi Germany and current India where the majority people's pleasure is expelling minority from the country, that is why Alex's moral ground is catastrophic. You just carefully look at what alex say, then you can easily understand the inconsistencies in his argument

It's called a hypothetical scenario/thought experiment to help draw out the crux of one's arguments. I thought it was useful as, for me, it showed how utterly arbitrary Alex's moral compass is. How many are the assumptions and how many are self-contraditions that exist when Alex makes his proposition.

@@umarr6221 Of course our "moral compass" is arbitrary. Compasses are arbitrary-north is where the compass points. If we lived in a universe where being beaten to within an inch of your life cured cancer, it wouldn't necessarily be immoral to beat someone to within an inch of their life. Subboor's thought experiment was meaningless because all it demonstrated was that "if things are different, then things are different." It's self-evidently tautological. I'm surprised to see such banal argumentation even being offered in a philosophical debate.

Simon, I'm surprised you only got that from Suboor's questioning. He was trying to tease out what meter Alex uses to put the exact emphasis on each species value and worth, and by suggesting another world/scenario where animals felt more emotion/sensation than humans, would he value animals more. It is useful because for someone making moral claims, as alex is, it is important to know what principles he values to arrive at those claims. Hope I answered the question.

Umar R what are the contradictions? Seemed pretty consistent.

@@umarr6221 Hi Umar, thanks for the reply but I understood all of that. It was one of the most tedious parts of the debate because Alex honestly couldn't have been clearer, yet Subboor kept repeating himself as if Alex didn't respond to it.

Amhad: What if we rewind the VHS and evolution makes rape good. Alex: 🤨 Then it would no longer be rape, by definition ot would be sex.

Young Dawah yes, people have different desires that they wish to fulfill. The point of a moral system is to be able to evaluate desires and determine whether or not those desires should be realized (with action) by some standard. By Alex’s standard, consensual homosexuality would be permissible because it does not cause suffering to individuals involved in the relationship. Eating meat would be immoral because even though it gives pleasure to the person consuming it, it required a significant amount of suffering of non-human persons to make happen. If you want to demonstrate that homosexuality is immoral under Alex’s system, you have to demonstrate that it causes more suffering than pleasure to those who are involved in it.

@Young Dawah 'Arf yö red thär bibler? Ez moster importo par ett havler ov öll thar sturry ov Jengus Christler, son ov Lordo. Thar ust trüest bibler, fur nuly ta dee vot. Fortunarto, Ay ehm moster educatordo. Hogg aten ov öll Bibler ez prophesito foretolden! Lordo havv choosen Hogg as be ov new Jengus Christler! Jenguss Christler ez crucifixo en then thar H’Ongry Hogge do aten ov Jengus Christler en everbotty applauden vary hardardo. Helleluyar!

@Jackesfox Who is cosmic to decide whether something is bad or not, if you cant decide whats bad then you can't decide what's not moral vice versa for good. Lots of us know things are "bad" for you, for example, Heroin but it brings about absolute pleasure and nowadays we have the saying "I'm here for a "good" time, not a long one", this saying is usually associated with pleasure and is said before one of the lads snorts 1g of ket, that's why I have the stance as long as I have a child my jobs done, hence why I take a sh*t tonne of psychedelics and drugs to discover new meaning to life because as an atheist I have realized there is none. As life has no meaning our existence is merely natural "rights" are purely subjective if someone wants to kill someone or even enjoys it who am I to judge, I can't condemn them as long as they don't affect my family & friends.

@@thecommander9304 Why make a exception for your family and friends? Why condemn their murder? There is no ultimate meaning there is the meaning we establish and you don't want to live in a society where your friends and family can be killed so you should act to avoid that society. Not caring about the murder of those you don't care about will help bring in that society.

BRO WHY ARE YALL LIKE THIS

10M Subscribers With No Videos change straight with lesbian, and same 😄

Ty Throw You say that as if it’s an insult. It’s not.

@Ty Throw Citation needed lol

HAHAHAHAHAHA that's awesome...

🤣

If a masochist wants to suffer and is denied... is that still a win for them?

@@JMUDoc Now _that's_ a subtle question.

thats a paradox lol. depends on the motivations

To quote the Manics: "I'm happy being sad"

Koalas are the most exceptional ...fk deers .... Salman khan should kill them all

Official petition to get "I am for deer exceptionalism" on merch ?

Personally, I’m more of a cat exceptionalist. Why? Because I look at them and I suddenly have a reason to live - boom

Im gonna actually print THAT on a shirt .

Oh deer!

@Lol Rofl Alex does answer that question. Did you watch the debate?

@Lol Rofl Hey, i just want to point out, that english isn't my first language, before i attempt to answer you :D I think Alex did answer the question and offered a lot of context to it. If someone understands his explanation about how something can be objectively right or wrong within a subjective topic it's very easy to understand what he is saying. An example would be, that I like chocolate flavour more than vanilla. That's my subjective taste. So within my subjective taste it's objectively true, that I ought to order chocolate ice cream instead of vanilla ice cream. In Alex' example he says, that subjectivly MOST of the pople would want to live in a society, where rape is punished. So objectively we should punish rape, so that MOST of the people feel safer in our society. But the way subboor asked the question, without acknowledging this distinction of objectivity within a subjectiv preference, is very ingenuine and seems like an attempt to one of those "GOTCHA"-moments. I'm not saying alex is always right about anything and he wouldn't say this about himself either. He really seems to care about the topics he is talking about and tries to reflect on his position as much as possible, while discussing it. For that reason I really appreciate him and his opinions even if I would disagree. Also I would like to point out 1:18:00 in the video, where Alex asks Subboor about impartiality. Subboor didn't answer the question at all and just keeps attacking alex, as if there wasn't even a question to begin with. I got really mad about that and hoped that the guy in the middle did a better job of keeping the topics on track. Instead he seemed very bored and sometimes had this ugly arrogant smile on his lips, while not even listening to the conversation...

@Lol Rofl I think we found Subboor's RU-vid account! Lol. Alex was very clear, concise, and very easy to follow. Further, I don't think that there's a need for inherent objectivity. I know theists get stuck on this concept a lot but I can't understand why it's of any sticking point whether there is an inherent objective nature to morality or any concept. I would suggest people struggling with this concept read Jean Paul Sartre's "Existentialism is a Humanism" as perhaps another lens of trying to understand this concept. Great video Alex. I've been watching your videos since shortly after you started but have lied in silent lurker status. I'm enjoying your debates and wish you continued success in all of your endeavors!

If u have to think what ur are talking about in a debate clearly u don't know what ur r talking about

@@khanaqib6003 I disagree and would argue that if you don't stop to think during a debate, especially when posed difficult or confusing questions, you're prone to repeating rhetoric and may not be critically analyzing your own views. Why is thought a bad thing?

The references Subboor Ahmad used in the debate: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (Declaration of Independence) “There are no gods in the universe, no nations, no money, no human rights, no laws, and no justice outside the common imagination of human beings.” (Yuvah Noah Harrai, Sapiens) “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men evolved differently, that they are born with certain mutable characteristics, and that among these are life and the pursuit of pleasure.” (Yuvah Noah Harrai, Sapiens) "Again (Natural selection), it does not prove to disprove moral ontology, it says nothing about it." Alex O'Connor's 'Cosmic Skeptic' video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnOsG... “Our core morality isn’t true, right, correct, and neither is any other. Nature just seduced us into thinking it’s right. It did that because that made core morality work better; our “believing in its truth increases our individual genetic fitness.” Excerpt From: Rosenberg, Alex. “The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions.” iBooks. “Is natural selection so smart that it was able to filter out all the wrong, incorrect, false core moralities and end up with the only one that just happens to be true? Or is it the other way around: Natural selection filtered out all but one core morality, and winning the race is what made the last surviving core morality the right, correct, true one. Which is it? It can’t be either one. The only way out of the puzzle is nihilism.” Excerpt From: Rosenberg, Alex. “The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions.” iBooks. Replay the tape a million times ... and I doubt that anything like Homo sapiens would ever evolve again. (Stephen J Gould) Alister McGrath & Bret Weinstein • Religion: Useful fiction or ultimate truth? www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRx2u... If, for instance, to take an extreme case, men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering. (Charles Darwin) “Brierley: Ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we’ve evolved five fingers rather than six. Richard Dawkins: You could say that, yeah.” Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. (Michael Ruse)

Mad props to Subboor for keeping cool under nonsense and Speciesism, that continuously spewed from Alex O'Connor.

Alex is amazing he is what I call the ideal debater (Cool and Collective) unlike religious debaters (Ofcourse not all of them)

@@n.ganadily8973 Alex is amazingly ignorant, unlike Theist debaters.

@@robinrobyn1714 If you actually hold this belief you are horribly misled. Please provide evidence of this.

SubjectToScrutiny excellent post...

You do a much better job at removing your own bias than I do a lot of the time so I just wanted to say I'm impressed with your balanced view point and it was helpful for me to balance my own biases.

fake muslim here lol

Not really because Alex never refuted Saboor's main argument which is. P1. Atheism leads to moral nihilism because there is no justification for moral agency in atheism. Different situation results in different morals which proves the first premise true which Alex even admitted in the debate. He said rape would be justifiable in a different circumstance and it would just be called sex. Therefore you can never say which is right and which is wrong therefore moral nihilism. P2. Moral Nihilism undermines human rights. None of the human rights work because of this moral ambiguity or nihilism. They are not objective like moral landscape of Sam Harris. C. Therefore atheism undermines human rights. Now I'm a muslims and I have to say I think Alex did a good job. Brother Saboor is a much more experienced veteran debater. So anyone would have trouble debating him. He overall did good however he completely fails to address Saboor's main argument and he was really struglling in the end when saboor trapped him. So hopefully next time he actually address Saboor's main argument.

@@Islamiccalling The argument fails before it begins because atheism is not a moral system. In the same way islam is not able to provide us with the perfect duck confit recipe.

@Thuzar Correct; intelligence is never defined by how one feels about what others think.

Islamic Defense what is your proof it leads to what you posit?

@@Islamiccalling Sorry, sweetie, Saboors' premise is faulty because atheism does not lead to moral nihilism. And certainly not religion can claim any moral high ground, it leads to authoritarianism and truly undermines human rights. And, religion relies on emotions as Saboor tried to do when bringing up the chinese Muslims, who are being cinesized as China has done to all it's people. Forced re-education. All countries have done some form of that and I feel bad for those who are suffering from it, but it is also done by islamists. So, victim card don't work! It is not an atheist evil, just a human one.💖☮️🎃

"I'm trying to educate alex" when he said that it killed me inside

Oh my god and when he pulls out the Nazi comparison at the end. That's when you know you've lost

@Rener Oslo when was the first time I failed to see the point?

@Rener Oslo also, the argument that a majority agreeing makes something true is a complete fabrication that Ahmad made up, it was never Alex's point. You'd have to have zero respect for your opponent to think they'd seriously believe that majority makes truth.

@Rener Oslo at this point youre debating with yourself Stop

Your comment is so underrated🌹

Thank you I had trouble understanding that point

By applying the pain and pleasure principle, one can contend that being subjected to rape is morally reprehensible on a subjective level, as it involves inflicting pain and suffering upon the victim, a situation that even the perpetrator would likely find undesirable. However, when employing this same principle to assess the morality of rape itself, it becomes challenging to make an objective judgment. This is because, within the framework where pain and pleasure serve as the moral compass, a rapist who derives pleasure from their actions could argue that their subjective experience justifies the act. Thus, while one may perceive rape as wrong based on subjective experiences of pain and suffering, objectively labeling it as universally wrong becomes elusive. Additionally, the notion that rape is inherently wrong because it could potentially happen to the rapist overlooks the core argument. This idea relies on the hypothetical possibility of the rapist becoming the victim, and until this hypothetical scenario becomes reality, the act is considered wrong. However, this perspective ignores the fundamental issue that rape itself, from the perspective of the rapist, is not morally wrong. Even if the rapist were to experience being raped, it merely shifts the dynamics, with the rapist becoming the victim and potentially perpetuating the cycle of harm. The subjective experience of the act remains unchanged, underscoring the complexity of moral judgments and the limitations of solely relying on the pain and pleasure principle to determine morality.

​@@NeedlestolearnBut I'm not sure about the claim rapist or murderers think that what they are doing is good. Especially rapist. Many of them know what they do is wrong but for some they do it. Either because they have a lack of control in resisting or they want to hurt the other person (knowing they are harming them) or they don't realize what they do is rape. Even if they believe that the action is neutral the fact that they wouldn't to be forced with violence shows that they can acknowledge the harm.And then they can agree with premise that harm exist and is bad for them. They only reason they would disagree on the fact that harm is bad is because they are psychopath or unable to control themselves thus sick. I'm not sure how it misses the core of the argument. Tell me how I'm wrong

@@AymanPlayer The crux of the issue lies in uncertainty regarding the objectivity of wrongdoing. It necessitates assuming that the perpetrator shares the same moral framework, but they may argue against it, rendering "rape is bad" merely an opinion. This highlights the challenge in deriving morality from such ideologies, as they rely heavily on assumptions and subjective viewpoints, rather than objective principles.

When did he say that?

Exactly! I was really annoyed by that.

Which guy?

Oh I just reached the part now 😂😂

And on top of that Subboor was patronizing Alex at many instances although he was the one who didn’t listen nor understood what Alex said. He’s an apologist. Nothing more. A streetdog and should get back to Hide Park. He’s a bully not a debater.

@Ishaaq Ahmad Aren't you intelligent.

@Ishaaq Ahmad Well i am sorry for posting such a arbitrary and frankly stupid comment. Please forgive my behavior and perhaps I can one day be seen as something more than a common cretin in your eyes, oh wise one.

How do YOU trust your intellect to be correct? Because from an evolutionary perspective you can survive on false beliefs too. We can have bad Consequences and still think it's for the greater good. Remember Hitler?

@@lunarcalendar368 Hitler shot himself in the face

@boxers nation what is wrong with these from a atheist point of view? Where do you derive your morality from? Everything is subjective.

@boxers nation We theists can justify why we trust our minds, can you? There are falsification tests in religious books, have you ever tried them? Can I know on what basis of morality you condemn slavery, child marriages etc. (P.s I am not a fan of them)but Charles Darwin approved the massacres of the "savages" in North America, Australia, Africa etc based on survival. And the hierarchy. And if reproduction is the the basis of evolution, how can you condemn any sort of marriages?

@@lunarcalendar368 Speaking for myself, I rarely trust it outright with the complex stuff. I trust my brain to recognize harmful and beneficial things but I'll think it through and test. Seems to be working out thus far and so I trust it just a little bit more everytime. Sometimes it fails horrendously and I don't trust it in those scenarios that it failed in. Edit: even if it works out some level of skepticism is necessary since things may have worked out because of other factors that I didn't even consider (correlation vs causation and all that)

Not at all. Bias has surely settled in you.

Oh please. I am an atheist and Alex spews fallacy after fallacy. The entire idea of utilitarianism was falsified long ago because their is no way to calculate minimization of suffering, and no reason to assume "suffering" should be the sole criteria. Suffering is subjective, and tied to pleasure in complex ways that are entirely subjective. Do we ban competivive sports because only one team can win the championship and all others suffer from losing that year? Alex's claims are all hand waving. He purports the existence of the impossible. He also goes a further step of foolishness in trying to subsume the animal kingdom under utilitarianism. How does one minimize sufferring between lions and zebras via utilitarianism. Further ridiculous because he can't make up his mind whether he wants a top down utilitarianism or a rights based one. He also seems to have settled on collectivist rights, not the proper individual rights. What a mess.

@@brianmacker1288 championship in unnecessary therefore the pleasure or suffering from that is contingent Therefore there's no reason to ban it

On point ​@@brianmacker1288

If this is satire, I think it’s hilarious and you have a great sense of humor

Sabboor: But what if the Evo2 beings didn't experience pleasure or pain? My bonsai: 👀

He wont listen n keeps repeating the same question

To that Alex should've simply said "so what?" Hitchens style

Nobody: Alex: I have to think if rape is bad.

Is it likely that another universe with a different set of rules and variables could have existed? According to your world view the answer is yes! You're just mocking your own hypocrisy!

Do you believe morality grounded in subjectivity can be objective?

@@fresh235 Yes,if the topic has an OBJECTIVE effect on the individuals and the system, let's talk about rape,why is rape immoral? because of the psychological effects it leaves the on the rapist and the person getting raped,it allows the rapist to adopt more aggressive and primitive ways of thinking,while scarring the person getting raped for life,both of these effects can in term affect the system these two individuals live in,is killing immoral? yes,because you're removing individuals who can be productive to the system,if you bring up ANY subjective moral rule, I'm 100% sure you can find an objective effect around it.

Seriously. If it’s possible that your view of (insert word here. Let’s say say money) is false in some hypothetical universe, how could it be true in this one.

@@rickb.4168 it's pure romanticism. It's the same kind of thinking that no matter the universe "love" would exist.

how faar you can be extreeme sceptic with your own concept? let subboor help you XD

believers entire lives are based on lies, what more can you expect.

Maybe he would’ve actually understood Alex’s position if he didn’t interrupt him so often

@Ixxros Sorxxi what do you mean, peer reviewed? Do philosophical positions get peer reviewed?

@Ixxros Sorxxi done; now it’s your turn, especially the cross-examination part - try and understand Alex rather than just assuming Subboor understands him

@Ixxros Sorxxi sure. Subboor completely misunderstands Alex’s point about pleasure and pain, for starters. He keeps saying that if we’d evolved on a different evolutionary trajectory, we might not want pleasure/want to avoid pain. (Although then he implies in the closing that people in Nazi, on the same evolutionary trajectory as us, didn’t value pleasure, so that’s confusing - but we’ll ignore that.) But Alex’s point is that it’s *logically* impossible for sentient beings not to want pleasure and want to avoid pain. If you accept Alex’s definitions - and I don’t think Subboor ever said he didn’t - then, *logically speaking,* sentience requires the ability to make choices, choices require desires, and the only thing that can fundamentally be desired is pleasure. *By definition.* That’s Alex’s point, and Subboor didn’t understand it at all.

yeah its crazy, as a muslim i came here. i dont agree with either reaction to be honest. i think sabboor possibly went into areas that just became to vague and i think alex's premise is extremely flawed. but the right arguments werent put forward. as much as i love sabboors content usually.

Umm Osayd mashallah your objective brother/sister that's something you definitely need for seeking knowledge

Unsurprisingly. The majority of commenters simply support their preferred debater or ideology. Doesn't matter how consistent or rational the argument was, they'll just support what and who they already believe in. Personally I think both Subboor and Alex had some significant issues with their arguments.

Wesley O. There was a debate against Alex by Abdullah andalusi and Mohammad hijab. I much preferred the content from both sides in that debate. And I think the arguments against Alex where much clearer and concise. Unfortunately the argument of ethics for atheists is their wobbly third wheel. It's very hard to support without people just saying "well I think And I feel and this is what I see as ethical". It's very subjective and that is a major issue. This was much better highlighted in the other debate.

@@tranquilambiance1751 Thanks. I'll check it out as I'd like to see some stronger arguments being made by Alex (tbh I think his position is extremely difficult to defend so I'm not that hopeful), or at least stronger rebuttals against his arguments, because imo there are a number of ways to discredit Alex's position.

Lol

@@icemanbrfcwhat is so funny? Alex is really enormously smart

@@Bistra4982 yeh I'm sure, and he ain't taking you for dinner broski lol 😂

@@icemanbrfc nor does you!

​@@Bistra4982 The assumption that "he's so smart they don't understand him" is what's funny. They do understand him, but his stance only works for him, if u do smth as simple as "disagreeing" with him then his whole point crumbles, that's why he was actually very smart to insist that he only cares about being "consistent" and not being "right", because he knows that his position can't be generalised.

His patience is something that separates him from those who agree with him and are irrational.

Alex: *gives a detailed explanation of why being a sentient being requires feeling pleasure & pain for the fifth time.* Subboor: "Sure, sure, sure, but you still haven't given me an explanation of why this cannot be. You see, we're in a different evolutionary tree."

He quite cunningly made fools most of you . Morals and truth are subjective its not distance bro . Truth is always subjective only if you have some senses running smoothly.

But that is a presupposition that many theists have. It is a claim made by religions all over history.

@@DeathEatsCurry Yeah and taking that into account is biased.

@@aspacelex its not biased, its justified, cause as subbor mentioned, current human rights borrow a christian pressuposition of the divinity of a man or divine spark

They do though

How is atheism even connected to human rights??

A lion has moral agency because he does actions that can be considered " good" , or " bad" according to Subboor. " Judged by whom?" was Alex his good response. But even more fundamentally, the fact that some actions can be considered "good" and some actions can be considered " less good" or even " bad" doesnt mean that the lion has agency, just that he does random acts to which these labels can be attributed. The lion is not a moral agent, because he doesnt reason morality like we do, even if he can do things which outcome can be objectively considered good, better, less bad, or bad. This was just so weak by Subboor :(

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-JfTyKxR_MiU.html

HaSnA BaShEeR Lol when you can’t give a cogent reply so you have to send everyone a link to a Muslim apologist whom Alex already intellectually slapped around the room.

The cropping up of apologists is a clear sign that people if faith are becoming desperate.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-M0XuDqg2iRA.html Time stamp @5:00 Would advise to watch the entire video but perhaps a prejudice against subhoor is common amongst atheists.

@Persian Assassin no, he said given a different world with a different perception of rape (that perception being it's not bad, and that instead it's a good thing that everyone enjoys), it would stop being rape and just be sex, and that there was no problem with that, precisely because it would no longer be perceived as a painful experience. At least that is what I got from this discussion, it was hard to keep up honestly because Suboor was so bad.

Persian Assassin , God didn‘t make a commanment „ thou shall not rape women and children“ according to the Torah, Bible and the Quran. So much for rape is morally objective wrong.

@Persian Assassin holy shit really? You're gonna try and pull me into that trap? And after 2 weeks of nothing? I suggest you try reading what I said again. Of course in this world, rape is bad, and that's based partly upon it being a painful experience. But if you can imagine, in a DIFFERENT world, rape may not be experienced as painful, but may be experienced as pleasurable. At which point, by definition, it stops being rape, and isn't considered a particular bad act, it just becomes sex. At no point in that am I saying I think rape is good, or that it's not bad if the victim enjoys it, or that even the victim would. I'm talking about a scenario in which the experience and therefore the morals are different. That's Moral Philosophy. You can do this with other things like murder, you could imagine a world where murder isn't seen as bad by people and therefore isn't punished, maybe seen as just a natural part of life that happens. Again, that's not to say I think it's good. These examples are just to show morality is subjective in nature and dependent upon us being here to perceive them, rather than being objective facts about the physical world or something similar.

@Persian Assassin also you are not taking into account that if a rape victim enjoys parts of it they are still going to have lasting traumatic psychological issues

@Persian Assassin (1) Islam doesn't believe in marital rape. First, a husband is allowed to beat his wife he disobeys him. And if a wife ever refuses to have sex with her husband, the freaking angels of the God curses her for the entire night. So that's two against female sexual agency. And there is no verse condemning a husband if he so chooses to force himself upon his wife. No examples of any punishment for such crime. (2) Islam doesn't have a concept of statutory rape. A child of nine can not consent and an adult having sexual relationship with one is considered a rape in many, many countries. But not in Sharia. So, yes, Islam does condemn rape, but that condemnation is dependent on what they consider or does not consider as rape.

that proves randomness doesnt exist

@@911beats no, it only states that what happened happened. A = A. If there was a new universe with similar starting conditions it very well may have an element of randomness. No idea tbh

@@Omagadam1 theres no such thing as randomness, its a mathematical concept that doesn't exist in reality

@@911beats I'm not saying it does, I'm just saying my interpretation of the tape analogy doesn't disprove randomness only that a = a

I kinda got scared too I was getting flashbacks

Hot

time ?

@@zaenlol 1:24:54

@@MrGuillermolago oh shit

This made so much sense... Thank you

@Trolltician Oh, sorry - I didn't know you were the one who made the decision :) How about morality? Justice? Just so I know where I stand...

Same answer no .. otherwise you are contradicting your atheistic view

@@DonLuis10 You know nothing about me, but please describe my "atheistic view" and explain why it is incompatible with my notion of human rights. Oh, and describe my notion of human rights.

@@JMUDoc Atheistic view means what necessary comes from Atheism , If you have a beliefs that contradicts the atheistic view , then you are tolerating contradictions therefore you are not rational.

@Dirilis Gundogdu Except he did say something silly. He was trying to make a false equivalence between believing in god and the concept of human rights as a means to maximize pleasure as two things of the same category, which they are not. Human rights exist as a concept, got is supposed to be more than that. Alex was never defending that you should believe in everything that maximizes pleasure. It is indisputable that human rights exist as a concept. But it is not indisputable that god exists as a concrete real entity. That is why you can't just swap two "variables" willy nilly without making sure they are of the same category. As for the question "if there are benefits of believing in god exist, why don't we just simply believe in god?" That is such a dumb question. And the answer is because, for a lot of people, truth matters. Some people can't be convinced of something just because it is beneficial. And we don't choose what we believe or are convinced by.

​@@Alkis05 you said "Some people can't be convinced of something just because it is beneficial." what about the same argument Alex did "about believing in human rights because it is beneficial" ?

@@HosniBoun Maybe I wasn't precise in my phrasing, so I will try again. Ahmed is asking why shouldn't believe in god because it is beneficial. And then he says that similarly Alex believes in the existence of human rights because it is beneficial. The difference is that God is supposed to be concrete, not a concept, like human rights. Alex pointed out this false equivalence. He is not arguing that human rights are absolute universal concepts, for example. He is saying that if the goal of ethics is to find rules of conduct that benefit humanity (ie. hedonism), and if following the ethical rules of human rights is beneficial, then we should have human rights as ethical principles. That is what someone means when he says "I believe in human rights". It's benefit is the subject matter when you talk about "believing" in it. Belief in god is not about ethics. It is about epistemology. It is about knowing/believing in the concrete existing of an entity and what relationship can be established with it. My belief that cigarettes exist or how I could get one is not affected by if its beneficial to me or not. It's benefit is not the subject matter here. I hope I made a better job expressing myself this time.

+

@@Alkis05 I am sorry but I don't agree! I want to be clear on the terminology: -When we speak about existence, we speak about existence in real life... and to now we have no proof that human rights exists (nor do we have for God if you are an atheist) -what you are referring as "existing as concept", I would rephrase it as "well defined concept"... When you say that human right exists as concept you mean that, the concept of human right is well defined and do not induce any contradiction. We can say the same about the concept of God. The issue is here: concepts being well defined is a necessary but not a sufficiant condition to ensure existence. One of the best examples is the complex set in mathematics \mathbb_{C}. Complex numbers are very well defined mathematically, yet we cant proof their existence in real life For you to claim that Suboor's argument do not apply you have to either: -proof that human rights exist -proof that God do not exist -Or bring a new argument You can argue about human right being immaterial, God being physical... i dont believe it matters if you are believing in something that you cant proove right

Welcome to sweden when going TO church is the crazy option

what i find ridiculous is a) that believers are worried about atheists (atheists literally don't care about stuff, we ain't no threat to anyone) and b) believers think we believe in something too. luckily i live in the UK and over here even the priests don't really believe in a god, no one has a problem with darwin and richard dawkins is a national hero. i've never believed in a god, and i was just commenting elsewhere that even as a child "in the beginning" rang fairy story warning bells for me, why oh why does anyone believe sky fairy nonsense???

@@HarryNicNicholaspeople believe in it because it makes them feel better.

@@asdfffs yea

@M no I think Harry is referring to the unrounded, unfounded belifes in a god?

It was a very polite way to say "shut up and let me answer your question"

That guy was really irritating

IMAN Production do you want me to write down his reply or are gonna rewind and hear it yourself

@IMAN Production I just want to say that if a question is simple in its formulation it doesn't mean that it's easy to answer. The problem with the question "Is rape objectively wrong" was that for Alex a proper answer need a deep discussion. I think the yes-no answer accordingly to Alex is "no, it's subjective" is not complete, and his whole side was the discussion was around it. I want to clarify that I am actually in the Subboor side because I think human rights are subjective, so I think my opinions are quite objective xD

1:24:30-1:26:26 fuck, I want him to step on me...

The references Subboor Ahmad used in the debate: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (Declaration of Independence) “There are no gods in the universe, no nations, no money, no human rights, no laws, and no justice outside the common imagination of human beings.” (Yuvah Noah Harrai, Sapiens) “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men evolved differently, that they are born with certain mutable characteristics, and that among these are life and the pursuit of pleasure.” (Yuvah Noah Harrai, Sapiens) "Again (Natural selection), it does not prove to disprove moral ontology, it says nothing about it." Alex O'Connor's 'Cosmic Skeptic' video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnOsG... “Our core morality isn’t true, right, correct, and neither is any other. Nature just seduced us into thinking it’s right. It did that because that made core morality work better; our “believing in its truth increases our individual genetic fitness.” Excerpt From: Rosenberg, Alex. “The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions.” iBooks. “Is natural selection so smart that it was able to filter out all the wrong, incorrect, false core moralities and end up with the only one that just happens to be true? Or is it the other way around: Natural selection filtered out all but one core morality, and winning the race is what made the last surviving core morality the right, correct, true one. Which is it? It can’t be either one. The only way out of the puzzle is nihilism.” Excerpt From: Rosenberg, Alex. “The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions.” iBooks. Replay the tape a million times ... and I doubt that anything like Homo sapiens would ever evolve again. (Stephen J Gould) Alister McGrath & Bret Weinstein • Religion: Useful fiction or ultimate truth? www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRx2u... If, for instance, to take an extreme case, men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering. (Charles Darwin) “Brierley: Ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we’ve evolved five fingers rather than six. Richard Dawkins: You could say that, yeah.” Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. (Michael Ruse)

can you summarize his "easy to understand philosophy" on the objectivity of morality? it sounded to me like he only avoided this issue

​@@MohdHilalhe kinda is

Sums almost all beliefs including Atheism.

@@BePostitive Not sure what you mean mate. I do think that belief in an god without evidence is a delusion. How does that make my view a delusion? Please explain.

@@BePostitive You realise that Atheism is a lack of a belief and not a belief right? Its like saying the off button on your TV is the same as a TV channel. There isn’t any excuse to be making mistakes like you are, you obviously haven’t got a clue what atheism is.

Assuming that atheism is a system, I assume you're quite stupid. Not playing football is a sport? Not collecting stamps is a hobby?

@@synthrostx4508 it seems like you are the one who is Stupid here, do you know that belief have several different definitions?! According to your definition of belief, Atheism is not a belief system, but according to mine it's a belief system or at least incorporate several different belief systems. But you know what I won't debate it with you here cuz it seems like you are one of them ones... etc

Maybe he had an archangel screaming in his ears at the same time.

Actually he was listening quite well

@@mostafasaid5012 he wasn't even debating Alex, the vast majority of the time he was essentially debating against random other philosophers that hold different views. That's the issue here, if atheism is simply the disbelief of a god/gods there isn't any other ideology involved, you can get vastly different Views. A similar example would be if during the debate Alex randomly brought up Isis, because they must not believe in equal human rights and they are religious. But I would think it's obvious that Subboor isn't debating whether extremist religious groups can justify human rights or not. I would hope he doesn't hold similar beliefs, and Alex has the dignity not to mischaracterize Subboor's position.

That's all of them. Honestly i lost all respect for him when he pulled the "Christianity is the reason we have the west today". No, the reason we have the west is a bunch of really smart people fooled all the stupid people into believing that a magic sky daddy would punish them if they didn't follow "the rules", rules which were obviously created by men, not a god. If they were created by a god, not only would the rules be perfect (which they are not) but it would be impossible for our primitive money brains to even comprehend the logic behind the rules.

@@mostafasaid5012 bhahhahaaaa

Is that true though? I think the Nazis and Commies killed the most people in history. Although those crimes don't necessitate atheism. I'm yet to hear of a gay dude being hung from his neck because of a specific non belief in the supernatural "Hang in the name of no God or Godess."

*The Muslim didnt "break" Godwin's Law, he followed it.*

@ You're right I phrased that wrong.

No. They would be even differenter.

So how do we know our different differences are better then the other possible differences?

i mean he is not wrong about that. Subboor is wrong about a lot but not that.

*sings* Do you want to build a straw man?

@ if you build a logical argument and it's consistent, than it's true. That is the point of logical argument. Point out the flaws.

@@SteveVanWinkle an argument can be consistent (P1 killing humans is wrong, P2 there is no trait in animals that justifies the difference in ethical consideration Conc: therefore killing animals is also wrong) But the assumptions dont have to be true on a fundamental basis, killing humans is a-moral could be true so the consistent argument crumbles. So an argument can be consistent but it may not have a true basis. Therefore an argument can be consistent but still wrong- or atleast its basis can be wrong. So if you build a logical argument and it is consistent it may be true - but it doesnt have to be. I dont want to debate if the examples and arguments are correct or not i just wanted to get the point across

@@moritz3168 if all parties agree on the premises and conclusions it's a logically sound argument. If you can not agree on the conclusion, You need to point out the flaws, in the premises or the conclusion they put forward. Every one keeps creating strawman arguments and saying this is why he is wrong. Your example of a "consistent argument" is not a "consistent argument" the first premise is flawed that is why it falls apart. Find the flaws in HIS argument and point it out.

@ 'Arf yö red thär bibler? Ez moster importo par ett havler ov öll thar sturry ov Jengus Christler, son ov Lordo. Thar ust trüest bibler, fur nuly ta dee vot. Fortunarto, Ay ehm moster educatordo. Hogg aten ov öll Bibler ez prophesito foretolden! Lordo havv choosen Hogg as be ov new Jengus Christler! Jenguss Christler ez crucifixo en then thar H’Ongry Hogge do aten ov Jengus Christler en everbotty applauden vary hardardo. Helleluyar!

The phrase "if athiesm is true" makes me cringe.

Justifying and believing are two different things! Alex (an atheist) tries to justify his beliefs through atheism which you admitted can't justify human rights... 🤕😂💀

Atheism doesn't justify anything. An atheist, like Alex, can justify a lot of things. You seem to lack the ability to differentiate the person from the thing.

u gay bro?

@@riglancer5473 Yes, very gay indeed. I adore men :-).

Bin Young ok bro

Bin Young I agree. It’s delicious

When I was in 8th grade I thought he was really damn cute oop

I agree. Best as I can tell, they are more just just consistent. The difference between them is a semantic one at best. Both describe our moral system as simultaneously subjective relative to the universe *AND* objective relative to the facts of our biology and physicality.

Rener Oslo Agreed, the whole subjective morality concept is nothing more than a chaotic paradox in my opinion.

Rener Oslo Indeed, I would even argue that questioning objective laws and axioms is illogical and flawed. Take the trivial example of why we don’t question the laws of nature and mathematics which are fundamental buildings blocks to our existence. Long story short but if there was no objective basis for morality, then it follows that i can RATIONALLY justify ANY act, be it moral or immoral (you might as well wipe out humanity if you believe in such a thing) hence the chaotic paradox that i referred to from earlier.

@@edit8826 Rener said it is absurd to make objective claims from a subjective premise. Even if the objective claim is right, that doesn't make the argument reasonable, as the premise is based on personal views. There is no subjective premise in your claim, either it is true that people consider pain to be a negative experience, or they don't.

@@edit8826 For example, my favorite color is red. So if I'm buying a car, I might be able to claim objectively that I should buy the red car to maximize my own pleasure. But that is based on a subjective premise, that my favorite color is red. It will not apply to people who have a different favorite color.

@Rob LoweTheists do it too. Stop tryna pretend they don't.

@Rob Lowe Bruh, you got stats on that or you jus gon assert it as fact?

@Rob Lowe sames you boy we ain't special and tryna pretend like you better only takes away from your "moral high ground"

@Rob Lowe yeh eh i can git mo incoherent if ya want

@Rob Lowe Mmm, yes the classic for arrogent, pompous, self aggrandizing people when talking to people they dislike.

Wtf are you talking about? He's there to refute his arguments, not stare at him while speaking to him as if they're on a date.

@@sAfgun123 It's a debate. You're supposed to respond to a person's arguments and perhaps consider them, not look for ammunition on a laptop.

Pavlišič Kaja He did respond to his arguments. What he does on his laptop is irrelevant.

@@sAfgun123 he's supposed to listen, though.

@@pavlisickaja2495 But he did listen. How else would he have responded to his arguments?

Yeah, comparatively it was better but I still think that Subboor was kind of manipulative and didn't really listen to Alex. I just left this debate feeling like Subboor just tried to twist Alex's words and tried to scoff at Alex for something that just wasn't true

Nat Ch. oh yeah completely! But at least Alex had a chance to explain himself and was able to provide his view and actual thoughts on the topic, which Mohamed Hajib didn’t allow Alex to do.

@@SapienEnergy yeah, that's very true. I hope more people see the video Alex did, somehow he was still gracious to Mohammed in it

He got destroyed in both.

@@gman4074 did you even watch it? Alex made points that Subboor just ignored out of pure ignorance. In no way was Alex destroyed 😂😂😂

I feel bad for you too just by reading your comment

Alex baddest moment 1:34:56

@@_eLf45 baddest? Is that even a word?

@@trybunt it's not a proper word, it's a slang what is slang? "Slang is very informal language or specific words used by a particular group of people. You'll usually hear slang spoken more often than you'll see it put in writing, though emails and texts often contain many conversational slang words."

Alex isn't a young Christopher Hitchens. Far from it. He's too polite and keeps himself out of the muck. I do miss Hitchens.

Both Alex and Hitchens are fairly overrated in my view. Every time I watch one of Alex's videos I can't help but think of a comment I saw on the Catholic priest Bishop Robert Barron's RU-vid channel where he reviews "God is not Great" - "Rule #1 when reading/watching/listening to anything by Christopher Hitchens: Simply having a British accent, charismatic personality and witty writing style does not automatically make you right about everything, or frankly anything." The attributes that are listed in this comment often dupe people into believing that both of these people are far more sophisticated than they actually are and lead to many sycophantic fans taking everything they say as gospel on account of their ability to conjure up soundbites that at first glance appear to be highly rational/logical, yet which are often exposed as being philosophically weak when seriously examined critically, which I think Subboor managed here, particularly on the topic of morality where Alex denied that animals have moral agency only to realise that he contradicted his own moral standards, or when Alex had to hesitate when asked if rape is objectively morally wrong past present and future yes or no.

@@patrickmcardle952 Lol...Hitchens is overrated because he has a British accent. This has to be one of the most infantile arguments I have ever heard.

castro sherwood all that’s infantile is the manner with which you simplified the point I was making which is that it often dupes people into thinking that his arguments are more sophisticated than they actually are. The best way to see when this happens is to watch him present an argument and then look at the transcript immediately afterwards

castro sherwood Take the Iraq war for instance. This is one area where the clear majority disagreed with his views, yet when you watch him speak on this subject with all of the wit charisma and sophisticated sounding jargon etc. you’ll find yourself getting won over only to then have to remind yourself that he’s categorically wrong. If I’m honest, I’d classify Hitchens as being a British/enhanced version of Aron Ra when it comes to religion - a highly charismatic/articulate atheistic preacher who is able to tap into the feelings shared by teenagers/young adults who are resentful towards religion or who feel as though all of it is nonsense but who couldn’t quite put their thoughts into words, which Alex is able to do very well as well. This is what leads to people of this ilk being fairly overrated in my view

The references Subboor Ahmad used in the debate: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (Declaration of Independence) “There are no gods in the universe, no nations, no money, no human rights, no laws, and no justice outside the common imagination of human beings.” (Yuvah Noah Harrai, Sapiens) “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men evolved differently, that they are born with certain mutable characteristics, and that among these are life and the pursuit of pleasure.” (Yuvah Noah Harrai, Sapiens) "Again (Natural selection), it does not prove to disprove moral ontology, it says nothing about it." Alex O'Connor's 'Cosmic Skeptic' video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnOsG... “Our core morality isn’t true, right, correct, and neither is any other. Nature just seduced us into thinking it’s right. It did that because that made core morality work better; our “believing in its truth increases our individual genetic fitness.” Excerpt From: Rosenberg, Alex. “The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions.” iBooks. “Is natural selection so smart that it was able to filter out all the wrong, incorrect, false core moralities and end up with the only one that just happens to be true? Or is it the other way around: Natural selection filtered out all but one core morality, and winning the race is what made the last surviving core morality the right, correct, true one. Which is it? It can’t be either one. The only way out of the puzzle is nihilism.” Excerpt From: Rosenberg, Alex. “The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions.” iBooks. Replay the tape a million times ... and I doubt that anything like Homo sapiens would ever evolve again. (Stephen J Gould) Alister McGrath & Bret Weinstein • Religion: Useful fiction or ultimate truth? www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRx2u... If, for instance, to take an extreme case, men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering. (Charles Darwin) “Brierley: Ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we’ve evolved five fingers rather than six. Richard Dawkins: You could say that, yeah.” Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. (Michael Ruse)

I'm firmly on Suboor's side, and I also do appreciate that the discussion was relatively civil, lol. I personally have seen Alex say horrendously rude things on his channel in years gone by, and if nothing else was learnt, I hope it is a sign that he is distancing himself from some elements of the toxic new atheist movement.

@@umarr6221 Is there anything specific he said that you found compelling, or do you just happen to fall on his side?

@@umarr6221 yeah religions are not toxic, atheism is toxic, sure.

@@umarr6221 I have personally seen immorla things written in the quran too. I hope u have learnt worshipping a pedo and killing infidels as adviced by the pedos manual, is not great anymore.

@Eddie Austin while you're correct about the Islamophobia point, I was wondering if you are aware of Dawkins' point on the god hypothesis

That means that I think you have a very balanced view that is not heavily biased I think. Just listening at this right now, but that is usually my take as well. I believe in God myself but I believe in Vedanta so I have no dog in the race as it pertains to Islam vs Atheism, no dog in the race as it pertains to both belief systems. For me, religion is very powerful and has had a positive transformative effect but it is more so a personal thing and a way of life, I don't care to convert people with the zeal of the convert, no. If one is happy and good even being atheist I applaud that, I am just not orientated that way myself. Good to see someone such as yourself not cemented in "my way", "my belief". I think that is quite toxic, going into these debates as the "atheist team" or the "muslim team" etc, that is all part of ones ego. Much better to approach it the way you do, I think. All the best man.

No he didn't he has comprehension issues.

he literally didn’t 💀

Well ehm... I'd like to agree with you. I think I hoped better from Subboor. I feel I get his point but also feel Alex already won it over before Subboor even started talking. It's like Suboor started talking about "this is why Atheism can't work as a moral basis" but I feel we just did how it does.

@@viancavarma3455 who didn't what?

We just wanna see blood in debates. Might be why Hitch was so well loved

You are assuming human rights are objectively true which they are not they are just opinions taken from a conference in the 1960s by secular old men.

@@omaribnalahmed5967 So you also believe that the “rights” found in your supposedly divine law code is also just mere opinions from a medieval Arabian warlord without no actual objective validity? If not, please justify why you think that that is not the case. Also, why are you even here if you never saw much merit in human rights in the first place?

The references Subboor Ahmad used in the debate: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (Declaration of Independence) “There are no gods in the universe, no nations, no money, no human rights, no laws, and no justice outside the common imagination of human beings.” (Yuvah Noah Harrai, Sapiens) “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men evolved differently, that they are born with certain mutable characteristics, and that among these are life and the pursuit of pleasure.” (Yuvah Noah Harrai, Sapiens) "Again (Natural selection), it does not prove to disprove moral ontology, it says nothing about it." Alex O'Connor's 'Cosmic Skeptic' video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnOsG... “Our core morality isn’t true, right, correct, and neither is any other. Nature just seduced us into thinking it’s right. It did that because that made core morality work better; our “believing in its truth increases our individual genetic fitness.” Excerpt From: Rosenberg, Alex. “The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions.” iBooks. “Is natural selection so smart that it was able to filter out all the wrong, incorrect, false core moralities and end up with the only one that just happens to be true? Or is it the other way around: Natural selection filtered out all but one core morality, and winning the race is what made the last surviving core morality the right, correct, true one. Which is it? It can’t be either one. The only way out of the puzzle is nihilism.” Excerpt From: Rosenberg, Alex. “The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions.” iBooks. Replay the tape a million times ... and I doubt that anything like Homo sapiens would ever evolve again. (Stephen J Gould) Alister McGrath & Bret Weinstein • Religion: Useful fiction or ultimate truth? www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRx2u... If, for instance, to take an extreme case, men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering. (Charles Darwin) “Brierley: Ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we’ve evolved five fingers rather than six. Richard Dawkins: You could say that, yeah.” Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. (Michael Ruse)

He is super manipulative, and unfortunately a lot of people fall for that

Had this thought all along.. frustration hits hard when i watch Alex debating

@@rasmuslassen6273 especially indoctrinated people.

It's not a trichotomy. You either accept a premise or deny it. That is a dichotomy. However denying a premise is not the same as asserting a premise is false, which is a different claim. Subboor is rhetorically treating denial as if Alex is asserting the claim is false.

Yes, however if we accept the premise that everyone in that universe accepts blue is the color which minimizes suffering then we can obtain the objective truth that blue is the right color. Again applying this idea to the rape example, rape is defined to be any sexual act done without consent of the victim. Thus, the premise is rape increases suffering for the victim. This statement is true even for a rapist if that person is a victim of rape. Hence all humans will accept this premise, making rape being immoral an objective fact. Hope this makes sense.

@@yogeshpipada4420 is raping a dead body immoral ?

@@salahaldin447 Can you even rape a dead body tho because they cannot consent? Necrophiliacs exist and they perform sexual acts on dead bodies so I assume you mean those. Applying the principle I stated earlier, a dead body would represent someone's loved one. Doing that to a loved one if they are dead would cause suffering for people who loved/cared for this person, this premise holds true for the rapist as well and hence would be immoral. If the person who is a corpse had no loved one at all it still wouldn't matter as humans are social beings and hence hearing of such stories would cause them to empathetically feel bad increasing the suffering of human kind. All in all the idea is empathy dictates morals in this framework.

@@yogeshpipada4420 By applying the pain and pleasure principle, one can contend that being subjected to rape is morally reprehensible on a subjective level, as it involves inflicting pain and suffering upon the victim, a situation that even the perpetrator would likely find undesirable. However, when employing this same principle to assess the morality of rape itself, it becomes challenging to make an objective judgment. This is because, within the framework where pain and pleasure serve as the moral compass, a rapist who derives pleasure from their actions could argue that their subjective experience justifies the act. Thus, while one may perceive rape as wrong based on subjective experiences of pain and suffering, objectively labeling it as universally wrong becomes elusive. Moreover, equating the wrongness of rape solely to the fact that nobody desires to be raped is akin to suggesting that because nobody wants to lose, there should be no winners, or because nobody wants to fail, nobody should be corrected. This line of reasoning oversimplifies complex moral dilemmas and ignores the broader ethical considerations involved. It fails to account for the inherent rights and dignity of individuals and the impact of one's actions on others, reducing morality to mere avoidance of personal discomfort rather than a nuanced understanding of right and wrong.

Explain.

Constructing a fictional reality called "hell" in christianity and islam was a clever religious move to increase anxiety.

@shemi shami your last 2 sentences are rly dumb

@@Tom-vq4xk and u despite all the paragraph emphasizing the last 2 sentences shows that you are in another mood

@shemi shami There is no need for a divine being. Quoting Alex, it's the "maximization of pleasure and minimization of suffering." When a corrupt bureaucrat or a psychopath simply "wants" pleasure by causing "suffering" to another being, that may be maximizing pleasure for one but it is GREATLY increasing pain or suffering for another.

@shemi shami is the victim of the rapist experiencing pleasure or pain? Its pain isn't it. Is the victim if Hitlers holocaust experiencing pleasure ir pain, again its pain isn't it, is the 9 year old girl being raped by a 54 year old man, pleasure or pain. Yet again its pain. Why do all the theist ask the question was Hitler wrong in his opinion was the rapust Mohammed wrong in his opinion. I dont hive a fucknabout there opinions, I give a fuck about the humans who suffer at there hands. And guess what, so do they. Its not a question from the perpetraturs it's a question from the victims. Thars where we derive morality from

@@Alpine1996 No. How the religious have managed to convince themselves that a God is necessary for morality mystifies me. To use your language: appeal to authoritarianism as a basis for morality is utter nonsense. In two thousand years you've never gotten past the Euthyphro dilemma. So much of apologetics (such as Mr. Muslim's here) breaks down to the following idiocy: If things were different then things would be different But things aren't different Therefore God

The references Subboor Ahmad used in the debate: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (Declaration of Independence) “There are no gods in the universe, no nations, no money, no human rights, no laws, and no justice outside the common imagination of human beings.” (Yuvah Noah Harrai, Sapiens) “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men evolved differently, that they are born with certain mutable characteristics, and that among these are life and the pursuit of pleasure.” (Yuvah Noah Harrai, Sapiens) "Again (Natural selection), it does not prove to disprove moral ontology, it says nothing about it." Alex O'Connor's 'Cosmic Skeptic' video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnOsG... “Our core morality isn’t true, right, correct, and neither is any other. Nature just seduced us into thinking it’s right. It did that because that made core morality work better; our “believing in its truth increases our individual genetic fitness.” Excerpt From: Rosenberg, Alex. “The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions.” iBooks. “Is natural selection so smart that it was able to filter out all the wrong, incorrect, false core moralities and end up with the only one that just happens to be true? Or is it the other way around: Natural selection filtered out all but one core morality, and winning the race is what made the last surviving core morality the right, correct, true one. Which is it? It can’t be either one. The only way out of the puzzle is nihilism.” Excerpt From: Rosenberg, Alex. “The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions.” iBooks. Replay the tape a million times ... and I doubt that anything like Homo sapiens would ever evolve again. (Stephen J Gould) Alister McGrath & Bret Weinstein • Religion: Useful fiction or ultimate truth? www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRx2u... If, for instance, to take an extreme case, men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering. (Charles Darwin) “Brierley: Ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we’ve evolved five fingers rather than six. Richard Dawkins: You could say that, yeah.” Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. (Michael Ruse)

@@Alpine1996 what a long list of fallacies, well done you.

@@Alpine1996 "My belief in God is one of absolute truth, it is incorrigible in that it is simply logically, a priori, a requirement that an uncaused cause exist" So your solution to the question is an even more complex being which creates even more questions?

@@Alpine1996 Hm, the ocean having a bottom argumemt shows that you don't know history. In the many versions people imagined the world, one popular was that the sky is water, hence its blue, and the firmament holds it back. In the firmament are small holes, from where it rains. The continents are surrounded by water, so people thought they are floating above the water. Water above, water below, possibly infinitly deep. People tried to find the true depth of the ocean and many concluded it to be bottomles, due to insuficient long chains to measure tbe true depth of the ocean. People also thought the sun and moon circle the earth and for some reason, and other false things we know today to be not true. So to say we can infer the bottom is just wrong, as people never concluded it logically. Just as we don't know if there is an border to space. You're just biased because you know the ocean has a bottom and isn't a full water planet. And I never understood why the infinite regress is a fallacy. Can you provide an example where it shows why it is a fallacy?

I totally agree with you.... in addition to that, I feel that Subboor was basically in some type of juvenile mental mode that was sadly and always reaching to pathetically disagree with just about anything Alex could make a basic and reasonable point for.... just to possibly make his own poor and severely limited view of our world and life, seem more complete. 🤦‍♂️

Love it! This is what I just write as my own comment: “Sam Harris makes it clear that the basis for objective morality is the subjective agreement that well-being is THE goal of morality... once the goal is set objective determinations about how to best achieve that goal become available-this guy has misrepresented Harris & worse does not understand how objective determinations are derived, most of which have an arbitrary/subjective ground: for ex we can objectively determine temperatures by agreeing that 100 = Boiling 0 = Freezing. These are arbitrary/subjective markers, but once we agree to them we can make objective claims about temperature. Epic fail...”

A dB You don’t see pain and pleasure as measurable natural phenomena? Perhaps each individual has a distinct sensitivity, but that doesn’t eliminate the possibility of measurement, whether quantifiable by an accepted standard (much like boiling/freezing) or via self-report-much as we do in the arena of health. The fact that water boils at different temperatures at different elevations does not hinder... all you need is a model of comparison-X policy produces happier women w/ out affecting everyone else so it is preferable to Y policy which has a higher proclivity for producing depression... Maximal suffering vs minimal suffering... the metaphor applies. I disagree.

A dB A dB Well-being/survival IS the evolutionary “purpose” of morality-it’s descriptive-as far as I can tell. The purpose of moral codes is to produce functional societies, families, & minds whether in this life or the next. The fact that something can produce well-being in the short run & fail in the long means it was successful at producing well-being in the short & failed in the long-nothing more-and this is a measurement of its success/failure-so you’ve made my point & practiced using well-being as a measure... & it worked. Well-being as a goal didn’t change in ur example, the environmental factors did, so u change the method to adjust to the new circumstances or u try to change the environment itself-u don’t lose the goal of well-being. That some may find social media beneficial & others not beneficial to their well-being means that the conditions in which each person exists need attention & we can begin from there to address that issue & create programs that maximize the well-being of each group... u’ve opened up a window of opportunity for scientists to pursue means of understanding & programs that more effectively address the variation in human conditions-& once we have the goal we have a starting place for inquiry & possible solutions. If the goal of chess is to win, you can separate out good from bad moves based on their success in reaching that goal. If your goal is to irritate your opponent, u’d play in a different way-maybe don’t wear deodorant or call him names & knock over his knight “by accident” a few times, eyc.-& winning wld take second place. I’m sorry but happiness is not hard to define. Just because I like ketchup & u like mustard does nothing to make “happiness” more difficult to define.

the topic is atheism not alex and i think sam is big figure in new atheism (right?). so i think the separations should be made from the atheist's doctrine. alex and sam in this case should explain atheism pov

Sam Harris is not a real philosopher. People don't know how to read actual philosophy texts and so 'The Moral Landscape' is all they have left.

And hence. Why do they keep saying females have same rights as men.. since Alex's view is that there are differences between the creatures.. according to their capacity.. so he should not argue much

Oh, I thought Subboor's point was even stranger: That he thought the island people would listen to him because he could make a case of objective morales bc of god.

hitch was far aggressive in nature contrary alex is very peaceful young guy but it takes only a male like Hitchens to slap those straw mans by those religious bigots.

We'll find out when we die

@@watvid1or we won’t (;

@@visiblehuman3705 in which case we won't know, we'll be nothing. But there's a few verses in the Quran about this.

What would be the next league?

Barackus Can we resurrect the Hitch? And then find something they disagree on?

"I could have won this argument. Alex, time to forget this league and move up. " Realistically, anyone with a decent background in logic and science would be able to end this argument pretty quickly. But "winning", or rather, changing the minds of those who don't agree, that is the real challenge.

The Fuzzician The mind may have been changed but its notoriously difficult to accept that you’ve had your mind changed. I’d imagine most priests, imams etc don’t entirely believe what they preach.

@@chuffsie Only by using an Indian Burial Ground. And sometimes... Death is better.

😂😂😂 u guys are cancer to society

@@mohammedanees1610 Did your post present strong, logical evidence of objective morality? It didn't. So then you apparently don't have a good reason to believe it exists. Just like me. Well I'm honest about it: because I don't know, _I admit I don't know_ objective morality exists, and won't believe in it unless we someday get evidence of it. Valuing truth isn't "cancerous". It's the most rational way for a society to behave. In fact irrational beliefs like religion are a far more dangerous ideology to humanity.

​@@majmagehow about this. To be selfless is better than being selfish because it is the embodiment of empathy and compassion versus selfishness embodying ego/pride or pleasure. To murder someone innocent is selfish and evil, to help a stranger in need is selfless and good. The kicker is, helping someone gives both the one in need and* you a rewarding feeling. It's actually as if love is the one thing that breaks the action-reaction paradigm into action-action (both being forward/good from a moral perspective). Finally to argue that murdering someone isn't fundamentally wrong would hinge on the subjective 0.01% of humanity essentially basing an argument on a statistical outlier. We know good cannot exist without evil (nor can the north exist without the south) and we know what each encompasses yet somehow say it's all subjective? You can't have it both ways.

@@dartskihutch4033 Objective means, _"not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."_ Subjective means, _"based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions."_ You've stated your feelings on various moral acts. That's why what you described is subjective morality. Objective morality would mean that you could prove something was right or wrong independent of feelings/tastes/opinions. Yet nobody so far has ever been able to do that. (In fact most commonly other posters either present their own feelings like you did, or ask me my feelings. Ironic because _that's exactly what makes it subjective!_ )

@@majmage objectivity and objective morality exists in slightly nuanced spaces, but sure I'll concede to that and allude to my point that 0.01% of humanity would agree that murdering the innocent is wrong, and we only set moral standards for humans, so are you saying that we would need 100% to agree? Or would that still fall into 100% of people subjectively agree this is correct? In that case does 1+1=2 not count as objectively true because someone somewhere truly disagrees? Do you agree that up cannot exist without down objectively due to relativity? In the same stroke, would it not be true objectively that good cannot exist without evil? If we can't even agree that objective truths such as this can't exist, then we might as well say nothing exists, evil nor good, up nor down, and everything is nonsense and absolute chaos. But then again, chaos is directly proportional to order.

All of which are biological adaptations that led to the success of our social species. They are requirements for cooperative behavior.

@Trolltician of course it does if you are basing your morality on your personal faith

it's not unfair from them. it is ignorant from them. Subboor Ahmad doesn't even understand science,how can we want from him to understand philosophy derived from our scientific understading? he has invalid model of how reality works in his head,therefore he is unable to see how stupid his arguments are.

@Trolltician if you don't base your philosophy on reality,then you are not talking about reality. and since science is our best tool for understanding reality, I consider to be the best way to start with it.

@Trolltician so you don't consider science as our best tool for understanding reality? what would you start with?

@Trolltician I'm talking about reality. yes I presuppose reality exists and we are in the same reality. our pattern seeking brains are able to find patterns even when there are none, but by learning about reality (using available scientific understanding), by not denying a frigging evolution (among others) as a fact because it doesn't fit some interpretation of your favorite religion (not necessarily talking about you,I don't know your view), then you can understand world around you better and use it as a base for philosophical view on that (or at least not ignore it).

​@Rener Oslo Starting hundreds of thousands of years ago (at the very least), our primitive ancestors relied on superstitious ideas, as the early and gradual development of religious faith. They knew almost nothing about how anything worked. So lightning became the furious power of gods being thrown down in anger. Crops failing became punishment for whatever local current taboos were pet peeves of the loudest voices in any given village. If *the* *hate* *of* *the* *day* was women who didn't please their men enough, then THAT's what "the gods" were mad about; or disobedient children, or anyone suspected of evil magics. Early on, religions were a way to get people to behave better in public (in some ways), but far worse in other ways; depending on whatever the most dominant religious assholes said "god said". So if the head narcissist (what we call "priests" and "pastors" these days) said "god said he hates it when you don't give me some of your earnings", then that became what "god" wants. But just because early humans gleaned some social cohesion from religion (at great consequence of suffering), doesn't mean that humans today still need training wheels; let alone any crafted from the bones of innocents, or oiled with the blood and tears of children. You might not want to grow up; but you shouldn't be trying to hold humanity back from doing so. Just because our primitive ancestors used religion to channel their fears, and control issues, and ignorance, and selfishness, and violence into collective productivity doesn't mean we still need that. It's past time for rehab. It's past time to outgrow those old crutches. It's past time to grow up.

@Rener Oslo Just as "no two people have ever read the same book", it seems that you and I were hearing a different debate; even though watching the same. It's late, here. I'll come back to this tomorrow.

which definition of impotence lmao

Ngl, I had to double take. I definitely read that as 'important' the first time.

Or maybe, just maybe, you don’t understand his arguments

@@AmirHussain-bi2vx no I understand perfectly clear every point that was trying to be made. Suboor did not.

i feel the same too i mean if i would have been in alex's position i would have been really irritated

You're close. It was: Atheism leads to moral nihilism, moral nihilism undermines human rights; therefore, atheism undermines human rights

Without the All Wise and All knowledgeable Law Giver then your abortion campaign and the Arab pagans who buried their own daughters are the same *objectively according to you*

Morality becomes a joke, "sex liberation" is the disguise that LGBT community uses. People in Norway and Sweden are starting to accept Incest... I wonder why......... 💀🤕

You only say that because -- you know why? -- Because you've evolved on this trajectory. /s

Hello Alan, Alex is a very busy man. I am not. Do you wanna hangout? Don't get me wrong, i am a woman lover but i have time to spend a few hours in your company. I must say i am not really a talker, but i can listen very good. Next saturday?

Aslan B. Sure

So did you guys hang out ?

@@usèr1234-x1o Hahaha, NO! I am in Australia and while I have no idea where Aslan B is there is no way I would seek out a nutter like that anyway.

@@AlanLow Hahaha. I'd love to hang out with Alex too, but yeah, I'd pass on Aslan B.🤭

@@jarlaxledaerthe4045 The scriptures are assumed to be the basis of morality. What moral system are you using to evaluate scripture? What your mom told you?

@@globalcoupledances You can be asian chinese and disbelieve in the supernatural.

@@globalcoupledances Hasty generalisation and appeal to ignorance.

lol....you are easy to pleased to....that's cringe!

Atheism justifies bad acts of rape

​@@شبلمذحجالطعان Oooh can you expand on that?

​@@شبلمذحجالطعانhow so

Did you even watch the video. Ones own Experiences? LoL. So, A man raping a woman, in his own experience is maximizing his pleasure and the woman's pleasure because for him, the woman is screaming in pleasure, but in reality she is screaming in pain.

@blueray1969 nope from evolution. Didn't you know it's all about survival and reproduction.

@blueray1969 good, now we are getting into something. Can I know your basis for moral code, which you can always refer back to. Because Atheists are usually all over the place.

​@@lunarcalendar368 sorry to break your bubble but countries that have a secular constitution have punitive measures in place for violent acts such as rape, murder etc. where do you think these laws came from? as for your rape analogy, what that experience teaches not just the man/woman committing the act, but the society, is that it is an act of violence that infringes upon somebody else's rights, which eventually falls under the umbrella of "any act of violence that infringes upon other people's rights". so, in short, sorry that is a strawman like the many strawmen that folks like you invoke in such situations. as for your ignorant view about evolution, nobody uses evolution to arrive at solutions for moral dilemmas.

@@nirmalvarma3386 sorry to inform you, That you contradicted yourself. you intially mentioned about ONE'S OWN experience. Now you are talking about the "society". Take a stance, you cannot be all over the place. Bringing in politics about secular countries is a strawman into justifying morality.