Do Human Rights Actually Exist? 

as a concept, sure, but objectively not, just like other social constructs

The presenter is conflating atheism with nihilism. He's not the first and won't be the last.

Dude you should get some sleep

Alex remember, one cup of black coffee or black tea (without milk) a day will keep the doctor away pal! 👍🏻🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

@Meshari "Nihilist - a person who believes that life is meaningless and rejects all religious and moral principles." I don't accept that a god exists and yet my life still has meaning (in that I give it meaning) and my moral principles are founded on human freedom so I clearly don't reject moral principles.

Didn't the Spartans kill the weak ones? And the nazis killed the mentally ill

Or we could have been taught that murdering children is good by a god who obviously considered a very good idea on numerous occasions.

@Locust Swarm It was thought at the time, and is still argued today by historians & military strategists that there would have been significantly more casualties, both civilian and military, with an invasion of Japan. Prior to those bombings the Japanese were not going to surrender - that's a certainty. It would have been a long, protracted fight for every square foot involving guerilla tactics, suicide attacks, civilian conscripts and volunteers - every single house and building would have been a fight to the death against a population who would not surrender, through fear, indoctrination and cultural values - a fight to the last man, woman and child.....in Japan.....many islands, cities and urban centres, and difficult terrain. You aren't suggesting that there would have been less casualties with a land Invasion, are you? The USA was faced with a terrible decision during 1945. (Before you point it out, I know that it was also a show of force to the Soviet Union, however the primary concern was a land invasion, where the casualty numbers could easy have gone into seven figures.)

Individualism, Philosophy, Religion and Politics , the Canaanites certainly thought it was the right way to go!

Individualism, Philosophy, Religion and Politics No wonder Brother Subboor doesn’t understand evolution yet he tries to speak about it as if he’s some kind of authority 😂

To answer that question, we first have to turn the sun into a blackhole. But what is a hole? A hole in a mathematical object is a topological structure which prevents the object from being continuously shrunk to a point. But what does it mean to shrink something?

Without right there will be choas in the old day of greek

They don’t weigh anything, cause they don’t exist lol

Oh hey Andrew!

damn, well said

Just curious, is human rights existent by necessity simply because of the mere existence of us humans?

@@MrSiloterio I mean, of there were no humans there would be no such thing as *human* rights by definition

Subjective rebuttal, whatever.

Saboor is arguing what do you base your human rights on? As a human if right is dependent on subjective interpretation of an individual, then everyone could come up with so many possibilities and what you consider correct someone else may consider it wrong and vice versa. So it will get so messy that, at the end you won't know what is right or wrong anymore.

I like your comment although I cannot do so (69)

Ιt's the moral thing to do :-p

Consequentialism is riddled with problems.

Morality in our current form. I think that existed only 300 years ago.

@@urbandesitv3529 morality is generally caring about the well-being of society. We evolved morals as the human species became more complex over hundreds of thousands of years. As we learned languages and how to communicate we found that having good basic ethics was beneficial to the societies survival

@@urbandesitv3529 Do you even understand what an Atheist is? It would appear not. I'm also curious about what religion you follow.

@@urbandesitv3529 out of the nearly 8 billion people on this planet and the millions that have gone before not one person knows what existed or occurred before the big bang so how do you know?

@@urbandesitv3529 I'll do what I like. Do you know what an Atheist is? It's absolutely relevant to your comment, as you're commenting on Atheism, so it would help if you understood what an Atheist is. As for your religion, don't answer - I don't care. If you're ashamed or something I won't push it.

Human rights exist only to the extent an armed authority is willing and able to enforce them

I totally agree as a muslim. Its just some rules some followa agreed on, its purely subjective and bound to time and place.

"Rights" according to the US constitution include the right to pursue happiness. That right exists whether or not a government recognizes it, and whether or not a civilization exists. Things like morality, and laws will change from time to time, being an attempt to match a system of government with the rights.

@@tonycatman Who gave you those rights ? Did you create them yourself ? Have you earned them ? Is there really something out there as rights ? Or is it a subjective human construction and the one with the most power gets to control this narative worldwide. Not trying to bash human rights there is lot of good in it. But trying to make you think on a deeper lvl.

@@korsol Who gave me the rights ? Nobody. Rights don't need to be given in order to exist. Did I earn them ? No. That's the point. They exist whether or not they are earned. Is there really something out there as rights ? I'm not sure. I think that they disappear as soon as a concise definition is attempted. It definitely seems to be the case that different people have different ideas of what it means. Is it subjective .... ? The right to pursue happiness isn't subjective. I also don't think it is unique to humans. It's only predicated on the assumption that there is life, and that life is attracted toward some things, and avoids others.

What How so? He just vaguely defined Morality.

@Little League Ashok Yeah small enough to be uninteresting.

@@johnnotrealname8168 why can't he just like the quote?

@@mykaelajones7780 Ask him I guess.

But how do you know what exists and what doesn't?

Yup, kind of infuriating

How do you mean?

@@user-xi5tp5iw7f I mean the strawman of atheists lacking anything including emotions, morals, purpose, etc. Then, hence the strawman, being told what how we as individuals think or have a position on. Yet it's the theists who always claim that if they didn't have their religion and position, they would be without and empty. You can't tell people that they are lacking anything in the natural world like emotions and perceptions because your religion claims you can't have (those blatantly obvious and natural things) without that god. It's extremely stupid and undeniably false.

Ever heard of logic? Philosophy?

Eh, I think it comes more from the idea that under materialism it would seem that there is no “individual” making a “choice”. Like yes, it may *feel* like a choice; however that sensation is an illusion and not valid for making moral arguments. Like a program with only so many possible actions given; yet it calls itself ‘free willed’ because it *gets* to choose one of the options

one day he will go awol and we will be left with nothing

@@db1416 Ome day he will find Jesus and stop uploading - Christian Trolls

Unfortunately he seems to have picked up an untenable ideology and he is looking worse because of it hopefully he will ditch that ideoloy soon but one of the unfortunate side effects is a deadening of mental faculties

@@christophercombs7561 what ideology...

@@zaidkhan6296 veganism

He slipped up at the beginning because we’re less than human according to Islam

Who told you that?

Where do you base your morality? Maximising wellbeing? pleasure? What ever CNN tells you? How is this any better than the bibble. Atheist's should take care of their reproduction rate. Atheist woman should become baby factories!

@@TimoNaaro Wow. really?

B e what is a Joke are people who are just the flip side of the shitty coin of heads you lose tails you lose ... do you really think being a bigot against religious people make you better than them? It doesn’t it makes you an even bigger hypocrite for thinking that you are...

He thinks the alliteration proves a point. That's the extent of Saboor's intelligence. Of course, we could just as easily say Idiotic Islam and be more correct.

Subboor is a great guy. He is well read and know what he is talking about.

Saboor is far more educated and humble than any of you. Truth hurts, doesn't it?

@@Nahid2all "humble", yet actively names his channel in a way that implies he thinks his opposition is a bunch of delusional nutcases. "Well educated" and yet cannot understand (or refuses to accept) basic concepts in biology. Fun to know that your wrong in both counts. Truths hurts, doesnt it?

I agree. I sometimes feel so alienated among my peers, like I don't belong here

It is a human right that Alex exist.

I feel like I sometimes have to hear delusional concepts and accept them as truth. Well, I don't. And I don't have to pretend I do.

Really? I hear Arkansas is just beautiful in the fall.

@@urbandesitv3529 I doubt you ever paid attention in your science classes or researched on your own. But more importantly, atheists don't all believe the same thing outside of their lack of belief in a deity. So saying atheism is stupid for the nonsensical bs you just said makes no sense.

@@urbandesitv3529 I'm here to make insightful comments on the internet in to get upvotes in a desperate attempt to cure my crippling depression and self-doubt, not to create drama.

Your statement contradicts itself

This is getting interesting. Bring in the ridiculous unwarranted insults!!!!

@@urbandesitv3529 You're really looking for a fight, aren't you? Seems like somebody's been having a real rough day.

@@urbandesitv3529 when did Alex do that? He always explains how and why things are wrong logically. And I've heard him many times say that he goes and watches these videos or goes into debates on the basis that he might be converted if they put out irrefutable evidence. Which is the complete opposite of what you claim.

@Michael David Dixon I bet you're proud to be a giant douchebag. SAD!

@Michael David Dixon I'm sad I know yeah

dumb student lmao

Michael David Dixon - Darwinian Delusion subscribers ladies and gentlemen

@@bowlsallbroken SATAN'S KINGDOM FROM THE KJV (Satan is an counterfeiter 2nd Corinthians 11:13,14,14) Are you aware that the serpent has fork (double) tongue? With one he speaks the truth and the other speak falsehood. He mixes lies with God's truth to seduce, lure, deceive and destroy. He told Eve the first women a lie, you shall not surely die Genesis 3:4,5. For God knows that in the day that ye eat of it, ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. He told Jesus In Luke 4:3 If thou be the Son of God, turn this stone (the law written on the tablet of stones) to become bread. He actually wanted to make Jesus eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil like he did to Eve. He told Jesus again to jump down from the pinnacle In Luke 4:9 and that it is written in Luke 4:10,11 that God shall give His angels over Him to keep Him in all of His ways lest He dash His feet against a stone. Jesus said he has been lying from the beginning and that when he lies, he speaks his native language because he is the Father of it In John 8:44. Satan will mix his deadly poison of falsehood with the twisted word to deceive. This is why Jesus said, Search the scripture, for in it you think you have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me John 5:39. He continued, You do err not knowing the scripture nor the power of God, John 1:12 God wants you equipped with the Armour of His Sword of the Spirit always against the whiles of the devil, which is the word of God Ephesians 6:17.. Satan is presently called the "god of this world" in II Corinthians 4:4. Jesus referred to Satan's Kingdom in Matthew 12:26 when He said, "And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?" This world and this world's kingdoms are under the domain of Satan. When Jesus Christ was tempted by Satan, the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, showed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said unto him, 'All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. If thou wilt worship me all shall be yours.' (Luke 4:5-7)." Was this a bonafide offer? Could Satan offer all this world's kingdoms to Jesus Christ? The answer is yes! One day Jesus Christ will take away the kingdoms of this world from Satan and they will become His. The book of Revelation tells us, "The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and His Christ; and He shall reign forever and ever (Revelation 11:15)." But, presently, Satan has control. Satan is known by many different names in the Bible. Some of Satan's names are: (1) Satan II Corinthians 2:11 (2) the tempter Matthew 4:3 (3) the devil Matthew 4:5 (4) the enemy Matthew 13:25,39 (5) the wicked one Matthew 13:38 (6) the dragon Revelation 12:9 (7) the old serpent Revelation 12:9 (8) that crooked serpent Isaiah 27:1 (9) the accuser Revelation 12:10 (10) the piercing serpent Isaiah 27:1 (11) the deceiver Revelation 12:9 (12) the adversary I Peter 5:8 (13) the liar John 8:44 (14) the father of lies John 8:44 (15) the murderer John 8:44 (16) the oppressor Isaiah 14:4 (17) Son of the morning! Isaiah 14:12 (18) Lucifer Isaiah 14:12 (19) the son of the morning Isaiah 14:12 (20) the one that laid low the nations Isaiah 14:12 (21) leviathan Isaiah 27:1 (22) the dragon that is in the sea Isaiah 27:1 (23) the anointed cherub Ezekiel 28:14 (24) Beelzebub Matthew 12:24 (25) Belial (which means "wickedness" II Corinthians 6:15 (26) Apollyon (Greek for "destroyer") Revelation 9:11 (27) Abaddon (Hebrew for "destruction") Revelation 9:11 (28) angel of the bottomless pit Revelation 9:11 (29) the prince of the world John 14:30 (30) the prince of the power of the air Ephesians 2:2 (31) the prince of the demons Matthew 12:24 (32) the god of this world II Corinthians 4:4 (33) an angel of light II Corinthians 11:14 (34) the strong man Luke 11:21 (35) the thief John 10:10 (36) the wolf John 10:12 (37) the roaring lion I Peter 5:8 (38) the spoiler Isaiah 16:4 (39) the extortion Isaiah 16:4 Each of the above names describes something of Satan's character. Satan often makes himself appear so laughable and absurd that people do not fear him. Or he persuades them that he does not exist so that people are incapable of resisting his assaults. Satan appears as "an angel of light" according to II Corinthians 11:14. He often appears as having the truth of the gospel and deceives many. Satan's primary objective is to prevent people from understanding the gospel message so that they might be saved. "In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God should shine unto them (I Corinthians 4:4)." Satan often blinds the lost by giving them a heavenly way to go to hell. In other words religion is Satan's substitute for the gospel. Jesus Christ's major objective is to reach a lost world with the gospel. "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved (John 3:17)." And again in Luke 19:10 we read, "For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost." Satan's major objective is to prevent people from becoming saved. One objection given by the lost more than any other to the true gospel is that "It is too simple!" Satan uses that very objection to cause people to not believe the gospel. Notice II Corinthians 11:3, "But I fear, lest by any means as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." The message of salvation is not based on human works or merit but on the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary, alone by faith alone "Titus 3:5. (Ephesians 2:4 8,9, Says, For by grace in his mercy are you saved through faith, and that not of your selves, it is the gift of God not of works, lest any man should boast" Eternal life is not of works, you do nothing to be saved, you have to believe something to be saved. Grace means unmerited favor, Grace means undeserved mercy, Grace means God is giving you something you do not deserve for free, with out trying to earning it by what you do, that is Grace. Romans 11:6 Says, And if by Grace, then it is no more of works: Other wise Grace is no more Grace, But if it be of works, then it is no more Grace: Other wise work is no more work Titus 3:5 Says, not by works of righteousness by which we have done, Romans 4:6 Says, ("God imputed our rightness without" works.") Therefore, the true message is simple. God has done all the hard part. Our part is simply to receive Jesus Christ by faith! Satan is a counterfeiter! He has his imitations: (1) false Christ, the Antichrist Revelation 13:2 (2) synagogues (his church) Revelation 2:9 (3) doctrine I Timothy 4:1 (4) mysteries (the depth of Satan) Revelation 2:24 (5) throne Revelation 13:2 (6) kingdom Luke 4:6 (7) power Revelation 13:2 (8) worshipers Revelation 13:4 (9) diabolical trinity Revelation 16:13 (10) angels Revelation 12:7 (11) ministers II Corinthians 11:15 (12) miracles II Thessalonians 2:9 (13) sons John 8:44 (14) sacrifices I Corinthians 10:20 (15) communion I Corinthians 10:20 (16) table I Corinthians 10:21 (17) Satan's cup* II Corinthians 10:21 (18) glory Jude 8,9 (19) armies Isaiah 24:21 (20) gospel Galatians 1:6-9 (21) spirit II Corinthians 11:4 …and more. Satan counterfeits the gospel by offering people religion instead of salvation. All religions are based on man's works for salvation, where as God's salvation is based solely on the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The word "religion" comes from two Latin words "re" and "ligio" which mean to do something of self to bind back to God. Religions are therefore man's efforts to bind himself back to God by what he does. God says in the Bible that it is impossible for man of his own efforts to bind himself to God. Satan delights himself in blinding man into thinking that he could earn eternal life through his works. God's plan of salvation is the exact opposite of religion. Notice Romans 4:5, "But to him that work not, but believe on him (Jesus Christ) that justified the ungodly (human race), his faith is counted for righteousness." The person who wholly trusts Jesus Christ alone, by faith alone,as their only hope for heaven will be saved. All others will perish. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believe in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life (John 3:16)." Satan's kingdom truly is this world and Jesus Christ came to save (rescue) us from it. What you believer about this will determine your destiny as to where you will go and spend eternity the moment you die and leave your body.

It's generous of you to call it an argument tbh 😏

Except natural selection predicts the existence of some beings who prosper in groups with codes of behaviour.

@@urbandesitv3529 They were right. If you kill all weak people you'll be left only stronger people. The only problem is killing people comes with the cost of causing pain to the victim as well as anyone who has a relationship to that victim thus killing is bad.

@@urbandesitv3529 Wait hold up stimulating pain receptors is not bad 🤨. Than what do you call hurting someone because it's literally stimulating their pain receptors. So I take torture is not bad than from your view point.

gavsmith1980 Natural selection doesn’t predict anything. It is dictated by observation of surviving/procreating organisms.

I'd love to set him up with a lovely lady ☺️

true tho

OH MY

Hold your horses! Alex may be busy. So let him concentrate on what he's doin. Support Alex!

Damn you Climate change🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

@@urbandesitv3529 Science left religion behind ages ago when it developed the methodology of using experiment and evidence to make its conclusions. Religions, all of them, have no credible evidence. Back in the middle ages, people who did not prescribe to a religion, usually the catholic religion, would be sent to the inquisition, imprisoned and/or put to death. For so very long men who were seeking to learn about the human body for medical reasons were forbidden by the church to do research on dead bodies, putting medicine back 1,000 years. Gallelio was put on trial for realizing the Earth orbited the Sun and made to recant his findings. Just to name a few. BTW Communism is akin to a religious ideology where it replaces a god with the worship of the State. The killings were done, not in the name of atheism, but in the name of Communism just like the Catholic inquisition. The communist leaders particularly targeted the intellectuals, scientists and academics who wouldn't bow to the state. Today we see secular countries like Denmark, Finland, et al who are majority atheist and they aren't murdering anyone but are thriving and have the happiest populations in the world.

@@urbandesitv3529 Well that was hilarious. You obviously have made up a lot of theological nonsense you falsely believe supports your ideological ideas and you can't spell worth a damn LOL. Not surprising. Your "data" is not real data. Atheist scientists: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology Darwin: by the time of writing the Descent of Man, in 1871, Darwin was pretty unconvinced that any religion around today really would work or be true. He spends a lot of the Descent not just accepting morality but trying to show how it came about through natural selection, and why overall it is a good thing. Religion also gets a naturalistic explanation, but basically as a side-effect of the evolutionary process. Darwin likens religious belief to the mistakes that his dog made in thinking a parasol blowing in the wind is alive. Secular comes from Anglo-French seculer and Late Latin saecularis, meaning "worldly" or "pagan." According to the 2012 WIN/Gallup International Survey, the number of atheists is on the rise across the world, with religiosity generally declining. Europe has had a very very bad past with religion. It was a continent where the Church gained too much power and as soon as people could, they left it for atheism. www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/atheists-countries-list-six-world-most-convinced-a6946291.html Religion around the world is on the decline. For the first time ever, Norway now has more people who do not believe in God than do - with 39 per cent of atheists versus 37 per cent of believers. In the US, meanwhile, a nation whose dollar bill signs states "In God We Trust", belief in the Christian deity is also at an all time low. Research found that nearly twice as many Americans in 2014 said they did not believe in God as in 1980 - and that five times as many in 2014 said they never prayed, with millenials in particular accounting for the change in public opinion.

@@urbandesitv3529 "Religion advanced science throughout all of human history. " You couldn't be more wrong. Religion and science are two separate things. When theists or atheists are doing science, neither are doing religion. When the religious are doing science, it is not religion advancing science. It is the implementation of the scientific method - and the accumulation of accurate data that advances scientific knowledge. Not religion. "Firs of all, secular does not mean atheism" Completely agree. However, secular means worldly or of this world. And to some extent, we have Christianities horrendous past to thank for the advancement of secularism. You see, Christianity was pretty much unlivable - with goals of rejecting the worldly(secular) in favour of the divine. Practically impossible. For those reasons, and because of centuries horrendous religious wars, conflicts and persecutions across Europe - much of which horrified the slightly more progressive and liberal factions of the Christian faiths - there began a conscious effort to place more emphasis on worldly human reason to resolve problems - and less emphasis on religious dogma/divinity(of which was causing much of the division, terror and horrendous conflicts and persecutions across Europe). So, European civilisation naturally became less reliant on religion/dogma and divinity as a means for understanding the world. As Europe steadily became less reliant on religion, scientific knowledge, living standards, human rights, etc, all greatly increased. Denmark and Finland are not Christian countries. They, like the UK, are post-Christian countries that have become increasingly secular: less religious - to the point where religion is pretty much irrelevant and unnecessary to the majority of people's lives.

@@urbandesitv3529 LOL You have very poor sources and cherry pick what you think supports your argument. No facts. BTW neither you or anyone has any credible evidence that a god exists. Argument from popularity is not evidence. It wouldn't matter if 99.9999% of people believed in a god. That isn't evidence one exists. The best apologists can do is stick a god into the gaps of scientific knowledge and that god is shrinking and geting smaller and smaller. Also sticking a god of the gaps into the unknown is basically answer a mystery with a bigger mystery which is not an answer to anything. If you look into the ancient hebrews history of when and where they came up with their god Yahweh, you will find that he was a son of the supreme god El and one of his many brothers was Baal who they also worshipped. It wasn't until Cyrus released the hebrews from captivity in Persia that they adopted Yahweh as their sole god and then re-wrote their stories which became their torah inserting much from the Persian religion's stories. All religions are mythological tribal stories. FACT. As for christianity, there are no contemporary accounts of Jesus in history whatsoever. NONE. Jesus never wrote anything down. Nothing. Stories about him come decades and decades later and are written by unknown Greek scholars who had no first hand accounts and are likely religious fiction. Just in the U.S. there are over 900 former and current clergy enrolled in The Clergy Project which is a forum for clergy who have come to realize they can't believe in a god anymore. Darwin may not have called himself an atheist. But he certainly rejected christianity. Lady Hope's story claiming Darwin converted to Christanity on his deathbed is not supported by Darwin's children. Darwin's son Francis Darwin accused her of lying, saying that "Lady Hope's account of my father's views on religion is quite untrue. I have publicly accused her of falsehood, but have not seen any reply." Darwin's daughter Henrietta Litchfield also called the story a fabrication, saying "I was present at his deathbed. Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A. The whole story has no foundation whatever." 100 Renown Academics speaking about god. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-De6j01DCsZM.html The more scientifically literate, intellectually honest and objectively skeptical a person is, the more likely they are to disbelieve in anything supernatural, including god. This film is a compilation of some of the best examples of such individuals, and their thoughts on the divine. All the speakers featured are elite academics and professors at top institutions, some of whom are also Nobel Laureates.

@@urbandesitv3529 A Further 50 Academics speaking about god. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-HHv__O8wvZI.html The Superiorty of Secular Morality ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-cq2C7fyVTA4.html BTW if you actually follow biblical morality today, you'd be put in prison. LOL

Yeah, you've got to show us "philosophical molecules" to convince us that philosophy exists. Also, math doesn't exist if we can't find any "mathematical molecules."

@Najma Khan what's so bad about hell

@Najma Khan : you can't see air either, I bet your next lunch almost all atheists believe in the existence of air. And no, not all atheists call people who believe in a god or gods fools. If we are to go to hell, which hell is it, and how do you know?

I second this 👍

I second this

I really like Stephen but I wouldn't put him on the same level as Olly or Alex, personally I agree though a collaboration between any of them would be amazing

As far as religions go, Islam is particularly vile as no rational person can read the Quaran and not come out anti Semitic, tribalistic, and profoundly anti intellectual. It creates people that are worse then nazis, and it should not be tolerated

well simply knowing a water can quench your thirst when you're thirsty doesn't matter unless you actually grab a glass and drink it.

@@MrSiloterio That's not a very good example since you don't only get hydration from water. You can get it from foods that have alot of juices like fruits. If Islam = Water then there's still hundreds of other ways of being hydrated without it.

@@IlIIlIIIIIlBrianSt0rm Your analogy would be correct on its own but that is not in line with the intended response for the topmost comment. My usage of the water analogy was for the accusations that God sends people to hell. Regardless of whether you may think that hydration can be found elsewhere, the point still stands that your thirst would never be quenched by simply knowing what sources can quench your thirst - you have to take action and drink them. And if you die of thirst, you won't be blaming the sources of hydration for their inability to force themselves to enter your system.

@@MrSiloterio Thats true however not a fair comparison. Water / hydration is 100% vital to life. Islam / religion isn't. And what of those born into families or areas where they aren't aware or taught about your given religion. Do they go to hell because they don't believe? Or those who merely question "WHY should I believe in/listen to god" do they go to hell for questioning god? Religion is far too complex to be universally appropriate for all humans

Many people prefer to talk about 'minimizing suffering' rather than maximizing pleasure. It is meaningless to talk about either unless long and medium terms are also considered. Our consciences judge us for what we did yesterday, and also what we did 5 years ago. We know this, and have a tendency to act in accordance with the way we would be judged. From an evolutionary perspective, our species would die out if we didn't act in a manner consistent with its collective well being. The conscience is an emergent manifestation of a working system. If you 'feel bad' when you tell lies, this is nothing more than your genes doing their thing.

If someone is a bit of an idiot, or acting in bad faith, they're probably going to strawman it regardless.

Having principles is pragmatic long term because it's easier to justify your actions to your conscience rather than coming up with complicated explanations every time.

I was wondering about this too, whether his concept is the same as this or if he meant something else. The more I think about it, I'm not sure how it is best worded...

Congrats on re-inventing deontology and the categorical imperative. have you studied the ways in which both fail?

Most social mammals have lil hints of what we might call morality within their species, and humans are exceptionally social. But yeah, human rights are mostly a human construct.

@@majarimennamazerinth5753 since we articulate 'human rights' using language, a unique attribute of humans, these 'rights' are entirely a human construct.

Jonathan Haidt et all have proposed that humans are born with some innate sense of morality (i.e. genetic) that is subject to revision. Haidt uses the analogy of humans being born with a taste for sweets until and unless some other taste is acquired.

@Ad Lockhorst "...all humans want the same things" BS! Some Muslims want to kill all non-Muslims while other people just want the freedom to live as wish. Some people crave the power to tell others what to do or think. Some have no interest in what others do or think. Some like vanilla, some prefer chocolate. I would argue that 'morality' is the measure of how our pursuits affect others ability to pursue their competing interests.

@Ad Lockhorst Power, freedom, vanilla, chocolate...all 'THINGS'. Some people despise sex or sex with certain genders. In my experience, what people want is about as different as they look.

To each their own. btw why does pleasure sound so carnal to you?, are you a closeted pervert that is embarrassed about what you are? Not trying to be rude or disrespectful or anything just wondering.

Lucifer S. Morningstar I would say that well-being is a better term, because the preferable state of mind does not always have to be the more pleasurable one.

@@johnsinclair4621 that I can understand.

@@johnsinclair4621 I get that. More like "net pleasure." I think "wellbeing" gets that across.

@@BrooklynRagtag Nah, I don't think that you get it. It is not about "net pleasure". I am not an utilitarian. I believe that it is just plainly wrong to make pleasure the measure of morals.

Probably reading, writing and speaking. And good genetics

He is in a theology program at Oxford

I'm sorry to say to you, after two years, but he got it wrong. Ontology it's not about the truth of claims, it's about existence of entities in reality.

@Ad Lockhorst religion itself is driven by control but its arguments are mostly emotional.

Exactly how are religious arguments emotionally driven?

@@clintonwilcox4690 they are drivin by fear and control of a percieved "higher power" and violent sociopaths who preach that "higher powers" existence

@Ad Lockhorst You easily could have chosen a better quote. Paul says to slaves "submit to/respect their masters" how is that bad. If he told the Slave Masters to subjugate anyone to be a slave then problems could ensue but the above just sounds passive.

@@christophercombs7561 This is a strange argument you make, from my admittedly limited research into Theistic arguments for both God's existence and hence morality I seem to find rigorous and logical study and proof. They set their assumptions/First Principles and then proceed to prove God exists and then assign attributes based on his nature. Morality for the Religious tradition that I am familiar with uses Natural Law a system which involves a great series of thorough examinations of a Being's Nature and an actions proper ends. I am dismayed as to the poor quality of religious people and moralities you have faced but not all are bad. Also if certain actions lead to horrible results how is it bad to dissuade people from committing such an action (it makes sense) Edit:?

Do you understand that some people are convinced that they know the right path to 'happiness' whether others are hurt by it or not? Hindu's, Jews, Christians and Muslims have been 'purifying' others (for their own good) since the beginning of those religions.

Damn. You forgot property.

Greg Pearcey that’s why I added the qualifier. No religion should ever be forced on someone. Happiness is subjective, and it needs to stay with the subject.

@@Powderlover1 perhaps you missed my point. Some people claim to know what will make other people happy in the end. So sure are they that they impose their agenda on others. The Catholic church, for example, practiced trials by fire and water - for the salvation of witches and other heretics.

Greg Pearcey I’m pretty sure that infringes on the happiness of others.

Your comment is nonsensical

Christopher Combs I concur.

Actually, I do not concur; I was poking at the fact that Brits and Americans say “math” differently while also promoting the stereotype that Americans believe they are always correct. I myself being an American who likes to say “math” instead of “maths,” the joke was also self-deprecating in some respects.

@@SirSethery while maths is a plural word to indicate all subdivisions of the associated material Americans shortened the word to math a singular word to encompass all related subjects both are right in a sense Personally as an American i think math as a singular is more appropriate because all subdivisions of the study are interconnected and buld up like a skyscraper and purposefully forcing a division is silly but thats me

Christopher Combs I understand reasons for both sides, but it really doesn’t matter to me. I just like making bad jokes to pass the time. Maybe someone else with as poor of a sense of humor as me will get a stronger-than-average-exhale-through-their-nose out of it.

That's a topic for another video

The answer is no

@@msfluorescent The answer is SKRT SKRT!

@Floofy shibe don't worry I've ready called the waaaahmbulance for those muslims

I always look at the clean shaven males like this and I think to myself, you almost look like a kid or a girl. How atheism has made you guys femmanine is sad.

@Floofy shibe Alex: Proceeds to talk about immoral actions within the Islam that discriminates humans rights. Muslims: YOU'RE A ISLAMOPHOBIC BIGOT!!!

@@korsol likes his beard like he likes his women, hairy, oily and smelling like fritos...my kinda guy

@@korsol If you need a big bushy beard to make you feel manly... go for it.

Oh cool, I'll get laid if I make a lot of statism debunked.mp4s?

Rob Lowe Please explain why oh great one .

@Rob Lowe In my opinion he needs to learn to say things whilst being less verbose. His ideas are fine, but the way he is presenting them come off as condescending and superior, whilst actually not presenting anything actually unknown to the audience (The kind of thing that results in being punched in the face, the same way he is arguing the implications of a thing being more meaningful than the thing itself). But hopefully with time this will happen. I understand the need for categorisation, but proclaiming yourself as 'An Atheist' just stinks of absolute ideology. Perhaps the word itself doesn't mean what it has come to represent, but claiming yourself as X in opposition to Y doesn't sound very enlightened or open to new things. I'm not sure why they don't just use the term Agnostic/Agnostic Atheist instead (except Atheist has much more appeal to an angsty youth audience).

@@alextheguy1858 It's funny you say this. Your explanation makes you seem condescending. This man has no need to put himself on a fence of agnostic. This entire channel functions as a way to discuss religion from the opposite standpoint of atheism. His channel is built on this opposition so the firm distinction is necessary for the channel's identity. He is clearly intelligent, well read, and well rounded. He's 100% in his right to teach those who will listen. I implore you to be one of those

@@Coneboi That's fair

@@alextheguy1858 He's not verbose. He's a student of logic and philosophy and presents his discourses within that framework in a very concise manner. The only thing potentially "unknown" to his audience is how to break down another's argument. Sure, we might understand basic concepts he talks about, be we are unskilled and uneducated in finding logical flaws and building logical arguments based on them.

but wouldn't you need a standard of right and wrong to determine if something is useful or not? something useful is good, so to make good up because it's good, can't work.

Yuval and his concept of Imagined Reality. Brilliant.

Ward Huckabay Such a great book indeed! I’m reading it at the moment.

@@GabrielCaride His book "Homo Deus" has interesting points about human rights in the future. Give it a read when you're done "Sapiens".

He has it s in his "books you should read" video

Cool!

exactly. i have guilt about stuff i've done, but i'm not into trying to salve my conscience with confessions that just upset other people, if i did something wrong i try to make up for it, but live with the guilt, hopefully anyone coming to my funeral will see how i made up for the things i've messed up.

What?

People do treat morality as if it is an objective fact, and not just a subjective idea. His point is worthwhile. And it does often lead to people doing bad things or justifying things that harm people and society as a whole. You assume morality is mostly or always used for good, but that is FAR from truth. It is wrong to speak of them as more then they are though, and acting like something that does not exist exists leads to a poor and less effective message then the full truth. This slippery thinking is one of the reasons why america is falling apart socially atm. Also, none of these stops religion from being absolute bullshit. Islam is particularly vile as no rational person can read the Quaran and not come out anti Semitic, tribalistic, and profoundly anti intellectual. It creates people that are worse then nazis, and it should not be tolerated

What a strawman!

if that’s something that happens most muslims see that as wrong. we go with what the quran (the creator) and prophet say. if you want to know what islam teaches you go to the quran rather than look at humans

Najma Khan Ha ha and what the hell would YOU know?

@Najma Khan When did I said, "rights don't exist"? You're the one who said that not me. Quit projecting will ya?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Well then you're getting into more specific ideas of morality. Someone like a rule utilitarian would reply to that by saying that that sort of things would be immoral because although the torture of one of one individual might bring more pleasure to the group it is imoral because it would have bad consequences if torture was implemented as a rule. If we are okay with torture in that intance the consequences of that are that we will become okay with torture in other intances. If we torture terrorists it means that we have given the power of torture to a specific group and there is no telling whether that group will always get "the bad guys". But the main point is that the core of the values is still the same, maximizing human happiness and well being, the specifics come from what method you use to achieve that goal. Different methods have different flaws and the deeper philosophy of morality is about discussing those. But that fact is that most humans hold pretty much the same core values and people doing bad things usually doesn't result from their very core values being that different (carring about their ingroup and disliking injury to themselves) as it is about their methods being different. It's like the trolley problem, three people on one side two on the other. The answers someone chooses usually doesn't result from a difference in whether you generally value human life or not but what you are willing to giveup.

@@noname-zp1yh that makes sense, who decides who gets tortured? If there was a way to detect if an individuals torture would be outweighed by the benefits, then pleasure could be maximized. But no such way exists, giving the pain of secret torture the possibility to overweigh the pleasure of the community. And making moral rules that have the possibility of not generating maximum pleasure would make them immoral

Here are two videos that might interest you: - Western Civilization is Based on Judeo-Christian Values - Debunked: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Wd6FgYbMffk.html - Ben Shapiro Clashes With Sam Harris On Religion And Morality (the video is a bit long but they debate about Judeo-Christian values): ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Nb-o6NZiWrw.html

@@urbandesitv3529 give us your absolute best evidence of any gods existing

@@urbandesitv3529 so you're saying there is a chance? The chance and probability of an omnipotent, human like entity from another dimension magically created everything from nothing is absolute zero.

@@urbandesitv3529 Wasn't expecting a theist reply to my comment but I'm happy to engage. There are hundreds of plausible models for atheistic morality, which is what Alex makes reference to in my quote. To brush them off so easily, even if you don't agree with any you've heard, is arrogant at best. To your argument from chance, I'll simply say this. You're talking about the chance this cell came to life by random chance. I agree, it's effectively impossible. What neither of us know about is whether there's another possible method (not pure chance) by which this becomes more possible. The fact is that there could be, and this area is understudied. The reasonable answer is to say "we don't know how it happened yet." What isn't a reasonable answer is to say "must have been a God" when you have no prior commitments to theism. I sympathize with a theist saying "it could have been God" but surely you can see how implausible that is from an atheistic standpoint, when there could just as easily be some other naturalistic explanation we just haven't come across yet.

@@urbandesitv3529 how do you know it was designed and how do you know it required a super intellect? Show me a universe that wasn't "designed" to compare it to and prove you're right. Magic as in supernatural and nothing supernatural has ever been proven to exist whatsoever

Studying moral philosophy, particularly Hume and GE Moore, is precisely why I think you can get no objectivity in ethics, whether or not a deity exists. Without some arbitrary metric - such as a goal - there is no way to convert action into ought. But any selection of goal must itself be arbitrary or dictated by some prior goal for it to be the case one ought select that goal. So unless you're an epistemological infinitist, you're not going to be able to get to an objective morality -- and if you think you have, you're demonstrably wrong.

thebatmanover9000 naaahhh, we're more creative than that.

Such as?

Empathy cannot be the basis of any complex society. Are we supposed to resolve full blown dominance conflicts between adult men by being empathetic. That's a retarded claim.

@@keithhunt5328 I didn't make any statements regarding complex society nor did I state that empathy resolves any kind of conflict. However, your comment regarding the use of empathy to resolve conflict is ridiculous and in need of correction. To quote Sun Tzu, "strategy requires empathy." "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." You might want to refrain from calling someones opinion "retarded" in future, especially when you are making such flawed claims on your own behalf.

Is probably the alcohol speaking😄

You can appreciate the mind and/or appearance of others with being sexually attracted to them.

Someone being tortured is clearly more in violation of the maximization of pleasure than someone not being allowed to torture. This isn't an issue.

@@candorman9444 how is it more "clearly" in violation? How did you come up with the conclusion that one is in violation and the other isn't?

@@aniketh_arya To be clear, it's not clear to you that someone being tortured is more harmed than someone not being allowed to torture? And when did I say one isn't in violation? If you can't respond honestly, don't.

@@candorman9444 it is not clear, that's the point of asking the question. How are both the options in violation but the second option is less in violation of maximization of pleasure?

​@@aniketh_arya I', sorry, but I can't accept that you don't see torture as worse than not being able to torture with regard to maximal pleasure. No one is that evil. I mean, maybe if you're a clinical sociopath?

Ive got 4 liters of water ready.

Yeah, he can try writing about the points raised by Mohammed Hijab about the Quran( in the debate that they had). I'm still waiting for the video that he promised about answering Mohammed's points on why he believes Islam to be true.