Would Atheists Drink Their Dads Sperm

[surreptitious57]

https://youtube.com/watch?v=5Jx_7kkuJfI

[tattuchu]

You mean for free? Or will I be getting paid for it? And will I have to actively procure it directly? Or will it be provided to me ready for consumption? I really need details.

[Hermit]

Same old, same old argument: "Morals ... are grounded and anchored and based and founded upon a higher moral agent that instil them to us." Without a god there are no morals.

Apart from the resort to the yuck factor and the blatant quotemining I quite like that clip. It's about as good as theists get at defending an indefensible position, which in this case it can be summarised thus: No morals possible without God. We have morals. Therefore God.

The author says "This video exposes a key flaw in the logic of contemporary atheism". It doesn't. It misrepresents Harris, Krauss and Dawkins, and then proceeds to repeat a timeless flaw of theism instead.

[cronus]

Same old, same old argument: "Morals ... are grounded and anchored and based and founded upon a higher moral agent that instil them to us." Without a god there are no morals.

Apart from the resort to the yuck factor and the blatant quotemining I quite like that clip. It's about as good as theists get at defending an indefensible position, which in this case it can be summarised thus: No morals possible without God. We have morals. Therefore God.

The author says "This video exposes a key flaw in the logic of contemporary atheism". It doesn't. It misrepresents Harris, Krauss and Dawkins, and then proceeds to repeat a timeless flaw of theism instead.

Important to protect the names of atheism's spiritual elite.

[Hermit]

Same old, same old argument: "Morals ... are grounded and anchored and based and founded upon a higher moral agent that instil them to us." Without a god there are no morals.

Apart from the resort to the yuck factor and the blatant quotemining I quite like that clip. It's about as good as theists get at defending an indefensible position, which in this case it can be summarised thus: No morals possible without God. We have morals. Therefore God.

The author says "This video exposes a key flaw in the logic of contemporary atheism". It doesn't. It misrepresents Harris, Krauss and Dawkins, and then proceeds to repeat a timeless flaw of theism instead.

Important to protect the names of atheism's spiritual elite.

Not to me it's not. I do hate intentionally misleading quote mining, though. It's as bad as any other form of lying.

[cronus]

Same old, same old argument: "Morals ... are grounded and anchored and based and founded upon a higher moral agent that instil them to us." Without a god there are no morals.

Apart from the resort to the yuck factor and the blatant quotemining I quite like that clip. It's about as good as theists get at defending an indefensible position, which in this case it can be summarised thus: No morals possible without God. We have morals. Therefore God.

The author says "This video exposes a key flaw in the logic of contemporary atheism". It doesn't. It misrepresents Harris, Krauss and Dawkins, and then proceeds to repeat a timeless flaw of theism instead.

Important to protect the names of atheism's spiritual elite.

Not to me it's not. I do hate intentionally misleading quote mining, though. It's as bad as any other form of lying.

I know.

[Animavore]

No. But I might drink my dad's.

[Forty Two]

One feature which is assumed by the person making the video, but I think is not a fair assumption or to be taken as given, is the notion that morality is not the only basis for doing or not doing things. I have no need of a morality to be disinclined to drink sperm, from whatever source.

My answer is pragmatic, not moral. I don't want to drink anyone's sperm, whether it's moral or immoral to do so. I don't want to because (a) it seems like it would be unpleasant to do so (the yuck factor, perhaps - but, "yuck" doesn't seem like a bad reason not to do something. I don't eat brussels sprouts for the same reason - fucking, yuck), and (b) there is no pragmatic reason why I should.

However, put a gun to my head, put me under torture, or lodge a credible threat against a loved one, or offer me large amounts of money, and I might consider doing a lot of yucky things.

In my view, morality is a creature of the human mind. Acts or things are not themselves moral or immoral. They are moral or immoral under given circumstances. Is killing moral? What about to save one's life or one's child's life? Is it moral then? Or, just a necessary immorality? What's the difference? And, on what basis do we even suggest that a self-defense or defense-of-others killing is moral - often that's taken as a given, but there are people who view all killing, even in self-defense, as immoral -- take some of the Amish sects, who think God says they can't defend themselves.

This whole thing about morality having to come from God is also addressed by the question -- is a thing/action good because it's good, or is it good only because God says it's good? In the former case, we have no need of god, and in the latter case, there is no rational morality because the same action can be good in one instance and bad in another simply because God says so. Like, well, dashing the babies of your enemies on rocks, right? It's bad if the Amalekites do it, but good if the Israelites do it....

[JimC]

Forty Two wrote:

This whole thing about morality having to come from God is also addressed by the question -- is a thing/action good because it's good, or is it good only because God says it's good? In the former case, we have no need of god, and in the latter case, there is no rational morality because the same action can be good in one instance and bad in another simply because God says so. Like, well, dashing the babies of your enemies on rocks, right? It's bad if the Amalekites do it, but good if the Israelites do it....