Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.

And of course you avoided answering my questions as usual. Is it possible for an intelligent being to ask a question, that he already knows the answer. Your problem is the same either way. Your alleged meaning is as unless a a screen door in a submarine. Your meanings do not and will not affect the essence or the outcome of the universe. You are incapable as well of creating a meaning for or about the universe. Your meanings are imaginary for to many reasons to mention. But one is that your imaginations are incapable of being real to begin with,including your imagined meanings. Secondly, since your a speck in the universe, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that any meaning you give it will no doubt be faulty and inaccurate. Hence, this is why science changes its views every few 100 years.You've got to be kidding, meanings? Sorry my simple friend, as I've argued without fear of contradiction, human constructs are an imagination of the mind, with no real hope of being real. The mere fact that every human being could have a totally different idea on any given topic, demonstrates they are imaginations with no hope of actually becoming a reality muchless a moral. My argument stands.Jar imaginations are not real things, if we throw our imaginations at real things in reality, it doesn't ACTUALLY give them more meaning or morality. That's you just imagining things, like me imagining I am flying over the countryside using nothing but my arms.Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Correct, as such it has no hope of being anything but an imagination or perception. As a result of that it follows that it is not actually a moral. That would just be another made up word by humans. It should be obvious to even the simplest of minds that if something like human morality only applies to humans,, as you've indicated, that it's imaginaryIf it only helps your species and ignores all others, it's not real. Therefore Atheists or those that subscribe to the idea that they can have morals is just another imaginative thing. Whoa I was happy to read that. It seems as though you are saying morality might a casually exist as a real thing Well I thought I already had shown what it was. If the Socalled fantasy novel corresponds to what we see in reality, I'd hardly, call it fantasy correct. Atleast that's a start at it not being fantasy.It explains what a conscience is and where it is from. It explains in a logical rational way that for morality to be morality actually it has to be absolute, dependant upon an infinte source. Then it tells us how the conscience works. For exampleIn Roman's 2:14When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves.15They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them16on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all.It shows us what you have already agreed to, that morality is from outside source, given to us by God, written on the heart. It shows us that conscience actually exists. This corresponds to reality and what we see, feel and knowThe Socalled fantasy novel, shows and explains that Truth is a real thing not an imaginary relative thingJohn 18:37You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."It shows us that Truth actually exists and is outside the human source. But this is something that corresponds to reality and we can know by what is in us that Truth is realSo as a starter we see the fantasy novel atleast corresponds to what we see, feel, hear, think and know. So as a starter id say its anything short of a fantasy. A blind purposeless universe can never make sense of morality, muchless possess itDawn Bertot

Real how?

Except for the fact that you forgot to quote the part that says, "For that which may be KNOWN of God, is manifest In Them, for God hath SHOWN it unto them". It's written in and on thier hearts at birth. Well see thats the beauty of the word of God, it conforms to what we know about morality in reality. For exampleJames 1:13-16 Says13Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:14But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.15Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.16Do not err, my beloved brethren.So these are things we see that conform to conscience, something that exits. It's a description of what we know in our heartsDawn Bertot

Or three that the concepts or perceptions are actually real objectively. Like the word morality. The word itself or its implied implication have no meaning in a purely naturalistic universe. It's a completely imaginary invention. Throwing the word subjective at it makes even less than real, if that's possibleBTW , it's impossible for you to imagine impossible things. For example it would be impossible for you to imagine a way other than the three ways the universe could have came into existence. That's impossible for you to even
imagine it. You cannot imagine a square circle, etc. So it's impossible for your to create a morality since you are finite and would not ever know what that was, except it was revealed to you And imagination that does not actually exist. Like the term morality. Your imagining the behavior as morality. That's just a made up word that you alone have imagined. While you can observe thier behavior, it's a logical impossibility for you to describe it as unethical or ethical, since you have no hope outside of God of knowing what that might be, correct? Subjective is just another imagined word that means nothing in an ethical sense. If you think he presented something that I did not respond to in argument form, please present I'll show you I did Opinions are observation, but they are not morality. Because these fellas have no hope of defining what is actually a moral outside of God. I know this because as soon as I ask then what it is they say it's subjective, which means any ones opinion is valid on any given same single behavior. Now that's not only not moral but it's nonsense. It's another way of describing nothing That's the point NCE, you could only have a moral reaction if you knew what adultry was or what murder was. There is no way to define these in a purely naturalistic universe. Animals were doing these things long before humans came along. Simply because they came along and gave it a title, doesn't make it real. It just means they don't like it. Is it murder and adultry when animals do these things today?Naturalism has no hope of actually having a moral or defining it outside of an infinite God.Notice I'm not saying people can't describe things, I'm saying when it is purely naturalistic it has no hope of being real. They have no hope of describing moral, because they have no way of knowing what it is outside of God. I don't see how my argument could be upset or contradicted. If you think you can go ahead. There's no hope of distinguishing human behavior and animals. Throwing words at it doesn't help. But give it a try. Don't mean to sound condescending, but you don't understand how critical thinking actually works. It doesn't matter what A or E think or what thier opinions are or are not. It's not logically possible for a moral to exist if both A and E totally disagree of the meaning of a single point of behavior as describing it as moral. That's not only not actually a moral it doesn't even make sense. What if there were four more A s to go along with A against B C DAND E. It's irrational and relativistic nonsense.Because they describe morals as subjective makes it logically impossible to be anything actual. See what I mean. Does your above statement even sound rational from a reality standpoint, forgetting thier opinions. Hence morals and morality are a joke outside of an infinte in wisdom GodDawn Bertot

Never said you could not. But if two people disagree on what is right or wrong in the area of say adultry and they vehemently disagree, which opinion should we accept as right or wrong moral or immoral. This is where the nonsense of so called subjective morality reveals itself. Hence it is a clear indication that the word morality is a contrivance in the mind with no hope of resolution in critical thinking. How will you avoid the conclusion of this realityI could end the discussion here with no fear of contradiction. I already did this in substance and in parts throughout the thread. Most recently I repeated it in my last post to Ringo in some detail Well it sounds like you just contradicted yourself. First you say our imaginations are not real, then you say they are real in some sense. So which is it Modulous, they are real or not. But I'll play along. I guess you didn't pay attention the first time.
Describing the thing that actually exists as an Apple, does not mean that's what it is in reality. You just gave it that name. It also does not give it more meaning. You've just decided to give it that description.Now watch. Giving human or animal behaviors titles as good, bad, right, wrong, moral or immoral, does not mean that description is what they are. Your opinions about human and animal behavior don't actually give them more meaning in reality. Just like the word apple, the term moral is something you made up. It has no hope of being real anymore than the word apple. What if in reality the word apple is not an accurate description of it, would it matter to matter?How muchless hope do you have of ACTUALLY describing what is ACTUALLY, right or wrong in a rational way. Notice I said in a rational way, not from an opinion standpoint. Yes I can explain a tree, but that does not make the tree, good or bad, moral or immoral. There is no way to ascribe those types of meanings to biological processess, whether it a person or a tree. I could as easily apply an imaginary moral opinion to a tree and it would have as much actual application, in reality, as you applying it to human behavior.Here's an example. Is your imagination of thier behavior, good or bad, right or wrong. How would you decide even that. If you say to me it's good, the next person says it's wrong, we quickly see this nothing more than making words up like apple to describe things. The word apple is no more real than the word morlality. It's a hope less proposition. Thats assuming in your universe I'm even right about what I'm saying. Heck, rational may not even be rational No you missed the point. I was not saying you were saying that indeed. I was saying that was the logical conclusion of a subjective morality. In other words in doesn't matter how you describe it because your descriptions are not what it actually is or is not. Well no imagining your moral reaction is not different from having your moral reaction. But that's a cavil. I'll play along. You have no way of demonstrating in any real way adultery is right or wrong to describe it as anything more than imaginary thing as moral or immoral
, In the first place. Having an emotional reaction to it and Attaching a word like moral is secondary to actually showing it is actually right or wrong in the first place. In fact there are people who think adultery is not even a real thing or itsnot right or wrong in the first place.Which ones of yous guys moral reactions are actually real, or are they all ok. Or do I just decide this for myself. How can there be any hope for an actual right or wrong or morality to exist in any rational way outside of the infinite wisdom of God. That's assuming there is a rational way of establishing what is rational, or is that just another moral reaction or imagination I should form for myself. I don't know why you think the injection of emotions or feeling will help your proposition. You would actually have to know adultery was wrong, to have an emotional reaction. Otherwise your just having an emotional reaction to something that may or may not be wrong. Who knows in your world, correct?Dawn Bertot

Of course it is and yes I did answer your question. You even quoted the answer. While it is possible there is nothing in the stories to suggest the God character was asking a rhetorical question. That is simply something you ADD to the story to make it fit what YOU want it to say. I'm sorry Dawn but if the meaning humans assign functions to allow understanding or communication between humans how is it unless (I'm pretending you meant useless)? Actually once again that is simply a stupid remark from you. Science changes when the information available requires the science to change. That's what Science produces results. Again Dawn, that is simply another really stupid comment.The fact is that human derived morals exist. They are a reality. You can pretend otherwise but the fact is that human derived morals exist.

Do they have a reality outside our perception of them ?

Exactly. According to the Bible, it's written on everybody's heart at birth. So it isn't something we figure out rationally, not for atheists and not for theists either. Indeed. The Bible authors knew something about reality and they don't agree with you. James 1:13-16 refers to every man, not just believers.

Still circling the drain Dawn, Your argument still fails to address my point that such morals can be discussed, compared, modified, and passed from generation to generation.We don't need to "start with the basics or reasoning" because we can observe it, because our ability to reason is a fact. So when I say "subjective morality" you say "show me absolute right or wrong exists" ... fail. Relative right and wrong exists, it is subjective, this has been observed and discussed several times already. And this tripe has also been addressed already by observing things considered moral many years ago that are considered immoral now. Yet curiously, being a product of the mind is what subjective means. Another failed argument that has been falsified before, Also falsified babble. Seems your first problem is moving forward with a valid argument instead of repeating falsified drivel.Absolute "Right and wrong do not actually exist" but relative right and wrong do exist, they are subjective.How do we know they exist? We observe them, everywhere, with many people having different subjective takes on what is right and what is wrong.Differences of opinion don't mean they don't exist, just that there is no absolute agreement. In your dogmatic narrow opinion. There are many other religions that disagree with you, so Atheists disagreeing with you is not novel or unsurprising.btw I fixed the link to tid=19368 instead of tid=1968. So the paragraph should have read:

quote:

---

Well some of it is. Mostly those based on reinterpreted interpretations of sanctified religious dogma, rather than those derived from enlightened self interest. Life begins at concept for instance is a moral joke. See A very brief history of Human Life

---

This is your reactive opinion, based on your inability (cognitive dissonance) to accept subjective morality exists and is actually documented -- so you would rather throw out the baby with the bath than acknowledge the bath has nothing to do with the baby.You keep confusing Absolute Right and Wrong with subjective right and wrong, and that is part of your cognitive problem.Enjoy

Hold on: You are saying that something in this world that corresponds to physical states of the universe does not exist?I can't agree to that, that's what existing means. Without getting passed this, I don't think we can see eye-to-eye on this topic. The way you talk about this makes me think you may have set up a tautology, or that you're not talking about the same things when you say a naturalistic universe.It looks like you are defining a purely naturalistic universe as one that does not have non-objective meanings in it.If that's the case, then your atheistic target audience would already disagree because in their naturalistic universe there is meaning that is non-objective. So either you're talking about something different than that, or their universe isn't actually purely naturalistic. Not that is a tautology, for if I can imagine it then you will say that the thing is not impossible. I can imagine more that three ways to create a universe, and if I add a spatial dimension I can image a square circle, but that isn't really on topic for this thread so let's not get into it. Or, I could just be wrong about it. That wouldn't prevent me from creating the morality.Too, even if something was revealed to me, I would still need to interject my opinion to relate it to the real world. And I wouldn't know if I was correct about it or not, nor if I could trust the source of the revelation, so I'd be in the exact same boat with my subjective morality anyways. Incorrect. My morality doesn't have to be absolutely correct in order to be a morality. And I don't have to know everything that is ethical or not in order to come up with a morality either.You're just going to say that they are not real objective, but it is what it is: they exist and they are subjective. And they are moralities. So this whole thing is just a slippery slope to solipsism... hooray You responded to it with an argument of "nuh-uh that isn't real". Whoopty-do. Says you, but that's just your opinion... which isn't even real according to yourself.And you have yet to show us an objective morality that doesn't rely on your opinion.The rest of what you quoted wasn't written by me.

It's not frustrating at all, it's rather interesting watching you tie yourself into knots arguing the absurd. It's reminds me of reading Alice in Wonderland.As it turns out morality is not something us atheists have to deal with. We, like everyone else on the planet barring psychopaths but including yourself, know that morality exists and how it works.But you have made the claim that we don't, and so far you haven't been able to show us why. No there isn't. That's our entire position. As you think there is you're going to have to prove it. Why should something written in a book 2,000 years ago by people we don't know and that contradicts itself all over the place, particularly over morality, have any baring on anything at all?In any case, you're talking about atheists, you know, those people that don't believe in your god? How do you expect to make a case using what they regard as a work of fiction? You fail before you start.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Oh good. I win. Normative vs descriptive.

quote:

---

Normative ethics is the study of ethical action. It is the branch of philosophical ethics that investigates the set of questions that arise when considering how one ought to act, morally speaking.

​

Descriptive ethics is a form of empirical research into the attitudes of individuals or groups of people. ... Those working on descriptive ethics aim to uncover people's beliefs about such things as values, which actions are right and wrong, and which characteristics of moral agents are virtuous.-- wikipedia

---

Neither of them is objectively correct in their belief.We might have our own views as to which one is correct, and our own reasons for those views.Just like if two people are vehemently arguing about Mozart vs Beethoven or the Tastiness of a meal. Neither are correct, but we may agree with or another of them.I say when it comes to adultery that consequentialism {the doctrine that the morality of an action is to be judged solely by its consequences.} is the best method for determining if we should consider it moral or immoral. If the stakeholders are fine with with the extra-marital affair, if the consequences are non-exsitent, I see no reason to regard the adultery as immoral. If one person is deeply hurt by the adultery, if they feel their trust was betrayed etc., then I would say it is immoral.You might say deontology {the normative ethical position that judges the morality of an action based on rules} is a better way of making the determination.Neither of us is objectively right. Correct, originating from learning, culture and brains for social cohesiveness.That's the explanation. You seem to say the same thing I am saying:

quote:

---

It's a description of what we know in our hearts

---

What we know in our hearts varies from person to person. The Treachery of ImagesThat is not a pipe. The pipe is not real. It is a picture of a painting of a pipe. The picture is real. The painting is real. Come come, this is Philosophy 101 - representations vs the represented. Representations are not the represented, but representations themselves do exist and are real. Correct. Exactly consistent with what I've been saying. How many times do you expect to around in this circle? Exactly as I've been saying. Bingo. Well we're not 'making up words', we're using them but we disagree with whether the words we are using are a useful or correct description of what we discussing. Welcome to the human condition. I reject the notion that a certain apple ACTUALLY tastes good.
That a musician is ACTUALLY good.
That an action is ACTUALLY morally good.Keep up - it'd help if you stopped running in circles. Correct. But my challenge is to explain morality, not demonstrate that any given morality is ACTUALLY good or bad. The logical conclusion is exactly as I said. NOBODY is right or wrong. NOT EVERYBODY is right. It isn't ACTUALLY right or wrong. That's my point. Correct. Neither do you. My explanation is that adultery isn't right or wrong in a 'real way'. It's rightness or wrongness is a social construct. What you've been characterising as 'made up'. Well adultery is a real thing - it's a social phenomena. But it isn't objectively right or wrong. I might think a specific act of adultery is wrong. That is, it is subjectively wrong. But it isn't ACTUALLY wrong in some objective sense. Around and around we go.As I said, I can't explain your conception of morality, and neither it seems, can you. (Your post to Ringo is not an explanation to your conception). They are all real. I don't think the term 'ok' makes sense to use. Because I reject objective morality.

quote:

---

Objective morality is the perspective that there are things about the universe that make certain morals claims true or false. An objectivist would state that the way the world is makes murder an objectively wrong thing to do. Objective morality also entails that these truths are universal. -- quora.com

---

I reject this conception.

quote:

---

There ain't no sin and there ain't no virtue. There's just stuff people do.

​

John Steinbeck, Grapes of Wrath

​

---

That's subjectivity. Your counterargument to subjective morality boils down to 'it can't be true, because if it were true, it would be true.' Well find an atheist objectivist and ask them. Indeed I don't see how it could exist inside the infinite wisdom of God. To paraphrase Socrates:

quote:

---

Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?

---

They are there to show how there is a difference between what I am talking about and 'imagination'. As I said. No. We could feel it is wrong. We could believe it is wrong. We don't need to know it is wrong. Indeed, a good part of the pain of human suffering is that we don't know. Yep.Ready to move forwards yet, or do you want another round of circular running, saying the same things over and over again that amount to - 'but but subjectivity means that things are subjective and if they are subjective they aren't objective!'?

Re-read the OP under the guise of them just saying that subjective moralities are not objective.I'm pretty sure that is the sole and entire point. (ya know: actually, in reality)

Hardly. I don't know any thinking person or scholar that would assume otherwise. Perhaps you could provide the name of a reputable scholar that sees that the way you see it. My guess is that your only intention is to bring even more worthless empty baseless assertions against the text, to try and discredit it. Your response to that whole point gives us an insight to the nature of your intentions Once again your miss the point, which is not surprising, given your inability or unwillingness to answer a simple question like that one above. I'm not saying you don't have the ability to assign some arbitrary subjective meaning to the universe, I'm saying because you lack sufficient knowledge of some meaning, your reasoning is not critical as usual No not in reality as I continue to demonstrate. Perhaps you like an attempt at an argument to refute my proposition. Assertions are not argumentsDawn Bertot