Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.

And you're still not going to try? Is this because you regard the task as hopeless or merely because you're lazy?

So you have no morals.Thanks for sharing.

So you completely avoided Frako's entire question.How sadly typical.

No. You instead have to acknowledge that morality is a nuanced, multifaceted, often self-contradictory collection of social rules, that differs somewhat from individual to individual, but broadly boils down into a generally accepted but shifting and amorphous mass of principles which tend to lead to a functioning society and tend to get enshrined, in part, in enforceable laws. They don't need to be justified or rationalised - they don't need to be categorised as objective or personal. They are a social phenomenon, whose origins are of mild interest philosophically, but are of no particular relevance in the face of the obvious fact that they are generally and very broadly shared by a large majority of humanity.You seek to encourage us to reduce a discussion of morality to absolutes (such as your assertion that all life is equal), so that you can seek to argue trite contradictions with us.But morality is full of contradictions and full of complexity - trite questions such as why we eat animals and not each other are meaningless. The answer is that most of us think that's OK. Suck it up.

There are no absolute morals, never have been and likely cannot be. It can be absolutely moral (not an absolute moral) for people to eat other people and in fact has happened.

He jumped the gun a bit. We've been down this road so many times it's easy to get stuck in the deep ruts.

Dawn, like the vast majority of atheists, has morals. Just not objective ones. If they were truly objective atheists would accept Dawn's source of morals.Morals are a product of society, and differ greatly over time and space.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

So what?

Simply put the basis of all morality is enlightened self-interest. This is where the "golden-rule" comes from, and why you can find variations on that theme in every religion and every culture. There is an evolved component to human morality, because game theory shows evolutionary benefit for social animals to behave in a manner conducive to the survival of the social group, and that includes morals, as the video of the capucin monkeys shows. Humans have built on that basis via memes -- inherited behavior and cultural traditions that have survived and spread because they offer survival and reproductive advantages. These memes can cross-fertilize other social groups (rather than a nested hierarchy pattern) and thus we see a lot of similarities across groups that come from different origins and religious backgrounds. Morality is essentially social convention, a program to survive and reproduce within a culture, and thus it would be surprising if it didn't differ from social group to social group, from culture to culture, from nation to nation. It is logically preposterous to think there would be one and only one moral code for all of mankind (and animal kind), but it is not logically impossible for many to exist, often with overlaps and similarities, such as Christian and Muslim, AND it is why morality evolves and changes over time, as more things become accepted behavior because they don't harm the social group.No matter what your religious viewpoint happens to be.Enjoy

That isn't about morality. It's a social contract: Eat others as you would have others eat you.

Dewise1 writes On the contrary I not only answered him i gave him a clear example. If Frako thinks Believers are more Evil or right or wrong than an Atheist, WHAT is his reason and standard for believing this, show it to me, set it out logically
If he believes that incarceratiing an animal in a cage for experimentation, observation, as in a zoo, is not slavery, then he'll have to show me why I could not do the same thing to a group of humans. I believe the Nazis did this, correct
His so called morality has to be consistent to be rational
From a logical standpoint he has to have a reason for believing this. Ie, Is he superior, is he's more intelligent, etc. Give me that reasonFrom a life standpoint are you better than other animalsDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Venesy writes Well that's as good a definition of subjective relativism as I've ever seen, it's as empty as it is relative. The only thing that I need to ACKNOWLEDGE is reality. If your position is true then there would be nothing wrong with killing and eating humans as casually as we do other animal life, correct So your big rational philosophical reasoned answer is for me to suck it up , even if your position is a glaring contradiction in reality. See that won't work in reality. If I believe that I could walk off the top of a building and can ignore the reality of gravity, I should just suck it up right, because I truly believe I won't fall to my death. Will it change the reality of the reality of gravityIf the question of killing and consuming humans as we do animals is MEANINGLESS,, then it would follow that you have no morals afterall. You'll have to do better than that.Secondly, explain to me how all life is not equal in your Naturalistic environment. Are you saying you are superior to other creatures, the way God would be superior to you? There in lies your problem, you believe we need to understand the universe to understand simple laws and rules. We do not. I don't need to understand the universe to understand your position involves self contradiction, even on the surfaceDawn Bertot

RAZD writes: Fortunately, our position has nothing to do with religious belief, at least fundamentally. I have waited to this point to interject God's actions in this or that context or what he does or not does as evil, because I wanted it firmly established by at least a few here what your actual position consists of.It should be Clear to even the simplest of readers that your position is as subjective as any position could possibly be. Morals are nothing more than changing ideas between humans and animals and nature. Nothing is truly right , wrong, good bad or otherwise. What may or may not serve the good of the species. Etc, etc, etc.A simple reading of your and Venesy's post demonstrate this point.We don't attack the Atheists concept of morals because we have nothing better to do. We are simply amazed that a group of people that reduces morality to the most subjective nonsense, have the audacity to attack a God infinite in wisdom, of his actions. These same SFH can't even be consistent in reason and application of thier ALLEDGED moralsIt's now the time to demonstrate that any action by an infinite God would be as meaningless, FROM YOUR STANDPOINT ,as any action of yours. Or that the same group ofpeople, involve themselves in the same autrocites, with lesser or thierarchy own species.How would you justify condemning any action of God, if you can find no evil or Good in your own actions.
If you don't believe this, provide me with an example of human conduct that would be truly evil. But remember, let's not just talk about the human species. That kind of logic doesn't workIf slavery is wrong then why is a zoo not slavery. From the SFH position, Morals are nothing more than to justify your actionsDawn Bertot

Right that's my point you change the word moral and it's meaning to suit your purposes
HENCE NO ACTUAL MORALITY

I suspect that you do not define "ACTUAL MORALITY" as "acting morally in word and deed".