Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 91 of 1006 (798715)
02-05-2017 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Modulous
02-04-2017 9:35 AM


No Dawn. It being evil to kill humans with no justification does not imply anything about the morality of killing non-humans with some justification.
But you would have to explain why it is evil to kill humans, in a Naturalistic enviornment, ie, survival of the fittest driven mentality, verses it just being survival, or more or less advantagous. Evil actual evil, doesn't really seem a possibility, in a naturalistic, survival of the fittest inviornment. If I have examples of animals doing the same thing for just survival, why is it not murder or evil.
Seems you will never be able to extricate yourself from this delimma
Seems odd that men that adopt that world view can speak,of actual evil. When did it cross over from taking of life to murder? Could you give me that line of ethical distinction?
Well you might be amoral, but I have moral values. My moral system doesn't require a 'fantasy' infinite wisdom to exist and be available for consultation. It relies on real things we know are real in actual reality. Your definition relies on a fantasy being with infinite wisdom that cannot be shown to exist in actual reality and thus your definition has morals not actually existing in actual reality.
Sounds perverse to me, I'll stick with my system over yours.
I don't think you understand. Your accusing God of immoral acts, evil acts. But you suggest that morality is subjective. So if you find reasons why it's acceptable to take life both animal and human, why do u classify his actions as immoral. Being of higher intelligence, might he not have purposes that are justifiable, the same way you have subjective reasons for your actions. If you are going to accuse him of immoral acts, shouldn't we atleast assume his existence, even if you don't actually believe he exists, to see if what he is doing is possibly immoral, based upon the way you do thing first.
BTW, I might remind you you don't actually have a system. If just 2 people disagree on what is right or wrong on a given Imaginary moral, who is right or wrong. Or does it matter, or is there anyway to know. See your problem
What do you think the 'Naturalistic doctrine' is?.
Natural selection and SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST. Both of which, superceed any supposed ethic or imagined moral in your system. To
demonstrate this point I only need to point out the countless suffering, over the alledgedly millions of years by nearly every species of animal, to kill for survival, instinct, food, or just because the other animal was it's path If taking of life for any reason then was evil or murder, it would be the same now. But you maintain it was not evil of them, correct? Your Johnny come lately alledgedly morals, can only be described as survival of the fittest, if we are honest with ourselves
BTW, we're the gladiator games in Rome or anywhere, good bad, evil, moral or immoral, or something else. Please explain
agree. We just disagree over the fact that this creator is divine. I see no reason to suppose the creator is divine, or has infinite wisdom. I see reason to suppose the contrary.
Interesting, why?. Your answer should be interesting and very revealing
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Modulous, posted 02-04-2017 9:35 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Modulous, posted 02-05-2017 8:42 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 92 of 1006 (798719)
02-05-2017 2:29 AM


Dawn Bertot's failure
Dawn Bertot's idea that he has an objective morality is just his subjective opinion.
It is only a subjective opinion that the Biblical laws come from a being of infinite wisdom.
It is only subjective opinion that a being of infinite wisdom could provide an objective morality.
But it is objective fact that the Biblical laws were written for a society quite different from our own.
It is also objective fact that the Bible is short of the moral reasoning we would need to adapt the laws to more modern circumstances. Dawn himself admits that he does not understand at least some of the laws. Nor is it true that the laws that have been dropped by modern Christians are all merely "ceremonial laws" - a distinction that the Bible does not make. It follows, then, that any attempt to apply Biblical law involves an inescapable element of human subjectivity. And if we attribute the Biblical law to a being of infinite wisdom we must assume that this situation is intentional.
To sum up, then. If Dawn Bertot is wrong about the source of the Biblical law he is even worse than Sam Harris who is at least making an attempt at formulating a rational morality. If he is right - and that is highly unlikely - he is asserting that the Biblical law is something it was clearly never intended to be, and thus going against "infinite wisdom".
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-06-2017 12:53 AM PaulK has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 93 of 1006 (798720)
02-05-2017 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Dawn Bertot
02-04-2017 11:18 PM


Dawn writes:
Should just ask do morals exist in a strictly Naturalistic world. No
Our worls is self-evidently 'naturalistic' and morals self-evidently exist within it, so you leave me totally baffled.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-04-2017 11:18 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Phat, posted 02-05-2017 3:29 AM Tangle has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 94 of 1006 (798723)
02-05-2017 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Tangle
02-05-2017 3:15 AM


1. Christianity is a revealed religion.
2. God’s revelation is a self-disclosure. He removes the veil that keeps us
from knowing Him.
3. We do not come to know God through speculation.
4. God revealed Himself in various ways throughout history.
5. General revelation is given to all human beings.
6. Atheism and agnosticism are based on a denial of what people know to
be true. (I know you will challenge this, but oh well)
7. Foolishness is founded on the denial of God.
8. Wisdom is founded on the fear of God.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.~Proverbs 28:26

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Tangle, posted 02-05-2017 3:15 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Tangle, posted 02-05-2017 3:36 AM Phat has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 95 of 1006 (798724)
02-05-2017 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Phat
02-05-2017 3:29 AM


Phat writes:
1. Christianity is a revealed religion.
2. God’s revelation is a self-disclosure. He removes the veil that keeps us
from knowing Him.
3. We do not come to know God through speculation.
4. God revealed Himself in various ways throughout history.
5. General revelation is given to all human beings.
6. Atheism and agnosticism are based on a denial of what people know to
be true. (I know you will challenge this, but oh well)
7. Foolishness is founded on the denial of God.
8. Wisdom is founded on the fear of God.
Was there a point in posting this uttter twaddle Phat? It's just the rant of a mad priest. "Wisdom is founded on the fear of God"?????? Wtf? Have you fallen off your wagon?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Phat, posted 02-05-2017 3:29 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Phat, posted 02-05-2017 3:38 AM Tangle has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 96 of 1006 (798725)
02-05-2017 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Tangle
02-05-2017 3:36 AM


Morality and Boredom
nahh i was just bored. I figured if i pushed a button or two i might get a response!

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.~Proverbs 28:26

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Tangle, posted 02-05-2017 3:36 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Tangle, posted 02-05-2017 4:30 AM Phat has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 97 of 1006 (798731)
02-05-2017 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Phat
02-05-2017 3:38 AM


Re: Morality and Boredom
Phat writes:
nahh i was just bored. I figured if i pushed a button or two i might get a response!
It's interesting that you can produce random preachery nonsense at will. Just like the real thing. Is there an app for that?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Phat, posted 02-05-2017 3:38 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Phat, posted 02-05-2017 1:24 PM Tangle has replied

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 2390 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


Message 98 of 1006 (798742)
02-05-2017 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Dawn Bertot
02-04-2017 11:16 PM


Well don't mean to mean here but since these are just observations, asserions and not actual arguments, not much to response to here. I will though
RAZD asked me for an example of what else God has done besides create the world. I gave him one that could be verified in reality, the moral law placed on the heart
How does one verify that there is a moral law placed on the heart? It doesn't even make sense.
Yes,we have access to this infinte mind, through not only natural law, the law of the heart, intrinsic law but also specific revelation. Since , there is,ample evidence for both in reality , all u need to do is make that evidence vanish.
My response to,your post is adequate to the evidence to the contrary. The moral law that I can see is still there
This is why I didn't join this forum to argue with you fundies, utterly bonkers. You dismiss my easily defended assertions without any reasoning. You then proceed with a meaningless word salad, followed by the assertion that ample evidence exists, without so much as a hint as to what that evidence might be.
There is more than enough evidence to support the existence of an infinite God. I'll be happy to debate to debate that in another thread, should you wish to do so.
I have been here as a lurker for much longer than I have a member. I am well aware of the worthless arguements theists like to put forth to 'prove' the existence of their magic sky daddies. Thanks for the offer but my time is far too valueable to spend it beating my head against a wall.
However, here Rig we are assuming what the results and logical conclusions would be if we adopted each other's position for the sake of argument. Try to stay up ok. For example, I'm ASSUMING your Naturalistic position to follow it to its logical conclusions.
You do realise that 'survival of the fittest' does not simply mean 'survival of the biggest/strongest? Earlier you charged me with being simplistic, yet here you are, demanding that the entire naturalist moral code be derived from just the concept 'survival of the fittest'. That is clearly too simplistic, it cannot be used in any situation where survival is not an issue. For example, it could be used to justify killing and eating another human in a life or death situation, but not for me to kill my neighbour Joe cos I'm curious about how he'd taste.
If you are supposed to be adopting my position, you should know that the concept of survival of the fittest is not a tool I use to navigate moral dilemmas. Is there a reason I must? Why must I hold all life to be equal? I concede that my position is subjective, that is why I contend yours is also, therefore any point you're trying to make is moot.
Now, if I may condense your position as I under stand it:
P1: Absolute/objective morality can only be derived from infinite wisdom.
P2: Absolute/objective morality is evident in man. (Somehow?)
C: Infinite wisdom is responsible for our sense of morality.
The problem is that P2 can only be determined by infinite wisdom and since no human is capable of such a thing, the premise cannot be argued for without devolving into 'subjective nonsense' as you like to call it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-04-2017 11:16 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 99 of 1006 (798743)
02-05-2017 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Dawn Bertot
02-05-2017 1:16 AM


But you would have to explain why it is evil to kill humans, in a Naturalistic enviornment, ie, survival of the fittest driven mentality, verses it just being survival, or more or less advantagous.
Sure. We evolved to be a socially cooperative species. Our instincts are honed towards working with one another against external threats. A murderer is an external threat. Our instincts whisper 'evil' to external threats. Our intellect builds upon this to form morals and responses to those threats.
To this end, me and my genes have a greater chance of survival than if it were every man for himself.
Evil actual evil, doesn't really seem a possibility, in a naturalistic, survival of the fittest inviornment.
Well now you've been told how it is possible.
If I have examples of animals doing the same thing for just survival, why is it not murder or evil.
Does it impact me, or the chances of my genes reproducing if a lion kills a gazelle? No. So it doesn't speak strongly to my moral instincts.
Seems you will never be able to extricate yourself from this delimma
And yet I did. And I'm drawing on work from over 50 years ago.
Seems odd that men that adopt that world view can speak,of actual evil.
When I speak of evil I speak of 'very bad' or 'highly morally wrong'. In my opinion. I'm not talking about some supernatural abstract entity that you might be thinking of.
When did it cross over from taking of life to murder? Could you give me that line of ethical distinction?
No - there is no line. It's like the boundary of a fractal. The more you look, the more nuance, fuzziness, comes out.
Your accusing God of immoral acts, evil acts.
No I'm not. I said 'If I come across such a creature, I won't attack it's actions. But how would I know if I had? '
But you suggest that morality is subjective. So if you find reasons why it's acceptable to take life both animal and human, why do u classify his actions as immoral.
It depends what his actions are.
Being of higher intelligence, might he not have purposes that are justifiable, the same way you have subjective reasons for your actions.
His intelligence isn't strictly important. But yes, he might have purposes that make his actions justifiable - and thus I would not regard them as immoral, should I be aware of those justifications. I don't make a habit of assuming people more intelligent than me are morally correct merely on the basis of their intelligence.
If you are going to accuse him of immoral acts, shouldn't we atleast assume his existence, even if you don't actually believe he exists, to see if what he is doing is possibly immoral, based upon the way you do thing first.
Yes, obviously.
BTW, I might remind you you don't actually have a system.
I have many systems.
If just 2 people disagree on what is right or wrong on a given Imaginary moral, who is right or wrong. Or does it matter, or is there anyway to know. See your problem
If I think Mozart is a good composer, and Schnberg was a bad composer, but another person thought Mozart was bad and Schnberg was good - who is right and who is wrong?
If I think pineapple tastes bad and another person thinks it tastes good, who is right?
With Mozart I could give examples of why I thought that way, as I can with morals. Consequentialism, deontology, utilitarianism etc etc. There are lots of systems out there, most people meld them into their own personal outlook.
This doesn't present me with any problem that doesn't affect every other person in the world - yourself included. Is stealing food when you are starving wrong? If someone disagrees with you how do you know who is right?
Natural selection and SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST.
In that case I can explain things rationally: Evolution.
To demonstrate this point I only need to point out the countless suffering, over the alledgedly millions of years by nearly every species of animal, to kill for survival, instinct, food, or just because the other animal was it's path If taking of life for any reason then was evil or murder, it would be the same now. But you maintain it was not evil of them, correct?
Correct. I don't see the problem, however.
Your Johnny come lately alledgedly morals, can only be described as survival of the fittest, if we are honest with ourselves
They have their basis in biological evolution, built upon by culture, and honed through personal experience. So I'd say you were strictly wrong - but yes evolution played a key role in the formation of morals and they are a recent thing.
I don't see the problem, or how this means I cannot explain them. It seems like, in a broad overview sense, I just did - and you were already aware of this explanation. This seems to undermine your thesis in this thread considerably.
Allegedly only has one 'd' in it, by the way. Easy mistake to make.
BTW, we're the gladiator games in Rome or anywhere, good bad, evil, moral or immoral, or something else. Please explain
According to whom? I wasn't there, so I can't really comment. As a Roman might have thought them good. As a gladiator I may have felt differently. If I was there as I am today, I'd say they were bad - but I can think of reasons why I might change my mind.
If they were introduced today, I'd say they were bad. Killing people for entertainment has all manner of negative consequences for me and my society. It achieves little or no good to compensate. Thus, it is immoral.
Interesting, why?. Your answer should be interesting and very revealing
We were created by evolution, which it transpires, evolved us into cooperative primates. This means our baseline brain structure has built in moral instincts. Therefore our creator did indeed put 'intrinsic law' 'inside of' us, but the blind forces of nature are hardly divine. I hope this was interesting and revealing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-05-2017 1:16 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-06-2017 12:55 AM Modulous has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 100 of 1006 (798744)
02-05-2017 8:56 AM


Explaining morals is really stupid when out of context
The whole idea that there is some need for a morality giver is simply utterly stupid. To think that that giver of morality is the God portrayed in the Bible is even dumber. Biblical morality is based solely on ignorance and frankly, stupidity that grows from ignorance. The plagues of Egypt, prohibiting Moshe from entering Canaan, what was done to Job, what happened at the Garden of Eden, can only be seen as totally without moral redemption when seen from today's morality. But the authors likely did not see such things as immoral or even amoral.
Like language, morality is simply a human construct and it evolves within human (and it seems other species) societies. Morality has no use or worth or value outside its functionality within that society.
The very idea of some absolute morality is a pitiful and sad concept that could only be found within a totalitarian oppressive society. To have worth or value morality must be capable of change and evolution unless the society in totally static and never changing.
What is needed is consensus and effectiveness. Neither of those though are universal. Neither of those demands consistency. Take as an example the Buddhist sanctity of life; often carried to the extreme of sweeping the ground before you so that you do not step on a small insignificant bug. Yet Buddhists still eat and much of what they eat was once alive.
Morality only makes sense within a given situation, a given context and the very same acts when done in a different context, a different situation may be judged entirely differently.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-06-2017 12:57 AM jar has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 101 of 1006 (798747)
02-05-2017 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Dawn Bertot
02-05-2017 1:04 AM


Re: Religion Cannot Rationally Explain Morals
No one said you don't have the freewill to ignore the intrinsic law inside of you anymore than you would a traffic law.
But, again, I said we don't think that the same things are right and wrong. It's not that we all recognize the same morality, but some of us are ignoring it. It's that we do not in fact recognize the same morality.
For example, the old testament authors thought it right to murder a man for picking up sticks on a Saturday. Now, this is not something I acknowledge in principle as an obligation but casually ignore, like someone running a red light; it is something I actively find ridiculous and disgusting.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-05-2017 1:04 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 102 of 1006 (798770)
02-05-2017 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Dawn Bertot
02-05-2017 1:02 AM


Re: Religion Cannot Rationally Explain Morals
Dawn Bertot writes:
In your Naturalistic worldview, nothing of which you just said has any real meaning, because there is no value in that world view.
There would be no absolute value. I agree.
But you're assuming that absolute values exist - i.e. that your conclusion is true. That isn't rational.
Dawn Bertot writes:
If I disagree with your above statement, which of us is correct right or wrong.
Present a rational argument and we'll see.
Dawn Bertot writes:
So if your follow the laws of your land, which I assume some you believe to moral, your a evil person for following orders?
I'm not following orders. I'm abiding by my side of the social contract. It's like paying your bills or agreeing which side of the road to drive on. It would be ridiculous to pretend that there's an absolutely correct side of the road to drive on, wouldn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-05-2017 1:02 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-06-2017 12:59 AM ringo has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 103 of 1006 (798771)
02-05-2017 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Tangle
02-05-2017 4:30 AM


Re: Morality and Boredom
It's just the rant of a mad priest.
why must the Priest be mad?

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.~Proverbs 28:26

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Tangle, posted 02-05-2017 4:30 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by ringo, posted 02-05-2017 1:26 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied
 Message 105 by Tangle, posted 02-05-2017 1:28 PM Phat has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 104 of 1006 (798773)
02-05-2017 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Phat
02-05-2017 1:24 PM


Re: Morality and Boredom
Phat writes:
why must the Priest be mad?
By his fruit ye shall know him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Phat, posted 02-05-2017 1:24 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 105 of 1006 (798774)
02-05-2017 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Phat
02-05-2017 1:24 PM


Re: Morality and Boredom
Phat writes:
why must the Priest be mad?
Because he's saying insane things such as, but not limited to:
"Wisdom is founded on the fear of God."

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Phat, posted 02-05-2017 1:24 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Phat, posted 02-06-2017 3:53 AM Tangle has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024