Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 181 of 1006 (799350)
02-09-2017 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Dawn Bertot
02-07-2017 8:21 PM


Re: enlightened self-interest -- three laws
Dawn Bertot writes:
So we're the Nazis, moral ,immoral, right, wrong, good, bad right or wrong for what they did, according to your position
Dawn Bertot
When you start using the Nuremburg Defense, the comparison becomes pretty obvious. Your moral code boils down to "I was just taking orders". You claim a completely inability to judge right and wrong for yourself, so you instead turn to blind obedience to what other humans have told you to do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-07-2017 8:21 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-09-2017 9:12 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 182 of 1006 (799351)
02-09-2017 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Dawn Bertot
02-07-2017 8:24 PM


Re: enlightened self-interest
Dawn Bertot writes:
Well I was trying to be kind, because it is pretty much a nonsensical question. Since we know absolutely that Atheists are not infinte in wisdom, it would follow, they know very little, especially how to be objective.
The same applies to the humans who wrote the Bible. By your very own argument, the Bible can not be used as a source of morality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-07-2017 8:24 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 183 of 1006 (799352)
02-09-2017 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Dawn Bertot
02-07-2017 8:41 PM


Re: enlightened self-interest -- three laws unanswered
Dawn Bertot writes:
Because I have an objective morality to judge his actions against. It is provided to me in reality, in rational thought and a divine source.
Your position natural selection and subjectivity are no help
If Hitler wrote in a book that God told him to kill jews, would you unquestioningly define Hitler's actions as moral?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-07-2017 8:41 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


(1)
Message 184 of 1006 (799356)
02-09-2017 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Dawn Bertot
02-08-2017 10:15 PM


Well NO, you missed the point of my response, then you ignored the answer.
And you missed the point of mine. So I guess that makes us even on this one.
You said if I come across a creature such as God. Well if you've come across him I'm assuming you've met him. You ignored that fact. Then if you've met him, him being infinte in knowledge would be able, beyond any reasonable doubt demonstrate he is God.
I dispute that, but let's assume it is true. How would I be able to tell between an infinitely wise creature being honest, and a creature that is much smarter than me who is being dishonest? After all, if it can outsmart me, it might be able to convince me it is infinitely wise when in fact it isn't. Agreed?
If it's entirely subjective, my proposition is established, you have no way of explaining morals.
One can explain the subjective. You haven't demonstrated otherwise.
Morals are no more than your imaginary contemplations., differing from one person to the other. Your morals are no more important or different than any other thing happening. This is what you need to demonstrate, why you ideas are somehow have more meaning than a car hitting a cat in the road or someone putting a bullet in you
I don't see why I need to demonstrate something that is contrary to my opinion.
Again you raise the issue of one thing having more meaning than another. Again I respond: according to whom?
Your major problem is simply no possible way to demonstrate anything besides matter in motion
Neither can you. The difference between our positions is that I don't need to.
Don't mean to sound harsh but saying I'm avoiding answering your questions is a lie.
If you had answered this particular question before, please tell me where.
Otherwise your assertion that I lie, is a lie - by the same standards.
Is it wrong to steal to feed a starving child? ... Stealing is always wrong because it's a lie at its core
So allowing children to starve to death is morally right?
And if I disagree - how can we tell which of us is right?
Let's say the mass of an apple is an objective fact. If we disagree about the mass of apple we can use measurements to ascertain the truth. That's how objective things work.
The tastiness of the apple is a subjective fact. I might think it is tasty, you might think it is too sweet.
Objective in a moral sense would be any thought concept or idea, that is true absolutely. Subjective would be anything that is not that
Sounds comprehensive. You however managed to undermine your earlier argument in the process though:
quote:
No none of these are objective, but there not subjective either in your thinking.
Neither objective nor subjective? That seems clearly impossible. 'anything that is not' objective is subjective, right?
Science might provide you with explanations, but it doesn't give u morals. You making that up
I didn't say science gives me morals - you are making that up. I said science can explain morals. Since you agree that it may very well do this, that supports my argument that I can indeed explain morals. Since your argument is that I cannot - I seem to be winning the argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-08-2017 10:15 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-09-2017 9:14 PM Modulous has replied

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


(2)
Message 185 of 1006 (799396)
02-09-2017 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Dawn Bertot
02-08-2017 10:18 PM


Re: Typical fundie behaviour
While I have no real basic disagreement agreement with the above statement, I would ask one basic question? Is your statement above absolutely true or only relatively true. How did you arrive at such a certainity. From reality, just your thought. Just you perceptions, what? Tell me how
Using strict definitions the premise is tautological, it is absolutely true the same way that 1+1=2 - by definition. Since the conclusions follow from an absolutely true statement then they too are absolutely true, yes?
Secondly,there is an evidential way for me to identify absolute morality. Both by the general evidence for God's existence and the evidence from specific revelation
So first you agree with my statements, in which I state that a mere human such as yourself cannot possibly recognise 'perfect morality' and then in the next breath you assert that you in fact, are able to. Which is it?
Thirdly, absolute morality is evidenced by simple rational observation.
Simple rational observation made by a being with perfect knowledge, yes. Simple rational observation made by you, me or any other human, no. It can't be any other way, by definition. You've defined yourself into a corner from which you cannot escape.
So I would classify your above statement, more of an observation than an actual argument, because it is predicated on the assumption I cannot identify God's existence or Word by and evidential perspective
It's an observation of the faults/contradictions in your position, sounds like an arguement to me. I challenged you to demonstrate gods existence in one of my first replies, I did that because I knew that it was the only place this thread could go. RAZD and Mod are making the case for a rational but not objective basis for morality, everyone has conceded that morality is not objective(yours too) so all that's left is for you to make the case for your objective morality by demonstrating the existence of god.
You can't assume nor demonstrate that the bible contains (some of) gods infinite wisdom. Only god himself can verify that, by definition. As Mod argued, you would need infinite knowledge yourself to absolutely determine whether it is infinite wisdom or simply wisdom from a more intelligent source.
You cannot rely on your subjective interpretation of the bible nor your subjective judgments of what is absolutely moral.
Since the only things that humans can say are absolutely true are things that are true by definition I think you're only option is to define god into existence. We'll see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-08-2017 10:18 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-09-2017 9:37 PM Riggamortis has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 186 of 1006 (799398)
02-09-2017 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by RAZD
02-09-2017 8:48 AM


Re: enlightened self-interest -- morals are memes
People tend to seek consistency in their beliefs and perceptions. So what happens when one of our beliefs conflicts with another previously held belief?
The term cognitive dissonance is used to describe thefeelings of discomfortthat result from holding two conflicting beliefs. When there is a discrepancy between beliefs and behaviors, something must change in order to eliminate or reduce the dissonance.
Let's start here first, with the definition of something you think I am experiencing. As I have demonstrated to many times to mention, I dont have two conflicting views. My position would not need to be true for yours to be false. Your inconsistencies are actually with reality itself, not any of my views of morality
Simply put you would need to show how the evidence i can easily see for the existence of God and the scriptures as the Word of God , to be false, to show how I have two conflicting views with myself . I dont. Next, Your assuming up front that I hold some false idea that conflicts with the innumerable facts you present. They don't conflict. If you wish to discuss that evidence at some point I'm happy to do so.
We are presently discussing the contradictions that exist with you having an actual morality in reality. So it is easy to see if am not experiencing anything in your definition.
Question this definition you gave, is it relatively true or absolutely true. Would it be an absolute truth
Let's try this again. I'm not trying to do anything, i dont need to, reality does what I cannot do. Showing how natural processes can be more involved in one instance verses another, does not assign them value. This is a product of your imagination, which is a bio process. The words Better, more important, purpose, can logically have no value, other than that imagined, morality produced by your biological brain.
But to be consistent, if that is possible, given your doctrine, it may also be the truth or not true, that anything or nothing I'm saying presently, is correct or has any value, given the valuessness of reality itself.
But ok, let's take a look at what you have to say.
You can reduce all of the universe into quarks in random motion, and explain atoms with them, but chemistry explains molecules and organic chemistry explains the combinations of organic molecules and the formation of objects, pre-biotic molecules explain self-replicating molecules that explain life that explains biology.
Nice and I would call this design, but ok
This all occurs by natural processes but the details of those processes are different at different levels.
Well, they would need to be, for us, to call it anything happening
Self-consciousness is not just biology and thought is not just electrical activity in a brain, it is more than the sum of the parts, it is synergy. Now you can choose to point your finger at the synergies and say "that is god/s working" but you don't have to and it adds no information of value to the process, it would only make you comfortable, and assuage your dissonance perhaps.
Well I think you've missed the point again. I don't just point my finger at IT. I would point my finger twords the evidence that supports the existence of God and the scriptures as his Word, as evidence of the design and consciouness. It and the evidence in those areas makes sense from that perspective
Biology is not enough to explain memes because the sociological processes of communication and interaction of ideas is a group activity not an individual one. Isolated single individuals do not have memes by definition. So this again is a synergy from interaction and communication that creates something greater than the sum of the parts, the individuals in the group.
This is a particularly odd statement and admission by yourself. Biology is not enough to explain morals? I would think that you would atleast want to show some connection or causality,, since hehavior, is related to thoughts and thoughts are a product of brain activity. If you could show how thoughts are or are not a product of brain activity, I might be able to accept that communication and interaction are evidence or morals
If thoughts are disconnected from biological processes and are not actually a physical process, you might have a point
I think you are trying to replace the word, thoughts with synergy. Am I correct?
Morals are memes. Memes are shared concepts, but moral codes are not just any concepts lumped together, they are ones that benefit the social group to survive and reproduce as a group.
You said bio can't explain memes, but why would you make a distinction between natural processes, social and biological processes. If thoughts are a product of the brain, and behavior a product of thoughts, wouldn't it just be natural processes
Or are you saying you can show an break in the link between natural processes and the brain
So if it's just natural processes which it seems to be, not seeing any value or morals in interaction and communication
And again we have a synergy where the shared ideas that develops in a group that becomes more than the sum of ideas of single individuals, there is an interaction, and the whole group benefits from those concepts that improve the survival and reproduction of the group, possibly at the loss of an individual (streetcar).
So a whole bunch of monkeys doing something verses one monkey constitutes a moral. So a whole bunch of Nazis deciding collectively that it's right to kill a bunch of other humans,to advance thier ethnicity, is not only moral, but synergy.
YOU GO EVOLUTION, show us the way.
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by RAZD, posted 02-09-2017 8:48 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by RAZD, posted 02-10-2017 11:25 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 197 by RAZD, posted 02-10-2017 11:49 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 187 of 1006 (799399)
02-09-2017 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by New Cat's Eye
02-09-2017 9:50 AM


Re: nazis
And what if morality isnotobjective, and has no purpose outside of ourselves?
Then it would be blind evolution or just matter in motion. Morality would be a made up word

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-09-2017 9:50 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-10-2017 9:46 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 188 of 1006 (799400)
02-09-2017 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by ringo
02-09-2017 11:03 AM


Re: Religion Cannot Rationally Explain Morals
Again, you're assuming that there is an absolute right and wrong. There isn't. Somebody else can disagree with you until the cows come home but that doesn't make either of you "right" or "wrong".
Well this statement is either contradictory from start to finish, or it is correct From start to finish. But how would we know given your statement. I'll just take a poke in the dark and say contradictory and that it represents you fellas position to a tee.
You should lobby to have this as the Montra formally for you fellas position for all time. Nice
If you keep making statements like this, my job is finished
You 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.
38What is truth? retorted Pilate.
Don't be like Pilate, Ringo, don't turn truth into relative nonsense. Amazing 2000 years ago the Lord is having a conversation with people like you. I guess that Synergy is just not synergizing
You didn't answer my question: Is "Thou shalt not kill" absolute? Or are there exceptions?
That law is absolute in character. But the only way to distinguish between manslaughter and negligent homicide are of course something different, but to make that distinction, you would need infinite knowledge. So you are asking the wrong being. So since God said you shall not kill, I would say absolutely it's absolute
Perhaps in your finite wisdom you can offer a better explanation. I doubt it, but give it a shot
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by ringo, posted 02-09-2017 11:03 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by ringo, posted 02-10-2017 10:48 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 189 of 1006 (799401)
02-09-2017 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Taq
02-09-2017 12:40 PM


Re: enlightened self-interest -- three laws
If Hitler wrote in a book that God told him to kill jews, would you unquestioningly define Hitler's actions as moral?
In this imaginary book that Hitler wrote, did he claim omniscience
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Taq, posted 02-09-2017 12:40 PM Taq has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 190 of 1006 (799402)
02-09-2017 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Modulous
02-09-2017 1:28 PM


Idon't see why I need to demonstrate something that is contrary to my opinion.
You should add this to Ringo's insightful statement, I suggested, as a Montra for you fellas position
Again you raise the issue of one thing having more meaning than another. Again I respond: according to whom?
But that is my response, not yours. If I can find no MORE meaning or difference as meaning, in biological processes than things happening, there is no meaning and hence no morals
So allowing children to starve to death is morally right?
Neither is morally right, if you are causing the starvation. I'm sure you've heard the expression, Two Wrongs don't make a Right. They would still be two wrongs, even if I stole food to help them, which I would. If I offered that as an excuse to a judge, after breaking into a grocery store, you think he would say,, then it was ok, forget about it
And if I disagree - how can we tell which of us is right?
That's how
Let's say the mass of an apple is an objective fact. If we disagree about the mass of apple we can use measurements to ascertain the truth. That's how objective things work.
The tastiness of the apple is a subjective fact. I might think it is tasty, you might think it is too sweet.
Why would i disagree with you about the mass of an apple? You see , Truth does exist
Sounds comprehensive. You however managed to undermine your earlier argument in the process though:
quote:No none of these are objective, but there not subjective either in your thinking.
Neither objective nor subjective? That seems clearly impossible. 'anything that is not' objective is subjective, right?
You missed the part where I said, In YourThinking
Ididn't say science gives me morals - you are makingthatup. I said science can explain morals. Since you agree that it may very well do this, that supports my argument that I can indeed explain morals. Since your argument is that I cannot - I seem to be winning the argument.
No I don't agree I said that. I said science can explain things happening, but hen if there's no more meaning to one thing or another, then you agree there's really no meaning or morals. Redefining matter in motion as meaning doesn't change that fact that it is not.
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2017 1:28 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Modulous, posted 02-10-2017 12:57 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 191 of 1006 (799403)
02-09-2017 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Riggamortis
02-09-2017 8:47 PM


Re: Typical fundie behaviour
Well it looks like Riggamortis has finally set in. Lol. Good job Riga
Using strict definitions the premise is tautological, it is absolutely true the same way that 1+1=2 - by definition. Since the conclusions follow from an absolutely true statement then they too are absolutely true, yes?
So then there is an absolute in reality
So first you agree with my statements, in which I state that a mere human such as yourself cannot possibly recognise 'perfect morality' and then in the next breath you assert that you in fact, are able to. Which is it?
When did I every say I could not recognize absolute morality. You can
Simple rational observation made by a being with perfect knowledge, yes. Simple rational observation made by you, me or any other human, no. It can't be any other way, by definition. You've defined yourself into a corner from which you cannot escape.
Hardly. Truth exists. For truth to exist,it,would need to have a standard in reality. Morality clearly and obviously Exists in reality, for morality to exist it must have an absolute standard. This could only be God
I know it's morally wrong to kill, for selfish reasons another person. I know that absolutely
How am I doing
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 185 by Riggamortis, posted 02-09-2017 8:47 PM Riggamortis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Riggamortis, posted 02-10-2017 3:47 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


(1)
Message 192 of 1006 (799411)
02-10-2017 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Dawn Bertot
02-09-2017 9:37 PM


Re: Typical fundie behaviour
So then there is an absolute in reality
A statement can be absolutely true, due the arrangement and definitions of the words, tautological statements are pretty meaningless though. Consider 'the sky is blue, except when it isn't'. An absolutely true statement, also it doesn't tell us anything useful.
When did I every say I could not recognize absolute morality. You can
quote:
In dawns head, morality isn't morality at all unless it is perfect. This is a self-serving definition for one, but even if we accept it, there are still problems that dawn is ignoring.
Obviously, if morality must be perfect then it's source can only be a perfect being. That is why dawn must assert that morality must be perfect, it has no basis in reality but it helps get to the conclusion desired. Identifying morality as defined is impossible for any human, if only a perfect being can create morality than only a perfect being can identify it. Since dawn cannot possibly verify whether or not morality exists(as defined) he has no 'morality' himself.
While I have no real basic disagreement agreement with the above statement, I would ask one basic question? Is your statement above absolutely true or only relatively true. How did you arrive at such a certainity. From reality, just your thought. Just you perceptions, what? Tell me how
I took the bolded agreement to be some sort of typo, I don't understand the sentence otherwise. You neither agree nor disagree? Did you not have time to consider it?
Hardly. Truth exists. For truth to exist,it,would need to have a standard in reality.
Reality is the standard for truth. 'Truth' doesn't exist, reality exists and statements about reality can be true, false or part thereof. I was right, through silly word games you want to define god into existence.
Morality clearly and obviously Exists in reality, for morality to exist it must have an absolute standard. This could only be God
Subjective morality clearly and obviously exists in reality, for absolute morality to exist it must have an absolute standard. This could only be God.
I fixed it for you, we are utterly incapable of recognising true absolute morality if we saw it. You see how it doesn't follow anymore? As written by you, it assumes that absolute morality exists in order to conclude that there is a morality giver.
I know it's morally wrong to kill, for selfish reasons another person. I know that absolutely
How? Are you god? Only god can know that absolutely and he isn't here to moderate. Is self-defence a selfish reason? I can't see how it wouldn't be. What about killing another man to save my wife's life? Whatever your answer, how do you know absolutely?
It's morally wrong to kill another for only selfish reasons. I think my version is more absolute LOL. So where does that leave us?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-09-2017 9:37 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-11-2017 9:24 AM Riggamortis has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 193 of 1006 (799430)
02-10-2017 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Dawn Bertot
02-09-2017 9:09 PM


Re: nazis
And what if morality is not objective, and has no purpose outside of ourselves?
Then it would be blind evolution or just matter in motion. Morality would be a made up word
Right, just like beauty, or deliciousness, or fun.
So what?
Why do you have such a problem with that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-09-2017 9:09 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by jar, posted 02-10-2017 9:58 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 199 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-11-2017 9:10 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 194 of 1006 (799432)
02-10-2017 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by New Cat's Eye
02-10-2017 9:46 AM


Re: nazis
Or spirituality or worship or deity.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-10-2017 9:46 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 195 of 1006 (799439)
02-10-2017 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Dawn Bertot
02-09-2017 9:11 PM


Re: Religion Cannot Rationally Explain Morals
Dawn Bertot writes:
Well this statement is either contradictory from start to finish, or it is correct From start to finish. But how would we know given your statement.
That's a false dichotomy based on your unfounded assumption about absolute truth.
Dawn Bertot writes:
That law is absolute in character. But the only way to distinguish between manslaughter and negligent homicide are of course something different, but to make that distinction, you would need infinite knowledge. So you are asking the wrong being.
So you're saying that only God knows right from wrong. That would explain the high rate of incarceration among believers. They have no moral compass of their own.
You're shooting yourself in the foot. You're admitting that your own morality is not rational.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-09-2017 9:11 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-11-2017 9:11 AM ringo 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