|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Riggamortis Member (Idle past 2411 days) Posts: 167 From: Australia Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Riggamortis Member (Idle past 2411 days) Posts: 167 From: Australia Joined:
|
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: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Or spirituality or worship or deity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
That's a false dichotomy based on your unfounded assumption about absolute truth.
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. Dawn Bertot writes:
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. 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. You're shooting yourself in the foot. You're admitting that your own morality is not rational.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024