Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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: 0/0


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 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

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


Message 199 of 1006 (799564)
02-11-2017 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by New Cat's Eye
02-10-2017 9:46 AM


Re: nazis
Right, just like beauty, or deliciousness, or fun.
So what?
Why do you have such a problem with that?
Then you admit Morality does not exist and you have no way of explaining it
Dawn Bertot

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 replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-13-2017 10:54 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 200 of 1006 (799565)
02-11-2017 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by ringo
02-10-2017 10:48 AM


Re: Religion Cannot Rationally Explain Morals
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.
Well you might be right if it weren't for two things. It's not my morality,, it's God's and people have freewill a conscience and a guide to help us avoid pitfalls. But from your position those people are in cages unjustly because morality doesn't exists and Sin is just a myth. Maybe you can get them OFF with that defense if you speak to thier judges. Hey jugie whugie, it's all relative, forget about it
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by ringo, posted 02-10-2017 10:48 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by ringo, posted 02-11-2017 11:06 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 201 of 1006 (799566)
02-11-2017 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by RAZD
02-10-2017 11:49 AM


Re: enlightened self-interest -- morals are memes
Atheist Dawkins said something like "It is safe to say that anyone that doesn't accept evolution is stupid, ignorant or insane (or wicked ... )" ... to which I would add deluded, where someone has been mislead (by someone who is stupid, ignorant, insane or wicked) into believing something that is not true. Such delusion and ignorance can be cured by education ... but the "victim" must be willing to learn.
This is where cognitive dissonance comes into play. The more firmly a belief (any belief) is held the more difficult it is for the "victim" to accept contrary evidence, often resulting in several types of avoidance behavior and deflection.
Ok
You have your view and you have the evidence that it is wrong, you see the arguments, but you refuse to accept them. This is conflict and avoidance. It is not possible for you to not consider these views exist, but you deny them and deflect the argument to avoid accepting them.
You don't like this argument either, but that's a different case.
Ok, so these last two are more observations not arguments. I understand
Curiously your whole argument on every post in this thread is about the conflict you have between your belief and the observation that others hold different views.
So you would rather waste your time making baseless assertion, instead of more arguments
You know it is there, you just refuse to accept it because of your internal conflict with it.
Sounds like you are trying to convince yourself and not me. You sound aggregated that someone else might have an argument besides you. Do they have a term for that . I'd call it a spoiled brat
[qs]And yet people use them because we agree on what the words mean and how they are used. We give them value by agreement for the purpose of communication. That is also how morals work: we agree on them in a social context and use them to minimize social conflicts.[qs] You giving words value is like making water more wet, it just can't happen. But you don't understand Zen Deist, you agreeing on something that works among your same species may have some biological benifit, but it's meaningless when we look at the mechanisms of evolution. Your working very hard to make yourself be important in your meaningless world, but there's no way to make it work. It literally is the blind leading the blind
Another way to reduce dissonance is to alter beliefs so that the conflict goes away.
So give up your principles, to satisfy someone else
And the fact that you keep arguing against the evidence and objective observation of morality being subjective
Let's me get this straight. I should know by evidence and objectively , that something that doesn't actually exist and cannot exist, namely that which is subjective, actually does exist? And I would know this objectively? Oh yeah, well that make perfect sense. Wow
So you agree that reducing everything to the interaction of quarks does not refute or counter the argument that morals are subjective memes developed over time to augment survival and reproduction.
Well of course I agree that matter in motion can only produce that which is realive and subjective. But Even matter,in motion and especially matter in motion can't produce something that is not real, namely that which is subjective. YOU DO UNDERSTAND THAT THAT WHICH IS SUBJECTIVE, IS,NOT REAL AND DOES NOT ACTUALLY EXIST, CORRECT? THE word subjective is not a real thing. We use it to refer to things that are not real. Your concept or perception that an apple is tasty, is,not a real thing
The word subjective is a imagined made up word to describe something that is not real. So yes, it is true you don't actually have a moral
That would be the gist of it. Works doesn't it? Why would so many million Germans follow and fight for the Nazis if they thought it was morally evil?
Did they think they had absolute moral justification from an infinite (god/s) source?
I'm not saying that some of them didn't think it was morally right., they may have. But,I was asking you if it was subjectively or objectively right. You see, your position doesn't allow,you to say they were wrong
But if we do say they were immoral and wrong, what would we use as our bases. If there's no real absolute standard, why do you care,what they did. Sounds to me you think they were horribly wrong
YOUR PROBLEM IS A VERY SIMPLE ONE RAZD. YOU CAN JUMP UP AND DOWN, SCREAM AND SHOUT ALL DAY LONG ABOUT MEMES AND MORALS. YOU CAN EXCLAIM HOW HUMANS HELP EACHOTHER HERE AND THERE, BUT IF YOUR SOCALLED MORALS AND ETHICS ONLY APPLY TO HUMANS AND NOT EVERY OTHER SPECIES, YOU ARE JUST RATIONALIZING.
BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS EQUAL IN YOUR EXISTENCE AND OTHER SPECIES CAN EXPERIENCE PAIN AND SHOULD BE ABLE TO ENJOY AND HAVE THIER LIVES, TOURS BECOME A WALKING CONTRADICTION WHEN YOU TAKE THIER LIVES AND TREAT THEM DIFFERENTLY THAT HUMANS
I WISH THERE WERE A WY TO MAKE THAT CONSISTENT, BUT IT,JUST WON'T WORK RATIONALLY. CALLING MEMES MORALS DOESN'T HELP. RATIONAL AND REALITY WON'T ALLOW IT. Now, there were some actual standard to measure your alleged morals with you might have a point
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by RAZD, posted 02-10-2017 11:49 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by RAZD, posted 02-11-2017 10:31 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 202 of 1006 (799568)
02-11-2017 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by Riggamortis
02-10-2017 3:47 AM


Re: Typical fundie behaviour
Subjective morality clearly and obviously exists in reality, for absolute morality to exist it must have an absolute standard. This could only be God.
Well this is about as comical and nonsensical as it gets. What your saying is that you KNOW for sure and it's a an absolute Truth that something subjective exists, specifically, subjective morality. If it's subjective what else would you have to measure it against except more subjective things and ideas. If it's subjective it not measurable or testable, therefore not knowable
For example we KNOW absolutely that an apple exists. The tastiness of the apple is a matter of opinion. But if the apple didn't, exist, then the perception specifically relating to that Apple would not exist. So Moral absolute truth actually exists or it does not. You can't have it both ways.
If it does not then your thoughts are just matter in motion. But for moral truth to actually exist, like the apple actually exists, then it must be objective, like the apple objectively and truthfully exists.. Because we have some standard to decide for ourselves whether a apple is tasty to us or not.. But my opinions which are subjective didn't change the PROPERTIES of the apple did they
Now pay close attention. If we reduce morality to mere subjectivity, then there is no standard by which to know something is ACTUALLY TRUE or even remotely true. Hence even our thoughts become nothing more than matter in motion.
Hence my conclusion is demonstrated, that Atheists don't have and cannot explain morals. ,that's assuming that if what I am saying is correct, true valid, moral immoral, right or wrong.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if SOMETHING doesn't exist absolutely and objectively, In reality, to speak about the same nonexistent thing subjectively, as if it did exist, is complete idiocy. Your not happy with idiocy are you?
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.[/ qs]
Wow, I hope this doesn't sound mean, but you can't imagine how foolish your above comments sounds.. if truth doesn't exist, then it would follow that subjective truth, subjective morality or what ever word salad u attach to it does not exist.
Imagining that your thoughts ideas and concepts are more than biological processes would be deception and non existent
Sorry statements about reality may be factually accurate as biological processes, but if truth doesn't exist, then they cannot be TRUTH as in a moral sense. So no possible way for you to have even a subjective morality
Likewise, if objective moral truth doesn't exist then, then no thing called subjective truth may exist either. Hence no morals in reality
qsHow? 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?
I know murder is objectively and morally wrong, the same way you know that subjective morality actually exists. You did say subjective morality exists correct. Now I'm not sure you would know how subjective morality exists or what it would look like, without a standard, but maybe you can explain, why if some abstract subjective morality can CERTAINLY exist and your not God to know that, why you would call it an ethic. Makes no sense
I know it's wrong by an intrinsic law placed in side me. I don't need to be taught it's wrong to steal. Would you incarcerate a lion for brutally chasing down a deer and killing him. Of course not. Why, because you know intrinsically it's not wrong or murder
I know because I have conscince in reality. For that conscience to make sense or operate, there has to be a standard, to let me know I've violate it. Other wise it's just matter in motion
I have a direct revelation by inspiration that corroborates these realities, I can actually, see and feel them. If none of what I just stated is accurate, then it's just matter in motion. But those are realities+
It's morally wrong to kill another foronlyselfish reasons. I think my version is more absolute LOL. So where does that leave us?
Well I can't answer you question unless you tell me what you think the standard is for believing you murdered someone., or how you ESTABLISHED YOUR MORAL. Do you have a standard or is your question as useless as your subjective standard. YOUR question is pointless, if an absolute moral doesn't govern the question. How will you escape from you nonsensical position
Your problem is the same as RAZD. FOR YOUR SOCALLED MORALITY TO BE REAL AND ACTUALLY HAVE MEANING IT MUST BE ATLEAST REMOTELY CONSISTENT ACROSS LIFE ON EARTH. TO DEFINE SOMETHING AS MURDER FOR HUMANS, THEN NOT APPLY THE SAME STANDARD FOR EVEN YOUR NEXT OF KIN THE PRIMATES, MAKES NO SENSE
IMAGINIG YIU HAVE A MORAL IS NOT THE SAME AS DEMONSTRATING IT RATIONALLY
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Riggamortis, posted 02-10-2017 3:47 AM Riggamortis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Riggamortis, posted 02-11-2017 7:43 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 203 of 1006 (799571)
02-11-2017 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Modulous
02-10-2017 12:57 PM


I can find more meaning between one process and another, there is therefore meaning to me.
When this Socalled meaning you have causes you to treat and react to another species differently as in killing and eating them, is your better meaning moral or immoral
Why? Because neither of us knows the truth at the point of argument. I mean does it really matter about the details? I assume God exists when you create hypotheticals is it really so hard for you to assume we might argue over the mass of an apple for the sake of argument.
That's the point. In your system Truth is imaginary, nothing to reference it against. Opinions if they did actually exist, still would have no meaning. In your system the size of an apple may be some fact, but it has no truth we could consider value or morality. Your left with nothing. Sorry
Likewise, the state of my brain when faced with a moral question is an objective truth about my morality.
My perspective of the rightness of a moral action is a subjective truth about morality.
Double talk. Your brain cannot be faced with a moral question. Because you demonstrate that as soon as you make a decision about your human friends, it's hopelessly inconsistent with the rest of life on earth. Hence you are imaging morals, they cannot actually exist in your world
If you insist, in which case you are just plain wrong. Sweetness is subjective, in my thinking. As I explicitly said. 'Just junk happening' is not a third category. Sweetness is either objective or subjective. I say it is subjective. So do you.
No I dont. The tastiness of an apple may be a fact but it cannot be subjective or moral. There is by definition no meaning or value in your existence. How could it be subjective or have meaning or value
My only job here is to show I can, in principle, rationally explain morals - yours is to show that in principle I cannot. I can do show my point with reference to science. I don't need to show morals have objective meaning as I don't believe they do. Just because something does not have objective meaning doesn't mean it doesn't exist and it doesn't mean it cannot be explained. Subjective morals have subjective meanings.
Well it's worse than you think. You not only cannot show that it has no objective morality, but you have no way of showing it has meaning as value AT ALL.. if,you imagine that your thought process has meaning or value, I would ask to who and why. Now you may act or do something because of biological decisions in your brain, and then you may ascribe it meaning or value because it has that to you. But when your Socalled meanings conflict and interrupt other life forms, how do we resolve this to be moral? If it is a moral then it's a bad or immoral one, because it's hopelessly inconsistent. Or atleast it probably will be given the illustration of some alleged moral you allegedly posses
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Modulous, posted 02-10-2017 12:57 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Modulous, posted 02-11-2017 12:40 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 210 of 1006 (799667)
02-13-2017 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by RAZD
02-11-2017 10:31 AM


Re: Morals Have been rationally explained. Done.
And here we see the next stage of cognitive dissonance -- attacking the messenger to discredit him and by extension discredit the information. Devolving into emotional ALL CAPS is not a rational argument, rather it is a sign that you are getting angry that you are losing the debate and that your cognitive dissonance is getting stronger. LOLZ
By destroyingallmeaning in your rabid attempt to destroy the arguments that show atheists CAN rationally explain morals also destroys your argument that your beliefs can rationally explain morals. This is your ultimate problem.
Well this is quite probably the most curious of all your statements yet. If we were to review all of the attacking of Theists and Christians here at this websibe, I think we would find that we involve ourselves in about 10 percent of that verses the 90 percent done by the skeptics. Care to take a look. And's that not even mentioning the abusive and disgusting verbiage employed by you fellas. Would it be the second stage of CD to let me k
Now I'm doing that, or is that relative too
Fortunately the problem is yours. You have no possible way of showing that any action or yours has any more meaning than a colony of ants. And I'm sure you would have not the slightest hesitation in exterminating them if you saw fit, correct.. and I'm sure you would feel no GUILT or remorse in doing so. AT BARE MINIMUM Im SURE YOU WOULDN'T THINK IT WAS MURDER
I'm sorry, please tell me again what my problem is
Meanwhile my argument is not refuted. SeeMessage information:Message 196:Summary of my argument so far
(Msg ID 799441)Thread 19365:Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.Forum 6:Faith and Belief', 500)" onmouseout=" hb.off(0)" onmousemove="mouseTracker(event)" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(119, 204, 221);">Summary of my argument so far:
quote: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. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is an expression of enlightened self-interest -- don't kill your family, friends and neighbors in their sleep and so they will not kill you in your sleep.
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.
Morality is subjective, it is based on the society mores instead of the individual's beliefs, and because it is subjective it can change over time.
It doesn't need to be 100% absolutely consistent in a social group, it only needs to be predominantly consistent.
It is tied to culture, it is a consensus of views with family and friends and acquaintances, with what you learn and what you know, and it grows with you as you grow and learn.
The moral standard is the social consensus of the culture where you live. The headhunters of New Zealand used to think it was moral to kill and eat their enemies, they no longer do because their culture has changed, necessarily changed to fit into the global society we have.
As society changes and evolves so to does the moral consensus standard. The Romans felt is was moral to feed Christians to the lions.
An example of an objectively evidenced moral code written by an atheist is Asimov'sThree Laws of Robotics
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.
It is based in biology, but there is a point where synergy happens and self consciousness arises.
We can observe self consciousness in apes and some other animals, but not in slugs and bugs.
Morality is a meme: moral codes develop and get passed from generation to generation, codes of behavior that benefit the survival and reproduction of the group are preserved.
It is developed by natural processes.
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.
This all occurs by natural processes but the details of those processes are different at different levels. There is a synergy that occurs at each stage as well, where the sum is greater than the parts, the atom is not just quarks, molecules aren't just atoms, life is not just pre-biotic molecules. 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.
Microevolution alone is not enough to explain macroevolution, because you need to have diversity in different ecologies to change daughter populations in different ways.
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. This is a synergy from interaction and communication that creates something greater than the sum of the parts (individuals in the group).
Morals are a subset of memes. Memes are shared evolved 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 by conditioning behavior for reducing conflicts.
∴Morals are subjective, they are a type of memes that have evolved over time as a consensus control on social behavior, to reduce conflicts between individual members of a social group, and thus benefit the survival and continuous revitalization of the social group from generation to generation.
Oh I think your "Argument" is defeated quite easily
Isn't it interesting that your quote and it's elements doesn't really address the animal kingdom. How do Memes reduce social conflict between humans and other species. From what I can gather, you seem to be saying your more intelligent, so you have a right to act thus and so. Well God is infinte in wisdom, hence he can act as he wills twords you.. Since you think morality is subjective, why attack his ethics?
Your above quote is a lot of elaborate double talk to make your species more relevant. Sorry not possible in reality. If ur moral codes only benifit your group and they are hopelessly inconsistent with other life forms, a person can immediately see the complete idiocy of your attempt at an actual argument.
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by RAZD, posted 02-11-2017 10:31 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by RAZD, posted 02-13-2017 9:01 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 211 of 1006 (799668)
02-13-2017 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by ringo
02-11-2017 11:06 AM


Re: Religion Cannot Rationally Explain Morals
Since you're not omniscient, how can you know with absolute certainty what God's morality is? At best, you can guess at an approximation.
Well no. I don't have to be omniscient to know that for a moral to be correct and consistent, it would need to be that no more information could be added to it to make it more correct. Otherwise is just relative nonsense, or at best a guess.
If God exists, and there were something he didn't know that is knowable, then he wouldn't be God, correct
The real judges - that is the other members of the community - understand that it IS all relative. You're the one who doesn't.
Relative goes hand-in-hand with rational. If the premises change, the conclusion changes. If the circumstances change, the behaviour changes.
On the other hand, absolute goes hand-in-hand with irrational. Absolute conclusions don't need premises at all. The conclusions never change so there's no scope for reasoning.
Well see this is what I explained to another fellow here, you have to learn the difference between an observation and an argument. You have to learn the difference between assertion and an actual argument. What you've done above is to elaborately re state what we are debating. Your not offering an actual argument, your just restating where we started. You need to demonstrate that rational goes hand in hand with relative, Not just assert what you believe, we already know that. Let know when and where you do that
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by ringo, posted 02-11-2017 11:06 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by ringo, posted 02-13-2017 11:08 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 212 of 1006 (799669)
02-13-2017 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Modulous
02-11-2017 12:40 PM


It has a truth, I value it. If you don't - that's your business.
So in an ironic and weird way you just said meaning is relative
You have no way to establish an actual moral exists. If,morals are realtive, then you can't get something from nothing. Wouldn't you say that morals should be remotely consistent in an enviornment where where all life is equal. Or,do you,fancy yourself better than another species. ESPECIALLY YOUR monkey friends. What would make you apply a set for different standards to other life forms?
Of course it can you strange person. I find it tasty, therefore it is, according to me, tasty.
Wow I can't believe this is really this hard for someone of your seeming intelligence to understand. Tastiness has nothing to compare itself to in reality. Taste of course does, the substance itself . Taste buds taste an actual substance Tastiness is a concept with nothing to,compare itself to, except its own perception, or those of others. Now are you starting to getting it my simpe friend. That which is relative does not actually exist. Subjective morals, perceived meaning cant actually exist, in a relative perception
To me and those close to me. The reasons are beyond the scope of this discussion.
Right the same way tastiness is only a perception, it has nothing to reference in reality. Your so called meanings in a meaningless universe, have nothing to reference in reality, there only perceptions of a subjective percieved meaning or value. The best we could say is your alleged meanings or perceived value reference only other bio processes, with no meaning. And that puts you back at square one
The same way tastiness is only perception with no actual reality, subjective and relative morals, which are perception have no reality
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Modulous, posted 02-11-2017 12:40 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Modulous, posted 02-13-2017 1:51 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 213 of 1006 (799670)
02-13-2017 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Riggamortis
02-11-2017 7:43 PM


Re: No need to shout mate
I'm not defending my basis for morality, I am showing that you are in the same boat. I don't care how meaningless you think subjective morality is. All your arguements against my sense of morality apply equally well to yours, since we are both stuck with subjective morals.
No not at all. Here's why. You haven't even began to see what reality is yet, because you think subjective morals are a real thing, something that actually exist that you use as a tool for ethical behavior. You may be stuck but I'm not.
Secondly, all the evidence we have argues for an infinite being. Evolution can't explain consciouness or a conscience in humans. The existence of God and an absolute morality can explain those to very real things. In the same boat, hardly
What we have in reality is people interacting with each other and being affected in different ways by those interactions. When the question arises whether an action was good or bad, we decide subjectively based on the consequences of the action viewed through our subjective moral compass. Our moral compass is a mixture of our own thoughts, how we were raised and the social consensus. That's reality Dawn.
Subjective like tastiness is a perception, it doesn't actually exist, they have nothing to reference in reality Taste may exist and taking of life may exist, but a relative perception of whether it is murder or not, does not exist. Hence, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you stick the word subjective in front of the word moral or immoral, that makes it real or come to life. Hence morality is only an unreal perception in a meaningless universe
Word games. Hardly. Just cold hard reality
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Riggamortis, posted 02-11-2017 7:43 PM Riggamortis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Riggamortis, posted 02-13-2017 2:09 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 214 of 1006 (799671)
02-13-2017 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by Theodoric
02-11-2017 10:14 PM


Re: No need to shout mate
All caps is the last resort of those without an argument. We should come up with an internet law about all caps and how it announces you have lost the debate.
From a subjective standpoint, which you fellas seem to like, I'm only using caps, to emphasis a point, I think needs more emphasis. To assume I'm shouting is only a relative subjective perception. No need to assume I'm shouting , I'm not. Just emphasis
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Theodoric, posted 02-11-2017 10:14 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Theodoric, posted 02-13-2017 10:41 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


Message 222 of 1006 (799711)
02-13-2017 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Riggamortis
02-13-2017 2:09 AM


Re: No need to shout mate
God of the gaps for this, god of the gaps for that. With A BIT OF OUTRIGHT DENIAL OF REALITY THROWN IN FOR GOOD MEASURE. 😎
Not an actual argument, nothing to respond too here
All you are doing is asserting that people don't judge right/wrong the same way that they subjectively judge beauty and taste. You can't prove it, by definition. For someone as seemingly intelligent as yourself I'm surprised you haven't clicked onto this yet.
Well I don't need definitions to assist me in demonstrating that any morality you describe, cannot and does not actually exist. Because in your view it's subjective. I know no other way to define subjective but nonexistent. So if you percieved you have an actual moral that actually exists, in some other way than a perception, you'll need to show it to me how you came up with it
Perceptions of right and wrong like the perception of tastiness, dont actually exist. So it would follow that Atheists can only imagine an ethic or morality. Your Socalled morality have no more existence than an imagination
Nor does it take a genius to figure out that if you stick the word absolute in front of the word moral or immoral, it doesn't make god real or come to life. Fuckin snap!
Careful RAZD will accuse you of Cognitive D.
So initially you would agree you don't actually have an ethic or moral, in any reality. You have just imagined that you perceptions of such a thing are a real thing, when in reality such things don't actually exist and indeed could not. Well atleast that's better than RAZD, he actually believes because humans have learned to communicate and share ideas by means of a biological process, (according to you fellas position) that it's something more than a biological process. Unfortunately he has no possible way of demonstrating this in a blind guide universe, where percieved meaning actually has no meaning. But he keeps trying, maybe that's an ethic in of itself
We all subjectively find meaning in our lives in our own ways. That's the cold hard reality you refuse to face Dawn.
No not at all. I'm simply adopting you and your fellow Atheists position, to show you it's consequences. I think I've done that in a very real fashion. Your universe is impersonal and ethically void by its very Nature. A personal God with absolute morality, not only has meaning, but his ethics are objective and timeless, hence real meaning
Now , it's unwarrented on your part to assume, I have the same subjective morality as you do, simply because you think the evidence for his existence is not enough. There is more than enough evidence to support the reality that the Bible is more than a human construct. But for you to assume I'm in your boat, is nothing less than assertion
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Riggamortis, posted 02-13-2017 2:09 AM Riggamortis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Riggamortis, posted 02-13-2017 10:32 PM Dawn Bertot 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