Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.

As if you have a leg to stand on..Your book of "objective" morals advocates child murder, infanticide, child abuse and abortion.The murdering of children:Leviticus 20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.Judges 11:30-40 Jephthah killed his young daughter (his only child) by burning her alive as a burnt sacrifice to the lord for he commanded it.
Psalms 137:8-9 Prayer/song of vengeance 0 daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.2 Kings 6:28-29 And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him today, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son.Infanticide:1 Samuel 15:3 God commands the death of helpless suckling infants. This literally means that the children god killed were still nursing.Psalms 135:8 & 136:10 Here god is praised for slaughtering little babies.Psalms 137:9 Here god commands that infants should be dashed upon the rocks.Abortion:Hosea 9:11-16 Hosea prays for God’s intervention. Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. . .Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. Clearly Hosea desires that the people of Ephraim can no longer have children. God of course obeys by making all their unborn children miscarry. Is not terminating a pregnancy unnaturally abortion?Numbers 5:11-21 The description of a bizarre, brutal and abusive ritual to be performed on a wife SUSPECTED of adultery. This is considered to be an induced abortion to rid a woman of another man’s child.Numbers 31:17 (Moses) Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him. In other words: women that might be pregnant, which clearly is abortion for the fetus.Hosea 13:16 God promises to dash to pieces the infants of Samaria and the their women with child shall be ripped up. Once again this god kills the unborn, including their pregnant mothers.2 Kings 15:16 God allows the pregnant women of Tappuah (aka Tiphsah) to be ripped open. And the Christians have the audacity to say god is pro-life.How and the hell is it that Christians can read passages where God allows pregnant women to be murdered, yet still claim abortion is wrong?

Cos they're a few sheep short in the top paddock?

You're just avoiding my point and repeating a point that has been conceded a thousand times in this very thread. I don't care that my position requires that there is no such thing as an absolute right or wrong. It's irrelevant. I decide what is right and wrong for me and you decide for you. I'm happy with that.Until you can demonstrate that an absolute right or wrong does exist, you're up shit creek with no paddle. We all know that subjective right and wrong does exist in reality, it's the thoughts in people's heads. So your argument against our morality is moot.

I think we can all agree that. But they do, demonstrably, create feelings and behaviours that we call moral or immoral. We know this because when people are born without some of these instincts their behaviour is what we call immoral or even 'evil'. We call these people psychopaths and we can see the differences in their brains and normal brains. We also have the evidence that when brain states are changed by drugs or physical damage, moral behavious change.How can that be if morality is absolute? Sorry, that's just to crazy for me to talk to.

Please point out where I mentioned abortion?You do know that abortions are not a human invention and in fact most abortions happen quite naturally?Why do you seem incapable of NOT lying?

So, after all of this it's quite obvious that objective morality doesn't exist.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

I'm not sure what you mean? Why would something being beautiful to me require assuming that meaning has a purpose in my mind?I mean: I see it, and I like it. That's beauty in my mind. Where's the "purpose"? I'd contend against it being "nothing more" than that, as the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, but that's a little beside the point. Nobody can show that, and yet, we all find meaning in our subjective experiences. How do you explain that? No, I cannot show you what is in my mind. Again, there's a word for that: it's called "subjective". Hooray, progress! Why? Why not just leave it at that: they are subjective experiences that exist. And we can't know if they are right or wrong, or good or bad. Yes. They. Are. Subjective. Well, when we get groups of people thinking the same thing we can get consensus, and consilience. Those can be very convincing and impactful. A standard is only required if you need to have the morality be objective, or absolute. If you are willing to allow for a relative morality, that actually exists, then there is no need for the one standard rather everything becomes a standard in its own as another point of comparison.I don't need an ultimate standard on the morality of killing to come up with reasons for believing that it is less moral to kill a rabbit than it is a worm, and less moral to kill a human than it is a rabbit.You are correct that I cannot say that this rule of morality is the best one, or the right one, or even correct, but it is mine and it does exist. It's just that it is subjective rather than objective. They have the meaning that we assign to them. For instance: That which is helpful we call good and that which is hurtful we call bad.We witness an event, determine if it is helpful or hurtful, and then say that it is good or bad. That, essentially, is morality. It is subjective and there is no one right or wrong answer. Or, if there is, nobody here can tell us anything about it. If your argument is self-defeating then that is your problem. By demonstrating that you can't truly make your point? Not really. It's not that calling it subjective makes it real, that came about because you were arguing that non-objective things aren't real. It's that they are real, because we experience them, and since they are subjects of our minds rather than objects in our world, then they exist subjectively rather than objectively. Being non-objective does not mean that they don't exist. So what? Sure there is: We assign them meaning.What meaning is there that we have not assigned? Can you show me, objectively, a meaning of something that a human did not bring?If not, then by your argument nothing has meaning. That is patently false. I mean, here we are having a conversation that is full of meaning. Being helpful or hurtful are real things that happen in the real world that we can observe. There is an objective basis for morality that ties it to the real world, but the meanings we assign to it and the determinations of right and wrong that we make are what is subjective. They are products of our minds. That doesn't make them non-existent.

Which is irrelevant to the question of whether or not atheists can rationally explain morals, it's a red herring, an attempt to move the goalposts by redefining morals to include something not necessarily there.

quote:

---

moral
1. of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical:
2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work.
3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom:

---

Nothing there says treatment of animals must be included. Some people may do that as part of their subjective perception of morals, but they don't have to. What empirical evidence? Your failure to understand the many arguments showing your erroneous thinking?Again argument this does not refute that atheists can -- and have -- rationally develop morals. And all this rambling blather does not alter the fact that atheists can -- and have -- rationally developed morals. And again this does not alter the fact that atheists can -- and have -- rationally developed morals. Done, falsified. End. Finito, Finished.Enjoyps - I see I have taught you a new name for a cognitive process, now all you have to do is understand how it works so you can use it properly ...Edited by RAZD, : .

Yes, that's what I've been saying all along. Morals don't have to "exist" like a banana. But that's practically the definition of a subjective moral; one that is not based on concrete facts but on abstract thoughts. What do you think subjective means? Yours, of course. Incorrect.According to my worldview, morals are subjective - i.e. they vary from society to society and from situation to situation.That applies to your morals as well as mine. But how do you know what to obey? You can't read the instructions with 100% accuracy because you're not omniscient. (If you were omniscient, you wouldn't even need the instructions.)So answer the question: When God tells you, "Thou shalt not kill," how do you obey? Do you oppose capital punishment? Do you oppose war? What specific instructions do you have that apply to every possible situation? I don't know why you think you're disagreeing with me. That's my position exactly.Rational thinking is all about matter in motion. Unless your reasoning relates somehow to matter in motion, it's just meaningless mumbo-jumbo.Edited by ringo, : Fixed quotes.

Yes, I think we are in agreement; any disagreement at this point is probably purely semantic in nature. If by 'real' you mean 'has objective existence outside of the perceiver' then I agree. Yes, to the first sentence.
No to the second. If morality is 'that which is inside our heads that governs, to some extent, our social behaviour' - as I claim morality is (as opposed to your view of morality as a perfect ideal external to the mind), then an atheist can in principle explain morals. Exactly. It's subjective, not objective. We agree. Since I haven't got to the end (a complete account can, and has, taken books and is therefore beyond the scope of an internet debate), this is all I need. A good start to show how, in principle we can explain morality. Human morality is above the scope of the example I was providing which was instinctual. However, to give a start to answering what is a complicated question I can turn to in-group and out-group dynamics.The dynamics of the 'animal's dilemma' was focussed on in-group dynamics, as I stated: "if the two animals in question live in a group". But there is always a group next door. This group is interacted with less, but there are often 'border conflicts'. And there is a new dynamic: If we wait here and be passive: they might take advantage of our complacency and attack us while our guard is down, defeat us and take our resources...therefore we should attack them before they enact their coup de grce. Which is exacerbated with the reflection 'they are probably thinking the same thing, so we need to act sooner rather than later'.In-group dynamics are supported by local alliance and family. Family effects are reinforced biologically through kin-selection effects. Outgroups are an ever present threat.So once one human group agrees another human group is an out-group, a set of 'others', there is the real risk of conflict - driven by fears and hatred. Thus, the Nazis (and indeed, much of the history of human conflict).Again, this is a complex area once we get into humanity.To harken back to my example: it worked out that sharing over the long term is advantageous because of the specifics of the numbers. Vary the numbers - the payoffs and risks, and different strategies may emerge. This gives us the primal motives, the instincts.The complexities of moral philosophy are built on this foundation: They are the product of communicative animals trying to explain why one social strategy is more optimal than another, creating cultural ideas that are occasionally challenged (But with a pressure towards conservatism: If it works 'well enough', its seldom a good idea to upset the apple cart as things might get better, but they could get worse etc)So there you go. Atheists can, and have, provided an explanation for moral behaviours, and the behaviour for constructing moral philosophies. It explains their existence, their commonalities and their differences.All that is required now, is for you to take the leap into accepting that your definition of morality is but one argument among the many. You need to fearlessly accept other definitions of morality, and see the answers you are getting in that light. So far you seem to be saying 'because they aren't objective you can't explain them because you can't explain that which is not real'. But you can explain tastiness, you can explain musical preferences, you can explain morality - even if it is subjective. Even if it exists, as experienced, in our minds alone. There is an objective reality at its heart: within the human brain. So there is a reality, despite your protestations. They just don't exist outside of our brain.You have been unable to show that in principle, this is impossible, other than to assert your definition of morality is the only definition, and by definition subjective morality is wrong. This is no argument. I have argued an actual explanation. I think, unless you have some new thing to say, something beyond 'but it doesn't exist QED', we have reached the natural conclusion of the debate. I believe you have failed to support your thesis with anything other than ' Your argument isn't an argument of facts, of pragmatics - but instead a semantic one.

I will get back to these latest replies sometime today. Sorry for hold up. Looks like things are starting to get interesting in this thread. Lots left to discuss. Again, sorryDawn Bertot

Not really. Atheism is a disbelief in the existence of Gods. Atheism doesn't even try to explain morals. It's a straw man you created.You do know that creating straw men is a form of telling untruths?

Whoa hold on a minute, with that temper it almost sounds if you believe there might be an actual right and wrong in morality. As you haven't told me this yet, I might up front just suggest that God's actions in these instances are subjective morality and it doesn't really matter anyway. It's just his perspective on things. And how will you condemn him, will you do it with your subjective suggestions and intimationsSo tell me are the passages you quoted actual immoral acts, or are they just one beings subjective actions. Let me know how you came to that conclusion, if you would I don't pretend to understand every passage and I don't mean to imply that God did not at certain times order the destruction of men women and children, etc. A lot of these passages can be understood in thier context. She was offered a pure Virgin to remain a virgin, in the service of the Lord. Thus a burnt offering in that since.We can go through each one of these as you see fit. But initially to start the ball rolling, it is obvious that the creator of life can take life, as suits his justice. But to have justice, you would need absolute knowledge and a justice to meet that knowledge
As in Duet 32:39‘See now thatI, even I, am he,
and there is no god beside me;
I kill and I make alive;
I wound and I healand there is none that can deliver out of my hand."I guess you would need infinite knowledge to make such a claimDawn Bertot

If your position is irrelevant, then need we say more. Saying that subjective right and wrong exist in reality is not not only nonsensical, pardon me but it's down right stupid. Now it may be subjective, or it may be right or wrong, but it cannot be both.I have repeatedly ask you to show me how every person having a view on a single thing can be a standard of any sort. It can't be. Any thinking person can see that. If every persons opinion on an action of humans, is acceptable, then it would follow that NOTHING is acceptable as well. How in the world does that kind of nonsense make sense. It doesnt.I Have repeatedly demonstrated both by reason and by scripture that ONLY absolute morality exists. I'll try again, maybe this time you will pay attention. There is no possible way that blind causes Can demonstrate what is right or wrong. Blind biological process, that which brought your alleged thoughts into existence is greater than its parts. This is demonstrated by the fact that the blind process which causes death, eventually will overcome your alleged imagined subjective morality, demonstrating that death is greater, than its biological parts. Thus you have no hope of showing that a ridiculous thing characterized like Subjective Morality exists. The two words themselves are nonsensical together.I think I've demonstrated this to many times to mention.However, since it is clear that a sense of ought and a conscience does exist, we instinctively know that right and wrong exist, the only way to make sense of it, is if there is a standard. Hope I don't have to go over that again. The evidence for the existence of God is as evident as the conscience or consciouness itself. Yes I understand that you do not agree, but your obligation is to make the evidence go away, not simply disagree with it.Without getting into a discussion here of design, only a fool could not see it. So, the evidence for his general existence is intact and we have specific revelation, explains morality. The Atheist view and explanation of morality IS HOPELESS FROM THE OUTSET. You seem to agree with that in your verbiageCase closed

You are only witnessing changes in what you percieved as normal. a malfunctioning brain does not mean, immoral behavior, it just means a different biological process of a damaged biological function. The imaginations of a Socalled psychopath are no more real than yours. If they have an hallucination, is it real or not. If you said it was real you'd be the crazy one, correct?I'll keep repeating this, and maybe one of you fellas will finally see it. If you want to characterize your FEELINGs or BEHAVIORS as morality, then you would be obligated show how and why, every persons thoughts or perceptions on ANY GIVEN POINT, Could all be correct or incorrect at the same time. If God did not exist, subjective morality, as you characterize it would be the height of stupidity, for any thinking person.It would mean given its components and tenets, as described by you fellas, nothing, not even what im saying, would have meaning. If everybody could have a differing opinion about something and it be valid as morality, the whole thing is idiocy. That's assuming idiocy could exist, in you fellas imaginations of morality. Wow, it ant believe you can't see that You do not have a moral either way, objective or subjective. Hence, as I have clearly demonstrated, for morality to exist it has to be absolute. If it isnt, there it's nonsenseDawn Bertot