Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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: 1/1


Thread  Details

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


Message 223 of 1006 (799712)
02-13-2017 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Tangle
02-13-2017 2:47 AM


Take a wild guess....
As far as I can establish, he has three assertions
If something is relative - eg morality - it can't exist 'in reality' (???)
If we treat ants worse than people, we can't argue that we are moral creatures
Absolute morality is god given and infinite.
Or something like that(TM)
He's not making any progress on any of them - mostly because he appears to be batshit bonkers.
Oh , watch out, looks like your Cognitive D has gone bonkers.
Well, in a sloppy way , yeah that sums up my position pretty well, but since u offered nothing more than an observation, I have nothing to respond to in an argument form. You must not have one.
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Tangle, posted 02-13-2017 2:47 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Tangle, posted 02-14-2017 1:15 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 224 of 1006 (799713)
02-13-2017 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by RAZD
02-13-2017 9:01 AM


Re: Morals Have been rationally explained. Done.
And, curiously, that still doesNOTdo it. A swing and a miss ... sad.
This is more you trying to change the question from moral codes for people with social groups to include other species. Then you throw in a little religious non-sequitur. More deflection from addressing theFACTthat rational people (atheists among them)CAN(andHAVE) Rationally Explain(ed) Morals.
So u don't actually have a bases for believing you can treat animals differently according to your moral code, other than to say, I dont like it because it throws a wrench in the system I've set up. Well ok I'll take that as an admission.
But that's only One of the problems with your so called morality. Let's look. You state:
Whether you accept this argument or not doesn't matter. Until you show otherwise with objective empirical evidence, this indeed shows that Atheism CAN Rationally Explain Morals, which is the answer to the purpose of this thread.
Note further that it is not even necessary that this argument be "TRUE", it is only necessary to show that morals can be rationally explained.
But I have shown otherwise with empirical evidence. Here it is again. You assert that memes are MORE than a biological process but you can show No chain of causality from brain activity to these alleged memes or synergy, other than to say, "can't you just see it"
Ironically you'll need to show in a biological scientific way, that they exist and they are more than a biological process. This is what you assert correct? Communication and sharing ideas won't help you either. I need something at a cellular level to show a chain of causality. You've just changed the word tastiness to meme and synergy, in hopes that it would explain something. It doesnt. I thought you fellas liked being sciency all the way through. Because you can't do what I suggested, it runs you straight into your second problem from an empirical evidence stand point.
But if you can show no chain of causality from the brain to consciouness, how would you have any hope of showing a chain from the brain to synergy memes or whatever.
A subjective idea classified as a meme, or otherwise, is not a real thing. I can imagine I'm a cloud, that doesn't make me one and it doesn't make my subjective perception a real thing. You fellas have imagined that because you have some relative idea about morals or ethics, they are somehow real. There's no empirical way they could be
This is corroborated by the fact that it's possible to have as many different ideas On one subjective idea, classified as morals, as there are people. There is no possible logical way for perceptions to be actually real. This slams the door shut on you ever demonstrating that perceptions are a real thing, or that they are actually morals Since morality from your position derived from your perspective are not real and have no hope of being real, it would follow you have no morals or anyway of explaining them.
So it is NOT true, That I have presented NO empirical evidence to the contrary. So if I were you, I'd spend less time accusing and assigning blame and more time on my arguments
So move the goal posts all over the place and throw a cognitive dissonant tantrum if you like, but your argument is falsified by the objective empirical evidence that moral have been explained without needing god/s to do so. It is human, it is subjective, it develops thru natural causes, it is observed to be different in different cultures and it is observed to change over time, all consistent with subjective natural morality.
Since this is an observation in the form of an assertion, I have nothing to which respond. I'm sure to the casual observer it sounded good though.
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by RAZD, posted 02-13-2017 9:01 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2017 1:40 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 225 of 1006 (799714)
02-13-2017 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by New Cat's Eye
02-13-2017 10:54 AM


Re: nazis
Not at all; or do you also claim that beauty, deliciousness, and fun do not exist either?
Yes I claim given your no meaning universe, that those not only do not exist in reality, but they cannot. How would you show me the reality of a perception. If I were doing something I classified as fun, you would be able only to see a biological process happening, even if I were smiling. If I said it was fun and in the very same moment you said it is not, how could I convince you or show you what does not exist, namely my perception of funess. So we would both be right, both be wrong, one right the other wrong or it doesn't matter to matter.
If morals are subjective, they don't actually exist and you have no possible way of demonstrating them in reality
Being subjective is not being non-existent, nor is it unexplainable. You're just saying that because they are not objective then they don't really exist, but that's not true. They just exist differently.
Then show me in reality how, not just from your perception, but how they actually exist. When you can do this,, then you'll demonstrate how your subjective perceptions of morality are real actually. Since they are nothing more than perceptions, they have no reality
Basically, your argument boils down to: "subjective things are not objective".
We all agree with that, it's the "therefore they don't exist" part that is wrong.
Well let's see what you've got then.
BTW, what does new cats eye, mean. Just curious, no need to respond if you don't feel it's necessary
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-13-2017 10:54 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-13-2017 9:48 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 226 of 1006 (799715)
02-13-2017 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by ringo
02-13-2017 11:08 AM


Re: Religion Cannot Rationally Explain Morals
The point is that it might "be" correct - absolutely correct and inviolable in any way - but YOU have know way of knowing exactly what is correct because YOU don't have all of the information.
Right and that is as a good an explanation of your position as I could offer. BTW, that's what I am doing in this thread, for the most part, trying in a rational way to show the futility of your position. So you've given a brief description and I show how it's nonsensical. Thank you
So even if my position could not be established,,yours would be hopelessly lost in relative nonsense. But to be fair, I'll go further
But I establish the futility of your position and inability to actually have a moral, not on whether my position is true or not, but by simple observation of a meaningless universe, where perception is not only not reality, but can't be reality. Now that's absolutely true, WHETHER God exists or not. Or maybe it's not true. But by saying it's not true, I demonstrate my point again. Assuming I'm correct, correct? Or is your position that neither you or I can be correct? Let me know, how what you establish as rational is actually rational
Getting tired yet? I can know somethings without knowing everything. I don't need to know everything to know absolutley that things exist.. So I know that all the general and specific evidence points to the existence of God, therefore I can know, that regardless of my perceptions, an actual absolute morality exists, the likes of which no more information could be added to it to make it, more correct, less correct, subjective or nonexistent.
I did. Relative conclusions from real-world observations require reasoning. They require new reasoning as new circumstances are observed.
You haven't even got started. Is tastiness a relative conclusion. Is happiness a relative conclusion. Give me an example of a relative conclusion that is actually moral. Then show me how you established it as moral, given the fact that, every other person may not see it that way. if your example ends up being subjective, then you right back where your started.
You really don't see or have any idea what you are doing, do you? You insist that absolutley morality cannot actually exists, then you turn right around and suggest that the only morality that does exist is subjective, which is in itself stating an absolute.
Is it absolutely true that subjective morality, is the only way morality exists? You just made yourself God, I believe.
You, on the other hand, haven't shown that any reasoning is required for absolute morals.
The fact that I can objectively state that subjective morality is nonsesne and shows itself to be nonsense, and i can do this in a rational way, is reasoning enough to demonstrate the need for absolute morality to exist, for it to be morality
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by ringo, posted 02-13-2017 11:08 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by ringo, posted 02-14-2017 11:08 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 227 of 1006 (799716)
02-13-2017 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Modulous
02-13-2017 1:51 PM


They have a reality - they just don't exist independent of tasters or thinkers or perceivers. There is nothing about the apple which means it is objectively tasty. To determine if it is tasty you have to compare that apple to a taster and work out how that taster will react to the apple's taste. Thus, it's tastiness is relative to the taster, not intrinsic to the apple.
Now all you have to do is demonstrate in a non relative subjective way, that such a concept as tastiness actually exists. You can't show that tastiness actually exists by testing the tester. And it sure doesn't help to say they don't exist independent of the thinker or perciever. You can't get a reality from a non reality..
Now pay close attention. The varying tastes between tasters, is just different tastes due to the taster buds. More biological junk in motion. You can't create an ACTUAL BETTER taste in reality, it would only be a different taste due the tasters ,buds. But it could have no BETTER than another, because better would mean there is some standard of tastiness. There is not, reality won't allow it. So different tastes due to different buds or apples, doesn't mean better in reality
Correct, there is no objective tastiness to an apple,because that which does not exist cannot exist. Morals are of the same sort. Different perceptions of morality are no more real than a better tasting apple. So that which is better or worse in the concept or perception of morals, dont exist anymore than tastiness
I can point at people who believe in right and wrong, and I can say, those systems of judging the rightness or wrongness of things are systems of morality. Sounds like I just established actual morals exist. They exist in people's brains, sometimes they try to verbalize them or write them down.
Well again, no. I can imagine that I'm existence itself and I'm producing everything I see around me (i think weve all imagined that at some point) but that doesn't make my perception a reality or consistent with anything in reality. If I wrote it down they would cart me off to the nut farm. If I acted in and from a moral sense from it, I'd be incarcerated for being grossly immoral
Do you see how perceptions cannot and are not any sort of reality. Trying to formulate morals in the same way is even more disastrous. It's why we don't hold people responsible for thier dreams, like perceptions they are not real. Actually, less than dreams, because concepts have no reality
Better at what what. 'Better' is a relative term. Morally better? No, I don't think that makes sense. I certainly have a keener sense of morale issues than other species - I do have a prefrontal cortext
Well what I meant is , you kill and eat them, so you must have a standard by which you act in such a manner. Do you believe that its your status,, your intellect your situation, your morals or something I'd like to define, allows you to act in that certain way. Or would you say it just doesnt matter afterall. I mean if you kill and eat a human it's morally evil, correct. So how and why does this moral concept allude you when it happens to animals by your hand and bugs your standards
I argue 'goodness' and 'evilness' don't actually exist. They as much 'in the eye of the beholder' as the tastiness of a fruit.
Well I must admit it's a Convient set up for you, to argue out of existence, something that you can't demonstrate exist to begin with. I'd say that's as subjective as it gets. Then only problem is that there is no moral in reality for you to argue the validity or invalidity of goodness or evilness out of existence. Of course you don't believe goodness or evilness exist, that's foundational to your whole process, of ignoring any objective morality
However, there are chemicals in fruits that stimulate tongues. There are signals that are sent from the tongue to the brain. The brain does process these signals.
Except for the fact that your brain is imagining it as tastiness. If another brain translates it as disgusting, this IMMEDIATELY DEMONSTRATES THAT TASTINESS IS NOT REAL OR A REALITY, but a perception. attaching a made up word doesn't make it real.
Morals produced by your brain and your meaningless world have the exact same reality. None
There are actions in nature that are also processed by our brains. The actions and the brains objectively exist. Whether or not I think the actions are moral, immoral or amoral is entirely subjective - but that I think the actions are one of these is objectively real.
I agree with the first part of your statement, but why would or why is it necessary for your brain to interpret them as anything like moral or immoral. Why and where did you get that concept, instead of it just being things happening, coming into your brain. So why would your brain interpret the actions of a tree falling as just facts and you watching someone stab someone else as moral or immoral, right or wrong? Or are they just the same thing and your just imagining it as immoral, like tastiness
You'll have to do a lot better than this, to demonstrate that Atheism CAN actually have and explain morals in a meaningless universe.
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Modulous, posted 02-13-2017 1:51 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Modulous, posted 02-14-2017 3:27 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 235 of 1006 (799770)
02-14-2017 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by New Cat's Eye
02-13-2017 9:48 PM


Re: How?
Why are you presupposing a no meaning universe? Meaning is in the mind of the beholder.
Because you assume that meaning has purpose in your mind. But your mind is nothing more than a biological process, the thoughts that proceed from the process are biological side affects.
Now here's the point. If you could show that the universe is here for a reason or has some purpose, besides simply blind unaided processes, then you might have a way to show that anything you do has any meaning in the scheme of things. But how would you do this
That's the argument that you are failing to support; that being subjective means not existing. The fact that it is not objective, and cannot be shown in reality, does not mean it doesn't exist.
Subjective experiences exist in our minds.
Then you should be able to show me such things if they exist correct. Example, I can see the affects of anger, but anger does not exist in reality correct. It's simply a biological process. Now pay even closer attenion. While anger is a side affect of biological process, Concepts such as ethics or morals have less reality than anger and emotions.
But let's assume for the moment they could actually exist, that a concept actually existed. Then the next step would be to validate it as right or wrong, good,or bad. And of course, if there as many concepts as there are people, that is that there could literally be as many so called alleged biological concepts, as there are people. It doesn't make it it any better to talk about groups of people thinking the same thing , because there could be as many groups, nearly as people.
A moral or for something to be actually right or wrong, would need to have a standard. If it does not, it's as nonsensical to call it right or wrong, actually, as it would be to say things don't actually exist. No ,standard, no actual right or wrong. Sorry there is simply no way around that.
We are talking about things that I perceive as feelings and emotions. They exist subjectively, not objectively, so I cannot point to them in reality to show you.
Well yeah that's what I was pointing out. Even if I agreed that subjective was a real thing and that I actually believed that, subjective would only be another way of describing natural processes. It is a logical impossibility for natural processes to have meaning by and in of themselves. Nature processes produce only natural processes. Since all processes are equal in a natural existence, there could naturally be nothing described as right or wrong, good or bad. Those terms can have no real or logical meanings.
But to be completely consistent, it would mean that NOTHING im saying now would be right or wrong, good or bad, correct other incorrect But then that would demonstrate my point further wouldn't it. Throwing a word at alleged morals like subjective doesn't make them morals anymore that the word subjective is a real thing
[qs]I can say that subjective things exist because here I am experiencing them (and saying so). We all have them. How can you deny that they exist?/
They don't exist as having a meaning better or worse, good or bad, correct or incorrect, from any other biological process. There is no logical way for them to have that quality, in a meaningless purposeless universe. You can imagine that from your imagination, that have a better meaning, but hats just imagination, like me imagining I'm REALITY and that I created everything. Doesn't make it real
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-13-2017 9:48 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-15-2017 10:30 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 236 of 1006 (799771)
02-14-2017 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Riggamortis
02-13-2017 10:32 PM


Re: No need to shout mate
Therefore any assertion you make regarding the absolute-ness of a moral concept is invalid. You lack the infinite knowledge required to know such things.
I'll say this again. When you can even remotely demonstrate that a thing called right or wrong actually exists, there is no need for me to be infinte in anything. There is no possible way for,these to exist with only natural processes
ABE: That is why you're stuck with subjective morals like the rest of us. It doesn't matter how well evidenced you(subjectively) think the bible is, you still lack the infinite wisdom to declare a moral concept absolute or not.
Your brain can produce biological processes. It cannot produce right and wrong in a moral sense. It can only be correct ot incorrect about existing facts in the real world. In your Naturalistic world right and wrong cannot exist, it's only imagination WITH chemical processes.. For example I can imagine I'm reality and that I created everything. Now,that's just an imagination, it doesn't exist.
ITS,NOT EVEN SUBJECTIVE, IT'S NOTHING BUT MORE,BIOLOGICAL THOUGHT in the form of an imagination. I have no possible way of showing that that thought is right or wrong good or bad in moral sense Biological processes can't produce right or wrong in a good or bad sense..
So Riggamortis, your problem is worse than you imagine no pun intended. You not only do not have Subjective Morality, you have none at all. Example, can you show me the right or wrong, good or bad if a tree falls on the ground or,if,i,hit you in the head with a pipe. Just stuff happening, no matter what you can imagine to call it, correct? So,in your view whose thoughts on this are good or bad, right or wrong, Yours Or Mine. You would have to create a word that like GOOD which has nothing to compare itself to in the real world. Creating a word like good doesn't make it exist
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Riggamortis, posted 02-13-2017 10:32 PM Riggamortis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Riggamortis, posted 02-15-2017 1:56 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 237 of 1006 (799772)
02-14-2017 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by ringo
02-14-2017 11:08 AM


Re: Religion Cannot Rationally Explain Morals
Of course that's my position: There IS NO "correct" in any absolute sense. Even if something was "absolutely correct", neither you nor I could know because we're not omniscient. I've repeated that numerous times in this thread. Don't you get it yet?
Do I get that your still incorrect? Yes. Your brain which is a biological process cannot create good or evil, in a strictly Naturalistic world. These are imaginations, like me believing I'm a carthbarp. There is no eqivolent in the natural world for a thing called good or bad, good or evil, thus the brain , if your position were true, manufactures it. It's an imagination of the mind that does nor exist. Thus it is not even possible for,you to have a subjective moral.. That's like saying I have a relativistic nothing
So you first have to demonstrate that such a thing exists, to call it subjective, or anything else. You have not done this to this point
[qs]It isn't "absolutely rational" because rationality has nothing to do with the absolute. Rational conclusions are made using real-life observations as premises. If we observe that all horses are white, the conclusions we derive from that observation are rational even if they are not "absolutely correct"./qs
Well sure because white is a color. Good or evil have no equivalency in the natural world, thus, they are an imagination concocted by the mind. Atleast given your position. Example. Which of these actions is good or evil. A car passing by or you throwing acid in my face. Now I know Dr Adequate would say atleast the second one was good, but then he's probably an evil person. Lol
First, I have not said that absolute morality can not exist. I have said that if it did exist, nobody could know what it is because we're not omniscient. We can't know anything absolutely. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, in every day life, the morality we live is not absolute.
As I've demonstrated subjective morality is not even a possibility in your world. So I'll ask the question again. Is,it absolutley true that the only way for morality to exist, is subjectively.
Second, I have not stated anything absolutely.
Perhaps thats your problem. Get busy.
I already asked you about killing people. If there are exceptions to "Thou shalt not kill", it's relative.
Now this is ironic. You want me to,answer a question from the Bible using who's worldview, yours or mine. If,yours, then the question is irrelevant, there's no moral to begin with, correct?. If my world view, only God can define the parameters of murder, because he's infinite in knowledge. Happily I don't need to decide, just obey. But the same book you quoted from says he's infinte in wisdom
If anything is absolutely true, you can't know unless you're omniscient.
You see this is how i know absolutley your wrong. As I've demonstrated absolutely, you cannot actually have a good and bad in reality, they can't exist in a strictly Naturalistic world. They can only exist as an imagination. Imaginations with no equivalency in the real world, dont actually exist. You could not possibly provide an example of an actual moral, that could not be described as anything less than matter in motion
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by ringo, posted 02-14-2017 11:08 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by ringo, posted 02-15-2017 2:35 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 238 of 1006 (799773)
02-14-2017 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Tangle
02-14-2017 1:15 PM


You could, however, give me your thoughts on Fred and the trolley problems and the explanation that morality is just another evolved trait - a maleable brain state - which can be changed by illnesness, conditioning and drugs and is therefore neither absolute, immutable nor god given.
Evolved traits have no hope of being good or evil, or moral. They can never be anything except imaginations of other biological processes. Hence they are like every other imagination. Nonexistent
If not, then I must be true that I'm reality and I created everything. Is that true?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Tangle, posted 02-14-2017 1:15 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Tangle, posted 02-15-2017 3:26 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 239 of 1006 (799774)
02-14-2017 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Modulous
02-14-2017 3:27 PM


Re: Reality and the animal's dilemma
They are real in the sense that they actually exist, they are not real in the sense that they exist as entities outside of the mind. They don't exist external to the mind. The brain itself is a real thing, and those brain states are objective entities. Do you accept this much?
I imagine an apple: The apple doesn't exist, but my imaginary apple does exist. It does not exist as an apple, it exists as an imaginary apple.
Yes but there is no equivalency for evil or morality in an exclusively natural world. Your mind imagines things as evil, because they do not suit you. Actual evil cannot exist in your world,,thus goodness cannot either. It's a product of the imagination only. Even the human brain cannot create that which does not exist
This isn't really a problem for me. I am not arguing that goodness isn't good, or doesn't exist. I'm arguing it only exists in our minds. If you can show me otherwise, I'm all ears.
That's what I'm arguing. But you have no hope of showing in a rational form that even that perception or imagination of Good is first real or more than another biological process in a natural world. IOWS you have no hope of showing that evil and moral good actually exist, other than imagination. Thus Atheist cannot have or explain in a real way have morals.
They do have the exact same reality, yes. That's why I brought it up as an analogy in the first place. Other than the fact you seem to be using the word 'reality' to mean 'exists outside of the mind' whereas I am not seems to be the only point of contention on these points. But since we both agree we do find things tasty or disgusting - it is certainly true that your perception exists otherwise we couldn't find them tasty or disgusting. We would have no perception and no experiences. I know I have perception and experience - I'm confident you do too. So it would be wrong to say that perception does not exist. Agreed?
Let's try again. Tastiness like Good or Evil have no equivalency in the real world. There is no thing in the real world that you can point to and say that thing is EVIL. You can point to an apple but you can't point to tastiness.. Since, tastiness is an imagination of the brain, with no reality, it has no hope of being real like an imagined morality
What do you make of that as a start? I think I've show that, in principle, it CAN be the case that morals have an explanation, and I didn't reference any 'ultimate meaning' in the process. Just optimal ways to collect resources required for survival. Suboptimal methods, survive less well, and die off. Optimal methods survive more regularly, and this reproduce more than sub-optimal methods and therefore can dominate.
Not a bad start but a sad ending. What and where would your optimal methods for survival fall, on the scale, if we were describing the Nazis actions. We're they employing forgiveness and sharing or something else? I can read anything into what animals may or may not be doing. I can characterize it with any verbiage. So, itwould need to work in reverse as well. Describe the Nazis actions for me using your scale and examples.
Remember there was no evil in your evolutionary description.
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Modulous, posted 02-14-2017 3:27 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Modulous, posted 02-15-2017 2:40 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 240 of 1006 (799775)
02-14-2017 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by jar
02-14-2017 4:49 PM


Re: Isn't the only explanation needed a simple one?
Isn't the only explanation needed for morals and morality really simple and the same explanation as needed for stop signs and lights and crosswalk markers and storm drains and paved streets and rain coats and a tennis net and so many other things?
Isn't the only needed explanation for morals and morality that they help a society function?
As the Bible itself says as early as Genesis 3, "No God Need Apply", "Humans themselves have all that is needed to create morals and morality. But post armed guards to keep them outta my Garden and off the lawn."
So once again Jar provides us with his infinite wisdom. He actually compares a Stop sign to another human invention called Abortion. Keep up the good work Jar you are representing you side well
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by jar, posted 02-14-2017 4:49 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Porosity, posted 02-15-2017 12:09 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 245 by jar, posted 02-15-2017 7:03 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


Message 251 of 1006 (799826)
02-16-2017 10:12 AM


sorry for lateness
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, sorry
Dawn Bertot

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Pressie, posted 02-17-2017 4:23 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 253 of 1006 (799859)
02-17-2017 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by Porosity
02-15-2017 12:09 AM


Re: Isn't the only explanation needed a simple one?
As if you have a leg to stand on..
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?
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 intimations
So 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
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.
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 claim
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Porosity, posted 02-15-2017 12:09 AM Porosity has not replied

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


Message 254 of 1006 (799860)
02-17-2017 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Riggamortis
02-15-2017 1:56 AM


Re: No need to shout mate
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.
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 verbiage
Case closed

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Riggamortis, posted 02-15-2017 1:56 AM Riggamortis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Riggamortis, posted 02-17-2017 10:00 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


Message 255 of 1006 (799861)
02-17-2017 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by Tangle
02-15-2017 3:26 AM


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.
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
How can that be if morality is absolute?
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 nonsense
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Tangle, posted 02-15-2017 3:26 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Pressie, posted 02-17-2017 6:14 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 268 by Tangle, posted 02-17-2017 8:05 AM 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