Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 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 256 of 1006 (799862)
02-17-2017 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by Pressie
02-15-2017 7:10 AM


So, after all of this it's quite obvious that objective morality doesn't exist.
It's the only way it can exist To demonstrate my point, if subjective morality is an actual thing, if it can be demonstrated in an actual rational way, how would you know if what either of us is saying is true. That is, my views or opinions on this topic, would both be just as acceptable, as yours. It doesn't matter, because there is no right or wrong.
But before you applauded that I've represented your position correctly, it would mean I could kill you and your whole family and it wouldn't be, right, wrong, correct, incorrect, moral or immoral. Or I might be who knows , correct. Or is what I'm even saying correct.
So if it's not absolute, it's nonsense. Assuming, nonsense is a valid term in you guys world. Who knows. Care to take a shot at refuting that?
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Pressie, posted 02-15-2017 7:10 AM Pressie has not replied

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


Message 257 of 1006 (799863)
02-17-2017 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by New Cat's Eye
02-15-2017 10:30 AM


Re: How?
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"?
Because it's simply an imagination, it cannot and does no actually exist. If I imagined I WAS REALITY ITSELF and that I created everything, that would not make it real
Nobody can show that, and yet, we all find meaning in our subjective experiences. How do you explain that?
It's simple to explain, in the context of alleged morals. Meaning is as nonexistent as a concept or idea, in a strictly blind biological process. The universe itself would have to have some meaning, for other biological process to have meaning. So if the universe which actually exists has no meaning, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that something that DOES Not exist, could actually have meaning. Even if I granted they do exist:
Your first step in demonstrating your point, would be to show how these concepts are more than more blind biological processes. You have nothing to compare meaning with to make it meaning. It's a vicious circle that will not allow you progress in that are an blind process. How can the parts have meaning if the total sum, does not
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.
Ok, so from you position you are admitting that these things don't exist, correct? Hence no morality in Atheism. If we don't characterize Morality as right or wrong, any action like stealing is perfectly ok correct.
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 fortheone standard rather everything becomes a standard in its own as another point of comparison.
As I've demonstrated without fear of contradiction there is no such thing as relatively morality. You've or anybody here has failed, to demonstrate that imaginations are actually real. Even if you could demonstrate this in some ACTUAL way, your still left with the problem of showing IT as anything more than another biological process, in an already meaningless universe.
A standard is required if you want it to make any logical sense
I'm sure you can see the nonsesne in your phrase, "everything becomes a Standard in or of its own". If everything is a standard and the standards differ contiuously, then of course there is no standard. There are standards for things in real life that are unchangable. You don't get to make Morality whatever you want. No thinking person buys that kind of nonsense
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.
Excellent. Now show me the relative standard, from you perspective, of why it is less moral to kill a worm than a rabbit. And how you came to that "conclusion". And I'll show you that your way of proceeding is nonsense. That's assuming nonsense is objective. Is it?
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.
Your above statement is a self defeating statement it doesn't need my help to show it fallacious. As you corectly pointed out, everything becomes a standard. Unfortunarely, there is no way for that to make sense in reality
So I would ask again. Is it absolutely true that your above statement about subjective morality is true, indeed. Or is it true subjectively. It can't be both and make sense
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.
So if you kill and eat animals, other life forms, that's helpful to you but hurtful to them . OR we don't know and have no real way of knowing or what. Oh I see, you mean that kind of relative morality
Being helpful or hurtful are real things that happen in the real world that we can observe. There is an objectivebasisfor 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.
And this is exactly why your morality does not exist in reality. Being helpful and hurtful only get meaning when they help or hurt you. You do not ascribe,the same meaning when it comes to other species, or,even other humans at times. Something being completely inconsistent and irrational most of,the time is still irrational and inconsistent, no matter what verbiage you attach to it or how you describe it.
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.
Even if they existed objectively, they cant be described as morality. The part, in this instance, your thought is not greater than that which created it. No way to show meaning in a real sense, since death cancels out your so called meaning. Death being another biological process, greater than even you small part of subjective morality, correct. Then there's the problem of you labeling it a moral. Moral is only a concept of the imagination, if there is nothing greater than the universe, with no meaning, this contrived verbiage is just that, contrived verbiage.
Then of course there's the problem of having any kind of consistency. Assuming consistency, even matters in your subjective morality. Those two words together are like saying the Existence of nonexistence
I never said being nonobjective doesn't mean they don't exist. I'm saying that you are labeling something that may or may not exist as subjective, which means they may not actually exist. Subjective is a concept itself. Even if they did actually exist, that is a far cry from MAKING them a moral or morality. Morality is another concept you invented, which is not only inconsistent in your structure, but hopeless subjective, therefore all intents and purposes, nonexistent.
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?
Yes I can objectively show you that your meaning has no meaning, that's assuming meaning has meaning in your explanation of things as subjective. I can objectively show you that I'd meaning is
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-15-2017 10:30 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-17-2017 2:21 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 258 of 1006 (799864)
02-17-2017 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by RAZD
02-15-2017 1:40 PM


Re: Morals Have been rationally explained. Done. Finished.
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.
Then you should talk to one of your most outspoken person, Dr Sam Harris. He says that to minimize the maximum amount of pain and suffering is the highest moral. Since this would apply to the animal world, which of you is correct?
Nothing there says treatment of animalsmustbe included. Some people may do that as part of their subjective perception of morals, but they don't have to.
Well that's my point genius. If the Nazis decided to do that as part of thier subjective perception of morals, then why were they in any since wrong
So when the ASPCA says you are absolutely wrong, which of you, is correct, moral or immoral.? If they don't buy your limited definition. are you both right, it doesn't matter, or something else. If someone says the Nazis were ok in thier behavior and actions, would your definition app,you to both parties
Bertot writes:
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
RAZD writes:
And all this rambling blather does not alter the fact that atheists can -- and have -- rationally developed morals.
I set out atleast three arguments and you don't even attempt to refute one. Well ok.
Rational thinking is all about matter in motion. Unless your reasoning relates somehow to matter in motion, it's just meaningless mumbo-jumbo.
Interesting, how could your relative subjective explanations of morals end up rational thinking. If I disagree with your above statement, is that reasonable given your subjective approach to everything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2017 1:40 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by RAZD, posted 02-17-2017 8:10 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 259 of 1006 (799865)
02-17-2017 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by Modulous
02-15-2017 2:40 PM


Re: Reality and the animal's dilemma
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).
So how would you describe hatred in a moral sense, good bad, ok, not,ok , moral or, immoral. If i described thier behavior as perfectly acceptable, would my determination be ok, right , wrong, moral or immoral, or correct. You fail to show this or you keep avoiding that question. My point is that,because you don't have anything in reality that resembles consistency in the form of a standard, even the word hatred becomes meaningless. What is hatred to you about A thing, is acceptable in definition to another. Sorry, Mosulous, no morality in reality
Again, this is a complex area once we get into humanity.
I'll bet.
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
I think I just did. I showed its possible, by showing hopeless inconsistency in even the very words you used to describe morality, in this instance Hatred. If the Nazis were wrong for thier hatred, then you would have to show why. If you are saying they are not wrong, actually wrong, why use the word. If they were right for,thier hatred, you would have to show me why. If they they were neither right or wrong, then you have no way accusing thier actions. If every persons imagination about thier actions is acceptable because morality is subjective, it would,demonstrate,that subjective is nonsensical when refering to morals. Could you provide an answer to this delimma. [/qs]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.[/qs]
Well no, at best this is an explanation of things happening, at worst it is a very bad attempt to say in reality morals exist. Again, why is this different than the totality of things as having any real meaning. Certainly there is a way to demonstrate that your alleged meanings as meanings in reality are somehow greater than the whole of everything, which you fellas are found of claiming has no meaning. Even if evolution were true, it would not help your delimma
In theism all this understandable because we know the source of our morality is greater than anything I can imagine conjure up, especially relative nonsesne. It's the only way that makes rational sense
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.[/qs]
Funny how in so many ways you can misrepresent reality. I guess I should not be surprised you actually think there are many definitions of morality. When in actuality, it either exists or it does not. Why would would i take a leap into relativistic nonsense
No I'm not saying you can't explain them because there not objective, I'm saying you can't explain them because reality won't allow it. Your premise that the universe is meaninless, but you existence and imagined meaningare, is nothing short of comical.
Musical preferences are a random imagination of a biological process called music. Other than making certain tones and sounds, it has no meaning. Your imagining it does. The universe and reality don't see it that way. I know I be a huge downer at a party, right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Modulous, posted 02-15-2017 2:40 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Modulous, posted 02-17-2017 1:20 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 260 of 1006 (799866)
02-17-2017 5:59 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by ringo
02-15-2017 2:35 PM


Re: Religion Cannot Rationally Explain Morals
Yes, that's what I've been saying all along. Morals don't have to "exist" like a banana.
You do understand people are actually reading what you write, correct?
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?
The easy answer would be you blindly and irrationally groping around trying to explain morals. The technical answer would be something that does not exist in reality. My point was that if there is nothing that is good or bad, moral or immoral, then obviously you can't have or explain morals. To use Modulous example of music. if I were to imagine that musical notes had meaning outside some vague interpretation I gave them, they would still just be, meaningless sounds to the universe, the alleged creator of your biological brain
You would need to show how it and your entire life has meaning for actual meaning to exist. Otherwise, it's just biological process, RAZD 's synergy notwithstanding. He just made up another word to describe junk happening. Hey, its your Godless meaningless world, I'm just giving back to you what you tell us.
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?[qs] The first specific instruction I have is that God is infinite and thus his morality is absolute as a result of that. Secondly, it's not necessary for me to get every detail right, to know that infinite wisdom is correct,absolutely. So if he says, Thou shalt not kill, I understand him to mean, dont take a life for malicious, deceitful reasons. That's murder. Even common sense would tell you, there s a difference in taking life accidently and maliciously. But if the same source tells me he is infinte in knowledge, then it not required for ME to know what the exact line of what constitutes murder, to understand he does understand
100 percent accuracy is not required to understand simple instructions and it's CERTAINLY not required to understand he is infinite and you are not
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by ringo, posted 02-15-2017 2:35 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by ringo, posted 02-17-2017 10:58 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 261 of 1006 (799867)
02-17-2017 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Pressie
02-17-2017 4:23 AM


Re: sorry for lateness
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?
If morals don't exist how can I be telling an untruth. Secondly thanks for corroborating my thread title.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Pressie, posted 02-17-2017 4:23 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Pressie, posted 02-17-2017 6:20 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 265 of 1006 (799871)
02-17-2017 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Pressie
02-17-2017 6:20 AM


Re: sorry for lateness
If you got from that that morals don't exist, you really, really must go back to Grade 1 to try to get a basic comprehension. I doubt that you will make it.
Right , I had it right the first time. Atheism is nothing. Did you have an actual argument or just worthless observations

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Pressie, posted 02-17-2017 6:20 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Pressie, posted 02-17-2017 6:50 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 267 of 1006 (799875)
02-17-2017 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Pressie
02-17-2017 6:50 AM


Re: sorry for lateness
So are you saying indirectly you do not have morals or you don't know or don't care
Do I still have a straw man

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Pressie, posted 02-17-2017 6:50 AM Pressie has not replied

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


Message 275 of 1006 (800118)
02-20-2017 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by Tangle
02-17-2017 8:05 AM


Which, as we saw with Fred, led to very immoral behaviour. We saw the before and after effects twice. How do you explain this?
Ok I'll play along, which part of his behavior could be characterized as immoral. Show me the action in his actions
I can't follow this, sorry. Imaginings of what?
The hallucinations of a psychopath, are these actually real. Sense there is brain change, how do his alleged brain changes become immoral? How did you decide this
Bertot writes
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.
Tangle writes
I can't follow this either. If you keep repeating it and no-one understands you, perhaps there's a problem with what you're saying?
Oh I'm pretty sure you understand. Playing the dumb card doesn't help. In your system of so called morality, literally ever person could have different perspective on any given point. Meaning the whole system itself becomes utter nonsesne. The Nazis were either moral or immoral. If everyone gets a choice as to whether they were, yoursystem becomes nonsense
So would you tell me, we're the Nazis moral or immoral. What made thier actions immoral, if thier society thought it was perfectly acceptable.
Yes we know you've asserted this but as you've read, no-one agrees with you. We are all saying that morality is very obviously not objective or absolute. We can demonstrate how and why this is an obvious truth by showing you how it changes between cultures and between times. It also changes with brain-state.
This is all demonstrably true - we can prove it quite easily and have done here.
So far you've not made any coherent argument or demonstrated why something that we see change can be absolute.
Evolution changes from one state to another, time period to time period, that does not mean that it is moral or immoral. If your imaginations from a biological brain change from one time period, or people do things differently from generation to generation, this does not make it moral or immoral.
You still haven't excapted from your initial problem demonstrating it's more than some biological process. Why won't you provide an argument that shows that your imaginations are greater than, the entire process called existent, which is blind and without purpose. Death doesn't care about your so called morality. The only way from morality to exist is to have a absolute standard and something outside our imaginations, greater than those.
You need to get busy
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Tangle, posted 02-17-2017 8:05 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Tangle, posted 02-20-2017 9:28 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 276 of 1006 (800119)
02-20-2017 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by RAZD
02-17-2017 8:10 AM


Re: Morals Have been rationally explained. Done. Finished.
Fallacy of argument from authority plus you are reading animals into it when that isn't necessarily implied.
But it is curious that you quote an atheist talking about rationally explaining morals to argue that atheists cannot rationally explain morals. LOLZ, so funny.
Well if we are not going to include animals in your alleged subjective morality, why don't we also exclude all others that disagree with us. Why don't we say they aren't necessarily implied as well. Nice how you make things up as you go along. Oh wait, that's the meaning of subjective isn't it. Of course I might be wrong, in your system all I have have to do is just imagine I'm right and whamo I'm right. Nice system
That being the case, could I assume that you have a different morality that applies to the animal kingdom. If you have a different one what is the standard u use and how do you justify it
Secondly, simply because I quote from Mr Harris, doesn't mean I think he did or can explain morals. His problems in actually establish one are no different than yours
Showing again that you don't understand the argument that morals are subjective codes, and different people have different, albeit similar, codes ... because their upbringings differ, their learning differs, their opinions differ.
Showing again, that you can't demonstrate that you so called morals are nothing more than more biological by products of other proccesses. If you could simply demonstrate that Synergy is something more than biological, then u might have a point. But how will you do this. If u could simply show that your imagination of a moral has anymore meaning than the earth rotating around the sun, then you have a point. But you can't just imagine it, death won't care that you think you had a purpose.
In your subjective opinion ... But I ignore them because they have no bearing on the fact that atheists can -- and have -- rationally developed morals, which is what your thread claims cannot happen ... and yet it has.
You are now desperately going down rabbit holes to distract everyone from the fact that your thesis is invalidated.
You really don't see any iorny in your above statement do you? All it would take for me to demonstrate you don't actually have a moral, in reality, is to, SIMPLY DISAGREE WITH YOU. In your system of so called subjective morality, I would be as correct as you would, which would make it a nonsensical moot point. Or I would be as incorrect as you are, or neither of us would be right or wrong. NOW ARE YOU STARTING TO GET IT. Your system just imagines and makes stuff up as you go along. But bless your heart that's all you've got.
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by RAZD, posted 02-17-2017 8:10 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2017 2:00 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 277 of 1006 (800120)
02-20-2017 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Modulous
02-17-2017 1:20 PM


Re: Reality and the animal's dilemma
Hatred is not morality. It's an emotion. Hating something is not immoral or moral - it is amoral.
So are you saying that for an individual, morals don't come from emotions or feelings or perceptions
Ican give reasons whyIthink what the Nazis did was wrong, immoral etc. But what would be the point? I'm here to explain morality, not provide specific moral arguments for or against specific actions.
So I was correct you really don't think thier actions were immoral in actuality, just in some imagination of your mind. Thanks for clearing that up for me and the readers
And - as we both agree - my perspective on morality is that it is certain things happening, that's all that I need to do in order to explain morals and morality.
That's not even getting started
This is meaningless. After attempting to parse it into English all I can say is that I don't think my meanings are greater than the whole of everything.
Hardly meaningless. If it's clear that the universe is meaningless and has no purpose and it will end in the same way, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see your life has no meaning. Your only a very very very very small part of the whole. Your imagining meaning would logically just be another biological process. Are you starting to see how hopeless your position actually is
My purpose in this thread is to show that I can explain morality. Evolution can be used to explain morality.
So the very thing that starts with blind Mindless causes and purposes, causes more pain suffering and death and will end in infinite regression, can be used to help explain morals
That you and I differ on how we define morality more or less proves my case. We both agree it exists. I just don't think there is One True Morality.
Well that's a good start
Take it up with reality, since I've done it. I can't explain One True Morality, but I don't need to as I don't think it exists. I can explain why people are both kind and mean to one another in varying ways. I can explain why people disagree over moral issues. I can explain morality by rejecting One True Morality as either incoherent or unknowable and instead simply explaining the behaviour and emotions that we have come to call morality.
Well I've already taken it up with reality. When I spoke to him he said Dawn, if God does not exist, then there are only biological processes. Anything that can be described as kind or mean is just verbiage thrown at more of my biological processes. Then he said to me Dawn, those people that think I care about thier so called morality, I'll destroy them in death, then where will that leave thier morality. So he said, let them think whatever they want, thinking is just another of my processes, not anymore important in the scheme of things
I said to reality, we'll that makes perfect sense. Then he said to me, could you leave me alone I don't really care what you imagine or think, it doesn't make a difference to me
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Modulous, posted 02-17-2017 1:20 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Modulous, posted 02-20-2017 2:00 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 279 of 1006 (800122)
02-20-2017 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by New Cat's Eye
02-17-2017 2:21 PM


Re: How?
The fact that imagining some things does not make them real does not mean that an imagination, itself, is not a real thing.
I can imagine an apple. That imagination exists as a thing in my mind. But it is not a real apple.
Now, where's the purpose?
The imagination, even if it actually exists, is just another biological process. Because the imagined apple is not a real apple, means it can have no application in the real world as anything. Now watch, this becomes abundantly clear in the area of imagined morality. Because imaginations are not the reall thing, there can exist nothing actually described as morality
Morality, simply become an imagined thing, as we witness biological processes. Morality can have no actual existence, because it does not exist to begin with, subjective or objective, in a meaninless purposeless universe
You don't actually imagine an apple, that's simply the name you gave it. You are using your imagination to percieve a biological process described as an apple. There is no thing actually as an apple and it is not a good or bad thing, as that biological process
Now the application. If I witness someone hit someone else, I can choose to call this good or bad, moral or immoral, but that doesn't mean those things exist. I'm just witnessing a biological process
Hence imagining a morality by witnessing a physical process, is not an actual morality. Hence it is not possible for Atheists to have a morality. And if they can't have one,, then it is a foregone conclusion they cannot explain one
Rabbits are smarter than worms and the smarter something is the harder it is to justify killing it.
You can't believe how hard I laughed when I read your above statement. So it would be ok to kill, mentally retarded people? I don't think you would believe that. Or that it would be ok for me to kill you, because I'm clearly more intelligent than you?
There is no such thing as an absolute truth except for this statement.
So no, my statement about subjective morality is not absolutely true, but it is a truth nonetheless.
Oh my goodness you should go on the comedy circuit. Another belly laugh. Reminds me of the guy that said, I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.
Of course there's absolute truth. It's absolutely true that things exist. It's absolutley true that there are only three logical possibilities as to how things exists. It's absolutely true that there are only certain things that reality will allow, etc, etc, etc
And if a cow eats grass then it's helpful to the cow but hurtful to the grass.
So as I demonstrated earlier, your just making up a word or words, like morality in the form of harmful and hurtful that have no reality because your just describing with your imagination biological processes, nothing more nothing less. Your morality is imagine, it doesn't exist.
Do you think cows are immoral? Do you think it is immoral to eat meat?
Well no of course I was looking at this alleged morality from your system, not mine
No, I am often capable of determining if my actions are helpful or hurtful to another being.
Right that's the whole point, its from your perspective. What is helpful to you is not to someone else. One tree falls on Tuesday in a forest another falls on Wednesday in another forest. It's only from your perspective that it has meaning, is hurtful or helpful. Got to think outside yourself when trying to think rationally and in a critical fashion.
Right. Your rationalizing your relative subjective behavior to make it have meaning and call it morality. I believe this is what the Nazis did, correct. Exterminate the weak and those with physical problems, because they hurt the master race.
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-17-2017 2:21 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Pressie, posted 02-20-2017 7:15 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 281 by jar, posted 02-20-2017 7:18 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 286 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-20-2017 10:08 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 282 of 1006 (800126)
02-20-2017 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Pressie
02-20-2017 7:15 AM


Re: How?
Sorry, this doesn't make any sense. Apples exist. They are not imaginary.
Actually read what I said. I said your imagination of the apple is not a real apple. There is not actually an apple in reality, that's what you call it.. It is actually another biological thing.
Hence for your imagination of morality to exist in reality, it would need to be more than me just slapping you in the face. That all just stuff happening, a biological connection of my hand to your face. Your imagination, gives it a description as morality.
Just like your imagination of the apple is not an apple. Your imagination of me slapping you even in anger, is not morality. Making up a name as morality, does not make biological processes moral or immoral. Not even subjectively
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Pressie, posted 02-20-2017 7:15 AM Pressie has not replied

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


Message 283 of 1006 (800127)
02-20-2017 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by jar
02-20-2017 7:18 AM


Re: How?
And because it was their Christian Duty.
But it's really good that you brought this up because it more than adequately explains morality.
Morality is a human construct that is societal in nature. It exists only with the general consensus of a population. The Nazis had one set of moral codes. Other nations had different moral codes (though not very different). For example, the US provided a great example of how to commit genocide efficiently with how it treated Native Americans and even at the time of the rise of the Nazis there was great support for the idea of removing Jewish Influence here in the US. I'm sure you are aware of the MS ST. Louis incident, the Voyage of the Damned. It was certainly not one of those unreported news stories.
Morality is a social contract and as such just like humans, evolves.
Right it's an evolving biological process with no meaning or purpose in reality. Reality won't allow it. But if you want to IMAGINE it you go right ahead. When death comes around, it won't care what you think, correct
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by jar, posted 02-20-2017 7:18 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by jar, posted 02-20-2017 8:08 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 289 of 1006 (800217)
02-21-2017 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by ringo
02-17-2017 10:58 AM


Re: Religion Cannot Rationally Explain Morals
There is nothing that isabsolutelygood or bad, moral or immoral. What wethinkis good or bad, moral or immoral is made up in our heads. Different people in different situations have different ideas of what is good or bad, moral or immoral.
Right and this has been my point all along, that what you call morality is nothing more than more biological processes with no real meaning. Thank you. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if it's just what's made up in you heads or anybody head, then, just the opposite of anything you call good would be acceptable. Hence you demonstrate your morality to be utter nonsense
Exactly. Musical notes have no "meaning" outside our brains and neither do ideas of morality.
Thank you. This would be the case if there was no God
Absolute meaning doesn't exist (or if it did, you would have no way of knowing what it was).
Sure I do. God clearly exists
That's not an instruction at all. It's just a vague empty statement that isn't even in the Bible.
It's a logical conclusion the likes of which are irresistible and irrefutable. We can discuss that if you think otherwise
Since you're not omniscient, how do you know the source is accurate?
You keep demonstrating that you DON'T know what absolutely is right or wrong. You can't tell us when it is right to kill another person and when it is wrong. Deciding whether a person had malicious or deceitful intent requires just as much finite wisdom from you as it does from anybody else.
Of course you are wrong as usual. Somethings are demonstrate as absolute, right and wrong by simple reasoning and observation. It is absolutely true things exist. That's absolutely true. We know that God exists by the things that are made and specific revelation. Hence I can know that his decrees are absolute. I know instinctively by having it placed in me at birth by God (Romans 1:18-20) that stealing is wrong. I don't need to be taught that, correct
Even if I didn't know these things instinctively, it would not mean that good or bad did not exist, any more than the law of gravity. See how simple it is Ringo.
"FOR THE WRATH OF GOD IS REVEALED FROM HEAVEN AGAINST ALL UNGODLINESS AND UNRIGHTEOUNESS, FOR THEM THAT HOLD THE TRUTH IN UNRIGHTEOUNESS. FOR THAT WHICH MAY BE KNOW OF OR ABOUT GOD IS MANIFEST IN THEM, FOR GOD HATH SHOWN IT UNTO THEM (PUT IT INSIDE THEM)" Romans 1:19
Now if you could get rid of all the evidence that clearly supports the existence of God and the Bible as his Word, your task is complete
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by ringo, posted 02-17-2017 10:58 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by ringo, posted 02-21-2017 11:00 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