Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.

Let me see if I can help.Consider this statement:"Theism is a belief in the existence of God(s). Theism doesn't try to explain morals."Someone who is a 'theist' does not yet have any moral frame of reference since theism in and of itself does not say anything about morals or morality. It is a response to a claim. In the same way atheism is a response to the same claim.People who are 'theists', such Christians, Muslims, Jews, and the various sects within are all responding to the same claim in the same way. Yet they CLEARLY have different views on what is moral. Specific tenets in the Muslim religion, such as how they treat women, are things we find morally inconsistent with our western values. Christians and their dogma around homosexuality also have morals that we consider inconsistent with our values and our constitution.So within two 'theist' camps, we have differing views on morality. Which leads to the inevitable conclusion that these morals have to be subjective in nature.To drive the point home further, consider slavery. This was a sanctioned legal practice in our country until the Civil War. It was also sanctioned in the Bible; the supposed word of god. Yet we all now as a society agree that slavery is actually immoral. Our society evolved and our morals evolved accordingly. Once again, proof positive that morals are indeed subjective.

There is nothing that is absolutely good or bad, moral or immoral. What we think is 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.As I have mentioned before, doing unto others as we would have them do unto us is easy enough to explain - it's good for the group and good for the individual. Exactly. Musical notes have no "meaning" outside our brains and neither do ideas of morality. Absolute meaning doesn't exist (or if it did, you would have no way of knowing what it was). That's not an instruction at all. It's just a vague empty statement that isn't even in the Bible. 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.

Hatred is not morality. It's an emotion. Hating something is not immoral or moral - it is amoral. I can give reasons why I think 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. 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. 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. My purpose in this thread is to show that I can explain morality. Evolution can be used to explain morality. 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. 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.

What does that have to do with a purpose? And what do you mean by "actually" existing such that imaginations aren't existing? Are you simply talking about existing "objectively"? Subjective experiences do exist, they just don't exist objectively. 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? That doesn't tell me how you explain that we all find meaning in our subjective experiences? Wrong; Biological processes (brains thinking) can invent meanings within the universe even if the universe, itself, does not have some meaning. Of course not, for the n^th time: they do exist, they are just subjective rather than objective. We characterize behaviors and actions as right or wrong within a particular context, and those characterizations are what a morality is.Stealing may be perfectly ok, for example, if you are feeding someone who is starving to death and there's no way around it.There is no objective or absolute morality where we can outline when and when it is not okay to steal. Its a case-by-case basis. I reject that you've demonstrated that. All morality is relative. There is nothing that we can identify as an objective morality. They all depend on the situation. Do you, or do you not, have an imagination? Is it nothing or is it something? A standard is only required for an objective or absolulte morality. But we can't know if one of those exists or not. We do know that relative moralies exist, everybody has one.Don't you have a morality? Can you demonstrate that it is objective? If not, why can't you accept that it is relative? Every civilization throughout history has had a morality that they made. Thinking people buy this kind of sense all the time. The biological process of our brains thinking creates the meanings that form moralities. Rabbits are smarter than worms and the smarter something is the harder it is to justify killing it. If by "in reality", you mean "objectively", then I agree with there being no way for it to make sense. But that does not mean that it doesn't exist. It exists subjectively. 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. And if a cow eats grass then it's helpful to the cow but hurtful to the grass.Do you think cows are immoral? Do you think it is immoral to eat meat? We do have a real way of knowing: We experience and think about it and determine how it makes us feel and whether or not it is a good or bad thing. If by "in reality" you only mean "objectively" then you are not disagreeing with me. No, I am often capable of determining if my actions are helpful or hurtful to another being. Being relative doesn't mean inconsistent. And it can be rationalized so it isn't irrational. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. But adding qualifiers like being "actually" real, or things being in a "real" sense, and that my explanations are "so called" meanings, is making it look like you are desperately trying to find some kind of difference that just isn't there."Oh, yeah, that's real... but it's not really real!" Only because you are operating under a false dichotomy that a morality has to be objective to be real. You say that you are not saying that non-objective doesn't mean nonexistent, but then you go on to say that something is nonexistent because it is subjective.Pardon me for seeing you as confused and contradicting yourself. Huh!?

Ok I'll play along, which part of his behavior could be characterized as immoral. Show me the action in his actions 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 thisBertot writes Tangle writes 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 nonsenseSo would you tell me, we're the Nazis moral or immoral. What made thier actions immoral, if thier society thought it was perfectly acceptable. 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 busyDawn Bertot

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 systemThat 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 itSecondly, 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 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. 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

So are you saying that for an individual, morals don't come from emotions or feelings or perceptions 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 That's not even getting started 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 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 Well that's a good start 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 thingsI 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 meDawn Bertot

Nope. Nope. Nice try. Theists claim to explain morals. They even try to legislate their loose morals on everyone else.Atheists just disbelief in the existence of gods. That's it. Nothing to do with morals.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

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 moralityMorality, 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 universeYou 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 processNow 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 processHence 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 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? 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 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. Well no of course I was looking at this alleged morality from your system, not mine 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

Sorry, this doesn't make any sense. Apples exist. They are not imaginary.

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.

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 subjectivelyEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

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, correctEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

That of course is not what I said or included in what you quoted. It is also a really stupid thing to say.Of course morality has a purpose in reality, it is a set of rules and guidelines a society uses. It's not anymore a biological process than any other set of rules or guidelines. And what the hell does "When death comes around, it won't care what you think, correct" have to do with the topic?Are you really totally unable to hold a reasonable conversation with at least a small attempt to address the topic?

quote:

---

At the age of 40 his personality changes, he starts developing overt and inappropriate sexual tendancies. He starts looking at child porn. He gets kicked out by his wife for making sexual advances to young girls. He is finally prosecuted for a sex offence and put on the sex offender's register.

​

He also starts getting bad headaches and when he finally turns up at a hospital, they find an enormous tumour on his prefrontal cortex. They remove the tumour and his paedophilia is cured.

​

A couple of years later he starts having sexual problems again, he checks in to hospital, they find that the tumour has returned. They remove it, it cures the paedophilia. He's currently fine.

---

It's his behaviour that is real and that we call immoral, his brain state changes are seen on fMRI scans. Every person DOES have a different perspective on morality. That's why we're all saying it. Over and over. It also changes between cultures and over time. We absolutely know this. You need to be specific. Were the Nazi's immoral when the created the holocaust? Yes, of course. In my subjective view - and in the vast majority of everyone else's view too. But not, it seems in Hitler's view. What's moral is what we decide as a society is moral at any point in time. It's developmental. Societies like individuals grow up and change. That's why we don't torture people anymore or keep slaves or make human sacrifices. I'm afraid you've lapsed back into obscurity again. Morality IS a biological process. It's a brain state and an emotion like anger or love. It's called empathy and it's moderated by group learning. We learn how to behave morally from our parents and from society that's why it changes over time and across societies.