Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.

So that's a NO. See how simple this is?And here we have the proof that you have no rational refutation to my argument: you have to resort to denying the existence and reality of subjective concepts.That way lies madness.

quote:

---

Subjective

​

ADJECTIVE

​

1. based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions: Contrasted with objective.

---

quote:

---

Subjective vs. Objective

​

Subjective information or writing is based on personal opinions, interpretations, points of view, emotions and judgment. It is often considered ill-suited for scenarios like news reporting or decision making in business or politics. Objective information or analysis is fact-based, measurable and observable.

​

	Objective	Subjective
Based upon	Observation of measurable facts	Personal opinions, assumptions, interpretations and beliefs
Commonly found in	Encyclopedias, textbooks, news reporting	Newspaper editorials, blogs, biographies, comments on the Internet
Suitable for decision making?	Yes (usually)	No (usually)
Suitable for news reporting?	Yes	No

​

Examples of Objective and Subjective Writing

​

Here are some examples of objective and subjective statements:

​

• "47% of Americans pay no federal income tax. These people believe they are victims and would never vote for a Republican candidate." In this quote (which paraphrases Mitt Romney), the first statement is objective. It is a measurable fact that 47% of Americans do not pay federal income taxes. However, the second statement is Romney's personal point of view and is entirely subjective.
• Apple only allows apps that the company has approved to be installed on iOS devices. The company does not care about openness of their platform. Once again the first statement here is objective, while the second is subjective because fans of the company could argue, as Steve Jobs did, that iOS is indeed an "open" platform.

---

So it would appear that subjective does in fact exist, as it is defined and discussed objectively.Or does objective likewise not exist ... ?You do realize how insane it is to reject everything we know in order to pretend that my argument is meaningless don't you?Should I start again? Do you AGREE that subjective concepts exist? YES or NO, I'm InsaneEnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

I would see that one party was harmed and conclude it was immoral.
I expect you'd look to the words of Jesus or other prophets, but I also guess you'd know better than me how you would determine if the action is moral or immoral. I reject an 'actual', or as everyone else calls it 'objective' morality and I am not trying trying to establish one as I think that is impossible by way of being incoherent. If you would like, I could just copy and past this statement a thousand times, would this help you? Not exactly. People have morals. Neither you, me, the victim or the assailant's moral is 'true'. Not at all. They drive/guide etc., my behaviour. My behaviour is an activity in the real world. They are represented as neuronal states in my brain. They actually exist and have real application. They just don't exist outside of my brain. Round and round we go. There is no objective morality, that is my position. There is no single true morality. There are many moralities. My position is that my morality exists inside my head, not outside of it as some 'objective' entity. Not at all. The apple is real. The behaviour is real. You can agree to use the same standards as me or not, their utility depends entirely on their use. They are not 'actual' in the sense of being objective - 'actual' 'intrinsic' 'objective' morality is a concept I reject. Just another 500 repeats and you might stop asking me, I suppose. My position is that there is no intrinsic meaning. Our brains don't come from our brains. Our meanings come from our brains. They only mean something TO ME - and possibly other subjective beings, not intrinsically. Since I've said it over and over, I'm not sure why you think I'm 'probably starting to see it' - It's my position! The only meanings are the ones we create, give, construct for things. My brain, 100% Your brain, probably close to it, but I'm prepared to accept otherwise.Meaning without a subjective being is an incoherent concept. The only thing we know that CAN create meaning are brains. There may be others, but I know nothing of them. As I have said: Fine, by your definitions. But the only actual morals exist are the ones that we have. So by my definition there are actual morals. Correct. But I find myself having to repeat myself because you keep asking the same questions. At some point you'll advance your argument, I hope. By this reckoning nobody knows anything and the verb 'to know' becomes useless. I choose a definition of 'to know' which has practical use which includes tentativity: the possibility I'm wrong. Unless I qualify it by pointing out that knowledge is tentative. Which I did: "Where knowledge is always tentative, yes. " IF there is an objective morality - the same applies to you.If there is not an objective morality, there is no knowledge to be had. Only perspective, views, opinions. Stealing to feed a starving child is morally good where there is no option to feed the child any other way. I don't claim such a thing exists, in the area of morality. If either of us could do this, it would defeat my position. And yet you have still failed to defeat my argument in principle from evolution and mathematics described earlier. So if that is your final answer - you haven't demonstrated your claim that I can't do it since I have show in principle that I can. It's your job to demonstrate its truth. It's my job to show why your position can be doubted. Different animals have evolved differently. I would have thought this self-evidently true. No I didn't. I didn't say anything about something being right or wrong morally. We share some constraints with animals, but since other animals have different evolutionary histories, we have differing constraints too. A bird cannot build a power station, humans can. We have different constraints, but we are still constrained by physics, chemistry and history. Then stop asking the same questions over and over and actually present an argument. The mere fact you think I equated them speaks volumes about your comprehension skills. Your characterisation of what I said is irrational and dishonest.'killing a person is wrong' is a statement that is neither true nor false.
'Mozart is the best composer' is a statement that is neither true nor false.
'Lasagne is the tastiest dish' is a statement that is neither true nor false.Just because these statements share the property of not having a truth value, does not make them the same. Try to comprehend before you try to refute. Do you now understand why I didn't quote him in order to illustrate the position of the existentialists?

You'll be shocked to learn that many people have made such a decision. For example, many of them have decided that the precepts contained in the Bible are moral. Someone should really tell them to stop.

Let's start here. Your most recent post in this this thread was both comical and revealingRAZD quotes Razd, if objective morals are based upon observable measurable facts, then it would follow that they exist objectively. Now get ready pay close attention. You and the others have maintained that morals do not come from anywhere outside the mind. Here, yourexample of objective morality in the area of facts comes outside the mind, doesnt work as an ACTUAL objective morality. So it would follow that either objective morality exists outside the mind, or that you are maintaining that we have a way to decide what is objective right and wrong, based on objective facts. Are you saying that clear objective facts are clearly objective moralities, now.Next, since we know that biological realities are not moralites, just facts, according to you fellas, it would follow that what you are trying to represent as objective moralities in connection with subjective moralities, are not actually objective moralities, just objective facts. So once again, you trying to get and make a subjective morality, a morality, in reality, does not work. Notice RAZD. If it is true that 47 pay no tax, then that is a objective fact, Not a moral fact. If it is a moral fact, then you are telling me that morals exists objectively outside of our minds. If you are telling me this then, you are saying that subjective morality should be assessed against something outside our minds that is OBJECTIVE, correct?You just gave up your whole position.
IF THERE Is an objective morality that exists outside, then my subjective imaginations of why I should not pay taxes should be based on that objective morality, which exists outside my mind, correct. If it's just an objective fact, like a tree exists, is just an objective fact, then you still have no morality, correct. Because we don't have anything to measure your subjective intimations against, correct. Which horn of the delimma would you like to adopt? You haven't even got started as I just demonstrated. You can't define and discuss subjective without the objective. Since you have demonstrated that only objective FACTS exist, which we all know in the first place, You would need to admit that objective moralites actually exist for your subjective moralities to have any reality and meaning.You have shot yourself in the foot with the examples and illustrations you have provided. Since morality only comes from the mind as you fellas suggest, It would follow that to try and get objective and subjective from the same source,your minds, would be nonsensical. Hey, they were your examples, not mine. Try to use examples that actually support your position not mineAre you saying that objective facts are actually, and are indeed, objective moralites. If you are, you are now in a world of hurt from argumentation standpoint. Well of course I do, never maintained that they did not. But only if they are predicated on an objective standard. Are you now saying that objective facts are indeed objective moralities, given your illustrations.So if it is actually true that an objective fact, that 47 percent don't pay taxes, is also a moral fact , then it would follow that objective morality exists outside of the mind. If this is not true, then we still have no way to make that which you describe as subjective morality, an actual morality. It remains as nothing more than imagination or perception.People's opinions as to why other people don't pay taxes, are nothing more than a perception or imagination. If we say they are absolutely right or wrong for not paying, then we are saying there actually exists an abosolute morality outside of us that makes our perception valid. Sorry RAZD, you can't have it both ways.Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

I will get the rest of the most recent posts to this thread later this evening. Thanks for your patience, it is greatly appreciatedDawn Bertot

Good. The whole point of my post was to show that subjective concepts exist, and how subjective differs from objective: it didn't have anything to do with morality at this point, so the rest of your post is irrelevant, a waste of your time.Okay, now the next question: Do you AGREE that morals are concepts? YES or NOIt seems we have to take this in baby steps ... answer just yes or no, no soap-boxing editorializing - it will be wasted time on your part, and will be ignored.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

Well the problem is, that when you are presented an argument, you ignore or disregard it. Since it is clear that conscience and consciouness clearly exists, Since it is clear we as humans have a knowledge of right and wrong and animals do not. Since it is clear that we can know that something are right or wrong without being taught it, it would follow that these characteristics and realities exist actually and absolutely. Further that they came from somewhereSince it is clear that, that subjective morality cannot be a reality due to the FACT that every person could have a different view or imagination on any single point, it therefore is nothing more than an imagination of the mind.
Since it is clear that because I can imagine things that don't actually exist, then it would follow that from a purely naturalistic standpoint, morality is just a made up word.
Since it is clear that the Socalled morality of the Atheist is a concept of the mind, it has no hope of ever establishing what is ACTUALLY right and wrong absolutely,, it would follow that any imaginations of the Atheist mind are nothing more than biological processes.
Since it is clear that Atheists admit there exists no absolute morality, it would not take a rocket scientist to know that logically, there could naturally be nothing as described as subjective morality, based on speculation and human imaginations.
Since it is clear that subjective morality is not only inconsistent in establishing what is actually right and wrong, actually, as it admits it's subjective, it would follow that it's tenets cannot and do not exist outside the human experience. This alone makes it worthless as an Actual moral.However, since we do know these things actually exist, it would follow that only an infinte God, with a morality, the likes of which no more information could be added to his tenets, to make it more or less valid or true, only, could be an explanation for such realities. Nothing else is consistent or would make sense without these facts.Since it is clear that that which is taught in the scripture, concerning human existence and morality is consistent with what we see in reality, it would follow that that source is reliable in not only explaining these realites, but it provides a structure for following our conscince against those teachings.Of the only two choices, Atheism or Theism, Theism is the clear choice in explaining what see see, feel, hear and KNOW. The Socalled subjective morality cannot even get started, muchless make sense.Yes I would say that's a valid argument, unless you can demonstrate otherwise.Dawn Bertot

Well that may not be the meaning of the word meaning to you, but since these things were here before humans, they clearly did not need your description to make them, valid, good, bad, right or wrongSince there were creatures existing before humans, there descriptions don't add to thier meaning, especially when it comes to behaviorSure, it absolutely can.An apple can be symbolic of many things:the forbidden fruit of Genesis
a gift for a teacher
a computer/software companyAn apple could not have meant those things before humans came along and imagined/invented them, so our imaginary descriptions are capable of giving objective things more meaning.[qs] No NCE. you miss the point. Do your imaginary applications ACTUALLY in reality make the apple more, than it ACTUALLY is. IOWs, it doesn't add to its properties to make it, itself, a happy apple for the teacher, outside your mindSo human conceptions of subjective morality don't actually add anything to human behaviors, to make them more than the the biological functions you witness. Even if they did, there would be no way to find an ACTUAL right or wrong, moral or immoral, since the first problem existsHuman imaginations don't have the power to make a thing ACTUALLY right and wrong See even you admit this fact. You do understand that saying you don't know is actually an absolute fact, correct. Correct. But since subjective human experiences apply only to humans, they don't qualify to decide what is actually right or wrong, moral or immoral. If it's not ACTUALLY right or wrong, then human experiences are just perceptions.There are objective facts in reality, we can imagine subjectively, but those are just more objective facts we have misrepresented or misunderstood. When we get something wrong in science, that simply means we failed at first to understand the original objective reality. Our perceptions were inaccurate, the reality didn't change.Hence for an actual subjective right or wrong to exist in reality, it would have to be predicated by an actual right or wrong in reality, not in imaginationS Hence, this can only be found in an infinte mind. An objective realityHence for me to speculate about existence or reality, I would need to know absolutely that it exists. It Cleary exists ACTUALLY, so I am free to have a subjective imagination about the reality of existence. For a subjective right and wrong to exist, Actually, it would need to be predicated on an actual right or wrong, or ,it simply , can have no actual existence. It's really that simple Well no. If the human race were to go extinct, other life forms would arise, correct? Those life forms would not need your descriptions or meanings, to exist or have meaning. This alone should tell you that human imaginations described as morals are not an objective reality, therefore not applicable as a tool to measure what is actually right or wrong in reality. If you want to imagine that yours is actually right and wrong, your free to do so but, reason and reality say otherwise. Well let's look at it rationally instead of onesided, which is actually subjective. Let's say you steal from a guy that was going to use that food to feed his nearly starving child. So now what do we have? In reality what we have is a subjective nothing, no actual stealing, just a bunch of things happening in a purely naturalistic enviornment. So it is evident that subjective morality becomes a nonexistent thing, something we can only imagineSo stealing has to exist objectively for it to have any meaning. Yes. Lucifer said, I will ascend on high and become like the most high. His reasoning was subjective. But his reasoning was predicated against a objective morality, which demonstrated that his subjective morality was in fact wrong absolutelyBut objective facts make subjective facts, so my example is comparable. If there is no objective reality there are no subjective imagined facts. If there is no objective morality, then there is no subjective morality, as per my example of stealing. In that situation both can't be wrong and or right at the same time. If that is possible, it would be logical contradiction. You do know that logical contradictions don't exist, correct? That's why they are logical contradictions Oh I think any rational reader or observer will see that I have demonstrated in rational logical form, both in my previous posts that does mean nonexistent, as per my example of stealing, for example... if two wrongs can't actually exist in the very same situation, then that is by the very definition of nonexistent, nonexistence.If two wrongs don't actually make a right, then only one of the fellas I'm my illustration is wrong. If neither is wrong by virtue of stealing, then wrong is just an imaginary thing, correct? Oh yeah that slight you call it subjective morality.Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Well yes, by simple reasoning, but I would certainly point to the words of Jesus, since he claimed to testify the truth. The same person that said I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. Pretty bold claims for a fellow if they aren't true, correct?But then I would also point to simple reasoning to demonstrate the fallacy of your position on the adultery situation. Since you maintain there is no absolute morality, it would follow that the action in this situation was not actually immoral just theoretically immoral. If i could find numerous people to disagree that his actions were not immoral, then we could conclude that actual immorality does in fact not exist in reality So it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if it is incoherent to establish an objective morality, it would be impossible as well to establish subjective morality. If you can imagine a subjective morality, surely I can imagine an objective morality, correct? Are we both making the same mistake, or are allowed to imagine the samethings. Oh I don't think we are going in circles, I think I am demonstrating that subjective morality as you call it goes in endless, hopeless circles with no resolution of being rational. If that's not a TRUE statement and according to your position it may very well not be, then the opposite is true and there may exist an absolute objective morality, correctI say that for subjective morality to exist, there must be an objective morality and that moral principle is 'true'Now which of us is correct?Rhetoric, modulous, is not the same as demonstrating in reality, that an imagination, which you clearly possess, is actually a moral and that it at the same time, is not 'true', by some arbitrary definition you have ascribed to True. That's just rhetoricThe only way for subjective facts to exist, is for objective facts to actually exist. The only way for subjective morality to exist is for objective morality to exist. And that is 'true' in reality, not in some imagination, or in theory. And as I have demonstrated your morals don't actually exist in reality in a rational way. There are nonexistent as is demonstrated by simple reasoning. Not that you can't imagine things, but they don't exist as actual right and wrong, as per the adultery example. In that situation all I would need is for another human imagining that the behavior was not immoral, as you suggested it is. And I'm sure we could find plenty of those people, correct.If so, it would quickly be seen that your definition of moral or right or wrong are worthless in describing the ethics in human behavior and for all intents and purposes nonexistent. Yes I'm aware you can imagine things, but those aren't morals in any rational way.By adding the comment that any persons morals are not 'true', in whatever twisted way you mean that, only heightens the nonsense of your approach to morality You really don't get it do you Modulous. By your definitions of morality, there can be no definition of stealing to have any meaning in the first place. Example if there are situations where stealing is ok then that would make the word and idea nonsensical and for all purposes nonexistent. Both stealing and not stealing at the same time. If there are situations where stealing is actually wrong, that is that it is in fact stealing, that would be absolute morality. If there is not the word is useless as a moralIf there are situations, where stealing is wrong to one person but not to another, given the same instance, again we are back to the same situation, where stealing has no meaning at all. But who gets to decide whether it is or is not. Imagining that every persons imagination is acceptable is both nonsense and nonexistent.So it seems your right back to where you started, trying to demonstrate, imaginations quality as that which is actually right or wrong. So I'm happy to do this because it narrows down exactly what is pretty much nonsense about the Socalled subjective morality I'm sorry what? Your argument from evolution demonstrated that niceness and helpful were imaginations of the human mind. If not and we are actually witnessing the evolution of morals in animals then it would follow morals exist outside the human mind. If we are doing the same things animals are, and it would seem that way, given your position, then it would seem that murder is nothing more than an imagination of the human mind No I dont think I misrepresented you at all. You have a twisted version of reality and reason. You jumble these together acting as if you are making some valid point, you are not.For example , the following verbal rubbish by yourself These like your statements above are what you need to demonstrate, not just assert. You keep saying these things over and over as if you have proven it. You have not, as I have demonstrated.If rules don't have moralites, then it should be obvious that subjective morals could not assist in forming rules, because there would be nothing we could put our hand on in formulating rules. Every persons position would need to be consisdered, no matter how contradictory.If there was no instance or example where we could clearly say yes that was murder, verses manslaughter and negligent homicide, then those terms would have no meaning either. So yes, killing a person is a statement that can be true or false. Even if we don't use the extreme of murder, a person could use the expression, yes I killed that person and it both be true and a truth statement.The statement killing a person is wrong, can very easily be a truth statement, where objective clearly exists. It does. Asserting you believe it does not or may not doesn't demonstrate the opposite in any rational way.The other examples don't fall into that category and you know that. Jumbling them up together to try and make subjective morality the only morality, doesn't work either. Try as you will, twist it which ever way you wish with philosophical verbiage and jargon, but, your indirect attempt is to make subjective facts, where there is clearly objective realities, the same as subjective morality, where you claim there is no objective morality. It doesn't work Modulous, as I have clearly demonstrated. Subjective morality is just your imaginings. It's a claimed morality with no standards, which is nonexistent, for all intents and purposes and nonsenseStatements like, "Rules don't have moralites. Subjective moralities, exist within a system of rules.", Is just verbiage, it's what you need to prove not assert. It sounds good at first glance under further scrutiny it will be exposed.Well yes if we are assuming strictly objective realities, but no, becauserules applied by humans do have moralities. Not because of subjective moralites, but objective. If I am tasked to take 20000 to the bank and deposit it and I keep it, then certainly that is objectively wrong, even if I am stealing it to pay for someone's surgery, that could not pay otherwise.Dawn Bertot

Well since I addressed most of that in my recent post to you we will wait for a response to that post.Thats assuming you aren't the only one that gets to answer questionsDawn Bertot

I'd say that it was repetitive, error-ridden word play but let's put that aside.What I asked you for was an example of absolute morality. If the only example of absolute morality you can think of is your imagined God, I'm going to shrug and move on because he is, as I say, imaginary.Morality and moral behaviour is a real and measureable effect in our world so I'm asking you to produce the thing that you call absolute so that we can examine it. Surely you have an example?

Then it should be easy for you to condense\summarize that rambling post into a simple yes or no answer. Do you AGREE that morals are concepts? YES or NOAnd I will state again, and emphasize it: answer just yes or no, no soap-boxing editorializing - it will be wasted time on your part, and will be ignored.. You were warned.Enjoy

I've asked you more than once to tell us the absolute meaning of, "Thou shalt not kill." If there are exceptions, how is it absolute?You're free to answer that one.

Just thought I might jump in. No it isn't absolute.The laws pointed us in the right direction but Jesus told, and showed us, that the only absolute is the law of love. It is all about our hearts. Paul got it right in his first letter to the Corinthians when he says that ultimately God will judge the motives of our hearts. Are we motivated by self interest or are we motivated by the love of our neighbour and for all of God's creation?

That's what Dawn Bertot said, more or less, but he says it IS absolute.