Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 302 of 1006 (800308)
02-21-2017 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by Dr Adequate
02-21-2017 8:36 PM


God can be as immoral as She wants.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-21-2017 8:36 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 310 of 1006 (800327)
02-22-2017 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by Dawn Bertot
02-22-2017 7:44 AM


Re: Why do you continue lying Dawn?
Dawn writes:
Where did it say Hitler was infinte in knowledge. So logically he could not be more moral than God. God's morality is not and cannot be subjective, because of his infinte nature, no more information could be added to his knowledge to make it more correct. See how it works Jar
Sorry Dawn but the Bible says God's morality is not just subjective but often changing and even at times God needs to be lectured on morality by humans.
That you return to that nonsense is simply another example that you simply have never honestly read the Bible.
Hell most anyone is more moral than the God in the Bible. Certainly Hitler and Stalin and Mao were far more moral than the God character found in Exodus or Genesis 6&7.
Dawn writes:
How would a subset of reality or the universe,, namely humans imagining things, be capable of knowing whether the universe had a meaning or not?
They would go about to by describing the meaning they assign to the universe.
It really is that simple Dawn. Things don't have innate meaning. Living things assign meanings.
Dawn writes:
If there are different sets of morality, based on a subjective approach, then logically the Nazis could not be held responsible for thier actions.
You keep making these truly stupid comments Dawn. Really. Think. Were there trials at Nuremberg after WWII. Were people held responsible for their acts?
If those trial happened and if there were people that were held responsible for their acts then the fact is that Nazis were held responsible for their actions.
Have there been other trials all over the world where people have been held responsible for their actions?
Are there trials even today where people are held responsible for their actions?

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-22-2017 7:44 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-24-2017 5:15 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 314 of 1006 (800333)
02-22-2017 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 313 by New Cat's Eye
02-22-2017 10:43 AM


Plus Jesus truth was always subjective. From what is recorded he was always pragmatic when it came to morality.
Let he who without sin cast the first stone. (other stones can be tossed by anyone)
If you ass falls in a crack on the Sabbath go ahead and pull it out.
Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, heal the sick, protect the weak. No mention of whether any were deserving or not.
Yes, he spent the groups money to buy oils for himself instead of using it for the poor because he would not always be among them.
He caused a riot and vandalized all the stores just because they were open on a day of worship at his church.
Even the rules outlined by the God character in the Bible are subjective and not absolute.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-22-2017 10:43 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 320 of 1006 (800414)
02-23-2017 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 318 by Phat
02-23-2017 9:44 AM


Re: God may be objective but we are all subjective
Phat writes:
Objective means relative to the object. If one claims that the object of all morality is God, one concludes that there is no further discussion since God never changes, is absolute, etc etc...
But that is certainly not what the Bible stories say Phat. The stories show God changing, God needing Her morality checked, God changing Her mind, God far from absolute.
Phat writes:
The believer would argue that as a child of God they have access to and awareness OF the moral absolutes. Telling them that even their Bible is subjective merely frustrates and stiffens their resolve to be absolutely right---as their Creator would logically expect them to be. Right?
The willfully ignorant believer might behave that way. They were certainly not created that brain dead though.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by Phat, posted 02-23-2017 9:44 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 331 of 1006 (800484)
02-24-2017 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 323 by Dawn Bertot
02-24-2017 5:15 AM


Re: Why do you continue lying Dawn?
Dawn writes:
So how can a God as described in the Bible , know the very number of your hairs on your head and if a sparrow falls, it is not unknown to him, be as incompetent as you claim. So set out the argument that demonstrates your baseless assertion
The answer as I have explained to you many times here at EvC is that the Bible is filled with contradictions and errors. That of one of the wonderful things about it. It is not consistent but rather simply an anthology of anthologies written by men for men of varying periods and reflects the beliefs those authors held at the time.
In one passage the God character is asserted to "know the very number of your hairs on your head and if a sparrow falls, it is not unknown to him" yet he does not know where Adam & Eve were, what would make a suitable help meet for Adam, as you ask later on, where Abel is.
Dawn writes:
Im sure, someone even as simple minded as yourself can understand that if two people assign a different Socalled meaning to something, those meanings cannot both be correct? That's because meanings don't have reality, especially in a meaningless universe. It should be obvious even to you Jar that when you say the universe has no meaning, you would need to demonstrate that for it to be true. Hence your postulating that meaning has meaning, is quite obviously nonsensical
Even living beings cannot ACTUALLY assign meaning. If I imagine I am creation and that I created all that exists, that's just an imagination Jar, it's unreal like the imaginary meanings you ascribe to things.
Talk about making unsupported assertions.
Of course both meaning might be correct. A meaning is correct if it is useful. And I did not say the universe had no meaning, I said the universe has whatever meaning individuals assign to it and that the universe itself being inanimate is not capable of having meaning.
Dawn writes:
jar writes:
Plus Jesus truth was always subjective. From what is recorded he was always pragmatic when it came to morality.
Let he who without sin cast the first stone. (other stones can be tossed by anyone)
If you ass falls in a crack on the Sabbath go ahead and pull it out.
Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, heal the sick, protect the weak. No mention of whether any were deserving or not.
Yes, he spent the groups money to buy oils for himself instead of using it for the poor because he would not always be among them.
He caused a riot and vandalized all the stores just because they were open on a day of worship at his church.
Jar did God know where Able was, when he asked Where is your brother Able?
And once again you try the classic conman trick of trying to palm the pea.
Look at what I wrote.
Then please explain what possible relevance your response might have to what I posted?

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-24-2017 5:15 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 336 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-27-2017 6:44 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 340 of 1006 (800724)
02-27-2017 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 336 by Dawn Bertot
02-27-2017 6:44 AM


Re: Why do you continue lying Dawn?
Dawn writes:
You seem to think because you say something that it must be true.
Well no Dawn, that is not what I do. What I do is point to the evidence and let the evidence speak for itself.
Dawn writes:
Jar have you ever asked a question that you already knew the answer. Yes or no? Try argumentation Jar not assertion. Maybe you could set out the argument that demonstrates why if God is omniscient, he is not allowed to ask a question that he already knows the answer. Or why if he is all powerful he is not allowed to wrestle with Jacob, to demonstrate a point to Jacob. Really Jar your embarrassing yourself.
The issue is not what I do, but rather what the Bible says the God character does. The stories actually say what they say Dawn. What you are doing is making shit up to try to make the story fit what YOU want it to mean. In the story of Genesis 2&3 the God character doesn't know what would be a helpmeet for Adam and so tries lots of critters. In the story of the rumble in the jungle the God character even cheats yet is unable to make Jacob yield. In the Great Walkabout story the God character actually says that he is going walkabout to find out if the tales he has heard are true.
I am not adding anything but you are. To try to make the stories fit your fantasies you have to add features and then of course also ignore those stories where even you cannot make up some Deus ex Machina.
Dawn writes:
My point is Jar is that if the very thing that allegedly bought u into existence, has no meaning, then it follows you have no hope knowing if your alleged meaning is a meaning or if it is correct. And I'll be darn, if you didn't mess that up as well. But watch, now it gets even worse. Not only are you trying to ascribe meaning ,now your trying to define things as good bad, moral immoral, etc.
Again, learn to read. I did not say the universe had no meaning, I said the universe as an inanimate object is incapable of creating a meaning but rather has whatever meaning we assign to it.
Meaning, morals, god, bad are all human constructs.
Dawn writes:
It doesn't matter if you want to ascribe meaning or not Jar the meaning has no hope of becoming a moral in a meaningless universe. Secondly and probably more important your alleged moralities have no hope of being nothing more than your imaginations. As I have forcibly demonstrate in this thread
Yawn. Only you have claimed the universe has no meaning Dawn.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-27-2017 6:44 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-28-2017 6:37 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 352 of 1006 (800792)
02-28-2017 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 346 by Dawn Bertot
02-28-2017 6:37 AM


Re: Why do you continue lying Dawn?
Dawn writes:
And of course you avoided answering my questions as usual. Is it possible for an intelligent being to ask a question, that he already knows the answer.
Of course it is and yes I did answer your question. You even quoted the answer. While it is possible there is nothing in the stories to suggest the God character was asking a rhetorical question. That is simply something you ADD to the story to make it fit what YOU want it to say.
Dawn writes:
Your problem is the same either way. Your alleged meaning is as unless a a screen door in a submarine.
I'm sorry Dawn but if the meaning humans assign functions to allow understanding or communication between humans how is it unless (I'm pretending you meant useless)?
Dawn writes:
Hence, this is why science changes its views every few 100 years.
Actually once again that is simply a stupid remark from you. Science changes when the information available requires the science to change. That's what Science produces results.
Dawn writes:
Sorry my simple friend, as I've argued without fear of contradiction, human constructs are an imagination of the mind, with no real hope of being real. The mere fact that every human being could have a totally different idea on any given topic, demonstrates they are imaginations with no hope of actually becoming a reality muchless a moral. My argument stands.
Again Dawn, that is simply another really stupid comment.
The fact is that human derived morals exist. They are a reality. You can pretend otherwise but the fact is that human derived morals exist.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-28-2017 6:37 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-01-2017 7:28 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 367 of 1006 (800852)
03-01-2017 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 360 by Dawn Bertot
03-01-2017 7:28 AM


Re: Why do you continue lying Dawn?
Dawn writes:
jar writes:
Of course it is and yes I did answer your question. You even quoted the answer. While it is possible there is nothing in the stories to suggest the God character was asking a rhetorical question. That is simply something you ADD to the story to make it fit what YOU want it to say.
Hardly. I don't know any thinking person or scholar that would assume otherwise. Perhaps you could provide the name of a reputable scholar that sees that the way you see it. My guess is that your only intention is to bring even more worthless empty baseless assertions against the text, to try and discredit it. Your response to that whole point gives us an insight to the nature of your intentions
The issue is not what some apologist can make up, it is a matter of what is actually written and what is actually written is pretty clear.
qs=Dawn
jar writes:
I'm sorry Dawn but if the meaning humans assign functions to allow understanding or communication between humans how is it unless (I'm pretending you meant useless)?
Once again your miss the point, which is not surprising, given your inability or unwillingness to answer a simple question like that one above. I'm not saying you don't have the ability to assign some arbitrary subjective meaning to the universe, I'm saying because you lack sufficient knowledge of some meaning, your reasoning is not critical as usual[/qs]
Yet the fact remains that the meaning humans assign functions allows understanding or communication between humans. That is not useless.
Dawn writes:
jar writes:
Again Dawn, that is simply another really stupid comment.
The fact is that human derived morals exist. They are a reality. You can pretend otherwise but the fact is that human derived morals exist.
No not in reality as I continue to demonstrate. Perhaps you like an attempt at an argument to refute my proposition. Assertions are not arguments
Yet the fact remains that humans 9and likely other species) demonstrate morality, do define things as good or bad and so the fact that those morals and definitions exist and are used can be simply explained in terms of functionality.
No God need apply.
But then that is also what the Bible says. The God character in the Bible story in Genesis 3 says just that, that humans have the capability since the great enlightening that came from eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil as God does and so needs no further guidance from God and later man even has to lecture God about God's morality.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-01-2017 7:28 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 415 of 1006 (801520)
03-07-2017 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 413 by Dawn Bertot
03-07-2017 6:55 AM


Re: The game is over, you lost. Get over it.
Dawn writes:
But ultimately God decides whether a murder has been committed against his principle.
That is not an example of absolute morality but only common thuggery. It is only a description of the playground bully.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 413 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-07-2017 6:55 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 423 of 1006 (801541)
03-07-2017 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 422 by Tangle
03-07-2017 12:01 PM


Re: Does Prehistoric rape exist?
Also for most of history and in many cultures women were simply chattel, like cattle or goats or sheep. The idea of human rights is a fairly modern one from almost all aspects.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by Tangle, posted 03-07-2017 12:01 PM Tangle has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 430 of 1006 (801552)
03-07-2017 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 426 by Phat
03-07-2017 1:44 PM


Re: the essence of existence (in actual reality)
I can see what you are trying to market but unfortunately the Bible as is so often the case says differently. The God of the Bible does not exhibit absolute morality but rather absolute tyranny. In the Bible stories anything God does is permitted. That is not a statement of morality but rather power. When the question of morality does come up in the Bible it is presented as subjective and not absolute.
Genesis 18 writes:
16 When the men got up to leave, they looked down toward Sodom, and Abraham walked along with them to see them on their way. 17 Then the Lord said, Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? 18 Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. 19 For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just, so that the Lord will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.
20 Then the Lord said, The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.
22 The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the Lord. 23 Then Abraham approached him and said: Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare[e] the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thingto kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?
26 The Lord said, If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.
27 Then Abraham spoke up again: Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five people?
If I find forty-five there, he said, I will not destroy it.
29 Once again he spoke to him, What if only forty are found there?
He said, For the sake of forty, I will not do it.
30 Then he said, May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?
He answered, I will not do it if I find thirty there.
31 Abraham said, Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?
He said, For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.
32 Then he said, May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?
He answered, For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.
33 When the Lord had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by Phat, posted 03-07-2017 1:44 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 431 by Phat, posted 03-07-2017 4:18 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 432 of 1006 (801561)
03-07-2017 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 431 by Phat
03-07-2017 4:18 PM


Re: the essence of existence (in actual reality)
Phat writes:
Are you suggesting that the Creator of all seen and unseen has chosen to allow humanity to determine morality on their own? Furthermore, are you suggesting that God would rather we learn how to behave rather than simply telling us objectively the definition of behavior?
No, I'm saying that that is what the Bible stories tell us again and again and again. Look at Genesis 3:
the God character in Genesis 3 writes:
22 And the Lord God said, The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.
Phat writes:
If so, why the need for commandments?
That's a great question particularly since the various commandments seem to always get broken, quite often by the God character.
Thou shalt not kill (except when you are killing all the first born sons in Egypt or everything on the earth except the folk in the ark or except for the people living in Sodom or Gomorrah or except when told to by the Fuhrer)
Phat writes:
I can see Dawns basic argument that human definition, opinion, and a consensus is irrelevant as it is subjective and thus meaningless.
But of course Dawn is demonstrably wrong. The human definition, opinion, and a consensus is subjective but also useful and used and thus does have meaning.
Dawn is simply willfully ignorant and totally out of touch with reality by choice.
Phat writes:
You, on the other hand, are laying out a case from the Bible that God expected humanity to be responsible for its own destiny.
Not really. I am saying that the difference between the morality displayed in the Bible (except that it is not at all up to modern standards) is not that one is absolute while the other is subjective. They are both subjective but the morality of the God of the Bible is simply not even close to a minimal moral standard found in the US today.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 431 by Phat, posted 03-07-2017 4:18 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 433 by Phat, posted 03-08-2017 6:05 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 438 of 1006 (801586)
03-08-2017 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 433 by Phat
03-08-2017 6:05 AM


Re: the essence of existence (in actual reality)
Phat writes:
Would you argue that the charge is objective or subjective?
That makes no sense.
Phat writes:
Is your best the same as my best? Is Faiths best different from both of us? Can Tangle quantify what his best should be?
HUH? That too makes no sense.
Phat writes:
Even if we can behave better than the God of the Bible, what about Jesus? (Some argue that He personifies the God of the Bible better than the OT stories....)
Surely modern day morality is not at a higher standard than the son of David personified....
I would argue that yes, today's general level of morality is higher than the Jesus character in the Bible. Jesus said "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone." Modern general level morality says "Don't throw the stone period; even if you are without sin."

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 433 by Phat, posted 03-08-2017 6:05 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 448 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-09-2017 6:59 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 449 of 1006 (801705)
03-09-2017 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 448 by Dawn Bertot
03-09-2017 6:59 AM


Re: the essence of existence (in actual reality)
But it is not what the story actually said.
That is the problem Dawn, you do not believe the Bible says what the Bible actually says but rather believe what you wish the Bible actually said.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 448 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-09-2017 6:59 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 451 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-09-2017 7:37 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 452 of 1006 (801709)
03-09-2017 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 451 by Dawn Bertot
03-09-2017 7:37 AM


Dawn's words show Dawn is wrong
Dawn writes:
jar writes:
But it is not what the story actually said.
That is the problem Dawn, you do not believe the Bible says what the Bible actually says but rather believe what you wish the Bible actually said.
Jar where you able to meet my challenge in bringing up any reputable scholars, that can, will and do support your explanation of biblical texts
Jar I don't know how we would proceed without your wisdomy wisdom
I don't need no stinkin scholars, I can actually read what is written. The apologists exist to make up excuses to pretend the Bible does not actually say what it does.
I can point to the actual text.
It is a practice called honesty Dawn. Try it sometime.
Abe: Your very words convict you Dawn. You look to have someone explain what the Bible stories mean, instead of believing that they mean what they actually say.
When I was a child I had to have someone point to an object and tell me it was called red or round or smooth or a ball or the moon, but pretty soon I could look at a new object and say with authority that it was a round red ball and not the moon or totally smooth.
I can even learn that if I call it Aka instead of red or Kikyo instead of blue or Midori instead of green it is still what it is.
You do not like what the Bible actually says. You do not like the fact that the Bible is filled with inconsistencies and falsehoods and factual errors and contradictions.
So you and all the apologists out there add to the stories like Ilya the prostitute who told the Greek Tragedies but always made them end with everyone happy and going to the beach.
It would do you good to watch Never on Sunday. It was one of the films they took us to see when I was a student at St. Paul's.
Edited by jar, : see AbE

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 451 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-09-2017 7:37 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 471 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-11-2017 11:26 AM jar 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