But nobody but a loon would equate the actions of Jack the Ripper with the actions of someone that enjoys a KFC. We are carnivores, carnivores eat meat. God made us that way according to you. (Strictly speaking we're omnivores but the point still stands.)
So where do you think that gets you?
Really Tangle, temper, temper. You really should stop being emotional and stay logical. I said you have no RATIONAL way of explaining Fred's behaviors as immoral or moral. For all the arguments I have now set out, I've demonstrated that subjective morality is irrational and nonsensical. Therefore you have no way of showing in a rational form that Fred's behaviors are different than your desires for murdered chicken. Try responding in a rational way, to my arguments and put your childish, spoiled brat temper aside
The fact that our biology allows it and at most points in our development has required it. If I was a herbivore I wouldn't eat chicken.
Now what's really interesting is that I can imagine a time in the future where killing and eating animals will be regarded as immoral. We will grow our protein in vitro. Our view of what's moral in our food will have changed.
Well by geroge, I think he is starting to get it. And they said miracles have ceased. Now tangle, take the argument outside yourself and stickly your imaginations. Try and think critically. Truth whether you believe it or not exist outside your individual mind.
Now, YOU have an imagination that down the road, thus and so. So if we think critically we can see that every person could have an imagination, even presently, that Fred's behaviors are not immoral, some may some may not. Hence it follows absolutely that perceptions and or imaginations are not actually, in reality, morals, because there is no way of knowing WHO is correct, right or wrong, correct?
You see there is a rational way to know that atleast some things are correct, correct? It's possible for me to know that subjective moralities are hopelessly inconsistent and irrational, therefore incorrect. If that is true, which it is, it would follow that you don't actually have a moral, you have perception of something you describe as a moral., but it doesn't work in a rational way
It further follows logically that there is no rational way to have an actual morality, described as subjective, if the objective does not exist. Now watch, I didn't set this out by mere perceptions, but rather by critical thinking, which is possible in reality outside myself or any person, correct.?
There is no such thing as 'taste itself'. Sorry to burst that bubble, I thought you knew?
Well no you are incorrect in reality. What I did KNOW, is that you were going to say that. It's a natural conclusion of your position, in an effort to maintain that which is irrational, namely, that subjective morality, actually exists.
don't. Just as the taste of something is dependent on the shape of the molecules within the thing, and the pattern of neurons in my brain - so to is my view of morality dependent on the specific nature of actions in question and my neuronal patterns. They are both equally predicated by the objective.
Beauty, tasty, lovely, sexy. They don't exist 'out there' for me to perceive them.
I say pineapple tastes horrible. My wife says it tastes lovely.
Who is right? Objectively speaking?
Well of course, reality is right, objectively speaking. Did you imagine that you asked a difficult question, Modulous. Your imaginations of tastiness would have no meaning or perception, if you had no objective thing to put in your mouth correct?
One can imagine the possibilty of an irrational thing, like the concept of subjective morality, but one cannot imagine that which is logically impossible, namely what an actual subjective morality would look like in reality. Reason and reality won't allow it.
Evolved instincts are a large part of my argument yes, but not the whole picture. YourMessage information:Message 1:Untitled (Msg ID 798448)Thread 19365:Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.Forum 6:Faith and Belief', 500)" onmouseout=" hb.off(0)" onmousemove="mouseTracker(event)" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(119, 204, 221); font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(33, 53, 85);">Message 1explicitly states 'this is not a moral it's an Instinct'. You don't seem to have a consistent position on this.
Of course I was speaking from your perspective and for argument sake , repersenting your position. Hence , no moral, just instinct.
if you can prove this, you win the argument. I say it was put there by evolution. I have at least shown how this can happen. You have not done the same with God.
Well of course I have. In parts in the whole thread, then most recently in my last post to Newcatseye
You have an imaginary deity in yours.
I have brains and behaviour and environment. All these are real things.
But Modulous, this imaginary deity, as you so loosely describe him, is warranted by both reason and reality. For that which we know about conscience and consciouness, including morality, makes no rational sense without him. That's if your interested in being rational
Even if this were true, it does not mean that I am not establishing my position, in a rational way, from the standpoint of reality. In this instance, this imaginary deity is a logical necessary conclusion, of the rational, that only allows, subjective morality to exist, if objective morality actual exists. Anything else is a logical impossibiltiy.
There is a standard by which to measure it: ownership.
And here, is where the fallacy of your position, is demonstrated without any doubt. . Is it absolutely true that ownership is the standard by which we know if someone else takes it, it is actually stealing. Of course, you will answer no, its not, in some relativistic subjective sense. Which means that ownership is not the standard, therefore no ACTUAL stealing has taken place. Possibly I guess I'll have to wait for the answer
Are there any other conditions besides ownership that would make stealing stealing.
I can explain morality without the need for God or any property of objective morality existing outside of our minds
Nope you can't even get started rationally. Your above statement is wrong on so many levels, because it is irrational from the outset. Subjective morality is a logical impossibility, within the context of a purely naturalistic enviornement. I've demonstrated this to many ways to mention now
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."
Willing and Able but waiting for more information ...
If you have enough time to write other posts you have enough time to answer YES or NO, so that should mean only Unwilling to answer ...
Well I was actually giving you time to respond to my last extensive post to yourself, I was giving you the moral obligation to respond to the arguments I set out. ...
Ah, so you were willing and able to answer, but you were waiting for some additional information before doing so. Got it.
Your "last extensive post" did not present any new argument, just recycled old argument already refuted ad nauseum, so no, I will continue to ignore those old falsified arguments.
No I do not agree that morals are concepts, because concepts or imaginations do not have the ability to create something that does not already exist. ...
That's a "NO" then. It's wrong, but it's an answer, one that shows the extent that you will deny reality for the sake of your argument.
The square root of -1 ("i") is a concept of something that does not exist. There are many. The words you speak, read, hear and write are concepts that did not already exist before their invention out of thin air.
... Calling it a moral is just another way of describing imaginations. This of course is if we are talking about a purely naturalistic enviornment. ....
Indeed, calling it a moral is just a way of giving it a name that can then be used to discuss it, such as on these debate boards. Humans do this all the time with words, it's called language. Language varies around the world as different invented words are used to describe things so that we can communicate ideas, concepts and imaginations.
... Even if I did agree they were, they would be hopelessly lost in irrational inconsistency to qualify as any kind of standard to be described as morality.
Let me fix that for you:
... Even if I did agree they were, they would be hopelessly lost in irrational (subjective) inconsistency to qualify as any kind of (single absolute overall) standard to be described as (objective) morality.
See, as I've said before, you keep keep arguing that the subjective morals cannot be absolute morals. Everyone (else) agrees that they are subjective concepts. Of course subjective morals don't qualify as objective morals, that would be silly.
So now I have answered your second question, please go backwards and answer my previous post.
And yet I already have in my previous posts. What we are doing now is slowly moving down a path that shows those arguments are irrelevant distractions, distractions from the fact that morals are subjective and that they can be rationally explained.
(Message 196): Morals are subjective, they are a type of memes that have evolved over time as a consensus control on social behavior, to reduce conflicts between individual members of a social group, and thus benefit the survival and continuous revitalization of the social group from generation to generation.
So let's try to take another step forward now ... we have a ways to go yet:
Do you now AGREE that moral concepts as described here are subjective? YES or NO, I'm going to waffle again
Please answer the questions, your circular and irrational blathering is not getting you anywhere.
For the fourth time, please provide an example of an absolute moral.
You said that I, as an atheist, have no morals. I questioned whether you actually meant that. Now is the time to explain yourself.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
It is sad you cannot see an argument when it is presented to you.
I'm sorry, I don't want to make you sad.
So while you are going out the door, so to speak, I'll try it again.
I'll always try, but if your just going to repeat the same old stuff it'll just be a waste of my time.
Consciousness and conscience clearly exist. Since they do, there must be a source from which they are derived.
It's the brain.
I have demonstrated it is impossible to have subjective realites without objective realites. Hence it would follow that anything described as a moral in a subjective way, would of course require an objective moral.
You have not demonstrated that every subjective reality has a corresponding objective reality.
For example, what is the objective reality of the subjective experience of, say, fear? Are you saying there is an objective fear? What it is?
Your first thing is not demonstrated.
Secondly I demonstrated there is no way to make that which proceeds from Soley the imagination, actually real, in reality.
Where by "actually real in reality" you mean objective. So it's redundant to say that subjective things are not objective.
And you contradict yourself when you say that every subjective things has an objective counterpart but then say that a subjective imagination does NOT have an objective counterpart.
Your second thing is not demonstrated.
If there is only one thing I can imagine that is not real as a result of the imagination, then it would follow that all that comes from the imagination, is in reality not real
That is false and illogical. One car being slow doesn't make all cars slow.
And I can imagine both real and non-real things.
Thirdly. I demonstrated that even if one imagines that the things in the imagination as real, they have no hope of ascribing any meaning to physical properties, that property does not already possess.
This is only true if you are assuming objective meaning, which is silly when we are talking about subjective meanings.
Your third thing is not demonstrated.
Fourthly I demonstrated that even if one imagines that perception are real because they exist in our minds, they are hopelessly lost in establishing any standard of morality, subjective or otherwise, due to the fact that they are quagmired in hopeless inconsistency, relating to both the human species and the animal kingdom. Hence, now watch, you are right back to the problem of them being nothing more than imagination
This is just a convoluted way of saying that subjective moralities are subjective, which I have already been arguing.
Your fourth thing is a position taken by your opponents in their arguments against you.
Fithly, I demonstrated that while one can imagine that which is irrational, one cannot imagine that which is a logical impossibilty. Hence, while one can imagine a subjective morality, that which is irrational, without objective morality, one could not imagine and demonstrate logically that an actual subjective morality exists, in reality, which is in actuality, a logical impossibilty, without the existence of an objective morality.
That is just a convoluted way of saying that subjective moralities are not objective, which I have already been arguing.
Your fifth thing is a position taken by your opponents in their arguments against you.
So while on can imagine that which is irrational and or improbable, one cannot ever imagine a logical impossibilty. A subjective morality, without the need for an objective morality, is a logical impossibility. It's just an imagination of the irrational
Not a valid conclusion - some of your premises are false.
Not every subjective thing has an objective counterpart.
The brain, in particular, is an object that can produce subjective experiences that do not have objective counterparts - like fear.
Since, however, we know that consciouness and conscience do exist, it follows that they cannot come from an strictly, Atheistic, Naturalistic enviornment. This is a logical impossibilty, given thier contentions.
Not a valid conclusion - some of your premises are false.
Can you point to an object counciousness? If not, then you're wrong.
Hence, thier source must come from a source outside the strictly Naturalistic enviornment.
Perhaps, but you have yet to provide a sound argument or a compelling reason why that must be the case.
On the other hand, Atheism, has no hope of explaining these things, in any rational manner, as I have demonstrated. Notice I said in a rational way, not just based on thier faulty perceptions.
I notice you didn't show me. Show me where the sweetness is:
What I did KNOW, is that you were going to say that.
Well I have already said it, so you don't win any points for that.
Well of course, reality is right, objectively speaking.
So what is the real taste of pineapple? Horrible or delicious? You tell me.
Your imaginations of tastiness would have no meaning or perception, if you had no objective thing to put in your mouth correct?
There is a pineapple itself. Not the taste itself. That's why I said
quote: Just as the taste of something is dependent on the shape of the molecules within the thing, and the pattern of neurons in my brain - so to is my view of morality dependent on the specific nature of actions in question and my neuronal patterns. They are both equally predicated by the objective.
So without including a person who experiences the taste (a subjective entity) can you show that flavours exist, in reality itself, objectively, without putting it in the relative and ultimately subjective perspectives like 'you' or 'me' or the like.
But Modulous, this imaginary deity, as you so loosely describe him, is warranted by both reason and reality.
Unless you can show me, this is just in your imagination.
In this instance, this imaginary deity is a logical necessary conclusion, of the rational, that only allows, subjective morality to exist, if objective morality actual exists.
You just need to deal with my argument regarding this now, rather than asserting it. There doesn't need to be an objective taste for a subjective taste to exist. There just needs to be something objective that triggers the subjective taste response. Likewise there doesn't need to be an objective morality, just objective behaviours that trigger subjective moral responses.
If you can't show this is false, you cannot make claims of logical necessity.
And here, is where the fallacy of your position, is demonstrated without any doubt. . Is it absolutely true that ownership is the standard by which we know if someone else takes it, it is actually stealing. Of course, you will answer no, its not, in some relativistic subjective sense.
And yet I answer, yes - it is. As I have said before.
Subjective morality is a logical impossibility, within the context of a purely naturalistic enviornement. I've demonstrated this to many ways to mention now
You've said it many times, but I don't remember how you demonstrated it. Please remind me. It is, after all, the entire point of this discussion that you do so.
It is my belief that there is such a thing as universal taboos.
Universal is a strong word. Especially when discussing human emotions/concepts/subjective things.
I used a example of a Neanderthal stalking a female and copulating with her by force.
Just the example itself... of a Neanderthal stalking a female and copulating with her by force... Doesn't that action itself show that at least the Neanderthal taking the action doesn't agree that it's "taboo?"
Or I suppose you could say he's just testing? Or getting an adrenaline rush going against social-norms?
But... what about psychopaths. Are we saying that animals-without-the-capacity-for-emotions are not really animals? Or is it universal as-long-as-you're-not-a-psychopath? Which is basically saying that it's universal as long as you ignore the cases where it doesn't apply?
There's a very big difference between saying most do this or that vs. saying all do this or that. With humans, and animals, we always seem to able to find that single, one case that just makes us go.... wtf?
Re: Willing and Able but waiting for more information ...
Your "last extensive post" did not present any new argument, just recycled old argument already refutedad nauseum, so no, I will continue to ignore those old falsified arguments.
Then it is obvious you are not willing to debate. Atleast Modulous is giving it a try, he is actually debating. Follow along there, then jump in as you see fit
Morals are subjective, they are a type of memes that have evolved over time as a consensus control on social behavior, to reduce conflicts between individual members of a social group, and thus benefit the survival and continuous revitalization of the social group from generation to generation.
If this true, then it would follow that the ability to reason would be apart of those memes, correct. So from a logical standpoint, it would follow that subjective morality, existing in a strictly Naturalistic enviornment, is a logical impossibility. Subjective realites, whatever they maybe, have no hope of existence, without objective realities. Hence it would follow that subjective moralities did actually exist, they would need logically to be supported by something objective outside themself.
If you think this is not the case then please explain how.. imagining the irrational is not the same as imaging that which is logically impossible. One is possible , one is not
The square root of -1 ("i") is a concept of something that does not exist. There are many. The words you speak, read, hear and write are concepts that did not already exist before their invention out of thin air.
Outside of your imagination, there is no such thing as a square root, muchless the square root of....... For reasoning ability to exist, there needs to be outside your and myself objective realites, for reasoning to be capable. Certainly the mind has the ability to concieve, but it must of necessity be predicated by those realities. In fact they would make no rational sense otherwise.
Do you nowAGREEthat moral concepts as described here are subjective?YESorNO, I'm going to waffle again
That's like asking me if I agree that a tree is a tree. You should have asked, do I agree that subjective moral concepts are a logical possibilty from an Atheistic standpoint. No
Sure but only if they are actually predicated by an objective morality, otherwise they are a logical impossibilty. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise.
You said that I, as an atheist, have no morals. I questioned whether you actually meant that. Now is the time to explain yourself.
In his debate with Dr. Wallace I Matson, Dr. Thomas B Warren, took offense at Dr Matson calling God a logical monster. Dr Matson explained he meant this from a standpoint of reason. While i do not agree with Dr Matsons tenets, we understood what he meant.
I'm saying it is not logically possible for you to have that which you percieve you have , in a purely naturalistic enviornment. Actually you have morals you just miss apply the source of those morals, as not being from God.
You have not demonstrated that every subjective reality has a corresponding objective reality.
For example, what is the objective reality of the subjective experience of, say, fear? Are you saying there is an objective fear? What it is?
Your first thing is not demonstrated.
Well that's an odd statement. Since I can't imagine a fear that is not predicated by something outside, maybe you could give an example of fear without that. But to answer your question, a lion chasing you arse, watching a scary movie. Need I go on
Where by "actually real in reality" you mean objective. So it's redundant to say that subjective things are not objective.
And you contradict yourself when you say that every subjective things has an objective counterpart but then say that a subjective imagination does NOT have an objective counterpart.
Your second thing is not demonstrated.
You misunderstood, I was simply pointing out that, that those imaginations are not real, the way actual things are real. So imagining a subjective moral doesn't make it an actuality. My imagination of a tree does not have the same properties of an actual tree, correct?
That is false and illogical. One car being slow doesn't make all cars slow.
And I can imagine both real and non-real things.
But slow or fast cars are things that happen actually in reality. Me imagining I'm flying over the countryside using nothing but my flapping arms, is not actually happening, even though ican see it in my mind. Hence we see that imaginations are not real the same way real things are real. So ascribing concepts to behavior in reality, like good, bad, moral or immoral are just a product of the imagination.
So while it is true you can imagine real and unreal things, you cannot imagine that which logically impossible, correct?
Not a valid conclusion - some of your premises are false.
Not every subjective thing has an objective counterpart.
The brain, in particular, is an object that can produce subjective experiences that do not have objective counterparts - like fear.
And I'll wait for your example of an instance of fear where it is not produced by an outside effect.
Not a valid conclusion - some of your premises are false.
Can you point to an object counciousness? If not, then you're wrong.
Well yes. Consciouness is a product of the objective reality of the universe. IOWS "they" say, it was created by evolution. So you have one physicl reality creating another physical reality.. But while that has a simple answer, it does point up the context of the of this whole discussion.
So subjective imaginations can come from a objective reality, but just like there is no reality of me ACTUALLY me flying, using only my arms, it's just an imagination. Its not real. The concepts of right, wrong, good bad,, moral and immoral, are just the same. They don't actually exist in the real world, they are imaginations
This is demonstrated even further by the fact that every imagination of good, etc, which doesn't actually exist, is just one of a million others. How could they be real in the first place, other than an imagination.
So while i can point to the possible source of consciouness, that is far from demonstrating any imaginations are real things. So morality as described by Atheist can not exist from a rational standpoint. And that's only two of the problems.
There is a pineapple itself. Not the taste itself. That's why I said
quote:Just as the taste of something is dependent on the shape of the molecules within the thing, and the pattern of neurons in my brain - so to is my view of morality dependent on the specific nature of actions in question and my neuronal patterns. They are both equally predicated by the objective.
So without including a person who experiences the taste (a subjective entity) can you show that flavours exist, in reality itself, objectively, without putting it in the relative and ultimately subjective perspectives like 'you' or 'me' or the like.
Yes. Without the pineapple, there would be NO taste. With nothing to put in your mouth, there would be nothing to have taste or imagine tastiness, correct? So while the potential for your ability to taste at all, or to imagine tasiness, would exist as another objective reality, it would need to be predicated by an objective in reality, outside yourself, correct?
So while the potential, does exist inside of you to measure or imagine levels of taste or tastiness, this would be called your brain, it would still need to be predicated by something coming into the brain, to measure both taste and tastiness. Your brain cannot produce taste or tastiness, without the outside influence., in this instance another outside objective reality.
Since you have the ability to reason, this would be comparable to taste, correct. But for the taste mechanism to work, something needs to shoved or crammed into your mouth correct. The objective reality that gives you taste or tasiness is that outside objective reality. Without it you have nothing
Hence your brain has the ability to measure but not create the objective reality outside yourself. So bringing it together. So it seems that no matter how we approach it the brain can only measure or imagine subjective morality, but THIS ONLY WHEN it is already preceeded or predicated by objective morality.
So it seems that one can imagine the irrational but one cannot imagine that which is logically impossible. I can imagine or percieve,the possiblity of a square circle, but I cannot actually even imagine what that would be. So it seems that I can imagine subjective morality, but I cannot even imagine what that would be without an objective standard.. Hence just an imagination of the irrational, but not the logically impossible.
Subjective morality is it seems, a logical impossibility from a Atheistic perspective
Unless you can show me, this is just in your imagination.
So reason and reality, combined with special revelation which conforms to reality concerning, consciousness and conscience, don't help you at all.
You just need to deal with my argument regarding this now, rather than asserting it. There doesn't need to be an objective taste for a subjective taste to exist. There just needs to be something objective that triggers the subjective taste response. Likewise there doesn't need to be an objective morality, just objective behaviours that trigger subjective moral responses.
If you can't show this is false, you cannot make claims of logical necessity.
Well I think we did show it false, unless you can show that things dont need to be shoved into the mouth. So it seems we will need some logical necessity otherwise.
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."
Well yes Jar, that's kinda what Jesus was saying to begin with. So it seems you didn't understand his intentions or motivations. Which is pretty much Jar for the course. Maybe you got your modern general law from him. Think so?
I'm saying it is not logically possible for you to have that which you percieve you have, in a purely naturalistic enviornment
And yet I do. And I can show how and why. Weird how reality works.
Actually you have morals you just miss apply the source of those morals, as not being from God.
Yes, we know that goddit is your assertion. But as I've said, that's a fail
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
