Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.

Sure I do, here is the word apple: --> apple Yeah, that's what a word existing means. What are you talking about? More meaning? What meaning does an apple have? What do you mean by "meaning"?Meaning is something that humans create, it is not something inherant to things. What are you talking about? Huh? "It was created for food" is not the meaning of "apple". What are you talking about?Being for food isn't even why there are apples. "Seed transportation vehicle" is a bit closer to the point of an apple.But that would be closer to a purpose than a meaning. Conflation requires two things - what you are conflating is reality with objectivity. You are saying that only objective things are real and exist.But subjective things also exist and are real. That literally makes no sense in English. That's what moralities are!All meaning is only in our minds. What meanings do things have that are not in our minds?Rememeber though: "It was created for food" is not the meaning of an apple. What is so special in this case? You're typing nonsense. Or, moralities aren't anything that wasn't created by humans.This is just you assuming that moralities must be objective - that is not the case. What makes something moral then? And how do you know? "What it is" is the property of its existence. What it means is something different. What it means is assigned to it by human minds. I said the exact opposite of that - that things, even subjective things, do exist. Purpose and meaning are different things. And things don't have meanings that human minds have not assigned to them. The only way that we are aware of things being right or wrong is by us creating those meanings. Objective reality contains subjectivity. Actually, that's subjective. You don't know what rational means.

Yes, it existed. And no, its existence is not dependent upon my description. What does that have to do with what its meaning is?Are you saying that simply its existence, itself, is its meaning? That's not what the word "meaning" means. Sure, it absolutely can.An apple can be symbolic of many things:

• the forbidden fruit of Genesis
• a gift for a teacher
• a computer/software company

An 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. And apparently you are unable to tell me what a meaning of a thing is - other than the thing's existence. Can you give me an example of the meaning of some object that is not something that a human imagined? Meaning and purpose are different things.So, what is the meaning of a tree?
What is the purpose of a tree? Or, the only way that a behavior becomes right or wrong is when us humans give it those descriptions.Who knows? That is not a valid conclusion from your premises. Not to mention that your premises are wrong. Too, a rational explanation, from an atheistic perspective, for morality has been provided - your only response so far boils down to "that's not real". That depends on what you are talking about when you say "meaning"? So what is it? That is simply not true. And we've been over this.Existence and reality - they are the universe. In the universe, there exists a real human. In that human there exists a real brain. In that brain exists a real mind. In that mind exists real subjective experiences. Those subjective experiences are in the universe, and the exist and are real. There's no reason to butcher the English language just so you can have a point to make. Subjective experiences exist in reality - that's a true statement in English. Well I say they do. Now what?In fact, our ability to give meaning to our behaviors is one of the things that separates us from the other animals. It has allowed us to civilize ourselves. Except when it does. It isn't necessary, but it can and does happen.You mentioned adultery before - before we coined the term it wasn't a thing. But perhaps when one human "cheated" on their partner, they observed that it made their partner upset and that made them feel bad about it. So, they decide that it was a bad things to do and choose to avoid it in the future. They may create a term for the behavior, and then tell others that they shouldn't do it because it makes others feel badly. And viola, there's a piece of a morality - invented by a human, adding meaning to world, and existing in reality. And also not objective. Or, that is all that having the quality of good or bad, moral or immoral, behavior is - a person making up a term to describe what is happening in reality.Who knows? Or, that's all that being moral or immoral is - one biological process giving another process a quality.Who knows? Do you have an example?You said that "stealing is always wrong", but what if you need to feed a starving person and there is no other way?Do you just discount that as not stealing? If so, then "stealing is always wrong" is just a tautology that doesn't provide us any additional information - for the question then just becomes when is it stealing and when is it not? But that is objective and not comparable. Can you give an example of something else that is subjective, like morality, that already existed before humans arrived? No, that's not true. Perhaps right and wrong are human inventions after all. Who knows? Yes, for the n^th time, that is what it means to be subjective. That is not the same as not existing. You have yet to address this point besides outright denial. Consensus and/or consilience - they allow us to know things as much as we can know anything. But you don't know that and have no way of showing it. It can be determined. If the only way for you to make your point is to destroy the English language and hop on a slippery slope to solipsism, then your argument was defeated before you even began. But you're wrong - they do exist, in our minds.

What makes something good or bad if not our descriptions? Do you think things have inherent properties of goodness and badness that exist outside of our descriptions of them? Ooh, two ACTUALLYs on that one... so I'll assume you mean "objective". So no, our descriptions don't add objective properties to the things.But that's not what you asked about. You asked if our descriptions add MEANING to those things. Meaning is not objective, it is subjective, and our descriptions do add subjective meanings to things.So your question has been answered, but now you are asking a different, and nonsensical, question. That's moving the goalpost. I contend that they do. For example, you can assault someone, that's a thing. But before we came around and described it and codified it, something like aggrevated assault wasn't a thing yet. And aggrivated assauly has more to it, that is something subjective was added to the behavior, that makes it more than just assault.Before our conception of such a thing it did not exist. We agree that humans don't create objective moralities, I've been arguing that they are subjective. Subjectively right or wrong is ACTUALLY right or wrong despite not being objective.You're just going on and on about objective moralities and objective reality and completely ignoring all the points about subjectivity that people are bringing up. Your conclusions don't logically follow from your premises, and your premises are incorrect anyways.You're just making up this whole "must be objective" to be ACTUAL reality nonsense and you're placing yourself on a slippery slope to solipsism all in the effort to discount subjective moralities as not being real so you can claim that a naturalistic approach cannot have a morality at all.Sorry, but your argument is ineffective and your conclusion is incorrect. Even that is wrong. You don't need to know absolutely anything to speculate about what you observe reality to be. That too, is even wrong. We are doomed to witness reality through our subjective lenses and we cannot even know if reality is the real thing or not. Well, that is your conclusion that you are trying to argue for. But it is wrong, and you haven't provided a valid argument to conclude it.I agree that the conclusion, itself, is simple. It just doesn't reflect reality - we know there are subjective moralities. They're abundant, and they change over time.Plus, you have yet to show us an objective morality that stands up to argument. What is the meaning of another life form that humans have not assigned to it?Can you give an example? Well it doesn't. Can you explain it better than you have been? This would be a great place to provide an argument why. Wow, that doesn't even make sense and yields no conclusion. What are you talking about? You simply assume your conclusion and re-state it with no argument to back it up. You don't even get around to concluding an objective morality, you just outright deny the subjective one. Links or it didn't happen. So wrong. Not even close.But this is getting pretty laborsome to keep explaining the same things over and over to you again, all while you just go on repeating your same refuted and nonsensical conclusions without any valid arguments to back them up.I'm loosing interest... Even that, is just complete nonsense. Sorry, but you just aren't making sense and I feel like I'm wasting my time.Take this load of crap for an example of why I'm going to stop trying:

Yeah, I just wish that you would have participated. Instead, you just repeated the same old refuted nonsense over and over again.It's too bad you were unable to move the discussion forward in any way.From the OP until now, your point been the same: morality must be objective and it cannot be subjective.Unfortunately for you, you have been able to convince exactly nobody, and you've been unable to provide a valid argument for your case.In spite of repeated attempts to make progress in the discussion, you have simply repeated your same position in different words - and trashing the English language in the process. Oh look, you're talking about being objective... again.You've totally missed the opportunity to talk about subjective morality. Sigh. Yeah, it's like I am talking about subjective things rather than objective things Wow, cool. Another convoluted way of saying that morality must be objective and it cannot be subjective.It would have been a lot cooler if you would have provided an argument for why that is the case rather than just repeatedly asserting it over and over again.Oh well, its apparent that you are unable. This thread failed. Have a nice day.

I'm sorry, I don't want to make you sad. I'll always try, but if your just going to repeat the same old stuff it'll just be a waste of my time. It's the brain. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Not a valid conclusion - some of your premises are false.Can you point to an object counciousness? If not, then you're wrong. Perhaps, but you have yet to provide a sound argument or a compelling reason why that must be the case. But you don't know what rational means...

You just moved the goalpost. Here is what I was responding to:

quote:

---

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.

---

Your point was that if there is a subjective thing then there is a corresponding objective thing. That is different than a subjective thing ultimately requiring an objective source, which isn't in disagreement.If a moral being subjective necessitates that there is an objective morality, then fear being subjective would mean that there is an objective fear. But there isn't, so you're wrong. Anxiety.
Fear of the unknown.
Fear of an expected future.
Fear of djinns, or other imaginary creatures. Then your point is that subjective things are subjective. Congratulations. Right, subjective things are not objective. That doesn't mean they don't exist. How many times do we have to go over this? Yes, again, subjective things are subjective and not objective. You are saying is that they are not objective - we all agree with that.The part where we disagree is where you conclude that, not being objective, that they are not real. That is incorrect.But every time you try to argue against them being real, you only conclude that they are not objective.

Only if you assume and insist that a moral must be objective. You are alone in this endeavor.Heck, even the dictionary disagrees with you:

quote:

---

moral
noun
2. a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.
"the corruption of public morals"

synonyms: moral code, code of ethics, (moral) values, principles, standards, (sense of) morality, scruples
"he has no morals"

---

. Exept that I don't because I'm not saying that morals are objective.And you don't get to decide that subjective things don't have meaning. Huh? No they don't. Fear of the unknown can't be about a thing that exists in reality if you don't know what it is. And the future hasn't happened yet so it doesn't exist in reality either. Too, anxiety doesn't always have a thing in reality that it's based on. And I notice you chopped off the imaginary creature...Regardless, you changed the subject. You were saying that a subjective things needs a corresponding objective thing - that a subjective moral needs a corresponding objective moral - not that subjective things cannot exist independently all by themselves. That's just you insisting that a moral must be objective again. Until you can get passed that there's no way for this discussion to move forward. Morals can be subjective.There, contradiction erased.

Meh, I accept evolution and I don't think that. Given the chemistry involved, some of the things-that-happen would be inevitable. Passed on genetically, sure, it doesn't happen directly. But selective pressures can act on the genes that code for the behaviors that cause parents to teach things to their offspring.Those offspring may be more inclined to teach learned behaviors to their offspring, and so on. I don't believe you, that's some made-up bullshit.

Well, instincts are a thing. lol don't be silly, nobody says that nonsense. The behavior to teach more to your offspring could be inherited. That's not how it works - you're not correct by default until someone proves you wrong.You wrote some nonsensical bullshit and I don't believe it. I have no reason to "prove you wrong".Prove yourself right. That might be the stupidest thing I've read in a while.

I don't care if they're an atheist or not, I wish somebody would help me find some morels.Edited by New Cat's Eye, : No reason given.

Yeah, they're out already down here at ~38.7 N latitude. I see pics from friends and they're finding them.But nobody will tell each other where they're at! I just don't have the time to do the hunting, and I've never found more than a couple so it feels like it'd be a waste.Although, one friend did find about 70 of them and that was an impressive looking haul.

One could, but they would be wrong.Naturalistic evolution can be a fact while my thinking mind produces all kinds of meaning in my life.

Hey man, the code for quoting is really easy. If you type: [qs]quotes are easy[/qs]or [quote]quotes are easy[/quote]Then it'll become: or

quote:

---

quotes are easy

---

Plus, you can use the Peek button at the bottom right to see what syntax I inputted into the text box to submit. Our minds are capable of both producing and experiencing meaning - regardless of how they came about. And I like tacos...What are you talking about?

Do you accept that our minds are capable of both producing and experiencing meaning - regardless of how they came about?

Okay, so the mind can form beliefs and that adds meaning. Now, why does it matter how the mind came about? What is it about evolving, but not being specially created by a god, that makes it impossible for the mind to create meaning in the former, but not in the latter?That is, why do you think that an evolved mind could not create meaning?