Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.

Rape is a verb. It means, basically, to have sexual relations without the consent of the party you having those relations with. It exists regardless of law, just as much as sleeping or running exists without language.Whether or not that is taboo depends. Is that person an enemy soldier? Many people in history would regard that as 'their just desserts'. Is that person a woman of a conquered region? Many people in history would have regarded that as the just rewards for the conquerors.Even if we all agree that rape is unpleasant for the raped, that doesn't mean we have always, or will always agree ona) The moral status of the rapist
b) Whether it is, in fact, rape (see marital rape). I would agree with a quasi-objective morality. We are social animals and we've evolved with an instinctual understanding that we have to 'get along' with some group or another. But what 'getting along with' actually means varies by so much there is little that is 'hard-wired', and most of it is learned behaviour.We are evolved to 'do right' by our allies, and to either avoid 'doing wrong' by them - or at least to avoid detection in our wrongs against them. Likewise we are evolved to 'reward' or 'punish' those in our group that do right and wrong by us.

Almost. It might be broken down asP1: God exists
P2: God defines what is moral
C: Our subjective perspectives on morality can be right or wrong but are themselves not morality. Not quite.The statement 'objective morality as a belief proves it through the Bible.' doesn't mean anything at all.My response is actually:I can explain morality without the need for God or any property of objective morality existing outside of our minds. If you think I am wrong, and that God is needed - show this. Asserting is insufficient.A secondary argument exists that even if God exists and even if an objective morality exists, we have no direct access to it and have no way of knowing what it is. Therefore, all we have to work with is our subjective opinions about it anyway. Yes, but this is just an aside - an important one. The issue is that Dawn believes the atheist/naturalist/existentialist position can be proven wrong logically. It's just the logic being employed appears to presuppose the existence of objective morality, so it fails due to circular reasoning or 'petitio principii'. Dawn doesn't recognize this as Dawn is so wrapped up in the certainty of the belief that objective morality obviously exists Dawn does not realize the conclusion has sneaked into the premises at all.

I notice you didn't show me. Show me where the sweetness is: Well I have already said it, so you don't win any points for that. So what is the real taste of pineapple? Horrible or delicious? You tell me. 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. Unless you can show me, this is just in your imagination. 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 yet I answer, yes - it is. As I have said before. 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.

Yes, just like I said. Exactly. Your brain creates the taste based on stimulus from outside the brain. That's been my entire thesis on morality in this thread. Not necessarily, however. It is possible for someone to electrically or magnetically stimulate your brain to produce taste sensations. But that's an aside. Yes, an objective reality is almost certainly required for subjective experiences to form. And this is where you fall over. There doesn't need to be an objective flavour that I am exposed to, just an objective something that my brain interprets as having a flavour. There is no sweetness itself - which is why you can't point it out in a sugar molecule.The objective things that stimulate my taste sensation are molecules of certain shapes, interacting with my senses - which sends signals of certain types to my brain which results in a subjective experience. An experience nobody else has access to, that is mine alone.Likewise, someone say, committing adultery is information I can see or hear or smell or whatever, is processed in my brain and I have the subjective experience of feeling it is morally wrong (or not morally wrong).The objective reality therefore is my particular brain plus the stimulus of environment, interacting to create a unique and subjective perspective. Morality doesn't have exist objectively, actions exist objectively just as molecules do. But molecules don't have objective flavours, and actions don't have objective morality.There needs to be a taster and the tasted before there is a taste. You can imagine a tasty pile of dog food, even if you do not find dog food tasty. A dog might, however. Likewise you think stealing is always wrong, I don't. You don't need to imagine subjective morality - that's it right there. I think the 'special revelation' being special is in your imagination.

Says you. My brain decides these things are good, bad, right, wrong. It does this as has evolved to do this. The specifics of which are right and wrong come from learning - following the norms we find ourselves in built by culture through time on the back of evolved predispositions. Just because I decide something is morally wrong - it doesn't mean I am factually correct. There is no factually correct just as there is no factually correct decision about whether pineapples are tasty. Yes, it is just another perspective. Like whether something is right or wrong. There are things which are commonly thought to be tasty, just as there are things thought commonly to be 'wrong'. But even then, there are seldom absolute universally agreed upon perspectives. Exactly my point. There is no ACTUALLY right or wrong. Yes, it is a perspective. That's what subjective means.