|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Dr.A writes: I didn't say that. It's debatable. Fair enough, that's we we're here for. Off you go.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
First I need Faith to define her terms. What is an objective and what is a subjective morality?
In the meantime, I would invite you to consider the word "plant". Once it included fungi, now it does not. And if it is convenient to distinguish between them, we could perfectly well have decided to distinguish between "green plants" and "fungal plants". Does that mean that whether something is a plant is subjective? That would be an odd thing to say. (Note that the qualities of plants and fungi have remained the same all this time.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
DA writes: Does that mean that whether something is a plant is subjective? That would be an odd thing to say. Why is it strange? When we assign something to some arbitrary classification we are always make subjective decisions; for example your example of plants and fungi is a subjective decision based one what criteria we choose it examine. As you yourself said: 'And if it is convenient to distinguish between them, we could perfectly well have decided to distinguish between "green plants" and "fungal plants".'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But there is an underlying reality which is unaffected by what we choose to call things. We could have used "dog" to mean cat and "cat" to mean dog, but that doesn't mean that the nature of dogs is subjective, it means that the connection between collections of phonemes and their referents is arbitrary. This is still objectively a dog ...
... it just isn't objectively called "a dog": we cannot say that the French are wrong to call it un chien, or the Chinese to call it gŏu. But it's still a dog.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
I think you need to lead this witness. Just make your case.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
is it a dog?
What we include within the category "dog" is subject to the list of criteria we decide to include.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
What we include within the category "dog" is subject to the list of criteria we decide to include. You are illustrating my point. Again, that's a fact about language and not about the animal. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
LOL
But what we are discussing is the language and the categories humans create.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Porosity Member (Idle past 2094 days) Posts: 158 From: MT, USA Joined: |
How dare you! I would never call my baby (Kenny) a Dog!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But what we are discussing is the language and the categories humans create. But there is an underlying reality that is more important then these. It makes no sense to say "It is a merely subjective opinion that the sun is hot, because we could just as well have decided that the word 'hot' should mean octagonal."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
DrA writes: But there is an underlying reality that is more important then these. But that is irrelevant regarding reality of this thread.
DrA writes: It makes no sense to say "It is a merely subjective opinion that the sun is hot, because we could just as well have decided that the word 'hot' should mean octagonal." Probably good then that no one but you said that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It's an analogy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Davidjay  Suspended Member (Idle past 2329 days) Posts: 1026 From: B.C Canada Joined: |
Back to the TOPIC and away from dog pictures.
Atheists and their cousins evolutionists can not explain altruism, acts of altuism, symbiotic relationships, etc etc... Their tongues get twisted and new phrases and wild theories come forth. They can not explain LOVE, morals, working together for the common good. Their semantics has no bounds, lets listen. The Lord is the GREAT SCIENTIST as He created SCIENCE and ALL LAWS and ALL MATTER and of course ALL LIFE. God is the Great Architect, Designer and Mathematician. Evolutioon is not mathematical and says there is no DESIGN but that all things came about by sheer LUCK. .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Atheists and their cousins evolutionists can not explain altruism, acts of altuism, symbiotic relationships, etc etc... Of course they can, don't be silly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined:
|
Davidjay writes: Atheists and their cousins evolutionists can not explain altruism, acts of altuism, symbiotic relationships, etc etc... If you poke around the site's past discussions you will find these topics have been discussed ad nauseum. If you believe that living organisms other than humans can be altruistic and develop symbiotic relationships then I would ask you to correlate that with your belief that these things only exist because humans alone hold the monopoly on altruism and symbiosis .If you doubt that other living organisms possess the ability to be altrusitic and establish symbiotic relationships I would invite you to do some personal research and reading up on just those topics in nature. If you are un-interested in learning about such things because they may conflict with your religious beliefs them perhaps your placing a limit on the God you espouse to believe in."You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024