Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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.
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 824 of 1006 (807023)
04-30-2017 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 821 by Davidjay
04-30-2017 9:44 AM


Re: Atheists/Evolutionists can not explain morality
Evolutionists say they do not have social values or social implications to their theory of evolution
(SEE Evolution is a racist doctrine)
It's pretty gracious of you to point people to a thread where you have been spectacularly failing to prove you case. By all means, I invite anyone to go to that thread: Evolution is a racist doctrine

Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all. — Billy Bragg

This message is a reply to:
 Message 821 by Davidjay, posted 04-30-2017 9:44 AM Davidjay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 825 by Davidjay, posted 04-30-2017 9:08 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 827 of 1006 (807103)
04-30-2017 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 826 by Davidjay
04-30-2017 9:42 PM


Chir, I see you are again blaming the ever loving Lord for your lack of morality and your not knowing right from wrong.
'Course that had nothing to do with what I said. The "again" part is funny, though.
Added by edit:
Im always one step ahead of you, Chir, always
Okay, that's way too funny to not be deliberate.
Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all. — Billy Bragg

This message is a reply to:
 Message 826 by Davidjay, posted 04-30-2017 9:42 PM Davidjay has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 840 of 1006 (807179)
05-01-2017 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 835 by Dredge
05-01-2017 4:19 AM


Re: Let's start over.
Thanks for responding, Dredge.
I don't have an issue with that. If you find meaning and happiness in life, good luck to you.
Then I guess I don't understand what this whole discussion is about.
-
If I were an atheist, I would consider life meaningless, morality meaningless and beliefs meaningless and actions meaningless and emotions meaningless.
You should know better than me about yourself, yet I can't help thinking that you're selling yourself short. From what I can see people are almost always capable of finding meaning in their lives - it's just what they do. There are exceptions, though; maybe you're one of them.
Similarly for morals. Humans just seem to do morality; it seems to be part of our nature. People might wonder whether there's any meaning to it, but I think most people can't escape the feeling that certain things are wrong (although it would be different certain things for different people) and act accordingly to the best of their abilities.

Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all. — Billy Bragg

This message is a reply to:
 Message 835 by Dredge, posted 05-01-2017 4:19 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 863 by Dredge, posted 05-03-2017 12:54 AM Chiroptera has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 859 of 1006 (807359)
05-02-2017 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 853 by Dredge
05-02-2017 2:38 AM


Who tries to prove superiority?
...therefore no one can prove that their morality is superior to anyone else's.
I rarely see anyone make moral arguments based on some abstract notion of superiority. Every discussion about right or wrong involves pointing out the consequences of the persons actions or beliefs:
If you do this, then this will happen.
If you believe this, then logically you can't avoid this.
Most attempts at influencing another person's behavior - at least if their moral systems really are different - involve pointing out that the other person will not like the consequences, either because they will find them less morally acceptable according to their own values, or by pointing out they will suffer an unpleasant punishment.
I can't think of an real example where people debated a real life issue based on an argument about whose moral system is superior according to some meta-ethical measurement. Most debates I've seen involved trying to convince the other person - or the audience - that they will like the results better if one course of action is followed than another.
I think that whether your moral system is superior is not very relevant in real life discussions with real people about policies and acceptable behavior.

Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all. — Billy Bragg

This message is a reply to:
 Message 853 by Dredge, posted 05-02-2017 2:38 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 888 by Dredge, posted 05-04-2017 3:41 AM Chiroptera has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 879 of 1006 (807449)
05-03-2017 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 863 by Dredge
05-03-2017 12:54 AM


Re: Let's start over.
Okay. You're just having us on now, aren't you?

Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all. — Billy Bragg

This message is a reply to:
 Message 863 by Dredge, posted 05-03-2017 12:54 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 896 of 1006 (807596)
05-04-2017 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 888 by Dredge
05-04-2017 3:41 AM


How do people approach this question.
Okay, but you've missed my point. But that's probably understandable; I admit not being very clear on the topic.
How does one "prove" one's morality is superior to another person's?
One way is to understand what the other person believes, and use those believes to construct contradictions or "moral dilemmas". If the contradictions are severe enough, the other person may have to reevaluate how they approach the issues and perhaps consider your view point as a better framework.
Or one takes the other person's beliefs and shows that it leads to outcomes that other person will also find objectionable -- that is, present another "moral dilemma". If the dilemma is severe enough, the other person may be force to rethink the issue and perhaps adopt your viewpoint.
Even Christians arguing with me about my moral framework (or what some of them think is a lack of one) use this approach. I can't think of a case where I've witnessed someone trying to convince someone else of the correctness of their moral or ethical position using some kind of first principles. All the discussions I've witnessed involve each person trying to "get into the other person's head" and use their own beliefs to lead them to the desired conclusions.
Someone who believes that their must be an objective basis for morality may object to this because it doesn't really "prove" anything. But I have never seen anyone, not even Christians, do anything any different.
Maybe Australian Catholics have hit on another method?
Edited by Chiroptera, : Typo in the post title, of all places!

Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all. — Billy Bragg

This message is a reply to:
 Message 888 by Dredge, posted 05-04-2017 3:41 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 913 of 1006 (807754)
05-05-2017 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 901 by Dredge
05-05-2017 6:39 AM


Re: Evolutionists can not explain morals
I have a moral code of which I am proud.
Big deal. Adolf Hitler probably said the same thing.
How was the response to Hitler different between evolutionists and creationists?
Today, what is the difference between evolutionists and creationists when they look back on Hitler?

Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all. — Billy Bragg

This message is a reply to:
 Message 901 by Dredge, posted 05-05-2017 6:39 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 914 by Davidjay, posted 05-05-2017 11:33 AM Chiroptera has replied
 Message 942 by Dredge, posted 05-08-2017 3:03 AM Chiroptera has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 916 of 1006 (807803)
05-05-2017 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 914 by Davidjay
05-05-2017 11:33 AM


Oh, good heavens!
ANSWER Hitler used evolutionary theory as a basis for his rascism and inbreeding camps where he got German teens to copulate to bring on a 'superior race'. Furthermore, Hitler used evolutionary theory to give the basis for the extermination of minorities whether it was poor Jews, or gypsies or gays, etc etc.....
No, Hitler didn't use evolutionary theory, so you're wrong right out of the gate.
But mainly your post has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my question, and it doesn't have anything to do with Dredge's point either (he can correct me if I'm wrong).
You're going to have to do a better job reading what people have wrote; picking a random word and then going into free association isn't an effective method of debate.
If you want to talk about racism, there's a perfectly good thread for that already - Evolution is a racist doctrine - although it appears you're done with racism and are trying to drag that thread off topic.
Edited by Chiroptera, : Minor typo.

Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all. — Billy Bragg

This message is a reply to:
 Message 914 by Davidjay, posted 05-05-2017 11:33 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 921 of 1006 (807811)
05-05-2017 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 905 by Dredge
05-05-2017 7:27 AM


Hitler was a baptised Catholic, but so what? What has Nazism got to do with Catholicism?
Well, at a minimum it shows that it's a bit simplistic to equate morality with Christianity.
And if that doesn't undercut the main thrust of your argument then I wish you'd be a little more clear as to what you are trying to say.

Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all. — Billy Bragg

This message is a reply to:
 Message 905 by Dredge, posted 05-05-2017 7:27 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 926 of 1006 (807868)
05-06-2017 9:42 AM


Creationist summary?
So far, the only conclusion I can get from the creationist Christian side is:
If evolution/atheism is true, then morality is subjective. But so what?
Is that more or less accurate? 'Cause, honestly, you're not doing a particularly good job at filling in the "so what" part.

Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all. — Billy Bragg

Replies to this message:
 Message 928 by RAZD, posted 05-06-2017 10:11 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 929 of 1006 (807893)
05-06-2017 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 927 by Davidjay
05-06-2017 10:11 AM


repetition is repetitious
Evolution can not explain any observed facts let alone altruistic acts between individuals in a species, nor symbiotic relationships.
Another false statement that has already been disposed of earlier in this thread. So this time, you're wrong before you even got to the gate.
-
...so called branching is racism, evolution is racism..... and creates nationalism and wars.
Which is something else that has been disposed of completely back on the racism thread: Evolution is a racist doctrine. By all means, you are welcome to go back there and repeat the same junk over and over again and we'll just stuff it in the junk bin all over again.
I realize that you are working under a severe disadvantage: you know absolutely nothing about the theory of evolution. But seeing how you are utterly unwilling to learn anything, it's kind of your own fault.
It doesn't help, either, that you don't really understand how logic works.

Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all. — Billy Bragg

This message is a reply to:
 Message 927 by Davidjay, posted 05-06-2017 10:11 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


(6)
Message 932 of 1006 (807932)
05-07-2017 8:46 AM


How did Christians prevent WWII? They didn't!
I'm also trying to figure out what Hitler has to do with the topic. Hitler, who in real life history created the archetype for brutal, anithuman totalitarianism, consciously and deliberately murdered millions of people, and destroyed most of Europe in an incredibly destructive war.
All this despite growing up surrounded by Catholics, presumably teaching him about this incredible objective morality.
How do Christians prevent Hitler? Answer: they don't.
How do Christians stop Hitler? Answer: like everyone else, by carpet bombing his industrial base until he commits suicide in a bunker. Not, it seems, by proving the superiority of their incredible objective moral system.
Once again, certain conservative Christians need to judge other beliefs by standards they can't even meet.
Edited by Chiroptera, : Added subtitle.

Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all. — Billy Bragg

Replies to this message:
 Message 933 by Davidjay, posted 05-07-2017 10:39 AM Chiroptera has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 934 of 1006 (807967)
05-07-2017 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 933 by Davidjay
05-07-2017 10:39 AM


Re: How did Christians prevent WWII? They didn't!
But the heathen blame the Lord rather than themselves and their leaders.
Some might. Me, I'm not blaming anyone for anything. I'm pointing out to Dredge that whatever philosophical problems he thinks Hitler poses for the idea of subjective morality, he poses the same problems for the idea of objective morality.
Edited by Chiroptera, : Tried to make my point more clear.

Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all. — Billy Bragg

This message is a reply to:
 Message 933 by Davidjay, posted 05-07-2017 10:39 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 947 of 1006 (808039)
05-08-2017 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 943 by Dredge
05-08-2017 3:29 AM


No problems that can be solved by "objective" morality
Evidently, morality can be whatever you want it to be; you just make it up as you go along.
If you mean that without an objective standard for morality, we are like to see a variety of different moral systems, some incompatible with one another, well, that is pretty much what we see already. In fact, it was what we already saw in history when people believed there was an objective standard. So having an objective standard doesn't seem to solve this problem.
On the other hand, if your concern is that without an objective standard for morality individuals will just make it up as they go along and do what's convenient for them at the moment, well, that seems to be what the majority of people don't do, not even people who believe that morals are subjective. So there doesn't seem to be a problem that we need to worry about here.

Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all. — Billy Bragg

This message is a reply to:
 Message 943 by Dredge, posted 05-08-2017 3:29 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 948 of 1006 (808040)
05-08-2017 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 942 by Dredge
05-08-2017 3:03 AM


Re: Evolutionists can not explain morals
So you brought up an example when you didn't even know whether it supported your point?

Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all. — Billy Bragg

This message is a reply to:
 Message 942 by Dredge, posted 05-08-2017 3:03 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024