Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.

No one said you don't have the freewill to ignore the intrinsic law inside of you anymore than you would a traffic law. You seem especially wilfully ignorant and bent on ignoring his intrinsic law. You are a perfect example of why we know its there
Maybe you were created for just that reason. Just a Naturalistic thought

But you would have to explain why it is evil to kill humans, in a Naturalistic enviornment, ie, survival of the fittest driven mentality, verses it just being survival, or more or less advantagous. Evil actual evil, doesn't really seem a possibility, in a naturalistic, survival of the fittest inviornment. If I have examples of animals doing the same thing for just survival, why is it not murder or evil.
Seems you will never be able to extricate yourself from this delimmaSeems odd that men that adopt that world view can speak,of actual evil. When did it cross over from taking of life to murder? Could you give me that line of ethical distinction? I don't think you understand. Your accusing God of immoral acts, evil acts. But you suggest that morality is subjective. So if you find reasons why it's acceptable to take life both animal and human, why do u classify his actions as immoral. Being of higher intelligence, might he not have purposes that are justifiable, the same way you have subjective reasons for your actions. If you are going to accuse him of immoral acts, shouldn't we atleast assume his existence, even if you don't actually believe he exists, to see if what he is doing is possibly immoral, based upon the way you do thing first.BTW, I might remind you you don't actually have a system. If just 2 people disagree on what is right or wrong on a given Imaginary moral, who is right or wrong. Or does it matter, or is there anyway to know. See your problem Natural selection and SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST. Both of which, superceed any supposed ethic or imagined moral in your system. To
demonstrate this point I only need to point out the countless suffering, over the alledgedly millions of years by nearly every species of animal, to kill for survival, instinct, food, or just because the other animal was it's path If taking of life for any reason then was evil or murder, it would be the same now. But you maintain it was not evil of them, correct? Your Johnny come lately alledgedly morals, can only be described as survival of the fittest, if we are honest with ourselvesBTW, we're the gladiator games in Rome or anywhere, good bad, evil, moral or immoral, or something else. Please explain Interesting, why?. Your answer should be interesting and very revealing
Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

I say everything you said was both right and wrong, correct and incorrect, moral and immoral, evil and good, good and bad.So now, to sum up, how will we know if any of those things I mentioned is the one or the other, all of them, or none of them. I say in your Naturalistic system, there's no way to know, comparing biological functions, with biological funcionsBut go-ahead and pick one if you wishDawn Bertot

Well this is refreshing, it seems we may not be as far apart, as originally, thought. we just just disagree about the source of our morals. But i wanted to make sure, before i went on accusing u of something you do not believe. Atleast you have the sense to know you being subjective in your morals, have no real way to attack God's actions.
Perhaps you should write a letter to Dawkins and Harris and explain it to themKnow if you had what? So if I read you correctly your using the words murder and evil in some vague subjective way to only mean threats to YOUR AND YOUR SPECIES survival. It really wouldn't apply in reverse when other species are threatened? Or are you saying it wouldnt be murder in reverse, when you threatened another species survival?So murder only really exists, we are speaking of humans, it's not,possible for animals to murder anyone in right or wrong since, correct? So would you say animal life is on a par or equal to yours. If not, could you explain how and the way it is not Well by explain i assumed you were smart enough to know I meant make rational sense of and whether they actually exist at all. Let's try again. Since the source of your so called morals is a blind unintelliegent, process called natural selection and survival of the fittest, it would,follow logically that anything I do for any reason would be acceptable since in this processes right and wrong don't exist, except in your small fraction of existence.Perhaps you can show me how this is not true. If your answer, is even neither of what you or I am saying is true. It would turn our the same.. so your explanation is nothing more than a rewording of survival of the fittest, which actually exists, but right and wrong dont , do they. Even if we weren't comparing them to other species, it would only be blind biological processes where only u and your fellow humans were involvedd. I put that last D in for u Oh yeah I can see how an Atheist can explain morals. Nice jobIf the above statement is any indicator, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOUR NOT REALLY SURE OF ANYTHING. So, it could be right or wrong, your just not really sure? Nice.
So if I say your wrong am I right or am I wrong? No sorry you can't make a simply natural process better or worse than another, if natural processes are all there are. If I hit you in the head with a hammer, so I can see what it looks like, it's just a collection of atoms in the form of a hammer hitting a collection of atoms in the form of meat hair and skin. Since processes are all there are, even my thoughts to do that are simply an addition biological processes, assuming there are only natural processes. How can this not possible be true. Or are my thoughts wrong on that. Or are both of wrong, right or it doesn't matter. Please explainDawn Bertot

Your almost correct, it actually has no worth or value even in its functionality. Because you cannot demonstrate that it is anything more than biological process. Of course I could be wrong, but how would I know? [qs]The very idea of some absolute morality is a pitiful and sad concept that could only be found within a totalitarian oppressive society. To have worth or value morality must be capable of change and evolution unless the society in totally static and never changing.This is exactly what you would expect someone to say that is opposed to authority. If I am not mistaken, IT SOUNDS AS IF YOU JUST STATED AN ABSOLUTE. But of course this absolute of yours allows you to operate mostly just like you wish correct.
I could be wrong, but how would I know in your world Is this absolutely true or relatively true?

Sounds to me like your following orders. But I'll let you off the hook. But I think u are demonstrating my point about the subjective nonsense of your so called morals. You cant even admit your following orders, which someone else set up.So is it absolutley true that your not following orders and that it's only a social contract, or is it absolutely true that it's just a social contractDawn Bertot

Yes someone as unsure about how to establish morals, as he is unsure how to establish whether God exists Well you see RAZD, that's the difference between what you believe answer what I believe. Your morality makes no rational sense, but ours does. No I don't know why God commanded some people to stone people, but then it makes no sense to another human being to ask them to love thier enemy.. So I know that while those things may seem incompatible on the surface, I have an objective standard, in the form of infinte wisdom. That's assuming we are going to allow the definition of God by the same source, that issues his commandsAn being infinte in knowledge, could also have freewill, indeed you would expect him to. I think it is much easier to establish the existence of God, than it would be to show how a person could have actual right or wrong from biological process. My position is atleast evidential. Yours involves the worst form of contradiction. From your position, even your thoughts, concepts and ideas are nothing more than biological processes. No different than a tree falling on a squirrel paying by.I know you like to believe otherwise, but reality won't allow it at all. Hence a ilogical mpossibility. That's unless you can show me how it's more than natural processes.Only if you can show that atheists cannot haveanymorality, and you have not done that. Well again nothing more than biological processes, because we do not have anything to compare it with, other than other biological processes. That's unless you can provide me with another sourceHere's your problem. The same source that started your process will end the same way, in natural processes. And the fact that it will end, is revealing also.An emotional response to these realities such as yours, do not change the realty of only natural processes, anymore than me being a tree if I think I'm one, is reality Because I can I can see humans acting thing differently than animals. Pretty sure that's a reality So if the moral consensus was to stone people or do what the Nazis did, you would then say that was ok, right wrong, moral, good bad or what? So if I'm reading you correctly, we may assume that at any point in this Naturalistic timeline, any autrocites now attibuted to God, could be multiplied and surpassed, as long as everyone agrees it's okSo what would be the point of charging God with anythingDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Well to demonstrate that you assertion is palpable false please produce the line or single argument that u think I have not addressed, then I'll show you I have

The only functionality of a Naturalistic "morality" is matter in motion. If by functionality you mean, MORE than just WHAT'S IT'S DOING at any given moment,you'll need to provide that. If not it would not be any better or worse than anything else happening. I know you'd like to think you have something BETTER, but reality won't allow it Unless you can demonstrate that the things these members have created, rules etc are anything more than just a product of natural processes, you have no morality. Can. You do this? The best you've done so far is change words to call it functionality There no such thing as relatively true, that's why I asked the question. You answered as I expected you to. Thank uDawn Bertot

No its not social contract. It does not matter what ambiguous pattern you and your wife have going, you signed a legal contract by the state. Both of you are subject other that law outside yourself. See how it worksNow if you were actually Sharon Stone you could order mearound at will and I would not care. Lol Right wisdom is a journey, but that doesn't mean, reality is not reality because someone has not discovered those facts. It's still just what it is, that never changes. It will never be more true or less that true, that it's just natural processes. If you think you've found something that is better than that or that will superceed that, you will have to let us know.Dawn Bertot

But Atheists do not claim to be all knowing, the God of the Bible does, that's the difference. If the God of the Bible did not claim this there would be no reason to believe him anymore than you

Well I know your not paying close attention and you'll get tired of hearing this but, you have failed to show how anything just functioning in a biological fashion is anything but matter in motion. If that's the case and it seems to be , then you can call your morality a turnstile or a flag pole, but it doesn't make it that. I could point to any other physical or biological process, in or out of the animal kingdom and say it's morality, it wouldn't make it soCalling it subjective by myself, is only one of your problems, not the first one. For something to be strictly ethical or moral it must involve more than just a physical process.. Because if we compare physical processes with eachother, then we only get the samething. Hence I gave you the example of a tree falling on a passing rabbit and you caping a round in arse. Neither would mean or have meaning, just processes. There's nothing to compare these two things against, there both the same. If not why not.. it won't help to,point out what humans think or eachother or how they treat eachotherBut if there is an infinte standard then we can [qs] When you start with enlightened self-interest, that generates the golden rule, and then you can generate further moral values: don't kill your family, friends or neighbors, don't covet your neighbors spouse and material objects, don't take from others, etc.Xcept for porky the pig and cluckie the chicken. If you came accross a pig with a hundred dollar bill in his mouth and he seemed to be enjoying it, would it be stealing if you took it from him. That's assuming you don't already own the pig through slaveryEnlightened self-intrest, indeed. Where did you pull that one from I suppose if I was infinte in wisdom, I could answer that question. But we know under your system you have no right to ask the question, NO WAY TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, therefore no reason to ask the question. See what matter in motion only does for you? It leaves you speechless, powerless. But,it could be the case that your WRONG about being RIGHT, we just don't know, or do we.? Nobody knows under your methodology See this is where your wrong. I know that for your assumed morality to be correct, we would need to have a standard that was absolute. If it doesn't it's just verbiage. Even if I don't mention infinite wisdom, we are left with MINDLESS matter in motion. Now,that's reality, not assumed anything, correct? [qs]And that contradicts moral values derived from enlightened self-interest how? That's nothing but a non-sequitur.You have no hope of demonstrating how moral values derived from self-intrest, enlightened or otherwise, IT isn't anything, but word salad. Youve just changed the words of matter in motion. Enlightened self-intrest, is like the the word sourcrout, it tells you right in the name it sucks See folks, here is an example of enlightened self-interest. Read it a few times and try not to laugh. Remember he's talking about the Nazis . So if the Nazis thought it was right, we're they right RAZD?Dawn Bertot

Well if I was try,ing, i could not have given a better description of your position. Then if we follow that logically, I have no need to follow the alleged truth of any of your positions. If truth is OFTEN dependent on context and that is what it takes to be truth, then, when would we absolutely know what a truth is or is not. Perhaps you could give us an example of this assertion, then according to your definition of truth, let us know how it's true, or not true. Example please.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

So we're the Nazis, moral ,immoral, right, wrong, good, bad right or wrong for what they did, according to your positionDawn Bertot

Well simply put I'll just invoke the fact that God can and has created freewill. I won't develope that yet. I'll wait for your response to see how that fits in too your assertions
Father the Tests as you call them were for Abraham's freewill, to help him growUS equally you'll find in the context, some purpose God acted in a certain way. But does not affect whether he is or is not all powerful.If I believed the Bible was wrong about God being omniscient work all powerful, I couldn't care less about what else it saidDawn Bertot