Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.

It's a set of rules and guidelines you use presently, which could change with the opposite affect of what you call good or bad at any moment in time. Hence, this is the reason I gave the examples of the gladiators and the Nazis. Jar I know this hard for you to understand, but try and pay attention. If what you presently call murder was not murder to the Nazis and thiers was just another choice as to what morality is or is not. Then this clearly demonstrates your system of what you call morality is the height and breath of stupidity.But how will you, a guy that thinks and believes they were just doing what they thought was right condemn them. If you say they were wrong, you violate thier right to believe they were right. If you say they were wrong, then there must be some standard. Your system is idiocyOf course it's only a biological process,, in a meaningless universe, Burning someone alive or gasing them, is nothing more than biological process, like a tree falling, in your imaginary, relativistic system of morals..Death being a larger and more comprehensive explanation of your meaningless universe, will swallow up your imaginary morality, demonstrating, you yourself have no meaning. I know it's hard Jar but please try and keep up

Well I said I'd play along and I knew this wasn't going to be very hard. Interesting, so 50 years ago they were treating homosexuality as a mental disease, tumor or otherwise. So, in another 50 years or so when your so called presently moral society says that pedophilia is acceptable, or that sex with animals and marrying them is ok, will you describe them as having mental problems, moral or immoral. You do realize Tangle that there are people actually lobbying for it to be ok to have sex with children, presently, correct.The only thing more immoral than that would be a society that shifts it's made up garbage morality to allow such things. Now do you see the stupidity of subjective morality. If it was not wrong or ok, then you or I could do the samething, correct? Or could we? If not why not? And when there is no tumor and they act in this fashion? Will it be ok if society says so? Ok I'll be more specific. If you thought he was wrong and he thought he was right who was right or wrong, actually. Or it doesn't matter, because it's all relative Let's try this again. You live in your mind in a purely naturalistic universe, IOWS no God. Hence, all life is basically equal. For your so called ethics to make sense,, they would need to apply across the spectrum of species. So you still do have slaves and you sacrifice animals to eat them, correct?Further, if it's a moral at any point in time then, it was not murder in the 40s for the Nazis, but somehow it is now [qs]I'm afraid you've lapsed back into obscurity again. Morality IS a biological process. It's a brain state and an emotion like anger or love. It's called empathy and it's moderated by group learning. We learn how to behave morally from our parents and from society that's why it changes over time and across societies.[qs] Unfortunately, that is only part of what you might describe as morality. There is the other part that takes place outside the brain called reality. You may be able to experience things like love and anger, but then there are the questions of changing morality outside yourself correct. You know like the topics I discussed above.. so as we have seen morality can't be just what you decide in your mind or anybody else's mind. If it is its really nonexistent or imaginaryDawn Bertot

I think you missed my point. I'll try again. The word apple is not a real thing. It's a concept or contrivance to describe a biological thing round red and juicy. In a strictly Naturalistic universe, there can be no such thing as morality. If we create a word to describe me hitting you in the head with a pipe, as immoral, it's still just a biological process of a metal object clashing with your skin and cranium, not moral or immoral, in realityIf today you describe something as murder and in another generation it's not murder, guess what, reality doesn't care and it's just biological functions. Attaching a contrived word like morality does not make it morality, anymore that an apple is actually an apple because we called it that. That is of course if the qualities of the apple do not changeIn a meaningless purposeless universe, thinking brains can create mental things that can affect the real world, and therefore actually exist albeit it subjectively. That is, they are subjects of our imagination rather than objects in the real world. They still exist, they just don't exist objectively.Even if you possessed mental telapathy, your above comment would not be true. Here's why. Long before you or any other human existed the apple was what it was. The advent of the human brain does not make something more real, muchless subjectively or objectively. Morality cannot be created, it either existed or did not. Since we are basically animals, according to your doctrines and they were doing the things we were doing long before us, our coming along and describing those things as moral or immoral, doesn't change that reality, that they are not That's the point, its not my definition of words or yours, it's what actually exists in reality, as I have clearly demonstrated above. Words get thier meaning from reality not the definition you ascribe them. Well telling me your not an Atheist, doesn't tell me what you are. So I have to speak assuming you may be something like that, correct How ironic. I am presently watching an episode of my favorite tv show , the
Twilight Zone, an episode called The Obsolete Man. It's almost a text book case as to why you fellas can't actually or explain morality, assuming morality actually existedThere is another irony here. You think I'm helping you describe morality, but actually I'm demonstrating, very capably I might add, you don't even have one in reality Yes I know absolutely what it means. It means that which reality will allowDawn Bertot

So if the Nazis did something out of hatred, this made thier actions not immoral, because hatred is not a moral just an emotion. So how would we describe thier actions as immoral or imoral, by a perception that is not an emotion or something else?How did you come to this brilliant conclusion that an emotion such as hatred, is just an an emotion an not a moral, but whatever anybody wants or sees as a moral, is actually morality?You know that simpleton, Our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ said, that if you hate your brother without a cause, that it was a sin, hence a moral. Was he mistaken or just plain wrong The reason your not getting started, is because you see stuff happening as a moral. You need to demonstrate that, asserting it won't work. So if I see stuff happening and I imagine I'm the creator of it all, does that make me, the creator of it all.You seem to be flip flopping all over the place on just what morality is actually. But I guess I should not be surprised since it's all relative, correct? Yeah, its reality is pretty cool, you should actually give it a try at some point. Reality that isDawn Bertot

Well yeah I know that's what you said, but it doesn't make any better sense the second time. If what you do to humans is murder, but it's not murder when you kill and eat animals, then it should be Clear to anyone you don't actually have a moral, your just a walking contradiction. That said assuming there is such a thing as a contradiction in your twisted sense of reality, called subjective. So by indirect implication, using your example above, there is really no such thing as murder or stealing, just a perception. Hence a made up word called morality. Did I nail your position So what your saying is, that it doesn't really matter what Mr Trump is doing, because it's all relative, correct? So why are you worried about what he's doing? Both of your perspectives are right, correct?. Did I nail your system Right selfish disinterest in the well being of other species. I'm assuming you eat them correct? No your above expression, Atheist moral code , is like saying the Running Still waters. I'm assuming he eats out of the animal kingdom as well, correct Comical, you say that morals are relative and subjective and then say I'm not being rational and only offereing an opinion, when I say I disagree with your perception of what is true of morality. Since your alleged morals are nothing more than any persons perceptions, by your own admission, wouldn't that make my perception, a subjective morality.You are one confused pup. When did I say, this was or was not a moral. If you percieve your imaginations of morals as objective evidence, then you need to rethink things. If your ability to explain morals and it's explanation applies only to humans, you are not providing evidence that you have a moral or that you can explain them. You do enslave monkeys and kill and eat animals, correct?I'm not an animal rights activist, but it is sad you give more credence to imaginary robots, than living creatures. I could pick your so called summary apart piece by piece, but this will suffice. So why don't you apply your alleged morality to dogs and monkeys, the same way you do you humans. I'll tell you why, you are making crap as you go along. No thinking person buys your garbage RAZD. put another way, I dont need to eat out of a trash can to know it's garbage Uh no. Morals subjectively explained. IOWS relativistic nonsenseDawn Bertot

Where did it say Hitler was infinte in knowledge. So logically he could not be more moral than God. God's morality is not and cannot be subjective, because of his infinte nature, no more information could be added to his knowledge to make it more correct. See how it works JarIf there are different sets of morality, based on a subjective approach, then logically the Nazis could not be held responsible for thier actions. Do you see the silliness of your doctrine. You still have not demonstrate IT, to be anything more than another biological process. You have no hope of doing that actually If the universe has no meaning, then it follows logically you cannot either. But I'll take a look at the argument you might set to demonstrate your assertion. Your confusing your imaginations with reality. Here's an example.How would a subset of reality or the universe,, namely humans imagining things, be capable of knowing whether the universe had a meaning or not? It would follow logically therefore, that if you are incapable of knowing whether the universe has a meaning, that you could equally , have no chance of demonstrating, that your imaginations are meanings. Just can't escape that logic, Jar. Keep trying though I'm enjoying itDawn Bertot

Well actually I have set out several arguments. I don't remember you actually setting out an rebuttal against the FACT, that if the universe in purely physical or biological in reality and it doesn't have meaning, why do you think your biological imaginations are more than the total itself. What possible meaning could your imagined morals have on the universe itself. You would have to have a greater meaning than that which created you for your imagined meaning to have meaning.That being the case, we can see, how conscience does exist, but for it to have meaning or relevance, there would need to be something greater than that which created it. And i believe that could only be God. Do you see how the existence of a conscience, morality, a sense of ought, are actually a proof for the existence of God. Oh I'm sorry, one of the many proofs for the existence of GodThen there is the problem of subjective meaning anything but subjective. It's another word you made up to describe things happening, in a meaningless universe
Then there's the problem of you not being able to charge the Nazis with any real guilt, right or wrong
Then there's the problem of you and the animals. YOU REALLY BLEW THAT ONE.So yes I did set out some arguments, you just kept throwing things at them like synergy and memes, instead of grabbing my actual argumentsDawn Bertot

Well, absolutely no, no pun intended. The word subjective is given a relative meaning by humans, which in reality has no meaning."'based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions."his views are highly subjective"synonymsersonal,individual,emotional,instinctive,intuitive"a subjective analysis"If my feelings or opinions are different than the Nazis, then it follows logically that no one could say they were guilty of anything. They were just doing other biological things, different than I would do. Throwing a made up word at them like, moral or immoral, doesn't help you doctrine. Subjective means nothingNow if there exists a being outside the universe that is all knowing and absolute in its morality, then the words start to make sense. In your universe and doctrine they mean nothing So now have you expanded your definitions to include nonsense as well? Why does that not surprise me. It's a logical conclusion of relative or subjective, correctSo if what worked for the Nazis worked for them, it's good to go?. If what works for a child molester, works for them, it's ok. Remember we can't let what they think get in the way of what works, for us correct "Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite." Psalms 147:5"Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth Does not become weary or tired His understanding is inscrutable." Isa 40:28"Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!. Romans 11:33I believe inscrutable means non contestable, due to his being infinte in wisdomDawn Bertot

[qs]The word, itself (that is A-P-P-L-E), is a real thing. It's a word. Words are real.I think you are talking about theconcept. Concepts, too, exist as real things they just are not objective. That is, they do not exist outside of our minds. But they still exist.Are you just using the word "real" to mean "objective"? If so, you're begging the premise... Subjective things are also real.Well, no, wrong again. Pay very close attention to what I'm about to say. It will help you understand what you are missing. Before you existed, what you describe as an APPLE already existed in reality, even if it didn't have your imagined designation, correct. So using your concepts which are not real things, doesn't give it it's meaning. It already had its existence and meaning, if you wish to call it thatBefore you existed, animals, we're going through the very same motions your are now. They were taking eachother lives and doing thins you now describe as moral and immoral. So, just like the apple, these things don't get thier meaning from terms you throw at them. Hence no real morality in a purposeless universe. Imagining morality is not the same as actually having it in realityThat's why if we use THIER system of so called morality, the Nazis were just doing stuff, biological stuff I never NOT said that reality defines things for us. That just what I'm saying. In a purely naturalistic existence, words and concepts are just that, made up terms, things that can't really exist.
Since, as I have demonstrated above, morality is a made up term for things happening, that concept cannot exist, because all these things would have existed before my defining them as morality, that's assuming the Atheist postion. Well that is nice to know, I did not know that. Thank you for letting me know. NCE, understand that I am not representing my argument only in these premises, I'm representing thier position to show its logical consequences and implicationsIn reality conscience and morality that Cleary exists in humans is proof for the existence of God. If however, he did not exist, it would make no logical sense and could not be explained or rationalized, other than biological processessIf indeed you are a Christian and you believe Jesus words,, you would know he said Truth is actually knowable. "FOR this reason I was born and for this cause I came into the world to testify to the truth" If that's not true WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE HIM AS CHRISTIANS, about truth. If Jesus truth is not absolute or objective, why should I trust anything he said, correct?"YOU WILL KNOW THE TRUTH AND THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE'. Now if he only meant this in some relativistic subjective way, It would mean anyone's alleged truth could be valid. Just pick one, correct. Now in a very real way he is claiming truth is objectiveIf Jesus came into the world to testify to the truth and save people from thier sins, there must be an objective knowable truth, for me to accept and know to know that I am saved. Verses believing everyother religionAs in the verses I quoted to Ringo, one can easily see that truth is knowable and objective, due to his omniscience. For truth to be knowable it has to be more than a belief. Self assessment is not necessary where, where reality does that for us. I'm not worried about pats on the back, I'm satisfied none of the arguments I presented have been overturned. But these same arguments have been around for hundreds of years and have stood the test of time and reality Reality gives us the allowances and limits of reason and logic. Those things don't define reality. It's the other way aroundDawn Bertot

So may I assume that these societies, that do this are moral or immoral in your view. Not notice I'm not asking anyone in general, I'm asking you? I think we are actually getting closer and closer to showing you how the term subjective is meaningless and worthless. But I'll await your answer.Why do you think I sidestepped your answer. Without even ME trying you just told me in your statement about socities, that there is actually nothing wrong with Fred's behavior with or without a tumor. But I'll wait for your specific answer as to why the societies child sex and Fred's tendencies are moral or immoral. Give us an answer why you think thier behavior is moral or immoral. Is your indirect implication that sex with children is actually morally ok, because you nearly defended thier right to have that rightYou see Tangle I did answer your question. You just didn't like the answer, because you are not sure whether Fred's behavior is wrong in the first place. Damage to the brain will also cause people to see things that are not actually there, is that moral or immoral.. you see tangle, morality has to be from a source outside human perspective to actually be morality, otherwise we have you doing exactly what your doing now, affirming and denying the morality of child sex at the same time, with the same argument. That's called nonsense Thank you for your answer. But now notice, looking strictly at your and the others doctrine here, that being that morality is subjective, there is in reality, no way to define any of the examples you gave as right, wrong, correct incorrect, moral or immoral. Even you in your description are bouncing back and forth, flip flopping around. Now you may call this subjective, but remember you defined Hitler's actions as Wrong. Not slightly wrong, maybe wrong or possibly wrong, but Wrong. So how could he be ACTUALLY wrong. Of course given your position he's neither or any of these things.Relative subjective morality can't even exist muchless be explainedIt's relative, easy, no pun intended, to show you the absolute,truth about the edict, thou shalt not kill. If I had made that decree, it would be meaningless. If an infinte God made that decree, then he knows absolutely my intentions when I take a life. The obligation is on God, not me to define whether I murdered or killed in self defense. So, if I'm showing you simply by my standards what moral or immoral are, it would be meaningless.We dont have to be all knowing ourselves to determine glaring distinctions, in moral concepts. But even if we don't get all the specifics right, it doesn't mean there's no standard. Obviously there isSo Hitler was objectively wrong and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were absolutely Moral, ie Romans 13 Of course part of it is due to the fall and depravity of man's nature. The whole of creation was corrupted. So to answer your question that's not how it was originally created. But to be honest, I dont know all the reasons. I had another fellow tell me that if had created man, he wouldn't have created him as he is now, with the same physical features and physical make up. So I asked him to give me a picture and description of how he would make him. I never got that description.On the other hand I don't know why the same God would tell me to love my enemies or let Satan put Job through what he went through, or why he would sacrifice his own son. This is why, even if subjective morality were actually a real thing in reality, would not work. If you pay close attention to your answer, you will see that you described nothing more than imaginations and perceptions, that really make no sense and have no meaning. Given your description, any thinking person can easily see that morality cannot and does not actually exist in a purely Naturalistic societyDawn Bertot

If I was disposed to believe that the Nazis were correct, aside from my emotions, would that make them moral. Or would we need a bunch of people that agree with me, to decide that it was moral.So nastiness and niceness are brought about by evolution, which in turn develope morals. But emotions don't make up morals, even though nastiness and niceness, by any real definition, would come from emotions. Hmmmmm? I think your falling apart Mod. But if your are saying that animals can't really be nasty or nice, and that morals are of the same substance, I'll agree that you agree, morals don't really exist. So my point is proven. Well that is a perfect redescription of what we are debating. Since you only again described what you believe and not necessarily what is true, I'll consider your statement as a loose observation or assertion. If you'd like to actually present an argument in connection with that observation I'll consider it Of course you disagree with him, you've made morals something undefinable and nonexistent, except in some relativistic imaginations of your mind But you did do otherwise. You described nastiness and niceness as the things that brought about morals from an evolutionary standpoint. So are these descriptions real or unreal. If they are not actually proceeding from emotions, I'll assume that the morality they created, is as un real as they are. You'll let me know But not in any real sense do you mean nasty and unforgiving, because that they would come from an emotion like hatred. So your alleged morals are just as unreal , correct. Your just describing things that don't actually exist, correct

Well that's loosely correct but not technically correct. Its an oversimplification of the actual facts. You see there are absolutes. Lol. Thanks for that observation and keeping the ball rolling. I should be able to get to all those numerous posts this evening. A lot left to discuss I hope. We are just getting started.Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

It has always amazed me about you Jar, that you do not see the difference between an assertion and an argument. You assert things as if they were an actual argument. You seem to be oblivious to this fact, or you just don't care that you never present arguments. Here's an illustration. You claim to know about God from the Bible or atleast you speak about his character from the Bible, but never take into consideration all that the Bible has to say about him. I don't know if you do this to be malicious or just plain stupidSo how can a God as described in the Bible , know the very number of your hairs on your head and if a sparrow falls, it is not unknown to him, be as incompetent as you claim. So set out the argument that demonstrates your baseless assertionThe only nonsense here is for someone to claim someone has not read the bible, then ignore the passages where it clearly states God is infinite in wisdom. One thing is for sure, we could conclude that Jar is not infinte in wisdomMeant to bring this up earlier but forgot. There are so many unqualified Bible scholars out there Jar, we were hoping you could give us a commentary of the Bible. Staring with the insightful wisdom, that God did not actually know where Able was when he asked Cain, Abel's location.You don't actually think anybody here takes your comments about the Bible and the nature of God seriously do you? You exhibit the worst form of maliciousness and wilful stupidity Im sure, someone even as simple minded as yourself can understand that if two people assign a different Socalled meaning to something, those meanings cannot both be correct? That's because meanings don't have reality, especially in a meaningless universe. It should be obvious even to you Jar that when you say the universe has no meaning, you would need to demonstrate that for it to be true. Hence your postulating that meaning has meaning, is quite obviously nonsensicalEven living beings cannot ACTUALLY assign meaning. If I imagine I am creation and that I created all that exists, that's just an imagination Jar, it's unreal like the imaginary meanings you ascribe to things. Wow seriously? When I first heard you say God did not know where Abel was , I thought you were joking around. But when I read comments like this one above, I think man, he really is that simple, bless his heart. And he actually has the backbone to get on a website and debate issues.Jar, when I say they cannot be held responsible, I mean there is no rational way to accuse them of wrong doing, no one has a right to condemn thier actions if morality is relative, or nonexistent. if it's just a perception or consensus. I don't mean someone didn't try, I mean there's no rational way to do itHence, Jar your meanings you ascribe to things and the meanings you ascribe to the actions of people are imaginary, just like your morality Jar did God know where Able was, when he asked Where is your brother Able? Can't wait for that commentary you going to write.Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

No it tells me your not paying attention. It tells me that morals cannot and do not exist, whether you imagine them or not. If I imagine I'm creation and that I created everything, that does not make it real.
You don't get to ascribe meaning to things that already existed before you. Givi ing them names like morality subjective or objective doesn't change that they are JUST matter in motion, in your meaningless universeAnimals were doing the same things you were long before your pathetic existence. When humans start taking life doesn't make it murder or not, because you decided it. You starting to get it? And your above comment is an example that you do not understand. I don't care whether think he's wrong or right. You have no rational way to decide either way and you certainly don't have a right to condemn anyone else.Remember the expression A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME, IS STILL JUST A ROSE. Seems that that writer was a better philosopher than you See what I mean No, no bind and I'm sure it's confusing for you but we will get you through the it. Your imaginations are not real, calling things moral or immoral, that existed long before you, does not make it real after you come along. It just means you gave an arbitrary term. It's still just a rose, if you decide to call it such. Are you starting to get it?Your pathetic species decided to give slinging poop at eachother by primates a name, primates did not. In reality it Doesn't matter. In reality you do not actually have morality, it's an invention of your mind, just like me imagining I created everythingAnd that's only the first logical problem with you thinking, you actually have a moral or morality. Even I I grant it's existence, it's hopelessly bogged down with inconsistent arbitrary nonsense [qs]Now that is the biggest non sequitur I've seen for a while. Why was Hitler objectively wrong and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were absolutely right? Please explain.God is infinite in power and wisdom you are not. Hitler was committing murder, the Japanese were killing and torturing people. We were trying to stop them, they would not stop. Romans 13, says that the powers that be, are ordained of God. If one is acting in opposition to God's word, we have moral right based on infinte wisdom to stop them, or atleast the government does, not the individual. While God sets up all governments, governments can go against his divine will. His absolute morality"Blessed is the nation who's God is Jehovah" It's much much worse than that Tangle, morality does not exist at all in your purely naturalistic world, subjective or objective. When animals act in the very same way you do in what you call morality, why do you say they are not moralYour Fred example is starting in the middle of the argument, you need to get more fundamental and basic. For example, if I disagree that Fred's behaviour is moral or immoral before of after a tumor, how wold you demonstrate otherwise, five you Atheistic positionDawn Bertot

It's not beside the point, it is the point. Now we are starting to narrow it down,. Good. While your imaginations exist, so to speak, they are not real. I can imagine things that clearly do not exist. I can imagine myself flying over the countryside, so much so that I can actually see it, but that doesn't make it real. Now watch this, if I can imagine things that are actually not real, that should demonstrate that imaginations are not realHence morality or as it is described in a purely naturalistic enviornment cannot exist either. I could throw a term at the animal kingdoms action called morality, but we would now immediately, that was not true Certainly it does. Objective and subjective are just more words to define something that doesn't need defining, namely things happening in reality. Those words including morality don't give things in reality MORE meaning. They are ALREADY what they are, your arbitrary descriptions don't make them more than what they are. Hence morality only exists as an imagination, like me imagining I'm the creator of everything Ok, if you think I haven't addressed it, provide the single argument from any individual here that refutes my contentionsThe first part of your sentence is nonsensical. You need to demonstrate that an imagined thing is actually real, before it can be described as morality, subjective or objective. I've already demonstrated to many times that your or my imaginations do not exist in reality, that is they are not real. I'll try again. If I imagine myself flying simply using my body and arms, it's not real, I I imagine myself walking down the street, it's not actually real, even if I go do it, my imagination of doing it is not real.Imaging something like morality, does not make it real, in a purely naturalistic universe.. hence, explanations of moralities evolving, is a nonsensical idea, the same way a rose is actually
a rose , because I call it a rose. No, bad theology is picking and choosing from his words what you like or don't like. Or picking what fits or doesn't fit. Hence your example of the golden rule onlySo when Jesus said, You will KNOW The TRUTH and the truth will set you free, what truth was he refering to and is it actually knowable?Patently stupid is believing a person can have a moral and it be subjective depending on what anyone believes, wishes or imagines. That's actually willful stupidityDawn Bertot