Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8790 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-24-2017 3:22 PM
357 online now:
DrJones*, JonF, PaulK, RAZD, ringo, Tangle (6 members, 351 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Upcoming Birthdays: Tempe 12ft Chicken
Post Volume:
Total: 819,356 Year: 23,962/21,208 Month: 1,927/2,468 Week: 20/416 Day: 20/24 Hour: 1/4

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
1516
...
67NextFF
Author Topic:   Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18971
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 196 of 1002 (799441)
02-10-2017 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Dawn Bertot
02-09-2017 9:08 PM


Summary of my argument so far
Taking the opportunity of this double post to convert it into a summary of my argument to this point.

  1. The basis of all morality is enlightened self-interest. This is where the "golden-rule" comes from, and why you can find variations on that theme in every religion and every culture. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is an expression of enlightened self-interest -- don't kill your family, friends and neighbors in their sleep and so they will not kill you in your sleep.

  2. Morality is essentially social convention, a program to survive and reproduce within a culture, and thus it would be surprising if it didn't differ from social group to social group, from culture to culture, from nation to nation.

  3. Morality is subjective, it is based on the society mores instead of the individual's beliefs, and because it is subjective it can change over time.
    • It doesn't need to be 100% absolutely consistent in a social group, it only needs to be predominantly consistent.
    • It is tied to culture, it is a consensus of views with family and friends and acquaintances, with what you learn and what you know, and it grows with you as you grow and learn.
    • The moral standard is the social consensus of the culture where you live. The headhunters of New Zealand used to think it was moral to kill and eat their enemies, they no longer do because their culture has changed, necessarily changed to fit into the global society we have.
    • As society changes and evolves so to does the moral consensus standard. The Romans felt is was moral to feed Christians to the lions.

  4. An example of an objectively evidenced moral code written by an atheist is Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics

  5. There is an evolved component to human morality, because game theory shows evolutionary benefit for social animals to behave in a manner conducive to the survival of the social group, and that includes morals.
    • It is based in biology, but there is a point where synergy happens and self consciousness arises.
    • We can observe self consciousness in apes and some other animals, but not in slugs and bugs.
    • Morality is a meme: moral codes develop and get passed from generation to generation, codes of behavior that benefit the survival and reproduction of the group are preserved.

  6. It is developed by natural processes.
    • You can reduce all of the universe into quarks in random motion, and explain atoms with them, but chemistry explains molecules and organic chemistry explains the combinations of organic molecules and the formation of objects, pre-biotic molecules explain self-replicating molecules that explain life that explains biology.
    • This all occurs by natural processes but the details of those processes are different at different levels. There is a synergy that occurs at each stage as well, where the sum is greater than the parts, the atom is not just quarks, molecules aren't just atoms, life is not just pre-biotic molecules. Self-consciousness is not just biology and thought is not just electrical activity in a brain, it is more than the sum of the parts, it is synergy.
    • Microevolution alone is not enough to explain macroevolution, because you need to have diversity in different ecologies to change daughter populations in different ways.
    • Biology is not enough to explain memes because the sociological processes of communication and interaction of ideas is a group activity not an individual one. This is a synergy from interaction and communication that creates something greater than the sum of the parts (individuals in the group).
    • Morals are a subset of memes. Memes are shared evolved concepts, but moral codes are not just any concepts lumped together, they are ones that benefit the social group to survive and reproduce as a group by conditioning behavior for reducing conflicts.

    Morals are subjective, they are a type of memes that have evolved over time as a consensus control on social behavior, to reduce conflicts between individual members of a social group, and thus benefit the survival and continuous revitalization of the social group from generation to generation.

Enjoy


Below are the posts that detail these points.

Message 39: Simply put the basis of all morality is enlightened self-interest. This is where the "golden-rule" comes from, and why you can find variations on that theme in every religion and every culture.

There is an evolved component to human morality, because game theory shows evolutionary benefit for social animals to behave in a manner conducive to the survival of the social group, and that includes morals, as the video of the capucin monkeys shows. Humans have built on that basis via memes -- inherited behavior and cultural traditions that have survived and spread because they offer survival and reproductive advantages. These memes can cross-fertilize other social groups (rather than a nested hierarchy pattern) and thus we see a lot of similarities across groups that come from different origins and religious backgrounds.

Morality is essentially social convention, a program to survive and reproduce within a culture, and thus it would be surprising if it didn't differ from social group to social group, from culture to culture, from nation to nation.

It is logically preposterous to think there would be one and only one moral code for all of mankind (and animal kind), but it is not logically impossible for many to exist, often with overlaps and similarities, such as Christian and Muslim, AND it is why morality evolves and changes over time, as more things become accepted behavior because they don't harm the social group.

Message 50: You seem to think that because morality is subjective that it would be wildly inconsistent, when it is based on the society mores instead of the individual's beliefs.

This is rather obvious when we review crimes against others, as we find the same basic proportions of atheist and various theist people as in the general population. That would argue for a rather consistent moral code across society.

Message 73: To start with I said "rather consistent" not absolutely consistent. Would you not agree that 99% consistent would be "rather consistent" yes? That this predominant consistency could be different in different cultures and still be an operating moral system withing that culture? That different cultures could differ more between cultures than is seen within a culture?

Message 106: Being subjective does not make it nonsense, especially when there is no "perfect knowledge". What you leave out is that it is not entirely individual but irrevocably tied into and through the culture, it is a consensus of views with family and friends and acquaintances, with what you learn and what you know, and it grows with you as you grow and learn. What you consider moral behavior at 5 is different from what you consider moral now.

Indeed, and that standard is the social consensus of the culture where you live. The headhunters of New Zealand used to think it was moral to kill and eat their enemies, they no longer do because their culture has changed, necessarily changed to fit into the global society we have. This is no different that changing views on stoning people or on capital punishment.

As I said earlier it comes down to enlightened self-interest, something that is not limited to any one group of people. This is basically what "the golden rule" states. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is an expression of enlightened self-interest -- don't kill your family, friends and neighbors in their sleep and so they will not kill you in your sleep.

This also means it can grow and evolve over time, now including transgender people for instance, when they did not exist in biblical times.

As society changes and evolves so to does the moral consensus standard. The Romans felt is was moral to feed Christians to the lions. That we evolved away from that early morality does not mean it cannot return, especially with demagogue leaders like Trump/Bannon. Will we see drone strikes on American citizens protesting in the US? Will those drone strikes be celebrated by some people? Will they consider it moral?

Message 124: 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.

Would you not agree that Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics is an objectively evidenced moral code written in a book about imaginary robots?

quote:
  1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
  2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
  3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.[1]

Was this code rationally developed or did it come from some divine source? Can it be used by humans?

Isaac Asimov "was an atheist, a humanist, and a rationalist.[130]"

The people in those societies thought it was moral to do those actions. That doesn't make it moral in other societies and it certainly does not make it a universal absolute morality.

Message 137: What is the source and reason for these 3 laws? So that the company can sell robots without people being afraid of them going all "Frankenstein monster" on them. OR, in other words, enlightened self-interest.

There are many books built around these robots and robot laws -- does that make them more real?

Can these laws be used by humans? The first shows enlightened self-interest: it is not much different from the medical Hippocratic Oath known popularly as "First do no harm" ... with an addendum "or through inaction allow harm to occur" ... do you agree?

The second relates to following orders, so that should appeal to authoritarians, and the third deals with self-preservation after the preservation of others. It seems to me that these would be more applicable to slaves than to free people, that the orders and lives of the masters are more important than the lives of the slaves. Or that the robots should think people are god/s to be followed and obeyed without question. Blind faith again?

But was that type of behavior not considered moral in the south before the Civil War (and in the histories of many countries around the world) before emancipation became the rule rather than the exception?

Message 140: It is based in biology, yes, but there is a point where synergy happens and self consciousness arises. We can observe self consciousness in apes and some other animals, but not in slugs and bugs.

We also see, as we would expect if this were a natural development, that there is a spectrum of self consciousness. Sense of self. Sense of consequences to actions.

And there is a point where synergy happens and the ability to communicate one individual to another arises. We can also observe communication in apes and some other animals, but are hard pressed to find it in slugs and bugs (unless you consider chemical trails communication). Ability to develop and pass on memes in addition to genes. Memes about behavior.

These are all I need to see moral codes develop and be passed from generation to generation, codes of behavior that benefit the survival and reproduction of the group.

Message 167: We saw in the Capuchin monkey experiment that "Monkeys Show Sense Of Fairness", which is a basis of morality (can a moral code be unfair? Is the golden rule unfair?).

A biological and sociological process. Biology alone does not account for memes, they come from sharing ideas.

quote:
A meme (/ˈmiːm/ MEEM)[1] is "an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture".[2] A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols, or practices that can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena with a mimicked theme. Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes in that they self-replicate, mutate, and respond to selective pressures.[3]

Morality is a meme.

Message 177: You can reduce all of the universe into quarks in random motion, and explain atoms with them, but chemistry explains molecules and organic chemistry explains the combinations of organic molecules and the formation of objects, pre-biotic molecules explain self-replicating molecules that explain life that explains biology.

This all occurs by natural processes but the details of those processes are different at different levels. There is a synergy that occurs at each stage as well, where the sum is greater than the parts, the atom is not just quarks, molecules aren't just atoms, life is not just pre-biotic molecules. Self-consciousness is not just biology and thought is not just electrical activity in a brain, it is more than the sum of the parts, it is synergy. Now you can choose to point your finger at the synergies and say "that is god/s working" but you don't have to and it adds no information of value to the process, it would only make you comfortable, and assuage your dissonance perhaps.

Microevolution alone is not enough to explain macroevolution, because you need to have diversity in different ecologies to change daughter populations in different ways.

Biology is not enough to explain memes because the sociological processes of communication and interaction of ideas is a group activity not an individual one. Isolated single individuals do not have memes by definition. So this again is a synergy from interaction and communication that creates something greater than the sum of the parts, the individuals in the group.

Morals are memes. Memes are shared concepts, but moral codes are not just any concepts lumped together, they are ones that benefit the social group to survive and reproduce as a group.

Message 178: Not only do we see fairness in Capuchin monkeys we also observe shared memes in bears, elephants, whales and macaques

Any animal that teaches their young how to get food or hunt is passing memes from generation to generation.

And, of course, morals are a subset of memes, as discussed in Message 177.

The experiment on fairness in Capuchin monkeys was done with females, because they were the ones that enforced behavior within the troop.

quote:
Only female capuchins were tested because they most closely monitor equity, or fair treatment, among their peers, Brosnan said.

They enforced Capuchin morality. Enforcement of certain behaviors is observed in many primates when misbehavior is punished.


Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : re-purposed double post

Edited by RAZD, : .


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-09-2017 9:08 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18971
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 197 of 1002 (799445)
02-10-2017 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Dawn Bertot
02-09-2017 9:08 PM


Re: enlightened self-interest -- morals are memes
Atheist Dawkins said something like "It is safe to say that anyone that doesn't accept evolution is stupid, ignorant or insane (or wicked ... )" ... to which I would add deluded, where someone has been mislead (by someone who is stupid, ignorant, insane or wicked) into believing something that is not true. Such delusion and ignorance can be cured by education ... but the "victim" must be willing to learn.

This is where cognitive dissonance comes into play. The more firmly a belief (any belief) is held the more difficult it is for the "victim" to accept contrary evidence, often resulting in several types of avoidance behavior and deflection.

Let's start here first, with the definition of something you think I am experiencing. As I have demonstrated to many times to mention, I dont have two conflicting views. ...

You have your view and you have the evidence that it is wrong, you see the arguments, but you refuse to accept them. This is conflict and avoidance. It is not possible for you to not consider these views exist, but you deny them and deflect the argument to avoid accepting them.

You don't like this argument either, but that's a different case.

... My position would not need to be true for yours to be false. ...

Agreed, but if our positions are true, then that does means yours is false. We have shown that our positions are evidenced and valid.

... Your inconsistencies are actually with reality itself, not any of my views of morality

Also a false statement, as has been demonstrated in several posts, not just mine. This is just more deflection and avoidance.

Simply put you would need to show how the evidence i can easily see for the existence of God and the scriptures as the Word of God , to be false, ...

Nope, all we need to do is note that there is no objective empirical evidence to support your position and that the onus is on you to demonstrate the validity of your claim. What you have provided instead is your subjective belief of what is evidence. At best this shows you do not know what objective empirical evidence IS.

Now you are free to believe anything you want, what you are not free to do is to impose that on others without objective rational independently observable cause.

Your presumed evidence of existing god/s, scriptures, etc is not substantially different from the books with the Three laws of Robotics written by atheist Isaac Asimov.

... to show how I have two conflicting views with myself . I dont. ...

Curiously your whole argument on every post in this thread is about the conflict you have between your belief and the observation that others hold different views. You are dealing with two conflicting views, one internal and one (as yet) external. You think the external one should go away and not bother you, and the brunt of your arguments is to make that happen.

Sadly reality does not adjust to match belief or opinion, it remains unaffected.

What you have is a worldview that is made up of your myriad beliefs, knowledge, opinion, etc. contained in a mental bubble. Anything from outside that bubble is either accepted (if it matches or is consistent with your beliefs etc. -- confirmation bias), or rejected (anything that does not match, or is inconsistent with, your beliefs etc -- cognitive dissonance and denial). It's like holding up a template: if it fits the template it passes, if it doesn't fit the template it is blocked.

You know it is there, you just refuse to accept it because of your internal conflict with it.

... Your assuming up front that I hold some false idea that conflicts with the innumerable facts you present. They don't conflict. If you wish to discuss that evidence at some point I'm happy to do so.

Another way to reduce dissonance is to alter beliefs so that the conflict goes away.

... They don't conflict. ...

Then why are you arguing about them?

We are presently discussing the contradictions that exist with you having an actual morality in reality. ...

No, you are discussion purported conflicts that you have made up in your head.

That people have "an actual morality in reality" is - and has been - readily demonstrated

... So it is easy to see if am not experiencing anything in your definition.

And the fact that you keep arguing against the evidence and objective observation of morality being subjective demonstrates that you are conflicted by it. Your arguments demonstrate your continued denial of them, as does your attempts to deflect the argument down rabbit holes to avoid dealing with them. Classic symptoms.

Question this definition you gave, is it relatively true or absolutely true. Would it be an absolute truth

Curiously, I believe I've stated before that there are no absolute truths. What we have is reality, and the best we can do is approximate how it works with concepts that we can test, and invalidate ones that don't fit with reality. The more we know about how something works, and the more erroneous concepts are discarded, the better that approximation becomes, it is asymptotic to reality.

And what we know about cognitive dissonance comes from the results of many tests that all show it is a valid theory. And it is objectively valid because those tests can be (and have been) repeated. It is not subjective if that is what you are getting at.

Let's try this again. I'm not trying to do anything, i dont need to,...

Which doesn't explain your continued attempts to discredit the concept of morality being subjective. Such as

... reality does what I cannot do. Showing how natural processes can be more involved in one instance verses another, does not assign them value. This is a product of your imagination, which is a bio process. The words Better, more important, purpose, can logically have no value, other than that imagined, morality produced by your biological brain.

And yet people use them because we agree on what the words mean and how they are used. We give them value by agreement for the purpose of communication. That is also how morals work: we agree on them in a social context and use them to minimize social conflicts.

But to be consistent, if that is possible, given your doctrine, it may also be the truth or not true, that anything or nothing I'm saying presently, is correct or has any value, given the valuessness of reality itself.

Don't you see that this argument you are making to reduce the concept of subjective morality to meaninglessness is classic cognitive dissonance behavior?

quote:
Message 177 - What Is Cognitive Dissonance

  1. Reduce the importance of conflicting belief.
    For example, a man who cares about his health might be disturbed to learn that sitting for long periods of time during the day are linked to a shortened lifespan. Since he has to work all day in an office and spends a great deal of time sitting, it is difficult to change his behavior in order to reduce his feelings of dissonance. In order to deal with the feelings of discomfort, he might instead find some way to justify his behavior by believing that his other healthy behaviors make up for his largely sedentary lifestyle.

The funny part is that it also makes your argument meaningless.

But ok, let's take a look at what you have to say.

You can reduce all of the universe into quarks in random motion, and explain atoms with them, but chemistry explains molecules and organic chemistry explains the combinations of organic molecules and the formation of objects, pre-biotic molecules explain self-replicating molecules that explain life that explains biology.

Nice and I would call this design, but ok

This all occurs by natural processes but the details of those processes are different at different levels.

Well, they would need to be, for us, to call it anything happening

So you agree that reducing everything to the interaction of quarks does not refute or counter the argument that morals are subjective memes developed over time to augment survival and reproduction.

Biology is not enough to explain memes because the sociological processes of communication and interaction of ideas is a group activity not an individual one. Isolated single individuals do not have memes by definition. So this again is a synergy from interaction and communication that creates something greater than the sum of the parts, the individuals in the group.

This is a particularly odd statement and admission by yourself. Biology is not enough to explain morals? I would think that you would atleast want to show some connection or causality,, since hehavior, is related to thoughts and thoughts are a product of brain activity. If you could show how thoughts are or are not a product of brain activity, I might be able to accept that communication and interaction are evidence or morals

Another attempt to deflect the argument down some rabbit hole. We know thoughts exist because we experience them directly, their existence is an objective fact. We can also see different brain activity associated with different thoughts, so this is objective empirical evidence.

Again, your attempt to discredit the argument has reached a bizarre level for what you would accept at this point. Curiously, I • don't • care what you accept, because that does not affect the argument nor change reality.

If thoughts are disconnected from biological processes and are not actually a physical process, you might have a point

More deflection and avoidance of the actual argument.

I think you are trying to replace the word, thoughts with synergy. Am I correct?

Nope. I am using the words to mean what their definitions say they mean.

You said bio can't explain memes, but why would you make a distinction between natural processes, social and biological processes. If thoughts are a product of the brain, and behavior a product of thoughts, wouldn't it just be natural processes

Or are you saying you can show an break in the link between natural processes and the brain

Well, it could be due to the fact that I made no such distinction, it could be that I actually wrote what I actually meant. What I listed were all natural processes.

RAZD writes:

And again we have a synergy where the shared ideas that develops in a group that becomes more than the sum of ideas of single individuals, there is an interaction, and the whole group benefits from those concepts that improve the survival and reproduction of the group, possibly at the loss of an individual (streetcar).

You forgot to put this in quotes.

So a whole bunch of monkeys doing something verses one monkey constitutes a moral. So a whole bunch of Nazis deciding collectively that it's right to kill a bunch of other humans,to advance thier ethnicity, is not only moral, but synergy.

That would be the gist of it. Works doesn't it? Why would so many million Germans follow and fight for the Nazis if they thought it was morally evil?

Did they think they had absolute moral justification from an infinite (god/s) source?

Inquiring minds want to know.

YOU GO EVOLUTION, show us the way.

Every day.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-09-2017 9:08 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-11-2017 9:13 AM RAZD has responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7429
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 198 of 1002 (799471)
02-10-2017 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Dawn Bertot
02-09-2017 9:14 PM


But that is my response, not yours.

It's also my response. You can tell, because that is how I responded.

If I can find no MORE meaning or difference as meaning, in biological processes than things happening, there is no meaning and hence no morals

Oh according to you? That's your affair.

I can find more meaning between one process and another, there is therefore meaning to me.

Neither is morally right...
And if I disagree - how can we tell which of us is right?

That's how

How? You offered your opinion. How does that resolve our difference of opinion? We can weigh an apple to determine its mass. How do we weigh our opinions to determine who is right?

Why would i disagree with you about the mass of an apple? You see , Truth does exist

Why? Because neither of us knows the truth at the point of argument. I mean does it really matter about the details? I assume God exists when you create hypotheticals is it really so hard for you to assume we might argue over the mass of an apple for the sake of argument.

Yes, objective truths about apples exist. That was the first point of the argument. We can resolve which of us right about the mass of the apple using an objective measure - such as its weight.
The second point is that there are also subjective truths about the apple. Such as how tasty each of us may find it. There is no objective measure of tastiness.

Likewise, the state of my brain when faced with a moral question is an objective truth about my morality.
My perspective of the rightness of a moral action is a subjective truth about morality.

You missed the part where I said, In YourThinking

If you insist, in which case you are just plain wrong. Sweetness is subjective, in my thinking. As I explicitly said. 'Just junk happening' is not a third category. Sweetness is either objective or subjective. I say it is subjective. So do you.

I said science can explain things happening, but hen if there's no more meaning to one thing or another, then you agree there's really no meaning or morals.

My only job here is to show I can, in principle, rationally explain morals - yours is to show that in principle I cannot. I can do show my point with reference to science. I don't need to show morals have objective meaning as I don't believe they do. Just because something does not have objective meaning doesn't mean it doesn't exist and it doesn't mean it cannot be explained. Subjective morals have subjective meanings.

If your argument is simply: 'Atheists cannot explain objective morality', then we agree. I don't accept there is an objective morality. There are objective facts about morality, but nothing that is 'objectively good' or 'objectively evil'. Nothing that has any meaning external to our minds.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-09-2017 9:14 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-11-2017 9:52 AM Modulous has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 199 of 1002 (799564)
02-11-2017 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by New Cat's Eye
02-10-2017 9:46 AM


Re: nazis
Right, just like beauty, or deliciousness, or fun.

So what?

Why do you have such a problem with that?

Then you admit Morality does not exist and you have no way of explaining it

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-10-2017 9:46 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-13-2017 10:54 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 200 of 1002 (799565)
02-11-2017 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by ringo
02-10-2017 10:48 AM


Re: Religion Cannot Rationally Explain Morals
So you're saying that only God knows right from wrong. That would explain the high rate of incarceration among believers. They have no moral compass of their own.

You're shooting yourself in the foot. You're admitting that your own morality is not rational.

Well you might be right if it weren't for two things. It's not my morality,, it's God's and people have freewill a conscience and a guide to help us avoid pitfalls. But from your position those people are in cages unjustly because morality doesn't exists and Sin is just a myth. Maybe you can get them OFF with that defense if you speak to thier judges. Hey jugie whugie, it's all relative, forget about it

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by ringo, posted 02-10-2017 10:48 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by ringo, posted 02-11-2017 11:06 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 201 of 1002 (799566)
02-11-2017 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by RAZD
02-10-2017 11:49 AM


Re: enlightened self-interest -- morals are memes
Atheist Dawkins said something like "It is safe to say that anyone that doesn't accept evolution is stupid, ignorant or insane (or wicked ... )" ... to which I would add deluded, where someone has been mislead (by someone who is stupid, ignorant, insane or wicked) into believing something that is not true. Such delusion and ignorance can be cured by education ... but the "victim" must be willing to learn.

This is where cognitive dissonance comes into play. The more firmly a belief (any belief) is held the more difficult it is for the "victim" to accept contrary evidence, often resulting in several types of avoidance behavior and deflection.

Ok

You have your view and you have the evidence that it is wrong, you see the arguments, but you refuse to accept them. This is conflict and avoidance. It is not possible for you to not consider these views exist, but you deny them and deflect the argument to avoid accepting them.

You don't like this argument either, but that's a different case.

Ok, so these last two are more observations not arguments. I understand

Curiously your whole argument on every post in this thread is about the conflict you have between your belief and the observation that others hold different views.

So you would rather waste your time making baseless assertion, instead of more arguments

You know it is there, you just refuse to accept it because of your internal conflict with it.

Sounds like you are trying to convince yourself and not me. You sound aggregated that someone else might have an argument besides you. Do they have a term for that . I'd call it a spoiled brat

[qs]And yet people use them because we agree on what the words mean and how they are used. We give them value by agreement for the purpose of communication. That is also how morals work: we agree on them in a social context and use them to minimize social conflicts.[qs]

You giving words value is like making water more wet, it just can't happen. But you don't understand Zen Deist, you agreeing on something that works among your same species may have some biological benifit, but it's meaningless when we look at the mechanisms of evolution. Your working very hard to make yourself be important in your meaningless world, but there's no way to make it work. It literally is the blind leading the blind

Another way to reduce dissonance is to alter beliefs so that the conflict goes away.

So give up your principles, to satisfy someone else

And the fact that you keep arguing against the evidence and objective observation of morality being subjective

Let's me get this straight. I should know by evidence and objectively , that something that doesn't actually exist and cannot exist, namely that which is subjective, actually does exist? And I would know this objectively? Oh yeah, well that make perfect sense. Wow

So you agree that reducing everything to the interaction of quarks does not refute or counter the argument that morals are subjective memes developed over time to augment survival and reproduction.

Well of course I agree that matter in motion can only produce that which is realive and subjective. But Even matter,in motion and especially matter in motion can't produce something that is not real, namely that which is subjective. YOU DO UNDERSTAND THAT THAT WHICH IS SUBJECTIVE, IS,NOT REAL AND DOES NOT ACTUALLY EXIST, CORRECT? THE word subjective is not a real thing. We use it to refer to things that are not real. Your concept or perception that an apple is tasty, is,not a real thing

The word subjective is a imagined made up word to describe something that is not real. So yes, it is true you don't actually have a moral

That would be the gist of it. Works doesn't it? Why would so many million Germans follow and fight for the Nazis if they thought it was morally evil?

Did they think they had absolute moral justification from an infinite (god/s) source?

I'm not saying that some of them didn't think it was morally right., they may have. But,I was asking you if it was subjectively or objectively right. You see, your position doesn't allow,you to say they were wrong

But if we do say they were immoral and wrong, what would we use as our bases. If there's no real absolute standard, why do you care,what they did. Sounds to me you think they were horribly wrong

YOUR PROBLEM IS A VERY SIMPLE ONE RAZD. YOU CAN JUMP UP AND DOWN, SCREAM AND SHOUT ALL DAY LONG ABOUT MEMES AND MORALS. YOU CAN EXCLAIM HOW HUMANS HELP EACHOTHER HERE AND THERE, BUT IF YOUR SOCALLED MORALS AND ETHICS ONLY APPLY TO HUMANS AND NOT EVERY OTHER SPECIES, YOU ARE JUST RATIONALIZING.
BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS EQUAL IN YOUR EXISTENCE AND OTHER SPECIES CAN EXPERIENCE PAIN AND SHOULD BE ABLE TO ENJOY AND HAVE THIER LIVES, TOURS BECOME A WALKING CONTRADICTION WHEN YOU TAKE THIER LIVES AND TREAT THEM DIFFERENTLY THAT HUMANS
I WISH THERE WERE A WY TO MAKE THAT CONSISTENT, BUT IT,JUST WON'T WORK RATIONALLY. CALLING MEMES MORALS DOESN'T HELP. RATIONAL AND REALITY WON'T ALLOW IT. Now, there were some actual standard to measure your alleged morals with you might have a point

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by RAZD, posted 02-10-2017 11:49 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by RAZD, posted 02-11-2017 10:31 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 202 of 1002 (799568)
02-11-2017 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by Riggamortis
02-10-2017 3:47 AM


Re: Typical fundie behaviour
Subjective morality clearly and obviously exists in reality, for absolute morality to exist it must have an absolute standard. This could only be God.

Well this is about as comical and nonsensical as it gets. What your saying is that you KNOW for sure and it's a an absolute Truth that something subjective exists, specifically, subjective morality. If it's subjective what else would you have to measure it against except more subjective things and ideas. If it's subjective it not measurable or testable, therefore not knowable

For example we KNOW absolutely that an apple exists. The tastiness of the apple is a matter of opinion. But if the apple didn't, exist, then the perception specifically relating to that Apple would not exist. So Moral absolute truth actually exists or it does not. You can't have it both ways.

If it does not then your thoughts are just matter in motion. But for moral truth to actually exist, like the apple actually exists, then it must be objective, like the apple objectively and truthfully exists.. Because we have some standard to decide for ourselves whether a apple is tasty to us or not.. But my opinions which are subjective didn't change the PROPERTIES of the apple did they

Now pay close attention. If we reduce morality to mere subjectivity, then there is no standard by which to know something is ACTUALLY TRUE or even remotely true. Hence even our thoughts become nothing more than matter in motion.

Hence my conclusion is demonstrated, that Atheists don't have and cannot explain morals. ,that's assuming that if what I am saying is correct, true valid, moral immoral, right or wrong.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if SOMETHING doesn't exist absolutely and objectively, In reality, to speak about the same nonexistent thing subjectively, as if it did exist, is complete idiocy. Your not happy with idiocy are you?

Reality is the standard for truth. 'Truth' doesn't exist, reality exists and statements about reality can be true, false or part thereof. I was right, through silly word games you want to define god into existence.[/ qs]

Wow, I hope this doesn't sound mean, but you can't imagine how foolish your above comments sounds.. if truth doesn't exist, then it would follow that subjective truth, subjective morality or what ever word salad u attach to it does not exist.
Imagining that your thoughts ideas and concepts are more than biological processes would be deception and non existent

Sorry statements about reality may be factually accurate as biological processes, but if truth doesn't exist, then they cannot be TRUTH as in a moral sense. So no possible way for you to have even a subjective morality

Likewise, if objective moral truth doesn't exist then, then no thing called subjective truth may exist either. Hence no morals in reality

qsHow? Are you god? Only god can know that absolutely and he isn't here to moderate. Is self-defence a selfish reason? I can't see how it wouldn't be. What about killing another man to save my wife's life? Whatever your answer, how do you know absolutely?

I know murder is objectively and morally wrong, the same way you know that subjective morality actually exists. You did say subjective morality exists correct. Now I'm not sure you would know how subjective morality exists or what it would look like, without a standard, but maybe you can explain, why if some abstract subjective morality can CERTAINLY exist and your not God to know that, why you would call it an ethic. Makes no sense

I know it's wrong by an intrinsic law placed in side me. I don't need to be taught it's wrong to steal. Would you incarcerate a lion for brutally chasing down a deer and killing him. Of course not. Why, because you know intrinsically it's not wrong or murder

I know because I have conscince in reality. For that conscience to make sense or operate, there has to be a standard, to let me know I've violate it. Other wise it's just matter in motion

I have a direct revelation by inspiration that corroborates these realities, I can actually, see and feel them. If none of what I just stated is accurate, then it's just matter in motion. But those are realities+

It's morally wrong to kill another for only selfish reasons. I think my version is more absolute LOL. So where does that leave us?

Well I can't answer you question unless you tell me what you think the standard is for believing you murdered someone., or how you ESTABLISHED YOUR MORAL. Do you have a standard or is your question as useless as your subjective standard. YOUR question is pointless, if an absolute moral doesn't govern the question. How will you escape from you nonsensical position

Your problem is the same as RAZD. FOR YOUR SOCALLED MORALITY TO BE REAL AND ACTUALLY HAVE MEANING IT MUST BE ATLEAST REMOTELY CONSISTENT ACROSS LIFE ON EARTH. TO DEFINE SOMETHING AS MURDER FOR HUMANS, THEN NOT APPLY THE SAME STANDARD FOR EVEN YOUR NEXT OF KIN THE PRIMATES, MAKES NO SENSE

IMAGINIG YIU HAVE A MORAL IS NOT THE SAME AS DEMONSTRATING IT RATIONALLY

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Riggamortis, posted 02-10-2017 3:47 AM Riggamortis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Riggamortis, posted 02-11-2017 7:43 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 203 of 1002 (799571)
02-11-2017 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Modulous
02-10-2017 12:57 PM


I can find more meaning between one process and another, there is therefore meaning to me.

When this Socalled meaning you have causes you to treat and react to another species differently as in killing and eating them, is your better meaning moral or immoral

Why? Because neither of us knows the truth at the point of argument. I mean does it really matter about the details? I assume God exists when you create hypotheticals is it really so hard for you to assume we might argue over the mass of an apple for the sake of argument.

That's the point. In your system Truth is imaginary, nothing to reference it against. Opinions if they did actually exist, still would have no meaning. In your system the size of an apple may be some fact, but it has no truth we could consider value or morality. Your left with nothing. Sorry

Likewise, the state of my brain when faced with a moral question is an objective truth about my morality.
My perspective of the rightness of a moral action is a subjective truth about morality.

Double talk. Your brain cannot be faced with a moral question. Because you demonstrate that as soon as you make a decision about your human friends, it's hopelessly inconsistent with the rest of life on earth. Hence you are imaging morals, they cannot actually exist in your world

If you insist, in which case you are just plain wrong. Sweetness is subjective, in my thinking. As I explicitly said. 'Just junk happening' is not a third category. Sweetness is either objective or subjective. I say it is subjective. So do you.

No I dont. The tastiness of an apple may be a fact but it cannot be subjective or moral. There is by definition no meaning or value in your existence. How could it be subjective or have meaning or value

My only job here is to show I can, in principle, rationally explain morals - yours is to show that in principle I cannot. I can do show my point with reference to science. I don't need to show morals have objective meaning as I don't believe they do. Just because something does not have objective meaning doesn't mean it doesn't exist and it doesn't mean it cannot be explained. Subjective morals have subjective meanings.

Well it's worse than you think. You not only cannot show that it has no objective morality, but you have no way of showing it has meaning as value AT ALL.. if,you imagine that your thought process has meaning or value, I would ask to who and why. Now you may act or do something because of biological decisions in your brain, and then you may ascribe it meaning or value because it has that to you. But when your Socalled meanings conflict and interrupt other life forms, how do we resolve this to be moral? If it is a moral then it's a bad or immoral one, because it's hopelessly inconsistent. Or atleast it probably will be given the illustration of some alleged moral you allegedly posses

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Modulous, posted 02-10-2017 12:57 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Modulous, posted 02-11-2017 12:40 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18971
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 204 of 1002 (799572)
02-11-2017 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by Dawn Bertot
02-11-2017 9:13 AM


Morals Have been rationally explained. Done.
And here we see the next stage of cognitive dissonance -- attacking the messenger to discredit him and by extension discredit the information. Devolving into emotional ALL CAPS is not a rational argument, rather it is a sign that you are getting angry that you are losing the debate and that your cognitive dissonance is getting stronger. LOLZ

By destroying all meaning in your rabid attempt to destroy the arguments that show atheists CAN rationally explain morals also destroys your argument that your beliefs can rationally explain morals. This is your ultimate problem.

Meanwhile my argument is not refuted. See Summary of my argument so far:

quote:
  1. The basis of all morality is enlightened self-interest. This is where the "golden-rule" comes from, and why you can find variations on that theme in every religion and every culture. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is an expression of enlightened self-interest -- don't kill your family, friends and neighbors in their sleep and so they will not kill you in your sleep.

  2. Morality is essentially social convention, a program to survive and reproduce within a culture, and thus it would be surprising if it didn't differ from social group to social group, from culture to culture, from nation to nation.

  3. Morality is subjective, it is based on the society mores instead of the individual's beliefs, and because it is subjective it can change over time.
    • It doesn't need to be 100% absolutely consistent in a social group, it only needs to be predominantly consistent.
    • It is tied to culture, it is a consensus of views with family and friends and acquaintances, with what you learn and what you know, and it grows with you as you grow and learn.
    • The moral standard is the social consensus of the culture where you live. The headhunters of New Zealand used to think it was moral to kill and eat their enemies, they no longer do because their culture has changed, necessarily changed to fit into the global society we have.
    • As society changes and evolves so to does the moral consensus standard. The Romans felt is was moral to feed Christians to the lions.

  4. An example of an objectively evidenced moral code written by an atheist is Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics

  5. There is an evolved component to human morality, because game theory shows evolutionary benefit for social animals to behave in a manner conducive to the survival of the social group, and that includes morals.
    • It is based in biology, but there is a point where synergy happens and self consciousness arises.
    • We can observe self consciousness in apes and some other animals, but not in slugs and bugs.
    • Morality is a meme: moral codes develop and get passed from generation to generation, codes of behavior that benefit the survival and reproduction of the group are preserved.

  6. It is developed by natural processes.
    • You can reduce all of the universe into quarks in random motion, and explain atoms with them, but chemistry explains molecules and organic chemistry explains the combinations of organic molecules and the formation of objects, pre-biotic molecules explain self-replicating molecules that explain life that explains biology.
    • This all occurs by natural processes but the details of those processes are different at different levels. There is a synergy that occurs at each stage as well, where the sum is greater than the parts, the atom is not just quarks, molecules aren't just atoms, life is not just pre-biotic molecules. Self-consciousness is not just biology and thought is not just electrical activity in a brain, it is more than the sum of the parts, it is synergy.
    • Microevolution alone is not enough to explain macroevolution, because you need to have diversity in different ecologies to change daughter populations in different ways.
    • Biology is not enough to explain memes because the sociological processes of communication and interaction of ideas is a group activity not an individual one. This is a synergy from interaction and communication that creates something greater than the sum of the parts (individuals in the group).
    • Morals are a subset of memes. Memes are shared evolved concepts, but moral codes are not just any concepts lumped together, they are ones that benefit the social group to survive and reproduce as a group by conditioning behavior for reducing conflicts.

    Morals are subjective, they are a type of memes that have evolved over time as a consensus control on social behavior, to reduce conflicts between individual members of a social group, and thus benefit the survival and continuous revitalization of the social group from generation to generation.

Enjoy


Rationally derived, based on objective empirical evidence, consistent with observations of how morals actually operate in different societies.

Whether you accept this argument or not doesn't matter. Until you show otherwise with objective empirical evidence, this indeed shows that Atheism CAN Rationally Explain Morals, which is the answer to the purpose of this thread.

Note further that it is not even necessary that this argument be "TRUE", it is only necessary to show that morals can be rationally explained.

That has been done. In Spades. The rabbit holes and other distractions are swept aside and your argument is invalidated.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-11-2017 9:13 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-13-2017 12:34 AM RAZD has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13644
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 205 of 1002 (799582)
02-11-2017 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Dawn Bertot
02-11-2017 9:11 AM


Re: Religion Cannot Rationally Explain Morals
Dawn Bertot writes:

It's not my morality,, it's God's...


Since you're not omniscient, how can you know with absolute certainty what God's morality is? At best, you can guess at an approximation.

Dawn Bertot writes:

But from your position those people are in cages unjustly because morality doesn't exists and Sin is just a myth.


Not at all. From my position, people have signed on to a social contract which makes their lives easier if they comply.

From your position, it's a one-way street with your alien overlord telling you what to do and it's the Eternal Frying Pan if you don't comply. The catch is that you're not omniscient so you don't know exactly what your alien overlord is thinking so it's impossible to avoid every pitfall.

Dawn Bertot writes:

Maybe you can get them OFF with that defense if you speak to thier judges. Hey jugie whugie, it's all relative, forget about it


The real judges - that is the other members of the community - understand that it IS all relative. You're the one who doesn't.

Relative goes hand-in-hand with rational. If the premises change, the conclusion changes. If the circumstances change, the behaviour changes.

On the other hand, absolute goes hand-in-hand with irrational. Absolute conclusions don't need premises at all. The conclusions never change so there's no scope for reasoning.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-11-2017 9:11 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-13-2017 12:35 AM ringo has responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7429
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 206 of 1002 (799588)
02-11-2017 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Dawn Bertot
02-11-2017 9:52 AM


When this Socalled meaning you have causes you to treat and react to another species differently as in killing and eating them, is your better meaning moral or immoral

No. Meanings are not moral or immoral.

In your system Truth is imaginary, nothing to reference it against.

Wrong. As I said in the section you were quoting from.

Opinions if they did actually exist, still would have no meaning

So what?

In your system the size of an apple may be some fact, but it has no truth we could consider value

It has a truth, I value it. If you don't - that's your business.

In your system the size of an apple may be some fact, but it has no truth we could consider...morality.

What the f...?

Your brain cannot be faced with a moral question. Because you demonstrate that as soon as you make a decision about your human friends, it's hopelessly inconsistent with the rest of life on earth.

How does my decision making being inconsistent mean I cannot be faced with a moral decision?

The tastiness of an apple may be a fact but it cannot be subjective

Of course it can you strange person. I find it tasty, therefore it is, according to me, tasty.

Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

I mean, the tastiness of an apple is very much subjective. How could it be anything else?

The tastiness of an apple may be a fact but it cannot be...moral.

What are you gibbering madly about?

There is by definition no meaning or value in your existence.

So what?

if,you imagine that your thought process has meaning or value, I would ask to who and why.

To me and those close to me. The reasons are beyond the scope of this discussion.

But when your Socalled meanings conflict and interrupt other life forms, how do we resolve this to be moral?

I have no idea what you are trying to communicate. You seem to be using words in a completely different fashion than English speakers.

I may find something to be moral. I can explain how it can be that I find something moral or immoral. You haven't demonstrated I cannot.

Value and meaning are irrelevant to whether I can explain morality.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-11-2017 9:52 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-13-2017 12:37 AM Modulous has responded

    
Riggamortis
Member
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 207 of 1002 (799606)
02-11-2017 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Dawn Bertot
02-11-2017 9:24 AM


No need to shout mate
Well this is about as comical and nonsensical as it gets. What your saying is that you KNOW for sure and it's a an absolute Truth that something subjective exists, specifically, subjective morality. If it's subjective what else would you have to measure it against except more subjective things and ideas. If it's subjective it not measurable or testable, therefore not knowable

I'm not defending my basis for morality, I am showing that you are in the same boat. I don't care how meaningless you think subjective morality is. All your arguements against my sense of morality apply equally well to yours, since we are both stuck with subjective morals.

For example we KNOW absolutely that an apple exists. The tastiness of the apple is a matter of opinion. But if the apple didn't, exist, then the perception specifically relating to that Apple would not exist. So Moral absolute truth actually exists or it does not. You can't have it both ways.

An absolute moral standard is NOT analogous to the apple. The moral dilemma we subjectively judge is analogous to the apple. The apple exists, a man about to kill someone in self defence exists. We taste the apple, he kills the person. We judge good or bad taste, we judge good or bad morally speaking. That's how it actually works in reality.

You are playing silly word games to define god into existence. If your reasoning must be applied equally as you are demanding of atheists, we 'need' god to exist as an absolute arbiter of taste, beauty, morality and every other subjective judgement we make.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if SOMETHING doesn't exist absolutely and objectively, In reality, to speak about the same nonexistent thing subjectively, as if it did exist, is complete idiocy. Your not happy with idiocy are you?

Funnily enough, this is exactly how I feel about discussions involving gods, unicorns and pixies. To answer your question, no.

What we have in reality is people interacting with each other and being affected in different ways by those interactions. When the question arises whether an action was good or bad, we decide subjectively based on the consequences of the action viewed through our subjective moral compass. Our moral compass is a mixture of our own thoughts, how we were raised and the social consensus. That's reality Dawn.

IMAGINIG YIU HAVE A MORAL IS NOT THE SAME AS DEMONSTRATING IT RATIONALLY

Exactly! Since you aren't god, you are literally by definition, not able to recognise absolute morality. Just as you cannot recognise absolute beauty. This is especially true in any practical sense where there may be thousands of variables to consider.

Therefore, you have nothing more than subjective morality. Your subjective morality is based on the bible but the bible is not an infinite source, nor are you capable of evaluating whether or not any examples of morality in the bible are absolute or not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-11-2017 9:24 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Theodoric, posted 02-11-2017 10:14 PM Riggamortis has not yet responded
 Message 213 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-13-2017 12:39 AM Riggamortis has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5765
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 208 of 1002 (799613)
02-11-2017 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Riggamortis
02-11-2017 7:43 PM


Re: No need to shout mate
All caps is the last resort of those without an argument. We should come up with an internet law about all caps and how it announces you have lost the debate.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Riggamortis, posted 02-11-2017 7:43 PM Riggamortis has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Modulous, posted 02-11-2017 10:58 PM Theodoric has not yet responded
 Message 214 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-13-2017 12:41 AM Theodoric has responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7429
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


(2)
Message 209 of 1002 (799617)
02-11-2017 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Theodoric
02-11-2017 10:14 PM


Re: No need to shout mate
We should come up with an internet law about all caps and how it announces you have lost the debate.

The Law of Exclamation

But don't forget Cohen's Law:

quote:
Whoever resorts to the argument "whoever resorts to the argument that... has automatically lost the debate" has automatically lost the debate.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Theodoric, posted 02-11-2017 10:14 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 210 of 1002 (799667)
02-13-2017 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by RAZD
02-11-2017 10:31 AM


Re: Morals Have been rationally explained. Done.
And here we see the next stage of cognitive dissonance -- attacking the messenger to discredit him and by extension discredit the information. Devolving into emotional ALL CAPS is not a rational argument, rather it is a sign that you are getting angry that you are losing the debate and that your cognitive dissonance is getting stronger. LOLZ

By destroying all meaning in your rabid attempt to destroy the arguments that show atheists CAN rationally explain morals also destroys your argument that your beliefs can rationally explain morals. This is your ultimate problem.

Well this is quite probably the most curious of all your statements yet. If we were to review all of the attacking of Theists and Christians here at this websibe, I think we would find that we involve ourselves in about 10 percent of that verses the 90 percent done by the skeptics. Care to take a look. And's that not even mentioning the abusive and disgusting verbiage employed by you fellas. Would it be the second stage of CD to let me k
Now I'm doing that, or is that relative too

Fortunately the problem is yours. You have no possible way of showing that any action or yours has any more meaning than a colony of ants. And I'm sure you would have not the slightest hesitation in exterminating them if you saw fit, correct.. and I'm sure you would feel no GUILT or remorse in doing so. AT BARE MINIMUM Im SURE YOU WOULDN'T THINK IT WAS MURDER

I'm sorry, please tell me again what my problem is

Meanwhile my argument is not refuted. See Message information:Message 196:Summary of my argument so far
(Msg ID 799441)Thread 19365:Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.Forum 6:Faith and Belief', 500)" onmouseout=" hb.off(0)" onmousemove="mouseTracker(event)" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(119, 204, 221);">Summary of my argument so far:

quote:The basis of all morality is enlightened self-interest. This is where the "golden-rule" comes from, and why you can find variations on that theme in every religion and every culture. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is an expression of enlightened self-interest -- don't kill your family, friends and neighbors in their sleep and so they will not kill you in your sleep.

Morality is essentially social convention, a program to survive and reproduce within a culture, and thus it would be surprising if it didn't differ from social group to social group, from culture to culture, from nation to nation.

Morality is subjective, it is based on the society mores instead of the individual's beliefs, and because it is subjective it can change over time.
It doesn't need to be 100% absolutely consistent in a social group, it only needs to be predominantly consistent.
It is tied to culture, it is a consensus of views with family and friends and acquaintances, with what you learn and what you know, and it grows with you as you grow and learn.
The moral standard is the social consensus of the culture where you live. The headhunters of New Zealand used to think it was moral to kill and eat their enemies, they no longer do because their culture has changed, necessarily changed to fit into the global society we have.
As society changes and evolves so to does the moral consensus standard. The Romans felt is was moral to feed Christians to the lions.
An example of an objectively evidenced moral code written by an atheist is Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics

There is an evolved component to human morality, because game theory shows evolutionary benefit for social animals to behave in a manner conducive to the survival of the social group, and that includes morals.
It is based in biology, but there is a point where synergy happens and self consciousness arises.
We can observe self consciousness in apes and some other animals, but not in slugs and bugs.
Morality is a meme: moral codes develop and get passed from generation to generation, codes of behavior that benefit the survival and reproduction of the group are preserved.
It is developed by natural processes.
You can reduce all of the universe into quarks in random motion, and explain atoms with them, but chemistry explains molecules and organic chemistry explains the combinations of organic molecules and the formation of objects, pre-biotic molecules explain self-replicating molecules that explain life that explains biology.
This all occurs by natural processes but the details of those processes are different at different levels. There is a synergy that occurs at each stage as well, where the sum is greater than the parts, the atom is not just quarks, molecules aren't just atoms, life is not just pre-biotic molecules. Self-consciousness is not just biology and thought is not just electrical activity in a brain, it is more than the sum of the parts, it is synergy.
Microevolution alone is not enough to explain macroevolution, because you need to have diversity in different ecologies to change daughter populations in different ways.
Biology is not enough to explain memes because the sociological processes of communication and interaction of ideas is a group activity not an individual one. This is a synergy from interaction and communication that creates something greater than the sum of the parts (individuals in the group).
Morals are a subset of memes. Memes are shared evolved concepts, but moral codes are not just any concepts lumped together, they are ones that benefit the social group to survive and reproduce as a group by conditioning behavior for reducing conflicts.

∴ Morals are subjective, they are a type of memes that have evolved over time as a consensus control on social behavior, to reduce conflicts between individual members of a social group, and thus benefit the survival and continuous revitalization of the social group from generation to generation.

Oh I think your "Argument" is defeated quite easily
Isn't it interesting that your quote and it's elements doesn't really address the animal kingdom. How do Memes reduce social conflict between humans and other species. From what I can gather, you seem to be saying your more intelligent, so you have a right to act thus and so. Well God is infinte in wisdom, hence he can act as he wills twords you.. Since you think morality is subjective, why attack his ethics?

Your above quote is a lot of elaborate double talk to make your species more relevant. Sorry not possible in reality. If ur moral codes only benifit your group and they are hopelessly inconsistent with other life forms, a person can immediately see the complete idiocy of your attempt at an actual argument.

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by RAZD, posted 02-11-2017 10:31 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by RAZD, posted 02-13-2017 9:01 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
1516
...
67NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017