Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-26-2017 7:15 PM
391 online now:
AdminPhat (Phat), CRR, edge, Faith, Genomicus, Meddle, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (7 members, 384 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,396 Year: 10,002/21,208 Month: 3,089/2,674 Week: 505/961 Day: 118/117 Hour: 0/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
1617
...
52NextFF
Author Topic:   Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 211 of 768 (799668)
02-13-2017 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by ringo
02-11-2017 11:06 AM


Re: Religion Cannot Rationally Explain Morals
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.

Well no. I don't have to be omniscient to know that for a moral to be correct and consistent, it would need to be that no more information could be added to it to make it more correct. Otherwise is just relative nonsense, or at best a guess.
If God exists, and there were something he didn't know that is knowable, then he wouldn't be God, correct

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.

Well see this is what I explained to another fellow here, you have to learn the difference between an observation and an argument. You have to learn the difference between assertion and an actual argument. What you've done above is to elaborately re state what we are debating. Your not offering an actual argument, your just restating where we started. You need to demonstrate that rational goes hand in hand with relative, Not just assert what you believe, we already know that. Let know when and where you do that

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by ringo, posted 02-11-2017 11:06 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by ringo, posted 02-13-2017 11:08 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

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


Message 212 of 768 (799669)
02-13-2017 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Modulous
02-11-2017 12:40 PM


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

So in an ironic and weird way you just said meaning is relative

You have no way to establish an actual moral exists. If,morals are realtive, then you can't get something from nothing. Wouldn't you say that morals should be remotely consistent in an enviornment where where all life is equal. Or,do you,fancy yourself better than another species. ESPECIALLY YOUR monkey friends. What would make you apply a set for different standards to other life forms?

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

Wow I can't believe this is really this hard for someone of your seeming intelligence to understand. Tastiness has nothing to compare itself to in reality. Taste of course does, the substance itself . Taste buds taste an actual substance Tastiness is a concept with nothing to,compare itself to, except its own perception, or those of others. Now are you starting to getting it my simpe friend. That which is relative does not actually exist. Subjective morals, perceived meaning cant actually exist, in a relative perception

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

Right the same way tastiness is only a perception, it has nothing to reference in reality. Your so called meanings in a meaningless universe, have nothing to reference in reality, there only perceptions of a subjective percieved meaning or value. The best we could say is your alleged meanings or perceived value reference only other bio processes, with no meaning. And that puts you back at square one

The same way tastiness is only perception with no actual reality, subjective and relative morals, which are perception have no reality

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Modulous, posted 02-11-2017 12:40 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Modulous, posted 02-13-2017 1:51 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

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


Message 213 of 768 (799670)
02-13-2017 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Riggamortis
02-11-2017 7:43 PM


Re: No need to shout mate
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.

No not at all. Here's why. You haven't even began to see what reality is yet, because you think subjective morals are a real thing, something that actually exist that you use as a tool for ethical behavior. You may be stuck but I'm not.
Secondly, all the evidence we have argues for an infinite being. Evolution can't explain consciouness or a conscience in humans. The existence of God and an absolute morality can explain those to very real things. In the same boat, hardly

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.

Subjective like tastiness is a perception, it doesn't actually exist, they have nothing to reference in reality Taste may exist and taking of life may exist, but a relative perception of whether it is murder or not, does not exist. Hence, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you stick the word subjective in front of the word moral or immoral, that makes it real or come to life. Hence morality is only an unreal perception in a meaningless universe

Word games. Hardly. Just cold hard reality

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Riggamortis, posted 02-11-2017 7:43 PM Riggamortis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Riggamortis, posted 02-13-2017 2:09 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

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


Message 214 of 768 (799671)
02-13-2017 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by Theodoric
02-11-2017 10:14 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.

From a subjective standpoint, which you fellas seem to like, I'm only using caps, to emphasis a point, I think needs more emphasis. To assume I'm shouting is only a relative subjective perception. No need to assume I'm shouting , I'm not. Just emphasis

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Theodoric, posted 02-11-2017 10:14 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Theodoric, posted 02-13-2017 10:41 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15769
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 215 of 768 (799672)
02-13-2017 1:02 AM


I haven't been following the thread. Did Dawn ever come up with a rational theistic explanation for morality?
Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Tangle, posted 02-13-2017 2:47 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Riggamortis
Member
Posts: 111
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 216 of 768 (799673)
02-13-2017 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by Dawn Bertot
02-13-2017 12:39 AM


Re: No need to shout mate
No not at all. Here's why. You haven't even began to see what reality is yet, because you think subjective morals are a real thing, something that actually exist that you use as a tool for ethical behavior. You may be stuck but I'm not.
Secondly, all the evidence we have argues for an infinite being. Evolution can't explain consciouness or a conscience in humans. The existence of God and an absolute morality can explain those to very real things. In the same boat, hardly

God of the gaps for this, god of the gaps for that. With A BIT OF OUTRIGHT DENIAL OF REALITY THROWN IN FOR GOOD MEASURE. 😎

Subjective like tastiness is a perception, it doesn't actually exist, they have nothing to reference in reality Taste may exist and taking of life may exist, but a relative perception of whether it is murder or not, does not exist.

All you are doing is asserting that people don't judge right/wrong the same way that they subjectively judge beauty and taste. You can't prove it, by definition. For someone as seemingly intelligent as yourself I'm surprised you haven't clicked onto this yet.

Hence, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you stick the word subjective in front of the word moral or immoral, that makes it real or come to life. Hence morality is only an unreal perception in a meaningless universe

Nor does it take a genius to figure out that if you stick the word absolute in front of the word moral or immoral, it doesn't make god real or come to life. Fuckin snap!

We all subjectively find meaning in our lives in our own ways. That's the cold hard reality you refuse to face Dawn.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-13-2017 12:39 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-13-2017 8:48 PM Riggamortis has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4538
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.3


(3)
Message 217 of 768 (799674)
02-13-2017 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Dr Adequate
02-13-2017 1:02 AM


Dr.A writes:

I haven't been following the thread. Did Dawn ever come up with a rational theistic explanation for morality?

Take a wild guess....

As far as I can establish, he has three assertions

If something is relative - eg morality - it can't exist 'in reality' (???)
If we treat ants worse than people, we can't argue that we are moral creatures
Absolute morality is god given and infinite.

Or something like that(TM)

He's not making any progress on any of them - mostly because he appears to be batshit bonkers.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-13-2017 1:02 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-13-2017 8:49 PM Tangle has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18257
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 218 of 768 (799684)
02-13-2017 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Dawn Bertot
02-13-2017 12:34 AM


Re: Morals Have been rationally explained. Done.
Oh I think your "Argument" is defeated quite easily

Then do it. (you haven't yet in any of your 74 posts on this thread to date)

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?

And, curiously, that still does NOT do it. A swing and a miss ... sad.

This is more you trying to change the question from moral codes for people with social groups to include other species. Then you throw in a little religious non-sequitur. More deflection from addressing the FACT that rational people (atheists among them) CAN (and HAVE) Rationally Explain(ed) Morals.

As I said in Message 204:

quote:
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 explanation is also summarized in Message 204. So your topic hypothesis is invalidated. Fail. End. Done. Finito.

So move the goal posts all over the place and throw a cognitive dissonant tantrum if you like, but your argument is falsified by the objective empirical evidence that moral have been explained without needing god/s to do so. It is human, it is subjective, it develops thru natural causes, it is observed to be different in different cultures and it is observed to change over time, all consistent with subjective natural morality.

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 210 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-13-2017 12:34 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-13-2017 8:51 PM RAZD has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11247
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(3)
Message 219 of 768 (799689)
02-13-2017 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Dawn Bertot
02-11-2017 9:10 AM


Re: nazis
+
And what if morality is not objective, and has no purpose outside of ourselves?

Then it would be blind evolution or just matter in motion. Morality would be a made up word

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

Not at all; or do you also claim that beauty, deliciousness, and fun do not exist either?

They all would exist, and could be explained, they would just be subjective.

Being subjective is not being non-existent, nor is it unexplainable. You're just saying that because they are not objective then they don't really exist, but that's not true. They just exist differently.

Basically, your argument boils down to: "subjective things are not objective".

We all agree with that, it's the "therefore they don't exist" part that is wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-11-2017 9:10 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-13-2017 8:52 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 12915
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 220 of 768 (799691)
02-13-2017 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Dawn Bertot
02-13-2017 12:35 AM


Re: Religion Cannot Rationally Explain Morals
Dawn Bertot writes:

I don't have to be omniscient to know that for a moral to be correct and consistent, it would need to be that no more information could be added to it to make it more correct.


The point is that it might "be" correct - absolutely correct and inviolable in any way - but YOU have know way of knowing exactly what is correct because YOU don't have all of the information.

Dawn Bertot writes:

If God exists, and there were something he didn't know that is knowable, then he wouldn't be God, correct


See above. God might know exactly what is right or wrong but YOU don't because you're not God.

Dawn Bertot writes:

You need to demonstrate that rational goes hand in hand with relative,


I did. Relative conclusions from real-world observations require reasoning. They require new reasoning as new circumstances are observed.

You, on the other hand, haven't shown that any reasoning is required for absolute morals.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-13-2017 12:35 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-13-2017 8:53 PM ringo has responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7407
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 221 of 768 (799697)
02-13-2017 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Dawn Bertot
02-13-2017 12:37 AM


So in an ironic and weird way you just said meaning is relative

Well I tried straightforward and explicitly saying it, I guess ironic and weird is what gets your attention.

You have no way to establish an actual moral exists.

I can point at people who believe in right and wrong, and I can say, those systems of judging the rightness or wrongness of things are systems of morality. Sounds like I just established actual morals exist. They exist in people's brains, sometimes they try to verbalize them or write them down.

If,morals are realtive, then you can't get something from nothing.

You can get something from nothing even if morals are objective.

Wouldn't you say that morals should be remotely consistent in an enviornment where where all life is equal.

I would expect commonalities and patterns if morality is evolved. I don't expect consistency. I don't see that all life is equal.

Or,do you,fancy yourself better than another species.

Better at what what. 'Better' is a relative term. Morally better? No, I don't think that makes sense. I certainly have a keener sense of morale issues than other species - I do have a pre-frontal cortex.

What would make you apply a set for different standards to other life forms?

An brain that is evolved to treat different circumstances in different ways.

Tastiness has nothing to compare itself to in reality.

Maybe not, but then I don't suggest otherwise.

I can compare different things and their tastiness.

Taste buds taste an actual substance

And whether or not I like that taste is my perception. How 'tasty' I find it is therefore subjective. Hence I think pineapples are disgusting and my wife thinks they are delicious. Neither of us are incorrect.

Tastiness is a concept with nothing to,compare itself to, except its own perception, or those of others.

Exactly. It is subjective. Whether or not something is tasty only makes sense relative to the taster in question. There is no objective 'tastiness'.

That which is relative does not actually exist.

I argue 'goodness' and 'evilness' don't actually exist. They as much 'in the eye of the beholder' as the tastiness of a fruit.

However, there are chemicals in fruits that stimulate tongues. There are signals that are sent from the tongue to the brain. The brain does process these signals.

There are actions in nature that are also processed by our brains. The actions and the brains objectively exist. Whether or not I think the actions are moral, immoral or amoral is entirely subjective - but that I think the actions are one of these is objectively real.

Subjective morals, perceived meaning cant actually exist, in a relative perception

They certainly do exist. There is however, no objectively correct morality, meaning, taste response or music preference.

Right the same way tastiness is only a perception, it has nothing to reference in reality.

In much the same was a 'good' and 'evil'.

Your so called meanings in a meaningless universe, have nothing to reference in reality, there only perceptions of a subjective percieved meaning or value.

This does not prohibit explaining them.

The same way tastiness is only perception with no actual reality, subjective and relative morals, which are perception have no reality

They have a reality - they just don't exist independent of tasters or thinkers or perceivers. There is nothing about the apple which means it is objectively tasty. To determine if it is tasty you have to compare that apple to a taster and work out how that taster will react to the apple's taste. Thus, it's tastiness is relative to the taster, not intrinsic to the apple.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-13-2017 12:37 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-13-2017 8:55 PM Modulous has responded

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


Message 222 of 768 (799711)
02-13-2017 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Riggamortis
02-13-2017 2:09 AM


Re: No need to shout mate
God of the gaps for this, god of the gaps for that. With A BIT OF OUTRIGHT DENIAL OF REALITY THROWN IN FOR GOOD MEASURE. 😎

Not an actual argument, nothing to respond too here

All you are doing is asserting that people don't judge right/wrong the same way that they subjectively judge beauty and taste. You can't prove it, by definition. For someone as seemingly intelligent as yourself I'm surprised you haven't clicked onto this yet.

Well I don't need definitions to assist me in demonstrating that any morality you describe, cannot and does not actually exist. Because in your view it's subjective. I know no other way to define subjective but nonexistent. So if you percieved you have an actual moral that actually exists, in some other way than a perception, you'll need to show it to me how you came up with it

Perceptions of right and wrong like the perception of tastiness, dont actually exist. So it would follow that Atheists can only imagine an ethic or morality. Your Socalled morality have no more existence than an imagination

Nor does it take a genius to figure out that if you stick the word absolute in front of the word moral or immoral, it doesn't make god real or come to life. Fuckin snap!

Careful RAZD will accuse you of Cognitive D.
So initially you would agree you don't actually have an ethic or moral, in any reality. You have just imagined that you perceptions of such a thing are a real thing, when in reality such things don't actually exist and indeed could not. Well atleast that's better than RAZD, he actually believes because humans have learned to communicate and share ideas by means of a biological process, (according to you fellas position) that it's something more than a biological process. Unfortunately he has no possible way of demonstrating this in a blind guide universe, where percieved meaning actually has no meaning. But he keeps trying, maybe that's an ethic in of itself

We all subjectively find meaning in our lives in our own ways. That's the cold hard reality you refuse to face Dawn.

No not at all. I'm simply adopting you and your fellow Atheists position, to show you it's consequences. I think I've done that in a very real fashion. Your universe is impersonal and ethically void by its very Nature. A personal God with absolute morality, not only has meaning, but his ethics are objective and timeless, hence real meaning

Now , it's unwarrented on your part to assume, I have the same subjective morality as you do, simply because you think the evidence for his existence is not enough. There is more than enough evidence to support the reality that the Bible is more than a human construct. But for you to assume I'm in your boat, is nothing less than assertion

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Riggamortis, posted 02-13-2017 2:09 AM Riggamortis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Riggamortis, posted 02-13-2017 10:32 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

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


Message 223 of 768 (799712)
02-13-2017 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Tangle
02-13-2017 2:47 AM


Take a wild guess....

As far as I can establish, he has three assertions

If something is relative - eg morality - it can't exist 'in reality' (???)
If we treat ants worse than people, we can't argue that we are moral creatures
Absolute morality is god given and infinite.

Or something like that(TM)

He's not making any progress on any of them - mostly because he appears to be batshit bonkers.

Oh , watch out, looks like your Cognitive D has gone bonkers.

Well, in a sloppy way , yeah that sums up my position pretty well, but since u offered nothing more than an observation, I have nothing to respond to in an argument form. You must not have one.

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Tangle, posted 02-13-2017 2:47 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Tangle, posted 02-14-2017 1:15 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

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


Message 224 of 768 (799713)
02-13-2017 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by RAZD
02-13-2017 9:01 AM


Re: Morals Have been rationally explained. Done.
And, curiously, that still does NOT do it. A swing and a miss ... sad.

This is more you trying to change the question from moral codes for people with social groups to include other species. Then you throw in a little religious non-sequitur. More deflection from addressing the FACT that rational people (atheists among them) CAN (and HAVE) Rationally Explain(ed) Morals.

So u don't actually have a bases for believing you can treat animals differently according to your moral code, other than to say, I dont like it because it throws a wrench in the system I've set up. Well ok I'll take that as an admission.

But that's only One of the problems with your so called morality. Let's look. You state:

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.

But I have shown otherwise with empirical evidence. Here it is again. You assert that memes are MORE than a biological process but you can show No chain of causality from brain activity to these alleged memes or synergy, other than to say, "can't you just see it"
Ironically you'll need to show in a biological scientific way, that they exist and they are more than a biological process. This is what you assert correct? Communication and sharing ideas won't help you either. I need something at a cellular level to show a chain of causality. You've just changed the word tastiness to meme and synergy, in hopes that it would explain something. It doesnt. I thought you fellas liked being sciency all the way through. Because you can't do what I suggested, it runs you straight into your second problem from an empirical evidence stand point.

But if you can show no chain of causality from the brain to consciouness, how would you have any hope of showing a chain from the brain to synergy memes or whatever.

A subjective idea classified as a meme, or otherwise, is not a real thing. I can imagine I'm a cloud, that doesn't make me one and it doesn't make my subjective perception a real thing. You fellas have imagined that because you have some relative idea about morals or ethics, they are somehow real. There's no empirical way they could be

This is corroborated by the fact that it's possible to have as many different ideas On one subjective idea, classified as morals, as there are people. There is no possible logical way for perceptions to be actually real. This slams the door shut on you ever demonstrating that perceptions are a real thing, or that they are actually morals Since morality from your position derived from your perspective are not real and have no hope of being real, it would follow you have no morals or anyway of explaining them.

So it is NOT true, That I have presented NO empirical evidence to the contrary. So if I were you, I'd spend less time accusing and assigning blame and more time on my arguments

So move the goal posts all over the place and throw a cognitive dissonant tantrum if you like, but your argument is falsified by the objective empirical evidence that moral have been explained without needing god/s to do so. It is human, it is subjective, it develops thru natural causes, it is observed to be different in different cultures and it is observed to change over time, all consistent with subjective natural morality.

Since this is an observation in the form of an assertion, I have nothing to which respond. I'm sure to the casual observer it sounded good though.

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by RAZD, posted 02-13-2017 9:01 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2017 1:40 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

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


Message 225 of 768 (799714)
02-13-2017 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by New Cat's Eye
02-13-2017 10:54 AM


Re: nazis
Not at all; or do you also claim that beauty, deliciousness, and fun do not exist either?

Yes I claim given your no meaning universe, that those not only do not exist in reality, but they cannot. How would you show me the reality of a perception. If I were doing something I classified as fun, you would be able only to see a biological process happening, even if I were smiling. If I said it was fun and in the very same moment you said it is not, how could I convince you or show you what does not exist, namely my perception of funess. So we would both be right, both be wrong, one right the other wrong or it doesn't matter to matter.

If morals are subjective, they don't actually exist and you have no possible way of demonstrating them in reality

Being subjective is not being non-existent, nor is it unexplainable. You're just saying that because they are not objective then they don't really exist, but that's not true. They just exist differently.

Then show me in reality how, not just from your perception, but how they actually exist. When you can do this,, then you'll demonstrate how your subjective perceptions of morality are real actually. Since they are nothing more than perceptions, they have no reality

Basically, your argument boils down to: "subjective things are not objective".

We all agree with that, it's the "therefore they don't exist" part that is wrong.

Well let's see what you've got then.

BTW, what does new cats eye, mean. Just curious, no need to respond if you don't feel it's necessary

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-13-2017 10:54 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-13-2017 9:48 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
1617
...
52NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017