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 3:16 PM
356 online now:
Coyote, DrJones*, JonF, PaulK, Porosity, RAZD, ringo, Tangle (8 members, 348 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
...
1617
18
1920
...
67NextFF
Author Topic:   Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 256 of 1002 (799862)
02-17-2017 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by Pressie
02-15-2017 7:10 AM


So, after all of this it's quite obvious that objective morality doesn't exist.

It's the only way it can exist To demonstrate my point, if subjective morality is an actual thing, if it can be demonstrated in an actual rational way, how would you know if what either of us is saying is true. That is, my views or opinions on this topic, would both be just as acceptable, as yours. It doesn't matter, because there is no right or wrong.

But before you applauded that I've represented your position correctly, it would mean I could kill you and your whole family and it wouldn't be, right, wrong, correct, incorrect, moral or immoral. Or I might be who knows , correct. Or is what I'm even saying correct.

So if it's not absolute, it's nonsense. Assuming, nonsense is a valid term in you guys world. Who knows. Care to take a shot at refuting that?

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Pressie, posted 02-15-2017 7:10 AM Pressie has not yet responded

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


Message 257 of 1002 (799863)
02-17-2017 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by New Cat's Eye
02-15-2017 10:30 AM


Re: How?
I'm not sure what you mean? Why would something being beautiful to me require assuming that meaning has a purpose in my mind?

I mean: I see it, and I like it. That's beauty in my mind. Where's the "purpose"?

Because it's simply an imagination, it cannot and does no actually exist. If I imagined I WAS REALITY ITSELF and that I created everything, that would not make it real

Nobody can show that, and yet, we all find meaning in our subjective experiences. How do you explain that?

It's simple to explain, in the context of alleged morals. Meaning is as nonexistent as a concept or idea, in a strictly blind biological process. The universe itself would have to have some meaning, for other biological process to have meaning. So if the universe which actually exists has no meaning, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that something that DOES Not exist, could actually have meaning. Even if I granted they do exist:

Your first step in demonstrating your point, would be to show how these concepts are more than more blind biological processes. You have nothing to compare meaning with to make it meaning. It's a vicious circle that will not allow you progress in that are an blind process. How can the parts have meaning if the total sum, does not

Why? Why not just leave it at that: they are subjective experiences that exist. And we can't know if they are right or wrong, or good or bad.

Ok, so from you position you are admitting that these things don't exist, correct? Hence no morality in Atheism. If we don't characterize Morality as right or wrong, any action like stealing is perfectly ok correct.

A standard is only required if you need to have the morality be objective, or absolute. If you are willing to allow for a relative morality, that actually exists, then there is no need fortheone standard rather everything becomes a standard in its own as another point of comparison.

As I've demonstrated without fear of contradiction there is no such thing as relatively morality. You've or anybody here has failed, to demonstrate that imaginations are actually real. Even if you could demonstrate this in some ACTUAL way, your still left with the problem of showing IT as anything more than another biological process, in an already meaningless universe.

A standard is required if you want it to make any logical sense

I'm sure you can see the nonsesne in your phrase, "everything becomes a Standard in or of its own". If everything is a standard and the standards differ contiuously, then of course there is no standard. There are standards for things in real life that are unchangable. You don't get to make Morality whatever you want. No thinking person buys that kind of nonsense

I don't need an ultimate standard on the morality of killing to come up with reasons for believing that it is less moral to kill a rabbit than it is a worm, and less moral to kill a human than it is a rabbit.

Excellent. Now show me the relative standard, from you perspective, of why it is less moral to kill a worm than a rabbit. And how you came to that "conclusion". And I'll show you that your way of proceeding is nonsense. That's assuming nonsense is objective. Is it?

You are correct that I cannot say that this rule of morality is the best one, or the right one, or even correct, but it is mine and it does exist. It's just that it is subjective rather than objective.

Your above statement is a self defeating statement it doesn't need my help to show it fallacious. As you corectly pointed out, everything becomes a standard. Unfortunarely, there is no way for that to make sense in reality

So I would ask again. Is it absolutely true that your above statement about subjective morality is true, indeed. Or is it true subjectively. It can't be both and make sense

They have the meaning that we assign to them. For instance: That which is helpful we call good and that which is hurtful we call bad.

So if you kill and eat animals, other life forms, that's helpful to you but hurtful to them . OR we don't know and have no real way of knowing or what. Oh I see, you mean that kind of relative morality

Being helpful or hurtful are real things that happen in the real world that we can observe. There is an objectivebasisfor morality that ties it to the real world, but the meanings we assign to it and the determinations of right and wrong that we make are what is subjective. They are products of our minds. That doesn't make them non-existent.

And this is exactly why your morality does not exist in reality. Being helpful and hurtful only get meaning when they help or hurt you. You do not ascribe,the same meaning when it comes to other species, or,even other humans at times. Something being completely inconsistent and irrational most of,the time is still irrational and inconsistent, no matter what verbiage you attach to it or how you describe it.

It's not that calling it subjective makes it real, that came about because you were arguing that non-objective things aren't real. It's that they are real, because we experience them, and since they are subjects of our minds rather than objects in our world, then they exist subjectively rather than objectively. Being non-objective does not mean that they don't exist.

Even if they existed objectively, they cant be described as morality. The part, in this instance, your thought is not greater than that which created it. No way to show meaning in a real sense, since death cancels out your so called meaning. Death being another biological process, greater than even you small part of subjective morality, correct. Then there's the problem of you labeling it a moral. Moral is only a concept of the imagination, if there is nothing greater than the universe, with no meaning, this contrived verbiage is just that, contrived verbiage.

Then of course there's the problem of having any kind of consistency. Assuming consistency, even matters in your subjective morality. Those two words together are like saying the Existence of nonexistence

I never said being nonobjective doesn't mean they don't exist. I'm saying that you are labeling something that may or may not exist as subjective, which means they may not actually exist. Subjective is a concept itself. Even if they did actually exist, that is a far cry from MAKING them a moral or morality. Morality is another concept you invented, which is not only inconsistent in your structure, but hopeless subjective, therefore all intents and purposes, nonexistent.

Sure there is: We assign them meaning.

What meaning is there that we have not assigned? Can you show me, objectively, a meaning of something that a human did not bring?

Yes I can objectively show you that your meaning has no meaning, that's assuming meaning has meaning in your explanation of things as subjective. I can objectively show you that I'd meaning is

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-15-2017 10:30 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-17-2017 2:21 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

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


Message 258 of 1002 (799864)
02-17-2017 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by RAZD
02-15-2017 1:40 PM


Re: Morals Have been rationally explained. Done. Finished.
Which is irrelevant to the question of whether or not atheists can rationally explain morals, it's a red herring, an attempt to move the goalposts by redefining morals to include something not necessarily there.

Then you should talk to one of your most outspoken person, Dr Sam Harris. He says that to minimize the maximum amount of pain and suffering is the highest moral. Since this would apply to the animal world, which of you is correct?

Nothing there says treatment of animalsmustbe included. Some people may do that as part of their subjective perception of morals, but they don't have to.

Well that's my point genius. If the Nazis decided to do that as part of thier subjective perception of morals, then why were they in any since wrong

So when the ASPCA says you are absolutely wrong, which of you, is correct, moral or immoral.? If they don't buy your limited definition. are you both right, it doesn't matter, or something else. If someone says the Nazis were ok in thier behavior and actions, would your definition app,you to both parties

Bertot writes:

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

RAZD writes:

And all this rambling blather does not alter the fact that atheists can -- and have -- rationally developed morals.

I set out atleast three arguments and you don't even attempt to refute one. Well ok.

Rational thinking is all about matter in motion. Unless your reasoning relates somehow to matter in motion, it's just meaningless mumbo-jumbo.

Interesting, how could your relative subjective explanations of morals end up rational thinking. If I disagree with your above statement, is that reasonable given your subjective approach to everything.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2017 1:40 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by RAZD, posted 02-17-2017 8:10 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

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


Message 259 of 1002 (799865)
02-17-2017 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by Modulous
02-15-2017 2:40 PM


Re: Reality and the animal's dilemma
So once one human group agrees another human group is an out-group, a set of 'others', there is the real risk of conflict - driven by fears and hatred. Thus, the Nazis (and indeed, much of the history of human conflict).

So how would you describe hatred in a moral sense, good bad, ok, not,ok , moral or, immoral. If i described thier behavior as perfectly acceptable, would my determination be ok, right , wrong, moral or immoral, or correct. You fail to show this or you keep avoiding that question. My point is that,because you don't have anything in reality that resembles consistency in the form of a standard, even the word hatred becomes meaningless. What is hatred to you about A thing, is acceptable in definition to another. Sorry, Mosulous, no morality in reality

Again, this is a complex area once we get into humanity.

I'll bet.

You have been unable to show that in principle, this is impossible, other than to assert your definition of morality is the only definition, and by definition subjective morality is wrong

I think I just did. I showed its possible, by showing hopeless inconsistency in even the very words you used to describe morality, in this instance Hatred. If the Nazis were wrong for thier hatred, then you would have to show why. If you are saying they are not wrong, actually wrong, why use the word. If they were right for,thier hatred, you would have to show me why. If they they were neither right or wrong, then you have no way accusing thier actions. If every persons imagination about thier actions is acceptable because morality is subjective, it would,demonstrate,that subjective is nonsensical when refering to morals. Could you provide an answer to this delimma.

[/qs]Again, this is a complex area once we get into humanity.

To harken back to my example: it worked out that sharing over the long term is advantageous because of the specifics of the numbers. Vary the numbers - the payoffs and risks, and different strategies may emerge. This gives us the primal motives, the instincts.

The complexities of moral philosophy are built on this foundation: They are the product of communicative animals trying to explain why one social strategy is more optimal than another, creating cultural ideas that are occasionally challenged (But with a pressure towards conservatism: If it works 'well enough', its seldom a good idea to upset the apple cart as things might get better, but they could get worse etc)

So there you go. Atheists can, and have, provided an explanation for moral behaviours, and the behaviour for constructing moral philosophies. It explains their existence, their commonalities and their differences.[/qs]

Well no, at best this is an explanation of things happening, at worst it is a very bad attempt to say in reality morals exist. Again, why is this different than the totality of things as having any real meaning. Certainly there is a way to demonstrate that your alleged meanings as meanings in reality are somehow greater than the whole of everything, which you fellas are found of claiming has no meaning. Even if evolution were true, it would not help your delimma

In theism all this understandable because we know the source of our morality is greater than anything I can imagine conjure up, especially relative nonsesne. It's the only way that makes rational sense

All that is required now, is for you to take the leap into accepting that your definition of morality is but one argument among the many. You need to fearlessly accept other definitions of morality, and see the answers you are getting in that light. So far you seem to be saying 'because they aren't objective you can't explain them because you can't explain that which is not real'. But you can explain tastiness, you can explain musical preferences, you can explain morality - even if it is subjective. Even if it exists, as experienced, in our minds alone. There is an objective reality at its heart: within the human brain. So there is a reality, despite your protestations. They just don't exist outside of our brain.[/qs]

Funny how in so many ways you can misrepresent reality. I guess I should not be surprised you actually think there are many definitions of morality. When in actuality, it either exists or it does not. Why would would i take a leap into relativistic nonsense

No I'm not saying you can't explain them because there not objective, I'm saying you can't explain them because reality won't allow it. Your premise that the universe is meaninless, but you existence and imagined meaningare, is nothing short of comical.

Musical preferences are a random imagination of a biological process called music. Other than making certain tones and sounds, it has no meaning. Your imagining it does. The universe and reality don't see it that way. I know I be a huge downer at a party, right.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Modulous, posted 02-15-2017 2:40 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Modulous, posted 02-17-2017 1:20 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

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


Message 260 of 1002 (799866)
02-17-2017 5:59 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by ringo
02-15-2017 2:35 PM


Re: Religion Cannot Rationally Explain Morals
Yes, that's what I've been saying all along. Morals don't have to "exist" like a banana.

You do understand people are actually reading what you write, correct?

But that's practically the definition of a subjective moral; one that is not based on concrete facts but on abstract thoughts. What do you think subjective means?

The easy answer would be you blindly and irrationally groping around trying to explain morals. The technical answer would be something that does not exist in reality. My point was that if there is nothing that is good or bad, moral or immoral, then obviously you can't have or explain morals. To use Modulous example of music. if I were to imagine that musical notes had meaning outside some vague interpretation I gave them, they would still just be, meaningless sounds to the universe, the alleged creator of your biological brain

You would need to show how it and your entire life has meaning for actual meaning to exist. Otherwise, it's just biological process, RAZD 's synergy notwithstanding. He just made up another word to describe junk happening. Hey, its your Godless meaningless world, I'm just giving back to you what you tell us.

But how do you know what to obey? You can't read the instructions with 100% accuracy because you're not omniscient. (If you were omniscient, you wouldn't even need the instructions.)

So answer the question: When God tells you, "Thou shalt not kill," how do you obey? Do you oppose capital punishment? Do you oppose war? What specific instructions do you have that apply to every possible situation?[qs]

The first specific instruction I have is that God is infinite and thus his morality is absolute as a result of that. Secondly, it's not necessary for me to get every detail right, to know that infinite wisdom is correct,absolutely. So if he says, Thou shalt not kill, I understand him to mean, dont take a life for malicious, deceitful reasons. That's murder. Even common sense would tell you, there s a difference in taking life accidently and maliciously. But if the same source tells me he is infinte in knowledge, then it not required for ME to know what the exact line of what constitutes murder, to understand he does understand

100 percent accuracy is not required to understand simple instructions and it's CERTAINLY not required to understand he is infinite and you are not

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by ringo, posted 02-15-2017 2:35 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by ringo, posted 02-17-2017 10:58 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

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


Message 261 of 1002 (799867)
02-17-2017 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Pressie
02-17-2017 4:23 AM


Re: sorry for lateness
Not really. Atheism is a disbelief in the existence of Gods. Atheism doesn't even try to explain morals. It's a straw man you created.

You do know that creating straw men is a form of telling untruths?

If morals don't exist how can I be telling an untruth. Secondly thanks for corroborating my thread title.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Pressie, posted 02-17-2017 4:23 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Pressie, posted 02-17-2017 6:20 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1771
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 262 of 1002 (799868)
02-17-2017 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Dawn Bertot
02-17-2017 5:49 AM


You do not have a moral either way, objective or subjective. Hence, as I have clearly
DB writes:

You do not have a moral either way, objective or subjective. Hence, as I have clearly demonstrated, for morality to exist it has to be absolute.

No, you haven't. Repeating the same BS is not the same as demonstrating it, DB.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-17-2017 5:49 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1771
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 263 of 1002 (799869)
02-17-2017 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by Dawn Bertot
02-17-2017 6:01 AM


Re: sorry for lateness
DB writes:

If morals don't exist how can I be telling an untruth. Secondly thanks for corroborating my thread title.

If that's what you get from from what I wrote, there really is no way of even trying to have a rational conersation with you.

Lets try again. I wrote:

Not really. Atheism is a disbelief in the existence of Gods. Atheism doesn't even try to explain morals. It's a straw man you created.
If you got from that that morals don't exist, you really, really must go back to Grade 1 to try to get a basic comprehension. I doubt that you will make it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-17-2017 6:01 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Pressie, posted 02-17-2017 6:23 AM Pressie has not yet responded
 Message 265 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-17-2017 6:36 AM Pressie has responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1771
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 264 of 1002 (799870)
02-17-2017 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Pressie
02-17-2017 6:20 AM


Re: sorry for lateness
Let's try it again on you DB.

Not really. Atheism is a disbelief in the existence of Gods. Atheism doesn't even try to explain morals. It's a straw man you created.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Pressie, posted 02-17-2017 6:20 AM Pressie has not yet responded

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


Message 265 of 1002 (799871)
02-17-2017 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Pressie
02-17-2017 6:20 AM


Re: sorry for lateness
If you got from that that morals don't exist, you really, really must go back to Grade 1 to try to get a basic comprehension. I doubt that you will make it.

Right , I had it right the first time. Atheism is nothing. Did you have an actual argument or just worthless observations


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Pressie, posted 02-17-2017 6:20 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Pressie, posted 02-17-2017 6:50 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1771
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 266 of 1002 (799872)
02-17-2017 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by Dawn Bertot
02-17-2017 6:36 AM


Re: sorry for lateness
Again, you still struggle with the basics. Atheism is a disbelieve in the existence of Gods. That's it. Atheism doesn't try to explain morals.

Let's try another way. Atheism is a disbelieve in the existence of Gods. That's it. Atheism doesn't try to explain how an Airbus A380 flies.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-17-2017 6:36 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-17-2017 7:49 AM Pressie has not yet responded
 Message 271 by Diomedes, posted 02-17-2017 10:10 AM Pressie has responded

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


Message 267 of 1002 (799875)
02-17-2017 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Pressie
02-17-2017 6:50 AM


Re: sorry for lateness
So are you saying indirectly you do not have morals or you don't know or don't care
Do I still have a straw man
This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Pressie, posted 02-17-2017 6:50 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5068
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 268 of 1002 (799876)
02-17-2017 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Dawn Bertot
02-17-2017 5:49 AM


quote:
You are only witnessing changes in what you percieved as normal.

Correct. We witness changes in brain states and behaviour compared to normal brain states and behaviours.

quote:
a malfunctioning brain does not mean, immoral behavior, it just means a different biological process of a damaged biological function.

Which, as we saw with Fred, led to very immoral behaviour. We saw the before and after effects twice. How do you explain this?

quote:
The imaginations of a Socalled psychopath are no more real than yours. If they have an hallucination, is it real or not. If you said it was real you'd be the crazy one, correct?

I can't follow this, sorry. Imaginings of what?

quote:
I'll keep repeating this, and maybe one of you fellas will finally see it. If you want to characterize your FEELINGs or BEHAVIORS as morality, then you would be obligated show how and why, every persons thoughts or perceptions on ANY GIVEN POINT, Could all be correct or incorrect at the same time. If God did not exist, subjective morality, as you characterize it would be the height of stupidity, for any thinking person.

I can't follow this either. If you keep repeating it and no-one understands you, perhaps there's a problem with what you're saying?

quote:
It would mean given its components and tenets, as described by you fellas, nothing, not even what im saying, would have meaning. If everybody could have a differing opinion about something and it be valid as morality, the whole thing is idiocy. That's assuming idiocy could exist, in you fellas imaginations of morality. Wow, it ant believe you can't see that

And again.

quote:
You do not have a moral either way, objective or subjective. Hence, as I have clearly demonstrated, for morality to exist it has to be absolute. If it isnt, there it's nonsense

Yes we know you've asserted this but as you've read, no-one agrees with you. We are all saying that morality is very obviously not objective or absolute. We can demonstrate how and why this is an obvious truth by showing you how it changes between cultures and between times. It also changes with brain-state.

This is all demonstrably true - we can prove it quite easily and have done here.

So far you've not made any coherent argument or demonstrated why something that we see change can be absolute.


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 255 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-17-2017 5:49 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-20-2017 6:48 AM Tangle has responded

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


Message 269 of 1002 (799877)
02-17-2017 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Dawn Bertot
02-17-2017 5:52 AM


Re: Morals Have been rationally explained. Done. Finished.
Then you should talk to one of your most outspoken person, Dr Sam Harris. He says that to minimize the maximum amount of pain and suffering is the highest moral. Since this would apply to the animal world, which of you is correct?

Fallacy of argument from authority plus you are reading animals into it when that isn't necessarily implied.

But it is curious that you quote an atheist talking about rationally explaining morals to argue that atheists cannot rationally explain morals. LOLZ, so funny.

Well that's my point genius. If the Nazis decided to do that as part of thier subjective perception of morals, then why were they in any since wrong

Showing again that you don't understand the argument that morals are subjective codes, and different people have different, albeit similar, codes ... because their upbringings differ, their learning differs, their opinions differ.

So when the ASPCA says you are absolutely wrong, which of you, is correct, moral or immoral.? If they don't buy your limited definition. are you both right, it doesn't matter, or something else. If someone says the Nazis were ok in thier behavior and actions, would your definition app,you to both parties

See both comments above. Try harder to understand rather than just read to form your responses.

RAZD writes:

And all this rambling blather does not alter the fact that atheists can -- and have -- rationally developed morals.

I set out atleast three arguments and you don't even attempt to refute one. Well ok.

In your subjective opinion ... But I ignore them because they have no bearing on the fact that atheists can -- and have -- rationally developed morals, which is what your thread claims cannot happen ... and yet it has.

You are now desperately going down rabbit holes to distract everyone from the fact that your thesis is invalidated.

Your inability to admit this to yourself is part of how cognitive dissonance affects your thinking.

Rational thinking is all about matter in motion. Unless your reasoning relates somehow to matter in motion, it's just meaningless mumbo-jumbo.

You should have acknowledged that this comes from Ringo in Message 249

Interesting, how could your relative subjective explanations of morals end up rational thinking. If I disagree with your above statement, is that reasonable given your subjective approach to everything.

So I'll let Ringo deal with that bit of blather. But it could have something to do with the way we define rational ...

quote:
Rational

adjective

  1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible:
    a rational plan for economic development.
  2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense:
    a calm and rational negotiator.
  3. being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid:
    The patient appeared perfectly rational.
  4. endowed with the faculty of reason:
    rational beings.
  5. of, relating to, or constituting reasoning powers:
    the rational faculty.
  6. proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning:
    a rational explanation.

We call things rational when they make sense to us, and irrational when they do not make sense to us.

The golden rule - "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" - makes sense in terms of self-preservation and thus self-interest. It's rational.

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 258 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-17-2017 5:52 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-20-2017 6:53 AM RAZD has responded

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


Message 270 of 1002 (799884)
02-17-2017 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by Dawn Bertot
02-17-2017 5:48 AM


Re: No need to shout mate
I Have repeatedly demonstrated both by reason and by scripture that ONLY absolute morality exists. I'll try again, maybe this time you will pay attention. There is no possible way that blind causes Can demonstrate what is right or wrong. Blind biological process, that which brought your alleged thoughts into existence is greater than its parts. This is demonstrated by the fact that the blind process which causes death, eventually will overcome your alleged imagined subjective morality, demonstrating that death is greater, than its biological parts. Thus you have no hope of showing that a ridiculous thing characterized like Subjective Morality exists. The two words themselves are nonsensical together.

So because all our senses of morality die with us, none of them existed? And because that position is so ridiculous and nonsensical, therefore God?

Yeah, the phrase 'subjective morality' is a bit silly but since you have laughably defined morality as perfect, we have to use two words to describe its normal meaning. Your SENSE of right and wrong is inherently subjective, the word subjective is therefore redundant in front of the word morality.

People judge right from wrong everyday, people's perceptions of what is wrong and why vary(from a little to a lot), the existence of subjective morality is therefore demonstrated. Rational people will look at the consequences of a given action to judge it. Irrational people look at the bible or some other ancient tome, voices in their head etc.

My basic moral statement would be freedom without denying others the same.
I like freedom, freedom is good, everyone should be free.
Don't murder/rape/assault/steal all follow from this basic concept.

From my naturalist perspective, as mindless critters that have evolved the intelligence to understand evolution, it's pretty clear that the meaning of life is to not go extinct. Oh how I wish people would be a little more concerned with that as opposed to whose sky daddy is the bestest.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-17-2017 5:48 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
1920
...
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