Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 331 of 1006 (800484)
02-24-2017 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 323 by Dawn Bertot
02-24-2017 5:15 AM


Re: Why do you continue lying Dawn?
Dawn writes:
So how can a God as described in the Bible , know the very number of your hairs on your head and if a sparrow falls, it is not unknown to him, be as incompetent as you claim. So set out the argument that demonstrates your baseless assertion
The answer as I have explained to you many times here at EvC is that the Bible is filled with contradictions and errors. That of one of the wonderful things about it. It is not consistent but rather simply an anthology of anthologies written by men for men of varying periods and reflects the beliefs those authors held at the time.
In one passage the God character is asserted to "know the very number of your hairs on your head and if a sparrow falls, it is not unknown to him" yet he does not know where Adam & Eve were, what would make a suitable help meet for Adam, as you ask later on, where Abel is.
Dawn writes:
Im sure, someone even as simple minded as yourself can understand that if two people assign a different Socalled meaning to something, those meanings cannot both be correct? That's because meanings don't have reality, especially in a meaningless universe. It should be obvious even to you Jar that when you say the universe has no meaning, you would need to demonstrate that for it to be true. Hence your postulating that meaning has meaning, is quite obviously nonsensical
Even living beings cannot ACTUALLY assign meaning. If I imagine I am creation and that I created all that exists, that's just an imagination Jar, it's unreal like the imaginary meanings you ascribe to things.
Talk about making unsupported assertions.
Of course both meaning might be correct. A meaning is correct if it is useful. And I did not say the universe had no meaning, I said the universe has whatever meaning individuals assign to it and that the universe itself being inanimate is not capable of having meaning.
Dawn writes:
jar writes:
Plus Jesus truth was always subjective. From what is recorded he was always pragmatic when it came to morality.
Let he who without sin cast the first stone. (other stones can be tossed by anyone)
If you ass falls in a crack on the Sabbath go ahead and pull it out.
Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, heal the sick, protect the weak. No mention of whether any were deserving or not.
Yes, he spent the groups money to buy oils for himself instead of using it for the poor because he would not always be among them.
He caused a riot and vandalized all the stores just because they were open on a day of worship at his church.
Jar did God know where Able was, when he asked Where is your brother Able?
And once again you try the classic conman trick of trying to palm the pea.
Look at what I wrote.
Then please explain what possible relevance your response might have to what I posted?

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-24-2017 5:15 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 336 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-27-2017 6:44 AM jar has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 332 of 1006 (800501)
02-24-2017 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 328 by Dawn Bertot
02-24-2017 5:28 AM


Re: Religion Cannot Rationally Explain Morals
Dawn Bertot writes:
Which of course means you don't actually have a thing called morality.
That's right. Morality is not a thing like a banana. It's made up in human minds. It's an agreement between humans to make living together in society easier. Like any contract, the specific provisions vary to suit the situation.
Dawn Bertot writes:
You can't get close to objective or subjective or Wrong or Right, because these are things that absolutely cannot exist in your purely naturalistic existence. You have made them up.
Your morality is the same. You've made it up. The only difference is that you've fooled yourself into thinking that God whispered it in your ear.
Dawn Bertot writes:
I have demonstrated that your actions and existence is no different than that of the animal kingdom.
You didn't need to demonstrate that. It's what I've been saying all along. Social animals have their own social contracts just like ours.
Dawn Bertot writes:
You would need to demonstrate that subjectivity even exists. But how in the world will you do that. Perceptions and imaginations are not real things
Subjectivity exists because perceptions and imaginations are not real things. Everybody has different perceptions and imaginations. That's what subjectivity means. What did you think it meant?
Dawn Bertot writes:
Ringo, assigning a name to something in reality, cannot give it more ACTUAL meaning.
There is no "actual" meaning. There's only the meaning that we assign. The same applies to you. The only "meaning" in the Bible is what you imagine.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Certainly, if there exists such a being that is all knowing, he would be able to communicate to me his will. If there exists enough evidence to support that he exists, why wouldn't I be able to know his morality is absolute.
The Bible says you can't understand God. You quoted it yourself.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Of course those verses say something about morality, God's character is his morality.
Those verses don't say anything about God's character either. They say that He is infinite and that you can't understand Him.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Therefore I can know he's absolute without understanding him completely
And if you don't understand Him completely, you can't understand His morality absolutely. You have to make it up just like the rest of us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-24-2017 5:28 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-27-2017 6:46 AM ringo has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 333 of 1006 (800504)
02-24-2017 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by Dawn Bertot
02-24-2017 5:22 AM


Re: Secular Morals Have been rationally explained. Done. Finished.
No you are getting the cart before the horse. Since your imaginations can never be real it would follow that it cannot assign meanings, to a physical property, that it does not already posses. A rose by any other name. If you want to believe you've done this then it will only be in your imagination. Reality does not care about your definitions of it. Long after your gone it will still just be what it is.
If I imagine myself flying over the countryside, using just my arms, that doesn't make it real. In fact there is nothing you can imagine that is real. IOWS the specific imagination. If you think so, give me an example
There is nothing you can imagine that is actually real, including morality. You and your meaningless universe, is literally the blind leading the blind. And I'm not taking a shot at blind people there, I've never really liked that statement
Utter bullshinola that has nothing to do with observed secular subjective morals derived rationally from enlightened self preservation.
Does this argument refute that such morals can be discussed, compared, modified, and passed from generation to generation? No, because it does not address the argument.
Well to be absolutelyfair I've read this three of four times to see if it might contradict anything I am saying, it does not. ...
Good, so you agree that the foundation of the argument is solid then.
... Even if the above things are true, it doesn't demonstrate that a moral is possible. ...
And yet we have observed such morals and that they can be discussed, compared, modified, and passed from generation to generation. That is what demonstrates the truth of the argument: observed secular subjective morals derived rationally from enlightened self preservation.
... A moral is an imaginary thing applied to a physical property to make something right or wrong, moral or immoral. ...
Nope, a moral is a subjective concept applied to behavior within a cultural\social group. Change the group and the morals change. Change the culture and the morals change. This too has been observed, hence validated. That is how rational development of morals occurs, they are rational within the context of the culture\social group.
Something may be more advantageous or not, but then we may assume that across any species. Hence no actual morality
We can actually observe whether behaviors are advantageous or not, across human cultures and across species.
Curiously, that does not negate morals being observed secular subjective behavioral guides derived rationally from enlightened self preservation, rather it validates it. The purpose of morals is to reduce in-group conflicts and benefit the group as a whole so that it survives and thrives regardless of individual participants.
At best morality is a made up concept in a purely naturalistic society. Isn't it interesting that this so called emergence cannot show a causality between brain and consciouness
And it is also interesting that this has nothing to do with secular subjective morals derived rationally from enlightened self preservation being observed across all human cultures and also across many species.
As I've demonstrated, ...
Well I must have missed that, as I haven't seen anything remotely demonstrating anything but a willingness to deflect and run from the actual arguments. Could you cite where you actually replied to my argument with anything but bullshinola?
... for your illustrations of biological functions, synergies or otherwise, to actually have moral meaning, they would need to be remotely consistent accross species. ...
Nope, there isn't even a need for them to be "remotely consistent accross" human cultural groups, which is why we see such diverse cultural moral codes.
This is an irrational conclusion you leap to, as you often do, to deflect the thread away from the argument that:
  • secular subjective morals are readily derived rationally from the basic principles of enlightened self interest (game theory, etc)
  • the purpose of morals is to reduce in-group conflicts and benefit the group as a whole so that the group survives and thrives regardless of individual participants.
  • they are observed and documented,
  • they can be discussed, compared, modified, and passed from generation to generation,
  • this too has also been observed,
  • they vary from culture\social group to culture\social group
  • they vary over time as the culture\social group changes
  • these variations have also been observed,
  • moral type behavior can be -- and have been -- observed in other species
Heck,they can even have consistency withing your own species. Long disortations only explains complicated versions of the samething, ie survival of the fittest, but it doesn't show that actual morality exists, in a meaningless universe.
Absolute morality certainly does not exist, all the evidence points to it being a subjective construct developed withing social species to reduce in-group conflicts and benefit the group as a whole, so that the group survives and thrives regardless of individual participants.
... ie survival of the fittest, ...
Actually it is more like survival of those fit enough to survive long enough to breed ... but I am not surprised that you are under educated on evolution.
... but it doesn't show that actual morality exists, in a meaningless universe.
And again, sadly for you, all we need to do is observe it. We observe it, we observe that it is subjective and that it varies from culture to culture. Those observations show that it exists, and if this contradicts your argument this means your argument is invalid, false, wrong.
To demonstrate this absolutely, without a disortation, as is usually Characteristic of you, give me the single argument form that material that you presented that shows actually, how morality exists. You cloud up the issue with verbosity assuming you have made your point. You havent. But if you think I have missed something, give it to me on a single sentence or single argument
See Summary of my argument so far for the whole argument (that you have ignored to date}, and then let me quote the conclusion:
Secular Subjective Morals exists "because they are a type of meme 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."
This has been posted several times, that you haven't seen it (or understood what it is) is not my fault.
Which demonstrates my point that your alleged morality cannot exist in reality. ...
You are confused about what exists in reality then. Again, all we need to do is observe it: we observe that it is subjective and that it varies from culture to culture. Those observations show that it exists, and if this contradicts your argument this means your argument is invalid, false, wrong.
... Why from a purely naturalistic standpoint are the Nazis actions different than anything you would see in the animal kingdom. ...
And yet we see species attacking other species and trying to drive competing species away. You fixation with Nazis is fascinating, but ultimately irrelevant. As I said in Message 315
quote:
Because it is subjective there is a spectrum of opinions on what is moral and what is not moral, and as there are many many many issues involved it is a multidimensional spectrum.
Some people think hurting any animal is wrong, some think eating dogs is okay, some think that keeping pets is immoral because it deprives the animals of a natural existence.
South Pacific Islanders thought it was moral to kill and eat their enemies -- that they were honoring their foes by eating them, taking their essence into their own bodies. Same for any of their tribe that died.
This multidimensional spectrum of moral beliefs has many extremes, but there is also overlapping consensus on many issues, so those spectra would also show normalish bell-like curves.
We OBSERVE a spectrum of moral beliefs.
... The term subjective morality, is nothing but a worthless empty nonsensical concept thrown at reality. Goodness man look at what you wrote above and listen to it, it's double talk nonsesne
This is just you trying to tell yourself that, rather than actually dealing with the argument. More deflection and bullshinola.
Son, your at a lose for a lot of reasons. ...
That may be true, but my argument has been consistent and your failure to refute it with garbage deflections and unsupported personal opinions has also been consistent: a total failure to address the actual argument itself.
... Notice the logical conclusion of your subjective morality approach. Given your position, there is literally NOTHING and I mean NOTHING that could be considered IMMORAL in the future and in different societies as long as enough people agree with it. That means if I could get enough people to agree and I mean actually agree, a person could rape and kill as many persons as they choose, if we could get enough people signed up for that and say it's ok or moral
And slavery, cannibalism and human sacrifice ...
Curiously, I don't need to look to the future to find this, I can look at the past, both actual history and what is described in the bible (which then makes it your "absolute moral" behavior for Christians, right?).
That morals are secular and subjective explains these historic beliefs, your "absolute morals" argument does not.
... This is literally what your doctrine teaches. The conclusions of subjective morality therefore have no real meaning at all, IT'S JUST MAKING JUNK AS YOU GO ALONG, hoping everyone else will agree. Hence as I have demonstrated, morality is just a made up term to justify actions ...
Indeed, and that is how progress is made. Within a cultural group we can evolve from one that thinks capital punishment is moral to one that thinks it is immoral. It's making it up along the way to improve the morals of the current social\cultural group, and when we get enough people to go along, then it becomes accepted in a wider audience.
But saying "IT'S JUST MAKING JUNK AS YOU GO ALONG" ignores that it is a cultural phenomena, a consensus view, a cooperative view, a means 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.
If the meme does not benefit the group, then it gets discarded. You will likely have stragglers, as you have stragglers that believe the earth is flat or geocentric or young, but they become the outliers in the normalish bell-like curves.
Seriously RAZD, Normalish Bell like Curves. ...
Seeing as I don't have data at hand to actually define the distribution curve of various moral beliefs, I assume that it is likely a normal distribution in a bell curve. It could have two or more peaks when comparing multiple cultures but they would be likely overlapping bell curves.
We do know that close cultural groups have mostly similar morals, that concepts like "thou shalt not kill" is found in many cultures and that virtually every cultural group has some form of the golden rule. These overlaps would created bell curves.
... More contrived verbiage that makes morality a joke ...
Well some of it is. Mostly those based on reinterpreted interpretations of sanctified religious dogma, rather than those derived from enlightened self interest. Life begins at concept for instance is a moral joke. See Deism in the Dock
... I challenge you to demonstrate that the conclusion of your doctrine, is not, as I have set it out. Literally that nothing given enough time will not be considered immoral., or that anything now immoral could become moral. What thinking person would by into that type of nonsense. Oh yeah wait, An Atheist. That is his only option. Even if I didn't believe in God I would not accept such silliness.
Curiously, I don't need you to accept my argument as valid, all I am saying is that this IS a secular explanation of morals that IS rational, it IS evidence based, it IS tested and observed, and it refutes your topic claim.
Changing behaviors described as morality,is actually nothing but matter in motion.
And actually observed throughout history.
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 326 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-24-2017 5:22 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-27-2017 6:49 AM RAZD has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 334 of 1006 (800513)
02-24-2017 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 327 by Dawn Bertot
02-24-2017 5:25 AM


Re: in a circle
Subjective is a made up word
All words are made up, Dawn.
Well as far as I can see, you just articulated yourself out of actually having and possessing a real morality. You have demonstrated my primary argument as true. That being, that imaginations of the mind are not real things. Thank you
Hence the subtitle of 'in a circle'. We've already done this bit of the argument. That's fine, if those are the definitions you want to use, go right ahead. I can still explain morality, the idea that some things are considered 'good' and some things 'evil', I can explain 'good' behaviour and 'evil' behaviour and how different categories of behaviour and the opinions about them come to be.
That is, I can explain what we see in the real world - the way humans behave and talk about things using things we see in the real world - evolution, behavioural strategies and so on. Whether you think perception is not 'actually real' is irrelevant to this. I'm hoping you'll get stop the merry go round and move forwards with your argument, but I don't think there is anything more is there?
Well I really should just let you finish my thread and argument, that Atheist cannot rationally explain Morals, your doing a much better job for my argument.
Since I can explain morals, by which I mean the behaviour and opinions of that behaviour that people have, I'm good.
I can't explain your understanding of morality, but you've struggled to do this too, and this is not my problem but yours.
Morality can be explained, if it is subjective. That's my argument and I think I've presented a case to show this. All you seem to have achieved so far is 'proving' that subjective things aren't objective things. Which was never in dispute. Subjective things derive from objective things (eg brains)
But then of course there would be nothing to explain if they don't actually exist outside the mind, correct.
Incorrect. We'd still have explain their existence within our minds. How did they come to exist in our minds? Why are there commonalities? Why are there differences? This I have provided a provisional explanation for to show it is in principle possible, in contradiction to your thesis.
And that's the best we can do. You see modulous your definition of morals is an endless loop of hopeless nonsense
No, there's no loop. We have things in our mind. Those things can be explained in terms, of physical objects and their origins (eg., our brains by evolution and learning)
It is proving my point that even the word subjective is an imagination of the mind. There is no way for the word itself to have any actual meaning in reality.
No word has actual meaning in reality.
They can however, refer to things that actually exist in reality.
Moralities actually exist in reality. I can explain them.
. It would be like saying I'm creating a word called subjective to describe another nonexistent thing called morality. I'm going to use one nonexistent thing to describe another nonexistent thing.
Only in a world where you define things that exist in our minds as not existing, but that is a self-defeating position as if they exist in our minds, they exist. Unless you don't believe your mind exists, which seems like an extreme but perhaps defensible position in your case.
Ok so if animals only appear to be nice or morally good. How did you determine that humans ACTUALLY are nice and morally good
I didn't. By your definition of 'actual' as I understand it, they aren't. They do however, have opinions about what is nice and morally good. Those opinions actually exist.
Nobody is 'right' in their opinion about Mozart vs Beethoven. Nobody is 'right' in their opinion about Good vs Evil.
Indirectly, You seem to be saying that humans are not actually good, that's simply a term we've come up with to describe our actions, that already have biological meaning, that really need no more description. Did I nail it?
Close, though I am pretty sure I've directly said that no human is 'actually' good several times, now. That's what is meant by calling morality 'subjective'. No apple actually tastes good. No composer is the best. etc
I don't think I agree with the 'biological meaning' and needing no more description part. But I don't think it's important, so I'm not going to worry too much about that.
Well, no I would say that the word Anger is not a real thing.
Great, we're in agreement on this - in the sense that there is no anger floating around in space you can point at. Anger only exists in the angry.
However, the word hatred or anger do not have actual existence, like Nice or Helpful.
Right. There is no 'anger' or 'nice' or 'helpful' OBJECT. They exist merely as properties of a SUBJECT.
Hence it's not actually possible for you as an Atheist to have an actual moral, except that which is imagined
Not a moral that has some moral 'object', no. But that's what I've been saying for some time now. I can however have morals, and those morals can derive from objects (eg., my brain). To call it 'imagined' is not accurate - I don't 'imagine' how I taste an apple. I *can* imagine the taste of an apple, but this is fundamentally different from the experience of tasting an apple. I can imagine a pretty lady, but this is different that seeing a pretty lady.
The tastiness and prettiness of the 'objects' is dependent on a 'subject' to have the experience and experience them in a certain way. I experience this apple as tasty, this pineapple as too acidic, that lady as pretty, that one as ugly. Imagination implies 'volition' which is not necessarily involved.
One other point I would make, it's not by My Definiton, it's by what reality will allow.
Yes, it is your definition. It is your opinion that this is what reality will allow. You have certainly not demonstrated that your opinion is inescapable. Far from it.
So how would a thing called morality Actually exist outside our minds?
It doesn't. It can't! Your morality exists outside of my mind, but that's the extent of it. Without minds, there is no morality.
if it exist before humans
IF. I don't think it did (or if it did, it existed in pre-human primates). Maybe some kind of reasoned mindful morality exists in other animals too (dolphins? elephants? dogs? pigs?), I can't say for sure - but the evidence suggests they don't have language or a pre-frontal cortex so that rules out certain qualities.
If it does exist outside of minds, then it is OBJECTIVE.
If it only exists in minds, then it is SUBJECTIVE.
I have been arguing the latter. I have been arguing this allows for an explanation where theories of objective morality have been failing since Socrates pointed out the fundamental problems with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-24-2017 5:25 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-27-2017 6:52 AM Modulous has replied

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


Message 335 of 1006 (800717)
02-27-2017 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 330 by Tangle
02-24-2017 5:56 AM


This entire rambling mess boils down to us saying that morality is a name we give to a category of behaviour that we feel is 'good' - that benefits the human race generally. (And the converse, that immoral behaviour is bad for us generally.)
It is indeed a human invention, what's regarded as good, moral, beneficial and what's bad, harmful, detrimental has changed over time and is different between cultures. At an individual level it varies based on personality, illness, drugs, upbringing, religious belief and age. It is therefore anything but absolute and unchanging..
We can evidence all this with history, anthropology, neuroscience, evolutionary biology and behavioural psychology. You yourself know all this to be true.
I know this is very frustrating for you and I can even hear the frustration in your words, but these are the issues the Atheist needs to deal with, if they are going to claim that they can actually have something reality called morality
There is more here than just you or humans calling things good or bad, there are fundamentals to be dealt with, ie the fundamentals or reality and reasoning.. beyond you and me there are certain realities that cannot be avoided.
If a person was setting out to build a building and just chose to ignore the realities of structural engineering and want to proceed based Soley on perceptions and imaginations, the building would either not get built or it would not stand
Argumentation is no different. The fundamentals of reason and reality are no different. So if I want to declare and demand that my imaginations and perceptions of my mind are real then I need to be able to show that in a way that is supported by reality
If I want declare and demand that what I have is morality above and beyond just biological or natural processess, then it has to be demonstrated in a rational way that conforms to reality
Unfortunately this is not possible. Human behavior is no better or worse than any other species on the planet. This is why things like good and bad cannot actually exist in a Naturalistic universe Yet we are intelligent enough to recognize thier behavior as not immoral, because humans have invented that term. It's a self defeating proposition
As far as I understand your position, it's that all of that is made up stuff by people and that morality is god given and absolute.
Well to make a start on that you'd have to demonstrate the existence of this god - which you can't. Or demonstrate the existence of an absolute morality, which you can't. Of the two, I suggest the latter was the easier of two impossible tasks, why not have a crack at it?
But just to be clear, quoting chunks of fantasy novels isn't going to be accepted as evidence.
Why? You get to quote whoever and whatever you want correct?
What we witness in humans say verses animals and the animal kingdom, theism and it's tenets corresponds more to reality and answers questions Theism corresponds more to reality in what we see in the natural world in the area of conscience and things that seem to be right or wrong good or bad, moral or immoral. It has the answers to those questions. Naturalism simply cannot contend in that area. By its very nature, no pun intended has no solutions
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by Tangle, posted 02-24-2017 5:56 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by Tangle, posted 02-27-2017 8:50 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 357 by Tangle, posted 02-28-2017 1:15 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 336 of 1006 (800719)
02-27-2017 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 331 by jar
02-24-2017 6:43 AM


Re: Why do you continue lying Dawn?
The answer as I have explained to you many times here at EvC is that the Bible is filled with contradictions and errors. That of one of the wonderful things about it. It is not consistent but rather simply an anthology of anthologies written by men for men of varying periods and reflects the beliefs those authors held at the time.
Your an amazing fellow or gal. You seem to think because you say something that it must be true. This seems to be your primary method of convincing people here, by saying something, then if they do not agree with you, you belittle them for not believing it because you have repeated yourself over and over.
In one passage the God character is asserted to "know the very number of your hairs on your head and if a sparrow falls, it is not unknown to him" yet he does not know where Adam & Eve were, what would make a suitable help meet for Adam, as you ask later on, where Abel is.
Jar have you ever asked a question that you already knew the answer. Yes or no? Try argumentation Jar not assertion. Maybe you could set out the argument that demonstrates why if God is omniscient, he is not allowed to ask a question that he already knows the answer. Or why if he is all powerful he is not allowed to wrestle with Jacob, to demonstrate a point to Jacob. Really Jar your embarrassing yourself.
Of course both meaning might be correct. A meaning is correct if it is useful. And I did not say the universe had no meaning, I said the universe has whatever meaning individuals assign to it and that the universe itself being inanimate is not capable of having meaning.
My point is Jar is that if the very thing that allegedly bought u into existence, has no meaning, then it follows you have no hope knowing if your alleged meaning is a meaning or if it is correct. And I'll be darn, if you didn't mess that up as well. But watch, now it gets even worse. Not only are you trying to ascribe meaning ,now your trying to define things as good bad, moral immoral, etc.
It doesn't matter if you want to ascribe meaning or not Jar the meaning has no hope of becoming a moral in a meaningless universe. Secondly and probably more important your alleged moralities have no hope of being nothing more than your imaginations. As I have forcibly demonstrate in this thread
The only way that morality could have any hope of reality, is in the context of Theism, otherwise it's nonsense. So repeating your contention that it has meaning, is not the same as showing this logically. Oh goodness, there's that word rational
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by jar, posted 02-24-2017 6:43 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by jar, posted 02-27-2017 7:04 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 337 of 1006 (800720)
02-27-2017 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 332 by ringo
02-24-2017 11:23 AM


Re: Religion Cannot Rationally Explain Morals
Well that's atleast some progress admitting it's not a real thing. But not to be to nitpicky, but morality is an extrapolation of an imagination, we've invented a word to characterize our imagination. An imagination would be me imaging I'm flying over the countryside. So if one wants to imagine he actually has a thing called called morality, he would need to demonstrate that something called good or bad in a moral sense actually exists in reality. Since this impossible, it would follow that the possibilty of morality is less than an imagination.
Your morality is the same. You've made it up. The only difference is that you've fooled yourself into thinking that God whispered it in your ear.
Fortunately, what we see as conscience in humans conforms more to Theism than it does to naturalism. Naturalism has no hope of explaining it. Theism and Judeo-Christianiny explain what we see hear and feel. Romans 2:11-14.
Subjectivity existsbecauseperceptions and imaginations are not real things. Everybody has different perceptions and imaginations. That's what subjectivity means. What did you think it meant?
Now your starting to get it, subjective can't exist because the imaginations and perceptions are not real, AS YOU CLEARLY ADMIT. Ringo, subjective is just another imagination and perception, so how can it exist. Hence no actual morality
The Bible says you can't understand God. You quoted it yourself.
But I can understand the reality and concept of infinte in knowledge, without understanding all it all, correct
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by ringo, posted 02-24-2017 11:23 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by ringo, posted 02-27-2017 10:54 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 338 of 1006 (800721)
02-27-2017 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 333 by RAZD
02-24-2017 12:13 PM


Re: Secular Morals Have been rationally explained. Done. Finished.
Utter bullshinola that has nothing to do with observed secular subjective morals derived rationally from enlightened self preservation.
Does this argument refute that such morals can be discussed, compared, modified, and passed from generation to generation? No, because it does not address the argument.
I guess your to sciency of a guy to understand what is being said and demonstrated. It seems Ringo is starting to get it. Razd there is no such thing as subjective morality. Your starting in the middle of an argument, then trying to demonstrate your point. You need to start with the basics or reasoning, then build on it. Since there is nothing in a Naturalistic existence that can be identified as right or wrong good or bad in actuality, it follows that there could be nothing described as subjective. It would be like saying, there's a subjective nothing over there. Or thing is is subjective.
Sorry, RAZD , philosophy rooted in reason and reality trump science proceedures.
Ok bill guy the science guy, let's help you to understand what I just said above in the context of your above statement. Show me in reality in your Naturalistic universe right and or wrong. Show me the actual existence or Wrong. Since I know you cannot do this, we will know that nothing, that is something that does not exist, cannot be subjective, if it's not actually real.
Secular Subjective Morals exists "because they are a type of meme 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."
This has been posted several times, that you haven't seen it (or understood what it is) is not my fault.
Yes RAZD, I understand what your saying, it's not rocket science. But you are ignoring simple basic reasoning because you are blinded by science. Your trying to see something that is not there. Now pay very close attention. All I need to do to demonstrate that what you are saying is not true and not real, is to show that what you describe as moral, in 1000 years could be described as absolutely immoral, or what you describe as immoral could in one thousand years be moral.
If you want to describe changing behavior as a meme or synergy, call it what you want, but it's not moral because those are a product of the imagination, suited for your species only. Hence they are nothing more than another biological process
Let's remember your first problem. Right and wrong do not actually exist, therefore, calling nothing subjective, is nonsense. It's like saying there's a subjective nothing over there.
Well some of it is. Mostly those based on reinterpreted interpretations of sanctified religious dogma, rather than those derived from enlightened self interest. Life begins at concept for instance is a moral joke. SeeThread1968:Deism in the DockForum25Deism in the Dock
Morals and specifically conscience only makes sense in the realm of Theism and Judeo-Christianity. It explains the source and the processess. And why consciouness and conscience exist in the first place.
Curiously, I don't need you to accept my argument as valid, all I am saying is that thisISa secular explanation of morals thatISrational, itISevidence based, itIStested and observed, and itrefutesyour topic claim.
If Actual Right and wrong don't actually exist, and it seems there is no way they can, then it follows there is nothing actually morally right or wrong, subjective or otherwise.
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by RAZD, posted 02-24-2017 12:13 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 355 by RAZD, posted 02-28-2017 10:52 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 339 of 1006 (800722)
02-27-2017 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 334 by Modulous
02-24-2017 2:46 PM


Re: in a circle
Hence the subtitle of 'in a circle'. We've already done this bit of the argument. That's fine, if those are the definitions you want to use, go right ahead. I can still explain morality, the idea that some things are considered 'good' and some things 'evil', I can explain 'good' behaviour and 'evil' behaviour and how different categories of behaviour and the opinions about them come to be.
Unfortunately you can't do this. Explaining something into existence is not the same as it actually existing. Explaining things as good or bad, right or wrong, would of course have meaning only to yourself and your species, which shuts it down as being real in real sense, in the real world, correct?
That is, I can explain what we see in the real world - the way humans behave and talk about things using things we see in the real world - evolution, behavioural strategies and so on. Whether you think perception is not 'actually real' is irrelevant to this. I'm hoping you'll get stop the merry go round and move forwards with your argument, but I don't think there is anything more is there?
Oh I'm quite sure you think perception, not being real, is irrelevant to the subject. You need for it to be real for your contention to be correct.
Oh yes there is much more. Specifically how Theism corresponds to reality. How Judeo-Christianity explains morals in and as real thing
Morality can be explained, if it is subjective. That's my argument and I think I've presented a case to show this. All you seem to have achieved so far is 'proving' that subjective things aren't objective things. Which was never in dispute. Subjective things derive from objective things (eg brains)
Well no what I've demonstrated is that the Socalled subjective is not actually real. So saying that morality is subjective is like saying that, that thing over there that does not actually exist, is subjective. Nothing is or can be subjective and subjective is not a real thing, because there is no actual right or wrong in reality correct? If you could actually give me an example of something that actually exists as RIGHT or WRONG, then you might have a case
So it seems the ball has never left your court.
Incorrect. We'd still have explain their existence within our minds. How did they come to exist in our minds? Why are there commonalities? Why are there differences? This I have provided a provisional explanation for to show it is in principle possible, in contradiction to your topic.
Oh that's very easy. They came into your minds as a product of your imagination. But as I've demonstrated, if there's even one thing in my imagination as not real and nonexistent, then it would follow that nothing in our imaginations, that is the imagination itself is not and could not have actual existence. If I was the first human to witness the taking of another human life and I imagined it as wrong, there is no logical way it could actually be wrong. And certainly not subjectively wrong, as that would be less than not real, correct.
You see Modulous there is the reality of the action in the real world we have to deal with before we imagine something about it. Creating words and concepts about it don't give it more meaning, but your free to imagine it if you wish
No word has actual meaning in reality.
They can however, refer to things that actually exist in reality.
Moralities actually exist in reality. I can explain them.
Well no you cant. You can't do this anymore than I could explain how I am existence and I created everything. How would you explain my imagination which corresponds to things in reality, as right. Your imaginations of morality don't exist. We're the same actions and biological functions taking place in the animal kingdom, before you arrived. We're they actually right or wrong good or bad. You can't invent morality because it suits you
I didn't. By your definition of 'actual' as I understand it, they aren't. They do however, have opinions about what is nice and morally good. Those opinions actually exist.
Sure they do, but so does every imagination I can drudge up that is clearly not real either
Nobody is 'right' in their opinion about Mozart vs Beethoven. Nobody is 'right' in their opinion about Good vs Evil.
Right because both are simply biological functions. Only human arrogance would assume it has the right to invent right and wrong. It's not even a logical possiblity in your existence. How could a person of your seeming intelligence, advocate that if two different people percieve something in the real world, something they witness, then one considers it right, the other wrong, both be correct or right
Not a moral that has some moral 'object', no. But that's what I've been saying for some time now. I can however have morals, and those morals can derive from objects (eg., my brain). To call it 'imagined' is not accurate - I don't 'imagine' how I taste an apple. I *can* imagine the taste of an apple, but this is fundamentally different from the experience of tasting an apple. I can imagine a pretty lady, but this is different that seeing a pretty lady.
Correct, so your imagination of the lady is not real, even though you know they exist in reality. IOWS you can imagine something that is not real. Like imagining that the word morality describes behavior in the real world as good or bad. So while you have the capacity to imagine, that which is a product of the imagination is not actually real.
Question, is it possible for me to imagine something that s not actually real, even though I can imagine it? If I witnessed something in the real world then I imagined it as something then gave it a title, would it be possible for me to only be imagining it and it's title I gave it?
The tastiness and prettiness of the 'objects' is dependent on a 'subject' to have the experience and experience them in a certain way. I experience this apple as tasty, this pineapple as too acidic, that lady as pretty, that one as ugly. Imagination implies 'volition' which is notnecessarilyinvolved.
So then according to this reasoning I could classify tastiness as moral or immoral, beauty as right and wrong. Or would it more correct to say that in reality imaginations are hopelessly unable to establish any kind of real existing morality
It doesn't. It can't! Your morality exists outside of my mind, but that's the extent of it. Without minds, there is no morality.
So then you would argue and defend a person's right to believe that any immoral act as he sees it, would be ok, right, correct and moral as long as his mind percieved It that way? Since imaginations exist and are real things, correct?
Further, that logically there is no real way to hold that person accountable, because he is just going by his own conscience. Atleast from a rational standpoint, not assuming socity norms
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Modulous, posted 02-24-2017 2:46 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 345 by Modulous, posted 02-27-2017 1:43 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 340 of 1006 (800724)
02-27-2017 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 336 by Dawn Bertot
02-27-2017 6:44 AM


Re: Why do you continue lying Dawn?
Dawn writes:
You seem to think because you say something that it must be true.
Well no Dawn, that is not what I do. What I do is point to the evidence and let the evidence speak for itself.
Dawn writes:
Jar have you ever asked a question that you already knew the answer. Yes or no? Try argumentation Jar not assertion. Maybe you could set out the argument that demonstrates why if God is omniscient, he is not allowed to ask a question that he already knows the answer. Or why if he is all powerful he is not allowed to wrestle with Jacob, to demonstrate a point to Jacob. Really Jar your embarrassing yourself.
The issue is not what I do, but rather what the Bible says the God character does. The stories actually say what they say Dawn. What you are doing is making shit up to try to make the story fit what YOU want it to mean. In the story of Genesis 2&3 the God character doesn't know what would be a helpmeet for Adam and so tries lots of critters. In the story of the rumble in the jungle the God character even cheats yet is unable to make Jacob yield. In the Great Walkabout story the God character actually says that he is going walkabout to find out if the tales he has heard are true.
I am not adding anything but you are. To try to make the stories fit your fantasies you have to add features and then of course also ignore those stories where even you cannot make up some Deus ex Machina.
Dawn writes:
My point is Jar is that if the very thing that allegedly bought u into existence, has no meaning, then it follows you have no hope knowing if your alleged meaning is a meaning or if it is correct. And I'll be darn, if you didn't mess that up as well. But watch, now it gets even worse. Not only are you trying to ascribe meaning ,now your trying to define things as good bad, moral immoral, etc.
Again, learn to read. I did not say the universe had no meaning, I said the universe as an inanimate object is incapable of creating a meaning but rather has whatever meaning we assign to it.
Meaning, morals, god, bad are all human constructs.
Dawn writes:
It doesn't matter if you want to ascribe meaning or not Jar the meaning has no hope of becoming a moral in a meaningless universe. Secondly and probably more important your alleged moralities have no hope of being nothing more than your imaginations. As I have forcibly demonstrate in this thread
Yawn. Only you have claimed the universe has no meaning Dawn.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-27-2017 6:44 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-28-2017 6:37 AM jar has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 341 of 1006 (800739)
02-27-2017 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 335 by Dawn Bertot
02-27-2017 6:42 AM


DB writes:
I know this is very frustrating for you and I can even hear the frustration in your words, but these are the issues the Atheist needs to deal with, if they are going to claim that they can actually have something reality called morality
I and many others here have demonstrated what morality is. So far you have not. Why don't you tell us instead of all this waffle?
Human behavior is no better or worse than any other species on the planet.
The concept of good and bad behaviour is a human one. (Although several social species have devised 'rules' for living together.)
This is why things like good and bad cannot actually exist in a Naturalistic universe Yet we are intelligent enough to recognize thier behavior as not immoral, because humans have invented that term. It's a self defeating proposition
Humans did indeed invent the term to describe positive and negative behaviours. In doing so they demonstrate that the terms 'morality' or 'good' do in fact refer to something real in the 'naturalistic universe'. Had it not existed we wouldn't have created a term for it.
Why? You get to quote whoever and whatever you want correct?
Are you saying that you can't tell us what morality is without quoting from your man-made fantasy novel?
Well I can. It seems that atheists can explain morality but fundamentalist god botherers can't.

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 335 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-27-2017 6:42 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-28-2017 6:39 AM Tangle has not replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


Message 342 of 1006 (800742)
02-27-2017 10:21 AM


Perhaps we can short-circuit this.
Dawn - are words real ?

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-28-2017 6:42 AM vimesey has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 343 of 1006 (800744)
02-27-2017 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 337 by Dawn Bertot
02-27-2017 6:46 AM


Re: Religion Cannot Rationally Explain Morals
Dawn Bertot writes:
So if one wants to imagine he actually has a thing called called morality, he would need to demonstrate that something called good or bad in a moral sense actually exists in reality.
The only way "good" or "bad" has to exist in reality is by way of the person's behaviour. He imagines that his behaviour is "good" or "bad". There is no need for an absolute standard of "good" or "bad" to exist.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Fortunately, what we see as conscience in humans conforms more to Theism than it does to naturalism. Naturalism has no hope of explaining it. Theism and Judeo-Christianiny explain what we see hear and feel. Romans 2:11-14.
Once again your own citation disagrees with you:
quote:
Romans 2:14-16 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
The Gentiles do by nature the things contained in the law.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Now your starting to get it, subjective can't exist because the imaginations and perceptions are not real, AS YOU CLEARLY ADMIT.
The imaginations and perceptions of what IS real are all we have, all of us, including you. Your imagination and perception of God is as close to real as God can get. Your imagination and perception of morality is as close to real as morality can get.
Your imagination and perception of a two-by-four is "more real" in the sense that you can compare your own imagination and perception with those of other people to form an approximation of an objective view of the object.
Dawn Bertot writes:
But I can understand the reality and concept of infinte in knowledge, without understanding all it all, correct
You can also understand the concept of flight without being able to fly. You can understand the concept of unicorns whether unicorns exist in reality or not. The concept is nothing but imagination and perception. It doesn't have to have any basis in reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-27-2017 6:46 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-28-2017 6:43 AM ringo has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 344 of 1006 (800746)
02-27-2017 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by Dawn Bertot
02-24-2017 5:20 AM


Re: How?
It's not beside the point, it is the point. Now we are starting to narrow it down,. Good. While your imaginations exist, so to speak, they are not real. I can imagine things that clearly do not exist. I can imagine myself flying over the countryside, so much so that I can actually see it, but that doesn't make it real. Now watch this, if I can imagine things that are actually not real, that should demonstrate that imaginations are not real
In order for the above to be correct, you have to be conflating the terms "real" and "objective". I don't agree with that, but I can operate under that assumption for the purpose of this discussion.
From now on, whenever you use the word "real", or "existing", I am going to replace it with the word "objective" to avoid my own confusion.
Now watch this, if I can imagine things that are actually not real objective, that should demonstrate that imaginations are not real objective
Hence morality or as it is described in a purely naturalistic enviornment objectively cannot exist either.
Now, in this sense I agree: Morality cannot be described objectively and we cannot know an objective morality. All we have is our subjective imaginations and conclusion of what morality is.
I can imagine myself flying over the countryside, so much so that I can actually see it, but that doesn't make it real objective. Now watch this, if I can imagine things that are actually not real objective, that should demonstrate that imaginations are not real objective
Nobody thinks that imaginations are objective.
If you were trying to say something else with the word "real", then here:
I can imagine myself flying over the countryside, so much so that I can actually see it, but that doesn't make it real. Now watch this, if I can imagine things that are actually not real, that should demonstrate that imaginations are not real
That's illogical. Your ability to imagine impossible things does not mean that 1) you cannot imagine things that are real, and 2) that your imagination, itself, is not a real thing.
Certainly it does. Objective and subjective are just more words to define something that doesn't need defining, namely things happening in reality.
So, take something either real or not real and create an imagination of it. Now, in your mind, that imagination exist as a thing and that thing exists in reality in your brain. It is not an objective thing and it does not exist outside of your mind, but it does exist within the universe.
How would you like to describe the existence of that thing?
Ok, if you think I haven't addressed it, provide the single argument from any individual here that refutes my contentions
Modulus provided a fantastic rationalization of morality from a purely naturalistic and atheistic perspective in Message 233.
Your reply to that boiled down to "nuh-uh, that doesn't exist in the real world".
The first part of your sentence is nonsensical. You need to demonstrate that an imagined thing is actually real objective, before it can be described as morality, subjective or objective.
Imaginations are not objective, they are subjective. That doesn't make them not real.
If you mean something other than objective by the word "real", then here is a reason why your imagination is real:
The universe is real. Your brain is in the universe, and is also real. Your mind is in your brain, and is also real. You imagination is in your mind, which is real, which is in your brain that is real, which is in the universe that is real and therefore, your imagination is also real.
Those words including morality don't give things in reality MORE meaning.
They can.
They are ALREADY what they are, your arbitrary descriptions don't make them more than what they are.
You don't have to make something objectively more than what it is in order to have more meaning to that thing subjectively.
I've already demonstrated to many times that your or my imaginations do not exist in reality objectively, that is they are not real objective.
We all agree that subjective moralities are not objective.
I'll try again. If I imagine myself flying simply using my body and arms, it's not real objective, I I imagine myself walking down the street, it's not actually real objective, even if I go do it, my imagination of doing it is not real objective.
Nobody thinks that imaginations are objective.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-24-2017 5:20 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-28-2017 6:44 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 345 of 1006 (800750)
02-27-2017 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by Dawn Bertot
02-27-2017 6:52 AM


Re: in a circle
Explaining something into existence is not the same as it actually existing.
I'm explaining something we both agree exists. I am not explaining something into existence.
Explaining things as good or bad, right or wrong, would of course have meaning only to yourself and your species, which shuts it down as being real in real sense, in the real world, correct?
Use whatever words makes you feel better, it won't alter the truth of the matter.
There are certain behaviours.
People have certain types of opinions about those behaviours.
I can explain this.
If you want to persuade me that behaviours or opinions don't exist you'll have to do something better than wordplay. I have seen and exhibited behaviour. I've held and heard opinions.
Specifically how Theism corresponds to reality. How Judeo-Christianity explains morals in and as real thing
I invited you to to show me how its done some time ago, I'm still waiting. Don't worry, in your own time.
Nothing is or can be subjective and subjective is not a real thing, because there is no actual right or wrong in reality correct? If you could actually give me an example of something that actually exists as RIGHT or WRONG, then you might have a case
Well no, if I could do that - it would undermine my case: that nothing actually exists as right or wrong. That's something YOU should be trying to do, rather than denying conscious experience is real.
Oh that's very easy. They came into your minds as a product of your imagination.
The question being, why did it come into my mind?
But as I've demonstrated, if there's even one thing in my imagination as not real and nonexistent, then it would follow that nothing in our imaginations, that is the imagination itself is not and could not have actual existence.
But you are arguing against an imaginary opponent here, I am aware that the objects in our imaginations are not real, in the sense that an apple in my mind is not an actual apple. We've agreed about this a thousand times. What is real is that I am imagining an apple. You can't say that I am not imagining an apple, and if you can imagine an apple, you have to admit that imaginations actually exist. Not the imagined entities, but the imagination itself is a real thing.
If I was the first human to witness the taking of another human life and I imagined it as wrong, there is no logical way it could actually be wrong
Yes, exactly.
And certainly not subjectively wrong, as that would be less than not real, correct.
Wrong. If you think it is wrong, then it is subjectively wrong.
You see Modulous there is the reality of the action in the real world we have to deal with before we imagine something about it.
Correct. The action in the real world is the behaviour. I can explain behaviours. Our reaction to those behaviours includes our moral opinion. I can explain those too. So where's the problem, exactly?
You can't do this anymore than I could explain how I am existence and I created everything.
Well you could try, but I suspect the fact that it isn't remotely true makes explaining how it came to be that way very difficult.
On the other hand, people do behave in certain ways. People do have opinions about the way people behave. So I can, and have, given explanation for the things we both agree are true.
How would you explain my imagination which corresponds to things in reality, as right.
We wouldn't. And indeed, I've said this repeatedly. The circle continues. Perhaps you should consider what my position actually is. Or try asking questions that might illuminate you rather than constructing rhetorical questions you think show how wrong I am. Without understanding what I am saying, the rhetorical questions aren't getting you anywhere.
Sure they do, but so does every imagination I can drudge up that is clearly not real either
Good. So now we can agree they exist. I've never argued they are 'real' as in 'exist outside of our minds'. Indeed, I have basically only ever argued that moral opinions exist within our minds, not out in the 'real world' as 'objects', but in the mental world as 'subjects'. You should really know this by now.
Right because both are simply biological functions. Only human arrogance would assume it has the right to invent right and wrong. It's not even a logical possiblity in your existence. How could a person of your seeming intelligence, advocate that if two different people percieve something in the real world, something they witness, then one considers it right, the other wrong, both be correct or right
I have in fact, never done such a thing. I've done the opposite! You just quoted me as saying:
quote:
Nobody is 'right' in their opinion about Mozart vs Beethoven. Nobody is 'right' in their opinion about Good vs Evil.
Why are you now trying to claim that I am in fact saying 'EVERYBODY is right in their opinions'? It's the exact opposite of what I said! Pay attention! Try to understand before you try to refute. Otherwise we just carry on going around in circles.
Correct, so your imagination of the lady is not real, even though you know they exist in reality
OK, now you understand the analogy, time to address the topic.
Imagining my moral reaction is different from having my moral reaction. I'm talking about having a moral reaction, you are criticising me on the grounds of imagining my moral reaction. These are different things. So please actually address my position, not your caricature of my position.
My moral reaction has a feeling. I may find murder horrifying. I may find adultery upsetting. There are a series of thoughts and emotions and other feelings that are generated. These are not imagined like I imagine a lady - but experienced like seeing a lady and feeling attracted to her.
Question, is it possible for me to imagine something that s not actually real, even though I can imagine it?
Yes.
If I witnessed something in the real world then I imagined it as something then gave it a title, would it be possible for me to only be imagining it and it's title I gave it?
Yes.
So then according to this reasoning I could classify tastiness as moral or immoral, beauty as right and wrong.
You could.
So then you would argue and defend a person's right to believe that any immoral act as he sees it, would be ok, right, correct and moral as long as his mind percieved It that way?
Yes, of course.
Further, that logically there is no real way to hold that person accountable, because he is just going by his own conscience.
No. We can hold people accountable. If A thinks murder is good and murders B but C, D and E think murder is bad - they could cooperate to hold A accountable for what they see as his moral transgression.
Atleast from a rational standpoint, not assuming socity norms
Neither A, B, C, D or E are correct, nor are any of them incorrect.

In summary

People behave in various ways.
Other people have opinions about those behaviours.
Do you agree?
That's what I am seeking to explain. If you are asking that I explain something else, you've probably missed the point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-27-2017 6:52 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-28-2017 6:45 AM Modulous has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024