Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8801 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-17-2017 5:58 PM
314 online now:
dwise1, jar, Modulous (AdminModulous), PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (7 members, 307 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 822,584 Year: 27,190/21,208 Month: 1,103/1,714 Week: 311/525 Day: 53/66 Hour: 5/6

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
3031
32
3334
...
67NextFF
Author Topic:   Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 34 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 466 of 1004 (802033)
03-11-2017 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 453 by RAZD
03-09-2017 8:17 AM


Re: Willing and Able but waiting for more information ...
Debate is not just repeating old arguments that have already been covered. In this case extensively. You would be debating if you actually dealt with the arguments I have put forward showing that ...

Well you just keep repeating that I have not dealt with your arguments and I keep asking you for a single line or a single argument, where i have not done this and you just keep repeating that I havent. Again, will you please provide the line, the sentence, the alleged argument I have not addressed and I'm confident to show you that I actually have. Maybe you don't know how to respond, so you keep saying I haven't hoping no one will notice otherwise.

Provide the line please.

So I'll take that as a  NO, I'm going to waffle again

Since this is not what I'm doing it would follow logically that is not what I'm doing. Please provide the line or point you think I have not addressed. If you just keep REPEATING
That I havent, people will notice after awhile

That you don't see your second statement here contradicting your first statement is amusing. That's the kind of tangle you get into when you waffle.

Wouldn't your time and writing been better spent in showing how, instead of just disagreeing.

So a subjective moral concept IS a subjective moral concept. Fascinating: you're going to both agree AND continue to waffle while pretending to disagree.

There you go again wasting your time. Time is precious RAZD. Show me how I was wrong. Your wasting my time, by me pointing out that your wasting your time and mine, having to respond to you wasting time

If we take this as true for the sake of argument, then we have the observed documented objective reality that there are as many subjective morality variations as there are people.

I hope this doesn't sound mean, but I going to make an assumption that your not the brightest crayon in the box. So, are you taking it as true because it's true or for arguments sake?

Secondly, if you are then you have given up your proposition admitting that subjective morality must not, of necessity, be predicated, on that which is objective. Which you claim in the first place.

Thirdly, if your are assuming that reasoning ability is the objectivity on which subjective is predicated, you would still need to demonstrate that a humans reasoning abiltity, is more than any other objective reality. That is, that it alone, can actually create right and wrong, good or bad, moral or immoral.

Since there are objective realities that are objective realities, but do not actually create, right or wrong, good or bad, if would follow, that even an objective reality,like that of thinking ability, LIMITED in mass amounts of knowledge, could not actually create a standard of right, wrong, good, bad, moral or immoral. So it's just another objective reality with limitations

Fourthly, if this objective reality cannot actually create right, wrong, good, bad, moral or immoral, due to its limitations, then it would follow logically, that a 1000 people's differeing imaginations on a single observance of human behavior, would be no better in determine what is actually moral or immoral

So you are right back where you started. Not only that subjective morality is a logical contradiction, but that, Imaginations have no way of actually establishing what is actually right or wrong, even if you imagine that it as morality

You can't change "objective reality" in one premise to "objective morality" in the next and come to a valid conclusion: they are not equivalent or synonymous.

Since that is not what I was doing, it would follow that was not what I was doing. I fully agree that objective thinking ability is not objective MORALITY. You on the other hand, would need to establish that it has the ability to ACTUALLY create right, wrong, etc. Since it is clear that it cannot, you are still just imagining that subjective morality IS morality.

Again you can imagine the possibilty of that which is selfcontradictory, but you cannot actually imagine what it is, you can't show it to me. So, you can imagine morality in the subjective, but you cannot actually show me what that is, because it's a logical contradiction, If no ACTUAL right and wrong exist, in the first place. This is what makes it impossible, like the square circle, it directly contradicts itself.

How could you ever extricate yourself from this delimma

I can imagine human behavior and I can imagine, some imagined meaning attached to it, but, because there is no objective standard, you can't actually show me what subjective morality is actually. You can imagine good or bad behavior and that's imagining the irrational, but to say it's actually good or bad, right or wrong, is an impossibility, it's a logical impossibility.

These are the two concepts you are confusing in your mind. Imagining, the irrational and the perception of that which is selfcontradictory contradictory, VERSES, actually being able to imagine what that is actually.

Indeed, this is the hole he is digging to hide in rather than accept the reality of subjective morals. He seems to work his logic from conclusion backwards:

• subjective morals can't exist 

∴ subjective concepts can't exist

∴ ideas can't exist

∴ reality can't exist

Perhaps you could provide the line, statement or argument, where i have stated any of the last three in your contention, are actually my words. Secondly, I said subjective morality is a logical contradiction, you can't show it to me, other than to imagine it. I also said it could exist as an irrational perception, didn't i. But it has no hope of existing from a rational standpoint.

You really should quit misrepresenting me RAZD.

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 453 by RAZD, posted 03-09-2017 8:17 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 34 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 467 of 1004 (802034)
03-11-2017 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 454 by Tangle
03-09-2017 8:30 AM


Re: Ding an sich
So, your position is that there needs to be an object for us to be subjective about. We can't say whether we like the taste of a pineapple if it doesn't exist? This is your position?

Well yes, duh. There could be no taste of a pineapple if one didn't exist correct? There has to be actual human and animal behavior before you can imagine it as good or bad, correct. But even if you imagine what is good or bad, you would need to establish the criteria of how you know it is actually right or wrong

That idea doesn't seem to be registering with Dawn.....in fact the very idea of an idea is being rejected by Dawn.

Why would you think I am rejecting the idea that ideas exist.. of course they do,but they can't actually create what is actually right and wrong, good or bad. Subjective ideas don't qualify because they are a logical contradiction. Ideas exist, subjective ideas do not. It's like calling something reverse prejudice, no its just prejudice. So ideas yes, subjective ideas no.

This is why I said early on, attaching meaning to human or animal behavior in the mind, doesnt actually give it more meaning. This is imagining that which is irrational, imagining it as right or wrong, actually, is only the perception of that which is impossible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 454 by Tangle, posted 03-09-2017 8:30 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 475 by Tangle, posted 03-11-2017 12:46 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 34 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 468 of 1004 (802035)
03-11-2017 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 458 by ringo
03-09-2017 10:50 AM


Re: The game is over, you lost. Get over it.
The question isn't whether absolute morality can or does exist. The question is whether theistic morality an be differentiated from atheistic morality. Since you admit that you don't know everything, it doesn't matter whether or not God has absolute standards because you don't know exactly what those standards are.

You can know that brain surgery exists without knowing how to do brain surgery. Similarly, you can "know" that absolute morality exists without knowing how to do absolute morality.

Don't mean to sound unkind or uncaring, but those above statements and questions are horribly simplistic. It does matter whether subjective morality does or does not exist. It matters if it can exist from a purely rational standpoint. It cant, it's a self contradiction. There is no such thing as Atheistic morality except in imaginations. One can imagine that subjective moralites exist, but you cannot show me actually what that is, for the MANY many reasons I have set out.

There is nothing to contrast theistic morality with, that is nothing more than imagination

So the question remains, how is your theistic morality different from anybody else's morality? You have to guess at what God wants while the atheist at least gets to rationally decide what is best for society. Your morality is less rational, not more.

Again a nonsensical question. You first need to establish rationally you have a morality to compare it with anything. Here is an example. Let's say there are Atheists that believe that morals don't exist, subjective or otherwise, which of you would be correct, right or wrong, good, bad correct or incorrect. It would just be one of you slapping a word on human behavior and the other guy choosing not to it. Subjective morality can't exist it a logical contradiction.

Since you have no way of showing me the criteria of how you established what is actually right or wrong, ACTUALLY, you would be at a complete loss to show me what is actually subjective morality. This is why it is a logical contradiction. Sorry Ringo that's just the way it is, no two ways (subjective morality) about it.

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 458 by ringo, posted 03-09-2017 10:50 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 472 by ringo, posted 03-11-2017 11:30 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 34 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 469 of 1004 (802036)
03-11-2017 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 462 by New Cat's Eye
03-09-2017 12:51 PM


Re: How?
Your point was that if there is a subjective thing then there is a corresponding objective thing. That is different than a subjective thing ultimately requiring an objective source, which isn't in disagreement.

If a moral being subjective necessitates that there is an objective morality, then fear being subjective would mean that there is an objective fear. But there isn't, so you're wrong.

Hardly. There is no such thing as a moral being subjective. It doesn't exist, it's a logical contradiction. You first need to demonstrate that the objective thinking process can create actually that which is actually right, wrong, good, bad, for your Socalled subjective to have menaing. Example show me what you believe is a subjective moral. Then I'll show you all I need to do is bring in 12 other people, with a different, now watch the word, perspective on that same thing to demonstrate it's only an imagination with no consistency, therefore nothing qualifying as actual, good, bad, right or wrong, actually.

The mind can only imagine the possibility of the impossible, it can't create it, no matter how much it may try to imagine it

Anxiety.
Fear of the unknown.
Fear of an expected future.

Again notice all of these are predicated on things that exist in reality or things you have experienced in the past. So no, these don't exist by themselves.

So once again we have an objective reality with another subjective morality, but no subjective morals, since fear is not a thing that is right or wrong, good or bad. Even if we allow it all people's fears are different, hence can't be described as subjective morality. If it is, who's fears do we use to decide what is actually moral

Right, subjective things are not objective. That doesn't mean they don't exist. How many times do we have to go over this?

Until you can actually show me a subjective moral acually and until you can show it doesn't involve a logical contradiction

But every time you try to argue against them being real, you only conclude that they are not objective.

Well not excally, it involves a logical contradiction. So I would get busy demonstrating why the things I shown where it involves a logical contradition, are indeed invalid. The first one would be showing why it's anything more or less than anybody else's opinion. That should keep you busy for a while.

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 462 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-09-2017 12:51 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 477 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-13-2017 10:46 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 34 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 470 of 1004 (802038)
03-11-2017 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 465 by Modulous
03-09-2017 4:44 PM


Re: Ding an sich
The objective reality therefore is my particular brain plus the stimulus of environment, interacting to create a unique and subjective perspective. Morality doesn't have exist objectively, actions exist objectively just as molecules do. But molecules don't have objective flavours, and actions don't have objective morality.

There needs to be a taster and the tasted before there is a taste.

Correct, very good. But your unique and subjective perspective, which is your brain, doesn't have the ability create a thing called good or bad, right or wrong, moral or immoral. Since you use this brain , and subjective perspective, as you call it, to evaluate what might be good, bad,right and wrong, you would first need to establish how you decided that these things are actually, good, bad right and wrong.

If you can't and I see no way you can, and it won't help to say , well I don't need to, you immediately involve yourself in a self contradiction. IOWS if you are going to use your own perspective, to decide, we immediately see that falls apart logically in deciding what is right and wrong, due to the fact that there are as many perspectives as there are people. So your right back where you started, trying to create or imagine, something that cannot eixst, ie, right and wrong, without an absolute definition or reality of those principles

So while objective realities exist and perspectives exist,it is not logically possible, for subjective right and wrong to exist, without an objective right and wrong. That would involve a logical contradiction, since there is absolutely no way, and the criteria cannot be brought forward to show how right and wrong could be established, to know what is right or wrong subjectively

Tastiness won't work as an example because it is just another perspective and I'm pretty sure it has no properties to let us know how right and wrong are actually right and wrong.

I'm sure even monkeys and dolphins have the ability to percieve things to a certain extent. But neither monkeys, dolphins or humans, have the ability or the means to know what is ACTUALLY right or wrong, to know what is, subjective or otherwise.

So, what the Atheist actually has is, the ability to, imagine the possibility of that which is in reality, logically impossible. But he has no way to actually show us what that is, without direct self-contradiction

So no matter how convincing our perceptions are, they can at times,, allow us to imagine the prospect of something that is, logically impossible, but showing us what that is from a rational standpoint, simply falls apart. So it remains only an imagination or perspective

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 465 by Modulous, posted 03-09-2017 4:44 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 473 by Modulous, posted 03-11-2017 11:41 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 34 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 471 of 1004 (802039)
03-11-2017 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 452 by jar
03-09-2017 7:41 AM


Re: Dawn's words show Dawn is wrong
don't need no stinkin scholars, I can actually read what is written. The apologists exist to make up excuses to pretend the Bible does not actually say what it does.

Well I'm sure you don't need these experts, it gives you occasion to make up and believe whatever you want. And how dare we ever consider anyone's position but Jars, no matter how absurd and ridiculous

When I was a child I had to have someone point to an object and tell me it was called red or round or smooth or a ball or the moon, but pretty soon I could look at a new object and say with authority that it was a round red ball and not the moon or totally smooth.

Did anyone ever bother to explain to you, what is involved in a logical contradiction? If they didn't I can, if they did you might pull it out of your past, it's applicable here.

It would do you good to watch Never on Sunday. It was one of the films they took us to see when I was a student at St. Paul's.

I will be happy to do this if you will read and or re-read the gospels and listen to what Jesus had to say about truth, truth in connection with himself and the claims he made concerning himself. Claims that no other person, philosopher, teacher or prophet made.
Like, " 24Martha replied, “I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.” 25Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me will live, even though he dies. 26And everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?”…"

Do you believe this Jar

Dawn Bertot

Edited by AdminPhat, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 452 by jar, posted 03-09-2017 7:41 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 474 by jar, posted 03-11-2017 12:29 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13864
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 472 of 1004 (802040)
03-11-2017 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 468 by Dawn Bertot
03-11-2017 11:21 AM


Re: The game is over, you lost. Get over it.
Dawn Bertot writes:

It does matter whether subjective morality does or does not exist.


I didn't say that. I said that it doesn't matter whether or not absolute morality exists - because neither you nor anybody else has any way of knowing what that absolute morality would be. The Bible verses that YOU quoted confirm that NONE of us can understand the mind of God fully.

Dawn Bertot writes:

There is no such thing as Atheistic morality except in imaginations.


That's exactly what I've been saying. There is no such thing as morality except in imaginations. The same applies to your own morality.

Dawn Bertot writes:

Subjective morality can't exist it a logical contradiction.


You really don't seem to understand what "subjective" means. Can you explain it in one sentence?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 468 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-11-2017 11:21 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 476 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-13-2017 8:02 AM ringo has responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7497
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 473 of 1004 (802042)
03-11-2017 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 470 by Dawn Bertot
03-11-2017 11:25 AM


Re: Ding an sich
Correct, very good. But your unique and subjective perspective, which is your brain, doesn't have the ability create a thing called good or bad, right or wrong, moral or immoral.

Says you.

Since you use this brain , and subjective perspective, as you call it, to evaluate what might be good, bad,right and wrong, you would first need to establish how you decided that these things are actually, good, bad right and wrong.

My brain decides these things are good, bad, right, wrong. It does this as has evolved to do this. The specifics of which are right and wrong come from learning - following the norms we find ourselves in built by culture through time on the back of evolved predispositions.

IOWS if you are going to use your own perspective, to decide, we immediately see that falls apart logically in deciding what is right and wrong, due to the fact that there are as many perspectives as there are people.

Just because I decide something is morally wrong - it doesn't mean I am factually correct. There is no factually correct just as there is no factually correct decision about whether pineapples are tasty.

Tastiness won't work as an example because it is just another perspective

Yes, it is just another perspective. Like whether something is right or wrong. There are things which are commonly thought to be tasty, just as there are things thought commonly to be 'wrong'. But even then, there are seldom absolute universally agreed upon perspectives.

I'm sure even monkeys and dolphins have the ability to percieve things to a certain extent. But neither monkeys, dolphins or humans, have the ability or the means to know what is ACTUALLY right or wrong, to know what is, subjective or otherwise.

Exactly my point. There is no ACTUALLY right or wrong.

So it remains only an imagination or perspective

Yes, it is a perspective. That's what subjective means.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 470 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-11-2017 11:25 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29603
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 474 of 1004 (802046)
03-11-2017 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 471 by Dawn Bertot
03-11-2017 11:26 AM


Re: Dawn's words show Dawn is wrong
Dawn writes:

Well I'm sure you don't need these experts, it gives you occasion to make up and believe what ever you want. And how dare we ever consider anyone's position but Jars, no matter how absurd and ridiculous

I am not asking anyone to consider my position, I am only pointing out what is actually written in the Bible stories.

Dawn writes:

I will be happy to do this, if you will read and or re-read the gospels and listen to what Jesus had to say about truth, truth in connection with himself and the claims he made concerning himself. Claims that no other person, philosopher, teacher or prophet made.
Like, " 24Martha replied, “I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.” 25Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me will live, even though he dies. 26And everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?”…"

Do you believe this Jar

I know it is totally irrelevant to the topic and so not worth addressing.

The topic has to do with explaining morals Dawn not you conjob carny games.

And morality is easy to explain; it is a set of guidelines created by humans (and maybe other species) to facilitate a culture and society.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 471 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-11-2017 11:26 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5142
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 475 of 1004 (802047)
03-11-2017 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 467 by Dawn Bertot
03-11-2017 11:20 AM


Re: Ding an sich
Dawn B writes:

Well yes, duh. There could be no taste of a pineapple if one didn't exist correct? There has to be actual human and animal behavior before you can imagine it as good or bad, correct. But even if you imagine what is good or bad

Ok, without the object the subjective doesn't exist - your position.

So, for the sixth time.

PLEASE PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE OF AN OBJECT and/or ABSOLUTE MORAL so that we can decide whether it's good or bad.

If you can't do this I must conclude that such a thing does not exist.

Where's the pineapple?

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


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 467 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-11-2017 11:20 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 34 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 476 of 1004 (802201)
03-13-2017 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 472 by ringo
03-11-2017 11:30 AM


Re: The game is over, you lost. Get over it.
I didn't say that. I said that it doesn't matter whether or not absolute morality exists - because neither you nor anybody else has any way of knowing what that absolute morality would be. The Bible verses that YOU quoted confirm that NONE of us can understand the mind of God fully.

Well know absolutely not, no pun intended. Knowing that absolute morality exists is as simple as knowing that absolute knowledge exists. Not understanding why you think, it's necessary to understand all the facets of absolute morality, without knowing that it can exist. The expression, "anyway of knowing what absolute morality would be", kinda doesn't make much sense. Since there could be No knowledge, or some knowledge, I'm not sure why we couldn't understand what complete or absolute knowledge, would be.
Instead of making that assertion, I would think you would need to set it out in argument form, for me to accept that conclusion

That's exactly what I've been saying. There is no such thing as morality except in imaginations. The same applies to your own morality.

This of course would involve a logical contradiction, that which is self contradictory. Therefore nonexistent.

You really don't seem to understand what "subjective" means. Can you explain it in one sentence?

It's not that I don't understand the human invention and definition of the word subjective, but then there are those things called reality and rational. Regardless of the contrived definition or meaning anyone ascribes to the word,it is afterall just a word.. In this instance however, you are conjoing two words that involve themselves In a logical contradiction.

Even if I granted that there was such a thing as subjective morality, then it would be incumbent on you to show what is absolutely Right and absolutely Wrong. For if you could not, then it would follow that subjective morality does NOT actually exist. Ascribing the word perspectives or imaginations, to human behaviors, is not the same as ascribing the Word morality., Good or Bad

That's why the words, perspective and imaginations have different meaning than the words, morality, good or bad. You are trying to make them mean the same things, they dont.

For example, if an atheist accuses God of immoral behavior, he or she is implying that God is not Good or God is Wrong. He or she is indirectly implying that they KNOW , what Good or BAD actually are or are not. If not, there would be no way or need to accuse in the first place.

So it would follow that subjective morality does not actually exist or at worst , it involves itself in a logical contradiction. Reason and reality trump the word subjective and especially the concept, subjective morality

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 472 by ringo, posted 03-11-2017 11:30 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 478 by ringo, posted 03-13-2017 11:50 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11812
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 477 of 1004 (802203)
03-13-2017 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 469 by Dawn Bertot
03-11-2017 11:23 AM


Re: How?
Hardly. There is no such thing as a moral being subjective. It doesn't exist, it's a logical contradiction.

Only if you assume and insist that a moral must be objective. You are alone in this endeavor.

Heck, even the dictionary disagrees with you:

quote:

mor·al
noun
2. a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.
"the corruption of public morals"
synonyms: moral code, code of ethics, (moral) values, principles, standards, (sense of) morality, scruples
"he has no morals"

.

You first need to demonstrate that the objective thinking process can create actually that which is actually right, wrong, good, bad, for your Socalled subjective to have menaing.

Exept that I don't because I'm not saying that morals are objective.

And you don't get to decide that subjective things don't have meaning.

Anxiety.
Fear of the unknown.
Fear of an expected future.

Again notice all of these are predicated on things that exist in reality or things you have experienced in the past. So no, these don't exist by themselves.

Huh? No they don't. Fear of the unknown can't be about a thing that exists in reality if you don't know what it is. And the future hasn't happened yet so it doesn't exist in reality either. Too, anxiety doesn't always have a thing in reality that it's based on. And I notice you chopped off the imaginary creature...

Regardless, you changed the subject. You were saying that a subjective things needs a corresponding objective thing - that a subjective moral needs a corresponding objective moral - not that subjective things cannot exist independently all by themselves.

Until you can actually show me a subjective moral acually and until you can show it doesn't involve a logical contradiction

That's just you insisting that a moral must be objective again. Until you can get passed that there's no way for this discussion to move forward.

Well not excally, it involves a logical contradiction.

Morals can be subjective.

There, contradiction erased.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 469 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-11-2017 11:23 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13864
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


(1)
Message 478 of 1004 (802205)
03-13-2017 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 476 by Dawn Bertot
03-13-2017 8:02 AM


Re: The game is over, you lost. Get over it.
Dawn Bertot writes:

Not understanding why you think, it's necessary to understand all the facets of absolute morality, without knowing that it can exist.


It isn't rocket science. You may know that brain surgery exists but you don't know how to do it. You may know that rocket science exists but you don't know how to do it. You may know that absolute morality exists but you don't know how to do it.

What we're talking about here is not knowing that something exists. We're talking about knowing how to do it. We're talking about rationally figuring out what is moral and what is not.

If you DID know all the facets of absolute morality, you wouldn't be figuring anything out rationally. You'd only be following orders, which requires no rational thought at all.

Dawn Bertot writes:

For example, if an atheist accuses God of immoral behavior, he or she is implying that God is not Good or God is Wrong. He or she is indirectly implying that they KNOW , what Good or BAD actually are or are not.


Not at all. To say that God is wrong from our perspective is no different from saying that the Nazis were wrong from our perspective. God and the Nazis are right from their own perspective but not necessarily from ours. Unless you know EXACTLY what God's perspective is, you can't rationally conclude that it is "right". You're only taking his word for it, which is not rational.

Dawn Bertot writes:

Even if I granted that there was such a thing as subjective morality, then it would be incumbent on you to show what is absolutely Right and absolutely Wrong. For if you could not, then it would follow that subjective morality does NOT actually exist.


You continue to demonstrate that you don't know what "subjective" means. Kindly explain in simple terms what YOU think it means and then I can point out why you don't understand what I'm saying.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 476 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-13-2017 8:02 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 632
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 479 of 1004 (804531)
04-10-2017 8:48 PM


The vast majority of Western atheists believe that the theory of evolution is a fact and that evolution shaped human morality. But this "science" places no compulsion on a human being to conform to any moral code and morality can be literally anything you want it to be. For example, one could argue from "science" that a human being has no more worth than a bug, so if killing a bug isn't immoral, then neither is killing a human being.
Replies to this message:
 Message 480 by jar, posted 04-10-2017 9:10 PM Dredge has responded
 Message 481 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-10-2017 9:18 PM Dredge has responded
 Message 482 by PaulK, posted 04-11-2017 12:15 AM Dredge has responded
 Message 491 by ringo, posted 04-11-2017 12:04 PM Dredge has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29603
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 480 of 1004 (804534)
04-10-2017 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 479 by Dredge
04-10-2017 8:48 PM


Dredge writes:

The vast majority of Western atheists believe that the theory of evolution is a fact and that evolution shaped human morality. But this "science" places no compulsion on a human being to conform to any moral code and morality can be literally anything you want it to be. For example, one could argue from "science" that a human being has no more worth than a bug, so if killing a bug isn't immoral, then neither is killing a human being.

Once again, you simply are making false and unfounded assertions. the Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with morality and society today is certainly more moral than the God described in the Bible stories or any Biblical God given morality. But even the Bible says that man has all the capabilities to determine morality and even must sometimes educate and correct the Biblical God character when it is about to behave immorally.

But your biggest error when it comes to morality it seems is in not understanding that morality is a joint communal agreement about a set of rules. It is a consensus of opinions.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 479 by Dredge, posted 04-10-2017 8:48 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 537 by Dredge, posted 04-13-2017 1:52 AM jar has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
3031
32
3334
...
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