Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 61 of 1006 (798602)
02-03-2017 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Faith
02-03-2017 2:39 PM


That's apples and oranges, RAZD. The decision of the atheist who became a theist had to be based on some pretty complicated analysis of possibilities in the natural world, not like determining that a theological statement is true or false.
Nope it's two ends of the same process.
And in reference to morality ... the changes in theistic beliefs likely meant the lapsed religious people had a more open view than before, more inclusive. No longer repressed by their previous beliefs.
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 52 by Faith, posted 02-03-2017 2:39 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 62 of 1006 (798625)
02-04-2017 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by frako
02-03-2017 4:02 PM


If you think your biblical god's morality sprads accross all species alike you must have not read the bible.
Why would morality haveto be consistant across all species?
Because as if Mr. Harris says, the ultimate moral of humans is to minimize maximum suffering, you are inconsistent in this area. You take away animals life for your consumption, you use them in experiments, etc
Because you are a finite CREATURE, that is you have limited knowledge of all things. By the very definition of finite, you don't have enough information to know right from wrong. Yours is an idiotic assumption.
You fail right off the bat, because you admit your finite. You can't be anything but inconsistent without an infinte knowledge. You might get a few things right, but eventually we are going to have fools actually not believing in God and man thinking he can get things straight morally. We might even have men wanting to marry animals or put them cages to laugh at them. Wait that's already happening isn't it. See what I mean?
Sorry all the banter here about what morality is or is not by finite creatures is going to be fallacious, in all if not most of its assumptions
This is a problem from which you fellas cannot extricate yourself
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by frako, posted 02-03-2017 4:02 PM frako has not replied

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


Message 63 of 1006 (798626)
02-04-2017 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Modulous
02-03-2017 2:08 PM


Modulous writes
But it can form the basis of thought. There is a instinct to eat, that can make us form thoughts about food. An instinct to reproduce that make us think about attractive people and how to attract them.[
You missed the point mod. I'm not interested whether instinct can help form thoughts. It's that when these thoughts are formed, there only going to be one set of thoughts amount millions of other creatures with different ideas about what's good or bad. But then good or bad cannot Rationally exist in a purely Naturalistic society
Hence, subjective, inconsistent and hopelessly subjective
don't see any reason to accept this definition. It would primarily imply, given nobody has infinite wisdom, that nobody has morals or ethics making the entire discussion moot.
Now your staring to get it. You just stated in an eloquent way what is true of your Socalled morality. Hopelessly irrational without any possibility of resolution or conciliation
That's if we accept your position
I too have rational morals in reality. I don't believe morals exist independently of the people that hold them, other than in some communal sense of the collective wisdom of humanity or some community within that.
Your second statement is false only because your first statement is hopelessly false. Your morals in reality are nothing more than inconsistent desires. The Naturalistic process which alledgedly created your so called desires, cares nothing about what you wish,want or feel good or bad about. All of it , even if we include conscienceness, is nothing more that biological processes
I can rationally explain morals, but you have failed to prove that there is a reasonable case that proves this is impossible. Your argument relies on definitions of morality and ethics that are peculiar to you.
I've missed the line that demonstrates anything but different ideas, thoughts or concepts, varying greatly amount millions of humans. Given your Naturalistic doctrine, you could explain very little rationally
If you wanted to say 'It is impossible for atheists to believe a god is the originator of morality' it would have been tautologically true, but you didn't say this. If this is what you meant, you haven't really said anything interesting at all.[
And this is exactly what I mean, here in your statement above. An atheists thoughts about the non existence of God are not a reality, they don't really exist. Even if they did, they couldn't change what is, the physical evidence for God's existence and that he would be the only rational way to establish an absolute moral standard. Those things exist actually due to reality. You got it backwards
I can find evil and good in my own actions. But I am a subjective entity, so my finding of these things is necessarily subjective.
How do you even address a silly nonsensical statement like that. Wow
Killing another human being without justification.
So if this is evil would it be evil to exterminate a colony of rats for no other reason than they are in your backyard and you didn't want them there? And if it's ok, please explain why. IOWs, your better or smarter, your more important, higher in intelligence, exactly what reason
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Modulous, posted 02-03-2017 2:08 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Modulous, posted 02-04-2017 9:35 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 64 of 1006 (798627)
02-04-2017 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by RAZD
02-03-2017 2:23 PM


Re: enlightened self-interest
RAZD writes
Possibly because that is what the evidence shows. Take an example from the Bible - adulterers are supposed to be stoned to death, but this no longer occurs in at least 99% of Christian sects -- they have evolved to a more accepting morality, perhaps because laws about adultery can be used instead, resulting in lesser punishments than death.
That's perfectly fine if we are going to use an example from the Bible, but we have to remember the being issuing this command is according to the same source, infinte in knowledge. You are not, I assume
While I don't always understand his ways or actions anymore than a SFH, at least I know he's operating on better info than yourself, correct?
You seem to think that because moralityissubjective that it would be wildly inconsistent, when it is based on the societymoresinstead of the individual's beliefs.
This is rather obvious when we review crimes against others, as we find the same basic proportions of atheist and various theist people as in the general population. That would argue for a rather consistent moral code across society.
So you admit that it's inconsistent, just not wildly, correct.. so how can a MILDLY inconsistent moral code be consistent? Hmmmm?
Show me an example of this infinite God action and we can discuss the ramifications.[
"For when gentiles which have not the (written) law, do by nature the things contained in the (written) law, these having not the the (written) law, are a law unto themselves, which show the written law written on thier hearts (by an infinte God), there conscience also bearing witness AND THIER CONFLICTING THOUGHTS WILL ACCUSE OR PERHAPS EXCUSE THEM.............." emphasis mine
Romans 2:14-16New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised Catholic Edition (NRSVACE)
14When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves.15They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them16on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all.
Here is your example, here is where you know right from, wrong. Your conscience will accuse or excuse you based on infinte wisdom written on your heart or conscience.
Now before you say this is a quote out of a book, I can see this in reality can't i? An intrinsic law in operation with freewill. I can obey it or ignore it can't i? What I can't see is consistency when a finite being tries to be something more than finte
So your finite and he's infinte, guess who I'm going pick everytime. What I mean is at least the theistic position doesn't involve logical contradiction anywhere in it process, especially in its beginning. Sorry
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2017 2:23 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by RAZD, posted 02-04-2017 8:32 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 122 by Taq, posted 02-06-2017 10:50 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 2390 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


(1)
Message 65 of 1006 (798628)
02-04-2017 12:44 AM


Dawn, you hold to be true that the bible is the inerrant word of god and subsequently derive your sense of morality from your particular church's (subjective) interpretation of the bible. You can claim it is objective till you're blue in the face, you can mutilate logic and impose strawman versions of the 'naturalistic worldview' on us, but nothing you say will change the fact that you're in no better position than we are. Your morality is subjective, just like everyone else's.
It is also rather amusing that you would place so much emphasis on reality since the only real objective thing you can cite as the basis for your moral compass is an ancient tome. At least I can cite objective consequences or facts as the basis of my moral position on a given dilemma. Here's an objective fact, some animals eat other animals. It's as natural as you can get but somehow you require that the naturalistic worldview condemns such behaviour.
Seriously, how do you even come up with these silly ideas?

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-04-2017 12:54 AM Riggamortis has replied
 Message 69 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-04-2017 1:11 AM Riggamortis has replied

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


Message 66 of 1006 (798629)
02-04-2017 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Porosity
02-03-2017 2:06 PM


Re: Religion Cannot Rationally Explain Morals
No.. this is what you're doing.
You have no moral compass of your own, instead you have morality dictated to you by an immoral book of fables.
I'm glad I don't use my own compass, because you and I would have tried to exterminate each other alreadyou probably, right
You act morally because of the intrinsic law put inside of you by the creator. It has nothing to do with fables.
Reality will bare out what the book says in Romans 2:14
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Porosity, posted 02-03-2017 2:06 PM Porosity has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by JonF, posted 02-04-2017 8:51 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 76 by Modulous, posted 02-04-2017 9:51 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 78 by ringo, posted 02-04-2017 10:46 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 79 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-04-2017 11:23 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 67 of 1006 (798630)
02-04-2017 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Riggamortis
02-04-2017 12:44 AM


Dawn, you hold to be true that the bible is the inerrant word of god and subsequently derive your sense of morality from your particular church's (subjective) interpretation of the bible. You can claim it is objective till you're blue in the face, you can mutilate logic and impose strawman versions of the 'naturalistic worldview' on us, but nothing you say will change the fact that you're in no better position than we are. Your morality is subjective, just like everyone else's.
It is also rather amusing that you would place so much emphasis on reality since the only real objective thing you can cite as the basis for your moral compass is an ancient tome. At least I can cite objective consequences or facts as the basis of my moral position on a given dilemma. Here's an objective fact, some animals eat other animals. It's as natural as you can get but somehow you require that the naturalistic worldview condemns such behaviour.
Your being simplistic. I don't think it's evil when animals eat animals. You miss the point. If I adopt the Naturalistic doctrine, it's either evil or its not. Since it's not,and humans are on the same scale, it would not be evil for humans to kill and eat other humans.
But they call this evil and murder
You can't have it both ways in a strictly Naturalistic existence. Sorry, there's no way around that
I adopt my morality from that source, because only a rational objective morality can come from an infinite mind, everything else is subjective and inconsistent. It would therefore, be inconsistent to accuse anyone muchless God of wrong doing or evil That's the rational long and short of it
I adopt my morality from what I can observe in man, and reality, which is corroborated in Romans 2:14 and
Romans 1:18-23.
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth.19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because GOD HAS SHOWN IT TO THEM. 20Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. SO THEY ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE;21for though they knew God, they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened.22Claiming to be wise, they became fools;23and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Riggamortis, posted 02-04-2017 12:44 AM Riggamortis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Riggamortis, posted 02-04-2017 4:03 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 68 of 1006 (798631)
02-04-2017 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by JonF
02-03-2017 1:49 PM


Re: Religion Cannot Rationally Explain Morals
Isuspect that you do not define "ACTUAL MORALITY" as "acting morally in word and deed".
Since, there are about a billion different views on what it would mean to act morally, that would not only be nonsensical but irrational from a reality standpoint
If morality does not come from an independent source, infinite in knowledge, then there is only relativism and subjective rambling. Hard cold reality and rational will only allow that possibility

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by JonF, posted 02-03-2017 1:49 PM JonF has not replied

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


Message 69 of 1006 (798632)
02-04-2017 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Riggamortis
02-04-2017 12:44 AM


Your morality is subjective, just like everyone else's
Well thanks for admitting you are hopelessly lost in subjectivism, but if you think my position is subjective only, your free to demonstrate why. I'm willing to take a look at your reasoning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Riggamortis, posted 02-04-2017 12:44 AM Riggamortis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Riggamortis, posted 02-04-2017 4:38 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 2390 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


Message 70 of 1006 (798634)
02-04-2017 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Dawn Bertot
02-04-2017 12:54 AM


I adopt my morality because only a rational objective morality can come from an infinite mind, everything else is subjective and inconsistent. That's the rational long and short of it
I adopt my morality from what I can observe in man, and reality, which is corroborated in Romans 2:14
What does Romans 2:14 prove? That even the writers of the bible knew they needed to make up an excuse for why non-believers could also be moral beings?Whoopppdeeeddoooo Basil!
You don't have access to this infinite mind though do you? You use a very finite book and your own/church's subjective interpretation of that book to form your moral code. The reality that Christians can't agree among themselves on what is moral proves that your morality is equally subjective and inconsistent. There's nothing rational or objective about it, sorry, there's no way around that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-04-2017 12:54 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-04-2017 11:16 PM Riggamortis has replied

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


Message 71 of 1006 (798635)
02-04-2017 4:11 AM


Still struggling to understand the title:
quote:
Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.
What has atheism got to do with morality?
Does your thesis work equally well as
Hindism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals? Or
Ancestor Worship Cannot Rationally Explain Morals? Or
Spaghetti Cannot Rationally Explain Morals?

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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-04-2017 11:18 PM Tangle has replied

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 2390 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


(1)
Message 72 of 1006 (798636)
02-04-2017 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Dawn Bertot
02-04-2017 1:11 AM


Dawn, you hold to be true that the bible is the inerrant word of god and subsequently derive your sense of morality from your particular church's (subjective) interpretation of the bible. You can claim it is objective till you're blue in the face, you can mutilate logic and impose strawman versions of the 'naturalistic worldview' on us, but nothing you say will change the fact that you're in no better position than we are. Your morality is subjective, just like everyone else's.
The reasoning is that part you ignored. Maybe you could tell my why it's wrong?
Your god is not part of objective reality so you haven't a leg to stand on. Demonstrate that your god is part of our objective reality or admit that you have no objective basis for your moral compass, either.
If absolute morality can only come from an infinite mind, then it seems to me that you must demonstrate the existence of an infinite mind in order to claim that an absolute morality is even possible. Good luck with that!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-04-2017 1:11 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


Message 73 of 1006 (798643)
02-04-2017 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Dawn Bertot
02-04-2017 12:37 AM


Re: enlightened self-interest
That's perfectly fine if we are going to use an example from the Bible, but we have to remember the being issuing this command is according to the same source, infinte in knowledge. You are not, I assume
Being a deist I have no need to assume any "command is according to the same source, infinte in knowledge" as they would be unknown, so no I do not accept your assumption, you have to demonstrate it. Your non-response on the issue of stoning shows that you are not accepting a "command is according to the same source, infinte in knowledge" but a position that is more socially acceptable.
So you admit that it's inconsistent, just not wildly, correct.. so how can a MILDLY inconsistent moral code be consistent? Hmmmm?
To start with I said "rather consistent" not absolutely consistent. Would you not agree that 99% consistent would be "rather consistent" yes? That this predominant consistency could be different in different cultures and still be an operating moral system withing that culture? That different cultures could differ more between cultures than is seen within a culture?
"For when gentiles which have not the (written) law, do by nature the things contained in the (written) law, these having not the the (written) law, are a law unto themselves, which show the written law written on thier hearts (by an infinte God), there conscience also bearing witness AND THIER CONFLICTING THOUGHTS WILL ACCUSE OR PERHAPS EXCUSE THEM.............." emphasis mine
Romans 2:14-16New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised Catholic Edition (NRSVACE)
14 When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all.
Here is your example, here is where you know right from, wrong. Your conscience will accuse or excuse you based on infinte wisdom written on your heart or conscience.
Sadly this is not an example in reality, it is a quote from a book, and you have not yet demonstrated the veracity of the book. You could just as well quote Shakespeare or the Bhagavad Gita. Truly sad.
Now before you say this is a quote out of a book, I can see this in reality can't i? An intrinsic law in operation with freewill. I can obey it or ignore it can't i? What I can't see is consistency when a finite being tries to be something more than finte
And yet I don't see it, so you are just using more words to deflect the issue that you do not have an real example. Belief is not evidence.
So your finite and he's infinte, guess who I'm going pick everytime. What I mean is at least the theistic position doesn't involve logical contradiction anywhere in it process, especially in its beginning. Sorry
Curiously I will choose a known finite over an unknown and unknowable infinite, and point you back to the example of the stoning issue to show you that you do not pick your infinite over the finite.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : engls

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 64 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-04-2017 12:37 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-04-2017 11:19 PM RAZD has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(3)
Message 74 of 1006 (798644)
02-04-2017 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Dawn Bertot
02-04-2017 12:46 AM


Re: Religion Cannot Rationally Explain Morals
No.. this is what you're doing.
You have no moral compass of your own, instead you have morality dictated to you by an immoral book of fables.
I'm glad I don't use my own compass, because you and I would have tried to exterminate each other alreadyou probably, right
Sounds as if you really do need an externally imposed moral compass.
I don't. Atheists in general don't.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-04-2017 12:46 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


(2)
Message 75 of 1006 (798646)
02-04-2017 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Dawn Bertot
02-04-2017 12:31 AM


You missed the point mod. I'm not interested whether instinct can help form thoughts.
I'll take this a concession that instinct can and often is, the basis of a variety of thoughts and ideas.
It's that when these thoughts are formed, there only going to be one set of thoughts amount millions of other creatures with different ideas about what's good or bad.
Exactly. And this is what we see with people. Millions of people with different ideas about morality all over the place. So it seems that the idea that instincts are involved is supported by what we see in actual reality.
...nobody has morals or ethics making the entire discussion moot.
Now your staring to get it.
Well you might be amoral, but I have moral values. My moral system doesn't require a 'fantasy' infinite wisdom to exist and be available for consultation. It relies on real things we know are real in actual reality. Your definition relies on a fantasy being with infinite wisdom that cannot be shown to exist in actual reality and thus your definition has morals not actually existing in actual reality.
Sounds perverse to me, I'll stick with my system over yours.
All of it , even if we include conscienceness, is nothing more that biological processes
Good, yes. That's right. You seem to raise this as if it were a problem, I don't see the problem.
I've missed the line that demonstrates anything but different ideas, thoughts or concepts, varying greatly amount millions of humans.
I'm not arguing for anything other than different ideas that vary between humans. So why would I say otherwise?
Given your Naturalistic doctrine, you could explain very little rationally
You didn't supply an argument that shows this. Since I can explain morality rationally, whatever your argument is must be wrong somewhere.
An atheists thoughts about the non existence of God are not a reality, they don't really exist.
Either
a) You can read my mind
or b) You are wrong.
If a) - Please show your evidence.
Even if they did, they couldn't change what is, the physical evidence for God's existence and that he would be the only rational way to establish an absolute moral standard.
Well exactly - so why did you decide to deny the existence of atheistic thoughts in the first place?
Now all you have to do is supply your argument that God is the only rational way to establish an absolute moral standard and your work is done.
So if this is evil would it be evil to exterminate a colony of rats for no other reason than they are in your backyard and you didn't want them there?
No Dawn. It being evil to kill humans with no justification does not imply anything about the morality of killing non-humans with some justification.
And if it's ok, please explain why.
It depends why the hypothetical person didn't want them there. I'd be happy to have a colony of rats in my backyard as long as they weren't causing any problems. I love rats - they're awesome.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-04-2017 12:31 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-05-2017 1:16 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