Morality without god

Yes I understood that and when I said that it was non-sense, I meant your entire postSorry though, even in sarcasm that is not my position in the least. Even if you could demonstrate that emotions are an actual thing, they have actual existence, you would still need to demonstrate that the supposed right and wrong that flow out of them, (perceptions) are that, exacally right and wrong.Right and wrong, strickly from a person or persons perspective are nothing but contemplations. When there is disagreemnt in these perceptions, there is no way to know which is right or wrong, without a standard, because you are dealing with abstraction.How do you find what is right or wrong in abstract contemplationsHence nothing but endless speculation and subjectivity. thats assuming that speculation and subjectivity are actually something that could be understood as wellIn a subjective context even speculation and subjectivity have no meaning, except for the fact that reality does allow you this one observation, that with no absolute standard, everything is meaningless from the standpoint of a percieved morality and as a logical propositionBut that is all reality will allow. I know this one thing for sure, because it cannot be shown to be otherwise and no amout of information will change that conclusionDawn Bertot

And you know this because you have more information than God, correct?How did you come to such a dogmatic moral conclusion? what is the objective way you come to this bold assertion?Should we consider your conclusions in this matter as tenable or absolute.Yours is an assertion with no support in any logical fashion. You first have to establish in logical form, why I should even consider your DOGMATIC assertions. we cant just assume they are true Assuming, for the sake of argument the story is true and God exists. It does not surprise me that a fellow that thinks he has more information and better reasoning abilites than God, should make the above statementFirst you assert your moral statements are valid, then you tell that they were not made in the image of Godnext youll tell me we are not actually having this discussion And you guys said Buz was loony. You really make me laugh Jar. Really Jar, you have be faking being that simplistic.Ive often wondered if you are a devil worshiper, always saying the wrong or exact oppistie thing in every instance just to confuse or interupt the processYou remind me of that part in the exorcist, where the older priest says to the younger, "dont try and communicate with it, it will lie and lie to confuse."I not trying to be funny or insulting, you just seem to be either amazingly ignorant or purposely pointless and confusing, just to interupt the processOh wellDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Ive already addressed this issue, to which you gave no formal argument, except to ignore or disagree.You have to show in a logical way why they did not understand the intial command before they ate, why she could reason with the serpent about it, showing she clearly understood and why she understood the punishment involvedI next pointed out there is a difference between understanding right and wrong and knowing all the specifics of Good and EvilThe text clearly communicates they understood this pointYou have to show why my conclusions derived from the text are invalid. You cant just disagree formallyDawn Bertot

When she countered the serpents argument, by saying but we were told not to do that, of course she was reasoning. How any person can come to the conclusion that anything but rational discourse was taking place, is just being evasivehere is a challenge Jar. Get 100 people to read it and see what results you come up withAnd of course we always punish children with death because we know ahead of time they really didnt understand the command we gave them.I dont kick my children out of my house when they disobey. These were not childrenDawn bertot

Before i respond to your above post I would like to say in general to everyone, it sure is strange not to see Buz's in in the members login list. that will take some getting use towhat I am saying Dr A is that emotions cannot be grasp in the same way a tree can be grasped. i can see the mainifestations of physical processes, but I cant actually see anger. Its not a real thing. it has no substnaceNow, carry it a bit further. Right and Wrong, if you wish call it that are even less real, if that is possible, than emotions themself. What we call right and wrong are compilations of varying opinions and emotionsThese vary with every person and inbetween species. So what do we use out of all these varying emotions and responses to determine what Rgith and wrong actually are.Any simpleton can see that such a process to establish what is right and wrong, muchless morality is an exercise in futilityMorality is even a harder thing to define than right and wrong. Since right and wrong has no logical way of being determined, it doesnt take an intellectual to figure out that establishing morality, is an impossibiltyNow if you are prepared to tackle that in some logical way, other than to say you like this or that, or think that this or that is right or wrong, Im prepared to listenReality will not allow you this luxury. But lets see what youve gotDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

lets simplify this thing to see if we can bring it into perspective. Not only do you not have an absolute standard, you dont even have an objective standard.Using any kind of measuring rod that is derived your mind cannot be used to establish any kind of standard that could be described as right or wrong. You may wish to believe it is some sort of standard, but you have no way to decide whether it is right or wrong.Varying opinions by different people and over different periods of time make the entire process of deciding what is right or wrong at any given point in time, a logical impossiblityWhat you THINK is right or wrong is not how you establish that pointYou first have to decide whether a God exists, the likes of which no more information could be provided to that being, that would not convolute the decision making processIOWs he is all that there is and contains all information in existence to be an absolute standardConversely, if such a being does not exist, then there is absolutely no way to establish, what is right or wrong, muchless moralIronically reality in the form of information gathering will allow such a conclusion. But ironically as well, it will not allow you a conclusion that contradicts this conclusionThis position cannot be shown to be otherwise, because this is all reality will allowironically this website itself, the threads, the posts, the disagreements between Christians and Atheist, the disagreements between atheist themself, should send a red flag that the proposition I am setting forward, is evident in factYou fellas cant even decide between yourselfs things, how in the world would you decide what IS ACTUALLY RIGHT AND WRONG in realityDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

In an effort to establish an actual morailty, youve failed to establish, as you have suggested, that it is right in the frist place. there is no such thing as right and no such thing as morality in an existence of purely physical things happeningExample, when a lion, when in what we call anger shreads another animal apart, even though he is devastating the poor creature, we dont call that murder.But murder, actual murder, murder as immorality, or right or wrong, doesn t actually exist, as a part of reality. We call it murder within our species, because we have decided that is how we should operate.Your right its not absolute, or anything else in reality, without GodThere is simply no way to establish right or wrong, without an absolute standard Sure I have, numerous timesFirst I pointed out that its not my responsibility to do that, its yoursSecondly, I demonstrated that right and wrong are not actual things, in a purely physical existenceThirdly I pointed out that with finite beings, disagreement and different thinking patterns on the same topic, sharp disagreeemnt, demonstate that morality is not possibleFourthly I showed that you cant have a standard of murder, that is called murer for your species, then not apply the same thing to another life formFifthly i demonstrated that there not actually anything such as right and wrong, without GodSixthly, i demonstrated that, morality cannot be established from a persons, or persons perspective, but that it had to be established from the perspective of reality By making this statement you demonstrate that without a doubt that you dont understand that right and wrong cannot be established by one species or anotherThe moment you decide that an animal killing a human is immoral, then decide that its ok to ring the chickens neck for your consumption, you throw your "morality" into nonesense No its not. Simply because you decided it is a morality, doesnt make it that in reality.Dont yopu see the iorny here. Im disagreeing with you and neither of us is right or wrong, because, your so-called morality is just matter in motionWhat you need to make it morality indeed, is a decision making process, where there can be no information gathered to make a better decision, or a decision that would alter the known (decided upon) decision, given the amout of information available. IE GodYour just matter in motion without God. Your "morality" is no different that a tree accidently falling on someone and killing themI dont need to establish the existence of God to know you dont actually have morality Unless you are paying no attention at all, I think just didDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

An underlying substance was the very point I was making. They ofcourse have no reality. That is why as they say you cannot capture a thought. Anyway, it does not matter, the supposed right and wrong that are extrapolations from these existent or non-existent emotions are derived from a mulduplicity of confusing ideas and expectations, they therefore cannot be objective in real sense of the world Do you think either group was right or wrong. What do you use for a standard to establish which is right or wrongDawn Bertot

I know you get tired of hearing this, but right and wrong, of must of necessity be a logical proposition and not a perspective or opinion from ones own speciesThe universe will close in on you one day and it will not care about your supposed morailty. The same thing that supposedly brought you into existence, will snuff you out with a violence and sufferning you cannot imaginethe sun will explode with such violence it will burn you to cinder, with such violence, if you happen to be around at that timeIt will do this with the same biological process you use to help a drownding horse in a river. it will us the same biological process you use to walk pat the horse and choose not to save himits all relative, eh wrong i have explained that a morality any morality is a logical proposition pitted against reality. Your so-called morality is derived from your perspective which will not work from any logical perspectiveI answered your question several times and challenged you to demonstrate why your morality is ACTUALLY right or WRONG from reality, not your perspectiveCan you explain what Right and Wrong actually are apart from your perspective, which is only part of reality, not all of it?Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Wrong, even if I percieve emotions as not being real things, they are still just chemical processes. Buts lets assume they have some actual existence, they are still just matter in motion or manifestations of the physical processWhich doesnt help your position any better. As i have now established more than once, random, varied and contradictory emotions cant be a basis for right and wrong.its about as silliy as 12ft chicken using the term, Relative Morality. Its elf defeating and incredibly self contradictory. But i am sure he will see the light on even that small point after a while but your standard wont keep you from spraying ants and insects in the face with pesticides, that sting, choke and torture the little guys to death correct?Im sure you are starting to see why any standard of right and wrong as to be reality based and why it has to apply across the board, otherwise its just non-sense.But I wish it were only that bad, its gets worse. Even if it applied consistently across the board it still wouldnt matter in a strickly matter in motion existenceThe universe you worship will close in on you witha violence that makes the crusades look like an evening at the popsStupid universe, be more funny!!!!!!Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

I appreciate you asking the question in this manner. It demonstrates that you are learning.The point is that it doesnt matter whether you can percieve thier emotions or not, all life should be sacred and the idea of Murder as applied to humans should apply across the board for you to even have a starting point.But since no species will ever come to an agreement on what constitutes murder or torture, it follows no standard can even be contemplated Ill try again, to see if you are paying attention. An absolute morality, right or wrong can only exist where the possibility of no more information can be gathered, to make a decision or conclusion concerning any matter,. ie infinite wisdomIf you consider such a thing as non-existent and all things are basically equal in existence, you are finite in your understanding and limited to effects of the universe, then it follows logically you cannot have or know what morality is or is notAny morality has to be established logically and from the standpoint f all reality, for it to have any meaning at allNow, please show me how this not logical

Dr DA, right and wrong are not real things. Matter in motion cannot produce right and wrong, even if emotions are real things.If you dont believe me, show us what right is accross the board (reality)Show us how you establish this point. What formal argument do you use to explain what Wrong from a moral standpoint, actually is or is notDawn Bertot

Again that is not the point try to pay close attention to that which you need to respond. I have in logical fashion demonstrated why a morality, relative or otherwise, does actually exist.If indeed this is a debate website, your obligation would be to respond to what I have actually set out, then show why it is faulty.Ill give you an example of how debate actually works. Ive stated that for murder to be murder, that which is objectively wrong, not just a concept. You would need to demonstrate why human life is more sacred from the standpoint of reality, than animal life.That is, why it is Right, actually and objectively Right, not just as a concept, to take life unjustifiedly and premedtadedlly without malice of forethought.Now you need to in an objective and logical way, respond exacally to what I have set out.I promise you that if you did, I would return the favor Ill try again. For an objectively reality to exist, you would need knowledge, the likes of which could not be added to. The likes of which, a better decison could not be added to to make it more right or less wrongSince you live in an environment where you dont possess this type of knowledge, you cannot know what is actually right or wrongIf you do not believe in God, you are maintaining that you believe that there is not enough evidence to establish that idea. I believe there is.But that is not the point of this thread. I would ne happy to discuss that at any other pointDawn Bertot

Unfortunately Mr Harris is not the standard by which right and wrong are established. Nor does Mr harris understand how that is established. If indeed you have correctly represented him, he falls way short of understanding Good and BadIf bad is only that which causes suffering to his species, and he feels no compulsion for the suffering he inflicts on other species, then he cannot correctly state what bad or good actually areMr Harris does not qualify as reality in general. It does not benefit a cow to die at all, uchless for his consumption and pleasure. One can quickly see how his so-called morality quickly falls apart into nonsenseSuffering is only suffering when he is not the one served up on a plate. Relative morality is not only self-contradictory, it doesn’t actually have an existence because it is self-contradictory.Relative is just that relative. In a world where death and the taking of life is a daily process, murder can have no application where all those entities have equal properties and existenceYou are more than welcome to set up some sort of guidelines, for ones own self preservation, but that falls well short of actual right or wrong, good or bad, muchless moralityHence, there is simply no way to proceed except to understand it as simply matter doing thingsPerhaps this example will suffice to demonstrate the primacy of reality. Lets say there are 100 people on a ship moving quickly twords an Event Horizon, Quantum Singularity, otherwise known as Black Hole. Homer Simpson, said Can we call it thatOn our way different groups have different ideas about how to enter and proceed through the Ho. Some say this and some say that. There is however a large group of the 100, that agree in particular on a plan. Of course all 100 are wrong and their perceptions don’t conform to reality. They all die, or at bare minimum they are misinformed, wrong.Now, 1000 years from now, there are two very intelligent aliens in a small ship, that understand and apply their understanding of the actual physical properties of the QS, they adjust their instruments and the ship to conform to pre-existent conditions, that do not really care about their perceptions that do not conform to reality and they live.If there is an actual right or wrong, it must conform to what reality will allow, not what we perceive. If you choose to not believe in God and his infinite wisdom, then you are left to what reality allowsWhat reality allows in the form of moral right and wrong, is that there is no right or wrong and no way to come up with a standard, especially not a relative one.Here is another example of the subjective and actual non-existence of morality without God. Your walking along a beach and notice a flounder laying on the beach. You walk past it without any real care.Next you come across a beached whale. Im talking here about a large fish type animal, not a large women, land mammal or buffarillo. Once you see this large fish (whale), you immediately become concerned and call the press. Why? Because he larger, endangered or what?There is simply no logical way of making this distinction make any rational sense from a right or wrong point of view. We have simply been conditioned in this instance that larger is better or more important. Wait, what?At any rate the pack of dogs that come along or the vultures don’t share your concerns, either for the flounder or the whale. Without belief in God, you’ve only been conditioned. In another place or time, you feelings may differ greatly.If a person, group of people, or a certain society actually believe their morals or ethics are improving or better that some others, they only need to consult reality to know that is not actually the case.If they believe that their morals are actually, right or wrong, or that they have a way to establish that without a belief in an infinitely wise creator, they only need to consult reality to know that is not actually possibleDawn Bertot

Crashfrog Bertot writeshilosophizing is not a valid replacement for a formally set out argument. The above statement while very eloquent provides no basis for actually establishing the reality of Good and Evil, Bad or good. They simply cannot exist in an existence that isl matter in motion. You are hopelessly lost trying to establish any such thingEven if emotions are actually real things, right and wrong are not. Right and wrong have to exist actually and apply to all eixstence and species. Anything short of that is stupidity, willful ignorance and moronicCF writesBertot writes: If this is what Mr Harris is actually teaching, from a philosophically logically driven perspective, i would first suggest he not actually be teaching philosophy classes at allSecondly, I would ask him to set out the logical proposition or argument, that preceeds, the verbose eloquence, that is unnecessary, unless he does. Set out the argument that demonstrates these entities actually exist, or even have the possibility of existingCF writes:Dawn Bertot writes: Sorry, that is not logically possible. You first have to establish why that makes any rational senseDoes this man actually teach philosophy somewhere?Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.