Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,109 Year: 5,366/9,624 Month: 391/323 Week: 31/204 Day: 7/24 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 31 of 1006 (798515)
02-03-2017 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Dawn Bertot
02-02-2017 11:36 PM


Ah Dr Inadequate your always good for a larf, not much else, but you do succeed in that area
And you're still not going to try? Is this because you regard the task as hopeless or merely because you're lazy?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-02-2017 11:36 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Porosity
Member (Idle past 2203 days)
Posts: 158
From: MT, USA
Joined: 06-15-2013


(1)
Message 32 of 1006 (798517)
02-03-2017 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Dawn Bertot
02-02-2017 11:52 PM


But to answer your question, my morals come from the God of the Bible, he has infinite wisdom, that's why he's God and can establish morals for creatures
So you have no morals.
Thanks for sharing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-02-2017 11:52 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by JonF, posted 02-03-2017 8:43 AM Porosity has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5985
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 33 of 1006 (798521)
02-03-2017 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Dawn Bertot
02-02-2017 10:04 PM


So you completely avoided Frako's entire question.
How sadly typical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-02-2017 10:04 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-03-2017 12:51 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
vimesey
Member (Idle past 181 days)
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


(3)
Message 34 of 1006 (798524)
02-03-2017 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Dawn Bertot
02-02-2017 11:07 PM


Re: Religion Cannot Rationally Explain Morals
IOWs, if it's OK to eat another living thing and it's not murder, why could people not kill and eat other people on a regular basis and it not be murder
You have to take it out of the personal realm into the completely rational and reality realm
No. You instead have to acknowledge that morality is a nuanced, multifaceted, often self-contradictory collection of social rules, that differs somewhat from individual to individual, but broadly boils down into a generally accepted but shifting and amorphous mass of principles which tend to lead to a functioning society and tend to get enshrined, in part, in enforceable laws. They don't need to be justified or rationalised - they don't need to be categorised as objective or personal. They are a social phenomenon, whose origins are of mild interest philosophically, but are of no particular relevance in the face of the obvious fact that they are generally and very broadly shared by a large majority of humanity.
You seek to encourage us to reduce a discussion of morality to absolutes (such as your assertion that all life is equal), so that you can seek to argue trite contradictions with us.
But morality is full of contradictions and full of complexity - trite questions such as why we eat animals and not each other are meaningless. The answer is that most of us think that's OK. Suck it up.

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 ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-02-2017 11:07 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-03-2017 12:54 PM vimesey has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34127
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


(4)
Message 35 of 1006 (798529)
02-03-2017 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Dawn Bertot
02-02-2017 11:07 PM


Re: Religion Cannot Rationally Explain Morals
DB writes:
Can people religious or not be the source for an absolute moral.
There are no absolute morals, never have been and likely cannot be.
DB writes:
IOWs, if it's OK to eat another living thing and it's not murder, why could people not kill and eat other people on a regular basis and it not be murder
It can be absolutely moral (not an absolute moral) for people to eat other people and in fact has happened.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-02-2017 11:07 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 277 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 36 of 1006 (798532)
02-03-2017 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Dawn Bertot
02-02-2017 9:47 PM


Re: what??????
No I never said anything close to that
He jumped the gun a bit. We've been down this road so many times it's easy to get stuck in the deep ruts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-02-2017 9:47 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 277 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 37 of 1006 (798533)
02-03-2017 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Porosity
02-03-2017 12:58 AM


But to answer your question, my morals come from the God of the Bible, he has infinite wisdom, that's why he's God and can establish morals for creatures
So you have no morals.
Dawn, like the vast majority of atheists, has morals. Just not objective ones. If they were truly objective atheists would accept Dawn's source of morals.
Morals are a product of society, and differ greatly over time and space.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Porosity, posted 02-03-2017 12:58 AM Porosity has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 1006 (798539)
02-03-2017 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dawn Bertot
02-02-2017 3:56 PM


Therefore, it is logically impossible for an actual ethic or moral to exist from the Atheistic standpoint, in Reality.
So what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-02-2017 3:56 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1514 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 39 of 1006 (798543)
02-03-2017 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dawn Bertot
02-02-2017 3:56 PM


enlightened self-interest
Simply put I would say the Atheist has no rational or logical way to formulate an actual moral or ethic, from a reality standpoint.
Simply put the basis of all morality is enlightened self-interest. This is where the "golden-rule" comes from, and why you can find variations on that theme in every religion and every culture.
In the first place, this is not a moral it's an Instinct, any animal can avoid pain or misery. It takes no thinking process.
There is an evolved component to human morality, because game theory shows evolutionary benefit for social animals to behave in a manner conducive to the survival of the social group, and that includes morals, as the video of the capucin monkeys shows. Humans have built on that basis via memes -- inherited behavior and cultural traditions that have survived and spread because they offer survival and reproductive advantages. These memes can cross-fertilize other social groups (rather than a nested hierarchy pattern) and thus we see a lot of similarities across groups that come from different origins and religious backgrounds.
Thirdly, since I can get very different responses from human minds as to what constitutes a moral or immoral act, it should be immediately evident that there is no way to establish OBJECTIVELY, from a Naturalistic standpoint, what is in REALITY morally real.
Morality is essentially social convention, a program to survive and reproduce within a culture, and thus it would be surprising if it didn't differ from social group to social group, from culture to culture, from nation to nation.
Therefore, it is logically impossible for an actual ethic or moral to exist from the Atheistic standpoint, in Reality.
It is logically preposterous to think there would be one and only one moral code for all of mankind (and animal kind), but it is not logically impossible for many to exist, often with overlaps and similarities, such as Christian and Muslim, AND it is why morality evolves and changes over time, as more things become accepted behavior because they don't harm the social group.
No matter what your religious viewpoint happens to be.
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 1 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-02-2017 3:56 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-03-2017 1:00 PM RAZD has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 520 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 40 of 1006 (798546)
02-03-2017 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Dawn Bertot
02-02-2017 11:07 PM


Re: Religion Cannot Rationally Explain Morals
Dawn Bertot writes:
IOWs, if it's OK to eat another living thing and it's not murder, why could people not kill and eat other people on a regular basis and it not be murder
That isn't about morality. It's a social contract: Eat others as you would have others eat you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-02-2017 11:07 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-03-2017 1:06 PM ringo has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 192 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 41 of 1006 (798557)
02-03-2017 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by dwise1
02-03-2017 1:37 AM


Dewise1 writes
So you completely avoided Frako's entire question.
How sadly typical.
On the contrary I not only answered him i gave him a clear example. If Frako thinks Believers are more Evil or right or wrong than an Atheist, WHAT is his reason and standard for believing this, show it to me, set it out logically
If he believes that incarceratiing an animal in a cage for experimentation, observation, as in a zoo, is not slavery, then he'll have to show me why I could not do the same thing to a group of humans. I believe the Nazis did this, correct
His so called morality has to be consistent to be rational
From a logical standpoint he has to have a reason for believing this. Ie, Is he superior, is he's more intelligent, etc. Give me that reason
From a life standpoint are you better than other animals
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by dwise1, posted 02-03-2017 1:37 AM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by NoNukes, posted 02-03-2017 3:51 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 119 by Taq, posted 02-06-2017 10:35 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 192 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 42 of 1006 (798558)
02-03-2017 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by vimesey
02-03-2017 4:29 AM


Re: Religion Cannot Rationally Explain Morals
Venesy writes
No. You instead have to acknowledge that morality is a nuanced, multifaceted, often self-contradictory collection of social rules, that differs somewhat from individual to individual, but broadly boils down into a generally accepted but shifting and amorphous mass of principles which tend to lead to a functioning society and tend to get enshrined, in part, in enforceable laws. They don't need to be justified or rationalised - they don't need to be categorised as objective or personal. They are a social phenomenon, whose origins are of mild interest philosophically, but are of no particular relevance in the face of the obvious fact that they are generally and very broadly shared by a large majority of humanity.
Well that's as good a definition of subjective relativism as I've ever seen, it's as empty as it is relative. The only thing that I need to ACKNOWLEDGE is reality. If your position is true then there would be nothing wrong with killing and eating humans as casually as we do other animal life, correct
You seek to encourage us to reduce a discussion of morality to absolutes (such as your assertion that all life is equal), so that you can seek to argue trite contradictions with us.
But morality is full of contradictions and full of complexity - trite questions such as why we eat animals and not each other are meaningless. The answer is that most of us think that's OK. Suck it up.
So your big rational philosophical reasoned answer is for me to suck it up , even if your position is a glaring contradiction in reality. See that won't work in reality. If I believe that I could walk off the top of a building and can ignore the reality of gravity, I should just suck it up right, because I truly believe I won't fall to my death. Will it change the reality of the reality of gravity
If the question of killing and consuming humans as we do animals is MEANINGLESS,, then it would follow that you have no morals afterall. You'll have to do better than that.
Secondly, explain to me how all life is not equal in your Naturalistic environment. Are you saying you are superior to other creatures, the way God would be superior to you?
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 ?
There in lies your problem, you believe we need to understand the universe to understand simple laws and rules. We do not. I don't need to understand the universe to understand your position involves self contradiction, even on the surface
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by vimesey, posted 02-03-2017 4:29 AM vimesey has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 192 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 43 of 1006 (798559)
02-03-2017 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by RAZD
02-03-2017 9:49 AM


Re: enlightened self-interest
RAZD writes:
It is logically preposterous to think there would be one and only one moral code for all of mankind (and animal kind), but it is not logically impossible for many to exist, often with overlaps and similarities, such as Christian and Muslim, AND it is why morality evolves and changes over time, as more things become accepted behavior because they don't harm the social group.
No matter what your religious viewpoint happens to be.
Fortunately, our position has nothing to do with religious belief, at least fundamentally. I have waited to this point to interject God's actions in this or that context or what he does or not does as evil, because I wanted it firmly established by at least a few here what your actual position consists of.
It should be Clear to even the simplest of readers that your position is as subjective as any position could possibly be. Morals are nothing more than changing ideas between humans and animals and nature. Nothing is truly right , wrong, good bad or otherwise. What may or may not serve the good of the species. Etc, etc, etc.
A simple reading of your and Venesy's post demonstrate this point.
We don't attack the Atheists concept of morals because we have nothing better to do. We are simply amazed that a group of people that reduces morality to the most subjective nonsense, have the audacity to attack a God infinite in wisdom, of his actions. These same SFH can't even be consistent in reason and application of thier ALLEDGED morals
It's now the time to demonstrate that any action by an infinite God would be as meaningless, FROM YOUR STANDPOINT ,as any action of yours. Or that the same group ofpeople, involve themselves in the same autrocites, with lesser or thierarchy own species.
How would you justify condemning any action of God, if you can find no evil or Good in your own actions.
If you don't believe this, provide me with an example of human conduct that would be truly evil. But remember, let's not just talk about the human species. That kind of logic doesn't work
If slavery is wrong then why is a zoo not slavery. From the SFH position, Morals are nothing more than to justify your actions
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2017 9:49 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2017 2:23 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 192 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 44 of 1006 (798560)
02-03-2017 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by ringo
02-03-2017 10:53 AM


Re: Religion Cannot Rationally Explain Morals
That isn't about morality. It's a social contract: Eat others as you would have others eat you.
Right that's my point you change the word moral and it's meaning to suit your purposes
HENCE NO ACTUAL MORALITY

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by ringo, posted 02-03-2017 10:53 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by JonF, posted 02-03-2017 1:49 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 46 by Porosity, posted 02-03-2017 2:06 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 77 by ringo, posted 02-04-2017 10:38 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 277 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 45 of 1006 (798564)
02-03-2017 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Dawn Bertot
02-03-2017 1:06 PM


Re: Religion Cannot Rationally Explain Morals
HENCE NO ACTUAL MORALITY
I suspect that you do not define "ACTUAL MORALITY" as "acting morally in word and deed".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-03-2017 1:06 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-04-2017 1:05 AM JonF has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024