Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,449 Year: 6,706/9,624 Month: 46/238 Week: 46/22 Day: 1/12 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1657 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 106 of 1006 (798784)
02-05-2017 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Dawn Bertot
02-04-2017 11:19 PM


Re: enlightened self-interest
I'm assuming your using the Bible for your source that God told them to stone someone correct, if not what what source are using. So the same source tells us that this same God is infinte in knowledge, omniscience. If this is not the case, then there is also no need for me to believe, YOU BELIEVE, that God actually asked someone to stone someone else ...
Since you referenced the bible in your argument, I can use it's writings to show examples of what it considers moral, no?
... So the same source tells us that this same God is infinte in knowledge, omniscience. ...
So you claim, but I find no reason to accept that argument. Do you know what a Deist is?
... If this is not the case, then there is also no need for me to believe, YOU BELIEVE, that God actually asked someone to stone someone else ...
This is nonsense. Your book commands you to stone people in certain situations, so all I ask is whether or not you still think this is a moral command from what you believe your god to say. Do you think stoning is moral behavior today? Why the change if your morality is absolute written on your heart?
Try to atleast be legitimate and rational. Double talk is not necessary,, if you cant handle the argument.
The irony ... it burnssssssssssss.
Well no I was just trying to be kind In relationship to the fact that no matter how much consistency you think you have, that If it is less than perfect knowledge it's subjective nonsense. ...
Being subjective does not make it nonsense, especially when there is no "perfect knowledge". What you leave out is that it is not entirely individual but irrevocably tied into and through the culture, it is a consensus of views with family and friends and acquaintances, with what you learn and what you know, and it grows with you as you grow and learn. What you consider moral behavior at 5 is different from what you consider moral now.
The word Moral implies by its very nature a standard, ...
Indeed, and that standard is the social consensus of the culture where you live. The headhunters of New Zealand used to think it was moral to kill and eat their enemies, they no longer do because their culture has changed, necessarily changed to fit into the global society we have. This is no different that changing views on stoning people or on capital punishment.
... if there is no standard then there is no reason to call anything evil, bad or wrong. Now you could call it correct or incorrect, but that would only be if it conformed to some known fact in reality. But not right or wrong.
Well that is kind of how the words are defined so that is circular reasoning, yes?
Good:
possessing or displaying moral virtue:
"I've met many good people who made me feel ashamed of my own shortcomings" [more]
synonyms: virtuous righteous upright upstanding moral
Evil:
profoundly immoral and malevolent:
Wrong:
unjust, dishonest, or immoral:
The moment an Atheist opens his mouth and starts claiming someone is moral or immoral, he involves him or herself in the worst form of contradiction.
Only if you can show that atheists cannot have any morality, and you have not done that.
As I said earlier it comes down to enlightened self-interest, something that is not limited to any one group of people. This is basically what "the golden rule" states. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is an expression of enlightened self-interest -- don't kill your family, friends and neighbors in their sleep and so they will not kill you in your sleep.
This also means it can grow and evolve over time, now including transgender people for instance, when they did not exist in biblical times.
Well this is proof positive you have no intention of being objective. You ask for an example from something God did besides create the universe, then I give you a clear cut example, by demonstrating the visible morality In man, his sense of right and wrong, sense of ought and these kinds of things. That's PHYSICAL RIGHT?. ...
Nope, it is your subjective opinion.
... But Because I was able to provide an answer, your best response Is I don't like it
Nope, I don't "like" it because it is not an actual example of anything but your opinion. It is not what I asked for.
Doesn't matter that it's out of a book, I can see it in reality. Do you have any other questions you'd like me to answer?
How do you know it is not only in your head subjective? If you can see it in reality then can you show it to me? If you cannot show it to me, then is it reality or just in your head?
Not surprisingly, again you miss the point. It's not a matter of what you choose, it's a matter of what the implications are if such an infinite, all knowing being does not exist. That being that you are involved in the worst form of contradiction, NOT Just BECAUSE he may not exist, but because subjective can never be objective, which means morality, if you want to call it that, is nothing of the sort
Nope. It is very much a matter of choosing to behave within a cultures consensus moral standards, because that is enlightened self interest -- when in Rome do as the Romans.
You could not provide me with an example that would not involve itself in the worst form of contradiction
The prime directive in star trek comes to mind (as I remember you are fond of star trek).
Also I would say that it is immoral to behave contrary to the moral consensus standard of a society not your own.
On the other hand, there would not be anything objectively wrong with a dog chasing down a rabbit to kill it, than one human killing another in the octagon, correct? Not in your reality. How long do u think it will be before it will be acceptable to fight and kill one another for sport in the ring.. Hmmmmm? I believe they were called gladiators. Is that murder, evil, moral or immoral, right wrong. You fellas tell using this massively subjective "Morality" you possess
As society changes and evolves so to does the moral consensus standard. The Romans felt is was moral to feed Christians to the lions. That we evolved away from that early morality does not mean it cannot return, especially with demagogue leaders like Trump/Bannon. Will we see drone strikes on American citizens protesting in the US? Will those drone strikes be celebrated by some people? Will they consider it moral?
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 88 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-04-2017 11:19 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-06-2017 1:01 AM RAZD has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 107 of 1006 (798853)
02-06-2017 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by PaulK
02-05-2017 2:29 AM


Re: Dawn Bertot's failure
To sum up, then. If Dawn Bertot is wrong about the source of the Biblical law he is even worse than Sam Harris who is at least making an attempt at formulating a rational morality. If he is right - and that is highly unlikely - he is asserting that the Biblical law is something it was clearly never intended to be, and thus going against "infinite wisdom".
I say everything you said was both right and wrong, correct and incorrect, moral and immoral, evil and good, good and bad.
So now, to sum up, how will we know if any of those things I mentioned is the one or the other, all of them, or none of them. I say in your Naturalistic system, there's no way to know, comparing biological functions, with biological funcions
But go-ahead and pick one if you wish
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by PaulK, posted 02-05-2017 2:29 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by PaulK, posted 02-06-2017 1:54 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 108 of 1006 (798854)
02-06-2017 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Modulous
02-05-2017 8:42 AM


No I'm not. I said 'If I come across such a creature, I won't attack it's actions. But how would I know if I had? '
Well this is refreshing, it seems we may not be as far apart, as originally, thought. we just just disagree about the source of our morals. But i wanted to make sure, before i went on accusing u of something you do not believe. Atleast you have the sense to know you being subjective in your morals, have no real way to attack God's actions.
Perhaps you should write a letter to Dawkins and Harris and explain it to them
Know if you had what?
Sure. We evolved to be a socially cooperative species. Our instincts are honed towards working with one another against external threats. A murderer is an external threat. Our instincts whisper 'evil' to external threats. Our intellect builds upon this to form morals and responses to those threats.
So if I read you correctly your using the words murder and evil in some vague subjective way to only mean threats to YOUR AND YOUR SPECIES survival. It really wouldn't apply in reverse when other species are threatened? Or are you saying it wouldnt be murder in reverse, when you threatened another species survival?
So murder only really exists, we are speaking of humans, it's not,possible for animals to murder anyone in right or wrong since, correct?
His intelligence isn't strictly important. But yes, he might have purposes that make his actions justifiable - and thus I would not regard them as immoral, should I be aware of those justifications. I don't make a habit of assuming people more intelligent than me are morally correct merely on the basis of their intelligence.
So would you say animal life is on a par or equal to yours. If not, could you explain how and the way it is not
They have their basis in biological evolution, built upon by culture, and honed through personal experience. So I'd say you were strictly wrong - but yes evolution played a key role in the formation of morals and they are a recent thing.
I don't see the problem, or how this means I cannot explain them. It seems like, in a broad overview sense, I just did - and you were already aware of this explanation. This seems to undermine your thesis in this thread considerably.
Allegedly only has one 'd' in it, by the way. Easy mistake to make.
Well by explain i assumed you were smart enough to know I meant make rational sense of and whether they actually exist at all. Let's try again. Since the source of your so called morals is a blind unintelliegent, process called natural selection and survival of the fittest, it would,follow logically that anything I do for any reason would be acceptable since in this processes right and wrong don't exist, except in your small fraction of existence.
Perhaps you can show me how this is not true. If your answer, is even neither of what you or I am saying is true. It would turn our the same.. so your explanation is nothing more than a rewording of survival of the fittest, which actually exists, but right and wrong dont , do they. Even if we weren't comparing them to other species, it would only be blind biological processes where only u and your fellow humans were involvedd. I put that last D in for u
According to whom? I wasn't there, so I can't really comment. As a Roman might have thought them good. As a gladiator I may have felt differently. If I was there as I am today, I'd say they were bad - but I can think of reasons why I might change my mind.
Oh yeah I can see how an Atheist can explain morals. Nice job
If the above statement is any indicator, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOUR NOT REALLY SURE OF ANYTHING. So, it could be right or wrong, your just not really sure? Nice.
So if I say your wrong am I right or am I wrong?
We were created by evolution, which it transpires, evolved us into cooperative primates. This means our baseline brain structure has built in moral instincts. Therefore our creator did indeed put 'intrinsic law' 'inside of' us, but the blind forces of nature are hardly divine. I hope this was interesting and revealing.
No sorry you can't make a simply natural process better or worse than another, if natural processes are all there are. If I hit you in the head with a hammer, so I can see what it looks like, it's just a collection of atoms in the form of a hammer hitting a collection of atoms in the form of meat hair and skin. Since processes are all there are, even my thoughts to do that are simply an addition biological processes, assuming there are only natural processes. How can this not possible be true. Or are my thoughts wrong on that. Or are both of wrong, right or it doesn't matter. Please explain
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Modulous, posted 02-05-2017 8:42 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Modulous, posted 02-06-2017 4:47 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 109 of 1006 (798855)
02-06-2017 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by jar
02-05-2017 8:56 AM


Re: Explaining morals is really stupid when out of context
Like language, morality is simply a human construct and it evolves within human (and it seems other species) societies. Morality has no use or worth or value outside its functionality within that society.
Your almost correct, it actually has no worth or value even in its functionality. Because you cannot demonstrate that it is anything more than biological process. Of course I could be wrong, but how would I know?
[qs]The very idea of some absolute morality is a pitiful and sad concept that could only be found within a totalitarian oppressive society. To have worth or value morality must be capable of change and evolution unless the society in totally static and never changing.
This is exactly what you would expect someone to say that is opposed to authority. If I am not mistaken, IT SOUNDS AS IF YOU JUST STATED AN ABSOLUTE. But of course this absolute of yours allows you to operate mostly just like you wish correct.
I could be wrong, but how would I know in your world
Morality only makes sense within a given situation, a given context and the very same acts when done in a different context, a different situation may be judged entirely differently.
Is this absolutely true or relatively true?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by jar, posted 02-05-2017 8:56 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by jar, posted 02-06-2017 6:09 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 110 of 1006 (798856)
02-06-2017 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by ringo
02-05-2017 1:14 PM


Re: Religion Cannot Rationally Explain Morals
I'm not following orders. I'm abiding by my side of the social contract. It's like paying your bills or agreeing which side of the road to drive on. It would be ridiculous to pretend that there's an absolutely correct side of the road to drive on, wouldn't it?
Sounds to me like your following orders. But I'll let you off the hook. But I think u are demonstrating my point about the subjective nonsense of your so called morals. You cant even admit your following orders, which someone else set up.
So is it absolutley true that your not following orders and that it's only a social contract, or is it absolutely true that it's just a social contract
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by ringo, posted 02-05-2017 1:14 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by ringo, posted 02-06-2017 10:42 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 111 of 1006 (798857)
02-06-2017 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by RAZD
02-05-2017 2:04 PM


Re: enlightened self-interest
So you claim, but I find no reason to accept that argument. Do you know what a Deist is?
Yes someone as unsure about how to establish morals, as he is unsure how to establish whether God exists
This is nonsense. Your book commands you to stone people in certain situations, so all I ask is whether or not you still think this is a moral command from what you believe your god to say. Do you think stoning is moral behavior today? Why the change if your morality is absolute written on your heart?
Well you see RAZD, that's the difference between what you believe answer what I believe. Your morality makes no rational sense, but ours does. No I don't know why God commanded some people to stone people, but then it makes no sense to another human being to ask them to love thier enemy.. So I know that while those things may seem incompatible on the surface, I have an objective standard, in the form of infinte wisdom. That's assuming we are going to allow the definition of God by the same source, that issues his commands
An being infinte in knowledge, could also have freewill, indeed you would expect him to. I think it is much easier to establish the existence of God, than it would be to show how a person could have actual right or wrong from biological process. My position is atleast evidential. Yours involves the worst form of contradiction. From your position, even your thoughts, concepts and ideas are nothing more than biological processes. No different than a tree falling on a squirrel paying by.
I know you like to believe otherwise, but reality won't allow it at all. Hence a ilogical mpossibility. That's unless you can show me how it's more than natural processes.
Only if you can show that atheists cannot haveanymorality, and you have not done that.
As I said earlier it comes down to enlightened self-interest, something that is not limited to any one group of people. This is basically what "the golden rule" states. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is an expression of enlightened self-interest -- don't kill your family, friends and neighbors in their sleep and so they will not kill you in your sleep.
This also means it can grow and evolve over time, now including transgender people for instance, when they did not exist in biblical times.
Well again nothing more than biological processes, because we do not have anything to compare it with, other than other biological processes. That's unless you can provide me with another source
Here's your problem. The same source that started your process will end the same way, in natural processes. And the fact that it will end, is revealing also.
An emotional response to these realities such as yours, do not change the realty of only natural processes, anymore than me being a tree if I think I'm one, is reality
How do you know it is not only in your head subjective? If you can see it in reality then can you show it to me? If you cannot show it to me, then is it reality or just in your head?
Because I can I can see humans acting thing differently than animals. Pretty sure that's a reality
Also I would say that it is immoral to behave contrary to the moral consensus standard of a society not your own.
So if the moral consensus was to stone people or do what the Nazis did, you would then say that was ok, right wrong, moral, good bad or what?
As society changes and evolves so to does the moral consensus standard. The Romans felt is was moral to feed Christians to the lions
So if I'm reading you correctly, we may assume that at any point in this Naturalistic timeline, any autrocites now attibuted to God, could be multiplied and surpassed, as long as everyone agrees it's ok
So what would be the point of charging God with anything
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by RAZD, posted 02-05-2017 2:04 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by NoNukes, posted 02-06-2017 3:24 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 120 by Taq, posted 02-06-2017 10:37 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 124 by RAZD, posted 02-06-2017 1:06 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17912
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


(1)
Message 112 of 1006 (798862)
02-06-2017 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Dawn Bertot
02-06-2017 12:53 AM


Re: Dawn Bertot's failure
All that matters is whether my points are correct or not. The fact that you do not even try to offer any substantive rebuttal only proves your failure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-06-2017 12:53 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-07-2017 12:26 AM PaulK has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 113 of 1006 (798864)
02-06-2017 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Dawn Bertot
02-06-2017 1:01 AM


Who needs a comedienne when the straight man does this...
Dawn Bertot writes:
Your morality makes no rational sense, but ours does. No I don't know why God commanded some people to stone people, but then it makes no sense to another human being to ask them to love thier enemy.. So I know that while those things may seem incompatible on the surface, I have an objective standard, in the form of infinte wisdom.
No commentary needed.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith
Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-06-2017 1:01 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18638
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 114 of 1006 (798865)
02-06-2017 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Tangle
02-05-2017 1:28 PM


Re: Morality and Boredom
Phat writes:
why must the Priest be mad?
Tangle writes:
Because he's saying insane things such as, but not limited to:
"Wisdom is founded on the fear of God."
But this is what the book clearly says.
Prov 9:10 writes:
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom,
and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.
Proverbs go on to say:
Prov 9:12 writes:
If you are wise, your wisdom will reward you;
if you are a mocker, you alone will suffer."

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.~Proverbs 28:26

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Tangle, posted 02-05-2017 1:28 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Tangle, posted 02-06-2017 5:04 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied
 Message 123 by ringo, posted 02-06-2017 12:28 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9580
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 6.7


(3)
Message 115 of 1006 (798867)
02-06-2017 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Phat
02-06-2017 3:53 AM


Re: Morality and Boredom
Phat writes:
But this is what the book clearly says.
What more evidence do you need? You'd have to be out of your mind to believe that kind of nonsense.

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 114 by Phat, posted 02-06-2017 3:53 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 91 days)
Posts: 34140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 116 of 1006 (798869)
02-06-2017 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Dawn Bertot
02-06-2017 12:57 AM


Re: Explaining morals is really stupid when out of context
DB writes:
Your almost correct, it actually has no worth or value even in its functionality. Because you cannot demonstrate that it is anything more than biological process. Of course I could be wrong, but how would I know?
I suspect you could examine the evidence. Do you have any evidence that morality has any value beyond its functionality?
DB writes:
This is exactly what you would expect someone to say that is opposed to authority. If I am not mistaken, IT SOUNDS AS IF YOU JUST STATED AN ABSOLUTE. But of course this absolute of yours allows you to operate mostly just like you wish correct.
I could be wrong, but how would I know in your world
Actually, as usual, you are simply wrong. I cannot act outside the standards of morality within the society I inhabit without being sanctioned by other members of that society.
I did not present any absolute but rather simply pointed to reality and a generality.
DB writes:
jar writes:
Morality only makes sense within a given situation, a given context and the very same acts when done in a different context, a different situation may be judged entirely differently.
Is this absolutely true or relatively true?
Does that not say that it is relatively true?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-06-2017 12:57 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-07-2017 12:28 AM jar has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10297
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 117 of 1006 (798893)
02-06-2017 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Dawn Bertot
02-02-2017 11:52 PM


Dawn Bertot writes:
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
How do you know that what God commands is moral?

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

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10297
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 118 of 1006 (798894)
02-06-2017 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Dawn Bertot
02-02-2017 10:32 PM


Dawn Bertot writes:
Given that all thing in nature are equal as far as life is concerned. That is, all life is sacred and deserves to thrive and survive, just like you.
That seems to be an unsupported assertion. I don't see why morality can't treat sentient species differently than non-sentient species.
Trying to get you to see that morality has to come from a source outside the human construct or perspective, otherwise it's just inconsistent subjective nonsense.
The problem is that your source of morality is from inside the human construct in the form of a human created religion with human created scriptures.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-02-2017 10:32 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10297
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 119 of 1006 (798895)
02-06-2017 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Dawn Bertot
02-03-2017 12:51 PM


Dawn Bertot writes:
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
Why do you think being obedient to the commands of a deity you can't even demonstrate to exist somehow makes you more moral? How does following the orders of a human written book make you more moral?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-03-2017 12:51 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10297
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.2


(1)
Message 120 of 1006 (798896)
02-06-2017 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Dawn Bertot
02-06-2017 1:01 AM


Re: enlightened self-interest
Dawn Bertot writes:
Well you see RAZD, that's the difference between what you believe answer what I believe. Your morality makes no rational sense, but ours does. No I don't know why God commanded some people to stone people, but then it makes no sense to another human being to ask them to love thier enemy..
You just admitted that your source of morality makes no sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-06-2017 1:01 AM Dawn Bertot 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