Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.

Are you following your wife's orders? Is she following yours? It's a social contract. Compliance is voluntary. I'm saying that ALL morals are subjective, including yours. You subjectively believe in a subjective God who tells you what to do. And you subjectively decide what He means. There are thousands of brands of theism, all thoroughly subjective. Ever hear of democracy? WE set up the social contract. We're not taking orders from an alien overlord like you are.

Your source is a book written by humans who have finite wisdom. How do you know that the human authors of the Bible had better info than anyone else? If an atheist wrote out a physical copy of their moral code, would that make it objective? The main contradiction is that the Bible is as much a product of humanity as the moral code that atheists use.

Only the beginning of wisdom. Back up a verse: Don't park your brain at the door. Don't dwell on "absolute" truths. Wisdom is a journey, not a destination.

Except that my arguments here show how to establish morals, it is your denial, not my insecurity in the process.And any rational person should be unsure whether god/s exist or not, because they need to be open to the idea but skeptical of the evidences, which are fairly poor, subjective, and anecdotal. When you start with enlightened self-interest, that generates the golden rule, and then you can generate further moral values: don't kill your family, friends or neighbors, don't covet your neighbors spouse and material objects, don't take from others, etc.If you don't see the rational sense this makes it is not a failure of the logic but your perception. This falls under cognitive dissonance when you fail and try to discredit information contrary to a firmly held belief. Classic symptoms. So you admit it doesn't make rational sense. Do you still think stoning people is moral behavior? No, it is a subjective standard. It is an assumed standard. It is an assumed definition. Blind faith yes? But I am not blind, that would be neither open minded nor skeptical. You're moving the goalposts there. Right or wrong are terms related to facts not morality. But we've shown how biologically behavior that is beneficial to the group is selected and used, whether genes or memes. That our morals have social values because we are a social species. Tiger morality would be different. Whale morality would be different. That's why different species act in different manners.Different societies with different memes would be different, because human society has evolved to pass information and knowledge and experience (memes) from generation to generation, and those memes would differ in different societies. But without objective empirical evidence that it contains anything more than the social morals of the groups that wrote it.Would you not agree that Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics is an objectively evidenced moral code written in a book about imaginary robots?

quote:

---

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.[1]

---

Was this code rationally developed or did it come from some divine source? Can it be used by humans? Isaac Asimov "was an atheist, a humanist, and a rationalist.[130]" And yet you fail to show any contradictions. The only evidence of contradictions so far is stoning being moral by your source but no longer practiced. How else does a brain function except by biological processes? Inquiring minds want to know. And that contradicts moral values derived from enlightened self-interest how? That's nothing but a non-sequitur. Reality won't allow one to believe in reality? Amusing. Again you fail to demonstrate the logical impossibility you claim. So? Do you deny that morals change over time? That stoning was moral in early Christianity but is not moral now? Conclusions based on a false premise are invalid. You're spinning. So your 'evidence' that your morals etc are not all in your head is that all life does not behave in an identical manner? Fascinating. The people in those societies thought it was moral to do those actions. That doesn't make it moral in other societies and it certainly does not make it a universal absolute morality.Funny side note: the Nazis based their morals on what they believed the bible told them. That is what history shows, certainly among ignorant people that cling to false ideas. Terrorists (including Christian ones) believe what they are doing is moral, suicide bombers believe they will go to heaven for what they have done. Because those beliefs are not absolute moral codes but subjective ones. Ummm, you tell me, I don't attribute or charge god/s with the behaviors of people or natural disasters.But maybe you should be asking the terrorists that attribute their behavior to their god/s.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : .

If I had come across such a creature. How would I know if I was dealing with an creature of 'infinite wisdom'? Seems impossible to know, to me. Assuming God is infinitely wise and we have verified this to be the case. Given it is impossible to verify this, I expect I will make moral judgements of any deity's actions as much as I would of anybody else. Well, not quite. The moral instinct evolved towards influencing behaviour that maximised success and minimised failures of my genes to reproduce. However, culture and personal experience have added on top of that basis in much the same way as language, music, an culinary ideas have built upon some basis over the history of our species. Sure. I don't know what it means for a life to be 'on a par' with mine. My wife has more moral consideration for me than some guy in Africa. It it was a choice between killing my wife and killing a South China tiger - I'd kill the tiger. If it was a choice between the same tiger and some guy in Africa - the guy in Africa probably loses out. Assuming the decision was 'press a button'. If I was looking them in the eyes, I'd probably kill the tiger both times.So I don't think there is a simple metric of parity or equality I can give you in moral terms here. Morality is not as simple as assigning simple yes/no answers to moral questions and including or excluding any given entity that might be of moral concern.Again, this is like trying to compare Mozart to Meatloaf. I can have opinions, but I can't give concrete metrics that universally apply for all time and conditions. Indeed, my rationalizations, when examined, are likely to result in contradictions or paradoxes - just like moral rationalizations often do.Welcome to subjectivity. Yes, which I did, "They have their basis in biological evolution, built upon by culture, and honed through personal experience" It does not follow logically since right and wrong do exist, as judgements. When you say 'acceptable' you are supposing an 'acceptor'. If you killed my wife, I'd likely not find your behaviour 'acceptable'.In much the same way that 'sweet' or 'beauty' exists, it requires a subjective entity to make the judgement, and entities can have different judgements.Goodness is not an objective quantifiable thing like mass or height, that exists whether there is someone around or not.Goodness is a subjective qualitative thing like 'sexy' or 'uplifting'. Like beauty, goodness (and evil) are in the eye of the beholder. No beholders, no goodness. With beholders, there is goodness. And everyone else's, of course. Thanks, I'm quite the fan of a good 'd'.It's a blind process until we get involved. At that point an intelligence is involved, which takes it out of the 'blind' category. I anticipate your response 'but intelligence, according to you, is just blind processes at work too!' well yes, but it would be most peculiar to assert 'My computer was built by blind processes'. 'Blind' has to have some pragmatic meaning, and it usually means 'without intelligence/forethought'. Morality involves intelligence, so while all of this is ultimately built by blind processes, morality itself is not built by blind processes. That's one of those fun linguistic paradoxes that arrive from trying to meld different scopes of examination. I'm sure of plenty of things. How I'd feel if I was born a Roman 2,000 years ago? Not so much. I'm sorry subjective judgements of extreme hypotheticals being ambiguous is unsettling to you - but then, the ambiguity of morality has been with us for a long time. Again, is it right to steal food if you are starving and have no other way to get food? How would you resolve this with absolute certainty if someone were to disagree with you? Show me how you do better. I can have what opinion I like, thank you very much. And I can still think that it's wrong of you to do it. As can others. Indeed, some others may think it is right of you to do it. That's right, and your thoughts about whether the actions are right or wrong are also an addition to biological processes. So what's the problem, exactly? We are a social species, evolved to be sensitive to the rules of our community. These rules are built off a basis the instinctive responses to situations with the added layer of reasoning on top of that couple with our cultural inheritance which represents the instincts+reasoning that came before us and were generally adopted by the community.

Well to demonstrate that you assertion is palpable false please produce the line or single argument that u think I have not addressed, then I'll show you I have

The only functionality of a Naturalistic "morality" is matter in motion. If by functionality you mean, MORE than just WHAT'S IT'S DOING at any given moment,you'll need to provide that. If not it would not be any better or worse than anything else happening. I know you'd like to think you have something BETTER, but reality won't allow it Unless you can demonstrate that the things these members have created, rules etc are anything more than just a product of natural processes, you have no morality. Can. You do this? The best you've done so far is change words to call it functionality There no such thing as relatively true, that's why I asked the question. You answered as I expected you to. Thank uDawn Bertot

No its not social contract. It does not matter what ambiguous pattern you and your wife have going, you signed a legal contract by the state. Both of you are subject other that law outside yourself. See how it worksNow if you were actually Sharon Stone you could order mearound at will and I would not care. Lol Right wisdom is a journey, but that doesn't mean, reality is not reality because someone has not discovered those facts. It's still just what it is, that never changes. It will never be more true or less that true, that it's just natural processes. If you think you've found something that is better than that or that will superceed that, you will have to let us know.Dawn Bertot

But Atheists do not claim to be all knowing, the God of the Bible does, that's the difference. If the God of the Bible did not claim this there would be no reason to believe him anymore than you

Well I know your not paying close attention and you'll get tired of hearing this but, you have failed to show how anything just functioning in a biological fashion is anything but matter in motion. If that's the case and it seems to be , then you can call your morality a turnstile or a flag pole, but it doesn't make it that. I could point to any other physical or biological process, in or out of the animal kingdom and say it's morality, it wouldn't make it soCalling it subjective by myself, is only one of your problems, not the first one. For something to be strictly ethical or moral it must involve more than just a physical process.. Because if we compare physical processes with eachother, then we only get the samething. Hence I gave you the example of a tree falling on a passing rabbit and you caping a round in arse. Neither would mean or have meaning, just processes. There's nothing to compare these two things against, there both the same. If not why not.. it won't help to,point out what humans think or eachother or how they treat eachotherBut if there is an infinte standard then we can [qs] When you start with enlightened self-interest, that generates the golden rule, and then you can generate further moral values: don't kill your family, friends or neighbors, don't covet your neighbors spouse and material objects, don't take from others, etc.Xcept for porky the pig and cluckie the chicken. If you came accross a pig with a hundred dollar bill in his mouth and he seemed to be enjoying it, would it be stealing if you took it from him. That's assuming you don't already own the pig through slaveryEnlightened self-intrest, indeed. Where did you pull that one from I suppose if I was infinte in wisdom, I could answer that question. But we know under your system you have no right to ask the question, NO WAY TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, therefore no reason to ask the question. See what matter in motion only does for you? It leaves you speechless, powerless. But,it could be the case that your WRONG about being RIGHT, we just don't know, or do we.? Nobody knows under your methodology See this is where your wrong. I know that for your assumed morality to be correct, we would need to have a standard that was absolute. If it doesn't it's just verbiage. Even if I don't mention infinite wisdom, we are left with MINDLESS matter in motion. Now,that's reality, not assumed anything, correct? [qs]And that contradicts moral values derived from enlightened self-interest how? That's nothing but a non-sequitur.You have no hope of demonstrating how moral values derived from self-intrest, enlightened or otherwise, IT isn't anything, but word salad. Youve just changed the words of matter in motion. Enlightened self-intrest, is like the the word sourcrout, it tells you right in the name it sucks See folks, here is an example of enlightened self-interest. Read it a few times and try not to laugh. Remember he's talking about the Nazis . So if the Nazis thought it was right, we're they right RAZD?Dawn Bertot

quote:

---

Well to demonstrate that you assertion is palpable false please produce the line or single argument that u think I have not addressed, then I'll show you I have

---

You did not address any of them in your reply. I suggest you go back to the first post in this sub-thread and try again.

I'm sorry but your response does not even qualify as word salad; it is simply gibberish and utter nonsense. HUH! Again, you simply respond with gibberish. Of course the rules are things that people (who are almost always the product of a natural process called fucking) are simply a creation of that society and they function as a way to maintain general order in that society. But then you finish with something that is not just nonsense but also false. It was true that I wanted a BLT for lunch but when I got it I found I really didn't want it. Truth often is solely dependent on the context and moment. What is true now may well be false a minute later.

Dawn, you've never honestly read the Bible have you?It is filled with stories showing that the God character is NOT all knowing.Honestly, why is it you Bible Thumpers have never honestly read the book?

A great example that morality is not objective and that objective morality doesn't exist.

In actuality, that is false. And easy to prove.God in the Bible has had to, on numerous occasions, perform a 'reset' of his creation because things were not proceeding according to his plan. When Lucifer rebelled. Adam and Eve eating of the Apple. The need to destroy humanity with a flood. That would imply that whatever transpired was not known to God.And the need to 'test' people of faith, such as Abraham or Job. The requirement to 'test' immediately infers that one requires the test because they are not cognizant of the outcome.Ergo, God is NOT all knowing.Additionally, he is not all powerful, as evidenced by this quote:

quote:

---

Judges 1:19
And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

---

Not all-knowing. Not all-powerful. If he is neither, than he cannot claim 'absolute morality' in any sense.