Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 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.
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 136 of 1006 (799088)
02-07-2017 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Dawn Bertot
02-07-2017 12:32 AM


Re: enlightened self-interest
Dawn Bertot writes:
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
Humans wrote the Bible, not a deity. It is humans making claims in the Bible.
You still didn't answer my question. If atheists wrote down a moral code in a book, would that make it an objective set of morals?
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-07-2017 12:32 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-07-2017 8:24 PM Taq has replied

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


Message 137 of 1006 (799089)
02-07-2017 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Dawn Bertot
02-07-2017 12:35 AM


Re: enlightened self-interest -- three laws unanswered
Curiously I am more interested in what you did not reply to in your post, so I want to highlight what you did not cover from my previous post, Message 124 as, without counter argument I feel free to take these to be arguments you accept:
RAZD writes:
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.
The alternative is to be irrational about it. Blind faith is necessarily irrational and not based on objective evidence as it is purely subjective.
RAZD writes:
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.
So, with no counter argument, you must be in agreement that morality in different species would be different, and likewise in different cultures.
RAZD writes:
... My position is atleast evidential. ...
But without objective empirical evidence that it contains anything more than the social morals of the groups that wrote it.
So you are still without actual objective empirical evidence to support your assumed absolute code.
RAZD writes:
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]"
Curiously, I find your absence of response here most telling. Here we have the evidence in a book of a moral code that is rationally developed by an atheist for imaginary robots to follow blindly ... this example alone refutes your base premise for this thread.
What is the source and reason for these 3 laws? So that the company can sell robots without people being afraid of them going all "Frankenstein monster" on them. OR, in other words, enlightened self-interest.
There are many books built around these robots and robot laws -- does that make them more real?
Can these laws be used by humans? The first shows enlightened self-interest: it is not much different from the medical Hippocratic Oath known popularly as "First do no harm" ... with an addendum "or through inaction allow harm to occur" ... do you agree?
The second relates to following orders, so that should appeal to authoritarians, and the third deals with self-preservation after the preservation of others. It seems to me that these would be more applicable to slaves than to free people, that the orders and lives of the masters are more important than the lives of the slaves. Or that the robots should think people are god/s to be followed and obeyed without question. Blind faith again?
But was that type of behavior not considered moral in the south before the Civil War (and in the histories of many countries around the world) before emancipation became the rule rather than the exception?
RAZD writes:
... Yours involves the worst form of contradiction. ...
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.
... From your position, even your thoughts, concepts and ideas are nothing more than biological processes. ...
How else does a brain function except by biological processes? Inquiring minds want to know.
and Inquiring minds are still waiting.
RAZD writes:
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.
Still waiting.
RAZD writes:
That is what history shows, certainly among ignorant people that cling to false ideas. Terrorist (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.
and no counter argument again.
Now I realize that you have a lot of work you have made for yourself with all the replies to your assertions, but perhaps you should consider actually thinking about the replies instead of continuing to try and bluff your way through.
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 130 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-07-2017 12:35 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-07-2017 8:27 PM RAZD has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 138 of 1006 (799091)
02-07-2017 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Dawn Bertot
02-07-2017 12:35 AM


Re: enlightened self-interest -- three laws
Dawn Bertot writes:
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
You have finite wisdom, as did the human authors of the Bible. Therefore, you can not claim that the Bible contains a moral code by your own criteria. All you are doing is obeying a set of commands, and pretending that is morality. It isn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-07-2017 12:35 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 139 of 1006 (799095)
02-07-2017 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Dawn Bertot
02-07-2017 12:30 AM


Re: Religion Cannot Rationally Explain Morals
Dawn Bertot writes:
It does not matter what ambiguous pattern you and your wife have going, you signed a legal contract by the state.
There's nothing ambiguous about it. The relationship begins before any formal contracts are signed. The state doesn't enter into it at all until after the deal is done. The state is only a backstop for negotiations between signatories of the social contract.
Dawn Bertot writes:
It's still just what it is, that never changes.
Morality changed, even IN the Bible:
quote:
Leviticus 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
Dawn Bertot writes:
If you think you've found something that is better than that or that will superceed that, you will have to let us know.
Of course YOU have found something better than blind adherence to "absolute morality" too.
Take "Thou shalt not kill". Is that "absolute" or are there exceptions? My guess is that you have more exceptions than I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-07-2017 12:30 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-07-2017 8:45 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 140 of 1006 (799103)
02-07-2017 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Dawn Bertot
02-07-2017 12:35 AM


Re: enlightened self-interest -- take two
Except that my arguments here show how to establish morals, it is your denial, not my insecurity in the process.
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. ...
Rather it would seem that you are not paying close attention, the answer (from several people as well, as you attempt to use this argument often) is ... so?
It is based in biology, yes, but there is a point where synergy happens and self consciousness arises. We can observe self consciousness in apes and some other animals, but not in slugs and bugs.
We also see, as we would expect if this were a natural development, that there is a spectrum of self consciousness. Sense of self. Sense of consequences to actions.
And there is a point where synergy happens and the ability to communicate one individual to another arises. We can also observe communication in apes and some other animals, but are hard pressed to find it in slugs and bugs (unless you consider chemical trails communication). Ability to develop and pass on memes in addition to genes. Memes about behavior.
These are all I need to see moral codes develop and be passed from generation to generation, codes of behavior that benefit the survival and reproduction of the group.
... 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 so
Sorry, but that doesn't follow at all. Calling it a different name would not change the fact of the moral code being developed over time and within a cultural context.
Calling a skunk cabbage a rose does not make it smell like one.
Calling 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. ...
Well that is part of your problem, there is no "strictly ethical or moral" codes - they are pluralistic, more so the larger the social context. For example you can have general moral beliefs that apply in all Christian sects and you can have some that apply only to certain sects (eg fundamentalists and YECs)
... 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. ...
Curiously I've already shown you how enlightened self-interest generates some basic morals:
quote:
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.
That provides an observed rational difference between "a tree falling on a passing rabbit and you caping a round in arse" because rabbits are not included but harming others is.
Yes it they are just processes, but they are viewed through our self-consciousness and learned (communicated) behavior, including enlightened self-interest. The tree falling on the rabbit does not affect me, harming someone else does.
... There's nothing to compare these two things against, there both the same. If not why not..
We compare them on how they affect us, just as we compare actions of other people on how they affect us -- because we have self-consciousness and because we can communicate with other people to reach a consensus agreement on what behavior is acceptable and what is not. We can't do that with the rabbit or the tree.
... it won't help to,point out what humans think or eachother or how they treat eachother
Except that this is the basis of morals, so you are saying I can't talk about morals while talking about morals? Fascinating.
But if there is an infinte standard then we can
Show me. All you have done so far is assert it.
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 slavery
Curiously I don't consider pigs or chickens to be part of my social group. Like the tree and the rabbit they fail the membership test. The only reason to treat pigs or chickens differently is based on whether someone else owns them. It would not be stealing to take the bill from the pig, because the pig is not a person in the social context of the moral code. What would be moral would be to contact the owner of the pig and see if they knew where the bill came from so you could return it to them.
Enlightened self-intrest, indeed. Where did you pull that one from
Start here: Enlightened self-interest, fits well with Deism.
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
What a curious rambling delusion. So the answer is no.
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. ...
Nope, I just need to assume it is of practical use.
... 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?
Still wrong, no matter how many times you make this assertion.
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
Except that I already have. Your rabid denial is almost entertaining.
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 . ...
Appeal to popularity logical fallacy Dawn, for starters. Not a real argument though is it?
... So if the Nazis thought it was right, we're they right RAZD?
Why don't you ask the Germans? Remember that the majority of the population was involved.
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 130 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-07-2017 12:35 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


Message 141 of 1006 (799154)
02-07-2017 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by jar
02-07-2017 6:43 AM


Re: Explaining morals is really stupid when out of context
Well if I was try,ing, i could not have given a better description of your position. Then if we follow that logically, I have no need to follow the alleged truth of any of your positions. If truth is OFTEN dependent on context and that is what it takes to be truth, then, when would we absolutely know what a truth is or is not.
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?
Perhaps you could give us an example of this assertion, then according to your definition of truth, let us know how it's true, or not true. Example please.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by jar, posted 02-07-2017 6:43 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by jar, posted 02-07-2017 9:29 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 142 of 1006 (799155)
02-07-2017 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Pressie
02-07-2017 6:59 AM


Re: enlightened self-interest -- three laws
A great example that morality is not objective and that objective morality doesn't exist.
So we're the Nazis, moral ,immoral, right, wrong, good, bad right or wrong for what they did, according to your position
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Pressie, posted 02-07-2017 6:59 AM Pressie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Modulous, posted 02-07-2017 8:29 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 181 by Taq, posted 02-09-2017 12:40 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 143 of 1006 (799156)
02-07-2017 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Diomedes
02-07-2017 9:48 AM


Re: enlightened self-interest
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.
Well simply put I'll just invoke the fact that God can and has created freewill. I won't develope that yet. I'll wait for your response to see how that fits in too your assertions
Father the Tests as you call them were for Abraham's freewill, to help him grow
US equally you'll find in the context, some purpose God acted in a certain way. But does not affect whether he is or is not all powerful.
If I believed the Bible was wrong about God being omniscient work all powerful, I couldn't care less about what else it said
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Diomedes, posted 02-07-2017 9:48 AM Diomedes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Diomedes, posted 02-08-2017 2:55 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


Message 144 of 1006 (799157)
02-07-2017 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Taq
02-07-2017 10:45 AM


Re: enlightened self-interest
You still didn't answer my question. If atheists wrote down a moral code in a book, would that make it an objective set of morals?
Well I was trying to be kind, because it is pretty much a nonsensical question. Since we know absolutely that Atheists are not infinte in wisdom, it would follow, they know very little, especially how to be objective.
DawnBertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Taq, posted 02-07-2017 10:45 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Taq, posted 02-09-2017 12:42 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


Message 145 of 1006 (799159)
02-07-2017 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by RAZD
02-07-2017 10:48 AM


Re: enlightened self-interest -- three laws unanswered
Curiously I am more interested in what you did not reply to in your post, so I want to highlight what you did not cover from my previous post,Message information:Message 124:Re: enlightened self-interest -- three
RAZD writes:
And any rational personshouldbe 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.
The alternative is to be irrational about it. Blind faith is necessarily irrational and not based on objective evidence as it is purely subjective.
Oh goodness, while I read it, I thought you were aware of the difference in an observation and an actual argument. So the answer to your observation is I agree.
[qs]So, with no counter argument, you must be in agreement that morality in different species would be different, and likewise in different cultures.[qs] Different sure, morality no. Matter in motion
So you are still without actual objective empirical evidence to support your assumed absolute code.
No I'm not without actual objective empirical evidence. I'm sorry did you do away with all the evidence for God's existence and the scriptures as his Word, while I was away from the website.
Would you not agree that Asimov'sThree Laws of Roboticsis an objectively evidenced moral code written in a book about imaginary robots?
Why would i. I was trying to be kind. But as has been indicated by you and others here, this moral code could change in an instance. The reason it could change is that it is based on biological and mental functions, which are biological in natrue. It's a vicious circle of nonsense
Curiously, I find your absence of response here most telling. Here we have the evidence in a book of a moral code that is rationally developed by an atheist for imaginary robots to follow blindly ... this example alone refutes your base premise for this thread.
You haven't even got started. You cant
What is the source and reason for these 3 laws? So that the company can sell robots without people being afraid of them going all "Frankenstein monster" on them. OR, in other words, enlightened self-interest.
There are many books built around these robots and robot laws -- does that make them more real?
Can these laws be used by humans? The first shows enlightened self-interest: it is not much different from the medicalHippocratic Oathknown popularly as "First do no harm" ... with an addendum "or through inaction allow harm to occur" ... do you agree?
The second relates to following orders, so that should appeal to authoritarians, and the third deals with self-preservation after the preservation of others. It seems to me that these would be more applicable to slaves than to free people, that the orders and lives of themastersare more important than the lives of the slaves. Or that the robots should think people are god/s to be followed and obeyed without question. Blind faith again?
But was that type of behavior not considered moral in the south before the Civil War (and in the histories of many countries around the world) before emancipation became the rule rather than the exception?
RAZD. I could provide any example of mental processes across the animal kingdom, they would be nothing more than matter in motion. It's sad that you and Asimov's can develope moral codes for imaginary robots, but can't apply the same rules to the animal kingdom. I bet Asimov's had some murdered animals, the same month he was developing these imaginary robots. Mmmmmmm, murdered chicken.
I'm not saying men can't develope ideas biologically by mental processes. I'm just saying there just processes, that can't be consistent in reality. Besides, this a simple brain tumor or something else can shut down these processes. But then that is a biological processes as well
But if you think I've missed something please present it. Please , but not with one of your disortations, maybe just a question or a simple point
Now I realize that you have a lot of work you have made for yourself with all the replies to your assertions, but perhaps you should consider actually thinking about the replies instead of continuing to try and bluff your way through.
Actually no. I see no bluffs on my part. But disortations are hard to engage maybe you could simplify a bit. This will make it easier and a little easier for readers that may not understand what we are tying to say
Rather it would seem that you are not paying close attention, the answer (from several people as well, as you attempt to use this argument often) is ... so?
It is based in biology, yes, but there is a point where synergy happens and self consciousness arises. We can observe self consciousness in apes and some other animals, but not in slugs and bugs.
We also see, as we would expect if this were a natural development, that there is a spectrum of self consciousness. Sense of self. Sense of consequences to actions.
And there is a point where synergy happens and the ability to communicate one individual to another arises. We can also observe communication in apes and some other animals, but are hard pressed to find it in slugs and bugs (unless you consider chemical trails communication). Ability to develop and pass on memes in addition to genes. Memes about behavior.
These are all I need to see moral codes develop and be passed from generation to generation, codes of behavior that benefit the survival and reproduction of the group.
I don't think I've failed to respond to this, you just don't like the answer or are unable, as far as I can see to answer the objection. That being, that what ever word salad you put on it, a it's nothing more than biological process.
Since biological processes have no meaning to begin with,, that's what they end up with.
The obvious contradiction should be aware especially to you RAZD. You claim that consciences is a product of evolution and processes, but don't know how to demonstrate that in a biological way. Shouldn't we be able to demonstrate a simple process.
Shouldn't the CAUSALITY between brain function and consciouness be simple enough to track.
I think we need another explanation for consciouness and morality, one that biological processes won't allow you. But hats only your first problem. Besides this, only an outside standard, absolute in nature will ever make Morality consistent in any rational way
I appreciate your above elaborate explanation and even if it were true, wouldn't solve any problems in any rational way
Except that this is the basis of morals, so you are saying I can't talk about morals while talking about morals? Fascinating.
No I'm only telling you what reality will allow you
Show me. All you have done so far is assert it.
I've demonstrated it rationally. Since consciouness exists, reasoning exists, ethics exist, they could only rationally come from a source outside themself. If not they would make no sense. An ethic would make no sense, if there were no standard, by which it could be judged, evaluated or measured. If it's just your present thinking and it could change in a moment, as your cohorts have asserted, then it's just someone postulating
Then it's complicated by the fact that EVERY SINGLE PERSON could have a different idea about a single thing, making it further confused nonsense. I see no way around and you have presented no evidence to the contrary, to this AGE OLD PROBLEM.
Let's say your next immediate step in helping us , would be to show the causality between the brain and consciouness. In the meantime, I'll keep looking for the answer as to why this all came about by Natural processes and I don't mean just the process I'm mean everything. Can you help us with that one.
It seems you have your work cut out for you as well
Why don't you ask the Germans? Remember that the majority of the population was involved.
You see Zen Deist, your conscience which God gave you will not let answer this, because you are violating your conscince, in favor of your error. This is you exercising your free will, even in light of that which you know to be wrong absolutely
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by RAZD, posted 02-07-2017 10:48 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Riggamortis, posted 02-07-2017 8:37 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 167 by RAZD, posted 02-08-2017 1:46 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 146 of 1006 (799160)
02-07-2017 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Dawn Bertot
02-07-2017 8:21 PM


nazis
So we're the Nazis, moral ,immoral, right, wrong, good, bad right or wrong for what they did, according to your position
Objectively they were none of these.
Subjectively they were immoral.
Are you honestly still having difficulty with this? I understand you disagree morals are subjective, but you seem to still be struggling on what subjective morality actually means.
We haven't even got the point in the discussion when talking about normative vs descriptive would make sense. I suggest you try your best to understand your opponents rather than trying to leap at every opportunity for victory - it's just causing you to go in circles.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-07-2017 8:21 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-07-2017 8:34 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 147 of 1006 (799161)
02-07-2017 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Modulous
02-06-2017 4:47 PM


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.
Well, i think you answered your own question. With God all things that are possible, are possible. He would be able,to demonstrate, that with his nfinite wisdon. Besides this he would an infinite amount of,time to let u know.
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.
I have no problem with subjective emotional responses, as to what you think evolution and the development of ideas, thoughrs, concepts and perceptions have done for you. But the real test would be to show, that they have some bigger meaning,other than matter in motion. Well yes morality is it as simple as assigning simple yes or no questions,especially we can measure this in a rational way against any other matter in motion process. That's something we could test. But,if God doesn't exist, then it's also possible that my rational test doesn't matter, or doesn't exist
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 none of this matters, no pun intended, given my last point.
Welcome to reality.
Well no I don't think you anticipated my response. There is no way to demonstrate intelligence is some how superior to biological proceeses. This is easily demonstrated by a a stroke, which is a bio process. It takes that intelligence away.
Let's not even talk about death.
Wait lets. If you will accept Jesus Christ, which has overcome these physical processes of death, you then can show that intelligence is superior to blind processes. Here's no other rational way to make it legitimate
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Modulous, posted 02-06-2017 4:47 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Modulous, posted 02-07-2017 8:54 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 148 of 1006 (799163)
02-07-2017 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Modulous
02-07-2017 8:29 PM


Re: nazis
Are you honestly still having difficulty with this? I understand you disagree morals are subjective, but you seem to still be struggling on what subjective morality actually means.
No silly no struggle. There is no such thing as subjective morality. The terms are nonsensical when used together, without real objective
Morality
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Modulous, posted 02-07-2017 8:29 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Modulous, posted 02-07-2017 8:46 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 149 of 1006 (799164)
02-07-2017 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Dawn Bertot
02-07-2017 8:27 PM


Re: enlightened self-interest -- three laws unanswered
This is you exercising your free will, even in light of that which you know to be wrong absolutely
What if the Zionist conspiracy theories are true and Hitler was actually trying to help the world get out from under their boot? Is what he did still 'absolutely wrong'? Without knowing for sure whether the conspiracies are true, how can you claim that he was absolutely wrong? Seems like you're back to making a subjective judgement to me, since you don't possess infinite knowledge.
I know that slavery is absolutely wrong and yet your god appears to condone it. Am I actually being fooled by the devil into thinking that slavery is absolutely wrong?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-07-2017 8:27 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-07-2017 8:41 PM Riggamortis has replied

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


Message 150 of 1006 (799165)
02-07-2017 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Riggamortis
02-07-2017 8:37 PM


Re: enlightened self-interest -- three laws unanswered
What if the Zionist conspiracy theories are true and Hitler was actually trying to help the world get out from under their boot? Is what he did still 'absolutely wrong'? Without knowing for sure whether the conspiracies are true, how can you claim that he was absolutely wrong? Seems like you're back to making a subjective judgement to me, since you don't possess infinite knowledge.
I know that slavery is absolutely wrong and yet your god appears to condone it. Am I actually being fooled by the devil into thinking that slavery is absolutely wrong?
Because I have an objective morality to judge his actions against. It is provided to me in reality, in rational thought and a divine source.
Your position natural selection and subjectivity are no help
DawnBertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Riggamortis, posted 02-07-2017 8:37 PM Riggamortis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Riggamortis, posted 02-07-2017 9:02 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 183 by Taq, posted 02-09-2017 12:44 PM 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