|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,386 Year: 3,643/9,624 Month: 514/974 Week: 127/276 Day: 1/23 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
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. So this social moral contract you reference, is it moral, should you obey it. And if you don't obey it are you immoral or what. If someone else, human that is,disagrees with your answer,are you right and they wrong,or something else?
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. It's almost providental that you bring up this example. It posses all the elements of what absolute morality is and how it's established. Jesus purpose here was not to indicate that adultery was not wrong, or that it should not be punished by stoning. His purpose was to teach a more valuable lesson, within morality. The lesson was forgiveness and to recognize that all but him there could NOT cast the stone. It was not that adultery was not wrong then or still wrong, only that the Law Giver was present, to set it aside, to teach a more important principle than punishment. By showing the people that they actually had sin and that they were so zealous to carry out this law, they were actually carrying out a higher law, outside themself. You had three elements, adultry,, sin and forgiveness. But forgiveness would make no sense if they're were no sin to forgive. Sin is the antithesis of law. You need someone with a standard of absolute morality to say what sin is or is not Inanother instance,Jesus healed a man and told him his sins were forgiven. They said, only God can forgive sin. He said which is it easier to do, tell the man his sins are forgiven or heal him. Jesus was saying I'm the standard of morality to forgive sin, absolute wrong doing. Notice he did not say, it doesn't matter or there is no such thing as sin, or there is NO standard, in fact he corroborated this fact,by demonstrating there is a standard. Now either Jesus was the most arrogant person whoever lived or he was saying, there is an absolute standard of morality and I'm it. It doesn't mean there isn't absolute morality, only that there can be levels. But to know this you would need to be God. And here in these examples we have that illustrated Then in the ultimate example of absolute morality, God says even though you've broke my law, absolute in reality, due to sin, a reality, I'll forgive it But before someone says this is only in a book, I'm only referencing the same BOOK you gave as an example Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
No silly no struggle. Then stop asking questions you already know the answer to.
There is no such thing as subjective morality. Yes, your opinion is quite clear. Indeed, that's largely all you've done in this thread, repeat this position.
The terms are nonsensical when used together, without real objective Is there an objective 'sweetness'?An objective 'entertaining'? An objective 'pleasant'? An objective 'comfortable'? An objective 'painful'? An objective 'humour'? Or do you concede these are subjective?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Is there an objective 'sweetness'? An objective 'entertaining'? An objective 'pleasant'? An objective 'comfortable'? An objective 'painful'? An objective 'humour'? Or do you concede these are subjective? Have you been paying attention at all? I concede that these are biological processes that mean nothing, just like your, thoughts, you emotions, etc, given your position No none of these are objective, but there not subjective either in your thinking. Just junk happeningNow do you see
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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. So you don't know. Got it. I don't know either. Because I am not infinitely wise, how would I determine this creatures demonstrations aren't deceptive inventions from a more intelligent but not infinitely wise creature? Being imperfect, I can't rely on my own judgements when it comes to determining if something else is infinitely wise.
But the real test would be to show, that they have some bigger meaning,other than matter in motion. Bigger meaning? Meaning is subjective too. It has meaning to me, and other people. That meaning does not exist external to us though. If I were to show you some 'bigger meaning' it would in fact undermine my entire argument, so it's not really a 'real test' of my ideas at all.
And none of this matters, no pun intended, given my last point. It matters to me. Again, something 'mattering' is a subjective perspective. I'm sure you'll get the hang of it, if you really wanted to.
There is no way to demonstrate intelligence is some how superior to biological proceeses. I'm not claiming it is.
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. Go for it. In your own time.
Here's no other rational way to make it legitimate I reject your criteria of legitimacy as illegitimate. Is it morally right to steal food to feed a starving child? Yourself? A horse thief? A murderer? Please, I've answered plenty of your moral questions - you continue to ignore mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
No none of these are objective, but there not subjective either in your thinking. Just junk happening Now do you see Great. Now 'social rules for how primates believe is the optimum way to order society and interact with one another' is just another in the list. The explanation for morality is the same as the explanation for sweetness and pain, and humour. Atheism, or rather science, provisions us with explanations. Your thesis is defeated.
No none of these are objective, but there not subjective either in your thinking. Just junk happening They are happening to me. A subject. Therefore they are subjective. Hrm, could you describe the difference between objective and subjective for me? I think we're using different definitions. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Riggamortis Member (Idle past 2410 days) Posts: 167 From: Australia Joined:
|
I think I have identified the proverbial wall.
A moral is a thought concept or reasoned idea the likes of which, no more information can be added to it to make it more correct or less correct. In dawns head, morality isn't morality at all unless it is perfect. This is a self-serving definition for one, but even if we accept it, there are still problems that dawn is ignoring. Obviously, if morality must be perfect then it's source can only be a perfect being. That is why dawn must assert that morality must be perfect, it has no basis in reality but it helps get to the conclusion desired. Identifying morality as defined is impossible for any human, if only a perfect being can create morality than only a perfect being can identify it. Since dawn cannot possibly verify whether or not morality exists(as defined) he has no 'morality' himself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Riggamortis Member (Idle past 2410 days) Posts: 167 From: Australia Joined: |
So I am wrong that slavery is wrong? Because you have an ancient tome of questionable origin written and compiled by humans that condones it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Slavery is definitely wrong and the Bible does not "condone" it. If you are trying to reform people you don't give them the hardest tasks to perform at the beginning, that will only make them resist; you have to lead them with wisdom and prudence until they are ready to recognize a moral evil. Jesus taught that Moses tolerated divorce because of the hardness of the people's hearts. Moses gave laws to make life easier for the women divorced (they had no right to divorce a husband) but that's as far as it went until Jesus was able to make people see that divorce is a great evil. (And now that moral truth is lost again anyway). Similarly the Mosaic Law gave laws to make life easier for the slaves.
Slavery was WORLDWIDE until Christianity started pushing it back, bit by bit. Paul advises a slaveowner to release his slave, so that directive had an effect bit by bit. And it was Christians who finally ended it, because the Bible IS clear that it is an injustice. Wilberforce in England fought the slave trade for most of his career in Parliament before he had any effect. John Newton who wrote "Amazing Grace" condemned the slave trade he had been involved in before he became a Christian. Abolitionists also worked for a long time in the US before slavery was finally ended. We're stubborn fallen people. The Moral Law operates inexorably to judge and condemn us for our disobedience, but we often don't notice. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
DB writes: 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. I see you still have not learned how to read or what honesty entails. Here is the only place I mention the word true in the post you are responding to:
quote: If you were capable of either reading or honesty you would see that I already provided both the conditions and how we would decide if something is true. No where did I mention absolutely but in reality neither the meaning or context world change is the word absolutely were inserted. It was absolutely 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 absolutely true now may well be absolutely false a minute later. Fortunately as humans we have been given a brain and if we use it we can even discover that even though it was absolutely true that I wanted a BLT for lunch, when I got it I found I really didn't want it.
DB writes: jar writes: 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. I can and have done so right here in River City many a time. It begins in Genesis. The God character shows up and does not know where Adam and Eve are so has to cal them. Later the God character has heard stories about what has been happening so he comes down to walk about to find out if the reports are true. Begin with Genesis 1:
quote: Note it is after the fact that he sees it was good. Then Genesis 2:
quote: Of course the God character really is just a bumbling fool in this story, learning by doing, but you would think he would have know what the best help meet for Adam was, but according to the story he didn't. and from Genesis 3:
quote: You would think an all knowing being wouldn't have to ask were they were hiding. and Genesis 18:
quote: Again, the God character demonstrates he is not all knowing (and he also shows that at times humans need to teach him about morality and correct his poor sense of morality). And there are yet more. It is absolutely true that is what the stories say. We can determine that by honestly reading the words that were written in the stories. As I have said many times, those who claim to be Bible Christians really seem to have never read the Bible honestly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Riggamortis Member (Idle past 2410 days) Posts: 167 From: Australia Joined: |
If I allow my son to own a puppy but insist he does not mistreat said puppy, I am condoning the ownership of puppies, just not their mistreatment. It's a pretty simple concept Faith.
Why would a perfect being have any trouble getting people to recognise moral evils? I know, there were no perfect beings involved, only subjective humans. Where does the bible condemn slavery? Even if I drop the slavery issue, what about rape victims being forced to marry their rapists? After he pays the father compensation of course. Do you rationalise that away with the same process?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Well, since you are inclined to find fault with anything, what's the point of trying to explain. But of course I must. Marrying the rapist is better than being ostracized by the community and never being able to find a husband isn't it? We're talking about a primitive Middle Eastern culture. Single women were badly mistreated, as they still are in the Middle East. Being raped is a symptom of that. But once she's raped she's "spoiled goods" and her life is pretty much over. Requiring the rapist to marry her and take care of her spares her that fate. Don't impose your modern culturebound opinions on such an ancient and different time and place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Riggamortis Member (Idle past 2410 days) Posts: 167 From: Australia Joined:
|
So what you're admitting is that even the morality depicted in the bible is relative and subjective. You aren't helping dawn, but I do appreciate the honesty.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
There is no undermining of the objective moral law though, when you determine the best most just solution in a complex situation. The objective Moral Law itself remains intact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Dawn writes: I concede that these are biological processes that mean nothing, just like your, thoughts, you emotions, etc, given your position No none of these are objective, but there not subjective either in your thinking. Just junk happening This is the nearest you've come to understanding how moral decisions are made by real people living real lives. They make the best choices given their biological make up and socialised upbringing. Morality IS a biological process, it's an emotion like sadness or love that can be detected in the brain. Unless you're a psychopath, you are born with empathic feelings which are evolved traits that allow us to get along together. These traits are reinforced by our parent's values and society's laws. This is why morality differs by individual, society and over time. It's anything but absolute or objective and is easily shown to be so. How individuals react to difficult moral choices and what their brains are doing whilst they're considering them has been extensively studied by rabid atheists in white jackets that everybody else calls scientists. If you're genuinely interested in understanding morality as it applies in reality I suggest you start by reading the story of Fred and the Trolley Problems. EvC Forum: Biology is Destiny?Trolley problem - Wikipedia 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Very interesting. So all psychopaths should be tested for brain damage ...
And what if you are the fat man? Do you jump to save lives? Not much different than soldiers jumping on a grenade to spare their mates (although the equation is a little different, all or one). So many variables. Obviously the morality of the decision is subjective and relative. Thanks.by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024