Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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.
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 286 of 1006 (800146)
02-20-2017 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by Dawn Bertot
02-20-2017 6:56 AM


Re: How?
The imagination, even if it actually exists, is just another biological process. Because the imagined apple is not a real apple, means it can have no application in the real world as anything.
After I imagine an apple, my mouth may water and I might become hungry. That's an application in the real world that an imaginary apple can have.
How could an imaginary apple have an effect on the real world if it did not exist?
Morality, simply become an imagined thing, as we witness biological processes. Morality can have no actual existence, because it does not exist to begin with, subjective or objective, in a meaninless purposeless universe
You're just repeating yourself...
In a meaningless purposeless universe, thinking brains can create mental things that can affect the real world, and therefore actually exist albeit it subjectively. That is, they are subjects of our imagination rather than objects in the real world. They still exist, they just don't exist objectively.
You don't actually imagine an apple, that's simply the name you gave it. You are using your imagination to percieve a biological process described as an apple.
There's a word for that, its called "subjective". Subjective things can exist even if they aren't objective.
There is a state of the universe that corresponds to the imagination of an apple in my brain.
Hence imagining a morality by witnessing a physical process, is not an actual morality. Hence it is not possible for Atheists to have a morality. And if they can't have one,, then it is a foregone conclusion they cannot explain one
In order for you to be correct, we all have to be using your own special definitions of words that none of us agree with. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way.
Rabbits are smarter than worms and the smarter something is the harder it is to justify killing it.
You can't believe how hard I laughed when I read your above statement. So it would be ok to kill, mentally retarded people?
No, that's retarded. It's not even logical.
So as I demonstrated earlier, your just making up a word or words, like morality in the form of harmful and hurtful that have no reality because your just describing with your imagination biological processes, nothing more nothing less. Your morality is imagine, it doesn't exist.
It exists because I imagine it. And that's all we can show morality to be.
Unless you can show otherwise?
Well no of course I was looking at this alleged morality from your system, not mine
Oh, well, I'm not an atheist.
No, I am often capable of determining if my actions are helpful or hurtful to another being.
Right that's the whole point, its from your perspective. What is helpful to you is not to someone else.
Yeah, that's the text-book definition of "subjective".
One tree falls on Tuesday in a forest another falls on Wednesday in another forest. It's only from your perspective that it has meaning, is hurtful or helpful.
Until you can show us that morality is any different from that, that is how everyone is going to accept morality as being.
Got to think outside yourself when trying to think rationally and in a critical fashion.
Wow, talk about comedy. Do you even know what rationally means?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-20-2017 6:56 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-21-2017 5:20 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

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


Message 287 of 1006 (800175)
02-20-2017 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Dawn Bertot
02-20-2017 6:55 AM


in a circle
So are you saying that for an individual, morals don't come from emotions or feelings or perceptions
I'm saying emotions aren't moral: "Hatred is not morality. It's an emotion." Seemed pretty clear to me what I was saying.
So I was correct you really don't think thier actions were immoral in actuality, just in some imagination of your mind.
I said it in Message 146. If we carry on, I expect you'll ask me again at some point in the future too.
That's not even getting started
Why? If I see morals as 'stuff happening' then all I need to do to support this is appeal to 'stuff happening'. Why is that not even a start?
{ there is a way to demonstrate that your alleged meanings as meanings in reality are somehow greater than the whole of everything, which you fellas are found of claiming has no meaning} {is} Hardly meaningless.
I dispute this.
If it's clear that the universe is meaningless and has no purpose and it will end in the same way, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see your life has no meaning.
Yup.
Your imagining meaning would logically just be another biological process. Are you starting to see how hopeless your position actually is
No.
So the very thing that starts with blind Mindless causes and purposes, causes more pain suffering and death and will end in infinite regression, can be used to help explain morals
In a nutshell. Not sure what you mean about the infinite regression part but yeah - as I already outlined, it can.
if God does not exist, then there are only biological processes
I'm not sure that is necessarily true. But I guess that's just a quibble.
I said to reality, we'll that makes perfect sense. Then he said to me, could you leave me alone I don't really care what you imagine or think, it doesn't make a difference to me
I'm shocked - that's exactly right. You really must have been in touch with reality at least once in your life!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-20-2017 6:55 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-21-2017 5:21 AM Modulous has replied

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


Message 288 of 1006 (800176)
02-20-2017 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Dawn Bertot
02-20-2017 6:53 AM


Re: Morals Have been rationally explained. Done. Finished.
Well if we are not going to include animals in your alleged subjective morality, ...
What I said was that it wasn't necessary that animals be included. Obviously some people do (PETA) and others don't. That's what subjective is all about.
... why don't we also exclude all others that disagree with us. Why don't we say they aren't necessarily implied as well. ...
That would again be subjective, some people could (such as republicans excluding Muslims from their moral considerations) while others don't (see sanctuary cities).
... Nice how you make things up as you go along. Oh wait, that's the meaning of subjective isn't it ...
No, that's not what subjective means, and that is not how it works.
... Of course I might be wrong, in your system all I have have to do is just imagine I'm right and whamo I'm right. Nice system
If your moral system says it's okay to lie and misrepresent what others say, then yes you can declare yourself to be right. Just look at Donald Trump for a role model.
That being the case, could I assume that you have a different morality that applies to the animal kingdom. If you have a different one what is the standard u use and how do you justify it
Enlightened self interest.
Secondly, simply because I quote from Mr Harris, doesn't mean I think he did or can explain morals. His problems in actually establish one are no different than yours
So he does have an atheist moral code then. Good, glad we agree on that.
Showing again, that you can't demonstrate that you so called morals are nothing more than more biological by products of other proccesses. ...
Which just doesn't matter, compared to the fact that we do have thought processes and can make rational derivations of morals.
... If you could simply demonstrate that Synergy is something more than biological, then u might have a point. But how will you do this. If u could simply show that your imagination of a moral has anymore meaning than the earth rotating around the sun, then you have a point. But you can't just imagine it, death won't care that you think you had a purpose.
Which again does not negate the fact that we do have thought processes and can make rational derivations of morals.
You really don't see any iorny in your above statement do you? All it would take for me to demonstrate you don't actually have a moral, in reality, is to, SIMPLY DISAGREE WITH YOU. ...
Nope, all that would demonstrate is your opinion, not that rationally derived morals exist.
You can argue against gravity and say all you have to do is "SIMPLY DISAGREE" ... and surprisingly that has no effect on reality. That's how valuable opinions are in determining things in the real world.
... In your system of so called subjective morality, I would be as correct as you would, which would make it a nonsensical moot point. ...
Except that there is a difference between "correct" and "moral" -- correct is supported by evidence that can be evaluated by other and tested. Your argument is that atheists (or any rational person) cannot rationally explain morals. The fact is that you have been shown evidence that this is false, the evidence being several cases of morals being rationally explained.
The statement that "Atheism cannot rationally explain morals" being falsified by evidence of people rationally explaining morals" is not itself a moral or subjective statement: there is objective evidence that has been provided.
... Or I would be as incorrect as you are, or neither of us would be right or wrong. NOW ARE YOU STARTING TO GET IT. Your system just imagines and makes stuff up as you go along. But bless your heart that's all you've got.
Again you are confusing correct/incorrect with moral/immoral. You're imply one definition of "right/wrong" to correct/incorrect and a different definition to moral/immoral ... equivocation fallacy.
So I repeat again what I've said before: your arguments have no bearing on the fact that atheists can -- and have -- rationally developed morals, which is what your thread claims cannot happen ... and yet it has.
You are still desperately going down rabbit holes to distract everyone from the fact that your thesis is invalidated. Meanwhile my argument is not refuted. See Summary of my argument so far:
quote:
  1. The basis of all morality is enlightened self-interest. This is where the "golden-rule" comes from, and why you can find variations on that theme in every religion and every culture. "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.
  2. Morality is essentially social convention, a program to survive and reproduce within a culture, and thus it would be surprising if it didn't differ from social group to social group, from culture to culture, from nation to nation.
  3. Morality is subjective, it is based on the society mores instead of the individual's beliefs, and because it is subjective it can change over time.
    • It doesn't need to be 100% absolutely consistent in a social group, it only needs to be predominantly consistent.
    • It is tied to 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.
    • The moral 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.
    • As society changes and evolves so to does the moral consensus standard. The Romans felt is was moral to feed Christians to the lions.
  4. An example of an objectively evidenced moral code written by an atheist is Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics
  5. There is an evolved component to human morality, because game theory shows evolutionary benefit for social animals to behave in a manner conducive to the survival of the social group, and that includes morals.
    • It is based in biology, 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.
    • Morality is a meme: moral codes develop and get passed from generation to generation, codes of behavior that benefit the survival and reproduction of the group are preserved.
  6. It is developed by natural processes.
    • You can reduce all of the universe into quarks in random motion, and explain atoms with them, but chemistry explains molecules and organic chemistry explains the combinations of organic molecules and the formation of objects, pre-biotic molecules explain self-replicating molecules that explain life that explains biology.
    • This all occurs by natural processes but the details of those processes are different at different levels. There is a synergy that occurs at each stage as well, where the sum is greater than the parts, the atom is not just quarks, molecules aren't just atoms, life is not just pre-biotic molecules. Self-consciousness is not just biology and thought is not just electrical activity in a brain, it is more than the sum of the parts, it is synergy.
    • Microevolution alone is not enough to explain macroevolution, because you need to have diversity in different ecologies to change daughter populations in different ways.
    • Biology is not enough to explain memes because the sociological processes of communication and interaction of ideas is a group activity not an individual one. This is a synergy from interaction and communication that creates something greater than the sum of the parts (individuals in the group).
    • Morals are a subset of memes. Memes are shared evolved concepts, but moral codes are not just any concepts lumped together, they are ones that benefit the social group to survive and reproduce as a group by conditioning behavior for reducing conflicts.
    Morals are subjective, they are a type of memes that have evolved over time as a consensus control on social behavior, to reduce conflicts between individual members of a social group, and thus benefit the survival and continuous revitalization of the social group from generation to generation.

Morals rationally explained. QED done.
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 276 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-20-2017 6:53 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-21-2017 5:22 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 289 of 1006 (800217)
02-21-2017 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by ringo
02-17-2017 10:58 AM


Re: Religion Cannot Rationally Explain Morals
There is nothing that isabsolutelygood or bad, moral or immoral. What wethinkis good or bad, moral or immoral is made up in our heads. Different people in different situations have different ideas of what is good or bad, moral or immoral.
Right and this has been my point all along, that what you call morality is nothing more than more biological processes with no real meaning. Thank you. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if it's just what's made up in you heads or anybody head, then, just the opposite of anything you call good would be acceptable. Hence you demonstrate your morality to be utter nonsense
Exactly. Musical notes have no "meaning" outside our brains and neither do ideas of morality.
Thank you. This would be the case if there was no God
Absolute meaning doesn't exist (or if it did, you would have no way of knowing what it was).
Sure I do. God clearly exists
That's not an instruction at all. It's just a vague empty statement that isn't even in the Bible.
It's a logical conclusion the likes of which are irresistible and irrefutable. We can discuss that if you think otherwise
Since you're not omniscient, how do you know the source is accurate?
You keep demonstrating that you DON'T know what absolutely is right or wrong. You can't tell us when it is right to kill another person and when it is wrong. Deciding whether a person had malicious or deceitful intent requires just as much finite wisdom from you as it does from anybody else.
Of course you are wrong as usual. Somethings are demonstrate as absolute, right and wrong by simple reasoning and observation. It is absolutely true things exist. That's absolutely true. We know that God exists by the things that are made and specific revelation. Hence I can know that his decrees are absolute. I know instinctively by having it placed in me at birth by God (Romans 1:18-20) that stealing is wrong. I don't need to be taught that, correct
Even if I didn't know these things instinctively, it would not mean that good or bad did not exist, any more than the law of gravity. See how simple it is Ringo.
"FOR THE WRATH OF GOD IS REVEALED FROM HEAVEN AGAINST ALL UNGODLINESS AND UNRIGHTEOUNESS, FOR THEM THAT HOLD THE TRUTH IN UNRIGHTEOUNESS. FOR THAT WHICH MAY BE KNOW OF OR ABOUT GOD IS MANIFEST IN THEM, FOR GOD HATH SHOWN IT UNTO THEM (PUT IT INSIDE THEM)" Romans 1:19
Now if you could get rid of all the evidence that clearly supports the existence of God and the Bible as his Word, your task is complete
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by ringo, posted 02-17-2017 10:58 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by ringo, posted 02-21-2017 11:00 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 290 of 1006 (800218)
02-21-2017 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by jar
02-20-2017 8:08 AM


Re: Why do you continue lying Dawn?
That of course is not what I said or included in what you quoted. It is also a really stupid thing to say.
Of course morality has a purpose in reality, it is a set of rules and guidelines a society uses. It's not anymore a biological process than any other set of rules or guidelines. And what the hell does "When death comes around, it won't care what you think, correct" have to do with the topic?
Are you really totally unable to hold a reasonable conversation with at least a small attempt to address the topic?
It's a set of rules and guidelines you use presently, which could change with the opposite affect of what you call good or bad at any moment in time. Hence, this is the reason I gave the examples of the gladiators and the Nazis. Jar I know this hard for you to understand, but try and pay attention. If what you presently call murder was not murder to the Nazis and thiers was just another choice as to what morality is or is not. Then this clearly demonstrates your system of what you call morality is the height and breath of stupidity.
But how will you, a guy that thinks and believes they were just doing what they thought was right condemn them. If you say they were wrong, you violate thier right to believe they were right. If you say they were wrong, then there must be some standard. Your system is idiocy
Of course it's only a biological process,, in a meaningless universe, Burning someone alive or gasing them, is nothing more than biological process, like a tree falling, in your imaginary, relativistic system of morals..
Death being a larger and more comprehensive explanation of your meaningless universe, will swallow up your imaginary morality, demonstrating, you yourself have no meaning. I know it's hard Jar but please try and keep up

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by jar, posted 02-20-2017 8:08 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by jar, posted 02-21-2017 7:05 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 291 of 1006 (800219)
02-21-2017 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by Tangle
02-20-2017 9:28 AM


quote:At the age of 40 his personality changes, he starts developing overt and inappropriate sexual tendancies. He starts looking at child porn. He gets kicked out by his wife for making sexual advances to young girls. He is finally prosecuted for a sex offence and put on the sex offender's register.
He also starts getting bad headaches and when he finally turns up at a hospital, they find an enormous tumour on his prefrontal cortex. They remove the tumour and his paedophilia is cured.
A couple of years later he starts having sexual problems again, he checks in to hospital, they find that the tumour has returned. They remove it, it cures the paedophilia. He's currently fine.
Well I said I'd play along and I knew this wasn't going to be very hard. Interesting, so 50 years ago they were treating homosexuality as a mental disease, tumor or otherwise. So, in another 50 years or so when your so called presently moral society says that pedophilia is acceptable, or that sex with animals and marrying them is ok, will you describe them as having mental problems, moral or immoral. You do realize Tangle that there are people actually lobbying for it to be ok to have sex with children, presently, correct.
The only thing more immoral than that would be a society that shifts it's made up garbage morality to allow such things. Now do you see the stupidity of subjective morality. If it was not wrong or ok, then you or I could do the samething, correct? Or could we? If not why not?
It's his behaviour that is real and that we call immoral, his brain state changes are seen on fMRI scans.
And when there is no tumor and they act in this fashion? Will it be ok if society says so?
You need to be specific. Were the Nazi's immoral when the created the holocaust? Yes, of course. In my subjective view - and in the vast majority of everyone else's view too. But not, it seems in Hitler's view.
Ok I'll be more specific. If you thought he was wrong and he thought he was right who was right or wrong, actually. Or it doesn't matter, because it's all relative
What's moral is what we decide as a society is moral at any point in time. It's developmental. Societies like individuals grow up and change. That's why we don't torture people anymore or keep slaves or make human sacrifices.
Let's try this again. You live in your mind in a purely naturalistic universe, IOWS no God. Hence, all life is basically equal. For your so called ethics to make sense,, they would need to apply across the spectrum of species. So you still do have slaves and you sacrifice animals to eat them, correct?
Further, if it's a moral at any point in time then, it was not murder in the 40s for the Nazis, but somehow it is now
[qs]I'm afraid you've lapsed back into obscurity again. Morality IS a biological process. It's a brain state and an emotion like anger or love. It's called empathy and it's moderated by group learning. We learn how to behave morally from our parents and from society that's why it changes over time and across societies.[qs] Unfortunately, that is only part of what you might describe as morality. There is the other part that takes place outside the brain called reality. You may be able to experience things like love and anger, but then there are the questions of changing morality outside yourself correct. You know like the topics I discussed above.. so as we have seen morality can't be just what you decide in your mind or anybody else's mind. If it is its really nonexistent or imaginary
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Tangle, posted 02-20-2017 9:28 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Tangle, posted 02-21-2017 12:56 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 292 of 1006 (800220)
02-21-2017 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by New Cat's Eye
02-20-2017 10:08 AM


Re: How?
After I imagine an apple, my mouth may water and I might become hungry. That's an application in the real world that an imaginary apple can have.
How could an imaginary apple have an effect on the real world if it did not exist?
I think you missed my point. I'll try again. The word apple is not a real thing. It's a concept or contrivance to describe a biological thing round red and juicy. In a strictly Naturalistic universe, there can be no such thing as morality. If we create a word to describe me hitting you in the head with a pipe, as immoral, it's still just a biological process of a metal object clashing with your skin and cranium, not moral or immoral, in reality
If today you describe something as murder and in another generation it's not murder, guess what, reality doesn't care and it's just biological functions. Attaching a contrived word like morality does not make it morality, anymore that an apple is actually an apple because we called it that. That is of course if the qualities of the apple do not change
In a meaningless purposeless universe, thinking brains can create mental things that can affect the real world, and therefore actually exist albeit it subjectively. That is, they are subjects of our imagination rather than objects in the real world. They still exist, they just don't exist objectively.
Even if you possessed mental telapathy, your above comment would not be true. Here's why. Long before you or any other human existed the apple was what it was. The advent of the human brain does not make something more real, muchless subjectively or objectively. Morality cannot be created, it either existed or did not. Since we are basically animals, according to your doctrines and they were doing the things we were doing long before us, our coming along and describing those things as moral or immoral, doesn't change that reality, that they are not
In order for you to be correct, we all have to be using your own special definitions of words that none of us agree with. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way.
That's the point, its not my definition of words or yours, it's what actually exists in reality, as I have clearly demonstrated above. Words get thier meaning from reality not the definition you ascribe them.
It exists because I imagine it. And that's all we can show morality to be.
Unless you can show otherwise?
Well telling me your not an Atheist, doesn't tell me what you are. So I have to speak assuming you may be something like that, correct
Until you can show us that morality is any different from that, that is how everyone is going to accept morality as being.
How ironic. I am presently watching an episode of my favorite tv show , the
Twilight Zone, an episode called The Obsolete Man. It's almost a text book case as to why you fellas can't actually or explain morality, assuming morality actually existed
There is another irony here. You think I'm helping you describe morality, but actually I'm demonstrating, very capably I might add, you don't even have one in reality
Wow, talk about comedy. Do you even know what rationally means?
Yes I know absolutely what it means. It means that which reality will allow
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-20-2017 10:08 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-21-2017 11:32 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 293 of 1006 (800221)
02-21-2017 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Modulous
02-20-2017 2:00 PM


Re: in a circle
I'm saying emotions aren't moral: "Hatred is not morality. It's an emotion." Seemed pretty clear to me what I was saying.
So if the Nazis did something out of hatred, this made thier actions not immoral, because hatred is not a moral just an emotion. So how would we describe thier actions as immoral or imoral, by a perception that is not an emotion or something else?
How did you come to this brilliant conclusion that an emotion such as hatred, is just an an emotion an not a moral, but whatever anybody wants or sees as a moral, is actually morality?
You know that simpleton, Our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ said, that if you hate your brother without a cause, that it was a sin, hence a moral. Was he mistaken or just plain wrong
Why? If I see morals as 'stuff happening' then all I need to do to support this is appeal to 'stuff happening'. Why is that not even a start?
The reason your not getting started, is because you see stuff happening as a moral. You need to demonstrate that, asserting it won't work. So if I see stuff happening and I imagine I'm the creator of it all, does that make me, the creator of it all.
You seem to be flip flopping all over the place on just what morality is actually. But I guess I should not be surprised since it's all relative, correct?
I'm shocked - that's exactly right. You really must have been in touch with reality at least once in your life!
Yeah, its reality is pretty cool, you should actually give it a try at some point. Reality that is
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Modulous, posted 02-20-2017 2:00 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Modulous, posted 02-21-2017 1:57 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 294 of 1006 (800222)
02-21-2017 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by RAZD
02-20-2017 2:00 PM


Re: Morals Have been rationally explained. Done. Finished.
What I said was that it wasn't necessary that animals be included. Obviously some people do (PETA) and others don't. That's what subjective is all about.
Well yeah I know that's what you said, but it doesn't make any better sense the second time. If what you do to humans is murder, but it's not murder when you kill and eat animals, then it should be Clear to anyone you don't actually have a moral, your just a walking contradiction. That said assuming there is such a thing as a contradiction in your twisted sense of reality, called subjective.
That would again be subjective, some people could (such as republicans excluding Muslims from their moral considerations) while others don't (see sanctuary cities).
So by indirect implication, using your example above, there is really no such thing as murder or stealing, just a perception. Hence a made up word called morality. Did I nail your position
If your moral system says it's okay to lie and misrepresent what others say, then yes you can declare yourself to be right. Just look at Donald Trump for a role model.
So what your saying is, that it doesn't really matter what Mr Trump is doing, because it's all relative, correct? So why are you worried about what he's doing? Both of your perspectives are right, correct?. Did I nail your system
Enlightened self interest.
Right selfish disinterest in the well being of other species. I'm assuming you eat them correct?
So he does have an atheist moral code then. Good, glad we agree on that.
No your above expression, Atheist moral code , is like saying the Running Still waters. I'm assuming he eats out of the animal kingdom as well, correct
You can argue against gravity and say all you have to do is "SIMPLY DISAGREE" ... and surprisingly that has no effect on reality. That's how valuable opinions are in determining things in the real world.
Comical, you say that morals are relative and subjective and then say I'm not being rational and only offereing an opinion, when I say I disagree with your perception of what is true of morality. Since your alleged morals are nothing more than any persons perceptions, by your own admission, wouldn't that make my perception, a subjective morality.
You are one confused pup.
The statement that "Atheism cannot rationally explain morals" being falsified by evidence of people rationally explaining morals" is not itself a moral or subjective statement: there is objective evidence that has been provided.
When did I say, this was or was not a moral. If you percieve your imaginations of morals as objective evidence, then you need to rethink things. If your ability to explain morals and it's explanation applies only to humans, you are not providing evidence that you have a moral or that you can explain them. You do enslave monkeys and kill and eat animals, correct?
I'm not an animal rights activist, but it is sad you give more credence to imaginary robots, than living creatures.
We can observe self consciousness in apes and some other animals, but not in slugs and bugs.
I could pick your so called summary apart piece by piece, but this will suffice. So why don't you apply your alleged morality to dogs and monkeys, the same way you do you humans. I'll tell you why, you are making crap as you go along. No thinking person buys your garbage RAZD. put another way, I dont need to eat out of a trash can to know it's garbage
Morals rationally explained. QED done.
Uh no. Morals subjectively explained. IOWS relativistic nonsense
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2017 2:00 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by RAZD, posted 02-21-2017 9:40 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 295 of 1006 (800223)
02-21-2017 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by Dawn Bertot
02-21-2017 5:17 AM


Re: Why do you continue lying Dawn?
Dawn writes:
It's a set of rules and guidelines you use presently, which could change with the opposite affect of what you call good or bad at any moment in time. Hence, this is the reason I gave the examples of the gladiators and the Nazis. Jar I know this hard for you to understand, but try and pay attention. If what you presently call murder was not murder to the Nazis and thiers was just another choice as to what morality is or is not. Then this clearly demonstrates your system of what you call morality is the height and breath of stupidity.
Amazing. You almost show understanding and then seem to lose it.
Yes, morality does evolve and evolve, it is a societal construct and there are different sets of morality. But Dawn, that is also true of the so called morality found in the Bible stories and in the many different God characters found in those stories. The God of the Bible is very much like Hitler but the Hitler was certainly far more moral than the God of the Bible by the general standard of morality seen in the world today.
Dawn writes:
But how will you, a guy that thinks and believes they were just doing what they thought was right condemn them. If you say they were wrong, you violate thier right to believe they were right. If you say they were wrong, then there must be some standard. Your system is idiocy
It is done through a process called consensus. It is a matter of societal agreement. Society discusses the issue we call morality and sets up a body of rules of behavior. Those rules then become the standard until such time as the society modifies the rules.
Dawn writes:
Of course it's only a biological process,, in a meaningless universe, Burning someone alive or gasing them, is nothing more than biological process, like a tree falling, in your imaginary, relativistic system of morals..
You are free to say such things under our current morality set, but of course that does not make them true or logical or reasonable or supportable. Burning someone alive and a tree falling are quite different. One is an immoral act while the other is amoral.
Dawn writes:
Death being a larger and more comprehensive explanation of your meaningless universe, will swallow up your imaginary morality, demonstrating, you yourself have no meaning. I know it's hard Jar but please try and keep up
See, you keep making statements that seem to have absolutely no informational content. I have to ask. Is English not your first language? Could the issue be that you are using Google translate or a nonsense generator?
The universe has what ever meaning we has humans give it. The universe itself is not capable of having a meaning. I have whatever meaning I create in my life and my behavior during that life might give to others.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-21-2017 5:17 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-22-2017 7:44 AM jar has replied

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


Message 296 of 1006 (800234)
02-21-2017 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Dawn Bertot
02-21-2017 5:22 AM


Secular Morals Have been rationally explained. Done. Finished.
Continued rabbit-hole dodging. Verbal masturbation and word games do not refute the argument made that show Atheist (secular) morals have been rationally explained.
I could pick your so called summary apart piece by piece, but this will suffice. So why don't you apply your alleged morality to dogs and monkeys, the same way you do you humans. I'll tell you why, you are making crap as you go along. No thinking person buys your garbage RAZD. put another way, I dont need to eat out of a trash can to know it's garbage
Except that you haven't, in spite of that being the topic. Instead you waste bandwidth on non-relevant diversions to keep attention off the fact that you haven't even attempted to touch them. Bravado is not an argument nor does it alter reality.
Morals rationally explained. QED done.
Uh no. Morals subjectively explained. ...
Sadly, being subjective does not negate them being rational.
Curiously, saying that morals are "subjectively explained" just means that morals are explained by being subjective, so you are agreeing with us.
... IOWS relativistic nonsense
So you keep telling yourself in order to avoid confronting reality, ... and yet apparently you are unable to demonstrate any rational falsehood or fallacy in the argument that (a) morals are subjective and vary from person to person, that (b) these subjective morals are rationally derived within cultural (group) settings to reduce conflicts within the group, that (c) these cultural settings (beliefs) constrain the range of those morals into a general consensus within the group, and that (d) this subjective but rational derivation explains the (sometimes small, sometimes large) differences in morals in different cultural settings.
Please note, again, that your thesis is "Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals" is refuted by the existence of many examples of morals being rationally explained, and that is all that is necessary. It is not necessary to justify those morals or to compare one cultures morals to any other, or to discuss relative merits of animals etc etc etc, because that is NOT part of your thesis.
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 294 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-21-2017 5:22 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-22-2017 7:46 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 297 of 1006 (800239)
02-21-2017 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by Dawn Bertot
02-21-2017 5:16 AM


Re: Religion Cannot Rationally Explain Morals
Dawn Bertot writes:
Right and this has been my point all along, that what you call morality is nothing more than more biological processes with no real meaning.
And my point has been that what YOU call morality is exactly the same.
Dawn Bertot writes:
And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if it's just what's made up in you heads or anybody head, then, just the opposite of anything you call good would be acceptable.
Exactly. In different circumstances a completely different morality might be appropriate.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Hence you demonstrate your morality to be utter nonsense
Morality doesn't have to be either sense or nonsense. It just has to work.
Dawm Bertot writes:
ringo writes:
Dawn Bertot writes:
The first specific instruction I have is that God is infinite and thus his morality is absolute as a result of that.
That's not an instruction at all. It's just a vague empty statement that isn't even in the Bible.
It's a logical conclusion the likes of which are irresistible and irrefutable. We can discuss that if you think otherwise
We can certainly discuss it. You can start by citing wherever the Bible says that, "God is infinite and thus his morality is absolute as a result of that."
Dawn Bertot writes:
Even if I didn't know these things instinctively....
That's just it. You "know" it instinctively, not rationally.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Now if you could get rid of all the evidence that clearly supports the existence of God and the Bible as his Word, your task is complete
We can certainly discuss your so-called "evidence" in an appropriate thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-21-2017 5:16 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-22-2017 7:47 AM ringo has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 298 of 1006 (800242)
02-21-2017 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by Dawn Bertot
02-21-2017 5:20 AM


Re: How?
I think you missed my point. I'll try again. The word apple is not a real thing.
The word, itself (that is A-P-P-L-E), is a real thing. It's a word. Words are real.
I think you are talking about the concept. Concepts, too, exist as real things they just are not objective. That is, they do not exist outside of our minds. But they still exist.
Are you just using the word "real" to mean "objective"? If so, you're begging the premise... Subjective things are also real.
It's a concept or contrivance to describe a biological thing round red and juicy.
So the concept is also a real thing, it's just subjective rather than objective.
In a strictly Naturalistic universe, there can be no such thing as morality.
There can be, but it'll have to be a subjective concept rather than an objective thing.
If we create a word to describe me hitting you in the head with a pipe, as immoral, it's still just a biological process of a metal object clashing with your skin and cranium, not moral or immoral, in reality
But humans conceptualizing it and describing it as immoral is what subjective morality is.
Subjective morality is really a morality and it exist in the real world, it just isn't objective like you are demanding it to be. That doesn't make it not-real and that doesn't make it not a morality.
I think what you're doing here is defining morality as an objective thing that is dictated to us, or whatever, and then claiming that the subjective concepts of morality that naturalism invokes either aren't true morality or aren't really real.
Well, they are real and they are morality and you haven't provided an argument to the contrary. Repeatedly insisting that "they aren't real" isn't cutting it.
In a meaningless purposeless universe, thinking brains can create mental things that can affect the real world, and therefore actually exist albeit it subjectively. That is, they are subjects of our imagination rather than objects in the real world. They still exist, they just don't exist objectively.
Even if you possessed mental telapathy, your above comment would not be true. Here's why. Long before you or any other human existed the apple was what it was. The advent of the human brain does not make something more real, muchless subjectively or objectively.
Before the advent of the brain, there were no imagined concepts of an objective apple.
Since the advent of the brain, there has existed an imagined concept of an objective apple. That concept corresponds to physical states of the universe (including brain states of the imaginer).
What should we call a physical states of the universe if not "existing"? I mean, that's what existing is.
Morality cannot be created, it either existed or did not.
No, I disagree. Every culture throughout history has created their own morality. There is no one true created morality that you can show me. There is nothing you can point to that exists as an objective morality.
The only moralities that we are aware of is ones that were created by humans. Some have existed, some do exist, and some are yet to exist.
Since we are basically animals, according to your doctrines and they were doing the things we were doing long before us, our coming along and describing those things as moral or immoral, doesn't change that reality, that they are not
First off, you don't know my doctrines.
To the point: Our coming along and describing those things as moral or immoral is what subjective morality is. You have yet to address this other than to say that it either isn't morality or it isn't real. Both of those are wrong.
That's the point, its not my definition of words or yours, it's what actually exists in reality, as I have clearly demonstrated above.
Wait a minute: I though words weren't real things? Now you're saying that reality is defining things for us, as opposed to our brains conceptualizing these things? That's confusing.
And you have not demonstrated that what you are calling morality is what actually exists in reality. You're just stating it and not supporting your assertion.
I mean, honestly, you could end the entire argument in short time if you just pointed to an objective morality. But you can't do that, can you?
Words get thier meaning from reality not the definition you ascribe them.
That is completely backwards, I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
Well telling me your not an Atheist, doesn't tell me what you are. So I have to speak assuming you may be something like that, correct
No, incorrect. How about you speak to me as a person? Why does it matter 'what I am'? (just so you do know, I am a Christian)
I happen to believe in a God-given objective morality, but it is just that: a belief. It is not something that I can point to, or show, or even know the details about. I just think God has one for us.
But I also realize that the moralities that we can identify, and know the details of, are the subjective ones that we create. Those do actually exist in the real world and an atheistic perspective does not prevent anyone from rationally explaining them.
You think I'm helping you describe morality, but actually I'm demonstrating, very capably I might add, you don't even have one in reality
Self-assessment is horribly inaccurate. No offense, but you're doing a terrible job of demonstrating your claim.
Wow, talk about comedy. Do you even know what rationally means?
Yes I know absolutely what it means. It means that which reality will allow
Oh wow, that's, like, completely backwards.
Rationalization takes place in the mind according to reason and logic. It doesn't not even require being true or even being allowed by reality.
Where did you get your definition from?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-21-2017 5:20 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-22-2017 7:49 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 299 of 1006 (800252)
02-21-2017 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by Dawn Bertot
02-21-2017 5:19 AM


DB writes:
Interesting, so 50 years ago they were treating homosexuality as a mental disease, tumor or otherwise. So, in another 50 years or so when your so called presently moral society says that pedophilia is acceptable, or that sex with animals and marrying them is ok, will you describe them as having mental problems, moral or immoral. You do realize Tangle that there are people actually lobbying for it to be ok to have sex with children, presently, correct.
There are plenty of societies today that think that sex with children is fine and many more in the past. Like we say, morality changes.
But you sidestepped the point as usual. Fred's morality changed. He only developed an attraction for children - and other sexually inappropriate practices - when the tumour grew. When it was removed he lost those tendencies and when the tumour returned so did the immortal behaviour.
THAT is what you have to explain. Try to stick to answering that single point. How can morality be absolute if it changes?
quote:
Now do you see the stupidity of subjective morality.
Subjective morality is neither stupid nor clever it just is.
quote:
Ok I'll be more specific. If you thought he was wrong and he thought he was right who was right or wrong, actually. Or it doesn't matter, because it's all relative
He was wrong - obviously. I take it that you don't disagree so where is the problem? Hitler almost certainly believed what he was doing was moral. Probably in something like the same way that the USA thought it was moral to drop nuclear warheads on civilian cities. It does matter and it is all relative. How do we decide which of those acts are moral or not? Well the vast majority of us think that Hitler's acts were black and white wrong while Hiroshima and Nagasaki are more nuanced moral choices.
Show me the absolute - "thou shalt not kill?" Except.....
quote:
Let's try this again. You live in your mind in a purely naturalistic universe, IOWS no God.
If you must, yes.
quote:
Hence, all life is basically equal.
Nope.
quote:
For your so called ethics to make sense,, they would need to apply across the spectrum of species.
Nope
quote:
So you still do have slaves
Nope
quote:
and you sacrifice animals to eat them, correct?
Yup, your god made me an omnivore so I eat meat. (It's always amused me that your god made life competitive so that all of it has to eat everything else to survive - why do you think he did that?)
quote:
Further, if it's a moral at any point in time then, it was not murder in the 40s for the Nazis, but somehow it is now
This is unintelligible but I'll have a guess at answering the question you meant to ask. Our view of what is right and wrong changes over time. In other cultures marrying children is perfectly fine, in other times owning slaves was fine, even today barbaric practices such as FGM are seen as part of some societies culture. We believe differently here and now. We can only apply our version of morality in our culture today. It may be that in 1,000 years into the future society will look back on a lot of our practices and find them abhorrent. Think of how unequal our societies are, masses of poor and a few very wealthy.
Unfortunately, that is only part of what you might describe as morality. There is the other part that takes place outside the brain called reality. You may be able to experience things like love and anger, but then there are the questions of changing morality outside yourself correct. You know like the topics I discussed above.. so as we have seen morality can't be just what you decide in your mind or anybody else's mind. If it is its really nonexistent or imaginary.
Sorry, you've reverted to gibberish again.

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 291 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-21-2017 5:19 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-22-2017 7:50 AM Tangle has replied

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


Message 300 of 1006 (800268)
02-21-2017 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by Dawn Bertot
02-21-2017 5:21 AM


Re: in a circle
So if the Nazis did something out of hatred, this made thier actions not immoral, because hatred is not a moral just an emotion.
No that's not how English works either. What the Nazis did was immoral regardless of their emotional condition. Whether they did it out of love or joy or with hate or anger or fear.
Emotions can come into consideration in moral discussions, but they themselves are not moral or immoral. This is in answer to your challenge: 'So how would you describe hatred in a moral sense'.
How did you come to this brilliant conclusion that an emotion such as hatred, is just an an emotion an not a moral, but whatever anybody wants or sees as a moral, is actually morality?
I didn't. Whether or not an action is moral or immoral is subjective and down the individual. Whether or not something is morality is a definitional issue.
morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
Which principles someone varies between individuals. The principles themselves are moralities.
Our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ said, that if you hate your brother without a cause, that it was a sin, hence a moral. Was he mistaken or just plain wrong
I disagree that the act of hating someone is immoral, the actions that the hatred may lead to however, may be immoral. I disagree with Jesus, but that doesn't mean he is objectively wrong.
The reason your not getting started, is because you see stuff happening as a moral
Almost, but backwards. I see morality as, in a reductionist sense, things happening. And as you said: ' at best this is an explanation of things happening'. So since I see morality as things happening, and I have provided an explanation of things happening, this doesn't seem to me to be a problem. I have provided an explanation consistent with, and within the scope of, my conception of morality. If I did otherwise, this would be a problem, but since I did not - it seems I'm doing things right.
You need to demonstrate that, asserting it won't work.
Well, I did that back in Message 233. I explained how matter could evolve towards niceness and forgiveness. I went on later to describe how matter could evolve nastiness and unforgiving at your request.
So if I see stuff happening and I imagine I'm the creator of it all, does that make me, the creator of it all.
No, that doesn't follow from my argument at all. I suggest you try to understand my argument and argue against that rather than continuously arguing against what you came into this debate thinking my argument is.
You seem to be flip flopping all over the place on just what morality is actually.
Morality is the concept that some actions are right and some actions are wrong. It derives from evolved behavioural traits with the addition of cultural/social learning. That's a position I've argued consistently in this thread. Again, you've flip flopped around in your understanding of my position, but this is not the same as me flip flopping about what I am arguing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-21-2017 5:21 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-22-2017 7:52 AM Modulous has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024