|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
That was a strange jumble of words. It conveys little except that you are angry at science, as usual.
Have you given up on the actual topic? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Well, the Muslim could start off by asking ... Yes, they could engage in an exhaustive dialogue, but most likely it will eventually reach a stalemate where it's simply one implacable opinion verses another implacable opinion. It would be like one man arguing that a Porsche is a better-looking car than a Ferrari verses another man who argues vice-versa - neither point of view can be proven correct.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
the other is ... merely the dogma of a reigious cult Well, let's simplify things by cutting religion out of the discussion - there are plenty of non-religious folks who oppose same-sex marriage. Your opinion on the matter is not more valid than theirs and there is no objecitve way of deciding which opinion is correct. (The law of the land is irrelevant, since whoever is in power gets to impose their version of morality on everyone else; or laws are arrived by concensus, which is alsoirrelevant, because consensus doesn't prove that a law is morally correct.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yes, they could engage in an exhaustive dialogue, but most likely it will eventually reach a stalemate where it's simply one implacable opinion verses another implacable opinion. It would be like one man arguing that a Porsche is a better-looking car than a Ferrari verses another man who argues vice-versa - neither point of view can be proven correct. And do you maintain that this would go differently if there was a God who created humankind by fiat?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
That's a religous, not a moral argument If atheists are correct and there is no God or gods, then religious morality is man-made - therefore they are as just as valid as any other expression of human morality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
If atheists are correct and there is no God or gods, then religious morality is man-made - therefore they are as just as valid as any other expression of human morality. The conclusion doesn't seem to follow. One man-made thing can in fact be better than another: a house, a sandwich, a medical diagnosis ... The doctrine of the flat earth is man-made (and usually religiously inspired) but we don't say that therefore it is just as valid as any other man-made opinion as to what shape the earth is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17911 Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
So we see from your posts that you see avoiding punishment as a valid basis for what you call "morality" and pretty much nothing else. Is there a point ? Or are you just arguing for nihilism ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
(The law of the land is irrelevant, since whoever is in power gets to impose their version of morality on everyone else; or laws are arrived by concensus, which is also irrelevant, because consensus doesn't prove that a law is morally correct.) That's pretty much true...as long as you mind your own business. But if you were to decide to harass a same-sex couple (or if your business discriminates against a same-sex couple in a jurisdiction that protects sexual orientation in its anti-discrimination laws), you'll find that the law becomes pretty relevant real quick.I believe in a relatively equal society, supported by institutions that limit extremes of wealth and poverty. I believe in democracy, civil liberties, and the rule of law. That makes me a liberal, and I’m proud of it. -- Paul Krugman
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9580 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 6.6 |
Dredge writes: We share 60% of our DNA with bananas and even more with fruit flys - this helps to understand why humans and chimps are so different despite them sharing 98.8% of their each other's DNA. And it means humans and chimps may not be anywhere nearly as closely related to each other as the 98.8% figure suggests - and evolutionists would have us believe. What nonsense. If you want to make the claim that the geneticists are wrong, you're going to have to do some genome sequencing of your own and get yourself published. But of course, you haven't answered the substantive point. Why are we related to other species at all? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9580 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 6.6 |
Dredge writes: Well, let's simplify things by cutting religion out of the discussion Believe me, I'd love to.
there are plenty of non-religious folks who oppose same-sex marriage. Your opinion on the matter is not more valid than theirs and there is no objecitve way of deciding which opinion is correct. There are plenty of murderers, thieves and rapists too. As a society we don't allow them to continue with their activities because we think there is a moral difference between those that harm others and those that don't.
(The law of the land is irrelevant, since whoever is in power gets to impose their version of morality on everyone else; or laws are arrived by concensus, which is also irrelevant, because consensus doesn't prove that a law is morally correct.) The laws of modern, democratic, secular societies are based on the prevention of harm to its citizens. We decided what behaviours we prohibit based on whether those activities interfere with the well-being of others. With that as the standard we don't need to look to the supernatural. There is no harm caused by two people loving each other so there is no need for laws that would harm them.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9580 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 6.6 |
Dredge writes: If atheists are correct and there is no God or gods, then religious morality is man-made - therefore they are as just as valid as any other expression of human morality. We do not make moral judgements purely by opinion. They are primarily based on the concepts of harm and well-being. We do not allow the murderer to murder. He harms society, regardless of his opinions on the matter.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10297 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1
|
Dredge writes: If atheists are correct and there is no God or gods, then religious morality is man-made - therefore they are as just as valid as any other expression of human morality. If humans are incapable of determining for themselves what is and isn't moral, then how can they claim that what God commands is moral?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10297 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1
|
Dredge writes: We share 60% of our DNA with bananas and even more with fruit flys - this helps to understand why humans and chimps are so different despite them sharing 98.8% of their each other's DNA. I have yet to see a reference comparing the whole banana genome to the human genome, so that number seems to be pulled out of thin air. I still don't understand how you take a percentage and determine how physically similar or dissimilar two species should be. Perhaps you could enlighten us?
And it means humans and chimps may not be anywhere nearly as closely related to each other as the 98.8% figure suggests - and evolutionists would have us believe. Why? Chimps share more DNA with humans than the do with other apes. There are more differences between the chimp and gorilla genome than there is between the chimp and human genome. Chimps are more closely related to humans than they are to other apes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Do you accept that our minds are capable of both producing and experiencing meaning - regardless of how they came about?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Okay, I admit I'm beginning to lose track of where this is going. How much DNA should we share with a banana before we can find meaning in our lives.
I believe in a relatively equal society, supported by institutions that limit extremes of wealth and poverty. I believe in democracy, civil liberties, and the rule of law. That makes me a liberal, and I’m proud of it. -- Paul Krugman
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024