Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.

Do I really have to explin the concepts of least harm, aggregate well-being, psychopathy and even sport and dentistry to you? Really? This is juvenile stuff. It seems that you have given up the argument.

Can you point to anything anywhere in the ToE that saying anything at all about life after death or even hints towards it? Anything whatsoever about morality or the meaning of life? Anything?You are aware that billions of people are religious but also accept the ToE? And that there are other billions that are not religious that also accept the ToE and that find meaning in life and behave morally.The few that argue petulently and irrationally against it are a very small and odd bunch indeed. Yes it is a scientific measurment. I'd take you through the methodology if I thought you would try to understand it but you simply handwave away evidence you don't like preferring instead to believe childish nonsense.Is it that hard to accept that atheists can have meaning in their lives and behave morally?

An evolved mind can create a delusion of meaning, but it can't create meaning. You can create a delusion that the Tooth Fairy exists, but you can't create a Tooth Fairy.

Prove that it is immoral.

Can you demonstrate this, or is it just one of the many many things you like to assert without argument or evidence?

It has been explained, patiently, repeatedly and carefully, that morality is not objective but subjective. And societies come to a consensus as to what is and isn't moral, from their citizens' shared views as to their own moralities. These tend to be based on a concept of uninvited harm to non-consenting third parties, with a number of balancing factors, as Tangle has referred to, but there are other factors too.But it's a consensus of subjective moralities that shape a society's wider moral code.And the evidence for our society's view that killing babies is, you know, fucking vile, is that you would get locked up for life for doing it (or executed, if that's your society's chosen maximum punishment for breaking a law). And the evidence that this is a view widely held by civilised societies is that the UN and the international court of justice frown on it too.I have a moral code of which I am proud. It's one which broadly conforms with my society's consensus as to what is right and proper. I am extremely pleased that I don't have to take my instructions from an un-proven all powerful being, who thinks there can be any justifiable reason to murder children.You, on the other hand, are left trying to justify the psychopathic genocides and infanticides of your unproven God.

quote:

---

I agree. If my God doesn't exist, then I'm talking complete nonsense and my God's morality (and thus, mine) is as meaningless as anyone else's.

---

Even if your God (your idea of the Christian God) does exist you can't prove that your morality is correct, any more than anyone else can.So, asking for proof is beside the point. Your beliefs don't help you there.

That's not quite right. The Bible says that humans have the same capabilities as God to determine what is right or wrong and that sometimes we need to remind God to behave morally.But morality is really subjective. There is no "Objective Morality" to be found in the Bible. In one place it says "Thou shalt not kill" and the in another story the God character says "Go kill them all, even their cattle."Now even if there might be some justification to kill them all, it is never presented and really unlikely that the cattle committed any major transgressions.Morality, whether among theists or atheists always involves a societal consensus. That does not make any morals meaningless but rather actually gives them meaning. Where so called Biblical Morality is based solely on "God said it" the morality that exists in reality is based on "We agreed with it". The former is imposed by a tyrant; the latter is self-imposed by consent.

Okay. You're just having us on now, aren't you?

I don't believe you.

It's almost a certainty.

It's hard to say, it's like trying to decide whether a dead mule is better at ballet or knitting.

Interesting theology for a Christian. "In the beginning, there was meaning, then there was God", rather than the other way around.Also, wouldn't it have been better to use the word "existence" rather than life, as life itself is mortal?I don't think "existence" can have any purely objective meaning, and purely objective morals can't exist in theism or atheism.That's different from the question of explaining scientifically why intelligent social animals like us might have the concept of morality, something which could and has been attempted."Atheism", of course, doesn't explain anything, just as non-belief in Santa Claus doesn't tell us where the presents actually come from. The O.P. of this thread is a mess, but I think its author wants to say that only a belief in a god can "explain morals", but certainly fails to make that case.

Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy? April 30, 1994

I can't; but (assuming that my God exists) I don't have to prove that any of God's judgements are righteous and just ... I only have to accept them as such. I would imagine not even God can prove to us that his morality is perfect. But he doesn't have to; he doesn't have to explain his morality or his judgements to anyone. The Boss doesn't need our approval.