Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-22-2019 5:47 AM
16 online now:
Jon (1 member, 15 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,297 Year: 12,333/19,786 Month: 2,114/2,641 Week: 69/554 Day: 6/63 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 588 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


(1)
Message 65 of 1006 (798628)
02-04-2017 12:44 AM


Dawn, you hold to be true that the bible is the inerrant word of god and subsequently derive your sense of morality from your particular church's (subjective) interpretation of the bible. You can claim it is objective till you're blue in the face, you can mutilate logic and impose strawman versions of the 'naturalistic worldview' on us, but nothing you say will change the fact that you're in no better position than we are. Your morality is subjective, just like everyone else's.

It is also rather amusing that you would place so much emphasis on reality since the only real objective thing you can cite as the basis for your moral compass is an ancient tome. At least I can cite objective consequences or facts as the basis of my moral position on a given dilemma. Here's an objective fact, some animals eat other animals. It's as natural as you can get but somehow you require that the naturalistic worldview condemns such behaviour.

Seriously, how do you even come up with these silly ideas?


Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-04-2017 12:54 AM Riggamortis has responded
 Message 69 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-04-2017 1:11 AM Riggamortis has responded

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 588 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


Message 70 of 1006 (798634)
02-04-2017 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Dawn Bertot
02-04-2017 12:54 AM


I adopt my morality because only a rational objective morality can come from an infinite mind, everything else is subjective and inconsistent. That's the rational long and short of it
I adopt my morality from what I can observe in man, and reality, which is corroborated in Romans 2:14

What does Romans 2:14 prove? That even the writers of the bible knew they needed to make up an excuse for why non-believers could also be moral beings?Whoopppdeeeddoooo Basil!

You don't have access to this infinite mind though do you? You use a very finite book and your own/church's subjective interpretation of that book to form your moral code. The reality that Christians can't agree among themselves on what is moral proves that your morality is equally subjective and inconsistent. There's nothing rational or objective about it, sorry, there's no way around that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-04-2017 12:54 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-04-2017 11:16 PM Riggamortis has responded

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 588 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


(1)
Message 72 of 1006 (798636)
02-04-2017 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Dawn Bertot
02-04-2017 1:11 AM


Dawn, you hold to be true that the bible is the inerrant word of god and subsequently derive your sense of morality from your particular church's (subjective) interpretation of the bible. You can claim it is objective till you're blue in the face, you can mutilate logic and impose strawman versions of the 'naturalistic worldview' on us, but nothing you say will change the fact that you're in no better position than we are. Your morality is subjective, just like everyone else's.

The reasoning is that part you ignored. Maybe you could tell my why it's wrong?

Your god is not part of objective reality so you haven't a leg to stand on. Demonstrate that your god is part of our objective reality or admit that you have no objective basis for your moral compass, either.

If absolute morality can only come from an infinite mind, then it seems to me that you must demonstrate the existence of an infinite mind in order to claim that an absolute morality is even possible. Good luck with that!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-04-2017 1:11 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 588 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


Message 98 of 1006 (798742)
02-05-2017 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Dawn Bertot
02-04-2017 11:16 PM


Well don't mean to mean here but since these are just observations, asserions and not actual arguments, not much to response to here. I will though
RAZD asked me for an example of what else God has done besides create the world. I gave him one that could be verified in reality, the moral law placed on the heart

How does one verify that there is a moral law placed on the heart? It doesn't even make sense.

Yes,we have access to this infinte mind, through not only natural law, the law of the heart, intrinsic law but also specific revelation. Since , there is,ample evidence for both in reality , all u need to do is make that evidence vanish.
My response to,your post is adequate to the evidence to the contrary. The moral law that I can see is still there

This is why I didn't join this forum to argue with you fundies, utterly bonkers. You dismiss my easily defended assertions without any reasoning. You then proceed with a meaningless word salad, followed by the assertion that ample evidence exists, without so much as a hint as to what that evidence might be.

There is more than enough evidence to support the existence of an infinite God. I'll be happy to debate to debate that in another thread, should you wish to do so.

I have been here as a lurker for much longer than I have a member. I am well aware of the worthless arguements theists like to put forth to 'prove' the existence of their magic sky daddies. Thanks for the offer but my time is far too valueable to spend it beating my head against a wall.

However, here Rig we are assuming what the results and logical conclusions would be if we adopted each other's position for the sake of argument. Try to stay up ok. For example, I'm ASSUMING your Naturalistic position to follow it to its logical conclusions.

You do realise that 'survival of the fittest' does not simply mean 'survival of the biggest/strongest? Earlier you charged me with being simplistic, yet here you are, demanding that the entire naturalist moral code be derived from just the concept 'survival of the fittest'. That is clearly too simplistic, it cannot be used in any situation where survival is not an issue. For example, it could be used to justify killing and eating another human in a life or death situation, but not for me to kill my neighbour Joe cos I'm curious about how he'd taste.

If you are supposed to be adopting my position, you should know that the concept of survival of the fittest is not a tool I use to navigate moral dilemmas. Is there a reason I must? Why must I hold all life to be equal? I concede that my position is subjective, that is why I contend yours is also, therefore any point you're trying to make is moot.

Now, if I may condense your position as I under stand it:

P1: Absolute/objective morality can only be derived from infinite wisdom.
P2: Absolute/objective morality is evident in man. (Somehow?)
C: Infinite wisdom is responsible for our sense of morality.

The problem is that P2 can only be determined by infinite wisdom and since no human is capable of such a thing, the premise cannot be argued for without devolving into 'subjective nonsense' as you like to call it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-04-2017 11:16 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 588 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 responded

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

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 588 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


(1)
Message 156 of 1006 (799175)
02-07-2017 8:57 PM


Typical fundie behaviour
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.


Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-08-2017 10:18 PM Riggamortis has responded

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 588 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


Message 157 of 1006 (799177)
02-07-2017 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Dawn Bertot
02-07-2017 8:41 PM


Re: enlightened self-interest -- three laws unanswered
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?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-07-2017 8:41 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Faith, posted 02-07-2017 9:15 PM Riggamortis has responded

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 588 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


Message 160 of 1006 (799185)
02-07-2017 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Faith
02-07-2017 9:15 PM


Re: enlightened self-interest -- three laws unanswered
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Faith, posted 02-07-2017 9:15 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Faith, posted 02-07-2017 10:08 PM Riggamortis has responded

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 588 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


(4)
Message 162 of 1006 (799189)
02-07-2017 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Faith
02-07-2017 10:08 PM


Re: enlightened self-interest -- three laws unanswered
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Faith, posted 02-07-2017 10:08 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Faith, posted 02-07-2017 10:41 PM Riggamortis has not yet responded

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 588 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


(2)
Message 185 of 1006 (799396)
02-09-2017 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Dawn Bertot
02-08-2017 10:18 PM


Re: Typical fundie behaviour
While I have no real basic disagreement agreement with the above statement, I would ask one basic question? Is your statement above absolutely true or only relatively true. How did you arrive at such a certainity. From reality, just your thought. Just you perceptions, what? Tell me how

Using strict definitions the premise is tautological, it is absolutely true the same way that 1+1=2 - by definition. Since the conclusions follow from an absolutely true statement then they too are absolutely true, yes?

Secondly,there is an evidential way for me to identify absolute morality. Both by the general evidence for God's existence and the evidence from specific revelation

So first you agree with my statements, in which I state that a mere human such as yourself cannot possibly recognise 'perfect morality' and then in the next breath you assert that you in fact, are able to. Which is it?

Thirdly, absolute morality is evidenced by simple rational observation.

Simple rational observation made by a being with perfect knowledge, yes. Simple rational observation made by you, me or any other human, no. It can't be any other way, by definition. You've defined yourself into a corner from which you cannot escape.

So I would classify your above statement, more of an observation than an actual argument, because it is predicated on the assumption I cannot identify God's existence or Word by and evidential perspective

It's an observation of the faults/contradictions in your position, sounds like an arguement to me. I challenged you to demonstrate gods existence in one of my first replies, I did that because I knew that it was the only place this thread could go. RAZD and Mod are making the case for a rational but not objective basis for morality, everyone has conceded that morality is not objective(yours too) so all that's left is for you to make the case for your objective morality by demonstrating the existence of god.

You can't assume nor demonstrate that the bible contains (some of) gods infinite wisdom. Only god himself can verify that, by definition. As Mod argued, you would need infinite knowledge yourself to absolutely determine whether it is infinite wisdom or simply wisdom from a more intelligent source.
You cannot rely on your subjective interpretation of the bible nor your subjective judgments of what is absolutely moral.
Since the only things that humans can say are absolutely true are things that are true by definition I think you're only option is to define god into existence. We'll see.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-08-2017 10:18 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-09-2017 9:37 PM Riggamortis has responded

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 588 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


(1)
Message 192 of 1006 (799411)
02-10-2017 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Dawn Bertot
02-09-2017 9:37 PM


Re: Typical fundie behaviour
So then there is an absolute in reality

A statement can be absolutely true, due the arrangement and definitions of the words, tautological statements are pretty meaningless though. Consider 'the sky is blue, except when it isn't'. An absolutely true statement, also it doesn't tell us anything useful.


When did I every say I could not recognize absolute morality. You can

quote:
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.

While I have no real basic disagreement agreement with the above statement, I would ask one basic question? Is your statement above absolutely true or only relatively true. How did you arrive at such a certainity. From reality, just your thought. Just you perceptions, what? Tell me how

I took the bolded agreement to be some sort of typo, I don't understand the sentence otherwise. You neither agree nor disagree? Did you not have time to consider it?

Hardly. Truth exists. For truth to exist,it,would need to have a standard in reality.

Reality is the standard for truth. 'Truth' doesn't exist, reality exists and statements about reality can be true, false or part thereof. I was right, through silly word games you want to define god into existence.

Morality clearly and obviously Exists in reality, for morality to exist it must have an absolute standard. This could only be God

Subjective morality clearly and obviously exists in reality, for absolute morality to exist it must have an absolute standard. This could only be God.

I fixed it for you, we are utterly incapable of recognising true absolute morality if we saw it. You see how it doesn't follow anymore? As written by you, it assumes that absolute morality exists in order to conclude that there is a morality giver.

I know it's morally wrong to kill, for selfish reasons another person. I know that absolutely

How? Are you god? Only god can know that absolutely and he isn't here to moderate. Is self-defence a selfish reason? I can't see how it wouldn't be. What about killing another man to save my wife's life? Whatever your answer, how do you know absolutely?

It's morally wrong to kill another for only selfish reasons. I think my version is more absolute LOL. So where does that leave us?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-09-2017 9:37 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-11-2017 9:24 AM Riggamortis has responded

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 588 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


(1)
Message 207 of 1006 (799606)
02-11-2017 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Dawn Bertot
02-11-2017 9:24 AM


No need to shout mate
Well this is about as comical and nonsensical as it gets. What your saying is that you KNOW for sure and it's a an absolute Truth that something subjective exists, specifically, subjective morality. If it's subjective what else would you have to measure it against except more subjective things and ideas. If it's subjective it not measurable or testable, therefore not knowable

I'm not defending my basis for morality, I am showing that you are in the same boat. I don't care how meaningless you think subjective morality is. All your arguements against my sense of morality apply equally well to yours, since we are both stuck with subjective morals.

For example we KNOW absolutely that an apple exists. The tastiness of the apple is a matter of opinion. But if the apple didn't, exist, then the perception specifically relating to that Apple would not exist. So Moral absolute truth actually exists or it does not. You can't have it both ways.

An absolute moral standard is NOT analogous to the apple. The moral dilemma we subjectively judge is analogous to the apple. The apple exists, a man about to kill someone in self defence exists. We taste the apple, he kills the person. We judge good or bad taste, we judge good or bad morally speaking. That's how it actually works in reality.

You are playing silly word games to define god into existence. If your reasoning must be applied equally as you are demanding of atheists, we 'need' god to exist as an absolute arbiter of taste, beauty, morality and every other subjective judgement we make.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if SOMETHING doesn't exist absolutely and objectively, In reality, to speak about the same nonexistent thing subjectively, as if it did exist, is complete idiocy. Your not happy with idiocy are you?

Funnily enough, this is exactly how I feel about discussions involving gods, unicorns and pixies. To answer your question, no.

What we have in reality is people interacting with each other and being affected in different ways by those interactions. When the question arises whether an action was good or bad, we decide subjectively based on the consequences of the action viewed through our subjective moral compass. Our moral compass is a mixture of our own thoughts, how we were raised and the social consensus. That's reality Dawn.

IMAGINIG YIU HAVE A MORAL IS NOT THE SAME AS DEMONSTRATING IT RATIONALLY

Exactly! Since you aren't god, you are literally by definition, not able to recognise absolute morality. Just as you cannot recognise absolute beauty. This is especially true in any practical sense where there may be thousands of variables to consider.

Therefore, you have nothing more than subjective morality. Your subjective morality is based on the bible but the bible is not an infinite source, nor are you capable of evaluating whether or not any examples of morality in the bible are absolute or not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-11-2017 9:24 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Theodoric, posted 02-11-2017 10:14 PM Riggamortis has not yet responded
 Message 213 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-13-2017 12:39 AM Riggamortis has responded

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 588 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


Message 216 of 1006 (799673)
02-13-2017 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by Dawn Bertot
02-13-2017 12:39 AM


Re: No need to shout mate
No not at all. Here's why. You haven't even began to see what reality is yet, because you think subjective morals are a real thing, something that actually exist that you use as a tool for ethical behavior. You may be stuck but I'm not.
Secondly, all the evidence we have argues for an infinite being. Evolution can't explain consciouness or a conscience in humans. The existence of God and an absolute morality can explain those to very real things. In the same boat, hardly

God of the gaps for this, god of the gaps for that. With A BIT OF OUTRIGHT DENIAL OF REALITY THROWN IN FOR GOOD MEASURE. 😎

Subjective like tastiness is a perception, it doesn't actually exist, they have nothing to reference in reality Taste may exist and taking of life may exist, but a relative perception of whether it is murder or not, does not exist.

All you are doing is asserting that people don't judge right/wrong the same way that they subjectively judge beauty and taste. You can't prove it, by definition. For someone as seemingly intelligent as yourself I'm surprised you haven't clicked onto this yet.

Hence, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you stick the word subjective in front of the word moral or immoral, that makes it real or come to life. Hence morality is only an unreal perception in a meaningless universe

Nor does it take a genius to figure out that if you stick the word absolute in front of the word moral or immoral, it doesn't make god real or come to life. Fuckin snap!

We all subjectively find meaning in our lives in our own ways. That's the cold hard reality you refuse to face Dawn.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-13-2017 12:39 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-13-2017 8:48 PM Riggamortis has responded

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 588 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


(1)
Message 229 of 1006 (799719)
02-13-2017 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Dawn Bertot
02-13-2017 8:48 PM


Re: No need to shout mate
Only god can say whether a given moral concept is absolute or not.

Therefore any assertion you make regarding the absolute-ness of a moral concept is invalid. You lack the infinite knowledge required to know such things.

It's that simple.

ABE: That is why you're stuck with subjective morals like the rest of us. It doesn't matter how well evidenced you(subjectively) think the bible is, you still lack the infinite wisdom to declare a moral concept absolute or not.

Edited by Riggamortis, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-13-2017 8:48 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-14-2017 11:44 PM Riggamortis has responded

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 588 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


(2)
Message 242 of 1006 (799778)
02-15-2017 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by Porosity
02-15-2017 12:09 AM


Re: Isn't the only explanation needed a simple one?
How and the hell is it that Christians can read passages where God allows pregnant women to be murdered, yet still claim abortion is wrong?

Cos they're a few sheep short in the top paddock?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Porosity, posted 02-15-2017 12:09 AM Porosity has not yet responded

  
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019