Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,078 Year: 5,335/9,624 Month: 360/323 Week: 204/160 Day: 21/19 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.
jar
Member
Posts: 34123
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 11 of 1006 (798489)
02-02-2017 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by JonF
02-02-2017 9:15 PM


And conversely, why are so many theists so immoral?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by JonF, posted 02-02-2017 9:15 PM JonF has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34123
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


(4)
Message 35 of 1006 (798529)
02-03-2017 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Dawn Bertot
02-02-2017 11:07 PM


Re: Religion Cannot Rationally Explain Morals
DB writes:
Can people religious or not be the source for an absolute moral.
There are no absolute morals, never have been and likely cannot be.
DB writes:
IOWs, if it's OK to eat another living thing and it's not murder, why could people not kill and eat other people on a regular basis and it not be murder
It can be absolutely moral (not an absolute moral) for people to eat other people and in fact has happened.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-02-2017 11:07 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34123
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 80 of 1006 (798661)
02-04-2017 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Dr Adequate
02-04-2017 11:23 AM


Re: Religion Cannot Rationally Explain Morals
And more generally it seems that we don't all have the same intrinsic law put inside of us by God, since we all think that different things are right and wrong.
And if you actually read the Bible stories you will see that the God character really hasn't a clue about what absolute morality or even common morality entails. In the Bible it is even necessary for a common human to educate the God character on how to behave morally.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-04-2017 11:23 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34123
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 100 of 1006 (798744)
02-05-2017 8:56 AM


Explaining morals is really stupid when out of context
The whole idea that there is some need for a morality giver is simply utterly stupid. To think that that giver of morality is the God portrayed in the Bible is even dumber. Biblical morality is based solely on ignorance and frankly, stupidity that grows from ignorance. The plagues of Egypt, prohibiting Moshe from entering Canaan, what was done to Job, what happened at the Garden of Eden, can only be seen as totally without moral redemption when seen from today's morality. But the authors likely did not see such things as immoral or even amoral.
Like language, morality is simply a human construct and it evolves within human (and it seems other species) societies. Morality has no use or worth or value outside its functionality within that society.
The very idea of some absolute morality is a pitiful and sad concept that could only be found within a totalitarian oppressive society. To have worth or value morality must be capable of change and evolution unless the society in totally static and never changing.
What is needed is consensus and effectiveness. Neither of those though are universal. Neither of those demands consistency. Take as an example the Buddhist sanctity of life; often carried to the extreme of sweeping the ground before you so that you do not step on a small insignificant bug. Yet Buddhists still eat and much of what they eat was once alive.
Morality only makes sense within a given situation, a given context and the very same acts when done in a different context, a different situation may be judged entirely differently.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-06-2017 12:57 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34123
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 116 of 1006 (798869)
02-06-2017 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Dawn Bertot
02-06-2017 12:57 AM


Re: Explaining morals is really stupid when out of context
DB writes:
Your almost correct, it actually has no worth or value even in its functionality. Because you cannot demonstrate that it is anything more than biological process. Of course I could be wrong, but how would I know?
I suspect you could examine the evidence. Do you have any evidence that morality has any value beyond its functionality?
DB writes:
This is exactly what you would expect someone to say that is opposed to authority. If I am not mistaken, IT SOUNDS AS IF YOU JUST STATED AN ABSOLUTE. But of course this absolute of yours allows you to operate mostly just like you wish correct.
I could be wrong, but how would I know in your world
Actually, as usual, you are simply wrong. I cannot act outside the standards of morality within the society I inhabit without being sanctioned by other members of that society.
I did not present any absolute but rather simply pointed to reality and a generality.
DB writes:
jar writes:
Morality only makes sense within a given situation, a given context and the very same acts when done in a different context, a different situation may be judged entirely differently.
Is this absolutely true or relatively true?
Does that not say that it is relatively true?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-06-2017 12:57 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-07-2017 12:28 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34123
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 132 of 1006 (799059)
02-07-2017 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Dawn Bertot
02-07-2017 12:28 AM


Re: Explaining morals is really stupid when out of context
DB writes:
jar writes:
I suspect you could examine the evidence. Do you have any evidence that morality has any value beyond its functionality?
The only functionality of a Naturalistic "morality" is matter in motion. If by functionality you mean, MORE than just WHAT'S IT'S DOING at any given moment,you'll need to provide that. If not it would not be any better or worse than anything else happening. I know you'd like to think you have something BETTER, but reality won't allow it
I'm sorry but your response does not even qualify as word salad; it is simply gibberish and utter nonsense.
DB writes:
jar writes:
Actually, as usual, you are simply wrong. I cannot act outside the standards of morality within the society I inhabit without being sanctioned by other members of that society.
I did not present any absolute but rather simply pointed to reality and a generality.
Unless you can demonstrate that the things these members have created, rules etc are anything more than just a product of natural processes, you have no morality. Can. You do this? The best you've done so far is change words to call it functionality
HUH! Again, you simply respond with gibberish. Of course the rules are things that people (who are almost always the product of a natural process called fucking) are simply a creation of that society and they function as a way to maintain general order in that society.
DB writes:
jar writes:
Does that not say that it is relatively true?
There no such thing as relatively true, that's why I asked the question. You answered as I expected you to. Thank u
But then you finish with something that is not just nonsense but also false. It was true that I wanted a BLT for lunch but when I got it I found I really didn't want it. Truth often is solely dependent on the context and moment. What is true now may well be false a minute later.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-07-2017 12:28 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-07-2017 8:18 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34123
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 133 of 1006 (799060)
02-07-2017 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Dawn Bertot
02-07-2017 12:32 AM


Re: enlightened self-interest
DB writes:
If an atheist wrote out a physical copy of their moral code, would that make it objective?
But Atheists do not claim to be all knowing, the God of the Bible does, that's the difference. If the God of the Bible did not claim this there would be no reason to believe him anymore than you
Dawn, you've never honestly read the Bible have you?
It is filled with stories showing that the God character is NOT all knowing.
Honestly, why is it you Bible Thumpers have never honestly read the book?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-07-2017 12:32 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34123
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 159 of 1006 (799180)
02-07-2017 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Dawn Bertot
02-07-2017 8:18 PM


Re: Explaining morals is really stupid when out of context
DB writes:
Well if I was try,ing, i could not have given a better description of your position. Then if we follow that logically, I have no need to follow the alleged truth of any of your positions. If truth is OFTEN dependent on context and that is what it takes to be truth, then, when would we absolutely know what a truth is or is not.
I see you still have not learned how to read or what honesty entails.
Here is the only place I mention the word true in the post you are responding to:
quote:
But then you finish with something that is not just nonsense but also false. It was true that I wanted a BLT for lunch but when I got it I found I really didn't want it. Truth often is solely dependent on the context and moment. What is true now may well be false a minute later.
If you were capable of either reading or honesty you would see that I already provided both the conditions and how we would decide if something is true. No where did I mention absolutely but in reality neither the meaning or context world change is the word absolutely were inserted.
It was absolutely true that I wanted a BLT for lunch but when I got it I found I really didn't want it. Truth often is solely dependent on the context and moment. What is absolutely true now may well be absolutely false a minute later.
Fortunately as humans we have been given a brain and if we use it we can even discover that even though it was absolutely true that I wanted a BLT for lunch, when I got it I found I really didn't want it.
DB writes:
jar writes:
Dawn, you've never honestly read the Bible have you?
It is filled with stories showing that the God character is NOT all knowing.
Honestly, why is it you Bible Thumpers have never honestly read the book?
Perhaps you could give us an example of this assertion, then according to your definition of truth, let us know how it's true, or not true. Example please.
I can and have done so right here in River City many a time.
It begins in Genesis. The God character shows up and does not know where Adam and Eve are so has to cal them. Later the God character has heard stories about what has been happening so he comes down to walk about to find out if the reports are true.
Begin with Genesis 1:
quote:
31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Note it is after the fact that he sees it was good.
Then Genesis 2:
quote:
18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that man should be alone; xI will make him a helper comparable to him. 19 yOut of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and zbrought them to 7Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.
Of course the God character really is just a bumbling fool in this story, learning by doing, but you would think he would have know what the best help meet for Adam was, but according to the story he didn't.
and from Genesis 3:
quote:
8 And they heard the 3sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the 4cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.
9 Then the Lord God called to Adam and said to him, Where are you?
You would think an all knowing being wouldn't have to ask were they were hiding.
and Genesis 18:
quote:
20And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; 21I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.
Again, the God character demonstrates he is not all knowing (and he also shows that at times humans need to teach him about morality and correct his poor sense of morality).
And there are yet more.
It is absolutely true that is what the stories say. We can determine that by honestly reading the words that were written in the stories.
As I have said many times, those who claim to be Bible Christians really seem to have never read the Bible honestly.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-07-2017 8:18 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-08-2017 10:19 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34123
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 176 of 1006 (799312)
02-09-2017 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Dawn Bertot
02-08-2017 10:19 PM


Re: Explaining morals is really stupid when out of context
DB writes:
Your awful attempt to explain morals is only superceeded by your poor Biblical interpretation skills
Thank you for providing additional evidence to support my position. As you so aptly demonstrate the Bible is filled with inconsistencies and contradictions. It clearly shows that God is ignorant and all knowing, moral, immoral and amoral.
One thing that is consistent is its inconsistency and relativity.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-08-2017 10:19 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34123
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 194 of 1006 (799432)
02-10-2017 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by New Cat's Eye
02-10-2017 9:46 AM


Re: nazis
Or spirituality or worship or deity.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-10-2017 9:46 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34123
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 234 of 1006 (799758)
02-14-2017 4:49 PM


Isn't the only explanation needed a simple one?
Isn't the only explanation needed for morals and morality really simple and the same explanation as needed for stop signs and lights and crosswalk markers and storm drains and paved streets and rain coats and a tennis net and so many other things?
Isn't the only needed explanation for morals and morality that they help a society function?
As the Bible itself says as early as Genesis 3, "No God Need Apply", "Humans themselves have all that is needed to create morals and morality. But post armed guards to keep them outta my Garden and off the lawn."

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-14-2017 11:50 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34123
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 245 of 1006 (799786)
02-15-2017 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by Dawn Bertot
02-14-2017 11:50 PM


Dawn, why do you keep lying in a thread you started about morality?
DB writes:
He actually compares a Stop sign to another human invention called Abortion.
Please point out where I mentioned abortion?
You do know that abortions are not a human invention and in fact most abortions happen quite naturally?
Why do you seem incapable of NOT lying?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-14-2017 11:50 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34123
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 281 of 1006 (800125)
02-20-2017 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by Dawn Bertot
02-20-2017 6:56 AM


Re: How?
DB writes:
Right. Your rationalizing your relative subjective behavior to make it have meaning and call it morality. I believe this is what the Nazis did, correct. Exterminate the weak and those with physical problems, because they hurt the master race.
And because it was their Christian Duty.
But it's really good that you brought this up because it more than adequately explains morality.
Morality is a human construct that is societal in nature. It exists only with the general consensus of a population. The Nazis had one set of moral codes. Other nations had different moral codes (though not very different). For example, the US provided a great example of how to commit genocide efficiently with how it treated Native Americans and even at the time of the rise of the Nazis there was great support for the idea of removing Jewish Influence here in the US. I'm sure you are aware of the MS ST. Louis incident, the Voyage of the Damned. It was certainly not one of those unreported news stories.
Morality is a social contract and as such just like humans, evolves.

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

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 283 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-20-2017 7:52 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34123
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 284 of 1006 (800128)
02-20-2017 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by Dawn Bertot
02-20-2017 7:52 AM


Why do you continue lying Dawn?
DB writes:
Right it's an evolving biological process with no meaning or purpose in reality. Reality won't allow it. But if you want to IMAGINE it you go right ahead. When death comes around, it won't care what you think, correct
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?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-20-2017 7:52 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-21-2017 5:17 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34123
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024