Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Happy Birthday: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,139 Year: 5,396/9,624 Month: 421/323 Week: 61/204 Day: 3/34 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5987
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 33 of 1006 (798521)
02-03-2017 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Dawn Bertot
02-02-2017 10:04 PM


So you completely avoided Frako's entire question.
How sadly typical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-02-2017 10:04 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-03-2017 12:51 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5987
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 322 of 1006 (800469)
02-24-2017 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 318 by Phat
02-23-2017 9:44 AM


Re: God may be objective but we are all subjective
lets use logic: ...
Er, have you ever received any training in logic? I took that class in my very first semester of college (1969, gracias a CDR Spock).
"Logic" comes from the Greek verb, "lego", meaning to place in order (related to the English "lay", which is a cognate of the German "legen" which means the same thing). So the idea is that you are laying your thoughts down in an orderly manner. "lego" also refers to speech as in "say" since you are saying something intelligible instead of just uttering nonsense (ie, "lalao", just going "la-la-la-la" making no sense; seen in "echolalia", a condition where someone just repeats what they hear).
So then "logic" is not just some neat word you can throw around (much as Star Trek:TOS admittedly did do). It actually means something.
Formal logic is based on syllogisms, logical constructs in which you proceed form two premises to a conclusion. Syllogisms can be chained together wherein the conclusion of one syllogism becomes a premise of the next. We see that all the time in combinatorial logic networks formed by Boolean algebra (think of computer hardware logic circuitry design).
Syllogisms are never concerned with truth or falsehood, but rather only with validity. That is an extremely important distinction to be made. Now, if a syllogism is valid, then if you feed it true premises you will get a true conclusion. Otherwise, you have no idea what you have. If your syllogism is invalid, then you do not know whether your conclusion is true or false, but rather only that you don't know. If your syllogism is valid but your premises are not true, then again you have absolutely no idea whether your conclusion is true or not.
Let's use logic. Theology uses logic. Long chains of logic, long networks of logic. All of which can quickly fall apart if any single premise in those long chains and networks turn out to not be valid. Or if any of the many axiomatic premises underlying that entire intricate house-of-cards were to turn out to not be true, then what happens to the entire theology, those long chains and networks of syllogisms?
Are you really sure you want to appeal to logic? Do you really think that logic is your friend?
Now, "theology". I have a very definite meaning for that word, though I'm sure that it is one that you would not agree with in your "fallen state."
Do you believe in God? No, you don't. You believe in your theology and what it says you need to believe about "God". Do you believe in the Bible? No, you don't, you believe in your theology and what it says about the Bible and about what you must believe about the Bible. Etc.
Nobody believes in "God' nor in "the Bible" nor in anything else. All that they actually believe in is their own theology. In their own understanding/misunderstanding about God, etc. Everybody believes in their own theology and everybody builds their own theology out of their own misunderstandings of whatever it is that they are trying to pattern their theology after.
Do please think about that for a few moments and it should become very clear. Or it will not become very clear in which case you are a lost soul. Sorry -- but if you really want to discuss it I am available.
Objective means relative to the object.
Uh, no. Sorry. Objective means objective! What part of that did you not understand?
If one claims that the object of all morality is God, one concludes that there is no further discussion since God never changes, is absolute, etc etc...
Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot-Oscar????
OK, you are so enamoured with logic, so do please follow my logic.
I am an atheist. That means that I do not believe in the gods.
I am also an agnostic. That means that I believe that humans cannot know anything about the supernatural. The supernatural is undetectable and hence unknowable and untestable.
Does God exist? Does Thor exist? Does Amaterasu exist? Do Bel and Anu exist? Does Luke Skywalker exist? Does CDR Spock exist?
To all of those I would say, "Yes, they do exist." We know that they exist because we created them and we created their stories. And since we created both them and their stories, we are entirely free to analyze and discuss their stories (which we also created). Do please note that I included that to short-circuit a typical fundamentalist/creationist argument of "well, if God doesn't exist, then why could you ever say what he would or would not do?"
The real question is whether such an Ultimate as GOD exists. Well, quite frankly, that never ever comes up. Does some Ultimate exist? Who knows? All our minds are finite! God is INFINITE! How could our finite human minds ever possibly be able to begin to comprehend the INFINITE! And even then, how could our finite minds even begin to attempt to describe the INFINITE!??
IOW, you have no comprehension of what GOD really is.
The believer would argue that as a child of God they have access to and awareness OF the moral absolutes.
Complete and utter bullshit!
Moral absolutes are outside of human consciousnes.
The believer would argue that as a child of God they have access to and awareness OF the moral absolutes. Telling them that even their Bible is subjective merely frustrates and stiffens their resolve to be absolutely right---as their Creator would logically expect them to be. Right?
Put another way---He is the object of our faith and we are all subjects of the King.
The believer would argue that as a child of God they have access to and awareness OF the moral absolutes. Telling them that even their Bible is subjective merely frustrates and stiffens their resolve to be absolutely right---as their Creator would logically expect them to be. Right?
Put another way---He is the object of our faith and we are all subjects of the King.
The believer would argue that as a child of God they have access to and awareness OF the moral absolutes. Telling them that even their Bible is subjective merely frustrates and stiffens their resolve to be absolutely right---as their Creator would logically expect them to be. Right?
Put another way---He is the object of our faith and we are all subjects of the King.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by Phat, posted 02-23-2017 9:44 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-24-2017 5:30 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5987
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 592 of 1006 (805026)
04-15-2017 1:57 AM


Arguably, Atheists are More Moral
There's a documentary program on CNN, Believer, featuring Reza Aslan immersing himself in various religions on the level of a believer. I've not watched it.
Today (14 Apr 2017) I heard Reza Aslan being interviewed on the Sirius XM Insight channel. One thing he brought up was how poll after poll after poll find that atheists are among the most moral people while theists, especially Christians, are among the least moral. Therefore, there is very little, if any at all, connection between religion and morality. The two just don't seem to have anything to do with each other.
Another point that was raised was how fundamentalists of all religions are pretty much the same with the same mentality and the same attitudes. So Christian fundamentalists have much more in common with Muslim fundamentalists than they do with other Christians.
I forget which program that was on, but some of those programs have websites with audio files of programs. Maybe someone could look for it.

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5987
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 594 of 1006 (805033)
04-15-2017 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 590 by Faith
04-14-2017 11:28 PM


Re: Good post Dredge
Being made of atoms is what makes us nothing special.
Uh, but we are made of atoms. And we are animals. There is no denying either simple observable fact. That you choose to make an extremely negative judgement based on simple, observable, irrefutable facts says much more about you than about anything else.
Remember, the Bible is just a book. Nothing but paper and ink and binding materials.
Being merely physical, or merely animal, which makes soul or spirit at best epiphenomenal, at worst a human delusion, is what denies us specialness.
You want to be "special"? Please keep in mind that "special" is used to describe individuals of limited capacity, usually mental. Do you still want to be "special"?
Also, just whom do we hear using such language? Oh yeah! The fundies and related religious extremists **. For what purpose? To create a strawman argument by attempting to reduce their perceived opposition's position to a ridiculously extreme statement. I just posted a message about how atheists rate much more highly in morality than do Christians and I would think that fundamentalists rate far lower on the scale than other Christians (most of whom they refuse to even consider as being Christians -- I got caught in the middle of one of those stupid disputes at work; please note that Jesus Christ on his radio show gets really bent out of shape when a caller tries to pull that kind of crap).
Are we all constructed out of atoms? Yeah! Are we all animals? Yeah! Does that mean we are not special? Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot-Oscar? (Oscar is required for military transmission) Just exactly what kind of congenital idiot are you?
OK, not congenital. Rather, that kind of idiocy is acquired through one's theology.

A young woman in my Country Two-Step class made me aware of this. She is "one of those", though which one of those I'm not sure. It turns out that while we normals tend to lump a lot of you together, that just ends up rankling you-all.
Here's a graphic published by Ed Babinski, a former ultra-Fundamentalist who went on to publish a book of deconversion stories:
Basically, Babinski depicted what Bertrand Russel had described, that a Catholic freethinker would naturally become an atheist, whereas a Protestant freethinker would simply form a new church. As soon as Protestantism came into being, it immediately started splintering off into more denominations than anyone could ever imagine. We should really consider renaming Protestantism to "Legion", since they are many.
The issue that she had made me aware of is that while to us normals you-all appear to be no different from each other, amongst yourselves you draw very major and extreme distinctions. Referring back to the Babinski graphic and the Bertrand Russel description, we have that you have drawn back from each other along very strong doctrinal lines.
Which leaves us normals in a quandry of how to refer to you-all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 590 by Faith, posted 04-14-2017 11:28 PM Faith has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5987
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


(2)
Message 595 of 1006 (805034)
04-15-2017 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 593 by PaulK
04-15-2017 2:02 AM


Re: Good post Dredge
I've been moving in the direction of viewing Christianity and its views of humanity as being sociopathic. Or even promoting psychiopathic attitudes or behavior.
At least those are the views that I keep seeing its more vocal proponents promoting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 593 by PaulK, posted 04-15-2017 2:02 AM PaulK has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5987
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


(4)
Message 782 of 1006 (806710)
04-27-2017 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 769 by Davidjay
04-26-2017 9:57 PM


Re: Evolutionists can not explain morals
Evolutionists can not explain altruistic behaviour, as evolution states it is the survival of the fittest competition, and extinction to the losers who do not mutate every billion years.
No, that was Spenser as I recall. And obviously you have absolutely no clue what fitness is, so how could you possibly say anything meaningful about it.
Evolution explain altruistic behavior quite well. Rather, it is the creationists and even Christianity itself that cannot explain altruistic behavior. If all your good acts and self-sacrifice for others are motivated by your angry god, by wanting to avoid its extreme punishments and earn its rewards, then you cannot possibly act altruistically. Your motivation for everything you do is complete and utter selfishness.
Altruism is beyond the comprehension of creationists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 769 by Davidjay, posted 04-26-2017 9:57 PM Davidjay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 790 by Davidjay, posted 04-28-2017 9:40 AM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5987
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


(8)
Message 791 of 1006 (806829)
04-28-2017 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 790 by Davidjay
04-28-2017 9:40 AM


Re: Evolutionists can not explain morals
Why should I waste my time explaining the same thing to you that everybody else has been telling you. You will just ignore me too. I need to pack for a period of extended travel starting today and you are nothing but a waste of effort. And that your religion has turned you into that is a condemnation of that religion. Apply the Matthew 7:20 to your religion -- HINT: you are wicked fruit.
In evolutionary theory, getting your genes represented in subsequent generations is the basic game. If you sacrifice yourself to ensure the survival of your children, then that gets your genes into subsequent generations. If you sacrifice yourself to ensure the survival of your siblings' children, then the outcome is the same -- HINT: they share your genes. Same for your cousins and their children. Same for members of your tribe and for the tribe itself, since tribes have traditionally been peopled by kin. Even when the concept of tribe has been extended beyond kinship, working to preserve the tribe also helps ensure the survival of your kin who depend on that tribe for survival -- that is also an evolutionary basis for morality.
In contrast, in Christianity there is no basis for morality because it serves no other purpose than to appease an arbitrary and angry god. And because your entire theology is about seeking eternal reward and avoiding eternal punishment, there is no basis in Christianity for altruism and it is impossible for a Christian to be altruistic because of his theology. However, since a Christian is a human who has the same evolutionary history of normals, a Christian can indeed engage in altruistic acts only because he is human, not because he's a Christian.
Now please pull your head out and stop ignoring what everybody has been trying to tell you. But of course you will just ignore this as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 790 by Davidjay, posted 04-28-2017 9:40 AM Davidjay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 793 by Faith, posted 04-28-2017 3:36 PM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 1002 by dwise1, posted 08-18-2017 2:23 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5987
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


(4)
Message 1002 of 1006 (817599)
08-18-2017 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 791 by dwise1
04-28-2017 10:13 AM


Evolutionists can indeed explain morals
In evolutionary theory, getting your genes represented in subsequent generations is the basic game. If you sacrifice yourself to ensure the survival of your children, then that gets your genes into subsequent generations. If you sacrifice yourself to ensure the survival of your siblings' children, then the outcome is the same -- HINT: they share your genes. Same for your cousins and their children. Same for members of your tribe and for the tribe itself, since tribes have traditionally been peopled by kin. Even when the concept of tribe has been extended beyond kinship, working to preserve the tribe also helps ensure the survival of your kin who depend on that tribe for survival -- that is also an evolutionary basis for morality.
In contrast, in Christianity there is no basis for morality because it serves no other purpose than to appease an arbitrary and angry god. And because your entire theology is about seeking eternal reward and avoiding eternal punishment, there is no basis in Christianity for altruism and it is impossible for a Christian to be altruistic because of his theology. However, since a Christian is a human who has the same evolutionary history of normals, a Christian can indeed engage in altruistic acts only because he is human, not because he's a Christian.
Edited by dwise1, : Changed sub-title

This message is a reply to:
 Message 791 by dwise1, posted 04-28-2017 10:13 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024