Simply put I would say the Atheist has no rational or logical way to formulate an actual moral or ethic, from a reality standpoint.
While it's possible for him or her to imagine or perceive such a thing, there is simply no way in reality this is possible. I can easily developed that point.
In the first place, this is not a moral it's an Instinct, any animal can avoid pain or misery. It takes no thinking process.
Secondly, since according to the Naturalistic proposition, much animal life existed before the human brain, it would follow that pain or misery and it's avoidance was not invented as a moral by the human mind, therefore not an actual moral or ethic. The lion and Bear do not share your opinion,when they are on the giving end of misery. We only discovered that it's a thing to avoid as well, for natural reasons, not ethical ones.
Thirdly, since I can get very different responses from human minds as to what constitutes a moral or immoral act, it should be immediately evident that there is no way to establish OBJECTIVELY, from a Naturalistic standpoint, what is in REALITY morally real.
Therefore, it is logically impossible for an actual ethic or moral to exist from the Atheistic standpoint, in Reality.
It would seem to me that you are saying that there isn't a rational way to formulate an actual moral or ethic. Period. I really don't see what this has to do with atheism.
No I never said anything close to that, dont see how you got that out of what I said. It doesn't matter what I believe, for the SFH, to be unable to establish an actual moral, in reality. We will develope that for you as we go along
When you say this what do you mean by the term 'a moral'? Why can morals not derive from an instinctual basis?
Instinct by its very nature can take no thought
What do you mean 'therefore not an actual moral or ethic'? I don't follow your logic. I think that's because you didn't provide it.
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. This would be called infinite wisdom. This is what it would take for you to have an actual moral or ethic in reality. Do you?
I reject the notion of an objective morality.
Then I was correct, as an Atheist you have no rational moral in reality
when you boil it down its simple any act against the community is immoral and acts for the good of the community are moral. Or at least that is what evolution selected for. Immoral communities with selfish members that acted only in their own interests died out, while communities where everyone pulled together flourished. ITs religion that has perverted this instinct and supplemented it with their flawed morality.
If this is the case as you state can I ask you a question I noticed in this MONKEY video, they are in cages. Did they do something wrong? Did they commit a crime to be incarcerated, probably against thier will?
I thought slavery was wrong.
You see Frako you can't even get out of the starting gate from a rational logical standpoint. Your moral has to be consistent across all species, not just humans.
He didn't go that far yet. He's just implied that any morality atheists exhibit is irrational. It's the same old "rational atheists should conclude that they can do anything they want, so why aren't they rampaging and murdering and raping and pillaging?".
I regard anyone who thinks religious belief is required for moral behavior with some concern. But they are a priori wrong, atheists in general are moral. That is an observed fact, so the interesting question is "why?", not "why are you doing atheism wrong? ".
Time to to get busy son, with Mr reality. My objection is a logical one not emotional or personal. Given that all thing in nature are equal as far as life is concerned. That is, all life is sacred and deserves to thrive and survive, just like you. Would it be murder to put several chickens to death for your consumption. If not, could you kill and eat another human, since all life is just life
What would be the difference of murder in one instance and just something else in another instance
Trying to get you to see that morality has to come from a source outside the human construct or perspective, otherwise it's just inconsistent subjective nonsense. The chicken doesn't share your views about what constitutes murder or misery
There are some 20,000 world religions, and some 40,000 sects, branches, denominations and flavors of christianity alone. There is nowhere close to an agreement on any given set of morals among those religions.
Sorry to have to burst your bubble.
(Or, are you figuring that it is your own religion that is the only one that counts?)
No u miss the whole point. The question is not do people or can people get things wrong wild Coyote. This is a question pitted against reality and what it will allow in the area of morality
Can people religious or not be the source for an absolute moral.
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 You have to take it out of the personal realm into the completely rational and reality realm
Rats are irrelevant to human wellness, unless your poisoning a colony of beloved pets or a shop owners prized possession of hairless rats.
How long are you going to tap dance, or are you just trolling?
Stay calm son and quit getting emotional, it blinds you to reality. Of course rats are irrelevant to human wellness. That's not the point
For a moral to be real and rational from a Naturalistic standpoint, it has to be consistent in its tenets for all life, because all life is equal, true
But you didn't answer my question. Is it moral to exterminate a colony of rats with poisonous pellets, yes or no. And how did u arrive at that conclusion Tell me your reasoning of why it's OK or not ok
If you think I'm tap dancing, ask me a direct question and I'll answer it. You've ask me nothing yet