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: 918,077 Year: 5,334/9,624 Month: 359/323 Week: 203/160 Day: 20/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.
Taq
Member
Posts: 10190
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.0


(3)
Message 3 of 1006 (798451)
02-02-2017 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dawn Bertot
02-02-2017 3:56 PM


Dawn Bertot writes:
Simply put I would say the Atheist has no rational or logical way to formulate an actual moral or ethic, from a reality standpoint.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-02-2017 3:56 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-02-2017 9:47 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10190
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 117 of 1006 (798893)
02-06-2017 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Dawn Bertot
02-02-2017 11:52 PM


Dawn Bertot writes:
But to answer your question, my morals come from the God of the Bible, he has infinite wisdom, that's why he's God and can establish morals for creatures
How do you know that what God commands is moral?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-02-2017 11:52 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10190
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 118 of 1006 (798894)
02-06-2017 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Dawn Bertot
02-02-2017 10:32 PM


Dawn Bertot writes:
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.
That seems to be an unsupported assertion. I don't see why morality can't treat sentient species differently than non-sentient species.
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 problem is that your source of morality is from inside the human construct in the form of a human created religion with human created scriptures.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-02-2017 10:32 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10190
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 119 of 1006 (798895)
02-06-2017 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Dawn Bertot
02-03-2017 12:51 PM


Dawn Bertot writes:
If Frako thinks Believers are more Evil or right or wrong than an Atheist, WHAT is his reason and standard for believing this, show it to me, set it out logically
Why do you think being obedient to the commands of a deity you can't even demonstrate to exist somehow makes you more moral? How does following the orders of a human written book make you more moral?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-03-2017 12:51 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10190
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 120 of 1006 (798896)
02-06-2017 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Dawn Bertot
02-06-2017 1:01 AM


Re: enlightened self-interest
Dawn Bertot writes:
Well you see RAZD, that's the difference between what you believe answer what I believe. Your morality makes no rational sense, but ours does. No I don't know why God commanded some people to stone people, but then it makes no sense to another human being to ask them to love thier enemy..
You just admitted that your source of morality makes no sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-06-2017 1:01 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10190
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 122 of 1006 (798899)
02-06-2017 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Dawn Bertot
02-04-2017 12:37 AM


Re: enlightened self-interest
Dawn Bertot writes:
That's perfectly fine if we are going to use an example from the Bible, but we have to remember the being issuing this command is according to the same source, infinte in knowledge. You are not, I assume
Your source is a book written by humans who have finite wisdom.
While I don't always understand his ways or actions anymore than a SFH, at least I know he's operating on better info than yourself, correct?
How do you know that the human authors of the Bible had better info than anyone else?
Now before you say this is a quote out of a book, I can see this in reality can't i?
If an atheist wrote out a physical copy of their moral code, would that make it objective?
What I mean is at least the theistic position doesn't involve logical contradiction anywhere in it process, especially in its beginning.
The main contradiction is that the Bible is as much a product of humanity as the moral code that atheists use.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-04-2017 12:37 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-07-2017 12:32 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10190
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 136 of 1006 (799088)
02-07-2017 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Dawn Bertot
02-07-2017 12:32 AM


Re: enlightened self-interest
Dawn Bertot writes:
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
Humans wrote the Bible, not a deity. It is humans making claims in the Bible.
You still didn't answer my question. If atheists wrote down a moral code in a book, would that make it an objective set of morals?
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-07-2017 12:32 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-07-2017 8:24 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10190
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 138 of 1006 (799091)
02-07-2017 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Dawn Bertot
02-07-2017 12:35 AM


Re: enlightened self-interest -- three laws
Dawn Bertot writes:
I suppose if I was infinte in wisdom, I could answer that question. But we know under your system you have no right to ask the question, NO WAY TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, therefore no reason to ask the question. See what matter in motion only does for you? It leaves you speechless, powerless. But,it could be the case that your WRONG about being RIGHT, we just don't know, or do we.? Nobody knows under your methodology
You have finite wisdom, as did the human authors of the Bible. Therefore, you can not claim that the Bible contains a moral code by your own criteria. All you are doing is obeying a set of commands, and pretending that is morality. It isn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-07-2017 12:35 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10190
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 181 of 1006 (799350)
02-09-2017 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Dawn Bertot
02-07-2017 8:21 PM


Re: enlightened self-interest -- three laws
Dawn Bertot writes:
So we're the Nazis, moral ,immoral, right, wrong, good, bad right or wrong for what they did, according to your position
Dawn Bertot
When you start using the Nuremburg Defense, the comparison becomes pretty obvious. Your moral code boils down to "I was just taking orders". You claim a completely inability to judge right and wrong for yourself, so you instead turn to blind obedience to what other humans have told you to do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-07-2017 8:21 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-09-2017 9:12 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10190
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 182 of 1006 (799351)
02-09-2017 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Dawn Bertot
02-07-2017 8:24 PM


Re: enlightened self-interest
Dawn Bertot writes:
Well I was trying to be kind, because it is pretty much a nonsensical question. Since we know absolutely that Atheists are not infinte in wisdom, it would follow, they know very little, especially how to be objective.
The same applies to the humans who wrote the Bible. By your very own argument, the Bible can not be used as a source of morality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-07-2017 8:24 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10190
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 183 of 1006 (799352)
02-09-2017 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Dawn Bertot
02-07-2017 8:41 PM


Re: enlightened self-interest -- three laws unanswered
Dawn Bertot writes:
Because I have an objective morality to judge his actions against. It is provided to me in reality, in rational thought and a divine source.
Your position natural selection and subjectivity are no help
If Hitler wrote in a book that God told him to kill jews, would you unquestioningly define Hitler's actions as moral?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-07-2017 8:41 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10190
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 743 of 1006 (806456)
04-25-2017 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 734 by Dredge
04-24-2017 12:55 AM


Re: You really need to drop that straw man by now
Dredge writes:
Hitler and the Khmer Rouge had "evolved brains" too, but they worked stuff out a bit differently to you and I. My point is, there is no way of proving that one man's opinion on morality is more valid or better than any other man's. Some folks think same-sex marriage is immoral, some don't - there is no way to prove that one opinion is right and the other is wrong.
There is usually a pretty easy test. Treat the offender as they treat others, and see if they like it. If you think you can decide who another person is allowed to love, then see how you like it when others decide who you are allowed to love.
If humans and chimps share 98.8% of their DNA, you would expect them to much closer in appearance, behaviour, intelligence, etc.
Why?
If we share 50% (?) of our DNA with bananas, why aren't we a little bit like bananas?
The 50% is probably way misleading, but we are still eukaryotes, just like bananas are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 734 by Dredge, posted 04-24-2017 12:55 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10190
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 744 of 1006 (806457)
04-25-2017 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 732 by Dredge
04-24-2017 12:50 AM


Re: You really need to drop that straw man by now
Dredge writes:
Evolution is as dumb as a cake; it has no intelligence; it is a blind, mindless, unconscious, aimless series of random accidents - yet it supposedly produced creatures who have incredible minds capable of love, imagination, ethics, art, planning, designing, constructing, dreaming, problem solving, inventing, etc, etc.
An argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 732 by Dredge, posted 04-24-2017 12:50 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10190
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.0


(2)
Message 745 of 1006 (806458)
04-25-2017 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 725 by Dredge
04-23-2017 1:24 AM


Dredge writes:
Naturalistic evoultion says that all life is the result of a series of mindless accidents. So the series of mindless accidents that resulted in human life has no more significance or meaning than a rock falling down a cliff. Do mindless accidents have meaning?
We have minds so we can determine what the meaning of our lives will be. Why is that such a problem for you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 725 by Dredge, posted 04-23-2017 1:24 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 747 by Chiroptera, posted 04-25-2017 9:40 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 774 by Dredge, posted 04-27-2017 3:25 AM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10190
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 762 of 1006 (806564)
04-26-2017 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 755 by Dredge
04-26-2017 12:45 AM


Dredge writes:
If atheists are correct and there is no God or gods, then religious morality is man-made - therefore they are as just as valid as any other expression of human morality.
If humans are incapable of determining for themselves what is and isn't moral, then how can they claim that what God commands is moral?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 755 by Dredge, posted 04-26-2017 12:45 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 809 by Dredge, posted 04-30-2017 12:43 AM Taq has replied
 Message 810 by Dredge, posted 04-30-2017 12:45 AM Taq 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