Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.

Dewise1 writes On the contrary I not only answered him i gave him a clear example. 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
If he believes that incarceratiing an animal in a cage for experimentation, observation, as in a zoo, is not slavery, then he'll have to show me why I could not do the same thing to a group of humans. I believe the Nazis did this, correct
His so called morality has to be consistent to be rational
From a logical standpoint he has to have a reason for believing this. Ie, Is he superior, is he's more intelligent, etc. Give me that reasonFrom a life standpoint are you better than other animalsDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Venesy writes Well that's as good a definition of subjective relativism as I've ever seen, it's as empty as it is relative. The only thing that I need to ACKNOWLEDGE is reality. If your position is true then there would be nothing wrong with killing and eating humans as casually as we do other animal life, correct So your big rational philosophical reasoned answer is for me to suck it up , even if your position is a glaring contradiction in reality. See that won't work in reality. If I believe that I could walk off the top of a building and can ignore the reality of gravity, I should just suck it up right, because I truly believe I won't fall to my death. Will it change the reality of the reality of gravityIf the question of killing and consuming humans as we do animals is MEANINGLESS,, then it would follow that you have no morals afterall. You'll have to do better than that.Secondly, explain to me how all life is not equal in your Naturalistic environment. Are you saying you are superior to other creatures, the way God would be superior to you? There in lies your problem, you believe we need to understand the universe to understand simple laws and rules. We do not. I don't need to understand the universe to understand your position involves self contradiction, even on the surfaceDawn Bertot

RAZD writes: Fortunately, our position has nothing to do with religious belief, at least fundamentally. I have waited to this point to interject God's actions in this or that context or what he does or not does as evil, because I wanted it firmly established by at least a few here what your actual position consists of.It should be Clear to even the simplest of readers that your position is as subjective as any position could possibly be. Morals are nothing more than changing ideas between humans and animals and nature. Nothing is truly right , wrong, good bad or otherwise. What may or may not serve the good of the species. Etc, etc, etc.A simple reading of your and Venesy's post demonstrate this point.We don't attack the Atheists concept of morals because we have nothing better to do. We are simply amazed that a group of people that reduces morality to the most subjective nonsense, have the audacity to attack a God infinite in wisdom, of his actions. These same SFH can't even be consistent in reason and application of thier ALLEDGED moralsIt's now the time to demonstrate that any action by an infinite God would be as meaningless, FROM YOUR STANDPOINT ,as any action of yours. Or that the same group ofpeople, involve themselves in the same autrocites, with lesser or thierarchy own species.How would you justify condemning any action of God, if you can find no evil or Good in your own actions.
If you don't believe this, provide me with an example of human conduct that would be truly evil. But remember, let's not just talk about the human species. That kind of logic doesn't workIf slavery is wrong then why is a zoo not slavery. From the SFH position, Morals are nothing more than to justify your actionsDawn Bertot

Right that's my point you change the word moral and it's meaning to suit your purposes
HENCE NO ACTUAL MORALITY

Because as if Mr. Harris says, the ultimate moral of humans is to minimize maximum suffering, you are inconsistent in this area. You take away animals life for your consumption, you use them in experiments, etcBecause you are a finite CREATURE, that is you have limited knowledge of all things. By the very definition of finite, you don't have enough information to know right from wrong. Yours is an idiotic assumption.
You fail right off the bat, because you admit your finite. You can't be anything but inconsistent without an infinte knowledge. You might get a few things right, but eventually we are going to have fools actually not believing in God and man thinking he can get things straight morally. We might even have men wanting to marry animals or put them cages to laugh at them. Wait that's already happening isn't it. See what I mean?Sorry all the banter here about what morality is or is not by finite creatures is going to be fallacious, in all if not most of its assumptionsThis is a problem from which you fellas cannot extricate yourselfDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Modulous writes You missed the point mod. I'm not interested whether instinct can help form thoughts. It's that when these thoughts are formed, there only going to be one set of thoughts amount millions of other creatures with different ideas about what's good or bad. But then good or bad cannot Rationally exist in a purely Naturalistic society
Hence, subjective, inconsistent and hopelessly subjective Now your staring to get it. You just stated in an eloquent way what is true of your Socalled morality. Hopelessly irrational without any possibility of resolution or conciliationThat's if we accept your position Your second statement is false only because your first statement is hopelessly false. Your morals in reality are nothing more than inconsistent desires. The Naturalistic process which alledgedly created your so called desires, cares nothing about what you wish,want or feel good or bad about. All of it , even if we include conscienceness, is nothing more that biological processes I've missed the line that demonstrates anything but different ideas, thoughts or concepts, varying greatly amount millions of humans. Given your Naturalistic doctrine, you could explain very little rationally And this is exactly what I mean, here in your statement above. An atheists thoughts about the non existence of God are not a reality, they don't really exist. Even if they did, they couldn't change what is, the physical evidence for God's existence and that he would be the only rational way to establish an absolute moral standard. Those things exist actually due to reality. You got it backwards How do you even address a silly nonsensical statement like that. Wow So if this is evil would it be evil to exterminate a colony of rats for no other reason than they are in your backyard and you didn't want them there? And if it's ok, please explain why. IOWs, your better or smarter, your more important, higher in intelligence, exactly what reasonDawn Bertot

RAZD 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
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? So you admit that it's inconsistent, just not wildly, correct.. so how can a MILDLY inconsistent moral code be consistent? Hmmmm? "For when gentiles which have not the (written) law, do by nature the things contained in the (written) law, these having not the the (written) law, are a law unto themselves, which show the written law written on thier hearts (by an infinte God), there conscience also bearing witness AND THIER CONFLICTING THOUGHTS WILL ACCUSE OR PERHAPS EXCUSE THEM.............." emphasis mineRomans 2:14-16New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised Catholic Edition (NRSVACE)14When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves.15They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them16on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all.Here is your example, here is where you know right from, wrong. Your conscience will accuse or excuse you based on infinte wisdom written on your heart or conscience.Now before you say this is a quote out of a book, I can see this in reality can't i? An intrinsic law in operation with freewill. I can obey it or ignore it can't i? What I can't see is consistency when a finite being tries to be something more than finteSo your finite and he's infinte, guess who I'm going pick everytime. What I mean is at least the theistic position doesn't involve logical contradiction anywhere in it process, especially in its beginning. SorryDawn Bertot

I'm glad I don't use my own compass, because you and I would have tried to exterminate each other alreadyou probably, rightYou act morally because of the intrinsic law put inside of you by the creator. It has nothing to do with fables.
Reality will bare out what the book says in Romans 2:14Dawn Bertot

Your being simplistic. I don't think it's evil when animals eat animals. You miss the point. If I adopt the Naturalistic doctrine, it's either evil or its not. Since it's not,and humans are on the same scale, it would not be evil for humans to kill and eat other humans.
But they call this evil and murder
You can't have it both ways in a strictly Naturalistic existence. Sorry, there's no way around thatI adopt my morality from that source, because only a rational objective morality can come from an infinite mind, everything else is subjective and inconsistent. It would therefore, be inconsistent to accuse anyone muchless God of wrong doing or evil 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 andRomans 1:18-23.18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth.19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because GOD HAS SHOWN IT TO THEM. 20Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. SO THEY ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE;21for though they knew God, they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened.22Claiming to be wise, they became fools;23and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Since, there are about a billion different views on what it would mean to act morally, that would not only be nonsensical but irrational from a reality standpointIf morality does not come from an independent source, infinite in knowledge, then there is only relativism and subjective rambling. Hard cold reality and rational will only allow that possibility

Well thanks for admitting you are hopelessly lost in subjectivism, but if you think my position is subjective only, your free to demonstrate why. I'm willing to take a look at your reasoning

Riga writes 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 heartThe infinte source tells us in Jeremiah 10:23 that it is not in man to direct his steps. So even if he has a perfect source he might still get things wrong. Duh. The source however is perfectYes,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 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. 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.If you could for the sake of argument adopt the characteristics of the God of the Bible, ie infinte in knowledge, we can see where that might lead. Even so I have already provided an EXAMPLE of his existence in the form of the moral lawDawn Bertot

qsWhat has atheism got to do with morality?Does your thesis work equally well asHindism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals? OrAncestor Worship Cannot Rationally Explain Morals? OrSpaghetti Cannot Rationally Explain Morals?[/qs]Should just ask do morals exist in a strictly Naturalistic world. No

RAZD writes I'm assuming your using the Bible for your source that God told them to stone someone correct, if not what what source are using. So the same source tells us that this same God is infinte in knowledge, omniscience. If this is not the case, then there is also no need for me to believe, YOU BELIEVE, that God actually asked someone to stone someone elseTry to atleast be legitimate and rational. Double talk is not necessary,, if you cant handle the argument. Well no I was just trying to be kind In relationship to the fact that no matter how much consistency you think you have, that If it is less than perfect knowledge it's subjective nonsense. The word Moral implies by its very nature a standard, if there is no standard then there is no reason to call anything evil, bad or wrong. Now you could call it correct or incorrect, but that would only be if it conformed to some known fact in reality. But not right or wrong.The moment an Atheist opens his mouth and starts claiming someone is moral or immoral, he involves him or herself in the worst form of contradiction. Well this is proof positive you have no intention of being objective. You ask for an example from something God did besides create the universe, then I give you a clear cut example, by demonstrating the visible morality In man, his sense of right and wrong, sense of ought and these kinds of things. That's PHYSICAL RIGHT?. But Because I was able to provide an answer, your best response Is I don't like itDoesn't matter that it's out of a book, I can see it in reality. Do you have any other questions you'd like me to answer? Not surprisingly, again you miss the point. It's not a matter of what you choose, it's a matter of what the implications are if such an infinite, all knowing being does not exist. That being that you are involved in the worst form of contradiction, NOT Just BECAUSE he may not exist, but because subjective can never be objective, which means morality, if you want to call it that, is nothing of the sortYou could not provide me with an example that would not involve itself in the worst form of contradictionOn the other hand, there would not be anything objectively wrong with a dog chasing down a rabbit to kill it, than one human killing another in the octagon, correct? Not in your reality. How long do u think it will be before it will be acceptable to fight and kill one another for sport in the ring.. Hmmmmm? I believe they were called gladiators. Is that murder, evil, moral or immoral, right wrong. You fellas tell using this massively subjective "Morality" you possessDawn Bertot

Now here's the punny fart. In your Naturalistic worldview, nothing of which you just said has any real meaning, because there is no value in that world view. How could there be it's just matter in motion. How could you demonstrate otherwise. If I disagree with your above statement, which of us is correct right or wrong. See your problemSo if your follow the laws of your land, which I assume some you believe to moral, your a evil person for following orders?Dawn Bertot