Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.

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.
DawnBertot

Oh goodness, while I read it, I thought you were aware of the difference in an observation and an actual argument. So the answer to your observation is I agree. [qs]So, with no counter argument, you must be in agreement that morality in different species would be different, and likewise in different cultures.[qs] Different sure, morality no. Matter in motion No I'm not without actual objective empirical evidence. I'm sorry did you do away with all the evidence for God's existence and the scriptures as his Word, while I was away from the website. Why would i. I was trying to be kind. But as has been indicated by you and others here, this moral code could change in an instance. The reason it could change is that it is based on biological and mental functions, which are biological in natrue. It's a vicious circle of nonsense You haven't even got started. You cant RAZD. I could provide any example of mental processes across the animal kingdom, they would be nothing more than matter in motion. It's sad that you and Asimov's can develope moral codes for imaginary robots, but can't apply the same rules to the animal kingdom. I bet Asimov's had some murdered animals, the same month he was developing these imaginary robots. Mmmmmmm, murdered chicken.I'm not saying men can't develope ideas biologically by mental processes. I'm just saying there just processes, that can't be consistent in reality. Besides, this a simple brain tumor or something else can shut down these processes. But then that is a biological processes as wellBut if you think I've missed something please present it. Please , but not with one of your disortations, maybe just a question or a simple point Actually no. I see no bluffs on my part. But disortations are hard to engage maybe you could simplify a bit. This will make it easier and a little easier for readers that may not understand what we are tying to say I don't think I've failed to respond to this, you just don't like the answer or are unable, as far as I can see to answer the objection. That being, that what ever word salad you put on it, a it's nothing more than biological process.
Since biological processes have no meaning to begin with,, that's what they end up with.The obvious contradiction should be aware especially to you RAZD. You claim that consciences is a product of evolution and processes, but don't know how to demonstrate that in a biological way. Shouldn't we be able to demonstrate a simple process.
Shouldn't the CAUSALITY between brain function and consciouness be simple enough to track.I think we need another explanation for consciouness and morality, one that biological processes won't allow you. But hats only your first problem. Besides this, only an outside standard, absolute in nature will ever make Morality consistent in any rational wayI appreciate your above elaborate explanation and even if it were true, wouldn't solve any problems in any rational way No I'm only telling you what reality will allow you I've demonstrated it rationally. Since consciouness exists, reasoning exists, ethics exist, they could only rationally come from a source outside themself. If not they would make no sense. An ethic would make no sense, if there were no standard, by which it could be judged, evaluated or measured. If it's just your present thinking and it could change in a moment, as your cohorts have asserted, then it's just someone postulatingThen it's complicated by the fact that EVERY SINGLE PERSON could have a different idea about a single thing, making it further confused nonsense. I see no way around and you have presented no evidence to the contrary, to this AGE OLD PROBLEM.Let's say your next immediate step in helping us , would be to show the causality between the brain and consciouness. In the meantime, I'll keep looking for the answer as to why this all came about by Natural processes and I don't mean just the process I'm mean everything. Can you help us with that one.It seems you have your work cut out for you as well You see Zen Deist, your conscience which God gave you will not let answer this, because you are violating your conscince, in favor of your error. This is you exercising your free will, even in light of that which you know to be wrong absolutelyDawn Bertot

Well, i think you answered your own question. With God all things that are possible, are possible. He would be able,to demonstrate, that with his nfinite wisdon. Besides this he would an infinite amount of,time to let u know. I have no problem with subjective emotional responses, as to what you think evolution and the development of ideas, thoughrs, concepts and perceptions have done for you. But the real test would be to show, that they have some bigger meaning,other than matter in motion. Well yes morality is it as simple as assigning simple yes or no questions,especially we can measure this in a rational way against any other matter in motion process. That's something we could test. But,if God doesn't exist, then it's also possible that my rational test doesn't matter, or doesn't exist And none of this matters, no pun intended, given my last point.Welcome to reality.Well no I don't think you anticipated my response. There is no way to demonstrate intelligence is some how superior to biological proceeses. This is easily demonstrated by a a stroke, which is a bio process. It takes that intelligence away.
Let's not even talk about death.
Wait lets. If you will accept Jesus Christ, which has overcome these physical processes of death, you then can show that intelligence is superior to blind processes. Here's no other rational way to make it legitimateDawn Bertot

No silly no struggle. There is no such thing as subjective morality. The terms are nonsensical when used together, without real objective
MoralityDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

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 helpDawnBertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

So this social moral contract you reference, is it moral, should you obey it. And if you don't obey it are you immoral or what. If someone else, human that is,disagrees with your answer,are you right and they wrong,or something else? It's almost providental that you bring up this example. It posses all the elements of what absolute morality is and how it's established.Jesus purpose here was not to indicate that adultery was not wrong, or that it should not be punished by stoning. His purpose was to teach a more valuable lesson, within morality. The lesson was forgiveness and to recognize that all but him there could NOT cast the stone.It was not that adultery was not wrong then or still wrong, only that the Law Giver was present, to set it aside, to teach a more important principle than punishment. By showing the people that they actually had sin and that they were so zealous to carry out this law, they were actually carrying out a higher law, outside themself.You had three elements, adultry,, sin and forgiveness. But forgiveness would make no sense if they're were no sin to forgive. Sin is the antithesis of law. You need someone with a standard of absolute morality to say what sin is or is notInanother instance,Jesus healed a man and told him his sins were forgiven. They said, only God can forgive sin. He said which is it easier to do, tell the man his sins are forgiven or heal him. Jesus was saying I'm the standard of morality to forgive sin, absolute wrong doing. Notice he did not say, it doesn't matter or there is no such thing as sin, or there is NO standard, in fact he corroborated this fact,by demonstrating there is a standard.Now either Jesus was the most arrogant person whoever lived or he was saying, there is an absolute standard of morality and I'm it. It doesn't mean there isn't absolute morality, only that there can be levels. But to know this you would need to be God. And here in these examples we have that illustratedThen in the ultimate example of absolute morality, God says even though you've broke my law, absolute in reality, due to sin, a reality, I'll forgive itBut before someone says this is only in a book, I'm only referencing the same BOOK you gave as an exampleDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Have you been paying attention at all? I concede that these are biological processes that mean nothing, just like your, thoughts, you emotions, etc, given your positionNo none of these are objective, but there not subjective either in your thinking. Just junk happening
Now do you see

Well NO, you missed the point of my response, then you ignored the answer. You said if I come across a creature such as God. Well if you've come across him I'm assuming you've met him. You ignored that fact. Then if you've met him, him being infinte in knowledge would be able, beyond any reasonable doubt demonstrate he is God.And besides this, even if you couldn't understand him, it wouldn't eliminate him as being God. Your not the deciding factor, correct? Well we know for sure that there is matter in motion. We know for sure that your thought and ideas are just matter in motion. But admittedly, even from your own position or stance, we would not be able to establish, whether there's any meaning outsideIt doesn't need to be a test of your ideas. It needs to be a test in reality If it's entirely subjective, my proposition is established, you have no way of explaining morals. Morals are no more than your imaginary contemplations., differing from one person to the other. Your morals are no more important or different than any other thing happening. This is what you need to demonstrate, why you ideas are somehow have more meaning than a car hitting a cat in the road or someone putting a bullet in you.. Your major problem is simply no possible way to demonstrate anything besides matter in motion Don't mean to sound harsh but saying I'm avoiding answering your questions is a lie.Is it wrong to steal to feed a starving child?. Well from what position are you wanting me to answer it. From yours, even the question makes no sense and is irrelevant, because I could say is it wrong to steal food from an animal, if I was starving and you'd answer if the affirmative, that yes it is, every time. But why. But why should morality be limited to your little species.From my perspective that absolute morality exists, its never right to lie, in any circumstances. Why because it's a misrepresentation of what is true. But now play close attention. For a lie to be a lie, it has to be pitted against an absolute truth. If it's not how could we say it's a lieNow would i lie to the Nazis to hide someone. Absolutley. But that doesn't mean the lie was not UNTRUTHFUL. It simply means I did not represent the truth. Happily, God does not strike us us down, when we do, anymore that he did Rahab or Abraham lying to pharaoh . But the lie did not somehow become subjective because I misrepresented the truth.Stealing is always wrong because it's a lie at its core. But if we have no absolute standard as Do not Steal, then it wouldn't be wrong in any instance. It would be anyones choice whether it was wrong or right It can only be shown to be moral if it makes rational sense. If it's random, inconsistent, illogical, only applies to your species, then it is just stuff happening. If other species receive just the opposite of what you describe as good and right, then it can't be called ethical. Science might provide you with explanations, but it doesn't give u morals. You making that up Objective in a moral sense would be any thought concept or idea, that is true absolutely. Subjective would be anything that is not thatJesus said,, for this reason I was born and came into the world, to testify to the TRUTH. If truth is realive, I have no reason to believe that that statement of his is true, correct? But I have been given no good reason to not believe he was who he said he was eitherHe said,you will KNOW the TRUTH and it will set you free. I am the way the TRUTH and the life. If that is not absolutely true, why should I believe him about that or anything else he saysBut it makes sense rationally too doesn't it.He came from an outside source or place to testify to the THE truth. That's how we can KNOW things are absolutely trueDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

While I have no real basic disagreement agreement with the above statement, I would ask one basic question? Is your statement above absolutely true or only relatively true. How did you arrive at such a certainity. From reality, just your thought. Just you perceptions, what? Tell me howSecondly,there is an evidential way for me to identify absolute morality. Both by the general evidence for God's existence and the evidence from specific revelationThirdly, absolute morality is evidenced by simple rational observation.So I would classify your above statement, more of an observation than an actual argument, because it is predicated on the assumption I cannot identify God's existence or Word by and evidential perspectiveDawn Bertot

And if I was unaware of any kind of reality, your above statement is how I would define absolutely and reality, also. But its not. Here's the absolute reality and truth of your scenario, you seem to be completely unaware of.Your could have no desires, interests, like or dislikes for the BLT, IF THE BLT DID NOT EXIST IN REALITY. Truth is like that, if it does exist in reality, then I can like or dislike a certain thing, I can obey or ignore it. If someone else definitely likes a BLT , it does not affect the reality of the BLT. Truth actual truth and Absolutely truth must actually exist, before i can disobey it, like it or notYour conditions on how to establish truth are not valid and consist of complete idiocy. If we did not know that it existed, or had trouble describing BLT, then u might have a point. We dont. I didn't really ask for an example because I didn know what you believed. I do. I actually ask so people could actually see what you believed. Amazing.And of course Jar has never asked a question, he did not already know the answer. He is permitted this but God is not Yes Jar and here they areThis first one actually gives you chill bumps Your awful attempt to explain morals is only superceeded by your poor Biblical interpretation skillsDawn Bertot
.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

What you think I understand is just me presenting your position. I certainly do NOT agree that that position is correct in reality. Best choices are fine, but when they have no direction, the are like a fart in the wind. And in your system everyone's fart goes a different direction, aimlessly and to no purposeThere's no truth to the direction of the gases of a fart, much like yoour or anybody choices in your system Perceptions, idea, thoughts and concepts may be bio processes, but morality or truth would need to be something, outside and independent of those processes, much like Jars BLT illustration. His illustration has no purpose without a reality outside himself.Dawn Bertot

Do you realize how ignorant this sounds. You can't just start with a perception or random idea that fairness is the basis of morality, when you find it exhibited in one species, let alone in nature itself, which is suppose to be the creator of the entire process.
Do you have a clue how unfair nature is itself. If the entire primate or animal kingdom, we're to go,extinct, would this alleged morality still exist. Then answer is no.A TREE SHARES THE SUNLIGHT WITH YOU BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKERS IT MORALBut it wouldn't matter would it, because in reality, atleast according to the cold hard facts of your position, Morals don't exist now That's the point Zen Deist. Is the sky Moral or just what you call blue, a thing?Your actions and perceptions, as asapecies re just another thing, the have no value in your system, except that which ascribe to them. Is blue a valueCould not show otherwise if you wanted toDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Sharing ideas is nothing more than natural processes, unless you can demonstrate otherwiseCan you show me how sharing ideas is any better or different than any other part of natural selection or survival of the fittest?Evolution has no purpose, so why would something like sharing ideas in that same context, be anything more or betterIf evolution is true, you'll be extinct in a several million years. What will be the meaning of sharing themI'm sure the dinosaurs showed some of this same behavior, but to what end?If an asteroid took out the entire planet tomorrow, would fairness and morality still exist.You don't even follow the tenets and the fundamental principles of evolution. Evolution doesn't care what you think, why do you, if your a part of the same process?Trying to make yourself something more or better in that system, is an illusionIt's sad that I can represent the actual "morals" of evolution better than you canMindless evolution has played the ULTIMATE joke on you, it's made you think u MATTER, as matter, when u really dont. It won't allow it in realityThen Pilate said to him, So you are a king? Jesus answered, You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the worldto bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.For him to testify to the TRUTH, he had to be truth absolutely. Or absolute truthHe said I AM the WAY THE TRUTH AND the life.If he is not and was not absolute truth, there would be no reason to believe those words or anything else he saidEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Let's start here first, with the definition of something you think I am experiencing. As I have demonstrated to many times to mention, I dont have two conflicting views. My position would not need to be true for yours to be false. Your inconsistencies are actually with reality itself, not any of my views of moralitySimply put you would need to show how the evidence i can easily see for the existence of God and the scriptures as the Word of God , to be false, to show how I have two conflicting views with myself . I dont. Next, Your assuming up front that I hold some false idea that conflicts with the innumerable facts you present. They don't conflict. If you wish to discuss that evidence at some point I'm happy to do so.We are presently discussing the contradictions that exist with you having an actual morality in reality. So it is easy to see if am not experiencing anything in your definition.Question this definition you gave, is it relatively true or absolutely true. Would it be an absolute truthLet's try this again. I'm not trying to do anything, i dont need to, reality does what I cannot do. Showing how natural processes can be more involved in one instance verses another, does not assign them value. This is a product of your imagination, which is a bio process. The words Better, more important, purpose, can logically have no value, other than that imagined, morality produced by your biological brain.But to be consistent, if that is possible, given your doctrine, it may also be the truth or not true, that anything or nothing I'm saying presently, is correct or has any value, given the valuessness of reality itself.But ok, let's take a look at what you have to say. Nice and I would call this design, but ok Well, they would need to be, for us, to call it anything happening Well I think you've missed the point again. I don't just point my finger at IT. I would point my finger twords the evidence that supports the existence of God and the scriptures as his Word, as evidence of the design and consciouness. It and the evidence in those areas makes sense from that perspective This is a particularly odd statement and admission by yourself. Biology is not enough to explain morals? I would think that you would atleast want to show some connection or causality,, since hehavior, is related to thoughts and thoughts are a product of brain activity. If you could show how thoughts are or are not a product of brain activity, I might be able to accept that communication and interaction are evidence or moralsIf thoughts are disconnected from biological processes and are not actually a physical process, you might have a pointI think you are trying to replace the word, thoughts with synergy. Am I correct? You said bio can't explain memes, but why would you make a distinction between natural processes, social and biological processes. If thoughts are a product of the brain, and behavior a product of thoughts, wouldn't it just be natural processesOr are you saying you can show an break in the link between natural processes and the brainSo if it's just natural processes which it seems to be, not seeing any value or morals in interaction and communicationAnd again we have a synergy where the shared ideas that develops in a group that becomes more than the sum of ideas of single individuals, there is an interaction, and the whole group benefits from those concepts that improve the survival and reproduction of the group, possibly at the loss of an individual (streetcar).So a whole bunch of monkeys doing something verses one monkey constitutes a moral. So a whole bunch of Nazis deciding collectively that it's right to kill a bunch of other humans,to advance thier ethnicity, is not only moral, but synergy.YOU GO EVOLUTION, show us the way.Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Then it would be blind evolution or just matter in motion. Morality would be a made up word