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.
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.
quote:
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.
This seems to be one of this strange arguments where the point relies on an irrelevant qualifier.
We could more truly say:
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 what is in REALITY morally real.
So yes, Taq is right. As is surprisingly common an argument against atheistic morality is in reality just an argument against morality.
Simply put I would say the Atheist has no rational or logical way to formulate an actual moral or ethic, from a reality standpoint.
Simply put: I disagree.
In the first place, this is not a moral it's an Instinct
When you say this what do you mean by the term 'a moral'? Why can morals not derive from an instinctual basis?
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.
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.
The lion and Bear do not share your opinion,when they are on the giving end of misery.
So? What have lions or bears to do with this discussion? You skipped all this work from your thesis.
We only discovered that it's a thing to avoid as well, for natural reasons, not ethical ones.
This seems to presuppose that ethical reasons and natural reasons are mutually incompatible. Given that is what you are trying to argue, you have a problem. Assuming your conclusion makes it easy to reach your conclusion, but it is meaningless.
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.
I reject the notion of an objective morality.
Therefore, it is logically impossible for an actual ethic or moral to exist from the Atheistic standpoint, in Reality.
None of your points results in this conclusion. What is 'an actual ethic' and why did you include the qualifier 'in Reality'? There is much background conception here, that you failed to include in your post.
Well then why do god fearing countries on average have higher crime rates? If you find sexuality immoral then why do god fearing places have higher teen pregnancy rates, and STD rates? If divorce is immoral then why do atheists have the lowest divorce rates?
The lion and Bear do not share your opinion,when they are on the giving end of misery.
And yet social animals are known to show altruism.
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.
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.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.
Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.
Simply put I would say the Atheist has no rational or logical way to formulate an actual moral or ethic, from a reality standpoint.
I don't know what sort of alternative reality you're living in to think Atheist don't care about the well being of others and themselves.
Also, history has proven that morality is SUBJECTIVE, once upon a time it was cool to own slaves, sell your daughter as a sex slave and stone children for misbehaving.
Morality is socially driven, one culture may find it acceptable to mutilate female genitals, while another will get you ten to life in prison.
I don't know what sort of alternative reality you're living in to think Atheist don't care about the well being of others and themselves
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? ".
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.
™ Version 4.2
