Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.

(1) "considered good" by who? The individual or the group?(2) when I look at the structure of morals it is about interactions with others: don't steal, don't murder, don't covet your neighbors spouse, ... let others pursue happiness if it harms no one .... etc(3) who enforces morals, the individual or the group?Can you think of a moral that is for personal benefit?Enjoy

I'm also trying to figure out what Hitler has to do with the topic. Hitler, who in real life history created the archetype for brutal, anithuman totalitarianism, consciously and deliberately murdered millions of people, and destroyed most of Europe in an incredibly destructive war.All this despite growing up surrounded by Catholics, presumably teaching him about this incredible objective morality.How do Christians prevent Hitler? Answer: they don't.How do Christians stop Hitler? Answer: like everyone else, by carpet bombing his industrial base until he commits suicide in a bunker. Not, it seems, by proving the superiority of their incredible objective moral system.Once again, certain conservative Christians need to judge other beliefs by standards they can't even meet.Edited by Chiroptera, : Added subtitle.

Batpeople, the Lord directs time and nations and wars as they are prophesied and come because of the perfidity and evil of those that want more and more power. They are started by the power mongers, and the evil ONE to get the whole world under their control... as the Lord ordained and annointed and allows.But the heathen blame the Lord rather than themselves and their leaders.See and study sites like ..WW2 - The True Cause of World War 2, WWIIAnd thenSEE and study7KingdomsofManThe 7th is getting together after the signing of the Coveant that stops the war, not WorldWar in the Mid East...... and then we proceed onward on the exact timeline til the Lord steps IN, and takes back His Earth for those who individually choose Him or have chosen HIM.All planned in advance (as that is PROPHECY) and the heathen hate it when it means there is DESIGN to history and the present and the FUTURE. They want to think they are in control when they are not...and yet they blame and accuse the Lord of Lords.Listen to them.

Some might. Me, I'm not blaming anyone for anything. I'm pointing out to Dredge that whatever philosophical problems he thinks Hitler poses for the idea of subjective morality, he poses the same problems for the idea of objective morality.Edited by Chiroptera, : Tried to make my point more clear.

I will just pop in out of the blue (not having followed the thread) and say that they are all for personal benefit. We practice and enforce moral conduct because we realize that doing so is directly beneficial to ourselves. Being part of a group is essential to human survival and maintaining the group and one's relationship to it are paramount.All behaviour is driven by assessment of personal benefit.

I think Sam Harris has long since put this one to bed.

In post #901, I asked you a few questions pertaining to the relevance of proving morality, and you haven't attempted to answer any of them.

I thank you for the Hitler quotes. They certainly suggest he was some kind of creationist. But who knows if he was being sincere or merely pandering to a theistic audience?

... a small detail you seemed to have overlooked - you can't equate empirical evidence with the theory of Common Descent. That's drawing a very long bow.

Ontology is word I made up and it relates to the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence or reality.
(Another word I made up that appeared in one of my posts is Psychomosis, which describes the transfer of thoughts from one person's brain to another person's brain, through the air.)

The dictionary claims that the word originated in the 18th century with essentially the same meaning you give. What am I missing with respect to your claim?

In answer to your questions:
1. I don't know.
2. I don't know.

Good point - just look at the situation where Hitler decided the morally correct solution was to murder 6 million Jews. And also consider the Khmer Rouge, who accessed the situation and thought the right thing to do was to kill 5 millions Cambodians. Evidently, morality can be whatever you want it to be; you just make it up as you go along.

Post 917 was an answer to all of your questions. Each one of your questions was "how do we determine which of the following moral positions is correct ?" My reply was that we are not stating that a moral position is correct. Each of your questions presents a straw man.We arrive at our individual moralities, through a number of ways. Our societies reach consensuses as to those moralities, through mutual understanding, argument, debate and social change. The wider international community does the same amongst its constituent societies. That's how it works. There's no yardstick, no standard to measure "correctness" against - just various consensuses, subject to debate, argument, occasional conflict and above everything else, change.You're asking me the equivalent of whether I think Sasquatch 's fur is black or brown; or whether his teeth are yellow or white; or whether he's got blue eyes or green. The thing is, I don't believe there's a Sasquatch.

quote:

---

a small detail you seemed to have overlooked - you can't equate empirical evidence with the theory of Common Descent.
  —Dredge

---

Palaeontology is an empirical science using empirical evidence. Fossils.
Molecular genetics is an empirical science using empirical evidence. DNAAnd why we're about it, you never got round to explaining why there is any similarity at all in the DNA of other apes and man.