Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?

Would you accept spectral evidence alone to convict you of a murder you haven't committed yet? 

No, how could anyone be so stupid?A person cannot be convicted of a crime that has not been committed? 

Haha, so it does matter who makes the prophecy and who interprets it as fulfilled?

Again, you implicitly acknowledge your standard of evidence isn't near as strong as your pretend. IF spectral evidence were all that, how could you deny it...even if use against you?

Truth is the gauge by which falsehood is measured. For there to be a counterfeit there must be a real to compare the counterfeit against. Once I have the real I have the standard. 

If you determine what's real by anecdote, hearsay, and spectral evidence (which you wouldn't accept to convict you of murder), then you can't really say you know what is real and counterfeit.

It is impossible that two contrary things can be true at the same time regarding the same thing. 

It is possible for 2 contrary things to both be false.

Nothing can be 'simpler' than an infinite being, amIright?!

That is not my argument. The explanation is simple. He merely spoke the universe into existence. Very simple in comparison to let's say the Big Bang.

The explanation has fewer words, but it is not simpler because it is contingent on an eternal omnipotent being. 

Also, if you're willing to admit a subjective being can be objective...then you provide all that is needed for morality without the need for a god.

I am speaking of interpretation of the Bible and in understanding others. In the case of morality I question what the objective standard you profess that excludes God. You have still to reveal that objective standard you speak of.

You weigh your actions against what you believe the Biblical god wants to objectively determine right and wrong.  This is subjective.

You pretend to have an objective source for morality, but you (like everyone else) have a subjective morality.

I think you, and many people, overly complicate morality.  We only need to agree on something by which to measure our actions. Your preference is god.  Mine is well-being. 

No. I'm saying all too often what cannot be explained by our current understanding of nature is considered supernatural or attributed to it.

Supernatural would exclude nature as an explanation. If it is not natural it must be a being - yes or no?

What? I don't see how that follows.

Or are you speaking of a force such as in Starwars? If a force lacks personhood what can it do and would that force not be considered natural too, since it owes no explanation to personhood?

I'm simply pointing out that the supernatural lays claim to an increasingly smaller slice of the cosmos as our knowledge of nature increases.

I have already explained my reasoning with this verse. Not only that, you are dealing with the OT which is no longer in existence. 

So, OT is "off limits"?

Conversion equalled freedom! [...]

Conversion is an escape from slavery and bondage just as it was in OT times. [...]

So, the principle of evangelism slavery is reasonable to believe. But even if you did find this evangelistic slavery principle hard to stomach, the principle of slavery and freedom is well demonstrated in a physical sense in the OT and in a spiritual way in the NT.  [...]

War reparations or restitution [a.k.a slavery] was a different principle, the principle of damages owed, damages paid. [...]

The law was instituted for Israel yet we recognize its goodness too.

Often the logical conclusions do not resemble your stated intention in the slightest (when you kindly take the time to elucidate).

You just said that you can't decipher my intentions. Which is it? 

Your stated intention: Discover a logically coherent non-god($) origin of moral intuition.

Your pre-judice: Only "YHWH" can provide a logically coherent origin of moral intuition.

How do you validate the moral codec of "YHWH"?

You validate the moral codec of "YHWH" by using YOUR moral intuition.

And then you credit "YHWH" for gifting you the moral intuition you use to validate "the ten commandments".

King Hammurabi didn't know the law of "YHWH", and yet codified a set of rules more comprehensive than "the ten commandments".

Many cultures that predate Abraham have inscribed practical codes of conduct.

Your explanation seems to be "YHWH" wrote a moral code on their hearts.

THEREFORE, "the ten commandments" is superfluous and redundant and NOT prerequisite to moral intuition.

Any human can detect their own moral intuition without any assistance from a book.

You claim this is because "YHWH" wrote that moral code on their hearts.

This claim is unfalsifiable.

Your stated intention: Discover a logically coherent non-god($) origin of moral intuition.

Moral intuition?

Logically coherent? Sure, go ahead. I don't believe you can without God, so prove me wrong.

You see, if you deny God's moral commands then life becomes unlivable.

You don't have one.

It becomes a preference.

It becomes a preference.

How does what you like (your subjective tastes and desires) equal what is good?

It doesn't and as soon as you lose or deny the 'best' that you compare morals against (as necessary) you have disagreements that contradict each other.

How can you distinguish what is better without this best?  

A subjective standard does not meet what is necessary.

Until you are able to come up with an apples to apples comparison, there is really no defense needed.

Okay, I got your meaning. Then we are comparing the applies of Christianity to the applies of atheism. Both you and I believe in morality. The question is how you validate morality as an atheist. Then, in comparing your justification with mine, which is more reasonable.

Actually, I don't think you get my meaning. Atheism isn't a moral philosophy, so your question isnt coherent - it is not a reasonable ask. 

If I try to distill your question down to something meaningful, I get something along the lines of 'How do you as a non-Christian justify morality?' This strikes me as utterly tone-deaf and arrogant given:

1) most people aren't Christian.

2) Christianity has been specifically used to justify things like slavery, Holy wars, etc,

3) what good may be recognized in its moral views come from humanistic interests which predate and can stand apart from it.

So, ANY moral view which puts people above human interpretations of the 'will of a god' will be more reasonable in my view.

You claim this is because "YHWH" wrote that moral code on their hearts.

This claim is unfalsifiable.

Not for those who are true believers.

There is no difference.

Or it would be perfect if there were no difference....But we are all different and separate from each other and act individually.

Lumping individuals together under one of two labels, doesn't imply "behavioural" certainty..... Far from it.

Acceptance of deistic hypotheses, is no guarantee of an individuals state of mind.

My standard is not myself.

2) Christianity has been specifically used to justify things like slavery, Holy wars, etc,

So what? People do all kinds of things 'in the name of.' That does not necessarily mean they follow the teachings. 

I mean, how the hell was he ever getting on without us before all this creating of Hell,Satan, deceiving serpents, angels, disobedient women, floods, destruction, war, murder, kings, queens, sacrifice, priests, other idols to worry about and be jealous of and not to mention the "other gods" also to be jealousy of that appear to have been "loved" instead of him.   However did he manage to occupied himself for all that time before we and this planet were even thought about and come into existence?

He did manage. God is content in Himself, in the tri-unity of Beings - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

 Oh stop it.

You now simply have to attempt to invent further something you that do not, and cannot,  possibly have a clue about and all   to be enable you  to embellish even further  and expand  your initial simply response reply of  " we were created to experience a relationship with Him and learn of His love for us, that we may choose to love Him".

You have been caught cold with just one question and two replies from me.. 

Genesis 1

4 God saw that the light was good

God  may well have called it "all good", but WE now know it wasn't and isn't,  don't we? 

The earth for instance, has and always will be an unstable planet and becomes more unstable as it moves through the solar system and  when it comes into close proximity with other planets. We know that the movements of the other planets have an adverse  effect on our own planet causing the deaths of millions.   AND SO DID those controlling  priests of old, didn't they? 

Indeed it was much more simpler then in past times of ignorance and fear, when priests faced less doubt and opposition to totally control a persons daily life not to mention to enable them to extort ones hard earned earthly goods. 

Because he was bored stupid '   would have been a better reply. And just as easily been blown out of the water. 

Pure speculation without biblical evidence.

Says the man that always attempts to pass off speculation and belief as fact. Example>> 

Stephen wrote: However did he manage to occupied himself for all that time before we and this planet were even thought about and come into existence?

PGA2.0, Speculated  "without evidence" ... "God is eternally present. Time needs a start, yet God is eternal. He transcends time. Time was created with the universe and humanity. Humans comprehend time because they think as well as have a beginning". 

Yeah, I was just stating that a person in five religious groups must be extra morally. Extra moral.  

Do you agree?

Thus, the purpose or design of foreign slavery was first a rescue mission against harsher treatment.

33 “‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God. [**]

Both you and I believe in morality.

Ethics, code of conduct, social contract, or the like.

The question is how you validate morality as an atheist.

The same way you do.  Moral instinct.  Moral intuition.

Then, in comparing your justification with mine, which is more reasonable.

How do you know "the decalogue" is valid?  Because it matches your moral intuition.

Try this on for size,

The ten yamas are:

1) ahiṁsā, “noninjury,” not harming others by thought, word or deed;

2) satya, “truthfulness,” refraining from lying and betraying promises;

3) asteya, “nonstealing,” neither stealing nor coveting nor entering into debt;

4) brahmacharya, “divine conduct,” controlling lust by remaining celibate when single, leading to faithfulness in marriage;

5) kshamā, “patience,” restraining intolerance with people and impatience with circumstances;

6) dhṛiti, “steadfastness,” overcoming nonperseverance, fear, indecision, inconstancy and changeableness;

7) dayā, “compassion,” conquering callous, cruel and insensitive feelings toward all beings;

8) ārjava, “honesty, straightforwardness,” renouncing deception and wrongdoing;

9) mitāhāra, “moderate appetite,” neither eating too much nor consuming meat, fish, fowl or eggs;

10) śaucha, “purity,” avoiding impurity in body, mind and speech.

The ten niyamas are:

1) hrī, “remorse,” being modest and showing shame for misdeeds;

2) santosha, “contentment,” seeking joy and serenity in life;

3) dāna, “giving,” tithing and giving generously without thought of reward;

4) āstikya, “faith,” believing firmly in God, Gods, guru and the path to enlightenment;

5) Īśvarapūjana, “worship of the Lord,” the cultivation of devotion through daily worship and meditation;

6) siddhānta śravaṇa, “scriptural listening,” studying the teachings and listening to the wise of one’s lineage;

7) mati, “cognition,” developing a spiritual will and intellect with the guru’s guidance;

8) vrata, “sacred vows,” fulfilling religious vows, rules and observances faithfully;

9) japa, “recitation,” chanting mantras daily;

10) tapas, “austerity,” performing sādhana, penance, tapas and sacrifice. [**]

I would argue I am better informed than you on the subject but I'm not sure I am an expert.

If you're claiming that you know the true will of "YHWH" based purely on the "words on the page" and furthermore that thousands of years of careful consideration by the people who actually wrote the thing down in the first place "is wrong", then you MUST BE AN EXPERT.

Not only that, you are dealing with the OT which is no longer in existence. 

Then why do you keep talking about "the ten commandments"?

God permits exceptions for civil societies to function.

Where in the holy scripture does it explain under what specific circumstances "YHWH" permits exceptions?

Then, after 10 min when Krom gives up, and walks away, Jakie approaches the tires. He removes the six tires one by one, grabs the tire Krom liked, and brings it to him, carefully, without losing water.

Thus, the purpose or design of foreign slavery was first a rescue mission against harsher treatment.

33 “‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God. [**]

Very nice! Good point!

The question is how you validate morality as an atheist.

The same way you do.  Moral instinct.  Moral intuition.

It is not moral instinct that I prove what is right and wrong. It is by the revelation of Another, even though we are created in His image and likeness, thus we too are moral beings.

How do you know "the decalogue" is valid?  Because it matches your moral intuition.

First, these principles are universal and self-evident to many, not all.

More than this, what is necessary for these principles to be true. The biblical God fits the checkoff box.

Some of these are restated in the Ten Commandments. Others I disagree with. Finally, who is the authority who revealed them? Is such an authority almighty? If so, let's discuss that being.