Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?

Author: PGA2.0

Posts

Total: 1,638
Topic's author
#631
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
How does your personal opinion and preference make something right if you have no objective unchanging/fixed source or reference point?
How can you go north, east, west or south without an unchanging/fixed source or reference point?
You are inferring and projecting again. 
That is not an answer.
You never answered my questions. It starts with you answering me before I can answer you. You dodged the answer with another question, which is typical of a non-answer.


P.S. Magnetic north isn't a fixed reference point - it moves. 
True north or the North Pole is.

A compass doesn't point to "True North"...it points to the magnetic north pole which is not a fixed reference point.  Yet, in spite of not being fixed, magnetic north makes a great reference point by which to navigate our world.  The point being, a fixed reference point is an unnecessary requirement for navigation through space ...or morality.
The point is that there is such a point or location as true north. While the compass needle does not always point to it accurately, you can find it by using the compass. By using the compass accurately, you line up the needle with the N to get to the North Pole. To get to the moral good or right, you have to have a fixed point that actually is. If you don't have one, you have no north, no true good or right. North on the compass needs a point of reference, an actual place to line the needle up with. There has to be a relationship between magnetic north and true north. True north has to exist before the magnetic north can, or you would not know you were going north, what north meant, or what the needle was pointing to if anything. Needle in relation to what? North in relation to what? Magnetic north means nothing without a true north.

By using the compass, you get within the vicinity of the North Pole or true north. You can find it by using a compass. It points you in the right direction.

I used the analogy with 3RU7AL of Christ as true north and the Bible (God's word) and how we interpret it as magnetic north. Jesus, a personal being, is our reference point for morality - true north. Morality comes from conscious beings. We, as relative, subjective beings, need to fix onto an unchanging reference point. How we interpret His words can sometimes lead us astray if you ignore what is being said, to whom, when and in relation to the culture of the time. In the same way, the Ten Commandments provide the footing for morality. They deal with our relationship with humanity as well as with God. They reveal the true north (a revelation of His character) that we base other moral laws upon. The Mosaic laws were magnetic north in that they pointed towards true north - the principles of loving your neighbour and what that looks like, and loving God, and what that looks like. Similarly, the Son became a human being to show us God and what God is like. He said, "If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father - the Father and I are one." I can give you other analogies from Scripture, such as in building a foundation, you need a cornerstone (Christ is the cornerstone). It is the reference point by which the entire foundation is built upon. That is the starting point. You have to have a starting point.

So, when it comes to morality, you say there is no fixed reference point, or such a point is unnecessary. Thus, you have no unchanging starting point to build upon. You are wrong, and where you start (subjective opinion or objective fact) depends on where you end up, either making sense of morality or not adequately explaining why it is and should be. 

P.S.S. Human interpretation of the 'will of God' isn't a fixed reference point either and can be used to support atrocities and oppose equality. (Holocaust, apartheid, Transatlantic slave trade)
The Holocaust, Apartheid, transatlantic slavery are not biblical or OT slavery but a misinterpretation. 
Says you.  I'm sure the folks who believed they were justified in committing these atrocities would argue a correct interpretation on the same grounding you deny it.
Sure they would believe they are justified, just like you believe you are justified in your opinions on the Bible. There is little difference, IMO. The question is, what is the truth? Does Scripture have a true interpretation? The Bible says it does. God says to Israel never to treat others as they were treated in Eygpt. How were they treated in Eygpt? His command says to love one's neighbour, and then it goes on to explain who one's neighbour is. It describes God as love and gives a biblical definition of what love entails. God gives us all kinds of examples of love, the uttermost being His Son. Love is serving others, putting them before ourselves as God put us before Himself in becoming human and taking our punishment upon Himself. The OT picture of slavery represented two greater spiritual truths, 1) our bondage or slavery to sin and who can free us of this slavery, 2) our servitude for others and how it is rewarding. Jesus shows us what it means to love others by putting them ahead of oneself, as He (being God) humbled Himself and became a servant for us, that we might fully meet God's righteous requirements. He also provided how we would be freed from our bondage to sin, again, through Him. 

Topic's author
#632
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
Second, how do they arrive at the 'best' if morality has no fixed address, no fixed reference point? It is a constantly shifting standard that points to 'better' but better than what?
This appeal to a "fixed reference point" has been shown unnecessary in a post you haven't caught up to yet.
Done. See Post 631. 

A compass doesn't use a fixed reference point, yet the world can be successfully navigated with it.
Yes, it does in two ways. First, the needle has to line up with the N on the dial. Second, the concept of 'N/north' has to have a fixed location or pointing to N would be meaningless. That location is an actual place - true north.
 

While atheists can and sometimes do live more morally than many Christians do, from where their worldview starts (their most basic presuppositions), there is no reason they should.
Again, atheism is not a moral philosophy.
Atheists use a philosophy that discounts God or gods in accounting for morality. Thus, they start with what is, not from what ought to be. What ought to be is derived from conscious being(s), not matter devoid of being(s), and how do conscious beings come about? Excluding God or gods leaves matter. Second, morality has to have a fixed reference point that is objective or else you have no true value for 'good' and 'right.' Without a fixed reference, it can be any direction, to use the true north analogy. 

You are a relativist despite the claim that you believe in objective morality. Demonstrate that. You have not been able to through your lose reference of well-being or humans. 

...and the tired old argument of the 'vast killings due to atheism'  (in the name of atheism?!) is something that may work in dogmatic echo chambers, but not to any reasoning person.  Mao (et al) didn't kill because of atheism - that would be like killing for a-unicornism.  It is a nonsense argument.
Not as tiring as the Salem witch trials and the crusades which work in your dogmatic echo chambers.

What is done in the name of Christianity does not necessarily represent the teaching that is our reference point, but with atheism, it is consistent with its starting point and its subjectivity. 

Morality is about the well-being of humans,
Whose well-being?
...humans. 
Humans think of well-being differently. Which one(s)? Kim Jong-Un thinks of well-being from his point of view. Do you agree with his concept of well-being? Totalitarian regimes, Marxist regimes, communist regimes, fascist regimes, and democracies all think of well-being from a different perspective. So do different governments within these systems and different peoples within these systems. Much of the time, well-being is taking what you need from someone else. Within cultures, there are sub-cultures and splinted groups who disagree on what is good for the masses. 

Again, you are evasive on purpose because you can't point to a universal definition of well-being unless you first start with what is necessary - God. 

Humans...does not make sense of well-being, especially when you focus on the examples of different cultures and groups and individuals and ask, why are they right? Way too often, you have two different cultures, groups, or individuals disagreeing over what is morally good or right. That means the law of contradiction is contravened. Logically, your answer does not provide what is necessary. I demonstrate this by pointing to what we witness throughout the world. 

and humans were concerned about what actions and attitudes ensured their survival long before Christianity came to be.
To benefit themselves and ensure their own survival at the expense of others.
Given that we are a social species, our survival is typically linked to others...
So what? We see others manipulating us to get their way. We manipulate others to get our way. If it comes to them or us, it is usually us. Selfishness wins out unless you adopt a biblical philosophy or serving others and thinking of their well-being before your own and sacrificing for their good. 

Not only that, why are we a social 'species'? From an evolutionary perspective, why should things be the way they are? Evolution has no intent. Things happen. If one biological bag of matter reacts one way and another differently, what is moral about that? How can you condemn this bag of atoms from reacting differently to that bag? It is just the way things happen. What is wrong with that?

Christianity is different; it looks out not only for self but also for everyone, denying oneself for others' benefit. 
That is revisionistic. 
No, it is the teaching of Scripture. 

Christianity has a far from perfect track record for a moral philosophy supposedly laid down by a perfect lawgiver. On the other hand, humanism is the tide that raises all boats, and Christianity is along for the ride while it maintains a humanistic component. (That's a good thing!) 
Again, putting humanism before the biblical principles of its God. That is your burden to prove. Go ahead. Who is the revisionist? 

Again, biblical slavery  [...]
...is slavery.  There is no justifiable reason or context where one human owning another is justifiable. Biblical slavery is an aspect of Christianity where it conflicts with humanism. That's problematic if Christianity really is about treating others as you would have them treat you.
You are not open to the meaning it conveys as opposed to chattel slavery. I have spoken of it until I am blue in the face. You ignore it and reiterate your dogma. 

Ok, it's just a fact most people are non-Christians (and are just as moral as Christians). 
Because they adopt the Judeo-Christian standard - it is wrong to murder, wrong to steal, wrong to lie, wrong to covet, wrong to commit adultery. 

...and I suppose you think murder, theft, dishonesty etc., were all considered completely acceptable before Judaism/Christianity? It's a wonder mankind made it 10,000/100,000's years until "God" decided to finally reveal himself! 
You work from a different presuppositional starting point than I do. You have yet to make sense of it. You think science has all the answers, yet you engage in scientism. 

I'm having real difficulty finding anything compelling in your assertions here. 
Dito. You make up your own meaning. Why should I trust it? You have not demonstrated anything, factually. You are worse than that. You have not demonstrated you start from a necessary framework in your presuppositions. 

No. Other gods are fake.
Christopher Hitchens: "From a plurality of prime movers, the monotheists have bargained it down to a single one. They are getting ever nearer to the true, round figure."
As you bow down before him. Why should I trust Christopher Hitchens's thoughts? They have a particular bias. 

That means they [believers] think morality owes its existence to a personal being or beings
I would agree morality doesn't exist without conscious beings. It makes no sense to me that you continually discount the personal beings we all know/see and appeal to one we can't. That is an ugly part of your theology, imo. You deny dignity to humanity in order to revere the undetectable. 
The personal beings we are and know are relative. They have no fixed starting point for morality. They make it up on preference. How does preference (descriptive - 'I like ice-cream!') determine what should be (prescriptive - 'You must like ice-cream!') make something right? 

I discount personal human beings because you, as such a being, do not have what is necessary for morality. You can't even show me the fixed reference point that right and good is derived from. You are not necessary for me to know it is wrong to murder innocent human beings. You don't even know it is wrong to kill innocent human beings for you condone, even support and argue for abortion. I discount you as necessary on that basis and many more reasons. You have no identity for right. Right = Right is a logically necessary law, the law of identity. You have no fixed value for right. You can't establish what right is because it varies from person to person and from day-to-day, year-to-year, decade-to-decade, era-to-era.   
Topic's author
#633
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@FLRW
Dogs, like Christians, hold to moral views that originate somewhere, the way they view the world and universe. Morality is a part of their worldview. They do not see moral values coming from an ultimate being. They try to make themselves that being in question. If there is no ultimate, necessary being, the point of reference is then self preservation and kindness. This is why they don't kill other dog's puppies.
Show me that dogs understand morality rather than being conditions by their owner to respond to particular commands. Can they reason on whether it is right to lie or steal or be unfaithful to their mates? When in heat the male will shag whatever comes their way. When hungry they will take the food given to another dog and not meant for them if they are mightier than those possessing or eating it. When scolded by their owners they understand they are getting punished because this is what they have experienced in the past and it is unpleasant to them physically.  

Are you saying the same is true of human beings, that they are just responding to things that are unpleasant or things they like doing, like humping any woman in heat that is consensual?
Topic's author
#634
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@FLRW
I can see how mass murderers get their morality from God.
Mass murderers show a lack of morality. God has just reason to take life. He takes the life of the wicked in judgment. If He takes an innocent life, He will restore it to a better place - in His presence. Since God is the Creator, He has the right to take life. 

The same goes for stealing. God cannot steal since everything is His creation. It belongs to Him.  

Many mass murderers deny God, so how could they get their 'morality' from God? 

However, you must not let any living thing survive among the cities of these people the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance. You must completely destroy them – the Hethite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, and Jebusite …. (Deut. 20:16-18)
Why did God issue this commandment? It was because these people were 1) evil/wicked, 2) they would destroy Israel or cause her to be unfaithful to what is good (which they did), 3) destroy God's plans for the good of humanity by destroying the Messianic lineage and making His word null and void. Thus, God would be at the mercy of His creatures rather than the other way around. Those who are not wise or omniscient would thus dictate to the One who is.
Topic's author
#635
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Israel was not allowed by God to exploit foreigners as they had been exploited in Eygpt.
You're technically right about that.  The Israelites didn't build any pyramids with their foreign chattel slaves.

A chattel slave has no options. The foreign slave had two. Convert or flee.

The harsh treatment Israel experienced in Egypt was forbidden by God.

The foreign slave became a member of the household and was loved or supposed to be, per the Mosaic law.

A wrong was punishable by corporal punishment since they did not have the resources to incarcerate others.

If a slave was harshly treated in which they lost an eye, a tooth, a life, the same treatment was required of the master.

The slave master relationship is very similar to the employer/employee relationship. There is an exchange of value between the two. The employee works for the employer for food and shelter. The employer protects the employee with built-in provisions, such as a pension or remuneration for injury at work. 
Topic's author
#636
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Stephen
IMO< you continually show your hatred of Christians and Christianity. For what? Why do you do this?  

 Like you have said above, " IMO".  
Others are of the same opinion, and while that does not necessarily make it so, it is a good indication. It is an observation. 

How many fkn TIMES!!!!!? I don't "hate"  Christians .
Again, a rather aggressive or hostile reply. 

In fact, I only recall ever hating one person that I knew personally, in the whole of my life. It is the scriptures that I have a problem with. My threads are all to do with the scriptures. And I have more threads to create highlighting the many problems that arise from the bibles contradictory nature and ambiguity.  Your own faith and belief is all irrelevant to me. I don't care about your personal beliefs or  that you have a faith. It is what Christians have faith in  (the scriptures) that concerns me.
You hate Christianity, you hate Christ. You are against the Scriptures. Your posts show an animus. Jesus likened anger to hatred, even murder.  


Stop stop trying to play victim.
I am just pointing out your hostility. I observe what your words convey, not only in the tone but also the meaning. 

I don't care about you.
It is obvious to me. 

I don't know you personally to care about you. Just as I don't know you to "hate you". You could be the nicest person on the planet, but that alone wouldn't convince me that the scriptures are true and flawless. 
You hate what I stand for and believe in. You constantly attack it and mock it and put it down. 

Definition of hate
 (Entry 1 of 2)
1a: intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury
b: extreme dislike or disgust : ANTIPATHY, LOATHING had a great hate of hard work
c: a systematic and especially politically exploited expression of hatred a crime motivated by bigotry and hate—often used before another noun hate mailan organization tracking hate groups— see also HATE CRIME
2: an object of hatred a generation whose finest hate had been big business— F. L. Paxson

Your justification displays several eisegetical and inferential errors on the myriad of threads that would require a very detailed and time-consuming rebuttal. 
#637
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,613
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@PGA2.0
Researchers at the Kwansei Gakuin University in Japan,  devised an experimental box with two compartments divided by a transparent partition. On one side of the box, a rat was forced to swim in a pool of water, which it strongly disliked. Although not at risk of drowning—the animal could cling to a ledge—it did have to tread water for up to 5 minutes. The only way the rodent could escape its watery predicament was if a second rat—sitting safe and dry on a platform—pushed open a small round door separating the two sides, letting it climb onto dry land. Within a few days, the high-and-dry rats were regularly aiding their soaking companions by opening the door, the team reports  in Animal Cognition. They did not open the door when the pool was dry, confirming that the rats were helping in response to others’ distress, rather than because they wanted company, Mason says. Rats that had previously been immersed learned how to save their cagemates much more quickly than those who had never been soaked, suggesting that empathy drove their behavior, she adds. “Not only does the rat recognize distress, but he is even more moved to act because he remembers being in that situation.”
People differ from rats in many ways, but the study supports a growing body of evidence that there’s an evolutionary basis for helpful behavior, independent of culture or upbringing, . “Humans are not helping purely because mom taught us to help,” she says. “In part—and to what degree remains to be seen—we help because it’s in our biology.” says the key researcher.
#638
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@FLRW
People differ from rats in many ways, but the study supports a growing body of evidence that there’s an evolutionary basis for helpful behavior, independent of culture or upbringing, .
Well stated.
#639
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
I've learned from the dictionary that morality is a framework of social edicts based on fundamental principles. And directly related to this, I discovered that principles must be true. And following only the dictionary definitions again, I discovered that truth requires facts. Therefore, "morality" must be based on facts. And I've been searching ever since then, trying to get someone to tell me exactly which facts "morality" is supposedly based on. Apparently nobody knows.
Topic's author
#640
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
You have an OPINION that "the bible" is "objective".
I have what is necessary for objectivity.
You are a human who suffers from sample bias.
There is no neutrality. You are not neutral either. You suffer from the sample bias from a different standpoint.

Therefore you are biased.
Dito.

Therefore you are not "objective".
What you are saying is that I can't be objective when it comes to morality but that is not a sound conclusion. If I appeal to an objective truth I can. If I correctly interpret such a truth I can. If I have what is necessary for objectivity I can. 

I question that your worldview does, and I want you to demonstrate it does.
I am not "objective" and I've never claimed to be "objective".
Then you are unable to say for certain that anything is wrong, including a person torturing innocent children for fun. All you can say is, "I don't personally like it." But to those who do you have no course of objection. Hitler's killing of almost 13 million 'undesirables' maybe something you don't like, but who are you to criticize him? To each their own. And your position is unlivable when someone chooses to torture you for fun. Then you know your relativism is unsustainable and cannot be lived because with it there are no universal values. (Remember, no moral values are objective) That means they are all open to interpretation and preference.  


I do my best to maintain logically coherent, fact based world view based on explicit primary axioms.
You have not demonstrated that you do maintain logical consistency, IMO. You say 'this is good' or 'this is bad' from your relative subjective viewpoint but why does that make something good or bad? If I say the opposite how can they both be right? So, you fail the test of the law of identity, the law of contradiction, and the law of middle exclusion. You can't place an objective identity on what is right, thus right can mean anything.  

I very intentionally engage in exploration of opposing viewpoints in order to continuously refine and update my own perspective.
I sincerely appreciate the effort. Perhaps that will be a good thing? Forgive me for being critical but that is the whole point in examining and making sense of worldviews. 

+proHUMAN +proFAMILY
Pro-life then? 

Topic's author
#641
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you think it is right to murder, to take an innocent life out of malice intentionally?
Of course not.

But I don't need to resort to a hackneyed "appeal to authority" in order to come to that conclusion.
But you do. You appeal to your authority as if that is enough or it is of great meaning and value, without more justification. How can you come to that conclusion if there are no moral absolutes? All you can say is "I don't like it and I hope you don't either." Why should I or someone feel the same way if morality is up for grabs to whoever can make something doable by force, because without a moral absolute that is all you have, forcing your opinions on others? Yet, you know that killing/murdering innocent people is wrong and you have no hesitation in saying it is wrong because deep down you know it is an objective moral value but you can't justify why it is. 
#642
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
  
Others are of the same opinion, and while that does not necessarily make it so, it is a good indication. It is an observation. 

Millions  of  "others," ie  Muslims  are of the opinion that Jesus was not the "son of god"  and " are of the opinion " that he was just a mere mouth-piece.  The Mandaean sect "are of the opinion"  that John the Baptist was the greater of the two between Jesus and John.  So I wouldn't let a few   bible ignorant  scroats  convince you that your own opinion about me is correct.

How many fkn TIMES!!!!!? I don't "hate"  Christians .
Again, a rather aggressive or hostile reply. 

Emphasis,It is to emphasise!  Because I am sick  of having to repeat my stance  on almost every fkn thread !!!!  Take that however you like. 


In fact, I only recall ever hating one person that I knew personally, in the whole of my life. It is the scriptures that I have a problem with. My threads are all to do with the scriptures. And I have more threads to create highlighting the many problems that arise from the bibles contradictory nature and ambiguity.  Your own faith and belief is all irrelevant to me. I don't care about your personal beliefs or  that you have a faith. It is what Christians have faith in  (the scriptures) that concerns me.


You hate Christianity, you hate Christ. You are against the Scriptures. Your posts show an animus. Jesus likened anger to hatred, even murder.  

See again, you are telling me what it is I hate. You really are right up your own arse arn't you?   You are no better than the Pastor , Chaplin and Lawyer #58



Jesus likened anger to hatred, even murder.  
Something he'd know all about wouldn't he?  He's murdered enough men women and children hasn't he.



I don't know you personally to care about you. Just as I don't know you to "hate you". You could be the nicest person on the planet, but that alone wouldn't convince me that the scriptures are true and flawless. 
You hate what I stand for and believe in. You constantly attack it and mock it and put it down. 

NO. I constantly scrutinize the scriptures and question them. You just don't like it and I don't care.


Your justification displays several eisegetical and inferential errors on the myriad of threads that would require a very detailed and time-consuming rebuttal. 

 Indeed.  Hence you are simply left with your unfounded opinion. AND you are more than welcome to it.







#643
Marko
Marko's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
Marko's avatar
Marko
0
0
2
-->
@PGA2.0
This sounds like the perpetual rehash of religious argumentation strategy....where they internally consult with each other and agree amongst themselves that non-believers—because they don’t happen to agree with their particular take on God and the nature of morality, etc—somehow believe that things must have happened by chance, and that any alternative to their unusual take must immediately be offered up to them with substantial evidence.....all this while never having spoken to a true atheist. 
Of course, religious debaters conveniently never absorb the reality that, never in my entire of talking to atheists, have I heard them pointing to happenstance and random occurence as a explanation for anything (precisely the opposite). So why does it, as consistently as clockwork, crop up in their discussions?
Similarly, they appear to ignore or obfuscate the notion of burden of proof (probably more for convenience than blatant ignorance)? 

I just don’t find your proposition convincing and evidence based, dude.....and this disbelief in your proposition didn’t require me propose any new proposition that is susceptible to any convincing attack on your part. All you can do is to go back to the drawing board and search for new evidence to support your proposition. 

#644
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Asserting sovereignty over MY OWN PHYSICAL BODY is an appeal to LOGOS.

Please challenge my axioms and or point out a specific logical error and or provide a counter-factual.
#645
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Marko
.....all this while never having spoken to a true atheist. 
There's the problem.

You cannot define your opponent's (true) beliefs.

Have you ever spoken to a BLM protestor?

Have you ever spoken to a MAGA hatter?

Have you ever spoken to an SJW?

It is FUNDAMENTAL to let people SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.

When someone starts trying to tell me "what I really think" I try to remind them that they CAN'T speak for me (this should be obvious).

Defining your opponent's position is the very definition of a STRAWMAN.
Topic's author
#646
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Marko
This sounds like the perpetual rehash of religious argumentation strategy....where they internally consult with each other and agree amongst themselves that non-believers—because they don’t happen to agree with their particular take on God and the nature of morality, etc—somehow believe that things must have happened by chance, and that any alternative to their unusual take must immediately be offered up to them with substantial evidence.....all this while never having spoken to a true atheist. 
Of course, religious debaters conveniently never absorb the reality that, never in my entire of talking to atheists, have I heard them pointing to happenstance and random occurence as a explanation for anything (precisely the opposite). So why does it, as consistently as clockwork, crop up in their discussions?
Similarly, they appear to ignore or obfuscate the notion of burden of proof (probably more for convenience than blatant ignorance)? 

I just don’t find your proposition convincing and evidence based, dude.....and this disbelief in your proposition didn’t require me propose any new proposition that is susceptible to any convincing attack on your part. All you can do is to go back to the drawing board and search for new evidence to support your proposition.

Actually, I'm asking atheists to explain morality and give justification for it. I claim the Christian system has what is necessary for morality and that you do not. Show me otherwise. 

Before we get started, are you referring to the OP? 

As an atheist, would you describe yourself more along the lines of a hardcore atheist (there is no God/gods - period) or a softcore atheist (agnostic/unsure because there is no evidence for God/gods)?

What presuppositions do you bring to the table? If no God or gods, you would be supporting a strictly naturalistic or materialistic process, right? If not, explain what you believe about beginnings when you follow the causal tree back to its roots. In the beginning...what?


Topic's author
#647
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Can you live without condemning murder as wrong?
Can you live without explicitly defining "an unjustified killing"?
I did—the malicious, intentional killing of an innocent human being.

I'm pretty sure you can live without explicitly defining "an unjustified killing" because I'm pretty sure you can't explicitly define "an unjustified killing" (murder).

Without a fixed reference point (without an explicit, unchanging and universal definition), how can you claim to condemn "murder"?
I have a fixed reference point; a necessary revealed one - God.

Topic's author
#648
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you think it is wrong to lie?
Of course (under certain circumstances).

Even Christians believe it's permissible, even admirable to violate unjust laws and use subterfuge (lies by omission and or lies by commission) in order to avoid legal consequences.
I do not believe it is good to lie. We, however, live in a fallen world where we have to in order to protect innocent life, as was the case with Moses. Sometimes it is the lesser of two evils. 

Like lying to the state in order to assist escaped slaves and or people persecuted by the state for their religious beliefs and or genetic composition.

But I don't need to resort to a hackneyed "appeal to authority" in order to come to that conclusion.
The truth is that everyone appeals to authority. Sometimes it is fallacious. Is that what you are hinting at? The question is whether that appeal to authority is justifiable. 

+proHUMAN +proFAMILY

Pro-life?!
Topic's author
#649
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
What if someone defames your character and says things that are untrue of you to others.
You can say whatever you wish.
That is not my point. Do you think it is right?

I think you will probably agree with the biblical view that it is wrong. 

I will not attempt to intimidate or coerce you with threats of force (by the state or otherwise) or verbal counter-attack.
That is not the question here. The question is whether defaming someone and destroying their character out of malice is right or wrong?

(IFF) people are easily fooled by banal ad hominem attacks (THEN) they merely demonstrate their own deficit of critical thinking
So, you don't see it as wrong for someone to falsely accuse you of something or malign your character just because they don't like you, then?
Topic's author
#650
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you think it is okay when others steal from you? Is it okay for you to steal from others? 
Do you consider inflation "theft"?
There is a reason it happens. It is not a good thing but often a result of greed, IMO, as with most of your questions. Greed is wrong. 

Do you consider taxation "theft"?
Give to Caesar what is Caesar's. Is it fair taxes that go into maintaining and improving the state for each citizen? Or are the political elite using taxes to get rich at the expense of the taxpayer. If so, then yes to the latter. 

Do you consider price gouging "theft"?
Dishonest, yes. A ripoff. Let the buyer beware. 

Do you consider anti-competitive business practices "theft"?
What is stolen? Depends on the motives and situation perhaps. There may be no one else in the field to compete with such as with a new field of endeavour.

Do you consider exploitation of labor "theft"?
I consider it as mean, selfish, and disrespectful. What would be stealing?
Topic's author
#651
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Is it okay when the person you love is unfaithful to you and doesn't care?
(IFF) you are relying on a formalized social contract (and public ritual) in order to maintain a sense of security in your personal relationships (THEN) you are missing the point of human interaction
So it is okay if someone you love is secretly having sex with someone else and lying to you about it and does not care if your feelings are hurt? That is a good thing for you? 

Do you also believe that it is wrong to commit to another person, pledging to be faithful to them?
Topic's author
#652
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you think it is okay when someone wants something that does not belong to them and takes it?
Isn't that what you call "shopping"?
No, that is called using your well-earned money to buy something for sale that no one yet owns. 

Is it okay that you want something that does not belong to you and you are willing to do whatever it takes to obtain that something?
Isn't that what you call "ambition"?
No, greed. Do you think greed is good?
#653
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
(IFF) you are relying on a formalized social contract (and public ritual) in order to maintain a sense of security in your personal relationships (THEN) you are missing the point of human interaction
So it is okay if someone you love is secretly having sex with someone else and lying to you about it and does not care if your feelings are hurt? That is a good thing for you? 
Betrayal of any kind is emotionally painful.

However, that betrayal is a private matter between the two (or more) people involved.

I can see no reason for anyone else (including god($)) to have any strong opinions on the matter (much less prescribe any sort of mandatory "punishment").
#654
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
What if someone defames your character and says things that are untrue of you to others.
You can say whatever you wish.
That is not my point. Do you think it is right?

I think you will probably agree with the biblical view that it is wrong. 
Strangely enough I believe in freedom of speech.

I don't believe it's universally immoral to say things.

I also don't think it's universally immoral to think things.
#655
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
No, that is called using your well-earned money to buy something for sale that no one yet owns. 
When someone is coerced into selling something they own, even if they receive some sort of payment, I still consider it theft.
#656
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Is it okay that you want something that does not belong to you and you are willing to do whatever it takes to obtain that something?
Isn't that what you call "ambition"?
No, greed. Do you think greed is good?
Are you kidding me?

What if the thing they want is "a better relationship with Jesus"?  Or something like, "inner peace"?  Or perhaps they want to restore a broken relationship?
Topic's author
#657
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
And I point to that truth; God is truth. I have continually argued for what is necessary for objective moral truth.
But you have failed to demonstrate a single solitary unchanging, universal moral axiom.
What would you be willing to believe? You want to dictate things on your terms. Do you think God is answerable to you? I believe that no matter what I give as the reason, you will doubt because you are not willing to grant God His existence. But I'm in for the discussion because you are polite enough. You are set in a worldview mind-frame that can't make sense of itself, but I believe you do not want to admit it to yourself. That would be not very pleasant considering what you have invested in it. Thus, you keep giving excuse after excuse, IMO.

I am pointing out that your system of thought cannot make sense of itself when you start to examine it, removing the nuts and bolts to see what makes it tick. The Christian system can justify itself. It has what is necessary for truth regarding origins, morality, existence, truth, knowledge, etc. The analogy I see here to this challenge; you put your fingers in your ears and don't hear the validity of the questions, then when I finish given my point and raising more questions, you put another obstacle in the way. Be honest with yourself and answer my questions. I want to see how well you can justify what you believe just like you want to with me, and I am giving you my reasons while answering all your questions - all of them.   
Topic's author
#658
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
If you are unable to produce a coherent definition of "objective" then your naked opinion is laid bare.
Objective: That which is the actual case, to put it simply. Do you want me to expand on that? 
How do you personally determine and how do you personally verify "that which is the actual case"?
First, I look at what is necessary for objectively knowing what is morally right. Then I see how well the Christian system of thought answers this question, comparing it to others. I consider the system of checks and balances the Bible gives and I believe it is logical and adequate. 

Do you rely on your "gut instincts"?
Sometimes. I rely on my common sense, reason and logic more so. Since I have read the Scriptures for over forty years verses come to mind readily in thinking of the answers. 

As a subjective person, do you know what is the actual case? 
I draw the brightest possible line between FACT and OPINION.
I disagree. (^8
Topic's author
#659
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
So, the covenant changed, not the Law.
Hairsplitting.
It changes for the believer because he/she is not judged by the law but by what Jesus Christ did in his/her stead. The NT tells the believer repeatedly; we live by grace, not by the works of the law. By the works of the law, no human is justified because no accountable human other than Jesus has been able to live without sin.  
Awesome.  Does this mean you believe we should let all Christians out of jails and prisons?
No, you misunderstand the context. I thought I was being clear but I will make it plainer. 'It' speaks of the covenant. I am speaking of the Christian standing before God, no humans. 
#660
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,613
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@PGA2.0
A study published in the journal Neuropsychologia has shown that religious fundamentalism is, in part, the result of a functional impairment in a brain region known as the prefrontal cortex. The findings suggest that damage to particular areas of the prefrontal cortex indirectly promotes religious fundamentalism by diminishing cognitive flexibility and openness—a psychology term that describes a personality trait which involves dimensions like curiosity, creativity, and open-mindedness. Religious beliefs can be thought of as socially transmitted mental representations that consist of supernatural events and entities assumed to be real. Religious beliefs differ from empirical beliefs, which are based on how the world appears to be and are updated as new evidence accumulates or when new theories with better predictive power emerge.