Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?

Author: PGA2.0

Posts

Total: 1,638
#841
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@FLRW
The fact is that Einstein also said that God does not play dice with the universe, and Einstein had a concept of God. 
You are not aware of the vast time difference between Einstein's comments on God.  Einstein said God does not play dice in 1926.  In 1954, one year before he died,
he wrote a letter that said,  “The word God is for me nothing but the expression of and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this.” This shows that you manipulate facts to support your claim. 
I would add "so what"? 

People at different parts in their lives say different things that could be assumed to be inconsistent with each other. This is normal.  Take Darwin for instance.  Apparently, on his death bed he renounced his evolutionary theories to embrace God. I don't have a reference for this and I don't necessarily even believe it is to be true. Nevertheless it is one of the stories that get thrown about. 

Generally people say in response to it - that he was close to death and people say anything on their death bed.  IDK if that is true or not. The point however is - what part of a person's life is more characteristic of a person's view - at the beginning, midway, or at the end? Or are they all part of the person's life and character? 

Einstein, as far I am aware, did not believe in God. Raised a Jew in Germany, he may well have had a basic understanding. Jews tend to have a persecution complex. Nazi Germany would certainly intensify that. His mind was brilliant - and flawed as well.  

But in saying that, even at the end of his life, he no longer saw a necessity for "God", it does not change the truth that he might have said prior to that time.  His prior statement seems in one sense - based more on reason - since he talking about the laws of the universe. His later statement is more about his personal understanding and opinion. The first was in an area of expertise for himself. The latter in a realm of which he was not an expert. Both may be correct or true. Yet why should we trust the first part of his life when is talking about an area of which he is an expert less than the latter part of his life on a subject of which he does not see himself as an expert?

 
#842
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@PGA2.0
I have admitted the thought of being the only one is absurd.
Which Church flavor do you subscribe to?
I am non-denominational. I believe the body of Christ is not an organization or a building but those who believe in Jesus Christ and what He says and did. 
Hi PGA2.0

I have enjoyed reading your posts. But I have a question for you about the church. I don't want to divert the topic. So would you like me to pm you or to start a new topic or are you ok with it being added here? 
#843
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
People say different things....And different people say different things.....So what?

We're all aware of the GOD principle....How specific or elaborate one cares to be is only limited by the limits of ones own data store and consequent imaginings.

Einstein was just another human that lived and died, and sometimes varied his data output.

It all boils down to the basics of human function in the end.

And in the end GOD dies with us.


#844
Amoranemix
Amoranemix's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 137
1
2
5
Amoranemix's avatar
Amoranemix
1
2
5
I read till post 175. Then laziness overcame me.

PGA2.0 80 to 3RU7AL
A preference is alike or desire for or against something held by an individual orgroup. How does a preference (I like ice-cream) make that anythingother than a personal taste or a group of people all liking the samething?[31] They like the taste. How does that make tasting ice-creammorally right?[32] That would be equivocating to different thingsthat are not related.
[31] That would depend on the preference. For example, a preference of icecream over horse manure could be a survival necessity.
[32] Personally, I don't think it does.Do you think otherwise ?

THE LAW = CODIFIED MOB RULE
In Hitler'sGermany the 'codified mob rule' or law was to round up Jews and other'undesirables' and kill them. Fine, unless you happen to be a Jew,right? Then the practice is definitely wrong.[33] All your claim doesis make one society or culture prefer one thing and another theopposite. In some countries abortion is illegal and others it islegal. What is your preference? The problem is that two societies,groups, or individuals who advocate opposite standards as good cannotboth be correct in their thinking at the same time. It defies logic(the law of identity - A=A). At least one belief has to be wrong.[34]So who decides? You propose might makes right. Thus, a society thatkills or enslaves others by mob-rule cannot be wrong by all who livein that society but the idea is morally and logically flawed for goodcan mean whatever a society deems it to mean and the meaning can bethe opposite of another society.[35] It begs the question of which isthe actual right for logically they both can't be.
[33] According to you perhaps andaccording to me, but not according to the Nazis. Your god also didn'tdo anything to prevent it.
[34] So, if society A claims thatstrawberry icecream is the tastiest, while society B claims chocolateicecream is the tastiest, then who is right ? They can't both beright. At least one belief has to be wrong. In order to determine whois right, which icecream really is the tastiest, a personal being whohas revealed himself as omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent,immutable and eternal would be necessary to determine what is tastybecause there would be a fixed measure or reference point in which acomparison can be made as to 'the tasty' (since there is a best).Correct ?
Then we could ask that being and if itwere to grace us with an answer we would know which icecream reallyis the tastiest. Otherwise the Nazis could come to power and decidethat mokka icecream is the tastiest.
[35] You are mistaken. Language isconventional. Societies decide the meaning of words, including thewords good and tasty. There is a lot of ambiguity and confusionsurrounding the meanings of the word good. Some people grab theopportunity to claim that that confusion can only be removed withGod.

PGA2.0 80 to 3RU7AL
Well bring upyour objections so we can discuss them. I gave my opinion and I amwiling to back it up for anyone who wishes to engage. So far you haveavoided yet another question I posted.
That reminds me of someone I havedebated on DDO. ;)

Please make your preferred definitionof "morality" EXPLICIT.
I already gavewhat I believe is necessary and for good reason, and it is notpreference.[36] Morality has to be based on what is actually good,not a preference. A preference is an opinion and personal like ordesire. A moral is something that should or should not be so.[37]Thus, I raised the question of how can a subjective being know thedifference between right and wrong if there is no objective, fixed,absolute standard - the best in which to compare goodness to.[38]
You assume that something can be actually good without being a preference. Can you prove that is even possible ?
[36] Perhaps, but you have failed to provide a definition for morality.
[37] In other words, it's a preference.
[38] I assume you mean, moral and immoral iso right and wrong. It could do so by referring to the pertinent moral standard.

Do you perhaps have some indicationthat other humans might also dislike being chained to a grind-stone?
Yes, that ischattel slavery, IMO. I believe that is morally wrong and I determinethis based on what I consider a necessary or self-evident truth bypointing to a necessary being revealing it.
Most of us disapprove of chattel slavery. A popular reason is religion, another is valuing human freedom.

3RU7AL 82 to PGA2.0
You say that youhave moral preferences.
And then you saythat your personal moral preferences are not "preferences".
You're basicallysaying your moral preferences are universal and authoritative.
He claims God's moral preferences are universal and authoritative and therefore he adopts God's moral preferences and in his opinion we should to.

PGA2.0 85 to 3RU7AL
But beyond thatdistinction, only moral beings can make ought statements, but how didwe first cross the divide to get an ought from an is, that is matter,the physical universe, in the case of naturalism or atheism, where apersonal being is excluding as the beginning link of the chain?[39]Somehow we got from an is to an ought through naturalistic meansaccording to naturalism, devoid of God/gods.
[39] Indeed we did. See [10] in post798.
How did we get from an is to an ought according to you ?

PGA2.0 85 to 3RU7AL
The biblical Godis described as an omniscient, unchanging, omnipotent, eternal God.Thus, that revealed Being has what is necessary for us to know whatis good and we have the best to compare values against, provided Heexists.[40] Without Him or such an omniscient, unchanging, eternal,omnipotent God what is your fixed standard? Let us test itssufficiency and reasonableness. That is all I ask of you. Since youclaim to be a deist, describe why your god out does my God inreasonableness.
[40] You again forgot to mention the reference standard to avoid clarity (theChristian's enemy). Assuming you implicitely meant God's moral standard, then so what ? Adolf Hitler (AH) was neccesary for us to know what is good according to AH and we have what is best according to AH to compare values against. Without AH, what is your perishable standard? Let us test its sufficiency and reasonableness. That is allI ask of you. Since you are a theist, describe why your God outdoes AH.

For example,HUME'S GUILLOTINE[LINK
I listened to thewhole thing and agree with some of it. What is the main point thatyou want me to glean from it?
Any artificialintelligent being would be a programmed being. It would only be asgood as its maker designed it to be. Its input would determine whatkind of moral actions it took.
However intelligent or wise that AI may be, it will never be able to deduce an ought from it's knowledge of the real world. Some fundamental oughts, i.e. goals have to be programmed into it.
Goals are chosen. You prefer God's goals. Nazis prefer AH's goals. I prefer Mohandas Ghandi's goals.

How do you deriveyour moral aptitude from the "IS" (AXIOM) of anecessary moral being?
Through a statedrevelation. God chose to reveal. Someone who is more than descriptivechose to reveal.
So you start from God's oughts, which he allegedly revealed. So you can't deduce what ought solely from what is either.

What "IS" the case?
God's revelationof Himself and what is good. God is the necessary standard for thereason that such a being has what is necessary - omniscient, eternal,unchanging.[39]
AH's revelation and what is good is also the case.
God is a standard in only in the sense that he is used (chosen) as a standard by his followers.
[39] Necessary for what ? And why would omniscient, eternal and unchanging be necessary for that ?
There is one more thing that think is also necessary to be or provide a good moral standard : existence. AH scores badly in that department, but his existence in the past may suffice.

How do you leapfrom what "IS" to what "OUGHT" tobe?
I base it onGod's prescriptive decrees and commands - an authority and necessarybeing who knows everything and reveals what should be. Thou shalt notkill (murder). Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not lie. Love yourneighbour as yourself, etc.
You forgot to answer his question.

Please presentyour ("objective") MORAL AXIOMS.
God (as revealedin the Bible), as the necessary Being, is required for morals. Thatis reasonable to believe.[40] I keep explaining why. He is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, immutable, and eternal. That is what is necessary.[41]
[40] OK. So it isnot true. It is just something reasonable to believe. I doubt eventhat.
[41] You are joking, right ? Morality is possible without any of that. They may be terrible moralities (the sort of moralities we see in the real world), but no god is necessary for them.

PGA2.0 99 to 3RU7AL
First, God isobjective in the sense that He knows all things and is thecreator of the universe and life on earth. [ … ]
Does your god really know all things, or merely all true, knowable things ?

PGA2.0 99 to 3RU7AL
Second, we need afixed standard, a final reference point. God meets that requirement,we do not for He is unchanging and eternal.
For what do weneed a fixed standard ?
God could only meet that requirement if he exists, something so far no one has been able to prove.

PGA2.0 99 to 3RU7AL
Third, God isgood, which means that to read about Him and understand Him is to see(mirrored) and understand what goodness is.[42] It just is who He isand He allowed us to find out the difference between His goodness andwhat is evil by giving humanity (in Adam) a choice to know evil. Evilis doing the opposite of what God has said as good. We understandevil since the Fall because God let us experience evil for a purpose,that we might perhaps seek out God, be reunited, and escape from theevil we do in our moral relativism.[43] With human beings, we witnessthis moral relativism all around us.[44] One society believes onething is wrong and another the opposite. Just wait long enough andyou will see people reversing their beliefs about goodness, such as Ipointed out about abortion. The reason abortion is evil is that itdoes not treat all human life as equal. Some human beings aredehumanized, demonized, discriminated about, and diminished to thepoint of death.[45]
[42] That is so sweet. You again forgot to mention the reference standard to avoid clarity (the skeptic's friend). Adolf Hitler was also good according to himself. And we can also read about AH's goodness.
[43] Thus faryour fairy tale.
[44] Aha. That is what we see in the real world. It doesn't look compatible with the former.
[45] The real world does have its problems, indeed.

Topic's author
#845
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
This seems slightly coercive.
You have a will, and you are aware of the consequences. Are you interested in what is best, or will any standard do? 
You can freely choose to go to any restaurant you wish.

However, if you go to one I don't like, I will beat you with a baseball bat.
So, you feel it is morally permissible to beat someone up if they go to a restaurant you don't like. So morality to you is doing whatever you like, and if anyone interferes, you enforce your standards of like on them by using your bat. So someone who can use their fists or bats better than you is morally justified in beating your face to a pulp? Dog eat dog!

But don't let that FACT interfere with your free-decision-making.
Now, if I bring a gun to your bat fight, then you will go to that restaurant whether you like it or not unless you want to face the consequences, and you will buy the meal for both of us, and I will decide what you will eat. How do you like my "morals" and company now? 

Many factors govern your decision-making, but largely by what you like and dislike, the consequences of your actions through trial and error and social restraints. From an early age, you have been influenced by those around you to think a particular way. Thus, in that sense, your free-decision is not free but influenced. What is free is the fact that you still choose to do things and make decisions.

How is your personal choice to beat me with a baseball bat morally good? You materialize a standard out of your mind based on personal tastes. Why are your personal tastes morally good?

Now God's commandment not to eat of the tree of good and evil was morally good. Since Adam was the only human being other than Jesus Christ not to be influenced by other people's choices (he was a blank slate), he chose to set the course of human history. He had the initial two inputs, God's commandment to him (before Eve was created) and Satan's counter through Eve to him - the two choices he was completely free to choose from. When Eve took of the fruit and offered it to him he made a bad choice.   

Just pick the one you like best.
I did, my gun in opposition to your baseball bat. You will do what I say, but you are "free" to choose! Weigh the consequences well!

How does that answer the question, "Are you interested in doing what is best, or will any standard do?" (morally speaking)

#846
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Amoranemix
He claims God's moral preferences are universal and authoritative and therefore he adopts God's moral preferences and in his opinion we should to.
The "YHWH" seems to have some strange "moral preferences".

Specifically when it comes to slaughtering the children of "non-believers" and keeping foreigners and their children and their grandchildren in "perpetual servitude".
#847
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ludofl3x
I suspect you're conflating "wrong" and "morally wrong" with "illegal." Keep them distinct as one has nothing to do with the other. 
Well stated.
Topic's author
#848
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Again, what is ideal, the best?
I'M BEGGING YOU TO TELL ME.
You already know yet choose to ignore the best - the biblical God. 
Oh, right, the biblical God who orders their followers to slaughter the children of non-believers.
If God let Israel be influenced by other wicked nations that practiced child sacrifice and idolatry, Israel would not follow His good decrees and judgments. If those other nations in the Promised Land (which God owned) decided Israel was not going to stay in the land and decided to kill all the Israelites, then God's sworn plan of redemption in which the Messiah, the Saviour, would come through the bloodline of these people, Israel, would not happen. Thus, God judged the evil and punished it through Israel. But Israel was not obedient to God's plan and left many unbelieving residents in the land that constantly perverted Israel's thinking and caused them to do wrong.  

As for the children, any innocent children would be restored to a better place by God - His presence. 

That's your ideal-best-perfect-unchanging-universal-true-north-pole?
Is it good to punish evil? 

And your ideal best is to do nothing to address wrongful actions?
#849
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Amoranemix
I read till post 175. Then laziness overcame me.
I applaud your ambition.

I usually read the first page of the topic and then skip to the end and read them in reverse order (I use "likes" to keep my place).

If the conversation is productive (and I hope this one is a good example) then the salient points should become compressed towards the tail end of the discussion.
Topic's author
#850
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Why does God kill off one parent and leave the other to raise their children alone?
I'm pretty certain that an all-powerful, all-knowing god could have insured each and every human is guaranteed a mother AND a father if that was TRULY their intention.
Sin brought judgment upon the world of human beings. God promised that taking of the fruit of the tree of good and evil would bring judgment and humans would learn to understand the impact of such an immoral thing as doing what was wrong. Death was the penalty, spiritual alienation from God (they were not allowed to eat of the tree of life and live forever in His presence) and also a physical limitation, physical death as a curse or consequence of sin. 

19 By the sweat of your face
You shall eat bread,
Until you return to the ground,
Because from it you were taken;
For you are dust,
And to dust you shall return.”

So God gave human beings a limited amount of time to experience life and decide whether they wanted to know Him or not. 

THE FACT that many children grow up without two loving parents pretty much PROVES that an all-powerful, all-knowing god designed it exactly that way "for a reason".
Again, the reasons are because of original sin in which God subjected the good creation (now marred by sin and evil) to limits to show humanity what it is like to live without His presence in our lives and because of human beings' bad choices. A burglar chooses to break into your house to rob you and, in the process, then kills your wife, who discovers his wrongful actions. She is in the wrong place at the wrong time. Thus, evil affects your children because of the actions of a burglar who broke two commandments, stealing and murder. 
Topic's author
#851
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
That is why God has given us a standard that we may know the difference, so we don't get hurt.
Why did God make so many painful and dangerous things?
Everything was 'very good' until Adam sinned.
Somebody should talk to that boy's parents.
That is the danger of allowing a creature free-will. He walked with God (had a close relation) but chose not to learn further from God but go his own way. He chose to let his narrow, limited mind to be the arbiter of good and evil. Thus, humanity has never been the same since that time. God is letting us see the effects of living without His presence and influence in our lives. How well do you think we are doing? Look around you at the US elections and the cheating by Democrats for power. They will do anything to sway your vote, including altering the rules to favour themselves. Power is the name of the game. When you reject God and ignore His word (the Bible), you choose a relative, subjective human system to rule over you. Injustice results everywhere. 
Topic's author
#852
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
When with Him, what we know in part, we will know in full.
Knowing half of something is often significantly more dangerous than knowing nothing.
Too true!

That is why the Word, in the NT, admonishes believers to study to make oneself approved of God, someone who correctly handles the word of truth. 

#853
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@PGA2.0
Fact or presupposition? You were not there.
Wrong, while it is true that I wasn't there we have evidence for several mass extinction events, 5 to be precise. 


The overwhelming preponderance of evidence points to the fact 


 I agree that one event, the Flood, almost destroyed all life on earth.
Provide evidence for this proposition. 


How does that event disprove the earth was made for life? Where else in the universe do you find the conditions NECESSARY for life? If the earth was not life-permitting,
VERB (permits, permitting, permitted)
  • 1 Give authorization or consent to (someone) to do something.
    with object and infinitive ‘the law permits councils to monitor any factory emitting smoke’
  • 1.1with object Authorize or give permission for (something )  ‘the country is not ready to permit any rice imports’
  • 1.2with object (of a thing, circumstance, or condition) provide an opportunity or scope for (something) to take place; make possible.  ‘some properties are too small to permit mechanized farming’
  • 1.3 permit off ormal no object Allow for; admit of. ‘the camp permits of no really successful defense’
NOUN
often with modifier
  • An official document giving someone authorization to do something.
    ‘he is only in Britain on a work permit’
You are most likely referring to the 1.2/1.3 definitions of permit, and I will interpret your question using this definition, correct me if I'm mistaken. 

How can (several) mass extinction event(s) disallow for life? Pretty simply, eliminate all life on the planet, or prevent said planet from being life permitting anymore. Not to mention we are not just talking about something "permitting" for life, we are talking about something designed for life, by the most intelligent being existent. Therefore mass extinction events that were not caused by that being would put doubt that that being even did create that thing.  That's why I doubt very heavily that a god created the earth at all, much less the universe. 

Consider the following: Besides the heavens, hell, and earth, no other celestial bodies, planets, space stuff, etc, were mentioned beyond being created. There was no importance of such a thing, god did not tell us why they created such a vast array of space. Therefore we have no knowledge if there is actually any use of this space, which would make it reasonable to conclude that all of that other space (besides arguably the solar system we inhabit as well as definitely the sun) is useless and not necessary for god to make. Therefore its existence causes reasonable doubt. 


 why is there life on it? 
Abiogenesis, and Evolution. 

Evidence for Abiogenesis:

Evidence for Evolution:

While Evolution has more evidence and is a scientific hypothesis, there is still an abundant amount of evidence for Abiogenesis. 


 The fact is that the earth is life-permitting, and you do find life here and so far nowhere else that we know of in the universe.
Aha, but you are wrong there, at least your implications. While it is true that the vast universe is not life inhabiting, there are other planets with the capability of supporting life, and studies into microorganisms such as prokaryotes are going on currently to determine if there is life.



Furthermore, if the conditions were not right, the universe would not even be here. If the natural laws were not precise, the universe would not exist. Regarding thermodynamics, why has it not died a heat death? 
It will die in heat death, we happen to be alive during a moment where it's not in heat death. Yes the conditions had to be correct for the existence of our universe; however, there are lots of things we do not know, and presuming that a god was the cause of those conditions aligning would still be presumptuous on your part. God would have to have the power to do such a thing, and such the existence of a being would require more evidence than: "A god could do this, and we don't know why this happened, therefore god" 

As I have already pointed out, we do not know the precise cause of the big bang, or even cosmic inflation, just as likely as there is a god, is there a reason that these conditions had to be true in order for the universe to even exist at all, or a constant. I will not claim this to be the case, but it is just as likely as a god's existence, the manner of argumentation and fulfillment of the burden of proof is fulfilled similarly if not the same by both claims, therefore more evidence is needed before one could purport either claim to be true.


As for the theory of everything, "God is the reason" is reasonable, for a reason is a mindful process. 
No, no it is not, at least not without further evidence. Occam's Razor state's that we should prefer the explanation with the least amount assumptions, "God is the reason" is nothing more than an assumption until evidence is found to support that claim.


I will address each refutation specifically, this is part 1










Topic's author
#854
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 see, you can't be consistent in your thinking once you say words in context have no meaning, and words do not convey a specific meaning. 
We have similar experiences and therefore understand similar words similarly.

My point is that even though we have similar understandings of some words, that doesn't mean that the MEANING of those words is "set-in-stone" (as you seem to believe).
Think of what you are staying, will you?

Do words in context convey a specific meaning or not? 

When you look in a dictionary, the possible word usages are given, the contexts in which a word is used one way or another.

You say no; words don't have meaning in a context that is set in stone. They can mean whatever a person wants them to mean. These dictionary definitions mean nothing. Thus, in your opinion, in those contexts, they can mean whatever the person wants them to mean. Please note, I am not saying word meanings do not change over time. I am saying that what words mean in context are defined and set until a new meaning catches on; then, the dictionaries change/add to reflect and include the new contextual meaning. 

So, words in context do have a specific meaning. The biblical words have specific meanings, and sometimes those meanings have to be understood as used by the culture of the time because new meanings for the word have arisen and do not reflect the original context. 

I.e.,

Definition of context

1: the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning
2: the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs: ENVIRONMENT, SETTING the historical context of the war

Above, two meanings are given for the word 'context,' and you can inquire and decide which word usage fits the word's use as I use it. Since I speak in terms of words and their meanings, the first definition is more fitting than the second. In some cases, with words, the use in context is even more apparent.

So, your statement is a deliberate attempt to blur meaning. It is a common tactic used by those most influenced by postmodernism, IMO, because they deconstruct the given meaning and read into it their own, which means they don't bother to find out what the author truly meant but change such meaning to suit their tastes (like you do with you example about the baseball bat and the restaurant). 

So, if you said, "The grass is a green colour," I could say, "No, it is orange, don't you know that green really means orange?" Word meanings become absurd when the meaning is lost, and there are no specific definitions for that word. Now I am not saying that the meanings cannot change with use if enough people like the new buzzword or new meanings for the word. When that happens, another definition is added to the word meaning in a dictionary.  
Topic's author
#855
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
They have to construct scenarios they cannot prove but theorize...
THAT'S CALLED, "ACKNOWLEDGING EPISTEMOLOGICAL LIMITS".
Okay, so?

Only a fool would claim to know things that they don't have any way of validating.
All evidence of origins is interpreted. No one was there to witness origins. No one can repeat the process of origins. The data needs to be interpreted. The evidence does not come with the phrase, "happened 13.8 billion years ago." So, depending on where you start depends on your thinking because ideas are built upon core beliefs. That is why atheist thinking is naturalistic and materialistic. They exclude from their thinking God or gods as a workable reason for anything. They try to analyze everything via nature, which, incidentally, I contend, points to God.  
Topic's author
#856
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
Okay. Which opposing social norms are the true right? Are you saying that they both are?

Neither are inherently "right."
Then your system of thought is irrational and illogical, as I have explained before. I don't think I can reason with you. 

They're just what we've agreed upon works for the species. As we dominate all resources on the planet, it's worked out well. 
Who agreed to? Are you arguing the fallacy of Ad Populum? 

You demonstrate you have nothing definite and universal to pin 'wrong' on, no fixed measure, just personal opinion and preference which makes nothing right, just liked. You can't determine the best so your ideas are blurred not by right but by desires and wants. Good is always changing if you have no best to compare it with. It can be likened to anything you like. 

 That means that you can't really say something is wrong, just not preferable. Do you really believe that?   

I can absolutely say I think something is wrong.
Sure, you can SAY it, but can you prove it is absolutely wrong? Again, you are making it personal by such a statement - your opinion—big deal. 
 
So you are saying that there is no such thing as 'right'; nothing is absolutely wrong, like raping women for fun or torturing little children for fun? So, when someone chooses to torture you for fun, there is nothing wrong with that; you perhaps don't like it. 
When someone chooses to torture me for fun, I will defend myself, because I find that's the moral thing to do, and I feel the people acting to harm me ire in the wrong.
That is just my point, wrong in whose idea? You said, "Neither are inherently "right."

And notice you once again avoided my question. Is it wrong to torture LITTLE CHILDREN FOR FUN? 

So if they like torturing you, no big deal except you don't like it - tough. They have the power; you don't. Hitler did in Nazi Germany. The problem is you can't say anything is inherently evil or wrong; all you can say is "I like or don't like it." 

You can't live by your own system of thought because as soon as someone turns it on you, it becomes unlivable. In any rational proof, livability is one of the considerations of sound thinking.  

So then it becomes not a moral issue, it becomes a survival issue. I suspect you're conflating "wrong" and "morally wrong" with "illegal." Keep them distinct as one has nothing to do with the other. 
Torture is a moral subject. Keep this in context, please. 

God designed humans with a will, volition. That means we can choose. God also told humanity what was good and what was evil in relationships
Everything in this post is irrelevant. Why would god design homosexual people if he abhors the way he makes them? You're doing another great job of winning Wordiest Idiot. 
Your escape and avoidance clause. Bye!

Topic's author
#857
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Amoranemix
I am going to have to break your post into sections. There is too much information to cover with one post, and your words all run together and make it difficult to read. Maybe you should check your copy apt. Somehow the information becomes jumbled together when you copy and paste. Please correct that for further communication.

Also, we have had long discussions on Debate.org (in some cases over a thousand posts) in which nothing was accomplished because you swamped me with more than I could handle in each post, a habit we are both guilty of doing. (^8 
#858
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
Then your system of thought is irrational and illogical, as I have explained before. I don't think I can reason with you. 
I agree, we're talking past each other , and I don't have the time to sort through your repetitive screeds. I'll go on not torturing little kids for fun even though I don't believe in god..
#859
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@PGA2.0
[1] What is "chance?"
Lexico (An English and Spanish Oxford Dictionary, Thesaurus) defines chance as the following:

NOUN
  • 1 A possibility of something happening.
    ‘there is a chance of winning the raffle’
  • 1.1 chances The probability of something desirable happening. 'he played down his chances of becoming chairman
  • 1.2 in singular An opportunity to do or achieve something. ‘I gave her a chance to answer’
  • 2 mass noun The occurrence of events in the absence of any obvious intention or cause. ‘he met his brother by chance’
ADJECTIVE
attributive
  • Fortuitous; accidental.
    ‘a chance meeting’
    More example sentences
VERB
  • 1 no object, with infinitive Do something by accident or without intending to.
    ‘he was very effusive if they chanced to meet’
  • 1.1 chance upon/on/across Find or see by accident. ‘he chanced upon an interesting advertisement’
  • 2 informal with object Do (something) despite its being dangerous or of uncertain outcome.
In this case I am referring to the 2nd definition of chance under nouns:

Chance - "The occurrence of events in the absence of any obvious intention or cause."


Show me it has the ability to do anything.
Chance is not an agent or something that causes things, but a noun to refer to an event does not have an intention or cause. It can also be an adjective to describe something that has happened in what may seem unfavorable circumstances. This seems like either semantics or you being dishonest. 


Any god that did not exist would not be God.
Yes it would. Simply not your definition of god. 


God, as a supernatural Being, is the Occam razor of explanations.
This is incorrect, because you are assuming supernatural things to exist, that a god exists, that the god is super natural, that the god did x or y, and that the god a, b, c characteristics. So no, this is not true either.


1. With Him, there is a reason for the universe.
You could mean this a couple of different ways:

Perhaps you mean to say that with God, there is a reason for the existence of the universe, that he created it. If this is what you meant then it fairly easy to refute by pointing out that anything could possibly explain a universe would have the standard that god does for existing. 

In another sense you could mean this give the universe reason, as in some reason to exist more philosophically speaking, this doesn't really matter, nor would it prove the existence of a god, it would simply mean that if he did exist he could do this, sorry.

If you meant something else, please do clarify, and if you meant either of those two things, well... yeah just refuted them.


2. God has what is necessary for the universe. He transcends time and space, so He is not of the physical realm, which began.
You would be forced to demonstrate this beings existence, it isn't unreasonable to say that claiming an agent who transcends space and time is a rather huge claim, and would require proportionate evidence. Not to mention, again, just because if something was true it would explain x or y, does not logically follow that that something is true.


3. He is the simplest reason since the Big Bang can morph into many other scenarios, with black holes, wormholes, an expanding and contracting universe, a steady-state universe, multiverses, etc.
No, first of all this is a straw man of Occam's razor, which is to make the least assumptions possible, not be the simplest possible. Lexico says this:
NOUN
  • The principle (attributed to William of Occam) that in explaining a thing no more assumptions should be made than are necessary. The principle is often invoked to defend reductionism or nominalism.
Second of all, god would not raise to the level of some of these theories or hypothesis, as they each have some contingent or empirical evidence to support them, whereas the god proposition only has, "Would make sense given the facts" with no direct evidence supporting it. As well as it would make one assume bigger and more things, the level of the assumption also matters here. 


4. Experientially and observationally, every cause has an explanation, yet when you get to the Big Bang, you don't know? You trace the cause and effect back to a point in time, a singularity, then no further. With God, that is not the case. We can go beyond the universe.  
"You" is wrong, Nobody knows, we don't yet have the technology nor the understanding to measure what came before it, if we were to apply the, "Cause and effect only go as far back as time" then it is entirely possible that the universe literally did pop into existence from nothing, this is not using my reasoning, but yours. Not to mention, there has still been no demonstration of a god. 
Topic's author
#860
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
...why should we avoid checkmate? 

It is not desirable for our egos. It ends the game and we lose.
It is interesting to me that you acknowledge the subjectivity of chess and still look for a 'best' move. Aren't you the same person that claims there can be no 'best' without a fixed (absolute, universal) reference point? You are contradicting yourself.
You are comparing apples to oranges again. How is chess a moral issue unless I cheat? 

The fixed standard is too complicated for us to know every possible outcome. We would have to think countless moves ahead to determine the best outcome for every move. There are probably millions, if not billions and trillions the further into a game you go. But on any particular move, you make I can think ahead four or five moves for the possible computations and determine within that limited scenario my most logical response, short term. I have not done the computations, but each move presents additional scenarios. If I start with P-K4, there are only a handful, perhaps a hundred possible responses (I did not count them), and most of those lead to a quickly compromised position. The quicker you expand your options by freeing pieces, the more options available. 
Topic's author
#861
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 
So what caused god to exist?

God is eternal. He has no beginning, so the premise does not apply to Him. 
Topic's author
#862
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@FLRW
Aren't miscarriages proof that God is pro-abortion? The Hebrew Bible doesn't mention miscarriage much — except for one particularly nasty part, when a husband believes his wife might have been running around on him. The trial to determine her faithfulness? She must drink a concoction of "bitter water" (presumably some kind of herbal production) and wait. If she then miscarried, she was unfaithful; if she didn't ,she was true. Miscarriage as punishment for infidelity? Now that's just mean.
I almost missed this post since there was no recipient. 

No, miscarriages result from original sin, God's judgment through a natural disaster, an accident by the woman or other human choices and conditions. What verse are you referring to, and what is the context?
#863
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
God is eternal. He has no beginning, so the premise does not apply to Him. 
Meh, forgetit, I don't have the energy to explain special pleading to you. 
Topic's author
#864
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Amoranemix
This topic is mostly aimed at or addressing SkepticalOne (but other atheists may join in by defending their belief as reasonable as opposed to Christianity or the biblical God). I am looking for his justification for his belief, myself thinking what he believes is unreasonably based. I also understand that SkepticalOne is what I term an agnostic atheist. That is the nature of skepticism, the 'I don't know,' yet in not knowing Skepticism seems to put all his eggs in one basket, that of mythological naturalism.[1] By default, one who claims to be an atheist would look for explanations that exclude God or gods.[2]
[1] You are the one putting all your eggs in the basket of a mythical, invisible sky magician.SkepticalOne is open to anything supported by evidence.
Thanks for your assertion and opinion.

Are you speaking for SkepticalOne now?

[2] Why would that be? Skeptics follow the evidence, wherever it may lead.
Because they dismiss God or gods, therefore they look for explanations in the natural realm. They are left with mindless naturalism. 

Skeptics follow their worldview presuppositions. No one is neutral.

Atheists, as people who have thought about existence, often make the claim that Atheism is an absence of belief in God or a deity. Does that argument work?[3] I say no. I could claim theism is a lack of belief in atheism or an absence (not the presence) of the denial of God or gods.[4] In either position, both the atheist and theist hold lots of beliefs about God or the lack thereof. An atheist not believing in God as Creator would have to believe something else as their cause, yet something about God too in their denial of Him.[5] You can't deny something you have no idea of and SkepticalOne definitely has views about God. Thus, atheism is a worldview.[6] It examines life's most basic questions and comes to a conclusion from a standpoint lacking God.[7] It is a belief system in its own right usually with philosophical or methodological naturalism as one of its cornerstones or core tenants.[8] But is atheism as justifiable or as reasonable as a belief in the biblical God? I plan to examine this in a number of areas. This topic is about one area of atheisms reason - morality. Can atheists reasonably justify morality in comparison to Christianity/Judaism?[9] That last statement is a nutshell of the topic of debate.
[3] A claim is not an argument.
The argument is that atheists have thought about existence and God or gods displayed when they say something about such a being. The argument is that atheists make claims such as atheism is an absence of a belief in God or gods (some other deity). I have heard atheists say such things. How do they know God does not exist? They don't; they assume it.  

"Atheism is in the broadest sense an absence of belief in the existence of deities."

And arguments may hold many reasonable claims.

"Claims backed by reasons that are supported by evidence are called arguments."
 
I say no. I could claim theism is a lack of belief in atheism or an absence (not the presence) of the denial of God or gods.[4]
[4] I could say a cup of coffee is the lack of the absense of a cup of coffee, but I prefer not to complicate things.
So what?
Okay? So what?

When claiming something, it needs support, reasons. I have given lots of reasons. I say the atheist denies God/gods, but their initial presuppositions by denying God are not reasonable. As simple as that. And I have gone into depth on that in several areas, including this topic.

When you deny nothing, then what exactly are you denying? The atheist who denies God, what exactly are they denying? 

In either position, both the atheist and theist hold lots of beliefs about God or the lack thereof. An atheist not believing in God as Creator would have to believe something else as their cause, yet something about God too in their denial of Him.[5]
[5] That doesn't follow. He or she can be agnostic on the issue. However, most atheists believe that nature did it and indeed, no atheists knows everything about it, which, in the atheistic worldviews, is to be expected.
What does not follow? What issue - God? Even being agnostic, the unbeliever looks to a naturalistic framework for the reasons of existence, as you confirm. 

Yes, not knowing all things is to be expected from limited subjective beings. Thus, looking for a purely naturalistic explanation has no guarantees, but if God exists and is revealed as per the Christian framework, we can know it as a certainty. So God, once again, has what is necessary for certainty. 

You can't deny something you have no idea of and SkepticalOne definitely has views about God. Thus, atheism is a worldview.[6]
[6] That doesn't follow. Atheism is an attribute of worldviews that lack a deity.

They understand the God they deny while claiming there is evidence for Him. They refer to the Bible, which says it is God's revelation to humanity. They also treat Him as a real being, claiming that God is unjust and immoral. How can a non-existent being be unjust and immoral? They hate this God? Why are they hating a non-existent being? So, their worldview is inconsistent. 

[7] What are those life's most basic questions atheism examines and reaches conclusions from?
Atheists answer the same question religious believers do.

What exists? (Metaphysics)
Atheist: Nature, the universe.
Christian: The natural and supernatural. 

What am I?
Atheist: We are a biological bag of atoms, a living organism. 
Christian: I am a creation of God with a physical body and spirit, a living soul.

Who am I? (Identity)
Atheist: A highly evolved animal that traces a common ancestry back to a singled celled ameba. 
Christian: A special creation of God, made in His image and likeness, different from animals, created to their own kind.

Why am I here/why do I exist? (Ontology)
Atheist: Without God or gods, you are a cosmic accident, and there is no reason for your existence.
Christian: God made me for a purpose. I am here for a reason.

How do I know? (Epistemology)
Atheist: Through empirical verification, I can know. 
Christian: God has revealed, and we have been created in His image and likeness. Thus we are capable of reason and discovery. When we think His thoughts after Him, we truly know something. The natural universe displays His mighty power and reveals Him further. Thus, we think His thoughts after Him. We discover laws; we see beauty and order; we find self-evident truths. 

What difference does it make? (Axiology)
Atheist: Nothing, ultimately. The universe is meaningless, and we pretend there is meaning by making it up for a short period of time, then return to the meaningless void of nothingness where nothing matters.
Christian: We were created for a purpose, and if we find that purpose, we find true and everlasting life with God.

What happens to me when I die? (Destiny)
Atheist: I die. I cease to exist. 
Christian: If I believe, I live with God as a joint heir with Christ forever where the joy I experience eclipses anything else I have ever experienced.

[8] I think that is more what you would want it to be than what it really is.
Why should I believe you? How reliable is your mind in determining what really is?

Can atheists reasonably justify morality in comparison to Christianity/Judaism?[9]
[9] Is justify the right word, or do you mean explain?
Yes. 

Definition of justify
1a: to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable trying to justify his selfish behavior I shouldn't have to justify myself to them. justify the ways of God to man— John Milton
b(1): to show to have had a sufficient legal reason
(2): to qualify (oneself) as a surety (see SURETY sense 3) by taking oath to the ownership of sufficient property
2a: to judge, regard, or treat as righteous and worthy of salvation God justifies with his forgiveness and grace the man who comes to him— Will Herberg
b archaic: to administer justice to
c archaic: ABSOLVE
3a: to space (lines of text) so that the lines come out even at the margin
b: to make even by spacing lines of text justified margins

I use it in the 1a sense here. 

If I understand correctly, you are unwilling to have your worldview examined the same way as the atheist's worldview, correct?
Where did you gather that conclusion from? The purpose of this thread is to find which of the two worldviews better explains morality. 

If you draw conclusions about your worldview from the problems from the naturalistic ones, I will assume not.
I conclude both from the Christian worldview and by the lack of explanatory power of other worldviews. Once God [or gods - necessary being(s)] is denied, you would fall on the sword of naturalism and chance happenstance as the root cause of your existence. By following the causal tree to its roots, you find that an atheist cannot justify what they have built their beliefs upon. It is not reasonable, and it does not make sense.  


#865
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Now I am not saying that the meanings cannot change with use if enough people like the new buzzword or new meanings for the word. When that happens, another definition is added to the word meaning in a dictionary.
I'm ever so glad we can agree on this crucial point.
#866
Amoranemix
Amoranemix's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 137
1
2
5
Amoranemix's avatar
Amoranemix
1
2
5
-->
@PGA2.0
My laziness did not permit me to read further than post 225.

How exactly doesthe existence of some god(s) solve the problem (if it is a problem)of opinion based morals?
There is a fixedand final reference point with the biblical God. Thus, I have what isnecessary for I realize that in and of myself I am not necessary indetermining the moral good.
What would prevent people from picking a different fixed, final moral standard, or people picking a changing, subjective moral standard, or people picking your god's moral standard, but changing their mind or disagreeing on what it entails ?

Thoughtexperiment time!
If your preferred god came to you in adream and told you to murder your child would it be better to do the"moral" thing or to spare your child and not follow thisbeings horrible commands?
Why do you thinkGod would do such a thing?
Nice dodge.

PGA2.0 101 to secularmarlin
Since you say youare an atheist, where do your moral values come from? Are they justmade up? If so, by who, and why are they right?
When I trace yourstarting point back as far as I can reasonably go, to origins, howdoes existence happen? What causes the 'beginning' if you believethere was one. Next, how does something nonliving become living? Thenfrom what is, how do you get what ought to be?
Where do God's moral values come from ? Are they just made up? If so, by who, and why are they right ?
From what is, how does your god get to what ought to be ?

PGA2.0 101 to secularmarlin
Likewise, tounderstand what I mean you must get my meaning not anything you wantto make it be or else we have failed to communicate.
You want that communication to fail to promote confusion (the Christian's friend).

You're puttingthe cart before the horse.
We can only begin our epistemologicalexploration right here, within ourselves.
Although we haveour reason and logic to work with are we necessary beings? Not if wederive our existence from something or someone else. If that is thecase we are contingent beings. Thus, we have to start somewhere elsebeyond ourselves[46], unless you want to contend that you are allthere is and everything is your mind in operation? Alternatively, youare having an imaginary conversation with your ultra ego because youare lonely.
[46] How is that supposed to follow ? (No. I am not asking you to repeat all the problems you have identified with reality, nor to repeat the questions you have asked too many times already.)

We gather data,check it for logical coherence and efficacy.
We (as individuals) are the origin, ourindividual curiosity is ground zero.
You are not theorigin of yourself if you had a beginning. So you have to startsomewhere else, besides yourself, even though you are using your mindto reason this out, unless you are all there is. So which is it? Didyou begin to exist, and do you owe your existence to something orsomeone else?
He probably started with his parents in a bedroom. What relevance does that have to morality ?

PGA2.0 119 to fauxlaw
Morality iscomplicated and there are lots of examples or scenarios of how Israelwas to handle the day to day life of Israel under that covenant law.Some of these Old Covenant examples have been adopted into many legalsystems and the principles of the Ten Commandments apply in theselegal systems. There are laws for murder, stealing, perjury,adultery, built into most (if not all) legal systems. The idea of twoor three credible eyewitnesse testimony is a principle still used incourts for proving guilt and innocence. It is where a countrydeviates from such a rule of law that injustice happens, like in thecase of abortion in the USA. The framers of the Consstitutionrecognized some basic godly principles such as equality under the lawfor there to be justice.
What evidence can you present that the rejection of group responsibility and inheritance responsibility, as promoted by the Old Testament, causes injustice ?

PGA2.0 137 to 3RU7AL
The funny thingabout an atheist is that they make themselves or some other relative,subjective human being the object of worship. They become their ownauthority on all things or leave that in the hands of their idols,their subjective human gods. They pick and choose who they want tobelieve in every branches of science, or they take other means suchas perhaps an atheistic philosopher instead of a scientist as theguru god.
Apparrently I was mistaken in believing I was an agnostic atheist.

PGA2.0 144 to 3RU7AL
Again, atheistsusually incorporate naturalism in their belief system, if they havedone any serious reflection on origins.

If you do notascribe to God or gods, what is left?[47] It would be a system ofbelief that looks to nature or matter for the answers in origins.Without personal being there would be no intent, no meaning, novalue, no purpose.[48] If you want to space our existence that onestep further back you could pose aliens, but if they too are noteternal or almighy then there must be another cause beyond them.[49]Or you could pos the ridiculous and unbelievable that everythingcomes from nothing.
[47] How about nature ? Most of the people I thought were atheists believe in nature.
[48] There are plenty of personal beings.
[49] Maybe so, but Christianity would still be false.

PGA2.0 157 to 3RU7AL
[ . . . ] Althoughthis thread was not created to debate this but rather which worldviewbetter explains and is justified in answering the question ofmorality, you have not addressed the question. Here it is again:

Morality - IsAtheism More Reasonable than Theism?
I suppose that atheism can be world view if it is considered to be the collection of all worldviews that do not incorporate a deity. However, many will have different explanations for morality. I think a better question would be whether nature can account for morality and whether adding one or more deities to nature would sufficiently improve one's ability with the worldview to account for morality to warrant the cost of doing so.

Nature alone can generate morality through evolution by natural selection. In social animals, morality is advantageous. For humans we more or less expect what we see : varying degrees and kinds of rightness and wickedness, more favouring group-thinking (loyalty is good, treason bad) and of course people contradicting each other. I am not clear on what extra mystery a deity would explain, nor how, especially the Christian one.

PGA2.0 162 to 3RU7AL
[ . . . ] Quantitative values such as length, weight, height, size can bemeasured and we have a fixed system of measurement. I argue we doalso with qualitative values, by necessity. As with quantitativevalues there has to be a best or fixed measure as a comparison.
How would one measure the quality beauty ? What is the ultimate, fixed reference for beauty ?
If two tribes have conflicting or opposite views on beauty, then which tribe has the true view ?

PGA2.0 163 to 3RU7AL
How do you knowyou commit to God as He is? It is easy to assert such things, butshow me some evidence. You see, the Christian God is stronglyevidenced. There is 66 writings that in themselves give verificationto the reasonableness of His Being.[49] These writings have manyverifications from the world of history and archeology as well that Iassert makes your system weak and not as reasonable or sufficient incomparison.[50] The unity is not of one book but of many that areinternally consistent although often misunderstood.
[49] These are indirect claims by ancient people. Relying on them to support the existence of Yahweh would constitute an appeal to authority fallacy.
[50] Those verifications only verify part of those writings. That some of it is confirmed, does prove all of it.

ATHESIM HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO SAYABOUT "THE ORIGINS OF LIFE".
PGA2.0 166 to 3RU7AL
Sure it does.Members of such beliefs speak about origins all the time.
What kind of fallacy is that, claiming that when many people who share a (lack of) belief make claims, the (lack of) belief also makes those claims ?
Atheism at best excludes some explanations for the origin of life.

PGA2.0 168 to 3RU7AL
If there is noobjective and universal reference point then you do not have rightand wrong. You just have 'I like this,' or 'I like that.' 

Morality is aframework that humans use to discern right and wrong but if there isno final measure it is arbitrary, relative, subjective andcontingent. How does a shifting system of belief make something rightor good? It just forces its views on others.
I don't know what a system of beliefis, but I shall try to answer the question : “How do preferences make something good ?” The question assumes that there are preferences that do make something good. I will start from that assumption.
One should ask those with those preferences that claim something is good because of them. Whatever explanation they come up with, according to you, it will be because they like it. Thus, if you are correct, liking something makes it good. Hence, according to you, if preferences make something good, it would be by being liked.

Exactly the same way you do.
Moral impulse.
Sense of fairness.
I point to anecessary fixed standard.[51] What is the standard you reference andwhat makes it necessary in determining right and wrong?
[51] You systematically omit to mention for what it is supposed to be necessary, presumably to avoid clarity (the Christian's enemy). Moreover, so far you have been unable to demonstrate that standard exists.

If our laws are supposedly based on theprinciples of "YHWH", then we need to identify the coreprinciples (PRIMARY AXIOMS) and use them to eradicate all legalcontradictions and miscarriages of justice.
The primaryaxioms are the Ten Commandments.
a) What if someone dislikes some commandments ? For example, suppose I want to worship a different god. I would not consider anyone doing so immoral.
b) That set of primary axioms seems incomplete. No prohibition against torture of animals seems to follow from them. What if people go about torturing animals for fun ? According to that set of primary axioms it would be morally neutral. I on the other hand find it immoral and think it should be prohibited.
These problems do not exist with mypersonal moral standard. Hence, I have two good reasons to use mine in stead of God's.
That is generally true : people who are not infatuated with a particular deity, have no good reason to adopt that deity's morality.

You're drawing a distinction without adifference.
You say that you have moralpreferences.
I am arguingagainst preferences as being morally justifiable based on whatpreferences are and I am arguing that an atheist has no recourse butto resort to them because that system of thought, devoid of God, hasno fixed standard.[52] Your preference could very well be differentfrom another, so the question then is which is the true preference,as if there can be without a final reference point.
[52] You are mistaken. Atheists can invent a fixed standard. That is what Christians do : they invent agod that comes equipped with a fixed moral standard, which Christians choose to rely to construct their own moral standard. Of course, depending on their preference, they could invent a different god, equipped with a different fixed moral standard. The question then becomes which preference is the true preference, as if their can be without a final reference point.



#867
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Amoranemix
[52] You are mistaken. Atheists can invent a fixed standard. That is what Christians do : they invent agod that comes equipped with a fixed moral standard, which Christians choose to rely to construct their own moral standard.
I am unable to detect or logically distill a "fixed moral standard" (deontological ethics) from Christians (or anyone else for that matter).

Here's my best offer,

(1) PROTECT YOURSELF.
(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY.
(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY.
#868
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Amoranemix
We gather data, check it for logical coherence and efficacy.
We (as individuals) are the origin, our individual curiosity is ground zero.
When you become intellectually aware of your own mental framework and moral instincts.

That is the moment from which you can build outwards.

The point I'm trying to highlight here is that we do not need to know, "the origin of the cosmos" BEFORE we can figure out what to eat for lunch.

Our internal models are built from inside us.

Epistemologically, imagine you are an orphan growing up on a distant planet.

You don't need to know who your parents were and or what they believed or what they thought of you in order for you to find lunch.

We all start with OURSELVES.

You (your earliest flicker of self-awareness) is the origin of you.

Now, you may hear some stories about some god($) or whatever and decide that those are "true" and relegate yourself to "worm" status.

But YOU did that to YOURSELF.
#869
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,614
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@PGA2.0
It is from the Book of Numbers which is the fourth book of the Hebrew Bible,
and the fourth of five books of the Jewish Torah. In Numbers 5 the woman has to drink a concoction
that is part water, part dry earth taken from the floor of the sanctuary, and
part an inky residue from a parchment inscribed with a curse. The imprecation
is to the effect that if she is guilty of adultery her belly will swell and her thigh
will rot, referring, almost certainly, to her uterus and genital area. By and large,
critics and translators assume that she is pregnant and that
the effect of the curse is to cause a miscarriage in the guilty. Num 5:28 is explicitly
about the innocent: “She shall be free, and retain seed,” that is, her conscience
being clear, she will carry her child to term.

#870
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
It is interesting to me that you acknowledge the subjectivity of chess and still look for a 'best' move. Aren't you the same person that claims there can be no 'best' without a fixed (absolute, universal) reference point? You are contradicting yourself.
You are comparing apples to oranges again. How is chess a moral issue unless I cheat? 
I believe you are making a category error. How are evaluations of chess actions and evaluations of life actions fundamentally different...other than you saying so?