-->
@PGA2.0
I find on almost every page of Scripture in the OT a typological revelation of Jesus Christ
What's your impression of Numbers 31:15-18 [LINK]
Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?
Posts
Total:
1,638
-->
@PGA2.0
Truth is not neutral. It takes a position that is very narrow. That can be easily demonstrated with mathematics as an example.
You're conflating QUANTA with QUALIA.
1 + 1 = 2 therefore I love you.
-->
@PGA2.0
You have committed to deity but which one(s)?
NOUMENON.
-->
@3RU7AL
You can't deny something you have no idea of and SkepticalOne definitely has views about God. Thus, atheism is a worldview.Atheism is a worldview in exactly the same way that NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.Atheism is a worldview in exactly the same way that NOT swimming is a sport.Atheism is a worldview in exactly the same way that NOT working is an occupation.Atheism is a worldview in exactly the same way that NOT vandalizing public property is an artistic expression.
I do not believe you understand the significance of worldviews in how they influence your thinking and your post demonstrates this.
What does stamp collecting have to do with origins or the existence of life? The same with swimming, working, or vandalizing public property? It is a bad argument or comparison. I think these statements fall under a sleuth of logical fallacies, including fallacies of ambiguity such as the Definist Fallacy in being very vague how they tie into origins and atheism, and also fallacies of presumption, such as confirmation bias in only looking at things that confirm your beliefs and ignoring whatever does not. You presume the truth of these analogies, that they are similar to atheism.
What does atheism have to do with origins? It has a whole lot to do with it for if you deny or dismiss God or gods as the Originator then you have to have another means in which you focus or build upon if you are at all serious about origins. Since you discuss them I will take it you are serious. Once you (generically speaking) deny a personal deity you are left with either a non-personal, thus non-thinking force, an unintentional blind random chance happenstance. How are either of those reasonable in explaining origins? They lack consistency for they beg the question of how they are able to do anything. Atheists take it for granted they can, that something without purpose, meaning, or value can be the cause of these things.
Ronald Nash, Worldviews in Conflict, p. 55, suggests three criterion in evaluating or testing a worldview.
You want it to pass the test of reason, the test of experience and the test of practice - it must be livable. Atheism is not such a belief. Atheists keep borrowing from the Christian framework while denying its reasonableness.
Nash also lists the "major elements of a worldview," or the things that a worldview consists of, such as its thoughts on 1) God, 2) Ultimate Reality, 3) Knowledge, 4) Ethics, 5) Humanity.
Ravi Zacharias slightly modifies this criterion to include 1) origin, 2) meaning, 3) morality, and 4) destiny.
Others have rephrased the same four or five criterion as 1) metaphysics, 2) epistemology, 3) axiology, and 4) destiny.
Do not tell me that a reasoning atheist or someone who has examined origins lacks any of these beliefs. And an unreasoning atheist is the worst kind of fool. He/she believes something without merit, is ignorant while living life inconsistently. You would think he/she would have to know what it means to be an atheist to call himself/herself one. That means he/she would have to reject God or gods as reasonable. Beliefs are not formed in a vacuum. An atheist must believe or know something to know or think/believe other things. Beliefs are built one upon another in forming a worldview, with the core beliefs being the ones that everything else rests upon, kind of like a spider's web. It starts somewhere. You have to start with a foundation and build from the cornerstone or stating point outwards. The key building blocks of any worldview are presupposed. We were not there for origins. If you start with a faulty belief system the whole foundation is rotten. It cannot support criticism without falling apart or being inconsistent. You have to start somewhere, either with God or gods (intentional personal being) or some force of nature (unintentional mindless matter). Deep down what you believe rests on theoretical things that are your ultimate presuppositional commitments or starting points. The question is can they make sense of origins, life, morality and meaning? Do they inspire hope or despair?
On origins, an atheist believes that we are here not because of a God or gods either because he/she believes there is no evidence for God or gods or because he/she denies such a God or gods and finds naturalism sufficient. In return, he/she seeks out naturalistic means as the sole explanation. His/her 'god' becomes empirical science, scientism, and/or nature. Everything is explained by him/her in such a context. With regards to meaning, either there is a mind behind the universe and therefore purpose, value and meaning or else ultimately everything is meaningless. The latter is consistent with the beliefs of well-known, prominent atheists who admit that there is no ultimate meaning. They build a facade. Thus, they are inconsistent with their ultimate conceived reality for they act as if 'meaning' is important to them (a strike against the consistency and practicality of their worldview since the ultimate conceived reality as they understand it does not meet their practical or experiential reality). Furthermore, if meaning is a byproduct of chance happenstance as orchestrated by naturalism how does meaning come about? How do you get meaning deriving from rocks and chemicals reacting (abiogenesis)? Such a belief as abiogenesis does not meet the experiential test. Where do you ever see life coming from non-life? You have to presuppose that it can. Thus you smuggle such an unreasonable conceptual belief into your way of looking at life and build upon it with all kinds of models of how that is possible. Yet it cannot be demonstrated as happening experientially. Then you have morality. How does an atheist view morality? How does he/she derive an ought from an is? The atheist runs smack into the is/ought fallacy. And with destiny, does the atheist have any beliefs about what happens to him/her when dead? Sure they do. They believe that death is the end of life and the shell of the being goes into the ground and rots away - non-existence. So the atheist meets all these criteria of a worldview yet they are inconsistent with what they witness in reality or how such things can come about without God or gods.
-->
@3RU7AL
Atheism examines life's most basic questions and comes to a conclusion from a standpoint lacking God.Atheism examines life's most basic questions and draws absolutely no conclusions.
Sure it does. Atheism either denies God His existence or is ignorant of God's existence. Then, on top of that some many other presuppositions are derived from that denial or ignorance, some of which I explained in my last post.
-->
@PGA2.0
I do not believe you understand the significance of worldviews in how they influence your thinking and your post demonstrates this.
ATHEISM IS NOT A WORLDVIEW.
ATHEISM IS MERELY A LABEL FOR "NOT A THEIST".
ATHESIM HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO SAY ABOUT "THE ORIGINS OF LIFE".
NOT EVEN SCIENCE SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT "THE ORIGINS OF LIFE".
SCIENCE MERELY PRESENTS EVIDENCE OF WHAT IS EMPIRICALLY DEMONSTRABLE.
THE "BIG BANG" IS MERELY A DURABLE HYPOTHESIS (WHICH DOESN'T EVEN NECESSARILY CONTRADICT THEISM).
-->
@3RU7AL
This topic is about one area of atheisms reason - morality. Can atheists reasonably justify morality in comparison to Christianity/Judaism? That last statement is a nutshell of the topic of debate.Phenomenal.
My goodness, you are a Kantian.
Is it immoral for a fox to eat a rabbit?
Are you appealing to ridicule?
Only for the rabbit. (^8
Again, what does a rabbit have to do with the derivation of morality? How do atheists justify something as good or bad from where they would necessarily start? Do they have an objective fixed standard? What is the 'best' that an atheist compares his/her definition of goodness against? If there is no 'best' how can you have good or better? How is the atheist position objective, universal, absolute, unchangeable?
-->
@PGA2.0
What does stamp collecting have to do with origins or the existence of life?
It's an example of a similar logical structure intended to highlight the absurdity of defining a person by what they don't do or by what they don't believe in.
AN ATHEIST MIGHT ALSO BE A DEIST. TECHNICALLY STILL "NOT A THEIST".
AN ATHEIST MIGHT ALSO BE AN ANIMIST. TECHNICALLY STILL "NOT A THEIST".
AN ATHEIST MIGHT ALSO BE A SPIRITUALIST.
AN ATHEIST MIGHT ALSO BE A UNIVERSALIST, SYNCRETIST, AND OR MONIST.
AN ATHEIST MIGHT ALSO BE A GNOSTIC.
AN ATHEIST MIGHT ALSO BE A TAOIST.
-->
@PGA2.0
My goodness, you are a Kantian.
My general impression is that while Kant may have stumbled upon at least one logical necessity, I can't vouch for anything else.
And I certainly wouldn't marry the guy.
-->
@PGA2.0
Again, what does a rabbit have to do with the derivation of morality?
(IFF) morality is truly "objective" and "universal" (THEN) it must apply equally to all things (not just humans)
-->
@PGA2.0
How do atheists justify something as good or bad from where they would necessarily start?
Exactly the same way you do.
Moral impulse.
Sense of fairness.
-->
@PGA2.0
How is the atheist position objective, universal, absolute, unchangeable?
(1) PROTECT YOURSELF
(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY
(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY
-->
@3RU7AL
A personal Being who has revealed Himself as omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, immutable, and eternal would have what is necessary in determining what is moral because there would be a fixed measure or reference point in which a comparison can be made as to 'the good' (since there is a best).Why can't super-puppet-master speak directly to each person in order to change their behavior?Where's my talking donkey and holy hit-man?
Again, another appeal to ridicule and indirect ad hom. What about your god? What kind of puppet-master is he/she/it? (favour returned)
The biblical God speaks through His word in revealing Himself and His relationship with His creatures.
What does my definition have to do with rabbits and foxes?
Are you saying that a supernatural Being can't choose to speak through a donkey?
If I can prevent a murder, and I just stand there and do nothing, am I not morally culpable?
Yes.
-->
@3RU7AL
What is the ideal, the fixed reference point?How long does your god believe exclusive copyright protections should last?
No idea of what you mean or the significance of the question.
-->
@PGA2.0
How long does your god believe exclusive copyright protections should last?No idea of what you mean or the significance of the question.
If your "YHWH" holds the secret keys to universal justice, what does it say about how long exclusive copyright protections should last?
If our laws are supposedly based on the principles of "YHWH", then we need to identify the core principles (PRIMARY AXIOMS) and use them to eradicate all legal contradictions and miscarriages of justice.
-->
@3RU7AL
With atheism (no God or gods) what is left for the origins of morality and before that conscious beings?Apes and wolves seem to have evolved functional ethical (social) guidelines.Did your god provide an instruction manual for them too?
What kind of functional ethics? I do believe animals can show loyalty. I learn lessons from my dog. As for the wolf, "Don't eat my venison or I'll bite you? Submit unless you can show you are stronger. You know your place."
The instruction manual is called instinct, protection for survival, plus trial and error.
-->
@PGA2.0
Again, another appeal to ridicule and indirect ad hom.
Nope, honest question.
What about your god? What kind of puppet-master is he/she/it? (favour returned)
THE (great and mighty all holy and most honorable) NOUMENON is quite inscrutable (one might even say "incomprehensible").
-->
@PGA2.0
The instruction manual is called instinct, protection for survival, plus trial and error.
Same for humans, same for wolves.
-->
@PGA2.0
Are you saying that a supernatural Being can't choose to speak through a donkey?
Not at all. I'm saying that "YHWH" CAN DO ANYTHING!!! INCLUDING STOP ALL CRIME AND END ALL SUFFERING!!!
If I can prevent a murder, and I just stand there and do nothing, am I not morally culpable?Yes.
Why does "YHWH" stand by and do nothing while countless people die every single day?
-->
@3RU7AL
Second, how do relative, subjective beings determine anything other than preference - what they like?Without a "fixed reference point" how can a relative, subjective being determine their own preferences??
Nice non-answer!
A preference is a like or desire for or against something held by an individual or group. How does a preference (I like ice-cream) make that anything other than a personal taste or a group of people all liking the same thing? They like the taste. How does that make tasting ice-cream morally right? That would be equivocating to different things that are not related.
IOW's, why is your 'moral' preference any 'better' than mine?THE LAW = CODIFIED MOB RULE
In Hitler's Germany 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. All your claim does is make one society or culture prefer one thing and another the opposite. In some countries abortion is illegal and others it is legal. What is your preference? The problem is that two societies, groups, or individuals who advocate opposite standards as good cannot both 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. So who decides? You propose might makes right. Thus, a society that kills or enslaves others by mob-rule cannot be wrong by all who live in that society but the idea is morally and logically flawed for good can mean whatever a society deems it to mean and the meaning can be the opposite of another society. It begs the question of which is the actual right for logically they both can't be.
Is it more reasonable? I say no.How fabulously democratic of you.
Well bring up your objections so we can discuss them. I gave my opinion and I am wiling to back it up for anyone who wishes to engage. So far you have avoided yet another question I posted. This makes me think that you are just here to disrupt instead of have a meaningful discussion and exchange justifications.
It does not have what is necessary for morality.Please make your preferred definition of "morality" EXPLICIT.
I already gave what I believe is necessary and for good reason, and it is not preference. Morality has to be based on what is actually good, not a preference. A preference is an opinion and personal like or desire. A moral is something that should or should not be so. Thus, I raised the question of how can a subjective being know the difference between right and wrong if there is no objective, fixed, absolute standard - the best in which to compare goodness to.
Preference is just a like or dislike. What is good, morally speaking, about that?Well, do you like being chained to a grind-stone?
No, I don't. So what?
Do you happen to feel some personal preference one-way-or-the-other?
Yes, I do have a preference, find another job and take it when it becomes available unless it is worse than the current one.
Do you perhaps have some indication that other humans might also dislike being chained to a grind-stone?
Yes, that is chattel slavery, IMO. I believe that is morally wrong and I determine this based on what I consider a necessary or self-evident truth by pointing to a necessary being revealing it. If no such being has revealed it is wrong to treat human beings in what I consider such a foul manner then I am in the same boat you appear to be in, I just don't like it but other people do, so it is a matter of might makes it so (no moral right involved). Some people like to love their neighbours, others like to eat them is has been witnesses in human history. What is your preference?
-->
@3RU7AL
If I liked to kill human beings for fun and believe you SHOULD too, that would be a moral prescription, although not established as an objective one.Unless you were recruiting and training soldiers.
So, do you believe that it is okay for soldiers to kill civilians for fun by your approval?
-->
@PGA2.0
A preference is a like or desire for or against something held by an individual or group. How does a preference (I like ice-cream) make that anything other than a personal taste or a group of people all liking the same thing? They like the taste. How does that make tasting ice-cream morally right? That would be equivocating to different things that are not related.
You're drawing a distinction without a difference.
You say that you have moral preferences.
And then you say that your personal moral preferences are not "preferences".
You're basically saying your moral preferences are universal and authoritative.
That would be like someone declaring that french or chinese is "the world's best and most objective language" and then forcing everyone to use it exclusively.
-->
@PGA2.0
So, do you believe that it is okay for soldiers to kill civilians for fun by your approval?
My personal preference would be for everyone to stop killing each other.
However, more to the point of the question, THERE IS NO LAW THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T ENJOY AN AUTHORIZED LEGAL SHOOTING.
And naturally, you'd expect the people who are repulsed by killing to do much less of it, leaving the doors wide for those eager to send their fellows through the gates of hell.
-->
@3RU7AL
No one will condemn me for my preference of liking ice-cream but they will in my preference for killing others and prescribing others should like it too.Refined sugar is a leading risk-factor for heart-disease (and gluttony is a carnal sin) and killing others (without hesitation) is often considered necessary.
I mean killing innocent people. Is it okay to kill innocent human beings? If so, would you object if you're next? You see, in practice you can say it is okay but you can't live by such standards. They do not pass the livable test. I can choose to eat or not eat sugar (my preference) at my own peril, but should I also be allowed to kill innocent people if that was my preference? The first choice involves my own person, the other someone else. Is it okay to treat others any way I want to treat them?
-->
@3RU7AL
That is because there is a distinction between what is (liking ice-cream) and what should be, a distinction between the two that has been called the is/ought fallacy.There is NEVER a perfectly logical thread of reasoning that leads inevitably from any statement of "IS" (quantifiable, demonstrable, empirical observation, or AXIOM) (AND) any prescriptive statement of "OUGHT".
My examples was showing the difference between is and ought (as described in your video). Is or description does not prescribe. My liking something is what is. You must like it too prescribes what ought to be done. But what should you like it based on my preference? Liking ice-cream is perhaps not your goal. So why MUST you like it?
But beyond that distinction, only moral beings can make ought statements, but how did we 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 a personal being is excluding as the beginning link of the chain? Somehow we got from an is to an ought through naturalistic means according to naturalism, devoid of God/gods.
Even (IFF) the "IS" statement contains a god($).
The biblical God is described as an omniscient, unchanging, omnipotent, eternal God. Thus, that revealed Being has what is necessary for us to know what is good and we have the best to compare values against, provided He exists. Without Him or such an omniscient, unchanging, eternal, omnipotent God what is your fixed standard? Let us test its sufficiency and reasonableness. That is all I ask of you. Since you claim to be a deist, describe why your god out does my God in reasonableness.
To an atheist, to arbitrarily make up something and call it good means that goodness is relative and changing. So, how do we ever know whether what you call "good" actually is the case, especially when I FEEL otherwise? Then who becomes the standard? The one who is mightier? Then Hitler's Germany, if successful in conquering the world would have been the norm we all lived under and if you were a Jew your life would have been snuffed out. Are you saying that to some Hitler's Germany is the actual good? You see, again you can think it might be but you can't live by such standards, for the moment Hitler decides your life doesn't meet his standard of worthwhile you are dead.
For example, HUME'S GUILLOTINE [LINK
I listened to the whole thing and agree with some of it. What is the main point that you want me to glean from it?
Any artificial intelligent being would be a programmed being. It would only be as good as its maker designed it to be. Its input would determine what kind of moral actions it took.
-->
@3RU7AL
Whereas I believe I derive my moral aptitude from a necessary moral being, you believe you derive yours from chance happenstance.How do you derive your moral aptitude from the "IS" (AXIOM) of a necessary moral being?
Through a stated revelation. God chose to reveal. Someone who is more than descriptive chose to reveal.
-->
@PGA2.0
All your claim does is make one society or culture prefer one thing and another the opposite. In some countries abortion is illegal and others it is legal. What is your preference? The problem is that two societies, groups, or individuals who advocate opposite standards as good cannot both be correct in their thinking at the same time.
Morality is like language.
Each geographical area implicitly agrees on a "standard" and that "standard" evolves over time.
There is no "universal" "one-true" language.
-->
@PGA2.0
-->@3RU7AL
I mean killing innocent people. Is it okay to kill innocent human beings? If so, would you object if you're next? You see, in practice you can say it is okay but you can't live by such standards. They do not pass the livable test. I can choose to eat or not eat sugar (my preference) at my own peril, but should I also be allowed to kill innocent people if that was my preference? The first choice involves my own person, the other someone else. Is it okay to treat others any way I want to treat them?
Wow seems like you have found a perfectly reasonable standard for determining the moral correctness of an action which requires no god(s) and no dogma.
-->
@PGA2.0
Through a stated revelation. God chose to reveal. Someone who is more than descriptive chose to reveal.
Please reveal "YHWH"s PRIMARY MORAL AXIOMS.
-->
@PGA2.0
I can choose to eat or not eat sugar (my preference) at my own peril, but should I also be allowed to kill innocent people if that was my preference?
Unless you can grow and refine your own sugar for your own personal use, your purchase of refined sugar contributes to a system that causes QUANTIFIABLE damage to the health of OTHER PEOPLE.