Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?

Except of course when you rule out evidence just because you don't like it. 

Except, according to other lawyers... .its noteriously bad in court, at least if you have literally any other type of evidence

Not more doubtful than disbelief in God. That unbelief is unreasonable. Then you have no justification for the way things are other than sh_t happens. You can't account for the uniformity of nature - why things remain constant by chance happenstance. You have no justification for morality because morality is a mindful thing, and in a universe devoid of mind, how does life arise. Our life is meaningless in the big picture of such a universe. Why are you making it meaningful? You are not being consistent with your starting point; I am. There is no overall purpose for you in doing so. You are a tiny, insignificant human being in a vast expanse of meaninglessness once you discount God. You are trying to find meaning and reason in the meaningless. Go figure. It sounds insane to me, and people have gradually gone insane once they jettisoned God.  Life without God is ultimately dead-end meaningless.  

Wrong on literally all accounts, lets break this down. 

Not more doubtful than disbelief in God.

Tu quoque, even if you had a point here, it doesn't prove that god exists. 1 fallacy.

That unbelief is unreasonable

Let's see your reasoning for that claim. 

Then you have no justification for the way things are other than sh_t happens

[a] Yes... because that's the only thing we can demonstrate happening, why is this unreasonable? [b] Were you hoping your crude framing of what reality is would scare me off? [c] Things happen, we don't know exactly what started the first thing, but you claiming "god" isn't proof either, its you asserting something. [d] You are drawing a conclusion from reasoning that doesn't logically follow, [e] Non sequitur. 2 Fallacies. 

You can't account for the uniformity of nature - why things remain constant by chance happenstance.

The why doesn't really matter all that much, just that it did happen, you would have to prove that someone caused it... this isn't a point against me, this is another appeal to ignorance, 3 fallacies. 

PGA2.0 930 to Amoranemix 844

[a] Again, you make an assertion. Justify it.

[b] They are not moral without a fixed reference point (I reiterate, again and again).[358] They are preferences. What makes a preference right or wrong morally?[359] preference is a subjective feeling. It may also be felt and favoured by a group (the likes and dislikes).

[c] Again, an assertion that has not been justified.[360] Quit your fluff and give some substance or at least an argument rather than a statement. Why should I believe what you say? No reason so far. Who are you to preach to me about what is necessary without justifying your stance as logical or reasonable?[361]

Amoranemix 844

Does your god really know all things, or merely all true, knowable things ?

PGA2.0 930

I don't understand the question.[361] You can't know something unless it is true. Knowledge conforms to truth. If you have a false belief, it is not knowledge. God is the truth.[362] He knows all things[363], and concerning His creature - the human -   knows all things that they think and whether those things are true or not. He knows when you think untrue things. He does not think untruths. Not only this, He is responsible for all things and because of Him, they are sustainable and hold together. Thus, there is nothing about everything He has made or about Himself that He does not know.

PGA2.0  99 to 3RU7AL

Second, we need a fixed standard, a final reference point. God meets that requirement, we do not for He is unchanging and eternal.

Amoranemix 844

For what do we need a fixed standard ?[*]

God could only meet that requirement if he exists, something so far no one has been able to prove.[**]

PGA2.0 931

[*]We need a fixed objective standard that is unchanging, or else we contravene the laws of logic and can't make sense of morality, the moral good. It can mean the opposite depending on who holds the belief, which means whose belief is true to what is?

[**] There are many proofs for God's existence[363], and regarding morality, one of them is a necessary being to make sense of the moral good[364]. Another is how do you make sense of morality if it is always in flux? How can something that is shifting and has no fixed address be better than something else. How do you compare 'good' to something that shifts?   'Better' concerning what? What is the best? You don't have one. Thus, how do you compare the good? It just shifted.

PGA2.0  99 to 3RU7AL

Third, God is good, 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 is and He allowed us to find out the difference between His goodness and what is evil by giving humanity (in Adam) a choice to know evil. Evil is doing the opposite of what God has said as good. We understand evil since the Fall because God let us experience evil for a purpose, that we might perhaps seek out God, be reunited, and escape from the evil we do in our moral relativism.[43] With human beings, we witness this moral relativism all around us.[44] One society believes one thing is wrong and another the opposite. Just wait long enough and you will see people reversing their beliefs about goodness, such as I pointed out about abortion. The reason abortion is evil is that it does not treat all human life as equal. Some human beings are dehumanized, demonized, discriminated about, and diminished to the point of death.[45]

Amoranemix 844

[42] [a] That is so sweet. You again [b] forgot to mention the reference standard to avoid clarity (the skeptic's friend). [c] Adolf Hitler was also good according to himself. [d] And we can also read about AH's goodness.

[43] Thus far your 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.

PGA2.0 933

[ . . . ]

[c] So what?[365] Why does that make him good, morally speaking?[366] Please explain why you believe he is good. Go ahead. I already challenged you to do this.[367] Many fools think what they propose is good, like Hitler, but it misses the actual mark.

[d] Yes, by other human beings who do not claim inspiration from the objective standard of truth, and most of them do not believe Hitler was good in what he did to a massive number of the German population. In fact, most of them are morally outraged by Hitler's evil.[368] They correctly understand that what he did was not good at all, and you say it was good because Hitler thought so does not make it so.[369]

[43] Another claim without justification. You think just asserting something makes it so. Provide your proof so that I can get into a critique of it if you dare.

[44] Yes, we do witness it. The former being a true and fixed objective standard.[A] Your argument does not necessarily follow.[B] It can also follow that without God moral relativism is all we would expect to witness[C], and that is what we witness when human beings diverge from the path of righteousness - God Himself and His revelation. That is the alternative you deny.[D] Denying something does not necessarily make it so. So, make more than just another assertion. Back up your claims.[E]

3RU7AL 846

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".

PGA2.0 934

1) God was judging evil and bringing evil people to account. That is reiterated over and over again in the Bible.

2) If God takes an innocent life (allows evil people to take the life of an innocent child, for instance) because of the sins of others and their barbarity, that life will be restored to a better place, a place free of moral corruption and evil.

Theweakeredge 853

Wrong, while it is true that I wasn't there we have evidence for several mass extinction events, 5 to be precise.

PGA2.0

All such evidence relies on how you interpret the data. You come to the data from a particular worldview. Thus, you look for evidence that supports such a worldview. You rely on the supposition the present is the key to interpreting the past because that is what we are left with. [ . . . ]

PGA2.0  937 to Theweakeredge

Fairy-tale scenario: "Once upon a time, a long, long time ago, the universe exploded into being (from nothing)!"

PGA2.0  937

[a] The purpose of the Bible is not to display scientific knowledge but a knowledge of why we, as humans exist (God chose to create us for a purpose [ . . . ]

Theweakeredge 853

[ . . . ] Therefore its existence causes reasonable doubt.

PGA2.0  937

Not more doubtful than disbelief in God. That unbelief is unreasonable. Then you have no justification for the way things are other than sh_t happens. You can't account for the uniformity of nature - why things remain constant by chance happenstance. You have no justification for morality because morality is a mindful thing, and in a universe devoid of mind, how does life arise. [ . . . ]

ludofl3x 858

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..

PGA2.0 946

My "repetitive screeds" are an attempt to obtain accountability from the atheistic worldview.[370] IMO, you guys pick and choose what you will answer and refuse to look at your starting presuppositions and why they make no sense.[371] In a meaningless universe where you are a biological bag of atoms and derive your morality from genetic and environmental factors, why is it wrong to torture or kill innocent human beings?[372] How does the atheistic worldview account for objective moral values?[373] You borrow from the Christian worldview in thinking it is wrong. Thus, I continually point out how inconsistent the atheist is in their thinking.[374] Many atheists on this forum admit that morality is a relative preference. They admit that it was good to murder the undesirables of the German society for Hitler, as he understood the good.[375] So Amoranemix sees this as an actual good for Hitler.[376]

PGA2.0  937 to ludofl3x

[ . . . ]

Amoranemix can not identify something really wrong because he has no absolute, objective standard to identify the good.[377] Thus he is willing to concede that people make up good according to their preferences.[378] For him, what Hitler did was evil, but for Hitler, it was good (moral relativism). It is all based on preference. You see, he can't say that what Hitler did was wrong for Hitler.[379] He does not recognize it as wrong for Hitler. He does not recognize an absolute, objective standard, so for some, torturing little children for fun would be good, such as for theMarquis de Sade.

PGA2.0  937 to ludofl3x

ME: "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.[33]"

AMORANEMIX: "[33] According to you perhaps and according to me, but not according to the Nazis."

Amoranemix does not see this as wrong for those who choose to see it that way.[380] He cannot recognize an absolute, universal wrong. It is absurd, and yet he is consistent with the atheist worldview.[381] Morality is whatever you make it with such a worldview because there is no absolute standard. The atheist is usually inconsistent with his/her belief when they say, "I'll go on not torturing little kids for fun even though I don't believe in god."[382] So you will, but what about those other relativists who think differently?[383a] Unless you have an absolute standard, all you are doing is expressing your personal opinion. Can you say it is absolutely, universally, objectively wrong? If you can, then what is your absolute, objective, unchanging, universal standard in doing so?[383b] Let's see how consistent you are with atheism (a universe in which our lives are ultimately meaningless).

Theweakeredge 859

Chance is [b] not an agent or something that causes things, but a noun to refer to [c] 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. [a] This seems like either semantics or you being dishonest.

PGA2.0  947

[a] I'm not dishonest, just working with your definition. So, it is your semantics.

[b] You admit it has no intent or agency to do anything. So nothing happened. That is what you are saying.

[c] If there is no cause, nothing happened. You are speaking of something from nothing (no cause) since the universe began to exist, or are you thinking it is eternal? It began to exist from nothing, for there was no cause for it. Do you understand the senselessness of that? This once again shows the inconsistency of your thinking.

PGA2.0  950 to Theweakeredge

[Genesis about God saying things and them being so]

Very simple. God said, and it was so.

PGA2.0  950 to Theweakeredge

The cause of the universe cannot be itself. That would mean it would have to exist before it existed, a self-refuting argument. I.e., It would have to exist before it could create itself.

PGA2.0  955 to Theweakeredge

[d] There is reasonable evidence, some of which we discuss in the thread - morality and what that means from an atheist and Christian perspective. The atheist cannot account for morality. All they can account for is preference.

Evidence comes in various forms.  It is normally defined as "any statement, record, testimony, or other things, apart from legal submissions, which tends to prove the existence of a fact in issue". 

I like eyewitness testimony.  

Evidence comes in various forms.  It is normally defined as "any statement, record, testimony, or other things, apart from legal submissions, which tends to prove the existence of a fact in issue". 

I like eyewitness testimony.  

So, I guess you believe in big-foot, the loch-ness monster, and space-aliens?

Since they're all confirmed by eyewitness testimony?

Yet when the atheist simply says - it is not evidence - they are lying or mistaken in their understanding of what evidence is - and what evidence is being used for. 

By discounting the evidence really was the lever which caused the riots.

You in your words attempted to mock me -

yet you demonstrate an increased ignorance of understanding logic, reason, argumentation, evidence and its purpose. I am quite surprised that you have been able to reach ANY conclusions by reasoning. 

SkepticalOne 870

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?

PGA2.0 969

I don't think so. Chess is only subjective because of our limited knowledge and ability to think through the best combinations, starting from the first moves through to the last.[384] [ . . . ]

I am saying (comparing apples to oranges) that you are making the categorical error in comparing Chess to morality. Best in Chess is not the same as best regarding morality. I can verify best in chess through the senses/empirically. It could be demonstrated in some situations because the best would lead to an opponent's loss if they did not respond in kind.[385] How do you verify something abstract like the good?[386] One is a qualitative value (morality), the other a quantitative value (a Chess move).[387a] One can be demonstrated through the senses; the other cannot.[387b]

PGA2.0  101 to secularmerlin 26

There is a fixed and final reference point with the biblical God. Thus, I have what is necessary for I realize that in and of myself I am not necessary in determining the moral good.

Amoranemix 866

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 ?

PGA2.0 971

Can you demonstrate there is more than one absolute, objective, universal, fixed, eternal standard? If so, let's examine it to see if it has what is necessary and is logically and experiential consistent.

If it is a human standard, let's see how it passes the subjectivity test.

secularmerlin 26

Thought experiment time!

If your preferred god came to you in a dream and told you to murder your child would it be better to do the "moral" thing or to spare your child and not follow this beings horrible commands?

PGA2.0  101

Why do you think God would do such a thing?

Amoranemix 866

Nice dodge.

PGA2.0 971

Sometimes I need to inquire to find out where a person is coming from. Is he referencing the biblical example of Abraham, or is he referring to another example?  If the Abrahamic example, I have a particular response. If some other example, I have another response.

Amoranemix 866

[a] Where do God's moral values come from ? Are they just made up? If so, by who, and why are they right ?

[b] From what is, how does your god get to what ought to be ?

PGA2.0 972

[a] They are His nature. He is all-knowing and always does what is good, right, and just.

[b] You misunderstand the is and ought. The natural realm is what is.[388] God is not of this physical realm. He created it. God is a transcendent Spirit, a mindful Being.[389] Morality requires a mind.[390] [ . . . ]

Amoranemix 866

You want that communication to fail to promote confusion (the Christian's friend).

PGA2.0 972

What are you talking about, and how does it relate to our discussion. I consider this yet another Ad hominem. Are you suggesting my motive is impure or that I cannot communicate what I mean instead of responding to my point about what is necessary for communication to occur?

Amoranemix 866

He [3RU7AL] probably started with his parents in a bedroom. What relevance does that have to morality ?

PGA2.0 977

I'm not asking for the immediate cause but the root cause. That is what I have asked all along. The relevance is that either morality arises from non-living matter or a necessary Being(s). [ . . . ]

Amoranemix 866

What evidence can you present that the rejection of group responsibility and inheritance responsibility, as promoted by the Old Testament, causes injustice ?

PGA2.0 977

[red herring]

Amoranemix 866

Apparrently I was mistaken in believing I was an agnostic atheist.

PGA2.0 977

Good for you! What is the difference between an agnostic and an atheist? They both ignore the biblical God and look for subjective reasoning for morality. What do you explain in/about life by appealing to the biblical God? Nothing intentionally, right? Instead, you deny Him His existence. You treat Him as if He does not exist. In that sense, how do you differ from a full-fledged "strong" atheist?

PGA2.0  144 to 3RU7AL

Again, atheists usually incorporate naturalism in their belief system, if they have done any serious reflection on origins.

If you do not ascribe to God or gods, what is left?[47] It would be a system of belief that looks to nature or matter for the answers in origins. Without personal being there would be no intent, no meaning, no value, no purpose.[48] If you want to space our existence that one step further back you could pose aliens, but if they too are not eternal or almighy then there must be another cause beyond them.[49] Or you could pos the ridiculous and unbelievable that everything comes from nothing.

Amoranemix 866

[47] How about nature ? [a] 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.

PGA2.0 976

[47] Precisely! Is that their god, their creator, what they attribute their origin too?[391] Now, the question is, how reasonable is this?[392] No intent, no purpose, no meaning, just indifferent chance happenstance.

[a] True, what else would they believe in if they deny God or gods [i.e., personal intentional being(s)]?[393]

[48] Are they necessary beings? And atheists deny the existence of God or gods as plausible or real. That would leave them with a purely naturalistic explanation, correct?[394]

[49] Why?

PGA2.0 157 to 3RU7AL

[ . . . ] Although this thread was not created to debate this but rather which worldview better explains and is justified in answering the question of morality, you have not addressed the question. Here it is again:

Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?

Amoranemix 866

[a] I suppose that atheism can be worldview if it is considered to be the collection of all worldviews that do not incorporate a deity. [b] However, many will have different explanations for morality. I think a better question would be whether nature can account for morality and [c] 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.

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

PGA2.0 977

[a] Atheists usually seek to explain everything through natural means.

[b] That is dealt with in the is/ought problem and the chance happenstance problem.

[c] Atheism is the denial of God or gods. You are speaking of deism or polytheism as a worldview.

[d] Can it, though? That is a big assumption on your part that needs proof and reason. Go ahead!

[e] Advantageous in what way? For the animal or pack that might starve, it is eat to survive, to hell with the others. The advantage of hunting with others is mitigated by the principle of the strongest individuals survive. 

[f] Kinds of righteousness? Who determines that, and why are they right? Which contrary person? Can two opposing values both be right? That defies common sense and logic. Right loses its identity. Right can mean two opposite things depending on who holds the view. 

[g] Again, loyalty and trust is a biblical principle. 

[h] It explains the best by comparison. There is a permanent, absolute, unchanging moral value for right.

Amoranemix 866

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 ?

PGA2.0 978

[*] Are you speaking of a physical trait or an inner quality? I will address the inner quality.[395]

[ . . . ]

Again, it is not a moral issue, and what aspect are you speaking of?[396] For humans, physical beauty is largely in the eye of the beholder.[397] For inner qualities, sometimes evil qualities can appeal to us as beautiful, for we mar what is beautiful and good. That is when the value can turn into a moral issue, IMO.

Amoranemix 866

[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.

PGA2.0 978

It is reasonable/evidential to believe they are direct claims by eyewitnesses as to what they claimed happened concerning Jesus Christ - Yeshua the Messiah, the Anointed One. These eyewitness accounts have been seen as valid by our legal standards in the evidence they presented.[398] They also speak extensively about the OT Mosaic law and its verifiable fulfillment as existing and disappearing in AD 70, which brings in the prophetic argument as additional proof.[399]

You are guilty of an either/or fallacy/false dilemma.[400] You exclude that these claims can be true because you believe these ancient people cannot tell the truth or are not authorities in the matters they speak of and appeal to.[401] You are working on the assertion that ancient accounts of any kind that are indirect are false instead of looking at each work's merits.[402] There is good evidence that these people were eyewitnesses. You could give such a negative argument for any ancient work based on indirect evidence, but the quality of this work does not suggest it is false.[403] These disciples actually believe that this man - Jesus - existed and that they communed with Him. Their unified collected accounts include many verifiable facts from that time period - people, places, events.[404] There are also various accounts, both biblical and otherwise, that verify these authors went to their deaths proclaiming that Jesus Christ had risen from the dead, as well as believing He was God incarnate.[405]

You are offering only the one possibility for indirect ancient claims; there is no authority to such claims, and that these people were not experts in what they spoke of.

An appeal to authority is perfectly valid. An appeal to an inappropriate authority is not. An appeal to an inappropriate authority assumes justification when there is none there, perhaps because the authority is not one in this specific area, or there is no justification the "authority" is actually one.[406]

[50] While this is true, it gives evidence that at least some aspects are trustworthy.[407] When you combined this evidence with other reasoning, God becomes the most reasonable explanation[408], such as what we are doing here in discussing the moral argument from two different philosophical positions. The Bible speaks of three lines of evidence for the existence of God, 1) the creation/universe,[409a] 2) His Word, the Bible/His Son (the living Word), and [409b] 3) His Spirit who speaks to the believers' spirit.[410] I have tried to get you to engage in the first, the created order, by speaking of morality. The validity of the Bible is a different topic and so is the experiential evidence.

PGA2.0 166 to 3RU7AL

Sure it does. Members of such beliefs speak about origins all the time.

Amoranemix 866

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.

PGA2.0 984

Atheism substitutes belief in God for belief in naturalism.[411] I usually identify four to six areas of thinking that incorporate a religious worldview, and atheists believe in all those areas. Those areas of belief include answering such questions as 1) What am I, 2) Who am I, 3) Why am I here, 4) What difference does it make, 5) How do I know, 6) What happens to me when I die? So they show that they have beliefs that are contrary to the Christian beliefs and contrary to God or gods.[412] Others identify and broaden the scope of a worldview to include more topics, such as the link that provides twelve.

I seldom deal with an atheist who does not include what they believe about origins when asked.[413]

Here is a quote from the American Humanist Organization,

"We atheists and humanists are on the common ground of nature. We are naturalists in that we share the idea that only natural (as opposed to supernatural) laws and forces operatein the world."[414]

My dog is an atheists (I think), but he has no opinion on why he is here or on what difference he makes.

[391] No. Atheists do not believe in a god.

Amoranemix 866

[a] I don't know what a system of belief is, but I shall try to answer the question : “How do preferences make something good ?” [b] The question assumes that there are preferences that do make something good. I will start from that assumption.

[c] One should ask those with those preferences that claim something is good because of them. [d] Whatever explanation they come up with, according to you, it will be because they like it. [e] 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.

PGA2.0 984

[a] What do you mean by the underlined?

[ . . . ]

[c] Okay, what is your explanation for how good is determined? I believe you have already explained it but I will give you a chance to explain it again.

[d] That has been the case to date. They like it as the means of determining the good. They think it answers the question. The problem is that different people have opposite opinions on the good. Throughout the world, people have different ideas of the good for the same issue. I ask you, can they all be right? Please answer that.[415]

[ . . . ]

People have different likes. As I pointed out in another post, the  Marquis de Sade liked torturing little children. Therefore based on your definition of morality, that would be "good for him."[416] You said as much with Hitler. Thus, you have identified yourself as a moral relativist and based good for Hitler on his preferences. On the other hand, I believe that what Hitler called good or right was a fixed objective evil and wrong, coming from a necessary objective standard to determine this. [417]

3RU7AL 956

Oh boy.

Is that what you're hung up on?

The teleological fallacy?

PGA2.0 987

You are saying that is a false statement. Explain why. The reasoning behind such a statement (underlined) is self-evident. Reason requires mindful being.[418] If the universe is without a mind behind it, there is no reason for the universe. Why is that fallacious???

SkepticalOne 874

That is no answer at all. An evaluation of chess action isn't descriptive because it causes no intentional harm. Likewise, an evaluation of a life action isn't prescriptive because harm might hang in the balance. You are claiming a difference, but providing no explanation beyond assertion. 'Harm' isn't the metric by which we apply the labels   "prescriptive" or "descriptive"

PGA2.0 991

a) It is not moral or immoral to play chess. It is immoral to lie and deceive someone with the intent of physically hurting them. It was not required (a moral obligation) to play chess; I did so because I enjoyed doing it. It was not a moral obligation. Thus the categories are not the same or similar as Skone has stated.

b) [ . . . ] Once Skone uses the term "better" in a moral sense, he compares something to a standard. What is that standard? Is it descriptive in the sense that you can use your senses to measure it? No, moral standards are not of that sought. They are qualitative, not quantitative. Qualitative values are not tangible. They are abstract, non-physical values and concepts. You can't describe moral right in a physical sense like you can a game of chess. So, if the right does not exist as anything other than a relative opinion, then it is meaningless, for it can mean anything, whatever Skone wants to make it mean. Right and wrong are moral concepts, not physically tangible things. They are non-descript in a physically observable sense, for you cannot grab hold of right, taste or touch it. They do not express what is but what ought to be. Thus, you cannot put them in the same category as a chess game for these reasons (a + b).

PGA2.0 169 to 3RU7AL

The primary axioms are the Ten Commandments.

Amoranemix 866

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 my personal 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.

PGA2.0

[no response]

Amoranemix 875

@PGA2.0 :

I notice that you are again systematically omitting to mention the reference standard for almost all your qualitative claims and questions, making them ambiguous. That contributes to you goal of maintaining confusion (the skeptics enemy).

PGA2.0 992

In reference to what? Give examples.[420] I think your statement is misleading. I am usually referencing, critiquing or asking what the atheist would have to believe and asking them to defend their beliefs.[421]

Whenever I defend my own standards, I refer to the Christian God and no other god.[422] You have actually quoted me saying "without God." I am a Christian. I speak of no other God. That is my reference standard, and it has what is necessary for objective morality, providing this God exists. You even quote me in Post 175 (see below) as saying without God... My statements and inferences find their bearing in the biblical God.

PGA2.0 175

I'm saying without God, a necessary being, what is right is a shifting preference that cannot be locked down. It always shifting and that is what we see with most cultures for they have rejected the biblical God.[53a] Thus, might makes right and wars are fought over who is right, so this 'moral' preference (although I don't know how you can call it right or good without a best to compare good to) has no fixed address.[53b]

Amoranemix 875

[53a] [i] So you claim, but most cultures have rejected most gods. Maybe reality is the way it is because of the rejection of some other god. [ii] Or maybe the reality is the way it is because there are no gods. Or maybe reality is the way it is because so many believe in a god.

[54b] So what ? [i] You are supposed to argue that adding your god to a naturalistic worldview would allow that worldview to generate a [ii] better explanation for the existence for morality. In stead you are complaning about reality. Yet again.

PGA2.0 991

[53a, i] That is my point.[423] Without God (and to clarify repeatedly, I speak of no other God than the Judeo-Christian God as my standard), as an objective fixed, unchanging standard, morality is the way it is because humans are relative and changing. What is moral, when there is no fixed, objective, unchanging standard, you can't call it morality but a subjective preference.[424]

[ii] That is all you have, maybe.

It boils down to one of two options, the God or chance happenstance option.[425] The whole idea of this thread is to examine which is more reasonable. Show me your rejection of God answers the question of morality. Please show me your standard is something more than fleeting and relative and show me why what you say as of right is actually so.

I have been inviting atheists to demonstrate they can make sense of morality since this thread's inception with little success.[426]

You mean [53b], right? [Yes.]

So what? So, the atheist cannot explain morality, just preference.[427] How is preference good or right? It just is what you like/desire/feel/want. So what? Provide the standard you use to measure morality.

[i] No, you are misrepresenting me again. I am arguing a supernatural worldview as opposed to a naturalistic worldview answers morality. A naturalistic worldview does not address morality.[A] I am arguing for what is capable/necessary for making sense of morality. Is the atheistic or Christian God more reasonable? To do this, I have listed what would be necessary, and the Christian God fits the description.[B]

[ii] You are using a term (better) that is comparative. You can't use it without thinking of a standard of comparison. Better requires a standard. Without God, how do you measure better morally?

SkepticalOne 993 to PGA2.0

In contention is whether chess actions and moral actions are comparable. PGA suggest an apples and oranges comparison because, in his view, chess is descriptive whereas morality is a prescribed. This is false. Statements regarding chess and/or morality can be descriptive (Pawn to A4 is a bad move/Murder is bad) or prescriptive (You should not move your pawn there/You should not murder). The difference suggested between the two is non-existent and suggesting otherwise is, whether PGA admits to it or not, a category error.

What PGA tries very hard to discount is that both chess and morality have an understood reference point - neither of which God or gods are required to explain.

PGA2.0 176 to 3RU7AL

Why is your preference significant if there are not absolute, objective standards, like with atheism? Maybe you don't like it (again, a description) but what makes that wrong for someone who does?

Amoranemix 875

Why is your preference significant if there are not absolute, objective standards, like with atheism?[*] Maybe you don't like it, but what makes that wrong for someone who does ?

PGA2.0 994

[*] It is not unless I can charismatically convince others or force my views on those who don't like them, for that is all I would have if there were no objective, universal, unchanging standard to appeal to. But the Christian claim is that God has revealed, so we have that objective standard as our appeal.

[**] Exactly! What makes it wrong? If there is no objective, universal standard, what makes your opinion any better than mine?

Amoranemix 875

If God is just by definition, then his existence will be very hard to prove and I doubt that will ever happen. If that is merely a property of God, then [a] on top of God's existence, you would have to prove his justness too. I doubt that will ever happen.

[54] According to himself no doubt and being as powerful as he is, he is the one who gets to decide. If I were as mighty as God, I too would like might makes right morality.

PGA2.0 994

I do not limit God, but your language certainly shows how closed you are.[425] Your statements beg the question of what you would accept. Let me test you on this further.

Do you think a just and good judge would compromise justice? Would such a judge overlook evil, or would that judge address it and issue a penalty for doing evil?[426]

Why is there evil, or do you not recognize anything as evil?[427] That is a question both the atheist and Christian has to answer. So I await your answer before I proceed further.

[a] Why does it have to be on top of God's nature?[428] Why can't justice be part of His nature, to want good and to punish evil?[429] If God has given humanity a will, a volition, then eventually we will all be accountable to Him, yet He may choose to let us use our wills to discover the problem of evil. Evil would be doing something again His good nature and against the light of His revealed word.

[54] Yes, according to Himself.[430] Who greater could He appeal to?[431] Do you think your authority and your limited mind would be greater than God's?[432] You still have not been able to show me that your moral views are true and right.[433] I am still awaiting you to reveal a semblance of logic on why what you believe is right and good. I actually focused on abortion to get your opinion on what is right with that particular judgment of yours.[434]

[ . . . ]

[a] You are under the mistaken idea that might, in itself, actually make something right. Explain why you think so.

PGA2.0  176 to 3RU7AL

So your conclusion is that because of that there can be no universal or true moral values?[55] As I have said before, you can think such thoughtss but you can't live practically with those beliefs[56] for the minute someone cuts in line in front or harms your innocent family members, or tortures you sadistically for fun against your will, you know it is wrong[57], and if you don't I would say you have major problems[58]. There is no, 'Well that is your choice but I would prefer you did not do it.' There is a definite, 'What you are doing is wrong.'

Amoranemix 875

[55] Although it is unclear what a universal or true moral value is, it looks like such things do not exist.

[56] That a belief is impractical doesn't make it wrong. In school they teach the students the Newton theory of gravity in stead of the more accurate theory of general relativity. The latter would be impractical in most situations.

[57] a) Wrong according to who ?

b) In such situations one can probably not think rationally and would find phylosophical considerations unimportant. Hence one's knowledge would then probably not be reliable. In such situations one is guided by instinct and emotions, in accordance with the rules of biological evolution.

c) Why would something being wrong, e.g. according to God's moral standard, imply that there that are true or universal moral values ?

[58] If me or my family were tortured, I would have a major problem, indeed. Would you not if you or your family were tortured ?

PGA2.0 995

[a] It is unclear what is universal for you because you do not have what is necessary to make sense of morality.[435] If you think otherwise, then show me how you do.

[b] Are you then saying that what you believe is not moral, but what you like?

PGA2.0 995

[56] We are speaking apples and oranges again. I was giving a moral example. Newton's laws are not moral. I was speaking of morality. Can you live practically or experientially with a moral issue?[436]

Morally wise, what I was referring to fails a reasoning test, experience. If you could not live by it, would it be reasonable to impose it on someone else?[437] Sure, you can espouse something, but if it makes it impossible to live by such a standard once turned upon you, you will not be around long.

Seriously? Do you not think it is wrong, universally, for someone to torture innocent people?[438] That is definitely a problem you have with your worldview.[439] You do not appear to have the means to universally say it is wrong to torture innocent little children for fun. You just leave it to each person to decide for themselves.[440] That is the downfall of relative changing values. Anything can go, depending on who holds the view and is capable of enforcing it.

b) Again, can you say for certain for everyone that torturing innocent little children for fun is wrong???

c) Because God is loving and good (being omniscient), knows all things and knows the short term and long term effects of moral action. You do not.

Amoranemix 875

[*] I notice that the way you establish the alleged fact that something is wrong, is by referring to someone's knowledge. I think, that if that is the only way to establish something, all you get is an opinion. Can you think of a counter-example, an example of a fact (in a different field than morality) that can be established only by relying on someone's knowledge ?

[**] [a] What if two moral knowledges contradict each other ? [b] What if someone knows that snitching one's mischievous friend to the authorities is wrong, while someone else knows that that is right ? They can't both be correct. So who is correct and who is mistaken ?

PGA2.0 994

[*] How can you establish something as knowledge unless it conforms to what is - the fact?[441] I am asking what is necessary for the knowledge of morality?[442] [ . . . ] As an atheist, I am asking you to show how you can make sense of morality because I believe I can show it is not reasonable to believe like the biblical explanation of morality is reasonable to believe.[443]

[**] [a] Then one must be false. The contrary of true is false, the contrary of right is wrong. A standard that is contrary is the opposite.

[b] It depends on the moral degree of the wrong. Stealing a pen does not warrant turning your friend over to the police. Any wrong is wrong. It depends on whether the friend has actually done something wrong (the has to be a standard of comparison) and the severity of the wrong as to whether it is right to turn them in. Each circumstance would be different.

PGA2.0  179 to secularmerlin

No, you are wrong. Although I can reason killing innocent people is wrong, if someone else thinks the opposite it becomes a battle of wills or might unless there is an objective, universal fixed standard of appeal - a should or should not that is universal and fixed. All I am saying is that you can't live by a system of thought that does not treat innocent human beings equally, because eventually, you are going to have the tables turned on you where you are innocent and treated unfairly.[59] While you can argue it matters, how would it ultimately matter in a universe devoid of meaning? And it might matter for you but someone else might not give a damn. [ . . . ]

Amoranemix 875

[59] Indeed. Such things happen in the real world. Are they not possible in your worldview ?

People not giving a damn, is that also not possible in your worldview ?[*]

PGA2.0 998

[59] My Christian worldview operates in this physical realm so such things happen and Christians do not live up to the ideal of our Saviour, yet unequal treatment of innocent people opposes the Christian worldview.

[*] Yes, it is possible when people do not live up to the Christian standard of loving our neighbours as ourselves. And Jesus defined a neighbour as more than the person who lives in close proximity (i.e., everyone).

PGA2.0  179 to secularmerlin

Whether or not it passes the liveability test, some people just don't care. If there is no universal wrong does it matter?[60] If there is no universal accountability what does it matter if you get away with treating others unfairly?[61] That is the problem with atheism.[62] It has no objective, universal court of appeal. Everything is subjective.

Amoranemix 875

[60] Does what matter ?

[61] Personally, I like getting away with treating people unfairly. It is people getting away with treating me unfairly that I have issues with.

[62] That would only be true if we define atheism as a worldview. The worldviews of most atheists are based on reality and therefore tend to include many of reality's problems. Does your worldview exclude reality's problems ?

PGA2.0 999

What people do to one another.[444] If this life is all you have and there is no ultimate meaning in anything, does it matter that you are trying to create meaning for the insignificant number of days you will live?[445] Are you not creating artificial meaning (there is no fixed value for meaning, humans just invent it).[446] Before you existed nothing mattered, and after you die nothing will matter, yet for some reason, you are trying to make it matter now. It seems inconsistent with your core beliefs - a chance happenstance universe.[447]

Your right[448], ultimately it does not matter how you treat others if God does not exist and we owe our existence to blind indifferent chance happenstance. Why should I care what you like if there is no universal accountability and ultimately everything is meaningless?[449] I would probably join in by treating you unfairly if I lived consistently with such a worldview devoid of God (dog eat dog!) unless you were willing to do something beneficial for me.

[62] As I have argued before, it is a worldview.[450] The same criterion used to classify other worldviews is operational in an atheist's thinking. You look at everything from a naturalistic framework that excludes God.[451]

PGA2.0  183

Morality operates on a different standard than physical objects because it is an abstract concept. Morals are mindful things.

Amoranemix 875

What a coincidence. Opinions and preferences are mindful things too.

PGA2.0 999

And opinions and preferences are subjective, sometimes a collective subjectivity. Morality requires an objective standard or else it is relative and subjective.

Amoranemix 875 to PGA2.0

In this case the judge wrote the law : “Worhipping me is mandatory. Failure to comply is punishable by death.”

Then God : “Hey you! You failed to worhip me! I am sorry, but the law is clear. It would be unjust not to punish you and I want to be a good judge.”

I wonder how God would feel at the other end of such justice.

PGA2.0 1000

Worship is giving Someone who deserves it their due. Christians realize that God is worthy of such worship as the greatest Being possible and our Creator and Redeemer. Worship is deserved! And when are before His majesty and glory and realize who He is, you will bow before Him you of your own accord, even though you do not think that is possible now.

Does that imply knowledge can be false or it does it mean that the false knowledge was not really knowledge ?

PGA2.0 217

Again, the presentation relies on your merit, your good deeds outweighing your bad deeds. It does not take into account God's moral purity and holiness, and the wrongs we have done that deserve addressing. Remember, God is a good Judge.[63] He does not wink at evil or wrongdoing but addresses it.[64] Thus, I realize my good deeds do not measure up to His perfection and that I have fallen short of the mark He has set for intimate fellowship and peace and joy with Him. That is why I look to the works of another, the Lord Jesus Christ in setting my record straight.

Amoranemix 875

[63] [a] God is a good judge according to who ? Himself ? Remember, [b] Adolf Hitler was also a good judge according to himself.

[64] So did Adolf Hitler.

I suspect your good deed didn't even measure up to AH's imperfection.[*]

PGA2.0 1000

[a] According to the greatest Being, God Himself. No greater appeal can be made.

[b] That is the problem with subjectivity that I am arguing against. How can you say Kim Jong-Un's morality is better than yours if the standard is changing and subjective?[452]

That is just my point.[453] You can't argue that AH's morality is any "better" than yours unless there is an objective court of appeal.[454]

[*] Not if morality is subjective. I argue that for morality to exist, it must have a universal fixed, unchanging measure. That is not AH or you or me.

Amoranemix 875

There is overlap, but there are important differences between most legislations and the 10 commandments, even among the ones you listed, like the ones about lying, covetting, committing adultry and honouring your parents.

PGA2.0 1001

How so?

Amoranemix 875

Such ambiguous questions are typically brought up by enemies of clarity (the Christian's enemy).

PGA2.0 1001

Nice ad hom! Your own statement is very ambiguous. I only see one question. Which others are you speaking of from Post 227?

SkepticalOne 879

[a] It is questionable that the first three have a "standard of good" which includes killing others. For instance, Jack the Ripper skulked around and [b] hid his actions from the world as though he knew he was doing wrong. Secondly, it can be argued (and it has in this thread) [c] Adolf Hitler's views were informed by Christianity - [d] his hatred of Jews was, at the very least, inspired by their role in the crucifixion of Jesus. Finally,   [e] Kim Jung-un thinks he IS a god and might argue a his own 'universal, objective, and unchanging' standard. Despite how we might disagree with his views, he has the advantage of [f] less than 2 millennia of changing standards Christianity suffers.

PGA2.0 1004

[a] My point is to illustrate that without an objective, universal standard subjective beliefs become what is thought of as morally good to a person's thinking.[455] I have not looked at Jack the Ripper (the person alleged to have savagely murdered at least five people) to ascertain his motives, and the case is sketchy, but the five Whitechapel victims were prostitutes. For some reason, someone had a sick aversion to mutilate prostitutes regardless of what society thought.

[b] That is one outlook and just as highly speculative. He may have thought that society thought it wrong, yet he justified killing them nonetheless. Thus, his idea of the good was in killing them, perhaps with the idea of helping to rid society of a few of what was considered a bad profession. It is obvious he took pleasure in doing this because of the amount of detailed mutilation.

[ . . . ]

[d] Jesus was a Jew.

[e] It just goes to show how a human being with human frailties can impose his subjective standard on others without being able to justify it.[455] He forced others to conform to his views. Again, what he believes does not have the requirements for a necessary objective, universal moral standard.

SkepticalOne 879

That being said, it should be noted only two from your list were actually engaged in a discussion of morality. The others are a distraction.

PGA2.0 1004

The point is that only one qualifies as having what is necessary for morality - Jesus Christ. The others do not have what is necessary for morality.

PGA2.0 878 to Amoranemix

Every one of these first four standards is conflicting and logically cannot all be true because they state opposites. They have different identities, which is inconsistent with the laws of logic.

SkepticalOne 879

The Law of Identity would apply to all five options - Jesus is not immune from logic.

PGA2.0 1004

No, the law of identity would not apply to them all, for they all have differing views of the good. Good has different identities to each one of these people.[456] Jesus, the living Word, is revealed as the logos. His logic is perfectly justifiable as meeting the law of identity standard - a fixed, unchanging, eternal, omniscient measure or standard of reference.[457]

PGA2.0 1004 to SkepticalOne

"The  North Pole, also known as the  Geographic North Pole  or  Terrestrial North Pole, is (subject to the caveats explained below) defined as the point in the  Northern Hemisphere  where the  Earth's axis of rotation  meets its surface. It is called  True North Pole  to distinguish from the  Magnetic North Pole."

Amoranemix 888

@PGA :

You often mention the identity of things that do not appear to have an identity, like the good or right. I'll assume what you mean is meaning.

PGA2.0 1006

The identity of THINGS that do not appear to have an identity? How can a 'thing' not have an identity?[458]

I am not following what you are getting at. It is very vaguely stated. The Christian reference point for comparing good is God. Are you saying that the good or right does not have an identity, that, say for a specific example such as abortion, the right cannot be ascertained?

All moral values deal with meaning.

Amoranemix 888

[73] The world has many problems. People have invented deities, but the problems persist. Religion has even created problems, as people disagreed on which deity to worship.

PGA2.0 1006

Human-made deities, yes. Religion, yes. The problem persists because people do not recognize the necessary standard and authority.[459]

Logically speaking, the most reasonable answer to this problem is there is only one true deity.[460] Every deity humanity makes glaring contradictions to the next. Denying any deity at all lands you with a host of other problems.

PGA2.0  231 to secularmerlin

Then, how does such a standard originate from chance happenstance? There are many hurdles to straddle.

Amoranemix 888

How does such a standard originate from God ?

PGA2.0 1006

Very simple - His sovereign will command His creatures to live righteously or be answerable to Him.[461] He sets out the standard, The Ten Commandments, which reflects His nature of good, is a school teacher or guardian to lead us to Christ. We witness all around us how impossible it is to live by relative subjectivism. We see the results of humanity living apart from God's good purposes.

PGA2.0 231 to SkepticalOne

You are confusing God as a person with God as an explanation. God as an explanation is simple.

Amoranemix 888

Assuming God the explanation and God the person are the same, how can the former be less complicated than the latter ?

PGA2.0 1006

It is straightforward. God says, "You shall not murder; you shall not lie" before Him. The penalty is alienation from Him. You shall not murder is a command, not an explanation. The command reflects His will and nature. His nature is more complex. The explanation is for our benefit. The explanation is that such things are wrong - period.

Amoranemix 888

Don't be silly. Calling only part of the explanation the explanation does not make it any more likely. The complete explanation matters. Otherwise you would require an additional explanation for your explanation. In this example : God.

PGA2.0 1006

The Big Bang is a cause. What is the explanation for it? Do tell.

You have explanations for everything before it. What is the explanation for it? The simplest explanation is God spoke, and it was so because He chose to create it.[462]

Do you have any explanation for the Big Bang?

Amoranemix 888

What does ultimately mean in that context? What is the difference not having an attribute and not having an attribute ultimately ? What is the difference between meaning nothing and ultimately meaning nothing ?

PGA2.0 1006

[a] You could argue that there is no difference but experientially you believe there is. [about fleeting meaning]

Amoranemix 888

[a] What relevance does any of that have ? [b] What would an atheist doing the effort of answering, without any compensation for the work, contribute to add useful, relevant knowledge to this discussion ?

Why would there be God ?[*]

PGA2.0 1006

[a] The relevance is that atheists live inconsistently with their starting presuppositions.[463a] They are not logically consistent with where they begin. From a supposed meaningless universe, they seek reason and meaning. You are constantly asking for reason and meaning from me, the Christian. I can make sense of it, you can't.

Christians are logically consistent with where they start, their core presuppositions and what they would expect to find with such a starting point. Atheists are not.[463b]

[b] You tell me?

[*] The reason for contingent beings and things that start to exist. The necessity of making sense of anything.[464]

God provides logical reasons for making sense of existence, the universe, morality.[465]

Amoranemix 888

[74] Your question is a contradictio in terminis. Why questions imply intent. There can be no intent in the absense of intent.

Try asking intelligent, clear questions for a change.

[75] Your fallacy of choice is the loaded question. You have so far been unable to demonstrate that an atheist worldview is inconsistent with its starting points and you never will be able to demonstrate that.

PGA2.0 1008

Your spelling and run together words make things unclear. Try clearing up your own grammar before you accuse others. I have done so in the past, yet EVERY single post by you is corrupted in grammar and spelling. Is there something wrong with your computer or your copy and paste feature??????????????????[466]

You have intent. You constantly answer why questions, yet you are devoid of the why when it comes to beginnings.[467] You can't even provide meaning since meaning is an intentional attribute and from where you begin (in the beginning) there is none. What is more, you find intent and meaning in so many things but cannot offer it here because your worldview is insufficient in answering why questions regarding origins. That is yet another point I am making regarding your worldview. This attempt is your escape hatch.[468]

How is it a fallacy of choice?[469] How is it loaded when the Christian worldview has an answer, but an atheist worldview cannot give an answer, or a Christian worldview inquires of other worldviews for their answers?[470]

[a] Not true. I have demonstrated to date your worldview inconsistent. You, nor any other atheist, have provided cogent answers to the questions of existence, the universe, morality on this thread. What is more, from such a starting point (blind, indifferent random chance happenstance), is it any wonder?

PGA2.0  247 to zedvictor4

Job also understood that God is just. He understood that God would not do wrong, as did his friends, and that human beings are wicked and act wickedly when they live outside of God's good decrees and commandments.

Amoranemix 888

[*] So what ? I am sure there were plenty of Nazis around who knew what a wonderful guy Adolf Hitler was and who knew that Jews were wicked. Does that imply any of it is true ? No. It is an appeal to authority fallacy.

You cannot demonstrate God is just, moral, best or whatever you want him to be without choosing a reference standard.[**] [a] And you won't do that in the same paragraph, but that would it make it obvious your claims are empty and because you are not as stupid as you pretend, you know that.

PGA2.0 1011

[*] So, the biblical God provides what is necessary to know the good.[471] Hitler does not. The Nazis appealed to a false authority or, better said, as an inappropriate appeal to authority. From an atheist perspective, can you point to an appeal to authority that is suited?[472] I don't believe you can since you do not have what is necessary. Hitler wasn't an expert in moral law.[473] He invented his own subjective preferences based on the hatred of the Jews prevalent in Europe before he even came on the scene. To use Hitler as your reference would be to use someone who is not even an authority on moral law, let alone an expert.[474] So, I still invite you to show me one person, just one, who you think is that expert and authority on the topic of morality - just one.[475] And, human authority does not justify the truth in the matter of morality, IMO. Demonstrate otherwise. Can you? [476]

[**] [no response]

[a] Put yourself to the same standards and tests what you require of me with yourself.

I can demonstrate God is necessary and show how His moral laws protect the innocent.[477] I can point to His nature, the one described in the Bible, as meeting the necessary requirement - omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, immutable, eternal. I can give evidence of the reasonableness of belief in Him, not only in making sense of existence, the universe, morality, but also because of the biblical evidence and how it corresponds with history. How about you address this paragraph and provide how you arrive at moral justice and the good or best?[478]

[b] And by the way, thanks for yet another slur! Resorting to ad hom's shows an argument is feeble. You infer, I am pretending to be stupid. So far, you have shown your bias, but you have not provided a suitable explanation from your morality from your worldview perspective that sufficiently explains the good. Go ahead. I am still waiting to see if you have what is necessary.[479]

However there is no validation for joining a society which sets itself up in direct opposition, and that is exactly what Atheism has became. To be an Atheist is to be part of a society which opposes the beliefs of others without empirical evidence to support their disbelief.