Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?

Author: PGA2.0

Posts

Total: 1,638
#1201
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,270
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Nevets
Atheism is still a theism as far as I am concerned.
This is like saying being apolitical is the same as being political, which is an obvious absurdity.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a God. Anything else is something else. It is true that the belief in the absence of all deities fits within atheism, but that doesn’t make it atheism any more than a chef who also fixes cars makes all chefs mechanics.

The problem of evil is logical negation of theistic claims. There is nothing about that which requires empirical evidence.

The burden of proof is always on the person who makes the claim. Since atheism is not a claim it cannot hold the burden of proof. If an atheist claims there are no gods then the atheist does have the burden, but by that point he had already stepped outside of the definition of atheism.

There are atheist groups out there but the overwhelming majority of atheists do not belong to any such group. It’s not about opposing someone else’s beliefs, it’s about combating the nonsense being peddled by much of society which in many cases is very dangerous. Someone who still believes the earth is 6000 years old is for example, far less likely to accept the findings of science resulting in anti-Vaxxers, climate change denial, etc.

Topic's author
#1202
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Nevets
I can't help but feel Atheism is just yet another theism. Whether or not the word a theism is intentional or by accident is besides the point. Atheism is still a theism as far as I am concerned.
The god of atheism is the atheist. They declare what is and what should be. The problem is that everyone is right in their own eyes, and yet their beliefs often contradict other atheists and everyone else. That is the problem when there is no absolute, objective measure or final reference point any view can be pushed as right. They are naked, and they don't know it. That is the absurdity of atheism. 

Whilst a theist usually believes in the existence of deities, an Atheist usually believes that deities do not exist.
Atheists usually cite a lack of empirical evidence amongst their reasoning for not believing, whilst apparently forgetting that a lack of empirical evidence does not support an Atheists own beliefs any more than it does a theists.
The problem is that no human being witnessed the beginning of the universe. Thus, they work from the present back to the past. The evidence does not come pre-interpreted, 4.5 billion years old, or 13.8 billion years old. It all works on assumptions, the best limited human beings can come up with, and these beliefs change as the paradigm shifts. 

Atheists also tend to cite the problem of evil in their argument and argue that if their was an actual god there would not be the pain and suffering we experience today. But they do so without empirical evidence that this is the case.
Yes, atheists usually recognize evil exists but cannot justify why something is evil without an absolute, unchanging standard and reference point. They don't have one. Why should they care if the universe is all there is? Why do they care? They live as if they do, pronouncing judgment on an evil God. How do they determine evil in such an amoral universe with no opinion on what is right and what is good? They make it up. The problem is they are inconsistent with their belief system. 

Other popular arguments include  the argument from inconsistent revelations, and all arguments are totally conjectural, and ultimately a matter of belief.
Precisely!

An Atheist also typically argues that the burden of proof lies with the theist. However surely if someone is claiming a belief in something then they also have a duty to provide proof for their belief.
Exactly!

Therefore I would not say that Atheism is any more reasonable then Theism.
They are less reasonable. I say this because it takes more faith to believe what they do - mindless chance happenstance is the reason for the complexity of everything that exists. How do they know this? Mindless chance happenstance sustains the uniformity of nature. How do they know that? They don't; they fake that they do.

The Christian faith is justifiable and makes sense. If such a God described in its pages has truly revealed, then we have a revelation from an almighty, omniscient, objective, unchanging, omnibenevolent Creator. We can make sense of existence. The atheist ultimately can't. 

So, what is the evidence for the biblical God. That is what the Bible is about, and it is most compelling. 

Certainly an Atheist should feel free to express their opinions on the subject.
Sure, but I have never found one who can justify their belief. Instead, they continually dodge most questions. I will admit that Amoranemix is more willing to do so, but his posts are very complex that it takes a great effort to respond to. I put them aside for a while since I do not have the time to get into them. 

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.
I believe you are dead-on right for most of this!

What has atheism to offer? Nothing. They pretend they know the truth. Ultimately, you are brought into this meaninglessness from such a position, and you make an exception that some things do matter but once again when you are dead, nothing matters again. The mystery is why they make it matter now? They are inconsistent with their ultimate belief, and when you find such inconsistency, beware. There is so much contradiction in what they believe, and secretly they borrow from the Christian worldview usually without knowing it. 
Topic's author
#1203
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Double_R
Atheism is still a theism as far as I am concerned.
This is like saying being apolitical is the same as being political, which is an obvious absurdity.

[1] Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a God. Anything else is something else. [2]  It is true that the belief in the absence of all deities fits within atheism, but [3] that doesn’t make it atheism any more than a chef who also fixes cars makes all chefs mechanics.
[1] To disbelieve in God, you must believe in naturalism or some other ism. 

[2] Sure it does. 

[3] What does it make it? Theism? No, it is a lack of theism. They deny God, all the while proclaiming they don't. It is part of the current cultural phenomenon - doublespeak. 

The problem of evil is logical negation of theistic claims. There is nothing about that which requires empirical evidence.
That is because Evil is not an empirical attribute; it is not quantitative but qualitative. It is a concept about wrongness. Wrong is mindfulness that some people associate with a physical act like murder or a physical act like adultery or a physical act like robbery, or a physical act of bullying, or dehumanizing or discriminating. What about those who do not? Morality relies on justice which relies on equality for all human beings. If there is no ultimate, absolute final reference point, what makes your idea of wrongness that opposes my contrary view any better? To have something better, you need a best or else it becomes meaningless. Better in relation to what, and who says?

The burden of proof is always on the person who makes the claim.
And you have made many claims here.

Since atheism is not a claim it cannot hold the burden of proof.
Is that a claim? I look at the profiles of the different posters and many describe themselves as atheists. You just don't want to expose what you really believe. Are you ashamed to call yourself an atheist? 

If an atheist claims there are no gods then the atheist does have the burden, but by that point he had already stepped outside of the definition of atheism.
Atheism is a claim, a worldview, and a lifestyle. The atheist lives as if no God exists. They deny God by most of the things they believe. And then they get into all kinds of complicated arguments against the existence of God just like you are here. You are pushing your atheistic beliefs while denying you have any—the absurdity of it all.  

There are atheist groups out there but the overwhelming majority of atheists do not belong to any such group.
Big deal, so what? An atheist is a person who is their own god, proclaiming what is and what should be without a clue of why their view is any BETTER than any other, other than the fact that they like it and hold it. Morality, for the atheist, boils down to a preference, nothing more, since they cannot establish anything other than opinion. Thanks for your opinion!

It’s not about opposing someone else’s beliefs, it’s about combating the nonsense being peddled by much of society which in many cases is very dangerous.
It really is about opposing someone else's belief to bolster their own belief. It is a form of justification and a form of patting themselves on the back. "Look how sensible we are!" They mock the Christian belief because they think it dangerous, but their own belief system has resulted in a lot more danger. They usually do not recognize every human being as having an equal right to life but marginalize and dehumanize the most helpless human beings by putting them to death. That is what abortion does to the extent of making it the biggest holocaust in humanity's history to date. Who knows what lies ahead with the push to do away with God in academia, the arts and entertainment, politics, big tech, and the media while pushing their tolerance and levelheadedness, which is nothing of the sort. 

Someone who still believes the earth is 6000 years old is for example, far less likely to accept the findings of science resulting in anti-Vaxxers, climate change denial, etc.
As opposed to some who proclaim they KNOW the earth is 4.3 billion years old until some other scientist finds some evidence that refutes such a claim and once again changes the paradigm as opposed to some who don't KNOW why the universe exists or how it started. There are numerous views that different scientists hold on such matters, but generally, the BB is the accepted current view. 
#1204
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,270
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@PGA2.0
1] To disbelieve in God, you must believe in naturalism or some other ism.
That’s not how logic works. For any given proposition you can either believe the proposition is true or not believe the proposition is true. Not believing the proposition is true does not mean you believe it is false. You can instead say... “I don’t know”.

Right now in Texas there is a man charged with murder. Do you believe he is guilty or do you believe he is innocent?

I hope you choose choice C; neither, because you can’t possibly extract enough information out of what I just gave you to make a determination. Just as we can’t possibly have enough information to determine what if anything exists beyond that which we have access to.

That is because Evil is not an empirical attribute; it is not...
We can debate the problem of evil another time. You brought this up as support for your claim that atheists believe no gods exist. I am simply pointing out that someone arguing that your claim is incoherent, is not making a claim about what does or does not exist. Their only claim is that your argument is incoherent.

You are pushing your atheistic beliefs while denying you have any—the absurdity of it all.
Making things up about others tends to lead to absurdities.

There’s is no such thing as “atheistic beliefs”, because atheism isn’t a belief system no matter how many times you claim it is. What I’m pushing here is logic, just as I do in any other forum. Characterize me all you want, claim that I think I am my own God (as silly as that is) all you want. If you actually care about understanding people who think differently than you, perhaps you should focus on that.

If there is no ultimate, absolute final reference point, what makes your idea of wrongness that opposes my contrary view any better? To have something better, you need a best or else it becomes meaningless. Better in relation to what, and who says?
We all do. It is up to each of us to decide for ourselves what we ultimately value, and from those values we derive standards from which everything else is measured.

I value the truth. I want to know if I’m buying into a load of crap or living my life blind of the pitfalls I am steering towards. By valuing the truth, I have developed a strong desire to understand how logic works, because most false beliefs we hold, and certainly the most avoidable ones, are the result of faulty logic. When a salesman for example tricks you into buying something you don’t need, they do so primarily by appealing to emotion or using other logical fallacies. I value knowing how to spot the BS before I allow it to harm myself.

It seems to me that most theists value the comfort that comes with religion. The idea that you need a final reference point to tell you what’s right and wrong for example instead of relying on yourself to figure it out I think supports that.

Topic's author
#1205
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Double_R
1] To disbelieve in God, you must believe in naturalism or some other ism.
That’s not how logic works.
There are three fundamental laws of logic that apply to everyone. 

I disagree unless the person is totally ignorant.  Two contrary beliefs cannot both be true at the same time on the same thing. Either there is a God, or there is not a God. If there is a God, either this God is the Christian God, or this God is not. God cannot exist and not exist at the same time. This God cannot both be the Christian God and at the same time not be the Christian God.  

For any given proposition you can either believe the proposition is true or not believe the proposition is true.
Whether you believe it is true does not alter the facts of its truth or falsity. It IS either one or the other. It cannot be both true and false at the same time. 

Not believing the proposition is true does not mean you believe it is false. You can instead say... “I don’t know”.
Because you don't know does not necessarily mean you can't know. "I don't know" is a plea of ignorance. Even so, those who don't know act contrary to a belief in God. The way they live usually reflects their convictions. But, even if you don't know, what is the more reasonable belief to hold? That we are all here because of an accidental random chance happenstance, or that an intelligent almighty Creator has made us? I say in every way the latter. You can't make sense of the former.   

Right now in Texas there is a man charged with murder. Do you believe he is guilty or do you believe he is innocent?
I am not aware of the situation. Where do the facts or evidence lead?

I hope you choose choice C; neither, because you can’t possibly extract enough information out of what I just gave you to make a determination. Just as we can’t possibly have enough information to determine what if anything exists beyond that which we have access to.
Not in the case of God. There is sufficient evidence for His existence, and the contrary belief cannot make sense of itself. I often point out to the atheist that not believing in God contradicts the way they live. They live as if there are right and wrong and that such a belief really matters, yet how can it ultimately matter in an amoral universe that doesn't care because it is not personal and conscious. 

That is because Evil is not an empirical attribute; it is not...
We can debate the problem of evil another time. You brought this up as support for your claim that atheists believe no gods exist. I am simply pointing out that someone arguing that your claim is incoherent, is not making a claim about what does or does not exist. Their only claim is that your argument is incoherent.
There is evidence for the Christian belief. It is not inconsistent when understood. 

You are pushing your atheistic beliefs while denying you have any—the absurdity of it all.
Making things up about others tends to lead to absurdities.

There’s is no such thing as “atheistic beliefs”, because atheism isn’t a belief system no matter how many times you claim it is.
Yes, there is such a thing as an atheistic belief. An atheist answers the same questions the theist does regarding the Universe, our existence, our morality, who we are, what we are, why it matters, etc. 

  1. “Atheism is the deliberate, definite, dogmatic denial of the existence of God. It is not satisfied with appropriate truth or relative truth, but claims to see the ins and outs of the game quite clearly being the absolute denial of the absolute.” (Etienne Borne, Atheism 1961)
  2. “An atheist is a person who maintains that there is no God; that is, that the sentence “God exists” expresses a false proposition. . . . a person who rejects belief in God. (Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1967)
  3. “We atheists believe that nature simply exists. Matter is. Material is.” (Madalyn Murray O’Hair, What on Earth Is an Atheist? 1972)

Andrew Montano lists 15 components of a worldview in his articles on the Naturalistic worldview here:

Atheism compiles with that list. 

What I’m pushing here is logic, just as I do in any other forum.
When you push logic, it is helpful to realize its origins. Do the laws of logic exist outside of each one of us, or do we make them up? For instance, is the law of identity something that needs you for its existence or is it independent of you. If it is independent of you, then which human being gives it its existence for logic is a mindful thing? Are they independent of any human being? Do the laws of contradiction ever not apply? (i.e., I am physically alive and at the same time I am physically dead)

Characterize me all you want, claim that I think I am my own God (as silly as that is) all you want. If you actually care about understanding people who think differently than you, perhaps you should focus on that.
You seem to think that I don't know the pitfuls of an atheistic worldview. If there is no ultimate Being responsible for your being and makeup, you become your own, determining what you will and will not believe independent of such a being (your own god). You only have relativism to fall back on in regards to right and wrong. Morality is constantly changing, as shown by examining a nation's belief system and how it changes. What was once thought bad and wrong is now considered right and good. It brings to mind how something can be better. Better in regards to what standard? If there is not a best to compare better, how can you say something is better than it was? Better in whose opinion? Yours? Why SHOULD I believe you? Who are you to decide for me? If God has not revealed, we are all in the boat of moral relativism. That means there is no such thing as better. There is only your opinion instead of my contrary one, and it boils down to who can impose their belief system on the next guy. If you can get enough people to buy into your belief system, you can impose it, that is. (Might makes right, yet there is nothing right about it)

If there is no ultimate, absolute final reference point, what makes your idea of wrongness that opposes my contrary view any better? To have something better, you need a best or else it becomes meaningless. Better in relation to what, and who says?
We all do. It is up to each of us to decide for ourselves what we ultimately value, and from those values we derive standards from which everything else is measured.
Just like I said before, you become your own god, decreeing what is right and wrong in your own eyes, perhaps based on the input of other relative, limited human beings. How does your moral preference make anything right? It doesn't unless there is a final reference point that does not change. 

I value the truth. I want to know if I’m buying into a load of crap or living my life blind of the pitfalls I am steering towards. By valuing the truth, I have developed a strong desire to understand how logic works, because most false beliefs we hold, and certainly the most avoidable ones, are the result of faulty logic.
If you value logic and truth, you should try and understand what is necessary for both in the first place. How does logic come from an atheistic worldview, one that denies God? Logic requires mindful beings, but which one(s) invented the laws of logic or are such laws independent of any individual? If so, you discover such laws, not invent them. 

When a salesman for example tricks you into buying something you don’t need, they do so primarily by appealing to emotion or using other logical fallacies. I value knowing how to spot the BS before I allow it to harm myself.
One thing is sure, either there is a God, or there is not. There can't both be a God and not be a God. Another thing is for sure, either we are the product of a Mind, or we are not. We can't both be and not be at the same time. Either we trace our existence and origins back to natural chance happenstance causes or to a personal being. If we trace our existence in the causal tree back to natural causes, how did the first cause happen, or are we speaking infinite causes? If we speak infinite causes, how do we get to the present, or is time something we make up as finite beings? There are consequences to how we look at the universe, our existence, morality. Are you consistent with where you begin? You do not think of God as a sufficient cause, or you would believe in such a God. Do you deny all God's as a plausible reason for our existence or just the Christian God? Do you have one particular god you see as plausible? 

It seems to me that most theists value the comfort that comes with religion.
And most atheists value the comfort that comes from their denial of God. It means there is no ultimate accountability for your actions, no ultimate justice. People like Hitler can get away with moral atrocities with very little or no consequences. And what of justice? A universe without God makes nothing ultimately matter. You live contrary to such views. You do believe some things matter. Thus you are inconsistent with what you believe. There is a glaring contradiction present that you sweep under the rug.   You borrow from my belief system that says things do ultimately matter.  

The idea that you need a final reference point to tell you what’s right and wrong for example instead of relying on yourself to figure it out I think supports that.
Again, you show that you are your own god, deciding what is right and wrong, with no best to compare it to. 

#1206
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,270
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@PGA2.0
Whether you believe it is true does not alter the facts of its truth or falsity. It IS either one or the other. It cannot be both true and false at the same time. 
You are confusing the truth value of a proposition and what one believes about that proposition.

A statement is either true or it is not true. Those are the only two options.

With regards to what a person believes, they can either believe a proposition is true, believe it is false, or not hold a belief either way (3 options).

This is why your original statement is false. Rejecting theism tells us nothing about what position someone takes on naturalism or any other proposition.

Even so, those who don't know act contrary to a belief in God. The way they live usually reflects their convictions.
This is where the Null Hypothesis comes in. We have to have default positions. With regards to existential claims, the default position is that nothing exists until it is demonstrated to exist. That's why we don't run around chasing big foot. We don't have evidence of his non existence, yet I'm pretty sure you would claim he does not exist.

Non existence is the default because the alternative leads to absurdity. It would result in is believing every God claim ever made, including mutually exclusive claims, all at the same time until each of them has been demonstrated to not exist.

Atheism compiles with that list. 
No, it doesn't. This is nothing more than an attempt to hold up theism by mischaracterizing atheism so you can claim they are equally dogmatic and unsubstantiated.

An atheist is someone who does not believe in a God. That's it. That's all. This isn't rocket science.

An atheist believing the moon is magical does not make belief in a magical moon a part of atheism. Atheists are people. People believe all kinds of things.

Rather than inventing a world view to place me into, if you want to know what I believe how about you just ask?

When you push logic, it is helpful to realize its origins. Do the laws of logic exist outside of each one of us, or do we make them up?
The laws of logic are things we recognize about reality and serve as the foundation for all coherent thought. They are not proven, they are necessary presuppositions. Any attempt to prove or disprove them requires the use of them so there is literally no way to function without accepting them.

You only have relativism to fall back on in regards to right and wrong.
So do you. Theism does not solve any of the criticisms with regards to mortality that it hurls at atheism.

If you value logic and truth, you should try and understand what is necessary for both in the first place. How does logic come from an atheistic worldview, one that denies God?
Question; is God subject to the laws of logic? Can God created a five sided triangle?

And most atheists value the comfort that comes from their denial of God. It means there is no ultimate accountability for your actions, no ultimate justice.
Let me offer you some advice; stop using this when talking with atheists. It just makes you look ignorant and uninterested in a thoughtful dialog.

I have a far greater grasp on mortality and a far greater appreciation for doing the right thing as an atheist than I ever did as a theist, and there was nothing comforting about leaving theism behind, in fact for many atheists it's the hardest thing they ever did. I didn't choose to give up theism, I was convinced that it was all bunk after being confronted with issues I could no longer pretend made sense. Focus on the logic stuff, psychology is not your strong suit.

That's all I have time for...

19 days later

#1207
Amoranemix
Amoranemix's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 137
1
2
5
Amoranemix's avatar
Amoranemix
1
2
5
PGA2.0 977 to Amoranemix 866
[a] Atheistsusually seek to explain everything through natural means.
[b] That is dealtwith in the is/ought problem and the chance happenstance problem.
[c] Atheism isthe denial of God or gods. You are speaking of deism or polytheism asa worldview.
[d] Can it,though? That is a big assumption on your part that needs proof andreason. Go ahead!
[e] Advantageousin what way? For the animal or pack that might starve, it is eat tosurvive, to hell with the others. The advantage of hunting withothers is mitigated by the principle of the strongest individualssurvive.

[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.
Your previous remarks I addressed in post 1187.
[f] I get it. You don't want to understand how words get their meaning, for that helps your god-belief. You don't understand it, therefore God must have done it. Ignorance is bliss.
You assume there is some universal procedure for giving words their meaning. Why ? Because that allows for God to instigate that procedure.
Since of course there is no such procedure, I cannot answer a question that relies on the assumption that there is. There is no absolute universal way to determine what the word right means. I can tell you general principles of how words get meaning, which you could better learn about yourself since I am not a linguist, but you are not interested in that, because God has nothing to do with it.
I have been telling your several times that regarding moral claims, apparent contradictions are not always real contradictions, but you don't want to know that, for it would rob you of another excuse for god-belief.
You forgot to mention the reference moral standard to avoid clarity (the skeptic's friend).

PGA2.0  247 to zedvictor4
In an atheistic worldview, the atheist still has to account for evil.[76] How do you do that as an atheist?[77] Go ahead, explain how this is done. First, what is the standard by which you, as an atheist, judge evil?[78] Can you answer that? I would like to tear it apart in its unreasonableness.[80] [ . . . ]
[76] So you claim, but can you prove it ?
[77] Atheists don't do that. I do. People noticed the following :
“that which is evil; evil quality, intention, or conduct: to choose the lesser of two evils.
the force in nature that governs and gives [c] rise to wickedness and sin.”
[a] and they decided to call that evil.
[b] Relevance ?
[78] His own standard.
[80] I am sure you would like that. ;)
PGA2.0 1011
[76] I have been arguing all along that I can provide the necessary standard. I have also argued that I do not believe an atheist can. I have continually asked you to show differently. Go ahead!

Anyone else who is reading this (3BRU7AL), please note how once again, as per usual, Amoranemix has avoided the question and passed the buck back to me.[480] This is a standard tactic of an atheist. How has he answered or account for the problem of evil?[481] The quotations in your paragraph, are they your words or are you quoting me?[482] How does "atheists don't do that, I do" answer the problem of evil?[481] You assert your moral standard is capable of judging evil and good.[483] You decide to call something evil. Is that it?[484] How does your personal opinion make something evil?[485] Is it based on the "force of nature?"[486] How is that evil? Things just happen. And how do you get intent from an amoral, mindless happenstance? It makes no sense.[487] Nature does not choose. You are personifying Nature and giving it human qualities.[488] Nature does not govern. Things just happen if there is no intent (i.e., mind) behind Nature.

[a] Some call it evil; others call it good. Once again, there are opposing standards of belief. Which is right? Again, in your worldview, it boils down to opinion.

[b] You seem to think that your subjective opinion determines what is evil. Why are you the standard that I should follow? What makes your subjective thoughts the definition and norm for evil or good?

[c] I almost missed this one. Minds, human beings, are what give rise to evil and sin. Inanimate inorganic objects/things cannot, as you imply (forces of nature governing).[489] We know this experientially. To say the force of Nature governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin has not been proven, but asserted by you. An assertion requires proof/evidence to be justified. Go ahead.[490]

An appeal to your own authority!!![491] Nice! Please explain how you are the expert on morality.[492] Why SHOULD I believe you?[493] Why are you the authority on evil and wickedness?[492] I have already argued you are the wrong one. Can two opposing standards regarding the same thing both be right? So, what makes your opinion better than mine, if that is all morality is based upon?[494]

[76] You are deflecting and shifting the burden of proof again. Thus again your case solely relies on your claim. Claims alone don't make a case. You have to support your claims when challenged, which you cannot.
Also claiming you can support your claims is not the same as supporting them. Claiming you already have supported your claims is also not the same as supporting them.
You continuous inability to support your claims and your reliance on fallacies to hide that fact indicate there is a major, serious issue with your worldview.

[480] You are mistaken, as usual, for I actually answered your question and did not pass it back to you. Why do you keep making false accusations ?
I admit your question was ambiguous. You appeared to be asking for a long essay on the causes of everything considered evil, like earthquakes, disease and crime. I was too lazy to write a long essay on something off topic. So I decided for a relevant interpretation of your question that allows for a short answer, which I gave.
[481] You ASSUME that it was my duty to answer or account for the problem of evil.
[482] Apparently your worldview does not allow you to know what you have written. That seems like a serious handicap.
That definition for evil came from www.dictionary.com.
[483] You are mistaken, for I have never asserted that. Morality includes intention, while evil may not.
[484] No. Language is conventional. The meaning of words is not up to me alone.
[485] It does not, just like your or God's personal opinion doesn't.
[486] No.
[487] Choosing a reality-based worldview would help you make sense of it, but it would come at the cost of God-belief.
[488] You are mistaken again, for I do not do that.

[a] Your question is again ambiguous again. 'Right' could mean 'true' or 'morally right'. In the latter case you 'forgot' to mention the reference moral standard. Please stop trying to cause confusion (the skeptic's enemy).
BTW, there is little disagreement on the meaning of the word evil. Even our favourite villains are unlikely to call disease, earthquakes and crime good.

[b] Again, you assume that I believe the rubbish you want me to believe. I do not. I believe in reality. Language is decided by convention, not by me.

[489] Or so you baldly assert. An assertion requires proof/evidence to be justified. Go ahead.
[490] demands the guy who makes bald assertions like there is no tomorrow.
That has not been asserted by me, but by the dictionary. Ask the authors to prove it.

[491] You are mistaken, as you so often are. I did not appeal to anyone's authority. I answered your question. There is a difference.
[492] Explain it yourself. I never said I was the expert on morality, nor the authority on evil and wickedness.
[493] Regarding what ? It depends on your goals. As I said before : I avoid claiming falsehoods.
[494] Morality is not just based on opinions, but also on reality, which you clearly have much difficulty grasping, the reason being that you needed to remove part of it from your worldview to make room for God.

Again, for clarity : skeptics believe in reality. They do not believe what you want them to.

PGA2.0 258
Nope, He brings judgment on the cultures that inhabited the Promised Land for their wickedness.
Can you prove that the victims of Israelite oppression were wicked ?
PGA2.0 1017
Since you are your own moral compass and final authority, I doubt it. What would you accept since you are the moral standard that morality revolves around, according to you? I can't argue against such a standard. You are always right!!! Or do you build your moral standards on the backs of others??? There is no reasoning that you will accept my reasoning since you have admitted you are the standard.[495]

I can give you historical accounts about the Canaanites and their child sacrifices. It is reasonable to believe they are accurate. If you think not, then present your proofs against such works. The question is, do you, as your own moral compass and final authority of which no greater can be appealed to, think child sacrifice is evil and if not, would you consider sacrificing your own?[496]

[495] So you can't prove your claim. Why ? Not because it is wrong, but because it is just your opinion. You probably meant 'wicked according to God's morality' and consequently your own. Your opinion is that God is the best morility, not because you like the morality, but because you re infatuated with God.

Imagine a neonazi tried to justify the shoah by calling the Jews wicked. How could he convince you that they were wicked, since God is your moral compass and final authority ? What would you accept since God is the moral standard morality revolves around, according to you ? He couldn't argue against such a standard. You are always right! There is no reasoning that you would accept since you have admitted God is the standard.

I dislike God's morality (GM) : it is self-serving might-makes-right morality. Hence I don't care whether someone is wicked according to GM. Presumably Israel's victims did not do as God pleased, like worship him or vacate the land to make room for his chosen people, which according to his morality makes them wicked. Presumably the Canaanites found God wicked, but they were weak and he is mighty, so only his opinion mattered. That is morality you would I suspect normally disapprove of, but need to defend because it unfortunately is your gods morality.
I on the other hand make no exception for Kim Jong-Un, Bashar al Assad or God. To me, a bad morality is bad no matter who holds it.

[496] That is a reasonable approach. Moral arguments are decided, as any argument, by reasoning starting from common ground (or by power, obviously). You rightly assume that I disapprove of child sacrifice. That may be a good reason to qualify the Canaanites as wicked, not God's opinion on the issue.
That they practiced child sacrifice seems plausible. However, that does not justify waging war on them. They were sacrifying children to a fake god. It should have been a peace of cake for a mighty, wise god to coerce them to cease.

Topic's author
#1208
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Amoranemix
You are still going strong, I see. I will be back to this thread when I feel motivated to reply. There is so much stuff to catch up and it will take lots of time to do so. That is something that escapes me at present. Each one of your posts is very detailed. 
#1209
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,624
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Amoranemix
This is an example of God's morality. See what happens when you love God?

The family of a 12-year-old Liberty Bell Middle School student will do today what no family can prepare for — memorialize their child’s life that ended too soon.
Taylor Scout Smith died Sunday from complications from pneumonia, but Kathy Glasgow Oakes, the sister of Taylor’s mother, Ellen Smith, said her niece’s spirit will live on. The youngster had become ill last week, was treated for the flu and then developed pneumonia.
Smith’s aunt said Tuesday the nearly 13-year-old was more of an “old soul” than a pre-teen, but at the same time exhibited the faith of a child.

“She was quirky. She loved God with all of her heart; she was just a very spiritual person,” Oakes said in a phone interview with Taylor’s parents, Tim and Ellen Smith, at her side.
Taylor, strong in her Christian faith, was not afraid to share her love of Christ, Oakes said.
“She was very involved in First Priority at Liberty Bell. It’s a faith-based organization after school which helps students with their faith, living out loud,” Oakes said. Her niece also had a Pinterest page listing all the places she wanted to visit on mission trips.
“She had a deep, deep desire to go around the world with missions. Her heart was to go on mission trips,” Oakes said.

7 days later

Topic's author
#1210
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Amoranemix
Well, after much perseverance and the desire to continue to unmask your yards of relativism and insensibility concerning morality, I think I have arrived at where I left off. Back to the topic soon. I will be starting afresh on Post 953. 
#1211
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
1200 posts and still mischaracterizing atheists and atheism?  Tsk, tsk...

You know, there is a commandment in your holy book against bearing false witness. So much for the superiority of that 'absolute, fixed reference point'! :-) 

Rather than pitting one group against another, I think a thread on the nature of morality would be much more productive. I think you'll find atheists (if you allow yourself to be informed by something outside your own head) are not a moral monolith, and I'm certain that is true of theists.

Topic's author
#1212
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
1200 posts and still mischaracterizing atheists and atheism?  Tsk, tsk...
I am not mischaracterizing atheists or atheism. You are playing a shell game here. Just because you can characterize me as mischaracterizing atheism does not make it so. You believe the assertion proves your point. Meanwhile, I have been asking you and others to demonstrate that morality, from an atheist perspective, shows you have a reasonable foundation to hang values upon. You don't have one, neither can you show you have one. All you can do is to express a preference, what you or a/the group like.  Why is your preference better than others that oppose yours? What makes it right? I can show nations (like Nazi Germany, North Korea, China, Russia) that were/are controlled by a small number of people who manipulate the rest into what they like. These countries continually demonstrate what we call injustices (in the West or by the American standard) by how they treat people. Would you like to live there? What is your objective, absolute, unchanging reference point from which you derive right and wrong? Why can you say theirs is worse if it is not fixed? Because of your own preferences or your groups? Again, what makes that better? You don't have one because there is no best. You make it up depending on what you like or are railroaded by those who decide what you will like. I could point to most societies and cultures, groups and subgroups, and individuals who exhibit a changing system of morality. For instance, what is the right view of abortion, the one presently held or held fifty or so years ago in the USA before Roe V Wade? If it is changing, and it is, how can you arrive at a better? Better than what? In reference to what? 

As I explained, with quantitative values, there is a fixed reference point. We can measure a length by a standard that does not change. We can be precise in building something because we have such a system of reference. How so with morality, a qualitative value system. What is your final reference point for values? IT IS SHIFTING. You can't demonstrate you have any fixed reference point. You don't have what is necessary to have such a standard. That is because of where you begin, without God. That is because of how you tackle the problem. You can't make sense of it or offer a reasonable solution. 

Again, the law of identity states that A=A. Good =  good. Good cannot be bad. 

You know, there is a commandment in your holy book against bearing false witness. So much for the superiority of that 'absolute, fixed reference point'! :-) 
Demonstrate to me that I am bearing false witness. You don't like that I am telling you like it is, so you attack me instead of my points. How many times have I asked atheists to show me what they believe makes sense without having my questions answered. Your system of thought or worldview does not have what is necessary to make sense of existence, the Universe, or morality - the big or ultimate questions of life. You ride on the coattails of Christianity in that you borrow from it when you want to make sense of things. You say rape is wrong, so is murder, yet evolution does not care one iota about right or wrong. Those who survive and adapt are strong (survival of the fittest). If that means killing all those who oppose you (Kim Jong-un, Hitler, Mao, Tito, Stalin, Khomeini, Kim Il-Sung, Castro, Pol Pot, Sadam Hussein), so be it. If that means getting everyone to follow your preferences, then so be it.  

Rather than pitting one group against another, I think a thread on the nature of morality would be much more productive. I think you'll find atheists (if you allow yourself to be informed by something outside your own head) are not a moral monolith, and I'm certain that is true of theists.
A moral monolith! Wow! Truth? Two opposing worldviews on a particular subject logically both cannot be right. Either you, me, or neither, are right on the subject of morality. We state opposites. I say, let's open the can of worms and see what holds each position together to see which one makes more sense or any sense. That is the object of this thread. I want to see which worldview makes sense of morality, and I keep demonstrating yours can't. It does not have what is necessary. It has a faulty foundation that crumbles when light is shone on it. 
#1213
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
Wow! 682 words in response to a few words of mine! 

Listen - once you've been told by people that your description of their position is innacurate, it becomes dishonest to continue using that description. You've got a script where atheists are always the bad guys. You ignore refutation and recycle beaten arguments. Its all about the performance rather than the substance.

At this point, its pure dishonesty. Of course, I'm sure lying for god isn't really "lying" through some sketchy justification you use to rationalize it... (but it is!).

The fact that this thread is still alive 1200 posts later is because you cannot admit error - it would undermine your pretense at absolute (and unreasonable) certainty and hurt your outsized pride. 

I wish better for you, my friend.


#1214
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@PGA2.0
I won't respond if you do - just to be clear

Please get this through your head - the only thing that atheists have in common is that they don't believe in gods. That's literally it. It would be like trying to characterize all people who don't own a dog as anything aside from people who don't own dogs. 
Topic's author
#1215
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
Wow! 682 words in response to a few words of mine! 

Listen - once you've been told by people that your description of their position is innacurate, it becomes dishonest to continue using that description. You've got a script where atheists are always the bad guys. You ignore refutation and recycle beaten arguments. Its all about the performance rather than the substance.

At this point, its pure dishonesty. Of course, I'm sure lying for god isn't really "lying" through some sketchy justification you use to rationalize it... (but it is!).

The fact that this thread is still alive 1200 posts later is because you cannot admit error - it would undermine your pretense at absolute (and unreasonable) certainty and hurt your outsized pride. 

I wish better for you, my friend.
Wow! More assertations with little substance. Not a question tackled. Typical. 

18 words compared to 125 of yours.
#1216
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
Wow! More assertations with little substance. Not a question tackled. Typical. 

18 words compared to 125 of yours.
Short and sweet - love it!

We've already been through your script earlier in the thread. No need to travel those paths again. 
Topic's author
#1217
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Theweakeredge
I won't respond if you do - just to be clear

Please get this through your head - the only thing that atheists have in common is that they don't believe in gods. That's literally it. It would be like trying to characterize all people who don't own a dog as anything aside from people who don't own dogs. 
More allegations and no substance. 

There is a difference between "been told by people that your description of their position is inaccurate" and proving it. What that kind of charged rhetoric does is shift the burden of proof and accountability away from atheism and back to Christianity. Each system should be able to take care of its own burden. Once a charge is laid against Christianity, and I respond by demonstrating the objectivity of Christianity and the relativism of the other system, then discuss, ask, plead with atheists to explain what is necessary, with no reply from them, that is not a fair exchange. 

What you have in common with all atheists is you look for another way to explain everything other than a God or gods. You deny this God in your explanations without justification since you can't make sense of things. That includes your stance on morality. You have to explain why your way of looking at morality is sound and valid. You dismally fail to do that. Instead, you and others use all kinds of deceptive tricks to avoid accountability to what you believe.  On the other hand, I give reasons why I believe objective, absolute, unchanging moral values are necessary for morality and where those values would have to come from, and why Christianity fits the bill. 
Topic's author
#1218
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
Wow! More assertations with little substance. Not a question tackled. Typical. 

18 words compared to 125 of yours.
Short and sweet - love it!

We've already been through your script earlier in the thread. No need to travel those paths again. 
More assertions, no proof. And you never adequately explain why what you believe is justifiable or reasonable. Short enough for you, Skep? 
Topic's author
#1219
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
And you think my posts are long. Take a look at Amoranemix. It takes a lot of effort to respond to each one of his posts, but at least he gives more substance than you do. He is willing to answer some of my questions too.   
#1220
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
I've answered all relevant questions. I can't help if you don't like the answers.

As for Amoranemix, he has much more patience than I do. He is a better person than me in that way. :-)

Topic's author
#1221
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Amoranemix
Post 953:

After all this time, you still are combining words. You must have a glitch in your copying and pasting. I have to separate the contexts of others in your posts. Alternatively, I leave them and show others the lack of care taken in preserving the contexts of others as to the clarity. 

@PGA2.0
I'll assume that when you talk about having what is necassary, you mean necessary for the existence of morality.
Of course.

If morality is relative, how can you say something is right? All you can do is enforce a preference or say I like this therefore, it is good in my estimation, whatever good means to you. 

In the mean time I noticed you keep systematically omitting to mention the reference moral standard to avoid clarity (the skeptic's friend).
I have made it clear many times in the past that the ONLY moral standard I believe is justifiable is God, and by God, I mean the Judeo-Christian God.

The only thing that is "necessary" for moral principles to be considered true is CONSENSUS.
PGA2.0 449
So Hitler was right in killing over six million Jews, correct? After all, theGermans were indoctrinated into thinking the Jew was not as human as the majority of Germans.
That there was consensus in German society about the Shoah is debatable. [a] In addition, the little consensus there was, was based largely on misinformation. [b] Morever, there is no true consensus, because we are disagreeing with it.
[c] Choose an example of moral principles in a society there was consensus around and that we approve of, so that there is true consensus. Then tell whether these can be considered true.
[a] There was enough of a consensus to permit the extermination of 11-12 million undesirables through means of propaganda and group-think. It shows you what can happen when people (those in control) do not recognize a moral absolute system of values then gain control; anything goes. The elite controls the masses and determines what will and will not be permissible. How is that just unless there is a fixed standard of appeal? Can you answer that?

[b] Even if you disagree, what makes it any more right than their thoughts on morality? If there is no absolute fixed reference point/standard, what makes what you think any "better" than what I think? What makes Hitler's Germany any "better" than F.D R's or Truman's USA. It would just be a matter of opinion and the might to enforce that opinion. That is why I question why you can say Hitler's Germany is any better than F.D.R's America. It's just a matter of opinion. Opinion makes nothing right unless that opinion conforms to what is right. If there is no such thing as right, just preference, how can you say something is right?  All you can do is say, "I like it!" Preference does not equate to right. 

[c] I could choose consensus for most - murder, but what makes consensus right? The consensus during WWII of most Germans was that Jews were subhuman, less human than the rest. That does not make their consensus right. 

Wouldn't thegod($) be able to forgive such a frail worm?
PGA2.0 457
How does thatmeet the requirements of justice? Will a good judge wink at evil?Will he dismiss it as insignificant/unimportant? How would that begood? A person suffered injustice, lost their lives, and there is nopenalty???
[a] In Kim Jong Un's North Korea justice demands that those who criticize The Great Leader be sent to reeducation camps. [b] A good judge there will not dismiss a transgression like that as insignificant or unimportant. [c] How would that be good? [d] A person suffered injustice, was chided, and there would be no penalty?!
[a] The same could be argued for China. 

[b] A transgression like what? Those who transgress their leader, their ultimate source of authority? Good in whose relative standard and why should it be believed? Might makes the right does not make anything right; it just makes it mandatory to do. A judge who went against Kim Jong-Un would likely be terminated. 

[c] Only if there was a fixed standard that transcends his or Kim Jong-uns thoughts about the "good" or "right" they were following. Anything can be called good/right, but is it? 

[d] The structure of your thought is unclear as to what you really mean here in the construction of your paragraph. I can take it two ways. Re-education camps are more than chiding, nor is it good. It is mind-control and a definite penalty, but if everything is relative, why is my opinion any better than yours? It's not unless what I believe meets a universal, unchanging standard of righteousness.  

PGA2.0 478 to SkepticalOne
[ . . . ] Also,all human life is created in the image and likeness of God, thereforeit is God's right to give and take life (human beings are only givena short time on this earth to come to or reject God), not ours. Thereare also numerous verses I could employ to show that God values theunborn human being.
Assuming that human life were created in the image of God, how would it follow that God has the right to give and take it ?
If you create something, do you have the right to do with it what you want? The difference between you and God is that God will not take an innocent life without restoring it to a better place. Human life is limited because of the Fall. 

[ . . . ], she should be allowed to kill another human being because she no longer wants to take responsibility?
Don't misrepresent my argument, please. You make it seem as if I am advocating for the woman taking the life f the unborn. I have never supported that position 

It's a lot like people who are deported back into hostile territory after fleeing for their lives.
PGA2.0 490
I believe you are not being serious about what the unborn is. Let me ask you again - Is it okay to kill innocent human beings? Can you answer that simple question? Stop skirting the issue.
What eludes you, presumably because that is impossible in your fictional worldview, is that it is possible to be both guilty and innocent (an apparent contradiction), namely innocent of one thing and guilty of another. Hence, whether it is OK to kill an innocent human, would depend on the circumstances.
It does not elude me. How can an unborn human being, who has done no wrong be both guilty and innocent? What have they done that is wrong, then? 

So, you are advocating that it is okay to take the life of an innocent human being without the capability of restoring it. Okay, you first. Now how do you like your choice? You see, you can't live with such a choice yet you want to be able to foster it on others. How nice of you!
Topic's author
#1222
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
I've answered all relevant questions. I can't help if you don't like the answers.

As for Amoranemix, he has much more patience than I do. He is a better person than me in that way. :-)
I do not believe you made sense of morality, and I have expressed as much with my arguments. If you want to get specific in your claims, please do so.

Evolution is not something that determines morals. It doesn't comprehend anything. It is a term used by particular worldviews to describe the upward chain of events resulting in morality. There is no intent, purpose, or design behind it. Whatever happens, happens. Why you think that makes something right is beyond me. You cannot demonstrate anything but relativism, although you claim otherwise. You claim objective morality can exist outside of God. How you get objective morality from relative human beings is beyond me. All you get is preference based on like and dislike. There is nothing good about that unless there is an unchanging, eternal standard of right and wrong. That standard is not you or me. Thus, I fail to see how you can make sense of morality. The bottom line, you can't, and you have not demonstrated you can.   
#1223
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
Great examples of mischaracterization and recycled arguments.

Topic's author
#1224
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
Great examples of mischaracterization and recycled arguments.
BS. These are arguments you failed to give a satisfactory answer to, so I continue to rehash them, hoping someone will tackle them. Amoranemix is the only one to give a decent rebuttal, and I see all kinds of flaws with his thinking, but I haven't read all his posts yet. 
#1225
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,083
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@PGA2.0
In simple terms, a "satisfactory argument", would be no argument.

In real terms, there are no arguments that satisfy the question.
Topic's author
#1226
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@zedvictor4
In simple terms, a "satisfactory argument", would be no argument.

In real terms, there are no arguments that satisfy the question.
No, a satisfactory argument would give good reasons and logic to explain a counterpoint. It would share the burden of proof for its assertions. One of the questions is how can good be known if everything is relative and changing? If a person, such as Skep, is a proponent of objective morality, he needs to explain what it entails and how he reaches such conclusions. Instead, you guys play shell games and redirect the focus. I have already expounded upon some of the problems, what I believe is necessary for morality, necessary to make sense of morality. Your systems of belief do not satisfy such criteria. I keep insisting you guys cannot justify morality as anything but from might makes right and preference (which makes nothing right unless it conforms to a standard that is right and does not change). You never try to justify but sneak around having such a discussion. Why SHOULD I believe what you're selling? No good reason at all. 

There is an argument that satisfies the question of morality. That is an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, eternal, immutable Being. Such a Being as described in the Bible meets the criterion, and the Bible gives many proofs or evidence of His existence. Inside and outside the Bible, morality is one area of evidence for God. Inside the Bible, prophecy is another. Making sense of existence is a third. Making sense of the universe is a fourth. The list goes on... 

This thread covers the one area --> Morality.
#1227
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
BS. These are arguments you failed to give a satisfactory answer to, so I continue to rehash them, hoping someone will tackle them.
Fortunately for me, you are not the arbiter of 'satisfactory answers'. I revisited the thread and perused my answer/arguments.  They are clear enough to sway any who is reasonable.
#1228
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
If a person, such as Skep, is a proponent of objective morality, he needs to explain what it entails and how he reaches such conclusions. 
It is time you update your description of my views to match my actual views.  This is part of the mischaracterization I mentioned above.

Hint: I am not a proponent of objective morality.

#1229
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,083
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@PGA2.0
Morality is variable and subjective, though for some (see above) morality has an inevitability.


Nonetheless, the argument has two phases of appreciation...The construction and output, and the input and assessment.

Satisfaction can be threefold......Both protagonists can be satisfied with personal output, and might also reach agreement.

Though, as is generally the case with religion forum arguments, agreement is not reached........So although both protagonists remain satisfied....The argument will never amount to a satisfactory agreement or conclusion.

So a perfectly satisfactory argument, would be one that appeased both protagonists and reached an agreeable conclusion.....No argument.

Whereas no agreement, even when both protagonists are satisfied with personal output, will inevitably  leave the question unsatisfied.
Topic's author
#1230
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
-bIf a person, such as Skep, is a proponent of objective morality, he needs to explain what it entails and how he reaches such conclusions. 
It is time you update your description of my views to match my actual views.  This is part of the mischaracterization I mentioned above.

Hint: I am not a proponent of objective morality.

My mistake. You pick a standard you like (your well-being or a standard you agree with), apply it to others as to what should be adopted (in your subjective opinion), and then believe morality can be objectively determined by it. Why is your preference morally right? You can't say it is, only that you like it. Human well-being in whose opinion? Yours. There are probably millions or perhaps billions of people out there that will disagree with your idea of moral well-being as soon as they or their families existence is threatened, then it becomes "may the 'best' human survive and I hope it is me, my family!" in as much as they can determine best without a final, fixed reference point.

YOU: "With human well-being as a standard, we can objectively determine moral views which coincide with it." Post 479

Not a proponent of objective morality? How can you say anything is good? You can't. YOU CAN'T MAKE SENSE OF IT without borrowing from a system of thought that has a fixed, unchanging standard. All you can say is I don't like this or that. I reminded you and others before that if goodness or righteousness has no fixed, unchanging address/reference point, anything can be passed off as "good" or "right." Not only that, goodness or righteousness loses its identity, the law of identity in logic (A = A). I also pointed out to you and others that with such a relative worldview, how do you ever get "better?" Better than what? What do you hold better against? You don't have a best. You are always trying to attain this exclusive thought.