Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?

Author: PGA2.0

Posts

Total: 1,638
#1231
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
Peter, you are running to the script again, but it does no good. It has already been shown that:

1. A fixed, unchanging reference point is not required to navigate through the world. Magnetic north is not fixed; the rules of chess are arbitrary - yet we can determine a good direction or a good move. The moral landscape is no different. 

2. You yourself cannot show you have a fixed, unchanging reference point:
  • If the god of the Bible were real, he would not be unchanging (unless he still condoned slavery, genocide, and a world absent rainbows). Plus, even if the god of the Bible were immutable, his existence can't be established.
  • If the god of the Bible were not real (which I believe to be the case), you are relying on your own interpretation of the words of bronze-age humans - definitely unfixed and subject to change.
Your position crumbled at least 600 posts ago. Running back to the same beaten arguments/script won't resuscitate it.
#1232
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,624
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@PGA2.0

It is definitely Atheism.  Atheism leads to Humanism, where Theism led to Hitler making belt buckles for his troops that said: "God is with Us."





#1233
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
If two people believe murder is wrong how is one more moral than the other. 
#1234
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@FLRW
Every theist is Hitler? Seems if that were true you wouldn't be posting here cause you would be dead. Considering the number of Hilters floating around. 
#1235
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,624
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
 “Allahu Akbar” (God is the Greatest) !
#1236
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@FLRW
So we aren't Hitler now but all religious-political terrorists.
Topic's author
#1237
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@FLRW
It is definitely Atheism.  Atheism leads to Humanism, where Theism led to Hitler making belt buckles for his troops that said: "God is with Us."
Hitler was a humanist. He did not look to the Christian God but fashioned God in his own likeness by borrowing what he wanted to from the Christian religion. 
#1238
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
Hitler was a humanist. He did not look to the Christian God but fashioned God in his own likeness by borrowing what he wanted to from the Christian religion. 

"I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord’s work.” 

Mein Kampf - Adolf Hitler

Hitler was a humanist? What definition of humanism are you using?


#1239
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,624
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@PGA2.0
Hitler was a humanist. He did not look to the Christian God but fashioned God in his own likeness by borrowing what he wanted to from the Christian religion. 
That is true, Hitler believed that Christ was a mixed-blood; he who was born, according to the Führer, from a Roman soldier and a Palestinian prostitute named Mary.
Topic's author
#1240
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
Peter, [a] you are running to the script again, but it does no good. It has already been shown that:

1. [b] A fixed, unchanging reference point is [c] not required to navigate through the world. [d] Magnetic north is not fixed; [e] the rules of chess are arbitrary - [f] yet we can determine a good direction or a good move. The moral landscape is no different. 

2. [g] You yourself cannot show you have a fixed, unchanging reference point:
  • [h] If the god of the Bible were real, he would not be unchanging [i] (unless he still condoned slavery, genocide, and a world absent rainbows). [j] Plus, even if the god of the Bible were immutable, his existence can't be established.
  • [k] If the god of the Bible were not real (which I believe to be the case), [l] you are relying on your own interpretation of the words of bronze-age humans - [m] definitely unfixed and subject to change.
[n] Your position crumbled at least 600 posts ago. Running back to the same beaten arguments/script won't resuscitate it.
[a] You are trying to create the script of narrative you want me to run to, Skep. 

[b] When you base morality on what is the case, rather than what you make it (preference), it is. When you make it (preference), many others want to make it the exact opposite. It brings up the question of who is actually right regarding the good or right. You lose the identity of the right if it is not fixed and unchanging. I pointed out to you that this is what you witness in cultures when God is jettisoned. I pointed out to someone here that up until 1973, abortion was considered wrong, in most cases, a moral evil. Now, in most cases, it is considered the right. What changed? How can it be both right and wrong? Which is its true identity (A=A)? 

[c] Yes, it is. Who are you to tell others it is not required. Who made you God? You are not God. You are just like me, a limited, frail, relative human being who can't point to what SHOULD be once you kill the fixed, unchanging necessary standard. 

[d] Magnetic north is not true north, although it points in that direction and helps us find it.  

[e] The rules of chess apply to that game. If you don't follow them, you are not playing chess. 

[f] Good, in relation to what? You have to have a fixed point of reference to establish the relationship. True north is the fixed point. The game of chess is the fixed point. Unless you establish the relationship, you can't build on the rest. Quantitative values have a fixed standard. We know one foot is not one foot one inch. We can measure off a measurement of a foot because we have a standard. It does not change. One foot is one foot. With qualitative values, you also need a fixed standard or reference point. 

[g] I can. I can't show that to your satisfaction. That is the nature of a skeptic. You never get to the finish point or make up your finish point, which does not necessarily coincide with mine. 

[h]  He does not change. 

[I] God never condoned the slavery practiced in Eygpt. I have gone over your tired point plenty of times.  

[j] It can, just never, never to your satisfaction. You can't establish His existence to someone who denies it, not until you die. Then you will have your just reward, Skep!
I can establish His existence on the impossibility of the contrary and the necessity of Him existing, and that is the way I conduct my posts. I say, Skep, make sense of morality by denying such a God. You can't. All you can do is shout louder than me in the hopes of drowning out my points. I believe I asked you once why I should believe what you are peddling. Why should I believe you have the answers, Skep? You have given me no reason that you do. I quiz you on many things that you are in the dark over. Do you think you are that much more knowledgeable than me? You are not. And knowledge without wisdom produces moral atrocities. 

[k] Again, I don't trust your silly beliefs. You don't have what is necessary for me to trust them. 

[l] I can justify my interpretations based on the written word. That is my plumbline, not what you think. If you want to persuade me otherwise, do it from a biblical perspective. In our debates on eschatology, I pointed out how you change the wording to fit your narrative instead of exegeting the passages. You make "this generation" into a generic generation far removed from the text. You do the same with "this age." And when I asked you to justify your position by the text, you can't. You treat specific people Jesus is addressing as a generic "you." That turns the text on its head. You absolutely butch the text and turn it into a pretext. 

[m] The Bible is fixed. We have a text from early Christianity that is translated from koine Greek to different languages. Greek to Latin; Greek to Italian; Greek to English. 

[n] The same old narrative from you. You never sufficiently addressed them. Thus, I continue to repeat them until you do. 
Topic's author
#1241
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
If two people believe murder is wrong how is one more moral than the other. 
Believing something does not necessarily make it so. I could believe I could fly. You could believe it too and encourage me to fly away. You could suggest I climb to the top of the Empire State Building and fly away. Does that mean I can fly? Just hoping I can, or you want me to, does not make it so. 

It is a question of whether or not murder is wrong. Only then can the two be right.

More to the problem is who says? During WWII, Hitler killed 11-12 million undesirables. Was that wrong? Who says if morality changes? Who says when two opposite viewpoints collide? Hitler could justify killing six million Jews. Why was that wrong if murder is only a relative preference? It would depend on who was in power to the rightness or wrongness of an act. And that is what we see when people jettison God. Everything becomes relative. 
Topic's author
#1242
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
Hitler was a humanist. He did not look to the Christian God but fashioned God in his own likeness by borrowing what he wanted to from the Christian religion. 

"I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord’s work.” 

Mein Kampf - Adolf Hitler

Hitler was a humanist? What definition of humanism are you using?
Not the Christian Lord. What he said and did were two different things. Anyone can profess Jesus Christ as Lord. By reading his literature, it is obvious he did not follow the Christ of Scripture but his own made-up version that could justify him dehumanizing, discriminating against, and killing millions of people.

I am using the definition in which people make up their own human values based on being human. He was not using the Judeo-Christian value system. He was giving lip service to Christianity while undermining it in everything he did. He wanted to dedicate Mein Kampf to Darwin, but Darwin wanted none of it because Hitler was applying social Darwinism.  

noun
a person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity.
a person devoted to or versed in the humanities.
a student of human nature or affairs.
a classical scholar.
#1243
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Wow! Who wound you up?
#1244
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@PGA2.0
What does flying have to do with a post on murder. And any confusion you have on the morality of murder is not a theist issue that's your own personal problem.
#1245
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
[a] You are trying to create the script of narrative you want me to run to, Skep. 
If you say so! ;-)

[b] When you base morality on what is the case, rather than what you make it (preference), it is. When you make it (preference), many others want to make it the exact opposite. It brings up the question of who is actually right regarding the good or right. You lose the identity of the right if it is not fixed and unchanging. I pointed out to you that this is what you witness in cultures when God is jettisoned. I pointed out to someone here that up until 1973, abortion was considered wrong, in most cases, a moral evil. Now, in most cases, it is considered the right. What changed? How can it be both right and wrong? Which is its true identity (A=A)? 
First, abortion was not considered (exclusively) wrong before 1973. In fact, In American history abortion has been legal for longer than it has been illegal. Secondly, law is not the same thing as morals. Finally, for it to be a violation of the Law of identity it would need to be right AND wrong at the same time and context. That is not the case. 

[c] Yes, it is. Who are you to tell others it is not required. Who made you God? You are not God. You are just like me, a limited, frail, relative human being who can't point to what SHOULD be once you kill the fixed, unchanging necessary standard. 
I guess you don't see the irony in rejecting a 'requirement' because I'm "not God" while asserting your own requirements... even though you're not god either!

Besides that, I've required nothing of you or anyone else. I've highlighted parts of reality which demonstrate a fixed, unchangeable standard is unnecessary. Divinity is not required for observation.

[d] Magnetic north is not true north, although it points in that direction and helps us find it.  
"True North" is an arbitrary standard also.  Magnetic north guides us in the general direction of something we decided was important. This isn't helping your case.

[e] The rules of chess apply to that game. If you don't follow them, you are not playing chess. 
Morality is applicable to human well being.  If human well-being isn't a consideration, then you're not talking about morality.

[f] [...] Quantitative values have a fixed standard. We know one foot is not one foot one inch. We can measure off a measurement of a foot because we have a standard.
...another arbitrary standard. We have many many units for length - currently and throughout history.  Again, this isn't helping your case.

[g] I can. I can't show that to your satisfaction. That is the nature of a skeptic. You never get to the finish point or make up your finish point, which does not necessarily coincide with mine. 
You can't show a fixed, unchanging reference point is necessary ...to a reasonable standard OR to my satisfaction.

[h]  He does not change. 
If you say so! ;-)

[I] God never condoned the slavery practiced in Eygpt. I have gone over your tired point plenty of times.  
Egypt is a red herring. Per the Bible, slavery is codified (as condoned by Yahweh) and in practice before the Hebrews entered Egypt.

[j] It can, just never, never to your satisfaction. [...]
It is not about establishing god 'to my satisfaction'. It's about establishing god to a reasonable standard of proof -  and no one, including the great PGA 2.0, has been able to do that.

[k] Again, I don't trust your silly beliefs.
The feeling is mutual. ;-)

[l] I can justify my interpretations based on the written word.
You can justify your interpretations based on your interpretations of the Bible?  That sounds like a *well-rounded* (pun intended) methodology.

[m] The Bible is fixed. We have a text from early Christianity that is translated from koine Greek to different languages. Greek to Latin; Greek to Italian; Greek to English. 
You have no idea how closely the books of the Bible match the original text - there are no original texts. At best, you can say the Bible is approximate...like magnetic north.  :-O

[n] The same old narrative from you. You never sufficiently addressed them.

If you say so! ;-)





#1246
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
Not the Christian Lord.  What he said and did were two different things. Anyone can profess Jesus Christ as Lord. By reading his literature, it is obvious he did not follow the Christ of Scripture but his own made-up version that could justify him dehumanizing, discriminating against, and killing millions of people.
Hitler didn't live up to your expectations of a Christian. Okay - I'm glad for that. But he did claim to be Christian.

Hitler was a humanist? What definition of humanism are you using?
a person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity.
Hitler was not a humanist....and he never claimed to be so far as I can tell.  


If you're going to try to shame by association, you should probably make sure your own group wasn't the ones associated....or avoid fallacies altogether.
#1247
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,359
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
@PGA2.0
#1248
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Lemming
Reddit: the authoritative source for Hitler gossip.  ;-)
#1249
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,359
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
DebateArt: the authoritative source for Hitler gossip.  ;-)
#1250
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Lemming
DebateArt: the authoritative source for Hitler *debate*.  

I mean...its in the name of the site!! Lol

#1251
Amoranemix
Amoranemix's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 137
1
2
5
Amoranemix's avatar
Amoranemix
1
2
5
-->
@PGA2.0

Why is yourpreference significant if there are not absolute, objectivestandards, like with atheism?[*] Maybe you don't like it, but whatmakes 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?
Since errors sneaked into my previous response in post 1192, here is the corrected version :

[*] So, if Christianity is true, then
- Atheist believe there is no universal, etcetera morality and they would be wrong. (0 points)
- Christians believe there is a universal etcetera morality and they would be right. (1 point)
- Atheist believe their morality is a preference and they would be right. (1 point)
- Christians believe their morality is from a true, universal, etcetera source and they could be right. (1 generous point)
Score : atheists 1  –  2 Christians

If atheism is true, then
- Atheist believe there is no universal, etcetera morality and they would be right. (1 point)
- Christians believe there is a universal etcetera morality and they would be wrong. (0 points)
- Atheist believe their morality is a preference and they would be right. (1 point)
- Christians believe their morality is from a universal etcetera source and they would be wrong. (0 point)
Score : atheists 2  –  0 Christians

Hence, on average, atheists score better.

[**] You forgot to answer my question.

[a] Even after your embellishments, [b] I still dislike the biblical god's morality and justice, [c] as I suspect do most people who are not infatuated with him. [d] Assuming God's existence (something yet to be proven), [e] why should those people adopt God's morality and justice [f] i.s.o just relying on their own ?
All these great, subjective attributes you praise God with, [g] presumably reflect your and God's personal opinions, but [h] why should people who find the guy a powerhungry, immature jerk, worship the him ?
PGA2.0 1017
[a] It is reasonable to believe based on the biblical accounts. If you think otherwise, then present your arguments instead of just asserting once again.[497] Why should I value your assertions? That is all you present. I gave you a reasoned argument.[498] Show otherwise from a biblical perspective since we are speaking about the Bible.

[b] Ah! Your dislike! Coming from no greater authority than you who crafts morality in your own likeness and preference, there is no point in further discussion since you think what you believe is the moral right without justification. You just state it, and that makes it moral to you.

[c] Rather than infatuated with you, such as I witness with 3BRU7AL.

[d] I can and have given you reasoned evidence for His existence. Can you give a more reasonable argument against His existence?[499] That is the point of this thread.[500] I can also show you how prophecy is a reasonable proof and from the information available from history a better explanation and reasoning than I believe you or others can present.[501] If you think otherwise, then put your money where your mouth is and show otherwise instead of making assertions.[502] You can open another thread on the topic of prophecy if you like?

[e] If the biblical God's morality is evil in your opinion - you shall not murder, lie/bear false witness, steal, covet what is not yours, commit adultery, you shall honour your parents, then what is yours? What do you propose? You shall murder, lie/bear false witness, steal, covet things belonging to others, commit adultery, dishonour your parents. Is that your moral standard that you want others to adopt??

Then the question becomes why should I believe you, a relative, limited, subjective being who thinks their moral standard, the one they make up, is the actual good, the actual right.[503]

[f] Show me your own has what is necessary for morality and is not just a subjective opinion that has nothing to fix morality on that is not shifting and changing.[504] Show me you have a real unchanging best to compare better with. With quantitative values, I can show you the actual standard of best measures  and what we compare better with when there is a dispute.[505] How does your qualitative standard have such a comparison?[506] You say you are the standard that better is measured against.[507] Why should I believe that you, a relative, subjective, limited in your thinking being, can provide such a necessary standard, especially when you can't even justify why abortion is right when I believe it is wrong. You are masquerading as a standard that should be trusted, aren't you? If not, why do you believe what you do? You do not fool me, although you may fool others.[508]

[g] [ . . . ]

[h] First, you grossly misrepresent the biblical God or what is revealed about such a God.[509] Your own prejudice gets in the way of thinking this through, IMO. The biblical God reveals He rewards the innocent but justly judges the wicked.[510] That is what you read in the pages of the OT. I could cite you many examples but do not wish to document them now. You see that God identifies the wickedness and then brings judgment on it. Jesus says that the kingdom of heaven belongs to little children - those pure of wrong actions. You see how God brings to life in a better place those who are innocent. You witness humanity's inhumanity, and you continually blame a God who you deny.[511] Go figure??? It makes no sense.
[497] Your fallacy of choice : shifting the burden of proof. That your embellishments are reasonable to believe based on biblical accounts is your claim, so you prove it.
[498] What assertions ? A reasoned argument for what ?

[b] You and God like God's morality! Coming from no greater authority than God who crafts morality to his own liking and preference. You and God think that what you believe is the moral right without justification. You just state it, and that makes it moral to you.
A difference is that I realize the limitations of my morality and presumably God does as well of his, but you do not.
Another difference is my preferences are for the moral principles themselves, regardless of who issues them.

[d] [499] Yes, I can, but I dont' have to. No evidence against a supernatural entity is required in order to not assume its existence. In addition, the fact that Christians are unable to come up with decent evidence despite the motive and resources available, is strong evidence against God's existence.
[500] You are mistaken, as you too often are. This thread is not about whether God exists. Read the OP to discover what this thread is about.
[501] You claim you can prove things, but I know better.
[502] What assertions are you talking about ? You are again avoiding clarity (the Christian's enemy).
When you make a bald assertion, I challenge it in my response to it and point out what assertion I am challenging, to promote clarity (the skeptic's friend).

[e] Stop pretending to be stupid. Me disliking God's alleged morality does not mean I disagree with everything about it.
I don't propose anything, but I prefer well-being based morality.
So, you can provide no good reason, even if God were to exist, for someone not infatuated with God to adopt GM. What a surprise !
[503] You have committed another loaded question fallacy, for I have never said my moral standard is the actual good, the actual right. You on the other hand have asserted yours is. Go ahead and prove your assertion.

[f] [504] Your fallacy of choice is the straw man, for I have not said my moral standard has what is necessary for morality.
An excessive reliance on fallacies in an indication of a deficient worldview.
[505] Notice that the standard of weights and measures was actually decided by humans by convention. God had nothing to do with it. Humans did not do the same for morality, but you claim God did. So, go ahead. Prove God's moral standard is indeed the standard agreed upon by convention.
[506] It does not and neither does the international standard of weights and measures. This again illustrates how you assume controversial aspects of you worldview to base this discussion on. Constructive debates are based on agreed upon assumptions, not on the assumptions merely convenient to one side.
[507] I am sure you would have liked me to say that. Alas, I do not.
That whole [f] paragraph is arguing against a perversion of my worldview. My worldview allows me to explain why you straw man it. Does your worldview also allow for such an explanation ?
[508] You are fooling yourself.

[g] That is again a pile of off topic rubbish. Dude, I don't believe the falsehoods you want me to believe or say. I believe in reality and say true things.

[h] [509] Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?
[510] Their innocence and wickedness are decided by God's personal, self-serving moral standard, what you omitted to mention to promote confusion (the skeptic's enemy). You like God's personal standards because you are infatuated with God and God likes them because he is selfish. Other people have different preferences and that those preferences don't meet your personal criteria is irrelevant. Again, you fail to provide those people good reasons to adopt God's standards. You just assume that because you and God like your criteria, everyone must like them.
[511] You are mistaken again. You want me to continously blame God for humanity's inhumanity, but alas, I do not.

#1252
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
Wow! Who wound you up?
please be slightly more specific

7 days later

Topic's author
#1253
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Amoranemix
Is deportation"murder" when it directly leads to someone's death?
PGA2.0 490
Again, you are changing the subject. It is called deflecting.
Aha, that is what is called what you continuously did in our debate on debate.org : deflection.
He never answered my question but changed the subject, then accused me of deflecting a decade earlier without supplying the evidence. 

Not only that, his example was very generic. Who was murdered after being deported? 

PGA2.0 491 to 3RU7AL
So you are discriminating against some innocent human beings because of their development??? Would it be okay to discriminate against you if your IQ was not as great as another? How about discrimination against a female toddler or infant because she is not as developed physically as a grown-up woman?
Would it be OK to discriminate against you if you were not human ?
Human ethics deals with human beings. 

The question is in regard to human beings, unborn human beings. Here it is again:

"So you are discriminating against some innocent human beings because of their development?"

The point: There is a double standard taking place here. People who support pro-choice cannot live with their double standard, as I pointed out. I showed that the only difference between an unborn human being and you is the level of development. Both you and the unborn are human beings. If you want to apply the level of development to the unborn can you live with it also if someone applies it to you? No, you can't. As soon as someone with more intelligence or who more developed mentally than you decides you don't deserve to live does that person have the right to kill you? If you say 'no' you are siding with the unborn here and prolife. If you say 'yes,' then you can have no objection with such principles of them taking your life. 

What 3ru7al does is avoid answering the question, just like most atheists and pro-choicers do on these threads. Again, they want to criticize the Christian worldview without being accountable for their own worldview and its lack of ability to determine what is right as anything other than preference. PREFERENCE MAKES NOTHING RIGHT unless it is. You can't just arbitrarily decide. Rightness loses its identity if it is changing.  

You keep citing these other points by other people but what is your point?

3RU7AL to PGA2.0
What does your law say is appropriate if your neighbor is threatening you and or your family?
PGA2.0 512
OT or NT?

IMO, obey the law of the land, love your neighbour, be kind, show the same grace and mercy that you have received from God, bless those who persecute you, keep no record of wrongs, leave justice or revenge to God and the law in the land, repay evil with good, turn the other cheek where you are concerned[110], but when others are concerned, to protect them against harm.
[110] You have tried to justify the subjugation of Canaanites and Philistines by the Israelites by labelling these people as wicked. [a] That did not qualify as repaying evil with good, nor as turning the other cheeck. [b] Were God's orders to subjugate those people then in fact against the law ?
I have made the point that the Canaanites and Philistines were deemed wicked by the biblical account. The biblical God revealed their wickedness. 

[a] Evil needs addressing. It is not for any person to take the law into their own hands by repaying evil with evil. We, as Christians, are to turn the other cheek to show the grace of God, that God is willing to forgive even though He has been offended. We find that forgiveness in Jesus Christ. We are instructed to forgive others as we have been forgiven. Judgment begins with God, but without accountability there is no justice. That is why God appointed civil magistrates to handle matters of morality. That is why we have policing. 

[b]  No, the subjugation was not the same as that practiced in Egypt. God reminded the Israelites never to treat others the way they were treated in Egypt. Israel was not to oppress those in their land. They could discipline those who broke the law. 

And now, behold, the cry of the sons of Israel has come to Me; furthermore, I have seen the oppression with which the Egyptians are oppressing them.

[ The Mission of Moses ] And now come, and I will send you to Pharaoh, so that you may bring My people, the sons of Israel, out of Egypt.”

Furthermore I have heard the groaning of the sons of Israel, because the Egyptians are holding them in bondage, and I have remembered My covenant.

Say, therefore, to the sons of Israel, ‘I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the labors of the Egyptians, and I will rescue you from their bondage. I will also redeem you with an outstretched arm, and with great judgments.

“You shall not oppress a stranger nor torment him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.

“You shall not oppress a stranger, since you yourselves know the feelings of a stranger, for you also were strangers in the land of Egypt.

You shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you; you shall not walk in their statutes.

The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt; I am the Lord your God.

God also has the right to hold those who are evil accountable. He is their Creator and they are accountable to Him. Thus, He brings judgment on nations that do wrong after warning them by using other nations. 


[ Message to Egypt ] The pronouncement concerning Egypt: Behold, the Lord is riding on a swift cloud and is about to come to Egypt; The idols of Egypt will tremble at His presence, And the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them. “So I will incite Egyptians against Egyptians; And they will fight, each against his brother and each against his neighbor, City against city and kingdom against kingdom. Then the spirit of the Egyptians will be demoralized within them; And I will confuse their strategy, So that they will resort to idols and ghosts of the dead, And to mediums and spiritists.


Topic's author
#1254
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Amoranemix

PGA2.0 369
I have told you many times. You do not listen. It is immoral because if offends the righteousness of God.[*] It is wrong if there is an objective standard that we can measure values against that is fix and best. If not, nothing ultimately matters and morality becomes nothing more than subjective individual or group preference. [ . . . ]
[*] This is an unclear standard. Please either offer a reliable metric for determining why things or offensive in this manner or I will be forced to conclude that you are using a standard which yo uh do not actually understand which is not helpful to the conversation.
PGA2.0 512
I offered the reason why. God is a necessary Being. He is omniscient, knowing all things. How is such a standard unclear?[111] How can you have something that is anything other than preference without a fixed, objective best? God fits the criterion that you do not (and cannot demonstrate that is necessary).
[111] [a] That is not even a standard. I think he was asking what or how something offends the righteousness of God. [b] It seems that offends the righteousness of God whatever God dislikes. For example, God prefers that people worship him in stead of some other god and therefore decides that worshipping another god offends his righteousness.
[111a] Nope, I have explained this many times before. God knows all things, He knows what harms and what builds up, but more than this, God is good. That is His nature. He knows the difference between good and evil because He is good. He is the standard that we compare good and evil to, a necessary standard that does not change. God is love. Love is good. If you don't think so, I can only offer you the choice to then try living with someone who hates and see where it gets you. 

 [b] Any standard that is changing is inconsistent. A changing standard can mean the opposite. The biblical God is unchanging.   

If we examine the source material (the bible) the Yahweh appears to be a cruel, capricious, jealous, vengeful, genocidal, egomaniacal maniac whose ten most important rules deal mostly with his own vanity and do not address rape or owning people as property at all and elsewhere in the book deals with these issues very unsatisfactorilly.
PGA2.0 513
How is it cruelto punish wickedness? Why is it wrong for God to jealously protec twhat is right and good? Why is it wrong to take vengeance(accountability for the wrong) on injustice?[112]
Those who do not recognize the majesty and awesome glory of God put their own above Him in their boasting and puffed-up self. It is not vanity to point to Himself for guidance but wisdom.[113]
[112] [a] The problem is that whether something is cruel or wicked is a matter of opinion and that not everyone shares your or God's opinion. [b] Understandably God does not hold those who disagree with him in high regard, but neither did Adolf Hitler, nor do Kim Jong Un and Bashar all Assad.[c]  Yet you don't excuse their behaviour with indignated questions like that. When the latter bombs civilians, you dont ask : “How is it cruel to punish wickedness? Why is it wrong for Bashar to jealously protect what is right and good?” [d] Why ? Because you are strongly biased in favour of God. God is your preference.
[113] That God has majesty and awesome glory has yet to be demonstrated. That God exists as well.
[112a] Yes, you recognize a problem. If what is cruel or wicked is a matter of opinion then there is no set standard. Anything can be said to be cruel or wicked. Your worldview cannot justify why your standard is any better than God's, since everything is relative. Why should I believe you? You and your worldview lacks credibility. And who are you to decide what is good and what is evil if goodness is based on preference??? I would say screw your view if opinion is all we had to choose from. Your relativeness is not going to be my arbiter if I have the power to decide otherwise. I would choose things that serve my own nature and desires if there was no ultimate standard, in as much as I could enforce my desires.  

[b] You are making this a choice. You want to choose your moral standard and you don't want it to be God's. That would defeat your relativism and you don't like that. It goes contrary to your opinion. Why SHOULD I value your opinion??? And are you saying that you would choose Hitler's Germany over the biblical God's decrees of love your neighbour, and do not harm others? Would you rather dehumanize Jews and other people that Hitler decided were undesirable to him? Is that your idea of justice and worth? 

[c] Yes, I do ask why are they dropping bombs on such people, and I take into account the nature of the government and leader as see wickedness in their actions. These leaders dehumanize, discriminate, disrespect, demonize, devalue, and demoralize those they don't like. Could they live with their own standard applied to them??? Nope. Yet, they think nothing of doing it to others. They don't recognize the good, they recognize their preference that is counter to the good.  

[d]  Why? I am biased in favour of an ultimate, absolute, objective, unchanging standard that CAN explain morality. You have no such standard. You can't justify why what you believe is any better than what Hitler believed without invoking the Christian standard. The problem is that you are to proud to admit it, instead fighting tooth and claw against making sense of morality. You cannot make sense of morality. All you can do is say, "I like this!" or "I don't like this!" So what? Who cares if there is no ultimate identity for the good, the right? 

[113] Do you find awe and wonder in the universe of the micros or macros? How did they come about? Can you make sense of that? Explain why the universe exists. You have no answers for the why. From a Christian perspective, your problem is that you do not want to give majesty and glory to Him who deserves it. 

Topic's author
#1255
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Amoranemix
Very revealing. It does not matter to you that innocent human beings are allowed to die for the want of a kidney. Would it matter to you if someone chose to allow your innocent ten-year-old die rather than donate a kidney? [*] If so, then you have a double-standard and you are not consistent. Consistency is a sign or indicator that something is dreadfully wrong with your logic.
PGA2.0 517
[*] You are talking in hypotheticals. I am talking in terms of what is really happening.

Another person is not responsible for my ten-year-old. You are placing the responsibility on them. Why are you assuming they are responsible? My ten-year-old's health in such a case may very well be beyond my control to help. I would be disappointed, even heartbroken, if they died or if someone volunteered to give a kidney, then chickened out, but I have no right to force another person to give their kidney unless that person signs a contract to do so. Usually, a money exchange takes place in such contracts.
What relevance does reponsibility have ? [a] You assume without justification that a stranger would require to donate a kidney only if they are responsible for the child. However, in case of unwanted pregnancy, you did not give responsibility as a reason to keep the foetus alive. The right of the foetus to live seemed sufficient for the mother to be obligated to sustain it. Why does that not suffice in case of 10-year old in need of a kidney ? Why is the stranger allowed to violate the child's body without its consent to kill the child by refusing to give a kidney ?
[*] The topic was the unborn. Secular is using the Judith Thompson argument of analogy. I was speaking of what IS happening in another situation, yet I placed myself in Secular's hypothetical even though he escaped my question. Yes, I care, but does he care about the unborn? He avoided the question.

What your posts do, IMO, is avoid the topic by refocusing on everything but the topic.  You go through yards and yards of posts but how about you EXPLAIN how you justify morality and why what I say is wrong in regards to the unborn, in your opinion.

[a] Nope. I assume that a woman (the mother) is responsible for what happens to her own flesh and blood, her biological offspring, not that of a stranger. The parents share with the other family members as their own flesh and blood. She chose to have sex which resulted in this new life being formed in her womb. The womb is the natural environment for the unborn. It is where it belongs. It is where it develops. The unborn is not a stranger to her. The other child is not her offspring. She did not choose to engage in sex with its father. She is not responsible for another person she does not even know, although she could donate a kidney to such a person if she felt compelled to do so out of love. If that donation resulted in her death, her offspring would suffer, however.      

Not only this, the stranger argument is ridiculous in its own right in that it is unlivable after the first donation. And what is to stop us from being responsible in other ways, like our eyes and ears? If I come up to you (missing an eye) should I be able to demand that you give me your eye? Should the law state I be morally responsible for your body, a complete stranger, without doing violence to my own responsibility to my family?

P.S.S. Human interpretation of the 'will of God' isn't a fixed reference point either and can be used to support atrocities and oppose equality. (Holocaust, apartheid,Transatlantic slave trade)
PGA2.0 520
The Holocaust, Apartheid, transatlantic slavery are not biblical or OT slavery but a misinterpretation.
Don't forget the Crusades also.
The point is that reality demonstrates that your god doesn't solve the problems you complain about.
What would solve the problems you keep complaining about, and thus would be necessary for that, is that everyone agrees. That could theoretically happen by everyone inventing the same god and adopting his morality. Of course, that is not realistic. With the help of an actual, real god that may be feasible. Your god is clearly insufficient, either because he doesn't exist or because he is a paltry communicator. His morality also rings poorly with many people.
It is not the biblical God who is the poor communicator, or insufficient, but the person interpreting His will and doing violence to it in many cases through misinterpretation. His morality rings poorly with those who usurp their preference over what is necessary.  

PGA2.0 567 to SkepticalOne
Hosea 10:1-4(NASB)
Retribution for Israel’s Sin
[ . . . ]
Over and over, God sends prophets and teachers to warn them to return to Him, but they will not listen. So, He gives them the consequences of their sin.
[a] To me that behaviour is immoral. [b] To you and presumably to God, it is moral. [c] Contrary to what you pretend I dont try to impose my preference upon you. [d] You on the other hand, try to impose your preference upon skeptics. [e] You have however so far been unable to give good reasons for skeptics to adopt them. [f] Things like being fixed and all-knowing may be important to you, but skeptics don't care about those. [g] On top of that, you accused me of being hypocritical for trying to impose my preference on you.
[a] Why should I value your opinion? Immoral in relation to what fixed standard; the one you make up? How is that fixed? If it is not fixed. How is it better? Better in relation to what?

[b] It is either immoral or it is not. It can't be moral to me and not to you. Morality needs an identity that does not change.  (A = A) 

[c] You are begging that your preference is or could be moral. On what justification? 

[d] Nope, what I do is argue that I have what is necessary for morality and you, as an atheist, do not. You can't make sense of it. Why is your preference any BETTER than anyone else? Because YOU say so? If that is your standard I say differently. It is no better.  

[e] I have. Make sense of morality if you can. I can. My worldview has what is necessary. Your worldview does not (Like it or not, and you don't. How embarrassing for you). 

[f] Yet you need to borrow from such a standard to make sense of morality. Demonstrate otherwise. You CAN'T. 

[g] Only when you make a moral judgment when you have no means of justifying it. You keep sneaking in words like "good" and "better" without being able to justify why they are so. Most of the time you do not even try. IMO, you just assume that what you believe can make sense of itself without even trying to make sense of it.  
Topic's author
#1256
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@FLRW
Post 954

See the research paper: Biological and cognitive underpinnings of religious fundamentalism
Abstract:
Beliefs profoundly affect people's lives, but their cognitive and neural pathways are poorly understood. Although previous research has identified the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) as critical to representing religious beliefs, the means by which vmPFC enables religious belief is uncertain. We hypothesized that the vmPFC represents diverse religious beliefs and that a vmPFC lesion would be associated with religious fundamentalism, or the narrowing of religious beliefs. To test this prediction, we assessed religious adherence with a widely-used religious fundamentalism scale in a large sample of 119 patients with penetrating traumatic brain injury (pTBI). If the vmPFC is crucial to modulating diverse personal religious beliefs, we predicted that pTBI patients with lesions to the vmPFC would exhibit greater fundamentalism, and that this would be modulated by cognitive flexibility and trait openness. Instead, we found that participants with dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) lesions have fundamentalist beliefs similar to patients with vmPFC lesions and that the effect of a dlPFC lesion on fundamentalism was significantly mediated by decreased cognitive flexibility and openness. These findings indicate that cognitive flexibility and openness are necessary for flexible and adaptive religious commitment, and that such diversity of religious thought is dependent on dlPFC functionality.
How does that discount the biblical revelation?

Topic's author
#1257
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Post 956

I am saying that without a reasoning being who created the universe, the universe is without reason for its existence.
Oh boy.

Is that what you're hung up on?

The teleological fallacy?
What I am not saying - I'm not saying the Universe is reason. 

I'm saying your worldview is inconsistent. I'm asking you why you find reasons for things in a Universe supposedly devoid of reason (reason requires being). From your perspective, reason came about long after the Universe, yet things had to happen in a particular way for "reasons" eventuality. Please explain how from a chance happenstance position. I'm saying what I believe about origins is more reasonable. I'm saying I can make sense of reason, purpose, and meaning. I'm saying you are guilty of a lot of assumptions that are not reasonable. We both begin with presuppositions. Mine are more reasonable than yours. 

I made a statement that I think is reasonable. Without a necessary reasoning being, why would you expect to find reasons for things happening in the universe, or the universe? I did not say the Universe is reasoning.

How would said reason come about? Reason is a product of beings. Explain its root cause without a necessary being first causing things to happen in a prescribed manner. What you are telling me (with your silence) is that chance happenstance has intent to do something. How can that happen? What you are telling me, if you believe the Universe began, is that there is no first cause, thus, something from nothing.  
Topic's author
#1258
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Post 957

The Christian worldview already has what is necessary, an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, immutable, eternal Being [OOOIEB]. 
Your OOOIEB is logically incompatible with human agency.
I don't believe in OOOIEB, I believe in the biblical God, a specific and only God. Nevertheless, how so?
Topic's author
#1259
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Post 958:

Perhaps my favourite evidence for the existence of God is the prophetic argument. I have not found an atheist on this forum (or any other) that understands the evidence's complexity and proofs.
A book's predictive power is no measure of its infallibility.
It gives additional reason to support the God within. If every prophecy comes true or gives good reasons for the truth claims, that is beyond the scope of normal fallible human beings. Tell me of some human who could predict thousands of specific events before they happened. 

I have heard it likened to a leaky bucket. One bucket will stop some of the water, but bucket after bucket telescoped on top of each other in a prescribed manner prevents the leakage of water for the most part. The biblical arguments are like that. It is not just one bucket we are speaking of. The moral argument is another bucket to prevent the leaking. The bucket for mind or intelligence is another. The teleological argument is another, and the list goes on. The other consideration is if it is reasonable to believe. 

A meteorologist can still lie to you.
So what? Can they be 100% true in their predictions? I know of none who are. 
Topic's author
#1260
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Post 959:

Your worldview does not have what is necessary for the knowledge of origins. 
And neither does yours.
Sure it does. I have a necessary being. Beings are necessary for knowledge but not all beings know what happened. You don't know and admit it. With origins who really knows, if no human was there? You build upon starting presuppositions. You think I can't know but you don't know. You don't know because you do not have what is necessary to know. The biblical God would have what is necessary. You were not there at the beginning of the Universe. Also, if you did not exist knowledge would still exist, so would truth. You nor I have the scope to know what happened in the beginning unless a Being who was around revealed it to us.  

You've simply built a framework that re-labels the words "I don't know" (replacing them with "YHWH").
I can know, provided God exists, and the evidence is far more reasonable than the evidence that He does not exist. Not only that, God's Spirit intermingles with and convinces my spirit by believing the testimony. God continually confirms Himself to those who trust in Him. The Bible is evidence that makes the case for God, even though He is not required to reveal Himself. Through His grace and mercy, He has. Whether you believe that is between you and Him. I can show you why He is reasonable to believe based on His revelation and the existence of the Universe, but you believing is not my decision to make.