Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?

Is your life meaningful?

I'll answer in the generic "you."

Yes. The reason, because you are created in the image and likeness of God. You seek and look for meaning.  Whether you find Him is a different matter. 

Now, suppose you believe there was no God. Meaning would be something you manufactured that in the long run means nothing. There would be no meaning to our lives once we were dead. You are born, live and die, then nothing matters anymore.  But why are you so bent on finding meaning while you live if you believe God does not exist? Is it just to make you feel happy and worthwhile but in effect you are fooling yourself? Your life in of no more significance than a fly on dung, and in a short period of time you will be forgotten. You are also living inconsistently in a meaningless universe, one that has no meaning to or in it in seeking. 

Is your life meaningful?

I'll answer in the generic "you."

[a] Yes. The reason, because you are created in the image and likeness of God. You seek and look for meaning.  Whether you find Him is a different matter. 

[b] Now, suppose you believe there was no God. Meaning would be something you manufactured that in the long run means nothing. There would be no meaning to our lives once we were dead. You are born, live and die, then nothing matters anymore.  But why are you so bent on finding meaning while you live if you believe God does not exist? Is it just to make you feel happy and worthwhile but in effect you are fooling yourself? Your life in of no more significance than a fly on dung, and in a short period of time you will be forgotten. You are also living inconsistently in a meaningless universe, one that has no meaning to or in it in seeking. 

You contradict yourself. You grant the man in the scenario has a meaningful life, and then go on to say non-belief in a god (which seems to be a condition of the scenario) makes "your life no more significant than fly on dung".

It is also interesting that you suggest "belief in god" not the 'existence of God' is what gives lives meaning.

Life is just a freak of nature, a chance happenstance with no ultimate purpose or meaning. 

 You would be no more significant that a fly on dung because there is no ultimate purpose for meaning because there is no ultimate purpose for your life.

I think I will go with Thomas Edison. Betcha didn't know this one was a non-believer!  Well, he was.  Quote: "I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious ideas of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God." Quote: "So far as religion of the day is concerned, it is a damned fake... Religion is all bunk." Quote: "I cannot believe in the immortality of the soul....I am an aggregate of cells, as, for instance, New York City is an aggregate of individuals. Will New York City go to heaven?....No; nature made us -- nature did it all -- not the gods of the religions." 

Life is just a freak of nature, a chance happenstance with no ultimate purpose or meaning. 

What happens if this is the case, do you think? Like how would your life, YOURS specifically, be materially different?

 You would be no more significant that a fly on dung because there is no ultimate purpose for meaning because there is no ultimate purpose for your life.

I wonder what the ultimate purpose was for my cousin that died from leukemia when he was 7 years old?

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.

Lot's of people seemingly are convinced of the absolute truth of the bible, but how many actually  follow all the Levitical Laws?

I'm not even certain if it is possible to conform simultaneously to both,  the necessities of contemporary society. and the necessities of all biblical requirements.

I would further suggest that save for a few extreme zealots, most theists are probably unwittingly or even knowingly hypocritical.

So...Would believing any of this actually CHANGE how you acted in-real-life?........No.

A revelation God supplies those values.

But even people who call themselves, "true Christians" can't seem to agree on what these (fixed standard) "values" entail.

The Universe must have a cause if it had a beginning because self-creation is a contradiction in terms

Although beauty is not a moral value, I would still argue that its ideal is God. He is again the fixed reference point.

Wait a minute, does this mean that all the most beautiful things in the world are mirror reflections of "YHWH"?

The Universe must have a cause if it had a beginning because self-creation is a contradiction in terms

See The Reason the Universe Exists is that it Caused Itself to Exist by Quentin Smith

[a] Philosophers have traditionally responded to the question, ‘why does the universe exist?’, in one of two ways. One response is that ‘the universe exists because God created it’ and the other response is that ‘the universe exists for no reason—its existence is a brute fact’. [b] Both these responses are inadequate, since a third response is possible, namely, that the reason the universe exists is that it caused itself to exist. There are at least three ways the universe can cause itself to exist, by (1) a closed, simultaneous causal loop at the first instant of time, (2) beginning with a continuum of instantaneous states in a first half-open second, with each state being caused by earlier states, and (3) being caused to exist by backward causation, where a later event causes the big bang to occur. This suggests that the principle, ‘if the universe begins to exist, it has a cause’ does not support theism (as traditionally has been thought) but instead supports atheism.

Although beauty is not a moral value, I would still argue that its ideal is God. He is again the fixed reference point.

Wait a minute, does this mean that all the most beautiful things in the world are mirror reflections of "YHWH"?

God is Spirit. Beauty reflects His Spirit. Kindness, goodness, gentleness, love, joy, peace, patience, faithfulness, and self-control. Those are qualities, not quantities. 

Although beauty is not a moral value, I would still argue that its ideal is God. He is again the fixed reference point.

Wait a minute, does this mean that all the most beautiful things in the world are mirror reflections of "YHWH"?

God is Spirit. Beauty reflects His Spirit. Kindness, goodness, gentleness, love, joy, peace, patience, faithfulness, and self-control. Those are qualities, not quantities. 

who made all the "ugly stuff"?

You exclude that these claims can be true because you believe these ancient people cannot tell the truth or are not authorities in the matters they speak of and appeal to.

Well, it's not really so much that "they CAN'T be true" as it is that "the claims are unverifiable and NOT logically necessary".

Any assumed validity you lend to "The Bible" must apply equally to other ancient stories (like The Epic of Gilgamesh and The Vedas).

Also, you might enjoy, [LINK]

It is also interesting that you suggest "belief in god" not the 'existence of God' is what gives lives meaning.

You must believe in God before meaning makes sense.

So, is that only your specific god or just any god in general? ...and how do you know god is not a meaning you've manufactured?

You have not shown a relative reference point can make sense of itself as anything other than brute force, Skep.

Once again, Magnetic north points to a specific location, TRUE North.

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.
  

Nope, you are suggesting the biblical God condones slavery. That is not the case, and I spent a great deal of time and effort to establish that with references to biblical text. I also showed how God used a nation to bring judgment on another for the evil done. 

I do not believe it is the case. I do not believe we could make sense of anything, ultimately, if this was the case. I believe it is impossible. Thus, prove otherwise.  You know you can't. 

Should I expect silence from my enquiry and questions yet again, as per usual?

Should I expect silence from my enquiry and questions yet again, as per usual?

You have not shown a relative reference point can make sense of itself as anything other than brute force, Skep.

So, a good move in chess (according to rules we made up) doesn't make sense? I think the problem is [a] you have a particular answer in your head, and if someone doesn't agree then they must be wrong.

The answer I've given makes perfect sense.

Once again, Magnetic north points to a specific location, TRUE North.

If you're trying to equate "God" to "true north" you're undermining your argument while fortifying mine. True north is a point on Earth we decided was important. 

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.
  

Nope, you are suggesting the biblical God condones slavery. That is not the case, and I spent a great deal of time and effort to establish that with references to biblical text. I also showed how God used a nation to bring judgment on another for the evil done. 

I supplied a plain reading of the text which has the god of the Bible condoning humans owning humans in perpetuity. We can either accept the words of the Bible OR human interpretations of the "Word of God".  If there is a God, the first option is preferable...if there isn't a god, the first option is preferable. The second option is preferable when the Bible needs to fit in a particular human specified mold.

Good luck with that, brother. 

PGA2.0 258 to secularmerlin

Sure it is good enough. As an atheist how do they get to a standard that is anything but arbitrary and changing?[81] How can good vary and fluctuate in respect to the same issue (and I picked abortion as an example in other posts)?[82] How do we identify 'good' when two different people believe the opposite is the case? Who is right then? How does that make sense, two people with opposite views on the same thing both being right? How can it?

Amoranemix 888

[81] [a] Most people get it from their [i] genes, [ii] education, [iii] life experience and the [iv] environment. [b] How do Christians get to a standard that is anything but arbitrary and fixed ?

[82] You really still don't know ? Try adopting a worldview based on reality i.s.o. on an invisible sky magician and it should become clear to you.

There are aspects of reality where you believe God is present. Therefore, learning of these parts of reality, how they work without God, would hinder your God-belief, which would be unacceptable. That makes them off limits to you. Hence explaining them to you over and over again has been and would stay being throwing pearls to the swine. That is a serious drawback of your worldview.[*] Atheists can incorporate real morality in their worldview, while you have to invent an invisilble sky magician to somehow generate morality.[**]

To illustrate something that you may have denied in the mean time : all of your moral claims and questions in that paragraph are ambiguous because they fail to include a reference standard. Ambiguity is good for confusion, the Christian's friend.[***]

PGA2.0 1018

[a] [i]How do genes transfer morality from one to another? [ii] Education [ . . . ] [iii] Life experience is again a subjective experience. [iv] How does the environment make something moral? Are you speaking of peer pressure or the actual physical environment?

[b] The Christian standard, for starters, is a reasonable standard and a necessary standard. It has what is necessary for morality, a necessary being of whom you are not.[512] Second, Christians come to faith in the biblical God who can make sense of morality.[513] Third, the Bible has reasonable evidence for its claims that are based on a higher being and what He says as being based on history.[514] Fourth, experientially we interact with the biblical God. We pray to Him and see answers to our prayers. We see situations arise in our life that show us God's providence and His protective hand upon us. Fifth, we get answers to life's ultimate questions that other worldviews are incapable of supplying. There are many more reasons, but how are those, for starters?

[82] I am asking from your worldview standpoint, not mine. Mine is clear

[*] Nice dodge!

[**] Your opinion does not equal reality regarding morality.

[***] Rubbish.[515] Ambiguity is the friend of the atheist.[516] I have answered almost every question asked to the best of my ability.[517]

PGA2.0 258 to secularmerlin

[ . . . ]

Thus theism and Christianity are more reasonable than atheism in this aspect and others.

Amoranemix 888

Your fallacy of choice is the hasty generalization. Even if your claims directed at secularmerlin were correct, that would still not imply they are correct for all atheists.

PGA2.0 1018

Okay, you are dishing out fallacies with ad hom's now![518] Yours is the subjectivist fallacy.[519] Moral good is true for all people, not just your subjective mind, nor does your subjective mind make it good.[520]

PGA2.0 1021 to FLRW

[ . . . ]

Your conclusion does not follow. You assume that dogs and cats have morals. The out-of-the-blue conclusion brings in the foreign concept of morality from the rest of the discussion. Just because dogs and cats can get along, you assume they have morals. It could just as easily be that they know from instinct they must get along or get punished by their owners.[521] They associate a slap from their owner or the dog associates getting clawed by the cat as very painful, and the cat associates getting bitten by the dog as very painful. Since they are forced to live together, they gradually become tolerant of each other and displace the lack of dog to dog relationship to a dog-to-cat relationship, or in a pack of dogs, the cat becomes seen as one of them.[522] [ . . . ]

3RU7AL 1023

It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.

ludofl3x 1024

Agree...that's where I say "I don't know," and where PGA says "Jesus."

Theweakeredge 891

Morality doesn't matter, because you would have to prove that objective morality exists at all, which you haven't.

PGA2.0 1034

You can't call something moral unless there is a fixed standard for morality.[523] Different cultures, different groups, and different individuals believe opposite things about what is good. It begs who is actually right. Without an objective, universal, unchanging standard, morality does not exist.[524] What exists is preference.

Theweakeredge 891

Everything lacks a fixed moral point that's demonstratable.

PGA2.0 1034

Then it is self-refuting since you have nothing solid/fixed/unchanging to compare the good with. It can mean anything a person wants to make it mean. [525]

Is that too a shifting point of view? Is that too just your personal opinion that cannot be backed up to an objective fixed reference point?[526] If so, why should I value it? How can you demonstrate something is 11.75" long unless you have a fixed scale and measurement. The same for the moral good?

I do not believe it is the case. I do not believe we could make sense of anything, ultimately, if this was the case. I believe it is impossible. Thus, prove otherwise.  You know you can't. 

Should I expect silence from my enquiry and questions yet again, as per usual?

I know you don't believe that's the case, I'm asking you to engage in a hypothetical. It can't be so vexing that you cannot even IMAGINE the circumstance, can it? I don't hve to prove anything, I'm just asking you how you think your life would be different if "life were just a freak of nature, an accident, happenstance." What would that mean to how you live your life?

Should I expect silence from my enquiry and questions yet again, as per usual?

No, you should expect the same answers. Watch:

Now, what would be the implications of existence without God? Anything goes. Why would you expect uniformity of nature, things to continue and be sustained? There would be no reason for these things happening. 

Exactly. I don't see what the problem is.

For the atheist, why does anything exist at all?

Don't know. Explain why this matters.

I can't understand how there can be a reason because matter devoid of personal being is unable to reason. Thus, the atheist cannot make sense of existence.

So because you can't understand the other argument, yours must be correct: this is the literal definition of arguing from personal incredulity.

Thus, the atheist cannot make sense of existence. 

Explain what this means and, crucially, why it's so critical: to make sense of the entirety of all of existence in order to make a conclusion other than yours. Yours makes no sense of existence either, you SAY it does, but it only adds "because of GOd" instead of "I don't know."  All I'm asking you to do is demonstrate you're right. NOT THAT YOU DON'T THINK I'M RIGHT. 

How would something unreasoning sustain anything? Why would the universe come into existence and how? And if you do, per chance, find a reason, why would you expect to in an unintelligent universe???

[a] Don't know, don't know, and I don't expect to find reason in the universe. [b] I make it for myself. There, all questions answered. Now answer mine. 

You have not shown a relative reference point can make sense of itself as anything other than brute force, Skep.

So, a good move in chess (according to rules we made up) doesn't make sense? I think the problem is [a] you have a particular answer in your head, and if someone doesn't agree then they must be wrong.

The game was designed with specific rules [...]

Once again, Magnetic north points to a specific location, TRUE North.

If you're trying to equate "God" to "true north" you're undermining your argument while fortifying mine. True north is a point on Earth we decided was important. 

I like the analogies. I am establishing that there are objective references we can know. Magnetic north has to be based on true north, and true north is a specific location. You can't have a true North unless there is such a place, just like you can't have a city called London, England located in Sidney, Australia. If you flew from New York to London you would not land up in Sidney.  

I supplied a plain reading of the text which has the god of the Bible condoning humans owning humans in perpetuity. We can either accept the words of the Bible OR human interpretations of the "Word of God". 

I explained to you that God never condoned the type of slavery practiced in Egypt. The text you supplied has to be understood in relationship to what it meant in the ANE AND IN CONTEXT to Old Covenant Israel.

So, is that only your specific god or just any god in general? ...and how do you know god is not a meaning you've manufactured?

Because of the contradictory nature of different gods there can only be one true and living God.

The Judeo-Christian God is the only God I defend against attack, not that He needs defending, but because the message is worth telling and gives meaning to the lives of those who will believe because of the message/His revelation.