Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?

Author: PGA2.0

Posts

Total: 1,638
Topic's author
#121
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
And just another reminder, you have not attempted to engage in the topic at hand. 
It's strange that you would choose to comment on my internal motives.
I noticed you veered off-topic and I am still engaging with your posts.

I selected two systems of thought, two worldviews. I laid out to you why they can be classified as such. This is about which system is more reasonable to believe has sound moral values. Its objective is to look at the starting point for each system and follow the reasonableness of the system from there. The starting point is either a personal Being - God, or naturalism (impersonal matter) and follows it up from that starting point. Once you deny a personal being what is left but chance happenstance? The topic is designed to question what is necessary for morality, or what makes sense of morality, and showcase what these two systems offer. 

I'm not sure how you could possibly know what I've "attempted" one way or another.
Your words convey your thoughts and how they relate or don't to the topic. 
#122
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
There are laws for murder, stealing, perjury, adultery, built into most (if not all) legal systems.
Which legal system do you consider "perfect", or you know "the best"?

Don't the Jews have an extensive framework specifically purpose built for the practical, real-world application of "YHWH"s law?

Do you follow that system?
#123
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
The starting point is either a personal Being - God, or naturalism (impersonal matter) and follows it up from that starting point.
Nope.  This is a false-dichotomy.
#124
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Your words convey your thoughts and how they relate or don't to the topic. 
You seem to eagerly jump to conclusions regarding my internal motivational schema.

Are you familiar with the distinction between IMPLY (AND) INFER?

A speaker or writer implies, a hearer or reader infers; 

Implications are incorporated in statements, while inferences are deduced from statements.
Topic's author
#125
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Then there is the internal consistency and unity of these 66 'books' or writings.
You might find this interesting. [LINK]

There are logical answers for these apparent contradictions which quite often are selective in what is included and ignore in the surrounding context. There is no reason given behind each passage at all. Notice that in each case one verse (without the surrounding context) is selected. A verse out of context is a pretext and there are various sites that logically answer and are logically consistent in dispelling what you consider are apparent biblical contradictions.

This is not a serious attempt to address the issues but an ad hom attack to mock Christians and Jews as stupid people, which I object to. 
Topic's author
#126
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
I believe I have good reason to believe that "YHWH" is not anything other than a man-made god on the impossibility of the contrary.
Go ahead and present those reasons.
#127
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
Alternatively, you are having an imaginary conversation with your ultra ego because you are lonely. 
Why did "YHWH" create humans?

Slavery.
"there was not a man to till the ground."   Till = dig = mine.

A better question I have asked hundreds of theists, is why did god create anything, at all, in the first place? and like much of the bible, I have never had a answer that couldn't easily be debunked. 

#128
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
I believe I have good reason to believe that "YHWH" is not anything other than a man-made god on the impossibility of the contrary.
Go ahead and present those reasons.
Abraham invented "YHWH" out of whole cloth.

Ahura Mazda and Ishtar both predate Abraham in the physical historical record and even in Jewish mythology.

The angels that Abraham describes are suspiciously similar to the Canaanite pantheon from his native Land of Ur.

Oh, right, and there's also LOGIC.

(IFF) "YHWH" is the omniscient, omnimpotent, omnibenevolent sole creator of all things and was not created itself but is the original and principle necessary being that defines "existence" (THEN) EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS MUST BE PART OF "YHWH".

- Ethica Ordine Geometrico Demonstrata
#129
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
This is not a serious attempt to address the issues but an ad hom attack to mock Christians and Jews as stupid people, which I object to. 
If pointing out apparent contradictions is "out of bounds" in your opinion, then you must be 100% impervious to critique.

The presentation doesn't contain a single ad hominem attack (it's insult free).
#130
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
There are logical answers for these apparent contradictions...
Does god tempt man?
Topic's author
#131
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
...yet something about BRAHMAN too in your denial of its HYPERDIMENSIONAL OMNIPRESENCE.
Such belief is logically inconsistent. 
Please present a specific logical error.
As a pluralistic religion, Hinduism teaches all religions hold and teach truths about Brahman, which is inconsistent with the teachings of Christianity and every other major religious belief which make exclusive statements about God/its god, and God's nature, which contradicts that tenant. Andrew Montano ministries look at worldview analysis from nine basic tests or aspects and the Hindu worldview from five, here. 

***

"The third logical problem has to do with the claim that the basic problem is our ignorance of our true Brahman nature. The fact is that we cannot really be unenlightened regarding Brahman, if the soul is one with Brahman. We cannot be ignorant of Brahman, if we are one with it. If we are ignorant of Brahman's nature, then Brahman is also ignorant of Brahman, since the two are one, which is impossible."

***

Kenneth Samples offers a contrast in beliefs also:
(Five ways in which Krishna and Jesus differ)

***

Hinduism looks upon the world in an illusionary manner, suffering as illusion and meaningless, yet Hindus still look both ways when crossing the street and act as though there is meaning in seeking oneness as well as in everyday life. What is there to guarantee Brahman is not an illusion too? What verification do Hindus have in knowing their system of belief is true - feelings? What concrete examples does this system of beliefs offer in verifying itself?

Hinduism is a works religion like every other except Christianity.

Not only this, an adherent never knows if their good deeds, good life (karma), is sufficient in attaining Nirvana or oneness with Brahman. Is what is done going to be a step forward or a step backward in reincarnation? The law of karma is selfish for it focuses on self.  The system reveals no ultimate objective moral standard as a guideline and its adherents do not treat people equally but divide them into a caste system. 


Topic's author
#132
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Show me that such a god is reasonable to believe in and I will do my best to show the inconsistency in such a belief.  
It is reasonable to believe in ISHTAR (2150 BCE) because the holy EPIC OF GILGAMESH predates ABRAHAM (1927 BCE).

How is that showing me that such a god is reasonable to believe? You once again deflect the question. You tell me how it is reasonable and I will offer my refutation. 

Before the Bible was codified people followed all kinds of beliefs as they strayed further and further from the biblical God until it became necessary for God to judge the wickedness on the earth. What the Bible is is a setting straight of the record in who God is and our relationship with Him and how it has been altered by sin and the solution to rectifying that problem in show what works and what does not.  
Topic's author
#133
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Can you show me other religious belief systems that offer the same kind of quality proofs as biblical prophecy?
If you value accurate PROPHECY, perhaps you should worship BLACKROCK. [LINK]
What point do you want me to glean? Blackrock was a financial data keeper, programmed by a man. I watched from your set start point one conspiracy theory and assertion after another until the Trump part (1:32:00). 
Topic's author
#134
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Next, you are guilty of avoiding the question, "Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?"
yES.

The answer is yES.
Show me how. Start with how morals come about for an atheist and what makes them anything but a relativistic and subjective preference. If that is all you've got why should I believe you when I hold different beliefs about morality? What makes one subjective preference 'better' than another? Atheists use qualitative language all the time but how do they distinguish better? What is their ultimate/final/fixed reference point? 
Topic's author
#135
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
You can't be devoid of belief if you are a reasoning being who claims to be an atheist.
You are an ATHEIST regarding NANABOZHO.
With good reason. 

How do you justify your DISBELIEF (devoid of belief) in NANABOZHO?
Because my belief in the biblical God is well justified and from such a belief I can make sense of the world that is not logically inconsistent with that belief or what I see and verify in its livability. I don't have to search a thousand worldviews to find the truth if Christianity is consistent and truthful in as much as I can verify it. On the basis of logic alone I know that two opposing beliefs cannot both be true at the same time.And, as a system of belief it makes sense of the world, life, morality.

Tell me what Nanabozo reveals about evil. How does Nanabozo say it comes about? What historical verification does Nanabozo offer that coincide with its truth claims? How consistent are the teaching? 
#136
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
The fact is that we cannot really be unenlightened regarding Brahman, if the soul is one with Brahman. We cannot be ignorant of Brahman, if we are one with it. If we are ignorant of Brahman's nature, then Brahman is also ignorant of Brahman, since the two are one, which is impossible.
Are you aware of your amygdala?

Is your tibia aware of your elbow?

Is every part of your body aware of every other part of your body?

How big is your enteric nervous system cluster?
Topic's author
#137
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Not subscribing is a denial of God or gods, yet I bet you know about the Christian God.
Not subscribing is NOT a "denial" of magazines, yet I bet you know about magazines you do not actually subscribe to.
Exactly my point. The atheist (general speaking) knows about the biblical God but chooses not to subscribe to Him. In his/her outlook they chose another avenue in explaining the world, the universe, life. It is through natural means. For those reasoning people who do not know of the biblical God, they still have beliefs about God/gods in forming their opinions. You can't deny something without first being aware of it. What would you be denying?  

The funny thing about an atheist is that they make themselves or some other relative, subjective human being the object of worship. They become their own authority on all things or leave that in the hands of their idols, their subjective human gods. They pick and choose who they want to believe in every branches of science, or they take other means such as perhaps an atheistic philosopher instead of a scientist as the guru god. 
#138
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
How do you justify your DISBELIEF (devoid of belief) in NANABOZHO?
Because my belief in the biblical God is well justified...
Can you disprove NANABOZHO without resorting to "YHWH" = TRUE?
#139
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
They become their own authority on all things...
Do you consider yourself your own authority on what you should believe, or do you delegate that authority to someone else?

How do you know what "YHWH" wants you to do today?

Do you ask yourself, or do you ask someone else?
#140
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Tell me what Nanabozo reveals about evil.
NANABOZHO reveals some things may appear to be "good" yet lead to negative consequences.

NANABOZHO reveals some things may appear to be "bad" yet lead to positive consequences.
Topic's author
#141
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
So, the problem is that you are not ignorant about NANABOZHO. You know a great deal about NANABOZHO, , just rejecting.
Not much at all.

Since you mentioned this god I am relying on you to make your appeal for him/her/it as the almighty. Show me why you think this god is worthy of worship and consideration. If this god is not the Almighty then he/she/it is not the supreme being and someone who deserves worship for what has been made. 

Not only this, does your god or the one you put forth have the qualities and attributes that the Christian God does. Show me how this god has revealed such attributes. 

Finally, why would I seek out other gods when the Christian God is sufficient, consistent, logical, and makes sense of the world, universe, humanity, life, morality, truth, wisdom and a host of other things? My God is most reasonable to believe in. Can you show me Nanabozho is too? Logically, at least one of the two is not the true God. So bring forth your argument so we can discuss it.
#142
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Show me how.
Same as you.  Moral instinct.  Sense of fairness.

Start with how morals come about for an atheist and what makes them anything but a relativistic and subjective preference.
Without explicit MORAL AXIOMS, your claim to "universal" "objective" morality is indistinguishable from your personal preference.

Please present your moral mathematics.

For example, [MORAL MATHEMATICS]

If that is all you've got why should I believe you when I hold different beliefs about morality?
But that's the funny thing.  We discovered our moral instincts in exactly the same way.  And we believe basically the same thing (ethics).

The fact that you claim your moral codec is endorsed by some celestial celebrity means nothing to me.

The fact that I might claim my own moral codec is endorsed by some rival celestial celebrity means nothing to you.

What makes one subjective preference 'better' than another?
The ability to cobble together PERSUASIVE RHETORIC (AND OR BLUNT FORCE).

Atheists use qualitative language all the time but how do they distinguish better?
Using absolute language to describe your moral preferences is simply a category error.

Where's your moral mathematics?

What is their ultimate/final/fixed reference point? 
The same as yours.  Yourself.  You are the only thing at the center of your own perception.
#143
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
If you value accurate PROPHECY, perhaps you should worship BLACKROCK. [LINK]
What point do you want me to glean? Blackrock was a financial data keeper, programmed by a man. I watched from your set start point one conspiracy theory and assertion after another until the Trump part (1:32:00). 
BLACKROCK has demonstrated their consistent ability to predict future events and capitalize on these predictions in an extremely QUANTIFIABLE and profitable manner (prophet).

It's not a "theory".  It's extremely real.

Do you think we should worship BLACKROCK?
Topic's author
#144
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
If you are an atheist you explain these things without God or gods usually by naturalism and humanism.
or not at all.

ATHEIST =/= HUMANIST
Atheists usually incorporate humanism in their belief system. 

What other rational, reasoning, revealed being(s) do they rely on for their worldview? Aliens? Where are these aliens revealed as communicating with us?

NOUN
  1. an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.
If you deny God or gods what is left but a human evaluation of life, being, origins, etc?

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

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

ATHEIST =/= CREED
Atheists deny God in one of a few ways. They either see no evidence for God, or they reject the evidence that is offered, or they don't care enough to seek God because they have not examined their beliefs well enough. 
#145
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
It is reasonable to believe in ISHTAR (2150 BCE) because the holy EPIC OF GILGAMESH predates ABRAHAM (1927 BCE).
How is that showing me that such a god is reasonable to believe?
It is reasonable to believe the EARLIEST records.

Presumably those records would be the most accurate, since they would be recorded the people closest to the actual events.

IF YOU HAVE SOME SPECIAL DEFINITION OF "REASONABLE" THAT YOU'D LIKE ME TO CONSIDER, PLEASE MAKE IT EXPLICIT.
#146
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Before the Bible was codified...
There's a significant gap between Abraham and "codification".
Topic's author
#147
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Truth is not neutral. It takes a position that is very narrow. That can be easily demonstrated with mathematics as an example.
You're conflating QUANTA with QUALIA.

1 + 1 = 2 therefore I love you.
Grab hold of oneness, will you? The concept of one plus one can be demonstrated in the material world (empirically).
#148
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Show me why you think this god is worthy of worship and consideration.
Because it made everything without demanding worship.

Because it made everything without threatening eternal torture.

Is a parent "worthy" of "worship" simply because they made their children?

Is an engineer "worthy" of "worship" simply because they designed some robots?

I made you robots, now worship me or be tortured forever in the simulated hell that I specifically designed in order to give myself leverage.
#149
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
You're conflating QUANTA with QUALIA.

1 + 1 = 2 therefore I love you.
Grab hold of oneness, will you? The concept of one plus one can be demonstrated in the material world (empirically).
HOW DOES THE PRINCIPLE OF AXIOMS APPLY TO MORALITY??
#150
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Atheists usually incorporate humanism in their belief system. 
That's not the same thing.