Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?

Quoting me doesn't save your bacon. It just shows you are as foolish and presumptuous as always. 

At the time I had the qualifications necessary - but was not a reverend

TRADSECRET WROTE:

"I am a lawyer.  There you go. Now you know.  I always counsel my clients that "no comment" is the only wise thing to do when being questioned by the police. I don't care how you read that - no comment is the right thing to do.  When we are in  a contested hearing, I, in the first instance, will counsel my client not to get into the stand to be cross examined. It is the role of the prosecutor to prove their case. It is not mine to prove we are innocent. It is our job to make sure the prosecutor does his or her job properly.  If my client insists in getting into the box - despite my advices - I will examine him or her asking open ended questions so that they can answer particular questions. I never ask a question I don't know the answer to. And I am not actually allowed to ask my client - yes or no questions because I would be accused of leading the witness. And then the prosecution will cross - examine my client. The cross-examiner is permitted to ask both open ended questions and leading questions. He would be foolish to ask open ended questions. His job is to ask leading questions.  He wants a yes or a no. Why? Because then he can lead him into traps and inconsistencies.  I counsel my clients - NEVER to answer a question with a yes or no - but always to qualify what you are saying - because the cross examiner never asks a question without a purpose or intention to lead to somewhere. But the first rule of cross - examination is NEVER ask a question you don't know the answer too.  Because when you do - the answer you will get will probably upset the apple cart and throw you off.  But I know that the same advice is being given to witnesses for the prosecution for when I cross examine.  And there will be times when I insist to the judge - that the witness needs to answer the question - with a simple yes or no. But judges do not lightly support this submission. And the reason they don't is because they know that doing so - is leading the witness into unfair or unforeseen traps.  Just because witness X saw Y do something with his left hand 6 months ago and wrote it in his statement does not mean that his evidence today that Y used his right hand and is confident that it was not his left hand - does not automatically mean that Y is innocent.  statements made close to the time of the crime recalled differently 6 months later - are inconsistent and can be used to call into question the reliability of the witness's evidence - but that inconsistency does not necessarily weaken the prosecution's case.  

So, yes, my client's pay me for the work I do for them. Do you have a problem with people being paid? 

Do I charge people to listen to my version of the gospels? No, I don't charge students,  I charge universities when they request me to lecture to them. 

Do I allow students to question me? Absolutely. I have no problem with this. Do I allow clients to question me? Not in a court setting, no. But they are free to ask me whatever the like about the law. I do charge them for that privilege. 

I never talked about counseling session. I said I counsel my clients. Lawyers are called Counsel.  We council our clients. We give advice.

But in my role as a pastor - which I also do, I counsel in pastoral care.  And yes, I am qualified by certified colleges with proper accreditation.  I am also a chaplain to our Countries Defence forces, a position I could not have without proper qualifications. "

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4948-matthew-27-52-53?page=1&post_number=20

You forgot to address this post in this thread in the following link that you are still RUNNING AWAY from! Whats new? NOTHING! LOL!

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4893/post-links/358603   

YOUR QUOTE IN YOUR FEEBLE POSTS #1596 : "Of course, you really don't have a clue about the bible - oh yes, you can quote - but you can't understand,"

Tell you what, to prove that I have forgotten more about the Bible than you will ever learn, how about we discuss your admittance of being  AN UNGODLY AND DESPICABLE SEXUAL DEVIANT WITH YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS!!!!!?  I will show passages that you will end up in HELL, where all women are going anyway, and then you can bring forth your inept OPINIONS ONLY like you did in the link in question above that biblically go nowhere! ,

Stephen -[.........................]

the fact that this is such a big deal is really on you.

Tradesecret wrote:  I am qualified by certified colleges with proper accreditation.  I am also a chaplain to our Countries Defence forces, a position I could not have without proper qualifications. "

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4948-matthew-27-52-53?page=1&post_number=20

 Tradsecret wrote: https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEGUEW9

Stephen,

As it is unfortunately shown in the link in question at your post #1604 in Miss Tradesecret being an admitted and outright sexual deviant, then she is  NOT A CHRISTIAN and the ramifications thereof are shown below!!!  

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality" (1 Corinthians 6:9)

MIss Tradesecret continues to give herself a despicable presence within this notable Religion Forum, and at least Shila knew when to throw in the towel of defeat and embarrassment and ran away from this forum never to be heard from again!

Tradsecret wrote: https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEGUEW9

Absolute unnecessary filth. And from someone that tells s/he was "chosen by god"!

"Indian"!!!?

 From someone that claims to be a Chaplain to his/her "countries armed forces"! And "a Pastor with a congregation of over 300" including women and children?

Someone that often declares her/his "honesty" and "integrity!

Tradsecret wrote: https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEGUEW9

Absolute unnecessary filth. And from someone that tells s/he was "chosen by god"!

"Indian"!!!?

 From someone that claims to be a Chaplain to his/her "countries armed forces"! And "a Pastor with a congregation of over 300" including women and children?

Someone that often declares her/his "honesty" and "integrity!

Repeating this shows how desperate you are. 

PGA2.0 wrote:  This topic is about one area of atheisms reason - morality. Can atheists reasonably justify morality in comparison to Christianity/Judaism? That last statement is a nutshell of the topic of debate. #1

Stephen,

It was funny when Miss Tradesecret stated to you "Repeating this shows how desperate you are," where in FACT, it shows how desperate Miss Tradesecret is in trying in vain to run away from her ungodly admitted SEXUAL DEVIANCY with family members, for god sakes!

Theweakeredge 943

Okay... I hate to tell you this but.... cool story bro, what does that prove? Either we have an inherent purpose or we don't I say [a] there hasn't been one demonstration and that more than likely we don't. [b] You say there is and haven't proven it. Prove it. That's a neat story and everything, maybe it might have inspired some hope in me once upon a time, but now it doesn't as appeals to emotions don't move me unless your my boyfriend, and you don't seem to be him. [ . . . ]

PGA2.0  1165

[a] Again, prophecy is a reasonable demonstration that the words can be trusted in such matters, among other evidence. History confirms names, places, and events as existing and happening, being confirmed by non-biblical sources. The intricate unity of the 66 books is another. Every OT book foreshadows or is symbolic of the Lord Jesus Christ and greater truth. So, the physical history of a nation reveals a greater spiritual truth. Then there are the philosophical questions that delve into worldviews and what makes sense in the origin of things like this thread is trying to do in morality. 

[b] There are plenty of proofs. The questions are, what would you accept? Your worldview bias plays a big part in how you look at the information. Hence the thread. I am looking at one aspect of the proof, morality, as to which is more reasonable to believe.

Theweakeredge 943

[a] No, first, you would have to prove that god exists, [b] second, you would have to prove that god could do that, [c] third, you would have to prove that god did do that, [d] fourth, you would have to prove that bible is accurate. Also, no, [e] you claiming something isn't reasonable, [f] it's you making an assertion, [g] that isn't a logical argument, this is you asserting them and ad hoc declaring them to be the truth.

PGA2.0  1165

[a] Again, what proof would you accept? You accept the BB. No one was around. The Bible confirms the universe began to exist. It agrees with that premise. It differs because it does not chalk that beginning down to chance happenstance but to a necessary mindful being who exits outside the physical reality. So, there is a reasonable explanation for the universe, a reason for its existence. [ . . . ]

[b] Again, it comes to where, to what, and to whom you put your highest authority in, and what is more reasonable to believe - relative, subjective humans in regards to origins or a being that is objective and omniscient that has revealed. Which is more reasonable to your mind? Are you going to reject the latter on the premise that your authority is greater?

[ . . . ]

[e] My assertions deal with philosophical and necessary conditions for ultimate meaning and morality, as well as other offshoots brought up here regarding the origins of the universe and our existence.[690] It is logical to presuppose that morality comes from minds and that a necessary being is necessary for making sense of it as anything more than power politics. Is that reasonable to believe?[691] [ . . . ]

[f] Pot, met kettle.  

[g] It is logical. God has what is necessary for logic.[692] Logic comes from mindful being, something we experientially witness and see no acceptions to.[693]

[ . . . ]

PGA2.0 937 to Theweakeredge

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

Theweakeredge 943

[A] Let's see your reasoning for that claim.

PGA2.0 1177

Is it reasonable to believe that thinking beings derive their existence from non-living matter?[694] That is your presuppositional position when the causal tree is examined all the way to the root cause. What you find there is devoid of reason and yet you believe it gives rise to reason. Please explain how. Make sense of it. Make sense of how consciousness is derived from something lacking it. Explain how morality is possible without a fixed final reference point that is best, what is actual and real, not derived from wishful thinking that is subjective and fleeting (for it changes).[695]

On the contrary, is it reasonable to believe that reason is derived from a necessary mindful and reasoning being? Yes, there is a reason with such a being and experientially and internally consistently (two proofs of logic) that is all we witness.[696]

Theweakeredge 943

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

PGA2.0 1177

The physical is not the only thing we can demonstrate. [ . . . ]

[ . . . ]

[c] Again (and I am getting tired of reminding you) the premise of this thread is which position regarding morality is more reasonable to believe, the atheistic or Christian position. Can you understand that???

[d] It logically follows that the Christian position on morality is more reasonable than one that cannot account for morality as anything other than preference.[697] How does preference make something right?

The question is does it necessarily follow? Does it logically follow? Well, what would be the case for necessity? Morality is derived from mindful beings - it is a mind thing. That is necessary. It is logical to believe (some might say self-evident). We as mindful beings lack what is needed for a fixed, objective, unchanging, absolute reference point [whose human mind(s) would that be] that is the best and that has revealed what is right. There are disputes over what is right in every society. That is seen by our cultures in which the grounds of morality shift and one culture has a contrary view from another. Then in the causal chain, how does mindfulness derive from what is lacking consciousness?[698] How do things happen without intent, agency, or purpose? What was the agency that caused the BB and the chain of events that lead to humanity and reasoning mindful beings? Atheism has a longwinded explanation that has gaping holes in its logic and reason. The Christian system of thought has what is necessary.[699]

PGA2.0 937

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

Theweakeredge 943

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

PGA2.0 1177

The "why" does matter. The reason we can do science is that results are repeatable. The reason we can observe the laws of nature is that the same thing is repeatable indefinitely. I liken the uniformity of nature to rolling a dice. First, rolling a dice needs an agent. It does not roll itself. Then to constantly roll six the dice has to be fixed. The same roll, the same landing, the same result indefinitely requires intent. If there is no intent (i.e., perhaps you have weighted the dice) any number can pop up. Without fixing the dice how long can you go experientially, not in theory, before another number is rolled?[700] Not long, yet you surmise or theorize that time fixes the problem, eons and eons of time makes anything possible.[701] The theoretical is not always akin to the practical. I cannot always be lived. Then with the universe, either something came from nothing, and without agency or cause, a logical impossibility, or the universe always existed. Over and over and over again, the atheistic worldview or way of looking at the universe and what is in it is an inconsistent worldview.

Answering the why questions give reason or agency for a thing.[702]

Then you falsely charge me with an appeal to ignorance.[703] I have presented the above argument before in this thread as well as a number of other pieces of evidence for my stated claim. That appeal to ignorance would be the case if I had presented no evidence for God or for the uniformity of nature as not possible from a chance happenstance position, but I have.

PGA2.0 1202

The god of atheism is the atheist. They declare what is and what should be. The problem is that everyone is right in their own eyes, and yet their beliefs often contradict other atheists and everyone else. That is the problem when there is no absolute, objective measure or final reference point any view can be pushed as right. They are naked, and they don't know it. That is the absurdity of atheism.

Again, atheists have no god and don't believe in one.

Nevets 1199

Certainly an Atheist should feel free to express their opinions on the subject.

PGA2.0 1202

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

Double_R  1201

The burden of proof is always on the person who makes the claim.

PGA2.0 1202

And you have made many claims here.

Double_R  1201

If an atheist claims there are no gods then the atheist does have the burden, but by that point he had already stepped outside of the definition of atheism.

PGA2.0 1202

Atheism is a claim, a worldview, and a lifestyle. The atheist lives as if no God exists. They deny God by most of the things they believe.[704] And then they get into all kinds of complicated arguments against the existence of God just like you are here. You are pushing your atheistic beliefs while denying you have any—the absurdity of it all.

Double_R  1201

There are atheist groups out there but the overwhelming majority of atheists do not belong to any such group.

PGA2.0 1202

Big deal, so what? An atheist is a person who is their own god, proclaiming what is and what should be without a clue of why their view is any BETTER than any other, other than the fact that they like it and hold it.[705] Morality, for the atheist, boils down to a preference, nothing more, since they cannot establish anything other than opinion.[706] Thanks for your opinion!

Double_R  1204

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

PGA2.0 1205

Not in the case of God. There is sufficient evidence for His existence [706], and the contrary belief cannot make sense of itself. I often point out to the atheist that not believing in God contradicts the way they live. They live as if there are right and wrong and that such a belief really matters, yet how can it ultimately matter in an amoral universe that doesn't care because it is not personal and conscious.

Double_R  1204

Characterize me all you want, claim that I think I am my own God (as silly as that is) all you want. If you actually care about understanding people who think differently than you, perhaps you should focus on that.

PGA2.0 1205

You seem to think that I don't know the pitfuls of an atheistic worldview. [ . . . ]

Atheism is a claim, a worldview, and a lifestyle.

The atheist lives as if no God exists.

An atheist is a person who is their own god

I often point out to the atheist that not believing in God contradicts the way they live. They live as if there are right and wrong and that such a belief really matters, yet how can it ultimately matter in an amoral universe that doesn't care because it is not personal and conscious.