Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?

Author: PGA2.0

Posts

Total: 1,638
#151
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
If you deny God or gods what is left but a human evaluation of life, being, origins, etc?
I wouldn't say "deny".

It's more like "fail to acknowledge the value or significance of".

It's more like "ignore after some thorough investigation".

We all start with "human evaluation".

Even you started with "human evaluation".

Why do you think so many "christians" disagree with each other?

It's because "human evaluation" and "human interpretation" is inescapable.

You can certainly claim it's "something else" like "holy inspiration" or something, but you'd better be able to back it up with tons of charisma or else you're likely to be burned alive by your fellows.
#152
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
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. 
OR, perhaps they believe "YHWH" IS REAL and just don't give a flying flip.

(IFF) the cosmos is controlled by a megalomaniacal lunatic who demands my fealty on pain of eternal torture (THEN) FUCK THAT GUY.

I'D RATHER BE ETERNALLY TORTURED THAN TO SHOW OBSEQUIOUS DEFERENCE TO (human) PEOPLE WHO CALL THEMSELVES "PREISTS" AND "PROPHETS" AND "TEACHERS".

(IFF) "YHWH" wants to speak to me (THEN) let them SPEAK.
#153
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@PGA2.0
Some of these Old Covenant examples have been adopted into many legal systems 
It appears you're attempting to blur the line between law and morality. The Torah is a volume of law, not morality. As you said, it is the "day-to-day," one day of which was to be treated differently than the others; a day to consider the law of God. The law is specific. Morality varies. Morality is much closer to theistic religion than to law. One cannot blend moral and legal. Actually, one can; it is limited to a judge, who first settles law, and if it has been broken, and then settles punishment for lawbreaking, where the morality of mercy plays a hand. But mercy does not negate the law; it has been broken, which the judge acknowledges. But the judge is in a position to determine case-by-case disposition, aqnd may find that a severe punishment does not fit the crime and its motivation, and may, therefore, apply mercy. Mere lawyers do not have that flexibility.
#154
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
One cannot blend moral and legal.
There is no distinction in Levitical Law between "moral" and "civil" laws.

Modern laws are based on common-law which was basically community standards that were generally agreed to be moral.

Even the idea of a jury is to keep judgments from straying to far afield from evolving community standards.
Topic's author
#155
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@fauxlaw
Some of these Old Covenant examples have been adopted into many legal systems 
It appears you're attempting to blur the line between law and morality. The Torah is a volume of law, not morality.
Laws deal with what is morally right and wrong. The Law of the Torah deals with what is right and wrong. It is a set of governing principles for people to abide by. There was a reason God prescribed what He did. 

As you said, it is the "day-to-day," one day of which was to be treated differently than the others; a day to consider the law of God.
I'm not familiar with that "day to day" statement. Let me expand on what I mean. Where there is a change of covenants there is a change of the law. The NT is a covenant of grace, the OT was a covenant of works. Jesus meets the requirements of the law on behalf of the believer, satisfying the righteousness of God. He meet every jot and title of the OT law. That, in part is why the NT is a better covenant.

God does not neglect the Law. He fulfills it on behalf of His Son. The Person we have wronged with sin is God. He is in a position to forgive, yet He is also a just Judge. That is why the Son becomes a human being, to meet all the righteous requirements of God and restore humanity's relationship to God. A criminal is separated from society because of his/her wrongdoing. In the same way we have been alienated from God because of our wrongdoing and Jesus sets the record straight. Since God is the One offended, He requires justice, either fulfilled in the Son or in ourselves.

The law is specific. Morality varies. Morality is much closer to theistic religion than to law.
The judgments of the law varies depending on the situation but the law is based on particular principles of morality (what is right and wrong). Yes, sometimes laws are unjust.

Murder is wrong, but what defines or constitutes murder? Is self-defence murder? Is a JUST war wrong? No, there is no malicious intent in protecting yourself. Moral aspects of the law vary. 

One cannot blend moral and legal.
Are or should laws be based on what is right and wrong? How can the two not be blended?  

Actually, one can; it is limited to a judge, who first settles law, and if it has been broken, and then settles punishment for lawbreaking, where the morality of mercy plays a hand.
The law is a set of rules to judge between right and wrong. Mercy is at the discretion of the judge or court, but if someone has broken the law the penalty has not been met until the payment is made. That is why God is mercify as well as just. He meets the penalty in the Son on behalf of those who believe, and gives us His mercy because of the Son's act of grace. Jesus meets the justice of God in paying the penalty. If you are guilty before the law of owing someone more money than you can afford to pay and someone  else steps in and pays the penalty then the debt is met. That is the grace and mercy of God. He is the offended party. He is the one wronged. He is the one who accepts the payment of Another on our behalf in meeting His just standards. The penalty is paid for those who rely on it. Others do not accept it and want to pay it themselves. That is their choice.  

But mercy does not negate the law; it has been broken, which the judge acknowledges. But the judge is in a position to determine case-by-case disposition, and may find that a severe punishment does not fit the crime and its motivation, and may, therefore, apply mercy. Mere lawyers do not have that flexibility.
Sometimes the judge acts as God in such cases. The difference is that the requirements of the law have not been met if the penalty or time served varies between people. It is not equal justice for the crime. Sometimes built into the law of a country there is a principle or provision such as The First Offenders Act to go easy on a first offence if it is a minor offence. That is where grace or mercy comes in. The situation varies depending of what law is broken. But for someone who commits murder they deserve to go to prison. The time they serve may depend on the circumstances involved, such as first-degree murder, second-degree, and so forth. 
Topic's author
#156
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Such a god seems not be the Creator or Originator, perhaps just one of a myriad of created beings.
Perhaps an aspect of a superhyper-natural-god-made-flesh?
I am not sure what you mean. A natural god? What god is this?
Topic's author
#157
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 are right, I am not neutral. I do reject "YHWH" on the basis that I believe NANABOZHO is the ONE true God.
Show me on what basis you do that. I will argue that the evidence is weak compared to the biblical God. So back up your claim by providing the evidence. Although this thread was not created to debate this but rather which worldview better explains and is justified in answering the question of morality, you have not addressed the question. Here it is again:

Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?

So far, very few have addressed this question in providing their system as the more reasonable. Are you going to do that? 

Morality is the subject, and which worldview better explains and is more reasonable to believe regarding morality is the question. You see, I have claimed or stated that Christianity is reasonable to believe whereas atheism is not. That is the subject under discussion, but I continue to answer these questions that do not seem related.
Topic's author
#158
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
A trickster. How can I trust such a deity?
Are you perhaps familiar with the story of JOB? [LINK]
Yes, I am familiar. How do you propose God tricked Job? By teaching him a moral lesson? What do you want me to glean from the video?  Please provide the timepoint in the video you want me to refer to. 
#159
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
Are or should laws be based on what is right and wrong? How can the two not be blended?  
Morality shifts over time, and laws change accordingly, in a democratic society. Christians once thought it was moral to own black people. It was the better moral judgement of others, including some other Christians, that it is in fact immoral, in spite of what's in the bible on the matter.  In any case, at least one group of Christians was reading the bible incorrectly. 
Topic's author
#160
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Two other questions, what deity do you believe in or are you unsure and what do you know about your said deity? 
As a GNOSTIC DEIST, my direct-experiential-communion is a somewhat private affair.
Thus, no evidence to date but your experience as proof. Why should that be believed from the myriad of gods people have believed in throughout humanity? 

Do you want to set up another thread on which is more plausible, the biblical God or your God? 
Topic's author
#161
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 find on almost every page of Scripture in the OT a typological revelation of Jesus Christ
What's your impression of Numbers 31:15-18 [LINK]
As it applies to a revelation of Jesus Christ or on its moral aspect? 


Numbers 31:15-18

New American Standard Bible


15 And Moses said to them, “Have you spared all the women? 16 Behold, these caused the sons of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, so the plague was among the congregation of the Lord. 17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. 18 But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.

***

My impression is that God did not want married women or women who had committed to a man and shared his philosophy of life influencing the men of Israel by ideas that were counter to God's laws and purposes as in what happened with women who taught on the counsel of Balaam, a human and child sacrificial god. Now as for girls or innocent female children, they had not been indoctrinated into the worship of false gods.

Moses wanted those guilty of these wild and immoral practices to be judged while those who were innocent spared. It was an act of mercy, for if God punished the guilty through judgment while leaving the helpless to starve to death and perish, that would not be just or merciful. You may object by saying what is just about seeing your parents killed, but I respond by saying what is just about not punishing the guilty and the guilty do impact the innocent. 

As for some of that reference to Christ, we have the typology of selecting a pure and an innocent wife as opposed to an immoral one, just as Christ selects and loves the Church, His bride, and makes her pure through His sanctifying blood. The Bride of Christ can come before God in purity. The Church are those called out individuals (by the gospel) believers who have placed their trust in Him, not some denomination.  


Topic's author
#162
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.
I am giving examples that work in the quantifying world as well as the qualitative world in the respect that both worlds of values need a measure. I make a distinction between what is qualitative and what is quantitative but I realize that both need a fixed standard of comparison. And, as I said before, oneness is not measurable in the quantitative world for you cannot grab onto the concept of oneness, you can't taste, smell, see, or hear it. Yet the concept of oneness is necessary in grasping quantities. You have to know what one means to apply it to quantities. Physically, oneness does not exist although we can demonstrate the concept in the empirical world. So, the world system of expressing quantities in mathematics has its bearing in the conceptual (minds, intellect), but it also has a visual measuring system. Moral values of right and wrong do not. My point is that there is a measuring system for each - qualitative and quantitative. Quantitative values such as length, weight, height, size can be measured and we have a fixed system of measurement. I argue we do also with qualitative values, by necessity. As with quantitative values there has to be a best or fixed measure as a comparison.   
Topic's author
#163
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 have committed to deity but which one(s)?
NOUMENON.

How do you know you commit to God as He is? It is easy to assert such things, but show me some evidence. You see, the Christian God is strongly evidenced. There is 66 writings that in themselves give verification to the reasonableness of His Being. These writings have many verifications from the world of history and archeology as well that I assert makes your system weak and not as reasonable or sufficient in comparison. The unity is not of one book but of many that are internally consistent although often misunderstood.  
Topic's author
#164
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
Are or should laws be based on what is right and wrong? How can the two not be blended?  
Morality shifts over time, and laws change accordingly, in a democratic society.
Again, that begs the question of what is morally right? I gave you the example of abortion. Was it right then or now??? Second, if laws are made by subjective individuals, what makes those people right in their assessment?

Christians once thought it was moral to own black people. It was the better moral judgement of others, including some other Christians, that it is in fact immoral, in spite of what's in the bible on the matter.  In any case, at least one group of Christians was reading the bible incorrectly. 
Human preferences that do not recognize, discern or follow God's commands and decrees do shift. Christians who ignore or do not rightly discern His decrees and commands are shifting and do not represent the truth. We appeal to the biblical God and seek the right interpretation and understanding as WRITTEN. Where the Bible is silent we make judgments on the principles given and build on those. If a Christian disagrees with me we have a standard, a reference point that we appeal to and make our case from, understanding there is a correct way of understanding God. That is by getting His meaning, not making our own. 
#165
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
Again, that begs the question of what is morally right? I gave you the example of abortion. Was it right then or now??? Second, if laws are made by subjective individuals, what makes those people right in their assessment?
I don't think it's got much to do with what's 'morally right,"  it just addresses why making laws based on morality requires those laws to be changeable with the majority view. If you disagree with a law, there are plenty of paths of recourse. It's just democracy. If your moral objections are compelling, make the argument and convince the majority, and bang, the law now comports with your morals, but until you make the argument, you don't get to say "This is moral, therefore it's legal." These are two separate and distinct notions . It's a pretty simple principle.  You yourself make plenty of arguments like "well it was moral at the time to stone gays, but that changed when JEsus showed up somehow."  




Topic's author
#166
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 do not believe you understand the significance of worldviews in how they influence your thinking and your post demonstrates this. 
ATHEISM IS NOT A WORLDVIEW.
Sure it is for a reasoning and understanding person, not for someone who knows very little and doesn't care to know anything. 

ATHEISM IS MERELY A LABEL FOR "NOT A THEIST".
Atheist is more than the term/label for it describes a way of thinking. 

If you are not a theist you understand things through a naturalistic process because you don't look to a necessary being as creating. Even if you place the inevitable back by interjecting aliens did it, if they are not necessary beings (i.e., eternal personal beings capable of creating the universe that self-exist - a description of God) you are still left with naturalism because you exclude a necessary being or something (someone) that is not caused. Thus, you still need an explanation unless you are proposing something from nothing, which has its own flaws.

ATHESIM HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO SAY ABOUT "THE ORIGINS OF LIFE".
Sure it does. Members of such beliefs speak about origins all the time. 

NOT EVEN SCIENCE SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT "THE ORIGINS OF LIFE".
They can't make sense of it although they offer ideas/theories such as abiogenesis. 

SCIENCE MERELY PRESENTS EVIDENCE OF WHAT IS EMPIRICALLY DEMONSTRABLE.
The Big Bang builds on many presuppositions, so does macroevolution. Evolution is the "science" (more like scientism) of life forms. It is a way of explaining our existence by tracing ourselves back to a simple common ancestor. 

THE "BIG BANG" IS MERELY A DURABLE HYPOTHESIS (WHICH DOESN'T EVEN NECESSARILY CONTRADICT THEISM).
It still attempts to answer how origins of existence happened. And I agree, it does not. 
Topic's author
#167
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
What does stamp collecting have to do with origins or the existence of life?
It's an example of a similar logical structure intended to highlight the absurdity of defining a person by what they don't do or by what they don't believe in.
It is a poor analogy, very loosely based.  

AN ATHEIST MIGHT ALSO BE A DEIST.  TECHNICALLY STILL "NOT A THEIST".
How? An atheist excludes a deity by either explicitly stating God or gods do not exist, or state an ignorance of God or gods and act as if they do not exist, or deny God by saying their is no evidence while still unconsciously believing or presupposing His existence. Their life, their values, their thinking all reflects their ignorance of God or gods.  

AN ATHEIST MIGHT ALSO BE AN ANIMIST.  TECHNICALLY STILL "NOT A THEIST".
Technically, how does that work? What evidence is there of animism? What rock, plant, mountain or animal is capable of creating the universe and is reasonable to believe in? How many human characteristics are given to such a belief.

Not a reasonable belief. 

AN ATHEIST MIGHT ALSO BE A SPIRITUALIST.
What spiritual beings are you speaking of and how reasonable are they to believe in? Are they Almighty and eternal, self-existing beings and how have they revealed themselves that is reasonable to believe? If they are not Almighty then they too are not necessary beings. There is an explanation beyond them.  Something or someone is greater than them. 

AN ATHEIST MIGHT ALSO BE A UNIVERSALIST, SYNCRETIST, AND OR MONIST.
He still denies or ignores God or gods.

AN ATHEIST MIGHT ALSO BE A GNOSTIC.
Knowing what? That God does not exist? Knowing that he does not know God? That would be an agnostic, someone who is ignorant of God and lives their life based on the denial of God. 

AN ATHEIST MIGHT ALSO BE A TAOIST.
May the universe or universal force be with you! Another word for an atheist. 
Topic's author
#168
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Again, what does a rabbit have to do with the derivation of morality?
(IFF) morality is truly "objective" and "universal" (THEN) it must apply equally to all things (not just humans)
If there is no objective and universal reference point then you do not have right and wrong. You just have 'I like this,' or 'I like that.' 

Morality is a framework that humans use to discern right and wrong but if there is no final measure it is arbitrary, relative, subjective and contingent. How does a shifting system of belief make something right or good? It just forces its views on others. 
Topic's author
#169
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
How do atheists justify something as good or bad from where they would necessarily start?
Exactly the same way you do.

Moral impulse.

Sense of fairness.
I point to a necessary fixed standard. What is the standard you reference and what makes it necessary in determining right and wrong?
Topic's author
#170
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
How is the atheist position objective, universal, absolute, unchangeable? 
(1) PROTECT YOURSELF
(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY
(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY
The funny thing is that think kind of thinking promotes violence since it forgets to look out for your neighbours and their rights. It is also a very primitive system. If you don't get your way  with such a system it would be permissible to use whatever means necessary to achieve your goals. 
Topic's author
#171
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
How long does your god believe exclusive copyright protections should last?
No idea of what you mean or the significance of the question. 
If your "YHWH" holds the secret keys to universal justice, what does it say about how long exclusive copyright protections should last?
Since God is eternal, so are His laws and edicts, provided it is not an if/then covenantal agreement He enters into with His human creatures. Sin is wronging God, your Creator and therefore you are accountable for the way you live. Jesus Christ has become of sin offering, an eternal offering, not like the kind offered up by Israel. 

If our laws are supposedly based on the principles of "YHWH", then we need to identify the core principles (PRIMARY AXIOMS) and use them to eradicate all legal contradictions and miscarriages of justice. 
The primary axioms are the Ten Commandments. 

It is ideal we obey God. In that way we obtain His blessings. But we all recognize how unattainable God's perfect standard is. That is why we need a Saviour. We recognize our own inability. Jesus said that to look at a woman lustfully was to commit adultery in our hearts. He equated hating our brother as murder for the same vial feelings and spite are present. 

The laws of our country should be based on these Godly principles which Jesus said boil down to two, love God and love your neighbour. The only one of the Ten Commandments not carried forward from the OT was the Sabbath law. That is because the Sabbath was made for man, not man made for the Sabbath. But the principle of a day of rest is still present. The Sabbath Law of the OT taught or pointed to a spiritual truth revealed in the NT. OT Israel never entered the rest of God, the peace of God, due to their disobedience. And in our everyday life the principle of rest is important, and to take a day of to replenish our minds and bodies is health.

  
Topic's author
#172
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL

What about your god? What kind of puppet-master is he/she/it? (favour returned)
THE (great and mighty all holy and most honorable) NOUMENON is quite inscrutable (one might even say "incomprehensible").

While the vastness of God's knowledge is incomprehensible, what He has revealed about Himself is knowable, and the universe is a reflection of His might/power and wisdom. 

What this bils down to is a comparison and contrasting of our deities in their reasonableness. I am willing to go there. I have not caught up to your current posts. Maybe you have already prepared the thread I suggested so we could stay on topic. What I am doing right now is just going down the queue in order and answering each post. 
Topic's author
#173
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
The instruction manual is called instinct, protection for survival, plus trial and error. 
Same for humans, same for wolves.
As humans we rely on so much more than instinct. We rely on logic and reason and conceptions that the wolf is not able to express as we can, if it even thinks such things. There is no evidence it does contemplate origins, nor that it discusses morality and philosophize about what is more evil, it killing a rabbit or us killing it. It just runs by instinct because we have shown we get the better of it more often than not because we can outthink it.  
Topic's author
#174
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you saying that a supernatural Being can't choose to speak through a donkey? 
Not at all.  I'm saying that "YHWH" CAN DO ANYTHING!!!  INCLUDING STOP ALL CRIME AND END ALL SUFFERING!!!
He can do all things physical that are logically possible but He can't create a square circle. That is a logical absurdity. As for morally, God cannot tell a lie and He will not punish the innocent with separation for Him but reward them with eternal life. This life is just a prelude to a greater reality. 

So, yes, He could stop all crime and does in His time. He has a purpose for allowing crime. It showcases what humanity will resort to when they ignore God. And at some point many, if not most of us, who think about this issue of evil will seek out a solution to it and the greater good which is found in God.  

If I can prevent a murder, and I just stand there and do nothing, am I not morally culpable?
Yes. 
Why does "YHWH" stand by and do nothing while countless people die every single day?
He does not. God allows us to reach a point where our moral evil reaches a limit then comes judgment. Once we take ourselves outside of God's hand of protection all evil breaks loose because the restraint and protection against the hands that evil humans do is removed and bad things happen. And sometimes God allows us to experience the bad as a life lesson and to rely on Him more fully. Such is the case with natural disasters. So, there is a purpose that we do not always see and then mostly in retrospect. Good comes from evil, as exhibited in natural disasters and inhumane acts. People do rally and show love. 
Topic's author
#175
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
A preference is a like or desire for or against something held by an individual or group. How does a preference (I like ice-cream) make that anything other than a personal taste or a group of people all liking the same thing? They like the taste. How does that make tasting ice-cream morally right? That would be equivocating to different things that are not related. 
You're drawing a distinction without a difference.

You say that you have moral preferences.
I am arguing against preferences as being morally justifiable based on what preferences are and I am arguing that an atheist has no recourse but to resort to them because that system of thought, devoid of God, has no fixed standard. Your preference could very well be different from another, so the question then is which is the true preference, as if there can be without a final reference point. 

And then you say that your personal moral preferences are not "preferences".
I'm saying that my basis for morality has what as necessary and an atheistic one does not, nor can an atheist show it is, as I have asked SkepticalOne to do since he claims his is morally objective. To date he has not been able to show me it is, or even that it is reasonable to believe. 

And remember the topic, please. 

Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism? (in explaining morality)

You're basically saying your moral preferences are universal and authoritative.
I'm saying without God, a necessary being, what is right is a shifting preference that cannot be locked down. It always shifting and that is what we see with most cultures for they have rejected the biblical God. Thus, might makes right and wars are fought over who is right, so this 'moral' preference (although I don't know how you can call it right or good without a best to compare good to) has no fixed address. 

That would be like someone declaring that french or chinese is "the world's best and most objective language" and then forcing everyone to use it exclusively.
Preferences do that. They mix two different subjects, morality and preference, , a taste, a feeling, a description - 'I like, or I think' - with a prescription - 'You ought to.' To put it differently, it is mixing something that is with something that ought to be. 
Topic's author
#176
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, do you believe that it is okay for soldiers to kill civilians for fun by your approval? 
My personal preference would be for everyone to stop killing each other.
Why is your preference significant if there are not absolute, objective standards, like with atheism? Maybe you don't like it (again, a description) but what makes that wrong for someone who does?

However, more to the point of the question, THERE IS NO LAW THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T ENJOY AN AUTHORIZED LEGAL SHOOTING.
So then you would agree that it is okay to torture innocent children for fun? 

And naturally, you'd expect the people who are repulsed by killing to do much less of it, leaving the doors wide for those eager to send their fellows through the gates of hell.
Again, it is God who is wronged. He is just and will not let those who practice evil and will not repent a close relationship with Him and those who do. God has a right to do with His creation as He wishes and He will not punish innocent creatures. Since we are designed for fellowship with Him forever and if we do not choose as much then the option is separation for eternity, which will be hell since you think the moral relativism now is bad. When there are no restraints it will be worse. 
Topic's author
#177
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
All your claim does is make one society or culture prefer one thing and another the opposite. In some countries abortion is illegal and others it is legal. What is your preference? The problem is that two societies, groups, or individuals who advocate opposite standards as good cannot both be correct in their thinking at the same time.
Morality is like language.

Each geographical area implicitly agrees on a "standard" and that "standard" evolves over time.
Evolves to what? How can something that has no fixed best be better? Better than what? If you don't have an ideal then how can you determine and compare qualitative value? 

When two geographical areas have conflicting or opposite views then which is the true view? Are you telling me that both are correct? That is illogical as shown by the law of identity, the law of noncontradiction, and the law of middle exclusion which are contravened. And what happens to the person who lives slap dab on the border of two geographical areas. Whose law should he obey? Is he free to do the one on Monday and the opposite on Tuesday? If one cultural group or geographic location allows killing an innocent human being (abortion) and the other does not can a person on the borde flip-flop. Are they allowed to determine whatever they want to do? 

There is no "universal" "one-true" language.
So your conclusion is that because of that there can be no universal or true moral values? As I have said before, you can think such thoughtss but you can't live practically with those beliefs for the minute someone cuts in line in front or harms your innocent family members, or tortures you sadistically for fun against your will,  you know it is wrong, and if you don't I would say you have major problems. There is no, 'Well that is your choice but I would prefer you did not do it.' There is a definite, 'What you are doing is wrong.'

So, once again, the question becomes what (or rather who - for morality is a mind based thing) is that universal true standard of morality? 
#178
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
Why is your preference significant if there are not absolute, objective standards, like with atheism?
Why is your preference significant if there are not absolute, objective standards, like with christianity? After all don't forget 
God understands there are some things I must do to live
This is an interesting tidbit too. If he can make exceptions based on the situation isn't that suddenly a subjective standard?

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

I mean killing innocent people. Is it okay to kill innocent human beings? If so, would you object if you're next? You see, in practice you can say it is okay but you can't live by such standards. They do not pass the livable test. I can choose to eat or not eat sugar (my preference) at my own peril, but should I also be allowed to kill innocent people if that was my preference? The first choice involves my own person, the other someone else. Is it okay to treat others any way I want to treat them?  
Wow seems like you have found a perfectly reasonable standard for determining the moral correctness of an action which requires no god(s) and no dogma.

No, you are wrong. Although I can reason killing innocent people is wrong, if someone else thinks the opposite it becomes a battle of wills or might unless there is an objective, universal fixed standard of appeal - a should or should not that is universal and fixed.  All I am saying is that you can't live by a system of thought that does not treat innocent human beings equally, because eventually, you are going to have the tables turned on you where you are innocent and treated unfairly. While you can argue it matters, how would it ultimately matter in a universe devoid of meaning? And it might matter for you but someone else might not give a damn. We would just be living under the illusion that it mattered in an amoral universe. And since there is no final accountability again, what does it matter if I can do something without consequences?

Whether or not it passes the liveability test, some people just don't care. If there is no universal wrong does it matter? If there is no universal accountability what does it matter if you get away with treating others unfairly? That is the problem with atheism. It has no objective, universal court of appeal. Everything is subjective. 
Topic's author
#180
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Through a stated revelation. God chose to reveal. Someone who is more than descriptive chose to reveal. 
Please reveal "YHWH"s PRIMARY MORAL AXIOMS.
I did in a previous post but I will do so again. To put it simply and concise - love God and love your neighbour. 

Now what does that look like - the Ten Commandments.