Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?

Author: PGA2.0

Posts

Total: 1,638
Topic's author
#211
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.
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.
Composition fallacy. You are inferring that because these writings predate the biblical writings that they were before the biblical God and the biblical God is made up because of them. One alternative is that as humanity drifted away from relationship with God they invented their own religions loosely based on the biblical God and the Bible is God setting the record straight. And that is what we find Moses who had direct communication with God, per the Exodus accounts, doing. 

These are the records of the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his time; Noah walked with God.

[ Descendants of Noah ] Now these are the records of the generations of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah; and sons were born to them after the flood.

[ Descendants of Shem ] These are the records of the generations of Shem. Shem was one hundred years old, and became the father of Arpachshad two years after the flood;

You are also implying that because these records are first that these other gods by default predate the biblical God. 

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".
You are confusing pantheism with monogism. God transcends His creation. A tree is not God. A tree is created by God and owes its existence to God.

- Ethica Ordine Geometrico Demonstrata


Topic's author
#212
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
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).
I forget the context of my statement. We have exchanged a lot of correspondence. The greater context was not included and I don't want to do the work in investigating.
Therefore, I will grant you the benefit of the doubt. Please include the greater context in the future if you want to make a charge against me. If you want to supply the greater context we can discuss it further. 
Topic's author
#213
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
There are logical answers for these apparent contradictions...
Does god tempt man?
 Tempts, yes, but not in an evil way. God is not tempted by evil, nor does He ever tempt anyone to do evil. God tempts man to seek Him out through His Word, His Son, His Spirit and by the situations God allows human beings to face. He tests man (humanity) to expose our character and also our faith or lack of. Tests teach us about ourselves. Suffering helps us to empathize with others who suffer.  Life is a roller-coaster of ups and downs. As believers, God does not give us more than we can handle. His purpose in suffering is to draw us as believers closer to Him. 

When Israel strayed from obedience to God then God withdrew His hand of protection. Sometimes He allowed them to heap up their sins until He reached the limit of which He would allow them to go unpunished. 

We pray for God to deliver us from evil, but just like in the OT times, sometimes God allows evil for a purpose. We do not want to be tempted by evil to test our character. He does not cause evil, but by removing His hand of protection it finds us. Evil is going against God's good commands and decrees. Sometimes God brings a natural disaster upon us or allows us to experience it in judgment of evil. It either brings out the good in us or hardens us to God.  Evil others do affect us, and the evil we do affects others. 
Topic's author
#214
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 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?
Nope. 


Is your tibia aware of your elbow?
No, it does not think or have awareness. I do.


Is every part of your body aware of every other part of your body?
No. I am sometimes aware of my body parts, but they are not aware of me. 

How big is your enteric nervous system cluster?

No idea. What does this have to do with anything? The conversation is digesting more and more. What does any of this have to do with the topic at hand? Are you implying or inferring that it does? 
Topic's author
#215
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
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?
I consider myself more knowledgeable than the average Joe. I understand many biblical teaching through forty years of being a Christian (1980). When in doubt about a teaching I use not only my reason, but the reason of others to seek an answer while I compare and contrast what is said to the biblical teaching. I realize that in Jesus Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

How do you know what "YHWH" wants you to do today?
His Word speaks to my spirit and I reason with Him through it. There is no audible communication. He does not direct me to go here or there at a specific time. In reading His word I am taught godly principles and I ponder how they relate to the world around me. Sometimes I have an opportunity to share my faith in little ways. When the opportunity presents itself I will engage but I do not go knocking from door to door. I live by faith, believing that God sets up opportunities. It is up to me to be open and faithful to Him in representing His word to the best of my ability. The more I study His word the more I get to know Him and what He is like. I look upon myself not as an evangelist but as someone who is planting seeds that may or may not sprout, depending on whether God makes them grow. It is not up to me. I do not know how hard of a heart a person has (how receptive to God) but I can judge to a degree by their openness and responses. If a person has a question I will do my best to answer it until I sense that they are trampling God's word, then I shake the dust from my feet. If someone is against God, I will tempt to reason with them since I am convinced God's word is able to penetrate the fortresses of opposition. Again, that is up to His Spirit. But when someone turns nasty it is time to move on. I understand that people resist God because they want to do their own thing. Their own thing leads to chaos and bad consequences. When they reach the end of their rope some reach out to Him in desperation. 

Do you ask yourself, or do you ask someone else?
Sometimes I need the counsel of others in understanding deep issues. I listen to that counsel and think how it relates to God's word. I am not afraid of failure because I know He will never leave me or forsake me. Failure helps me grow, even though it is unpleasant. It teaches life lessons. I just live life as best as I can and when an opportunity presents itself I tell others the reasons why I believe what I do. That is why I frequent these threads. It gives the opportunity to test myself and test others.
Topic's author
#216
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
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.

Specifically, what?
Topic's author
#217
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 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]
Again, the presentation relies on your merit, your good deeds outweighing your bad deeds. It does not take into account God's moral purity and holiness, and the wrongs we have done that deserve addressing. Remember, God is a good Judge. He does not wink at evil or wrongdoing but addresses it. Thus, I realize my good deeds do not measure up to His perfection and that I have fallen short of the mark He has set for intimate fellowship and peace and joy with Him. That is why I look to the works of another, the Lord Jesus Christ in setting my record straight. 

So, my moral maths is a realization that I do not measure up to God's perfection and goodness. Thus, once again, I take the means God has given me to do that. I no longer continue to strive to do the impossible. I see through the example of OT Israel that they were abject failures in maintaining their relationship with God. They continually ignored Him and His moral compass. His word is my plumb line. Through it I realize I am not good enough in my own merit to have a close relationship with such a pure and holy Person. I can't come into His presence and live there on my own merit, only on that of Jesus Christ.

Romans 3:5-18 (NASB)
5 But if our unrighteousness [a]demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? (I am speaking in human terms.) 6 May it never be! For otherwise, how will God judge the world? 7 But if through my lie the truth of God abounded to His glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner? 8 And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), “Let us do evil that good may come”? [b]Their condemnation is just.
9 What then? [c]Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; 10 as it is written,
“There is none righteous, not even one;
11 There is none who understands,
There is none who seeks for God;
12 All have turned aside, together they have become useless;
There is none who does good,
There is not even one.”
13 “Their throat is an open grave,
With their tongues they keep deceiving,”
“The poison of asps is under their lips”;
14 “Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness”;
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood,
16 Destruction and misery are in their paths,
17 And the path of peace they have not known.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

If that is all you've got why should I believe you when I hold different beliefs about morality?
Unless you can show me that your beliefs are well founded and ring true to what is the case, the actual good, your moral system is a facade, something you hide behind. Show me it has what is necessary by showing me it is objective for starters, or at least reasonable to believe it is objective. That is step one. If that involves your god, then show me how your god is reasonable to believe. Show me what evidence that god as given you so that you might believe in such a god. 

You see, I am well prepared to show you that my God meets the burden of proof but what has been written. I can also show you how your god contradicts my God, so at least one of the two is false. 

Therefore, I suggest you lay out truths about your god and why that god is true and I will contrast your beliefs with the Christian God and show you why what you believe is not as reasonable to believe. Whether you still choose to believe is your choice of course.  

But that's the funny thing.  We discovered our moral instincts in exactly the same way.  And we believe basically the same thing (ethics).
Do we? And who is borrowing from whose system of morality? 

Why do you think mine is just moral instinct? I look to a source outside myself that has revealed. 

What is your stance on abortion, same-sex marriage, capital punishment, adultery? We could test our beliefs in each of these areas, or to cut it short let's even see if we think the same about abortion. 

The fact that you claim your moral codec is endorsed by some celestial celebrity means nothing to me.
What is objective about your moral choices? Do you have what is necessary for objectivity? If so, lay out your case.

The fact that I might claim my own moral codec is endorsed by some rival celestial celebrity means nothing to you.
Go ahead. Let us test it out. I am game!

What makes one subjective preference 'better' than another?
The ability to cobble together PERSUASIVE RHETORIC (AND OR BLUNT FORCE).
(As he reaches for his gun and cocks the trigger. "Persuade me," He says.)

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.
How is that absolute? It is asking a question. I am inquiring how atheists, using qualitative language, such as 'good, better, evil,' arrive at such a term if there is no ideal or fixed standard on which to compare these values against? Show me how their view reflects anything other than subjectivism or relativism.

Where's your moral mathematics?
See above.

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.
No, mine is not myself. I appeal to a reference that is beyond myself. I look to that point of view as a necessary authority on morality and adopt His thoughts on the subject of morality. Morality does not derive from me but Another! I look at His goodness, His nature, the attributes He displays by His word and see they meet the standard - fixed, unchanging, eternal, objective. 
Topic's author
#218
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 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?
What is there predictability rate in percentage? 

No, they do not deserve worship for they do not make the claim to be your Creator and I am highly doubtful of the information you provided that they are trustworthy. 
#219
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,608
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@PGA2.0
An example of  God's moral purity and holiness, 5.4 million children under the age of 5 died in 2019.
Topic's author
#220
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
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.
Are they the earliest records, though?

I have shown you that Moses compiled a whole bunch of records earlier than his writings. Just because we do not have archaeological proof today does not mean those records were fictitious or later than the Epic of Gilgamesh. What we do find from such records is that in some parts they agree with the biblical accounts, such as a worldwide flood. An explanation of these accounts is that they have been passed down from Noah and the oral translation corrupted over a period of time. Thus, Moses sets the record straight by an actual revelation from God in which he speaks with God, as well as compiling an account from what records he had access to. 

Presumably those records would be the most accurate, since they would be recorded the people closest to the actual events.
You are presuming a lot. The biblical accounts have a far more in-depth account of the histories and interactions of Israel with other ntions than anything else we find. The confirmation in history and archaeology from these biblical documents is good.  

IF YOU HAVE SOME SPECIAL DEFINITION OF "REASONABLE" THAT YOU'D LIKE ME TO CONSIDER, PLEASE MAKE IT EXPLICIT.
Just the standard definitions of the word:

rea·son·a·ble
1. Capable of reasoning; rational: a reasonable person.
2. Governed by or being in accordance with reason or sound thinking: a reasonable solution to the problem.
3. Being within the bounds of common sense: arrive home at a reasonable hour.
4. Not excessive or extreme; fair: reasonable prices.

Reasons to believe in God as the sensible explanation rather than chance happenstance is because the one is intelligent and logical, the other devoid of such things. Thus, with a rational being you would expect to find order and design in the universe and with God's creature - humankind. With chance happenstance, why? It is reasonable to believe that an almighty, omniscient God can do things that exceed our limited abilities. Not so with chance happenstance or something impersonal. There would be no reason with chance happenstance. Things just happen. The universe, if it had a cause must have an explanation since we find and trace back explanations to the beginning, but unless origins have been revealed by such a being they are guesswork.  


Topic's author
#221
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Before the Bible was codified...
There's a significant gap between Abraham and "codification".
As with most ancient history, so what? Moses is said to be the human author of the Pentateuch, which includes the account of Abraham. 
Topic's author
#222
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 why you think this god is worthy of worship and consideration.
Because it made everything without demanding worship.
So you do not believe in giving honour  and gratitude where they are due? Worship is giving that honour, adoration, awe, gratitude, and appreciation to a Being of greatest glory, majesty, purity, holiness, goodness, and worth. 

Because it made everything without threatening eternal torture.
While the Bible uses much apocalyptic language and metaphors about hell, I believe that hell is an experience devoid of the biblical God. If you don't want a relationship with Him why would He include you in His presence? The eternal darkness of hell is a life devoid of God. 

Is a parent "worthy" of "worship" simply because they made their children?
No, a parent is worthy of honour and respect being your elder and being responsible for your life and taking care of you. Worship is an awesome wonder and appreciation of the majesty and glory that is God. 

Is an engineer "worthy" of "worship" simply because they designed some robots?
No, only God is worthy of worship. You can respect and appreciate a person and their ability, but to bow down in total reveerence and obeisance is a different matter. 

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.
We are designed but we have our own wills, a volition to do what we want or desire to do. A robot is programmed to do the will of its maker. We have a choice but suffer the consequences when we don't obey what is good. A robot does not have a mind of its own. It is only as good as its program and programmer. 
Topic's author
#223
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'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??
They are established by the Ten Commandments. Most nations, most cultures, most groups, most individuals of the world recognize the fundamentals of the Ten Commandments as they relate to human beings - do not murder, steal, lie, covet, commit adultery, and do honour your parents. In most legal systems these principles are ruled upon. 
Topic's author
#224
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Atheists usually incorporate humanism in their belief system. 
That's not the same thing.
Okay, let be be more specific, secular humanism.

Without God or gods you are not left with a personal being but a force which is not directed by intent or purpose. It just is. So an atheist would be a secular humanist. 

See the definition under the heading "Ultimate Reality" in the following article about secular humanism as 'vehemently atheistic.'

Definition of secular humanism

: HUMANISM sense 3especially : humanistic philosophy viewed as a nontheistic religion antagonistic to traditional religion

***

humanism, secular humanism(noun)
the doctrine emphasizing a person's capacity for self-realization through reason; rejects religion and the supernatural

Secular Humanism
The philosophy or life stance of secular humanism embraces human reason, ethics, social justice and philosophical naturalism, while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience or superstition as the basis of morality and decision making. It posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god.
Topic's author
#225
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 deny God or gods what is left but a human evaluation of life, being, origins, etc?
I wouldn't say "deny".
de·ny
 1. To declare untrue; assert to be false: "A senior officer denied that any sensitive documents had been stored there" (Scott Ritter).
2. To refuse to believe; reject: deny the existence of evil spirits.
3. To refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disavow: The official denied any wrongdoing.
4.
a. To decline to grant or allow; refuse: deny the student's request; denied the prisoner food or water.
b. To give a refusal to; turn down or away: The protesters were determined not to be denied.
c. To restrain (oneself) especially from indulgence in pleasures.

Most of those definitions apply. 

It's more like "fail to acknowledge the value or significance of".
See definition 3.

It's more like "ignore after some thorough investigation".
If you ignore God or gods you form your own opinions devoid of God. It is once again a form of denial.

Matthew 10:32-33 (NASB)
32 “Therefore everyone who [a]confesses Me before men, I will also confess [b]him before My Father who is in heaven. 33 But whoever [c]denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.

We all start with "human evaluation".
And find out its limitations. We need a greater perspective. A revelation from God would give that greater perspective. 

Even you started with "human evaluation".
While I was an unbeliever before I believed, I now have a different perspective. I look to God for understanding, and even though I have to evaluate His wording through my human filter, I believe there is a correct interpretation of His words or else communication would be impossible. That correct interpretation comes from finding the Author's meaning, not interjecting my own meaning into the text. 

Why do you think so many "christians" disagree with each other?
They do not try to understand what God is saying. Their bias, influence from others, and denominationalism gets in the way. His Word is our standard. 

It's because "human evaluation" and "human interpretation" is inescapable.
Even though I use my human filter - my mind - I try to get the Author's meaning. That is possible, so there is a correct INTERPRETATION. 

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.
The back up is reasonable and logical. I usually use prophecy, the resurrection, the internal consistency and unity of the word to substantiate my points. With prophecy I refer to human history of the biblical times too. 
Topic's author
#226
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
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.
As I said in my statement, "they don't care enough to seek God"
(because they have not examined their beliefs well enough)

(IFF) the cosmos is controlled by a megalomaniacal lunatic who demands my fealty on pain of eternal torture (THEN) FUCK THAT GUY.
Again, a megalomaniacal lunitic is not the biblical God. I have gone in depth enough via previous posts to give reasons why that is not the case. It has to do with sin and God's purity. Why should He welcome you into His presence while your mission is to continually disrespect and disobey His good commands for your well being and accommodate your self-centered and selfish wants? 

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

You get what you give!

As you sow, so you reap. 

(IFF) "YHWH" wants to speak to me (THEN) let them SPEAK.
The biblical testimony is that He has. He chose to speak through a people, Israel. What is needed for salvation and a right standing before God has been revealed. 
Topic's author
#227
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. 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. 
Morals shift if there is no objective, fixed standard. Humans make laws that shift. That brings up the question of what is true to what is?

Some Christians went against the teaching of Scripture but it was also Christians who fought for the Emancipation Proclamation and the end of slavery, based on Scripture and God's best for humanity that is experienced in His kingdom. 

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 

We are to treat others like we would want to be treated (the Golden Rule). 

I can't speak for everyone who is a Christian but I see human beings regardless of their skin tone. I am to love my neighbour and Jesus defined our neighbour in the example of the Good Samaritan. Paul defined love. I stand by that definition. 

Love is kind. Love does not rejoice in unrighteousness.  
Topic's author
#228
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
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.
Majority view? Is that what you base right upon? That is an appeal to the people or argumentum ad populum. It is based on the false notion that something is true just because the majority accepts it as true. And what are such laws by the majority based upon can be an appeal to emotion? Nazi Germany's persecution of the Jews was both of those, IMO. They villainized the Jews, then passed laws expressing that bias. Were those laws just? No!

So, if you want just laws they must be based on what is actually right regardless of how many people like such laws. Abortion is just morally wrong, except were there is no choice in that the woman and unborn will die in the case of a tubal pregnancy. At least one can be saved. It should not be the woman's right to CHOOSE to kill another INNOCENT human being. If humans are to be treated equally under the law, that does not give some humans the 'right' to decide whether or not an innocent human being is killed. 

Again, I question your values in respect to majority rule as to the vehicle that determines the 'good' or moral 'right.' And I question how you, if you are an atheist, gets to the good and the right without a fixed ideal best to compare values against. If they are arbitrarily made up why are your views "better" than any other 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."
You country is a Republic but the party in power or the party that controls public opinion so often packs the courts with liberal judges that think in a particular way that legislates rather than inteprets the rules or laws. What makes them right other than force or mob rule, as witnessed by the riots under the guise of peaceful protests.

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."  
Stoning was an OT law. It is not carried through to the NT as a physical punishment. Remember, Jesus came to a people who lived under the OT Law. Jesus died to instate a new covenant. That means the old does not apply and there was a transition taking place during the 1st-century between the OT and NT.  

During the Old Covenant, an if/then covenant, God illustrated His holiness and purity by laws that addressed the times they lived in (they came from a chattel slave state - Egypt). They were instructed not to adopt the same practices when they entered the Promised Land. In the case of marriage, God's decree was a contract or covenant between one man and one woman. It was a sacred bond (still is) and it was symbolic and typological of the holy union between Christ and His Bride. Thus, the covenant between God and Israel was a holy covenant not to be broken without punishment. Since the punishment of sin is death, breaking of some of the OT laws required the death penalty. God sanctioned sex only between a married man and a woman. Adultery or man with a man was forbidden under the covenant. It did not reflect the lesson God was teaching Israel directly and us as believers today indirectly. The stoning of the guilty party  - the adulterer or man with a man - was the punishment. It was sanctioned by God as something that should not be done by the community of believers since they agreed to live to God.

With the New Covenant our judgment is in heaven. What is done now is answerable when we stand before God, and as Christians Christ stands before God on our behalf, as our Advocate and High Priest. Christ has taken our judgment. We are free from the penalty of the Law, but we also have a changed heart in that we do not or should not practice that which is wrong. We no longer live in a theocracy as believers, but in our hearts the law is hidden. We recognize that the Ten Commandments are just. We are not under the law as Christians, although we recognize the goodness of the Ten Commandments. They are a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ since we  recognize it is still wrong to murder, steal, lie, covet, commit adultery, dishonour parents. 


Topic's author
#229
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Tradesecret
Atheism has no morality. Nor does it purport to do so.  It is a non-system of individuals who share no common doctrines or dogma. They simply state they are non-faith people. 

Hence, it is impossible for them to argue they have morality - they don't - not as atheists. The only morality they could possibly use is morality they have borrowed from other worldviews.    This is their cake - they cannot eat it as well.   Either they have morality - which means they have a shared doctrine or dogma or they have no morality of their own - but borrow it from everywhere else. 
I agree with you 100%. I would argue that what atheists call morality is their 'moral' preference, their likes and dislikes. They impose those on others by laws. But what is good or right they have no ideal or fixed standard for, thus you are again correct, they borrow from a system of thought that does. We as Christians have a solid foundation for right and wrong, they do not. We can justify our worldview in this area, they can't. 


How of course they are able to measure whether it is good or not - is going to be interesting.  They will try and say science - but this is nonsense. Not because science is nonsense - because it is not - but because science is objective - allegedly. Morality is subjective. And cannot be tested scientifically.  
I agree that morality cannot be tested through empirical means that science uses. It requires a different standard. I believe there is an objective morality that comes by revelation from God. I believe the Ten Commandments deals with the objective standard. I see most countries today have laws against murder, adultery, purgery, theft, and for custody by parents for their children until they reach a certain age, which varies among cultures. These, will perhaps not universal, are largely accepted as wrong.

On that note, I agree the founding fathers of your country (USA) got it right in the Declaration of Independence, that all men (humanity) are created equal. If that aspect is ignored in the law of the land justice is not equal. Thus, abortion is wrong. Not all human beings are treated with equality or dignity. Some are horribly exploited and discriminated against to the point of dehumanization. 

  
Topic's author
#230
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
Although I can reason killing innocent people is wrong, if someone else thinks the opposite it becomes a battle of wills
Incorrect. In a social species such as humans it is a function of consensus.
Again, that is an appeal to popularity. What makes that right?  Very often there is not a consensus, such as with abortion, capital punishment, same-sex marriage, even adultery as the norms and conventions change.  

A sense of fairness (proto morality) can be observed to a degree in canines and to a larger degree in apes. Humans have codified these moral consensus decisions into law. These laws tend to reflect what is in general considered to favor human wellbeing.
Fairness, in whose mind(s)? Wellbeing in whose mind(s)? Why are they right? What do they have as their fixed foundation in determining right and wrong? As TradeSecret said, they borrow from a system that can answer such questions while denying it at the same time.  

This is unsurprising under the current accepted models as those tribes which did not cooperate and care for one another as well would not have survived to pass on their genes. In as much as many behaviors would seem to be at least partly determined by genetics I would expect any race of sentient social tool users to develop something we can recognize as "morality".
Until recently some of these tribes still practiced cannibalism and other atrocities by today's standards like Sati or Apartheid or segregation for the "wellbeing" of the elites. In other cultures, the elite oligarchy or dictatorship has in mind the survival of their small powerful group. China and North Korea comes to mind but I could cite many, many more elitist cultures, one being the Caste system in India. There is a lot of unfairness about such systems. Some cultures of not long ago practiced kidnapping and slavery, even exploitation of women and sex trafficing.  

But with the OT Ten Commandments, even these elitist societies recognize murder as wrong, as long as it is not the murder they do. Abortion is the greatest holocaust in the history of the world to date. 

The point is that it isn't a stretch that humans would object to getting killed and understand that taking measures against individuals who cannot be trusted not to kill is preferred to no such measure. What else is necessary in order for us to agree that killing people is wrong than the mutual agreement that we would not like to kill each other, be killed by each other or see each other killed?
Tell that to Kim Jong Un or Xi Jinping. 

This can be applied to any given law. I would not like to be stolen from. Can we agree not to steel from one another? I would not like to be owned by another human being as their property. Can we agree not to own one another? I would not like you to violate my bodily autonomy or the sanctity of my home. Can we agree not to violate each other's bodily autonomy or the sanctity of our homes? This us actually super easy and requires no god(s) and no metaphysical codex of absolute right and wrong written into the fabric of reality. The onus therefore of proving any god(s) or any such code on the one claiming they exist. Humans agreeing to live in (relative) harmony with one another is not evidence for any such.
We can, but others can't. That is the problem. Some do not recognize some of these aforementioned things as wrong. But since you do, are you proposing an objective moral standard? If so, what is the best you derive that from since I have shown you that people do not have the same views on fairness or wellbeing? In fact, wars are fought over these very disputes. Two different countries, cultures, tribes, groups, or individuals fight over differences of opinion on such matters. 
Topic's author
#231
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
If all I have is preference there is no moral good, just opinion based on likes, dislikes, and/or force or charisma. 
We are talking at cross purpose here. I don't care what you call the actual standard I use that informs me to not kill people because that isn't what I want the world to be like it has the effect of making me and most humans atheist or theist adopt some legal standard.
Well, you may not care but I do. I want justice to be equal for all and I want laws based on what is actually right, not on some subjective or collective relative opinion. But nevertheless, that is not the gist of this topic. The topic is which morality is more reasonable to believe, that proposed by Atheism or Christianity? If you do not have an objective standard why should I think your subjective opinion is better than mine? And if you do, what is that opinion on specific things such as abortion? Is it okay to kill innocent unborn human beings because you don't want them?

Then, how does such a standard originate from chance happenstance? There are many hurdles to straddle. 

If this isn't morality it is still enough for me and enough for a working legal system.
Fine for you but what about those who disagree and are willing to fight you over your "opinion?" If it works for you, fine, but what about those who it does not work for because it is unjust? It only looks after the wellbeing of some.   

At this point I think you may be defining morality out of existence which is fine I'll just need a word that means what I am actually trying to say which is working consensus legal/moral opinion such that it informs itself to human welfare (since I don't really care to participate in a system with other goals this works for me and I certainly don't need any god to tell me not to kill people all willy nilly.)
So it is about you! What is good is about you? Do you think your system of thought as an atheist is morally justifiable? If so, justify why your subjective opinion is better than mine and how you measure better when there is no fixed reference as a comparison???
Topic's author
#232
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@FLRW

An example of  God's moral purity and holiness, 5.4 million children under the age of 5 died in 2019.
No, an example of God's witness to humanity when human beings think they know better than God and create unjust laws and practice all kinds of evil. As I have said many times, the evil you do affects others and the evil a whole system of justice does that is not just affect in some cases billions, such as in the case of abortion. 

With abortion, the number of deaths this year is close to 32 million. Weigh that.
#233
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
Well let's look at the Yahweh's actions and pronouncements as described by the bible.

Commands, condones and commits genocide.

Holds people guilty until proven innocent (original sin).

Holds people guilty for crimes committed by other individuals (original sin).

Prefers rape of women to consensual sex between men.

Condones the ownership of people as property in perpetuity including being granted as inheritance. 

Commands Capitol punishment for many transgressions.

Punishes the very best and most loyal of his servants just to prove a point to a third party (job).

Murders children (the flood, the slaughter of many tribes in which the hebrews were commanded to kill all the livestock and babies) and even removes freewill (which I am unconvinced exists but since the biblical view of morality is predicated on choice this seems pretty telling) in order to justify killing more children (hardened Pharoah's heart so that he could kill the first born of Egypt).

Condemns people to infinite punishment for finite transgressions including such things as having a bad attitude when one says one of the names of Yahweh, falling in love with persons who have the wrong genitals, and being skeptical of a being who purposefully cloaks itself in mystery as some sort of test of faith (a questionable virtue hinestly).

If this is your objective moral standard it isn't good enough to satisfy my moral intuition. If that is the behavior and decrees of a perfect moral being I have no interest in being moral whatsoever and instead intend to concentrate my efforts on human welfare and the betterment of quality of life.

It fails the test of livability. I do not want to "be next" under this system. 
#234
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Is it okay to kill innocent unborn human beings because you don't want them?
Is it okay to violate my bodily autonomy and force me to donate my kidney to a dying human? Is refusing to donate my kidney the same as killing the human in question? 
#235
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
So it is about you! What is good is about you? Do you think your system of thought as an atheist is morally justifiable? If so, justify why your subjective opinion is better than mine and how you measure better when there is no fixed reference as a comparison???
Better is a subjective term. It is only useful if we first have a reference point. If the reference point is human welfare then I believe my view is "better" at promoting welfare. If the reference point is some possibly fictional god then until the god is demonstrate along with s ok me methodology for unambiguously (not subject to interpretation) determining the will of said god then even if it exists we are still all just guessing. If I understand your method properly it is very suspect specifically because it is subject to interpretation which allows subjective opinions to again enter the conversation.
#236
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@PGA2.0
just for the record - I am not an American. I am from the southern hemisphere. In the area known as Oceania. 
#237
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@PGA2.0
Not all human beings are treated with equality and dignity.
Nope, never have been and will not be for the foreseeable future.

And neither the bible nor the U.S. actually promotes such morals. 

Altruistic lip service in the pursuit of wealth and power is typically human, hypocrisy. 
#238
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@secularmerlin
@PGA2.0
@3RU7AL
@Dr.Franklin
I'm still waiting on that reply, Peter. 


Also, as related to this thread, atheism/theism are not moral philosophies....neither are reasonable from a moral standpoint. In your thread you drop the theistic ambiguity and name Christianity, which is a moral view, but again, you compare it to atheism which is not a moral philosophy. The comparison itself is not reasonable.

Its like you're pitting "Kumbaya" against silence and asking which is better music. There is a category error in the comparison.


#239
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,608
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@PGA2.0
Remember that there were 19 million miscarriages last year also. Doesn't god know anything about quality control? Why did god use atoms and 10 sextillion suns to create one planet that life would finally form on?
#240
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,608
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
Schopenhauer declared that the true basis of morality is compassion or sympathy. The morality of an action can be judged in accordance with Kant's distinction of treating a person as an end not as a mere means. By drawing the distinction between egoism and unselfishness, Kant correctly described the criterion of morality. For Schopenhauer, this was the only merit of Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals.