Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?

PGA2.0 335

Furthermore, since [a] the Bible makes the point that we, as humans, are created in the image and likeness of God, we would have a consciousness that retains some of His goodness [96](even while denying Him), but the problem is that the moral standard is garbled by the Fall and our subjectiveness without God

because we have no clear ideal we can mirror right and wrong against, just a dim reflection.[97] So, even to an extent, Hammurabi can reflect some of the standards of God without that close personal relationship. We see that Caan knew that killing (murdering) his brother was wrong. He hid from God just as Adam did when he took the fruit of the tree of knowledge.

Amoranemix 908

[96] Is that hypothesis supported by evidence ? [a, b]

You like to ask how questions. Answer one yourself. How did God inscribe morality in our hearts ? [*]

[97] [a] So God messed up. Did he mess up on purpose or out of clumsyness ?

PGA2.0 1065

[a] Yes, evidence you continue to pretend does not exist. The Bible is evidence. It makes claims that are backed in several ways.

[b] You continually speak of good and bad, right and wrong as a reasoning being that the Bible says is made in His image and likeness.

[*] By creating us as intelligent beings who are capable of finding MEANING and purpose. The problem is that we mar the meaning and purpose when we do not rightfully understand where it comes from or that there are objective truths regarding meaning/morality/right/wrong.

[a] Again, a false assumption from a biblical perspective.[591] God did not mess up; humanity did.[592] That is a clear message revealed in its writings. Even those who are mentally challenged can understand it.

[b] He did not mess up,[592] yet He allowed us to by giving Adam a free will to choose. Even though you have a will to choose, you will not choose God without His mercy and grace. Thus, in a sense, your will is not free but in bondage to whatever controls it. 

3RU7AL  306

Any human can detect their own moral intuition without any assistance from a book.

PGA2.0 335

I would argue they are personal preference, not moral right, unless the belief reflects God's principles.

Amoranemix 908

Then they would reflect God's personal preference.

PGA2.0 1065

God knows all things.[593] Thus, He has an objective knowledge of all things or, if you like, a real, true knowledge. You do not unless you think His thoughts after Him. I have been trying to demonstrate the inadequate, small-mindedness of our limited reasoning without God, and you are doing an outstanding job of backing me up![594]

Amoranemix 908

[98] [a] Right according God's personal morality (GM), you mean. So what ? [b] Why should people who don't believe in God and who dislike GM, want to do what is right according to GM ? [c] That sin is preventing me from doing that, doesn't bother me.

[99] Indeed. [a] Biological evolution tends to generate animals that [b] couldn't care less about GM.

PGA2.0 1066

[98, a] So what? He knows all things; you do not.

[b] They don't usually.[595] They want to do the opposite, like giving a licence to kill the most innocent human beings (the unborn).[596] If they truly want to find out what is the right thing to do, it requires an omniscient, omnibenevolent, immutable, eternal God revealing it to them.

But sometimes, people get tired of all of humanity's inhumanity and look for the answer and find God in/as that answer.

[c] You are not telling me anything I don't know.

[99, a] That is your worldview, biological macro-evolution, not mine. I believe human beings were created differently from the animals to their own kind. You think that we have a common ancestor, the one-celled organism, whereas I believe that our common ancestor is God. You believe the "evolutionary chain" shows animals adapting and changing from that one common ancestor. I believe we are similar and yield similar traits because we share the same environment and food sources. Thus, we must share common traits.

[b] Except for humanity. Most societies throughout history have looked to God or gods.

PGA2.0 352 to 3RU7AL's ten yamas

Some of these are restated in the Ten Commandments. Others I disagree with. Finally, who is the authority who revealed them? Is such an authority almighty? If so, let's discuss that being.

Amoranemix 908

So what if the source is not mighty enough to [a] your taste ? I am sure God, were he to exist, [b] could smite all his competitors, but [c] not everyone likes might makes right morality.

PGA2.0 1066

[a] You mean your "tastes." We are not even there yet until you understand that your worldview is insufficient and unreasonable. 

[b] Yes, He could immediately. Instead, He has given us a lifetime, and when we die, we will come into His presence and be accountable. Usually, He lets our sins reach their maximum before He holds us accountable, but all the while, we face trials in this life that turn us to or against Him. The trails can come by our fellow human beings doing wrong that affect us, or they can come by a natural disaster in which judgment comes in some form, even up to the taking of our lives. 

[c] The only might that is right is the might that knows right. You have not demonstrated that you know what is right.[597] It can change according to who holds the idea in your worldview. After all this time, you still have avoided proving what you believe as an atheist is more reasonable than what I believe as a Christian.[598]

[a] Where are you talking about ? I was talking about your (PGA2.0's) taste, in singular.

Again, so nothing apparently. Merely another red herring to distract from the fact that you don't have a case.

[c] You again omitted to mention the reference standard to promote confusion (the skeptic's enemy). Presumably you are referring God's personal morality GM. Usually might makes right fans know what is right according to themselves.

PGA2.0 1068 to 3RU7AL

If you wanted proof, I am willing to go into the prophetic argument as to its reasonableness. Are you willing to go there? If not, I will not bother. If so, I want a commitment to staying the course, and I want feedback from you. When I ask a question, I would expect an answer.

PGA2.0 1068 to 3RU7AL

That is a big assumption; providing physical necessities makes you free. If your mind is not free, neither are you. Whatever controls you keeps you unfree.

3RU7AL 1070

(IFF) you cannot freely generate your own food, clothing and shelter (THEN) you must submit yourself to your (human) provider

Mopac 386

The Truth is God.[101]

As atheism is a denial of Absolute Truth or Ultimate Reality, it is the position of nihilism.[102]

Nihilism demolishes morality. Anything built off nihilism is like a house built on sand. Morality becomes a matter of convenience for whomever has the ability to excercise authority.[103]

Amoranemix 911

[101] What do you mean ?

[102] Can you prove that ?

[103] If morality becomes a matter of convencience, then, contrary to what you claimed, it is not demolished.

Mopac 1078

[101] I mean that The Ultimate Reality is God. That is, God is what is ultimately real. The singular reality, The Truth

[102] As God is The Ultimate Reality, to be an atheist towards this God is very naturally the position of nihilism.

Nietzsche himself, who was instrumental in bringing nihilism to the forefront of philosophy said...

"That there is no truth; that there is no absolute state of affairs-no 'thing-in-itself.' This alone is Nihilism, and of the most extreme kind."

[103] It certainly is, because this is not morality.[599] This is arbitrariness. From the orthodox standpoint, morality has everything to do with one's relationship with The Truth.[600] If The Truth doesn't exist, there is no way of operating that can be properly called moral.

Amoranemix 1095 to PGA2.0

Notice again that it someone with a reality-based worldview who is teaching someone with a god-based wordview, not the other way round.

ethang5 1096

Would you be that person teaching others?

Amoranemix 808 to PGA2.0

A problem is not all theists believe in the same god. So God changes depending on who your are talking to. Can one really know a fictional being that keeps changing ?

ethang5 1096

You think the reality of God changes by peoples opinion?[601] I bet you don't say the same thing for evolution or the constitution. So at least you're half logical.

Amoranemix 808 to PGA2.0

Atheism is not a worldview, so why would it need to pass a test for worldviews ?

ethang5 1096

Atheism CAN BE a worldview, and often is. It needs to be justified by those who hold it as a worldview.

Amoranemix 995 to PGA2.0

So far the only way to discovering that truth has been by making it. How ? Create an objective moral standard and then discover what it says.

ethang5 1096

So far in the insane world. This is utter gibberish.

Amoranemix 995 to ethang5

First, claiming actions that God cannot do seems at odds with God's alleged omnipotence.

ethang5 1096

And citing this inability as a weakness of God does nothing to remedy the incorrectness of the original comment that "Whatever God does is good and just according to his own standard." Please stay on topic.

Amoranemix 995 to ethang5

Second, God's actions being morally good does not a priori place a limitation on God's actions, since we lack an objective measure for what actions are morally good.

ethang5 1096

It is God Himself who places limits on His actions. Your incorrect statement assumes God sets no limits.[602] And Christians do have an objective standard for what is morally good, you don't.[603]

Amoranemix 995 to ethang5

If morally good actions are those actions done by God, then he could still do anything he wants, as the only action he could not do would those he does not do. Hence, if morally good is some aspect of his nature, then he could still not restore killed children if it is not in his nature to do so.

ethang5 1096

This comment did not stay long enough in your oven and came out half-baked.

Amoranemix 995 to ethang5

So from a Christian perspective, assuming the latter definition, whatever the Bible says on the topic, it should not be a problem, as God would merely be acting in according with his nature, which by definition would be good.

ethang5 1096

Which means something definite, not what you want it to mean, that ANY action can be included. Logic is required here.

Amoranemix 995 to PGA2.0

[266] That is easy to refute : Torturing little children for fun is wrong

ethang5 1096

Do you have any objective reason for saying it is wrong? I don't think you do.  Torturing little children for fun cannot be wrong simply because YOU think it is.

ethang5 1096

You have not presented a coherent argument, one not plagued with problems. I want logic, not opinions.

PGA2.0 1100

79 posts behind. Help. This is going to take a while.

3RU7AL 1097

ATHEISM is a "worldview" in exactly the same way "NOT-Hinduism" is a "worldview".

ethang5 1102

ATHEISM is a "worldview" in exactly the same way "Hinduism" is a "worldview".

3RU7AL  1107

Of course, nobody is under any OBLIGATION to describe themselves as an ATHEIST, regardless of what they might or might not happen to believe.

ethang5 1109

Just like Hindus!

3RU7AL 1107

There is no ATHEIST tradition.

ethang5 1109

Yet every atheist here will quote atheist comments of our founding fathers if you tell them that America's tradition is Christian.

3RU7AL 1113

There is no uniformity of ATHEISTS.

ethang5 1114

They are quite uniform here.

3RU7AL 1113

They only share a particular LACK-of belief.

ethang5 1114

But for the word "only" above, your comment would be correct.

Amoranemix 911

There appears to be another inconsistency in your worldview. You claim that skeptic's views are merely preferences because not based on some ultimate, absolute, fixed standard and yet you keep asking skeptics for their views, as if their preferences matter. [a] What relevance do their preferences have ?

PGA2.0 1115

No, what I do is invite them to prove me wrong, that your preference does matter in determining what is moral.[604]

[a] [About atheists imposing their views on others using means PGA2.0 dislikes] [605]

[More about those terrible atheists and even about the thought pattern controlling Democrats] [606]

PGA2.0 369 to secularmerlin

I have told you many times. You do not listen. It is immoral because if offends the righteousness of God. It is wrong if there is an objective standard that we can measure values against that is fix and best. If not, nothing ultimately matters and morality becomes nothing more than subjective individual or group preference. Which way do you want to live?

Amoranemix 911

You believe that reality reasons like this : “PGA2.0 would dislike it if there is no objective standard that people can measure values against that is fixed and best. He does have a point. Morality would be nothing more than a preference. One wouldn't be able to tell what is really good. That would be terrible. Hence, to please PGA2.0, I make sure that there is such a standard.”

[a] Skeptics on the other hand, know that reality doesn't work that way. [b] They know that reality does not cater to their desires. Hence, [c] which way skeptics want to live is irrelevant to the existence of an objective standard, unless they can create such a standard themselves.

PGA2.0 1115

[About purpose of this thread]

[a] Again, you use spiked language to influence others. You are begging how you know the real (reality) by personal preference since you never state the evidence.[607] How does an opinion make something real unless it supplies justifiable evidence that its thought system conforms to the real through argumentation?[608]

[b] Skeptics know reality does not cater to their preference because they have nothing real or concrete to measure their opinions against other than other subjective, shifting opinions.[609] That begs the question of why I should believe you?[610] There is no reason that your opinion is any BETTER than any other (no better than Hitler or Kim Jong-un) unless you can supply an objective source for your opinion, an unchanging measure. That means giving evidence that meets the standard of objectivity. You can't.[611] You offer hot air that you want to meld and mould other opinions in conformity to your nonsense.[612]

[c] Again, "which way skeptics want to live" is very relevant to those who are being subverted and dehumanized and discriminated against by such skeptics and just saying so does not make it so.[613] Your thinking on this topic is reminiscent of T.S. Elliot's first stanza of The Hollow Men, IMO.   You base morality once again on FEELING ("a skeptic wants").

[d] An objective standard is one independent of subjectivity. It conforms to what is the actual case,[614] to reality, not whatever you want to make the case to be.[615] The laws of nature, gravity, thermodynamics, of relativity, are actual principles. They are proven valid. The laws of logic are actual principles that exist. The laws of logic are self-evident. They are necessary to make sense of anything. You can't deny these laws without using them. To deny them does not make them any less real. They still operate whether you realize them or not. The laws of morality operate in the same manner.[616] There is such a thing as the good, the right, for any given actions, or else goodness is meaningless. It can mean anything because it has no fixed address.

Again, your worldview is absolutely pathetic, IMO, of making sense of morality.[617] I keep inviting you to try from an atheistic perspective. Go ahead. This is the objective of this thread. Show me you have what is necessary.[618]

PGA2.0 352

Morality is based on His nature.[100a] The Being that is God is pure, holy, just, compassionate, loving. These are good qualities. Since He knows all things He knows what is harmful and hurtful to us[100b], thus He commands that we do not kill, do not steal, do not lie, do not covet (that hurts us, creating all kinds of discord and inner turmoil within our life), do not commit adultery, do honour your father and mother, and honour your Maker.

Amoranemix 911

[100a] So you claim, but can you prove that ?

You could of course choose to base your standard on God's nature somehow. The result would then be your favourite standard.

[100b] Harmfull and hurtfull are tied to well(/ill)-being. Are you saying that goodness and God's nature are tied to well-being ?

PGA2.0 1116

[100a] You can't prove things to someone who is not open to the evidence. It is like talking to a wall. There is always one more "what if..."

I keep telling you the evidence or proof is reasonable.[619] You keep denying there is evidence.[620] How can I have a conversation with someone who does not want to hear it or look at the evidence?[621] You say the Bible is not evidence of God, yet it claims to be a self-revelation of God. Thus, what it contains is either reasonable to believe, or it is not. So, how reasonable is this evidence, these written records, in accordance with what we can know (via history, archaeology, and internal evidence/consistency aligned with external evidence)?[622] What is more reasonable to believe about our existence, our morality, our universe? Two of these are philosophical questions that should be weighed on logic and reason. The third, the universe, is more apt in applying physical evidence in its proof. The Bible speaks of creation by God, a Saviour, a covenant with a people (Israel), the destruction of that covenant, and the making of a better one. It speaks of a judgment in which a city and temple will be destroyed and a particulate people judged according to a specific timeframe. How reasonable are these things to believe as happening? How reasonable is it to believe these prophecies were written before the fact, the event, not after?[623] [ . . . ]

You are a master of smoke screens.[624] You seldom reveal your own perspective or how these moral things can make sense from your atheistic perspective.[625] Why should I believe what you say unless you can justify your belief???[626] This has been one-sided to date, IMO. How many times have I asked you to justify morality from your perspective to no avail?[627] On the other hand, I have given you a more reasonable perspective with common sense and logic.

[100b] [no response]

Atheism is not just more reasonable, it is showing that the atheist ideology is more peace loving and law abiding than all the Western religions

...Especially as related to standards of evidence, burden of proof, Biblical slavery, and the moral relativism of slavery being justified by "it was a different time and culture".

I am not sure if you are for or against what the ancients were doing. 

I have never read of any holy man badmouthing slavery in the distant past.

What would be your best advice to a slave in those days or to those who held slaves?

PGA2.0 352

If God allowed His people to be destroyed by these hostile groups or be grossly influenced it would nullify the prophecies about the Messiah's lineage. Thus, God had the greater good in mind, the salvation of a vast number of people in the long run.

Amoranemix 911

No doubt God has his personal greater good in mind, [a] as he is a narcissist. [b] However, what evidence can you present that he had the salvation of a vast number of people in mind and that [c] the promotion of military conquest and the oppression of natives contributed to that ?

PGA2.0 1116

[a] Again, just saying so does not make it so. The Bible repeatedly states that God is looking out for the good of us by requiring what is right, and just since He is loving.

Love does not seek its own benefit; thus, how can it be narcissistic?[628]

[b] Again, what evidence will you accept?[629] You do not accept the Bible as His word; you do not accept the proofs within its pages.[630] You do not accept the logic of/for God as a necessary being but assert yourself as one in your pronouncements of declarative and imperative statements.[630b] You keep begging that I should believe you.[630c] Why?

[c] About what?[631] You try to detach the context from your statements all the time when it comes to biblical things.[632] What specifically are you referring to? IMO, you fail to inquire why God would do such things to judge such people or save others. There are sufficient reasons.

Amoranemix 911

[*] Maybe. I don't know the figures, but what matters is what fraction of pregancies come from consensual sex, which is probably lower. Moreover, that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy is disputable.

In addition, [a] on what grounds would the mother have responsibility, beside opinions ? [a] Furthermore, what about the responsibility of the father ? Usually, in the case of abortion, he did nothing for the foetus, yet receives no blame.

PGA2.0 1116

[*] Maybe? These stats are gathered from US polls, which I noted in previous debates and posts. I am not doing the work again of listing them.

When sex is engaged in, there is often a chance that pregnancy will result, that a condom will fail and that fertilization will occur. To sluff off the idea that this can happen is again to find excuses if it does happen..."I did not know I could/would get pregnant."

Would you use the same excuse if you ran a red light and hit a pedestrian?[632] "I did not know this could/would happen by running the red." It is your responsibility to know the consequences of doing the act, either sexual or disobeying traffic laws.

[a] Because the woman knew that having sex could result in a pregnancy ( as did the father), however small that might be. Not only this, do we not have a moral responsibility to protect innocent human beings?[633] If not, what is stopping someone from killing you even when you have not committed a crime or done anything wrong?[634] Is it not self-evidentiary that it is wrong?[635] We are speaking of killing an innocent human being here. Do you not recognize that? You continually gloss over that fact. Why do you do this?[636]

PGA2.0 382 to secularmerlin

First of all, let me give you an idea of what it is in a nutshell. Justice is equal treatment under the law. It is not being particular depending on whether a person is rich or influential. It applies the letter of the law equally regardless of persons.

Amoranemix 911

Aha. We have an objective definition for justice. [a] So far you seemed to use justice as if it were whatever is consistent with with God's personal standard of justice. [b] I presume God is exempted from equal treatment and deserves better treatment. That is self-serving favouritism.

PGA2.0 1116

[a] What the hell are you talking about?[637] Where did I mention God in my statement?[638] Is it not self-evident to you that if one innocent person is fined for breaking a law that he did not break and another guilty person is let off for breaking the same law that justice has not been served?[639] IMO, you continually manipulate words and thoughts to serve yourself and your corrupt and illogical ideas.[640]

[b] First, you assume that moral rules are above God, not part of His nature.[641] Second, you assume that moral laws apply to Him.[642] Greg Koukle raises some good points about the Ten Commandments and morality.[643] They apply to human beings, but how can they apply to God?

How can stealing apply to God? Since God owns all things and created all things, how can He steal? He is just taking what already belongs to Him. How can that be considered stealing?[644]

As a human being, do you have a right to do with what you own as you want to do (on a human level)?[645] Can you break the computer you own because you are frustrated with it? Can you give it away if you want to do so, as an adult?[646] If so, how can you deny God the same right as the owner of all things?

How can murder apply to Him?[647] He has revealed that He will not take innocent life without restoring it to a better place, so He does not murder.[648] [ . . . ]

In the stealing and ownership example, are you not being hypocritical, applying one standard to yourself and another to God?[649] And as if it should apply to Him. How can you speak back to Him as if He is unjust?[650] How do you determine this by your subjectiveness?[651] What is justice to you?[652] You required I define it. I defined my terms, yet you should also define yours, so we know we are speaking about the same thing. You always want to critique my view but seldom give justification for your own.[653]

What makes you think God is accountable to you?[654] He is under no obligation to answer you (per the Bible) but has graciously decided to anyway through the biblical revelation.[655]

PGA2.0 400

I point you to the Ten Commandments. That is the standard from which we derive many other laws for the principles focus on love for God and love for neighbour. We are not showing love when we harm our neighbours. But what does that mean outside of a fixed, final standard or measure? It would be relative and subjective. Because of that such a system of thought is incapable of providing a fixed and necessary standard.[104] Remember, I have asked SkepticalOne to provide one since he stated he has one. I am still waiting

Amoranemix 911

[104] So what ? Can any relevant conclusion be drawn from that ?

If so, why haven't you provided or demonstrated it yet ?

PGA2.0 1117

Yes. It means that morality is constantly shifting and that the law of identity (A=A) is contravened, making nonsense of meaning. Thus, two people, two groups, two cultures, can have the opposite meaning of the other for the same thing being right.* That begs which is the actual right view.

* Group A = It is right to steal.

Group B = It is wrong to steal.

Which is the actual case?

3RU7AL

These moral instincts are  universal  (relative to mammals anyway) and  unchanging.

These moral instincts predate the "discovery" of "YHWH" by Abraham.

PGA2.0 428

That is your assumption and presumption that comes from your worldview bias.

Amoranemix 911

Are you disputing that these instincts existed before Abraham ?

PGA2.0 1117

The biblical revelation does not say that Abraham invented the biblical YHWY or morality, so why Abraham is included is a mystery. 

No, I am debating that humans instincts are not what is necessary for morality. How I protect myself, my family, my property, or determine that I need to protect myself, family, or property may have a detrimental effect on those who have done nothing wrong or even on what is right and wrong.[656] It is not based upon my feelings or perceptions but upon what is right and wrong. My instinct on right or wrong may or may not meet the moral standard.

Atheists, as people who have thought about existence, often make the claim that Atheism is an absence of belief in God or a deity. Does that argument work? I say no. I could claim theism is a lack of belief in atheism or an absence (not the presence) of the denial of God or gods.

An atheist not believing in God as Creator would have to believe something else as there cause, yet something about God too in their denial of Him. You can't deny something you have no idea of and SkepticalOne definitely has views about God. Thus, atheism is a worldview. It examines life's most basic questions and comes to a conclusion from a standpoint lacking God.

First, what is the origin (reasoning the chain of events back to its furthest point possible) of moral conscious beings? Is such a causal factor intentional (thus mindful) or random, chaotic? A personal Being who has revealed Himself as omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, immutable, and eternal would have what is necessary in determining what is moral because there would be a fixed measure or reference point in which a comparison can be made as to 'the good' (since there is a best). How does SkepticalOne arrive at best? What is the ideal, the fixed reference point? That necessary Being is reasonable to assume since we only witness or observe moral mindful beings deriving their existence from other moral, mindful beings. With atheism (no God or gods) what is left for the origins of morality and before that conscious beings? I say it is a blind, indifferent, mindless, random chance happenstance. How is that capable of anything, let alone being the cause of moral mindful beings? 

Whereas I believe I derive my moral aptitude from a necessary moral being, you believe you derive yours from chance happenstance. How is that more reasonable? Am I missing something here?

It takes faith to be an atheist, a blind faith if you look at the causal tree of blind indifferent chance as your maker. How is that reasonable in arriving at morality? Somehow, there is a giant leap from chance happenstance to uniformity of nature and sustainability of these natural laws.

I also don’t believe someone can claim to be an atheist because they have to admit they just don’t know.

Is this reasonable from an atheistic standpoint? How is his view anything but subjective since he needs a true, fixed, unchanging point of reference for something to have objectivity?

And we see the chants from the radical pink abortion loving people to allow all abortions because it’s her body, her choice and no one else, even the living human child inside her matters?

Don’t you think punishment is necessary and rational in a civilized society?

When you post something that concerns the Bible will you please post the scripture number so we both can be on the same page. Thanks.