Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?

Author: PGA2.0 ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 482
  • PGA2.0
    PGA2.0 avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 2,548
    3
    4
    7
    PGA2.0 avatar
    PGA2.0
    This topic is mostly aimed at or addressing SkepticalOne (but other atheists may join in by defending their belief as reasonable as opposed to Christianity or the biblical God). I am looking for his justification for his belief, myself thinking what he believes is unreasonably based. I also understand that SkepticalOne is what I term an agnostic atheist. That is the nature of skepticism, the 'I don't know,' yet in not knowing Skepticism seems to put all his eggs in one basket, that of mythological naturalism. By default, one who claims to be an atheist would look for explanations that exclude God or gods. 

    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. In either position, both the atheist and theist hold lots of beliefs about God or the lack thereof. 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. It is a belief system in its own right usually with philosophical or methodological naturalism as one of its cornerstones or core tenants. But is atheism as justifiable or as reasonable as a belief in the biblical God? I plan to examine this in a number of areas. This topic is about one area of atheisms reason - morality. Can atheists reasonably justify morality in comparison to Christianity/Judaism? That last statement is a nutshell of the topic of debate. 

    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? 

    Second, how do relative, subjective beings determine anything other than preference - what they like? IOW's, why is your 'moral' preference any 'better' than mine? Is it more reasonable? I say no. It does not have what is necessary for morality. Preference is just a like or dislike. What is good, morally speaking, about that?

    Please take note of the difference between qualitative values and quantitative values. I describe what I like. That is. I do not prescribe what I like as a must that you like it too. I like ice-cream is a personal preference. I do not force you to eat it too as a moral must. If I liked to kill human beings for fun and believe you SHOULD too, that would be a moral prescription, although not established as an objective one. The words 'should,' 'must,' or 'ought' denote a moral prescription. No one will condemn me for my preference of liking ice-cream but they will in my preference for killing others and prescribing others should like it too. That is because there is a distinction between what is (liking ice-cream) and what should be, a distinction between the two that has been called the is/ought fallacy. There is no bridge between what is and what ought to be in that one is a mere description of what is liked or what is while the other is what should or must be the case. 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. We discover these laws, not invent them. And, these laws appear to be a mindful thing because we can use mathematical formulas in expressing and conceptualizing them. Why would that be possible or probable in a blind, indifferent, random chance universe? Does SkepticalOne believe we just invent morality too, that there is no objective mind behind morals, just chance happenstance as the root cause? There is a giant leap between inorganic things and organic mindful, moral people. How does atheism transition between or scale this chasm?

    Human beings are subjective relative beings in that we do not know all things and constantly revise and change our moral views. Once, not long ago, abortion was considered a moral wrong in America, except when the life of the mother was threatened with certain death, such as with a tubal pregnancy. Now, some even condone the abortion of the unborn right up to the time of birth and beyond by choice, by preference, and they pass laws to accommodate their preferences. Who is right? And once again, if there is no objective standard, what makes your view any better than mine? Force, duress? How does that make something good or even objective? So you get a bunch of like minded people to push your views and make it law by force. Dictators, benevolent or tyrannical, do the same thing. What is good about that? SkepticalOne says although he is an atheist he believes in objective morality. 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? An objective standard is not subject to personal preference but to what is the case.
  • SkepticalOne
    SkepticalOne avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 642
    2
    3
    6
    SkepticalOne avatar
    SkepticalOne
    --> @PGA2.0
    This does not address my post. Link

    ...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".

    The last part has direct relevance to this diversionary thread as it contradicts your claimed objective morality.

    If it weren't clear, I'll be waiting on your complete response before I dive into anything else.




    • -->@PGA2.0
      The OT standards exceeds the ANE standards, for the ANE standards were the standard that Israel witnessed in the cultures around them, the standard they had experienced in Egypt, the world OT Israel lived in, the world they understood. God's best is always truth and freedom, justice and compassion for those who do right. Doing right is a problem for we all fall short of His standard, the glory that is God. Thus, He works within our fallenness. He chose a people out of the nations and cultures of that time where cruel slavery was a common practice, such as in Egypt. He worked within that system. BUT, the kind of slavery experieinced by Israel in Egypt and the chattel slavery of cruelty was not what God wanted Israel to observe and practice. God strictly spoke against such treatment. IF you read the article by Glenn Miller you would further understand this, yet you continue to act as if you did not. That article is very good in making the distinctions clear. It has a section, section 2, that covers property, a part of which I quoted from. You ignored it. Here it is again:
      The notion that Biblical slavery is only indentured servitude is simply false. The Bible advocates indentured servitude only in the case of Hebrew men.  Hebrew women and foreigners were subject to permanent sexual/chattel slavery (respectively) which is made clear in Exodus 21-7-8 and the very verse supplied in the article [Link]. There is a distinction made between Hebrew men, women, and the heathen of the pagan nations - different rules applicable to each and the latter two undeniably slavery.

      Even if indentured servitude is an accurate description, it would still not justify different rules for these servants as compared to free persons.  An eye for an eye is the Biblical rule for full persons, but a slave losing an eye gets freedom and the owner loses a slave - not an eye.  If a servant is killed by negligence (gored by a bull), the owner of the Bull has to pay 30 shekels rather than pay with his life as he would if the victim were not a slave. You've equated Biblical slavery to employment, but would you really accept these rules from your own employers or those of your family and friends? The idea that the Bible provides advocacy for slave's personal rights and/or human dignity is a laughable distortion.

      Finally, the argument that 'it was a different time and culture' is an appeal to moral relativism. I thought god was supposed to be the basis of an objective morality? This argumentation undercuts one of your core arguments regarding the superiority of a moral system with a god as the basis.

      Anecdote, hearsay, prophecy, etc., wouldn't be sufficient to find a person guilty of murder...why would it be sufficient grounds for a person's (or god's) existence? 
      Insufficient in what way?
      Do you think the standards of evidence in a court of law are too high? Would you be willing to be found guilty of murder based on anecdote, hearsay, or spectral evidence? No? Then why should we accept such a low standard for gods...something arguably more important if true?

      I have made a claim, that your worldview does not make sense without first presupposing God, nor can it. 
      Worded differently, but this is still attempting to shift the burden, Peter. It's about substantiating your own claim of the existence of a being beyond detection.  The time to believe something is when it has been demonstrated.
      No, it is an attempt to justify my worldview (what I place my faith in) as sensible and others as not by comparison and contrast. 
      Again, if your proof for the Christian deity is built on the unreasonableness of all other positions, then there is no way you should have come to a conclusion.  It is simply not possible that you have evaluated all other positions.  Your reasoning is flawed and disingenuous.

      Don't be so obtuse and/or dishonest. Observation lead to deference to *Occam's razor* and *methodological naturalism*...not whatever you wish to put after "Observation?"
      Dishonest? 

      The simplest explanation is God. The simplest explanation is that personal beings derive their existence from other personal beings.
      A single super complex "explanation" (that is 'beyond our comprehension') is not more simple than multiple sensible explanations.

      An object or mindless thing? How is that a person? The object of worship (what we focus on) is a Person, not a thing or inanimate object. Only a personal being can prescribe. An object like a rock or a table cannot. 
      A subject can be an object? If a subject is the object in your objective morality...wouldn't that make your morality subjective? 

      Look, you as an atheist are left to a very limited view of the world, the universe, existence, morality. Since you disavow God or gods as lacking evidence you would answer ultimate questions or questions of existence and how things operate from the standpoint of naturalism and empiricism. That means that you have one option in looking at the world, the universe, through a naturalistic explanation. That is how you do look at the world. You discount God, or gods otherwise you would not be an atheist. God or chance still stands.  


      Me, as a professor of faith in Jesus Christ would have a combination of options; this God alone, supernaturally, this God through natural means, or this God through both natural and supernatural means. The Bible reveals God alone, supernaturally. I argue that is the most plausible and reasonable explanation. 
      You demonstrate you do not understand atheism. For me, it is a derivation of evaluating my former beliefs and finding them wanting - not a starting place as you continue to assert. I don't reject gods as a possibility, I just don't view them as very probable given the sad state of evidence in their favor. I also don't discount the supernatural as a possibility, but until it can be demonstrated there is little reason to build it into an epistemology and/or a life philosophy. 

      As an atheist, all the options you listed are available to me as well, but I have one more: nature alone. We have only ever found what was was thought supernatural to be poorly understood nature, and never ever has the supernatural been confirmed. If you or anyone wants me to accept their (supernatural) beliefs, then attacking well-accepted standards of evidence, knowledge, or our well-founded understanding of reality is not the way to go. You'll need to do better than that. 




  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,289
    4
    6
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    i look forward to this thread
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 6,010
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @PGA2.0
    An atheist not believing in God as Creator would have to believe something else as there cause,
    Not necessarily.

    It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.

    (A)THEIST = (WITHOUT)THEISM = no subscription to any specific "god(s)"

    (A)GNOSTIC = (WITHOUT)GNOSIS = no memory (of direct experience) of any "higher power(s)"
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 6,010
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @PGA2.0
    ...yet something about God too in their denial of Him.
    ...yet something about NANABOZHO too in your denial of its HOLY MAGNIFICENCE.

    ...yet something about PANGU too in your denial of its UNDENIABLE GRACE.

    ...yet something about BRAHMAN too in your denial of its HYPERDIMENSIONAL OMNIPRESENCE.

    Does your own "disbelief" in these god($) PROVE how much implicit FAITH you have in them?

    By denying the "existence" of these god($) are you not actually AFFIRMING their undeniability?

    I mean, how can you "deny" the "existence" of something that doesn't even exist??
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 6,010
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @PGA2.0
    You can't deny something you have no idea of and SkepticalOne definitely has views about God. Thus, atheism is a worldview.
    Atheism is a worldview in exactly the same way that NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.

    Atheism is a worldview in exactly the same way that NOT swimming is a sport.

    Atheism is a worldview in exactly the same way that NOT working is an occupation.

    Atheism is a worldview in exactly the same way that NOT vandalizing public property is an artistic expression.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 6,010
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @PGA2.0
    Atheism examines life's most basic questions and comes to a conclusion from a standpoint lacking God.
    Atheism examines life's most basic questions and draws absolutely no conclusions.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 6,010
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @PGA2.0
    This topic is about one area of atheisms reason - morality. Can atheists reasonably justify morality in comparison to Christianity/Judaism? That last statement is a nutshell of the topic of debate. 
    Phenomenal.

    Is it immoral for a fox to eat a rabbit?
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 6,010
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @PGA2.0
    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).
    Why can't super-puppet-master speak directly to each person in order to change their behavior?

    Where's my talking donkey and holy hit-man?

    If I can prevent a murder, and I just stand there and do nothing, am I not morally culpable?
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 6,010
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @PGA2.0
    What is the ideal, the fixed reference point?
    How long does your god believe exclusive copyright protections should last?
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 6,010
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @PGA2.0
    With atheism (no God or gods) what is left for the origins of morality and before that conscious beings?
    Apes and wolves seem to have evolved functional ethical (social) guidelines.

    Did your god provide an instruction manual for them too?
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 6,010
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @PGA2.0
    Second, how do relative, subjective beings determine anything other than preference - what they like?
    Without a "fixed reference point" how can a relative, subjective being determine their own preferences??

    IOW's, why is your 'moral' preference any 'better' than mine?
    THE LAW = CODIFIED MOB RULE

    Is it more reasonable? I say no.
    How fabulously democratic of you.

    It does not have what is necessary for morality.
    Please make your preferred definition of "morality" EXPLICIT.

    Preference is just a like or dislike. What is good, morally speaking, about that?
    Well, do you like being chained to a grind-stone?  Do you happen to feel some personal preference one-way-or-the-other?

    Do you perhaps have some indication that other humans might also dislike being chained to a grind-stone?
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 6,010
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @PGA2.0
    If I liked to kill human beings for fun and believe you SHOULD too, that would be a moral prescription, although not established as an objective one.
    Unless you were recruiting and training soldiers.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 6,010
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @PGA2.0
    No one will condemn me for my preference of liking ice-cream but they will in my preference for killing others and prescribing others should like it too.
    Refined sugar is a leading risk-factor for heart-disease (and gluttony is a carnal sin) and killing others (without hesitation) is often considered necessary.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 6,010
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @PGA2.0
    That is because there is a distinction between what is (liking ice-cream) and what should be, a distinction between the two that has been called the is/ought fallacy.
    There is NEVER a perfectly logical thread of reasoning that leads inevitably from any statement of "IS" (quantifiable, demonstrable, empirical observation, or AXIOM) (AND) any prescriptive statement of "OUGHT".

    Even (IFF) the "IS" statement contains a god($).

    For example, HUME'S GUILLOTINE [LINK]
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 6,010
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @PGA2.0
    There is no bridge between what is and what ought to be in that one is a mere description of what is liked or what is while the other is what should or must be the case.
    Well stated.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 6,010
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @PGA2.0
    Whereas I believe I derive my moral aptitude from a necessary moral being, you believe you derive yours from chance happenstance.
    How do you derive your moral aptitude from the "IS" (AXIOM) of a necessary moral being?
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 6,010
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @PGA2.0
    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 much faith does it take you to NOT believe in NANABOZHO?

    How much faith does it take you to NOT believe in The Frocking Fettuccini Fox?
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 6,010
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @PGA2.0
    Does SkepticalOne believe we just invent morality too, that there is no objective mind behind morals, just chance happenstance as the root cause?
    DEISM IS FUNCTIONALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM ATHEISM.
  • PGA2.0
    PGA2.0 avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 2,548
    3
    4
    7
    PGA2.0 avatar
    PGA2.0
    --> @SkepticalOne
    Finally, the argument that 'it was a different time and culture' is an appeal to moral relativism. I thought god was supposed to be the basis of an objective morality? This argumentation undercuts one of your core arguments regarding the superiority of a moral system with a god as the basis.
    I justify God allowing Israel to experience chattel slavery in Egypt as a typological lesson on what bondage is. As pointed out, I justify the type of slavery or servitude practiced in Israel as different from New World slavery or ANE slavery, a cut above. I did this in Post # 223.

    God is not a moral relativist but uses moral relativism to teach a lesson on what should not be done. The type of chattel slavery practiced by Egypt on Israel was never condoned by God. He rescued Israel from this type of bondage. He teaches us that this type of bondage is wrong. We continually see the standard God has set in the Ten Commandments (which Jesus summed up in two); to love God and love others, to treat others as you want them to treat you. 

    I have argued all along that the biblical God has what is necessary for objective morality whereas you do not. My whole argument has been that my belief system is more reasonable than yours and I started a thread on morality to illustrate this. 

    Anecdote, hearsay, prophecy, etc., wouldn't be sufficient to find a person guilty of murder...why would it be sufficient grounds for a person's (or god's) existence? 
    Insufficient in what way?
    Do you think the standards of evidence in a court of law are too high? Would you be willing to be found guilty of murder based on anecdote, hearsay, or spectral evidence? No? Then why should we accept such a low standard for gods...something arguably more important if true?
    It depends on what you are referencing. I do not believe Roe V. Wade is morally justifiable for various reasons I have argued in our debates. I do not believe that a law that is not revealed by a necessary being is sufficient for moral objectivity, unless it agrees with such a beings revelatory principles. Now concerning the standards of evidence, I believe that Simon Greenleaf, Treatise on the Law of Evidence, who wrote the standard for eyewitness law that is used in the USA today is the same kind of reasonable or sufficient evidence we read of in the NT accounts and admissible by law. 

    I have made a claim, that your worldview does not make sense without first presupposing God, nor can it. 
    Worded differently, but this is still attempting to shift the burden, Peter. It's about substantiating your own claim of the existence of a being beyond detection.  The time to believe something is when it has been demonstrated.
    No, it is an attempt to justify my worldview (what I place my faith in) as sensible and others as not by comparison and contrast. 
    Again, if your proof for the Christian deity is built on the unreasonableness of all other positions, then there is no way you should have come to a conclusion.  It is simply not possible that you have evaluated all other positions.  Your reasoning is flawed and disingenuous.
    I don't have to evaluate all possibilities on the impossibility of the contrary. Two beliefs that are contrary cannot both be true. Christianity has sufficient evidence for belief. As I have said before, any belief you want to discuss I am open to, yet you continue to ignore my challenge. That is why I chose your own belief - atheism, and I start with one aspect of it, morality. I continue to ask you, which of our two worldviews are more reasonable to believe in this category - morality?

    You continue to bring up these red herrings, as if I had the time to examine every worldview. Truth is confirmed or refuted by the worldview examinination and once what is true cannot at the same time be false. That is a logical contradiction. Thus, if Christianity is true, other belief systems cannot also be true except where they agree with Christianity. As I have said many times, your worldview does not have what is necessary for it to be true.   

    Don't be so obtuse and/or dishonest. Observation lead to deference to *Occam's razor* and *methodological naturalism*...not whatever you wish to put after "Observation?"
    Dishonest? 

    The simplest explanation is God. The simplest explanation is that personal beings derive their existence from other personal beings.
    A single super complex "explanation" (that is 'beyond our comprehension') is not more simple than multiple sensible explanations.
    How is that super complex? God!

    If anything, chance happenstance is an oversimplification and is itself a very complex explanation and argument in its own right that you have proven over and over is beyond your comprehension ("I don't know"). God is not beyond my comprehension. I understand multiple reasons for His necessary being. I do not see any for blind chance happenstance.

    An object or mindless thing? How is that a person? The object of worship (what we focus on) is a Person, not a thing or inanimate object. Only a personal being can prescribe. An object like a rock or a table cannot. 
    A subject can be an object? If a subject is the object in your objective morality...wouldn't that make your morality subjectivev?
    I have already discussed this with you in previous posts on the other thread. This is a definist or equivocation fallacy. You are confusing two different statements because they employ the term object. The word 'object' is construed in ways that are vague to the particular meaning in context. The same word has two different meanings that is taken for the same meaning. The subject of a sentence is not the same thing as being subjective. Grammatically speaking, a person can be the object of a sentence yet that same person may not be objective in their reasoning. Because I made the distinction of an object or mindless thing, then spoke of our object of worship as God, a person, you assumed that the two are the same. One, the inorganic mindless thing, cannot reason or make moral judgments; the other, a personal Being, can. 

    Look, you as an atheist are left to a very limited view of the world, the universe, existence, morality. Since you disavow God or gods as lacking evidence you would answer ultimate questions or questions of existence and how things operate from the standpoint of naturalism and empiricism. That means that you have one option in looking at the world, the universe, through a naturalistic explanation. That is how you do look at the world. You discount God, or gods otherwise you would not be an atheist. God or chance still stands.  


    Me, as a professor of faith in Jesus Christ would have a combination of options; this God alone, supernaturally, this God through natural means, or this God through both natural and supernatural means. The Bible reveals God alone, supernaturally. I argue that is the most plausible and reasonable explanation. 
    You demonstrate you do not understand atheism. For me, it is a derivation of evaluating my former beliefs and finding them wanting - not a starting place as you continue to assert. I don't reject gods as a possibility,
    Not true, you do reject Him by looking at the universe in a solely mechanical or mythological naturalistic way. There is not supernatural consideration involved. 

    Once you take a stand for one thing by necessity you have to discount other things because they are contrary by their nature. By lacking evidence or by denying God you presuppose that your existence and the reason you are is explainable through a purely naturalistic methodology. You totally ignore God in your explanation of anything. You discount that the Bible is an evidence for His existence. You discount that He is more reasonable to believe in than atheism, whatever form that takes - agnosticism, strong atheism, weak atheism, empiricism. You philosophy of life avoids God as a sufficient explanation or you would not believe what you do.   

    I just don't view them as very probable given the sad state of evidence in their favor. I also don't discount the supernatural as a possibility, but until it can be demonstrated there is little reason to build it into an epistemology and/or a life philosophy. 
    You keep saying that. Demonstrate is rather than assert it.

    How does your atheistic views build a solid epistemology? You keep telling me, "I don't know." That is why I have invited you to test your worldview, starting with morality. How do you make sense of morality? I do not believe you can. All you can do is say, I prefer this to that. You have no justifiability to your relativism as moral. You even claim that your moral view is objective. I want you to show me how it can be. Thus the topic. It is your first test.  

    As an atheist, all the options you listed are available to me as well, but I have one more: nature alone. We have only ever found what was was thought supernatural to be poorly understood nature, and never ever has the supernatural been confirmed.
    Yet you have failed to justify how nature alone is capable of explaining anything regarding origins - origins of our existence, the existence of the universe, the existence of conscious beings from things devoid of consciousness, the existence of moral rights and wrongs. 

    You have found it unfeasible because it is what you look for - nature alone. Try understanding what is behind the universe. If nothing is behind it, how did it come to be, if you contend it had a beginning? 

    If you or anyone wants me to accept their (supernatural) beliefs, then attacking well-accepted standards of evidence, knowledge, or our well-founded understanding of reality is not the way to go. You'll need to do better than that. 
    Cop-out - well worn cliches. I do not find your standards of evidence acceptable when it comes to origins. You keep telling me, "I don't know," yet you are dogmatic that your belief system is more reasonably evidenced than mine. You keep insinuating that my beliefs are not well-founded or well thought out or well evidenced. Assertion after assertion yet you don't want to go to the proofs that show in every area, my beliefs are more reasonable than yours. 

    I have proposed a comparison and contrast in our two views, starting with the area of morality. Are you going to show me how your system of belief is objectively based where it comes to morality, as you have claimed it is? 
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 6,010
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @PGA2.0
    And once again, if there is no objective standard, what makes your view any better than mine? Force, duress? How does that make something good or even objective? So you get a bunch of like minded people to push your views and make it law by force. Dictators, benevolent or tyrannical, do the same thing. What is good about that?
    LAW = CODIFIED MOB RULE

    SkepticalOne says although he is an atheist he believes in objective morality. 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?
    The scope and definition of ATHEISM is wholly divorced from the question of "objectivity".

    An objective standard is not subject to personal preference but to what is the case.
    What "IS" the case?

    How do you leap from what "IS" to what "OUGHT" to be?
  • PGA2.0
    PGA2.0 avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 2,548
    3
    4
    7
    PGA2.0 avatar
    PGA2.0
    --> @3RU7AL
    Hi again. You have been busy! (^8

    It is going to take me some time to reply. Supper is next.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 6,010
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @SkepticalOne
    ...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".

    The last part has direct relevance to this diversionary thread as it contradicts your claimed objective morality.
    I've never seen the comprehensive "objective" moral codex.

    I always seem to end up at "love thy neighbor as thyself" which, as a PRIMARY AXIOM, has almost zero practical (legal) application.

  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 6,010
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @PGA2.0
    You are my inspiration.

    Respond at your leisure, that's the beauty of these public forums.

    No time limits.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 6,010
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @PGA2.0
    Cop-out - well worn cliches. I do not find your standards of evidence acceptable when it comes to origins. You keep telling me, "I don't know," yet you are dogmatic that your belief system is more reasonably evidenced than mine. You keep insinuating that my beliefs are not well-founded or well thought out or well evidenced. Assertion after assertion yet you don't want to go to the proofs that show in every area, my beliefs are more reasonable than yours. 
    Let's not get entangled in all this goofy, UNIFORM STANDARDS OF EVIDENCE stuff.

    Please present your ("objective") MORAL AXIOMS.