Second, how do they arrive at the 'best' if morality has no fixed address, no fixed reference point? It is a constantly shifting standard that points to 'better' but better than what?
This appeal to a "fixed reference point" has been shown unnecessary in a post you haven't caught up to yet. A compass doesn't use a fixed reference point, yet the world can be successfully navigated with it.
"What is true north?
True north is the direction that points directly towards the geographic North Pole. This is a fixed point on the Earth’s globe.
True north is a fixed point on the globe. Magnetic north is quite different."
There has to be a true north to reference the magnetic north with. You have the same problem with moral views. There is nothing more than preference unless there is something true to fix morality with. You have to have a 'best' to compare 'good' and 'better' to, or else you have better concerning nothing. Thus, you can never be sure that your 'better' is actually so because it is always shifting and changing. Better in relation to what??? Shifting and changing begs the question of why it is better. No fixed reference point begs the question of why your relative opinion is better than mine. Says how? Opinions become fighting words if there is no moral good, just opinion.
While atheists can and sometimes do live more morally than many Christians do, from where their worldview starts (their most basic presuppositions), there is no reason they should.
Again, atheism is not a moral philosophy.
Atheists, like Christians, hold to moral views that originate somewhere, the way they view the world and universe. Morality is a part of their worldview. They do not see moral values coming from an ultimate being. They try to make themselves that being in question. If there is no ultimate, necessary being, the point of reference is changing. Atheists (like you) sometimes try to attach morality to universals and objective values, but they do not have the means to do so. Christians do. You try to attach morality to 'well-being.' The problem is whose well-being? You say humanities, but who decides for humanity - you?
...and the tired old argument of the 'vast killings due to atheism' (in the name of atheism?!) is something that may work in dogmatic echo chambers, but not to any reasoning person. Mao (et al) didn't kill because of atheism - that would be like killing for a-unicornism. It is a nonsense argument.
It is just a fact that atheists during the 20th-century killed more people than all Christian conflicts through the ages, as the data points to and you ignore. Instead, you try to suggest dogmatism, not recognizing your own, for you go against the
facts.
As an atheist, Mao did not value human life to the same degree that most Christians do. Life was expendable to him just like it is to Qi Jiping or in communist influence countries like Russia with Putin, a holdover from the Soviet Union's grand days. In those two countries alone, some estimates put 100 million dead at Stalin and Mao's hands. Mao let a huge percentage of his population starve to death during the
Cultural Revolution. He eradicated opposition from Christianity and other views that opposed his philosophy of life during the great purge. With all Leninist philosophy, religion is the opiate of the people and needs to be purged. Qi Jiping is doing this with his
cultural retraining centers in our day.
Again, your suggestion that my reasoning is non-existent is another attempt to poison the well. I recover by pointing to data. Under an atheist leader, mass numbers were either put to death or left to die of starvation. His atheistic values did not hold human life as valuable as those who understand we are created in God's image and likeness.
Democide by atheist leaders in atheist countries:
Morality is about the well-being of humans,
Whose well-being?
...humans.
Which ones? There are many conflicting views of morality in every culture during every age. Why is yours, THE one?
Your one-word answers have zero explainability.
and humans were concerned about what actions and attitudes ensured their survival long before Christianity came to be.
To benefit themselves and ensure their own survival at the expense of others.
Given that we are a social species, our survival is typically linked to others...
You ignored my charge. Do you think that Mao's China was beneficial to those who opposed his thinking? Do you think that those who oppose Kim Jung-Un think the way you do? How about those who oppose Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela? Do you think that it is beneficial to 1.6 billion unborns whose life is snuffed out on women's choice?
Christianity is different; it looks out not only for self but also for everyone, denying oneself for others' benefit.
That is revisionistic. Christianity has a far from perfect track record for a moral philosophy supposedly laid down by a perfect lawgiver. On the other hand, humanism is the tide that raises all boats, and Christianity is along for the ride while it maintains a humanistic component. (That's a good thing!)
It is not revisionist but the teaching of Scripture. The problem is that many only give lip service to teaching and doctrines.
Again, biblical slavery [...]
...is slavery. There is no justifiable reason or context where one human owning another is justifiable. Biblical slavery is an aspect of Christianity where it conflicts with humanism. That's problematic if Christianity really is about treating others as you would have them treat you.
It is like an employee/employer relationship, except the employment is a life-long one. I have given you the reasons why and you keep ignoring them. You are talking past me.
With Christianity, there is no slave, no free, no male, no female. We are all one in Jesus Christ. The barriers are taken down imposed by the world.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
We are brothers and sisters in Christ, joint-heirs with Him in our heavenly family.
Ok, it's just a fact most people are non-Christians (and are just as moral as Christians).
Because they adopt the Judeo-Christian standard - it is wrong to murder, wrong to steal, wrong to lie, wrong to covet, wrong to commit adultery.
...and I suppose you think murder, theft, dishonesty etc., were all considered completely acceptable before Judaism/Christianity? It's a wonder mankind made it 10,000/100,000's years until "God" decided to finally reveal himself!
No, I believe humanity is made in the image and likeness of God. They understand (deep down) these things are wrong (their consciences bear witness to each), but because they are naturally inclined to sin, they ignore God and His standards and try to justify their own. The problem is, without an ultimate, absolute, objective, unchanging reference point, anything goes. It just depends on who holds power.
I'm having real difficulty finding anything compelling in your assertions here.
And I have difficulty in finding anything compelling in yours. You can't explain why your view is anything other than an opinion and preference.
No. Other gods are fake.
Christopher Hitchens: "From a plurality of prime movers, the monotheists have bargained it down to a single one. They are getting ever nearer to the true, round figure."
As if I take his view as the gospel truth. He is a subjective human being. Truth is Hitchen's view is just a mascarade for deception. He is selling books with his vain concept, IMO. Again, I do not bow to your atheist gods!
That means they [believers] think morality owes its existence to a personal being or beings
I would agree morality doesn't exist without conscious beings. It makes no sense to me that you continually discount the personal beings we all know/see and appeal to one we can't. That is an ugly part of your theology, imo. You deny dignity to humanity in order to revere the undetectable.
I do not discount them. I look at them and question why one opinion wins out over another and what that opinion is fixed on? It is fixed upon relativism and subjective preferences. How does that make anything good? Hilter, Mao, Stalin, Maduro, Castro, Idi Amin, Tito, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Jung-Un, and a host of others teach me just what can happen when someone thinks their good is the good.
Again, another ad hom attack. I do not deny dignity for humanity. I fight for it. I question how you get 'goodness' as a value if morality is a shifting standard.
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
