Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?

Debates: 7

Posts: 3,179

12.11.2020 02:56PM

-->

@FLRW

Dogs and cats are two very different species and they see each other as potential prey. But this doesn't mean that they can't get along. In fact, many households have proven that dogs and cats can become best friends. So they have morals even though they are atheists.

This logic is not sound. There is no correlation between the first three premises and the conclusion. You establish an identity in the first three premises but not the conclusion. The conclusion does not follow from the premises.

1. Dogs and cats see each other as potential prey. (do they; obviously not always)

2. That doesn't mean dogs and cats can't get along.

3. Many dogs and cats do get along.

4. Therefore, dogs and cats have morals.

Your conclusion does not follow. You assume that dogs and cats have morals. The out-of-the-blue conclusion brings in the foreign concept of morality from the rest of the discussion. Just because dogs and cats can get along, you assume they have morals. It could just as easily be that they know from instinct they must get along or get punished by their owners. They associate a slap from their owner or the dog associates getting clawed by the cat as very painful, and the cat associates getting bitten by the dog as very painful. Since they are forced to live together, they gradually become tolerant of each other and displace the lack of dog to dog relationship to a dog-to-cat relationship, or in a pack of dogs, the cat becomes seen as one of them. Alternatively, one or both from a very young age have been brought together in the same environment (a household, for instance), so instinctively they do not develop hostile actions towards each other but associate that they are alike or part of the bigger pack/litter/family.

There is no necessary connection between dogs and cats and morality here. Dogs and cats are animals. Morality is not of the class of animals. Put into a syllogism, here is what you get:

1. Dogs and cats sometimes can get along.

2. Dogs and cats sometimes do get along.

3. Therefore, dogs and cats are moral.

How does that follow? To prove a conclusion, there must be a premise with similar or connective language. You bring in the concept of morality out of the blue. There is no connection here.

#1022

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,013

12.11.2020 03:03PM

-->

@PGA2.0

@Amoranemix

It could just as easily be that they know from instinct they must get along or get punished by their owners. They associate a slap from their owner or the dog associates getting clawed by the cat as very painful, and the cat associates getting bitten by the dog as very painful. Since they are forced to live together, they gradually become tolerant of each other and displace the lack of dog to dog relationship to a dog-to-cat relationship, or in a pack of dogs, the cat becomes seen as one of them. Alternatively, one or both from a very young age have been brought together in the same environment (a household, for instance), so instinctively they do not develop hostile actions towards each other but associate that they are alike or part of the bigger pack/litter/family.

This sounds like you almost stumbled onto a totally natural way for the seeds of morality (looking out for the well being of your pack, seeing the advantages thereof) to germinate in pack animal species. Which....humans are. No god required. Dogs have demonstrated understanding of fair treatment, too, but let's ignore that, because a dog can't answer the trolley problem, nor can it explain how life arose or how the universe started. Except you don't need the owner in there, just the negative consequence (claws to the face, for example).

@Amoranex, the whole unraveling of this discourse is accomplished in two words: SO WHAT. "You can't make sense of your worldview according to my worldview." SO WHAT? "You don't have what's necessary to explain the big bang / origins!" SO WHAT. 40 pages in this topic alone and there aren't any practical answers to these questions. This guy only has one script, and he needs a character limit, BADLY.

#1023

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,791

12.11.2020 03:51PM

-->

@ludofl3x

...the whole unraveling of this discourse is accomplished in two words: SO WHAT.

Strangely, if you truly thought there was "nothing" to be learned from this conversation, you wouldn't even be reading it.

"You can't make sense of your worldview according to my worldview." SO WHAT?

The core conflict is, "my frameworks is more logical than your framework".

And since the whole point of LOGIC is that it's supposed to be demonstrable, we should be able to get on the same page eventually (or at least narrow the points of disagreement).

"You don't have what's necessary to explain the big bang / origins!" SO WHAT.

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

40 pages in this topic alone and there aren't any practical answers to these questions.

What do you consider a "practical" answer? What are you gaining from "other" discussions that seems to be specifically "missing" from this one?

#1024

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,013

12.11.2020 05:53PM

-->

@3RU7AL

Strangely, if you truly thought there was "nothing" to be learned from this conversation, you wouldn't even be reading it.

Fair point, but I'm reading it for the responses to PGA, not for his script. I find new voices interesting and like to hear how people arrive at their conclusions, or see if their responses are similar to my own in the same situation.

"You don't have what's necessary to explain the big bang / origins!" SO WHAT.
It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.

Agree...that's where I say "I don't know," and where PGA says "Jesus."

40 pages in this topic alone and there aren't any practical answers to these questions.
What do you consider a "practical" answer? What are you gaining from "other" discussions that seems to be specifically "missing" from this one?

"Your worldview doesn't makes sense, mine does, therefore I can {DO WHAT} that you cannot do. You can't make sense of morality, and until you do, you cannot {DO WHAT} that I can do, so you should shape up." The brackets would be considered, in my view, 'practical, because they are actually applied to life. In other words, what is the overall impact to life in general? There's no answer, it's just a desire to feel like "I know some secret you don't."

#1025

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,791

12.11.2020 06:31PM

-->

@ludofl3x

Your worldview doesn't makes sense,

Or, "my strawman of your worldview doesn't make sense".

mine does,

Because I call my AXIOMS "FACTS" (and I ignore the intellectual journey that led me to adopt these axioms in the first place).

therefore I can {DO WHAT?} that you cannot do.

I can pretend I know what's "right" and what's "wrong" for everyone everywhere and you can't.

You can't make sense of morality,

Morality is just another word for "personal preference". Please present your personally preferred definition if you have a better one.

So, I think they're suggesting that we should all become worshipers of "YHWH" so we can feel justified in bullying everyone else on the planet into doing things we like.

I mean, if "YHWH" is for-realzies, then won't all the bad people get what they "deserve" when they die? Why would a Christian worry about laws and stuff?

#1026

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,013

12.11.2020 06:37PM

-->

@3RU7AL

Ehhhhhhxactly! My favorite so far is "If there really is no god why aren't you out torturing children for fun / being Kim Jong Un." Makes it sound like if there's no god, then that's what that person thinks they'd be doing. If the belief in god is the only thing holding them back, then by all means, ignore my arguments!

#1027

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,791

12.11.2020 06:50PM

-->

@ludofl3x

If the belief in god is the only thing holding them back, then by all means, ignore my arguments!

Please forget I said anything!

#1028

Debates: 9

Posts: 1,720

12.11.2020 06:55PM

-->

@PGA2.0

[a] My point is to illustrate that without an objective, universal standard subjective beliefs become what is thought of as morally good to a person's thinking.

1. You haven't demonstrated that an objective, universal standard is necessary. Tell me, when someone tells you to go North on a road that doesn't go perfectly toward geographic North, are you unable to proceed? No, of course not. We only need a general reference (not an absolute) point in order to move through the physical (or moral) world.

2. You haven't shown a fixed moral reference point exists. You have interpretations of someone else's words. Whether you want to admit it or not morality (yours included) has a subjective basis.

[b] That is one outlook and just as highly speculative. He [Jack the Ripper] may have thought that society thought it wrong, yet he justified killing them nonetheless. Thus, his idea of the good was in killing them, perhaps with the idea of helping to rid society of a few of what was considered a bad profession. It is obvious he took pleasure in doing this because of the amount of detailed mutilation.

I'm more than willing to admit my view is speculative, but not more so than yours.

[c] His views were never informed by Christianity but by his aberration of Christianity mixed with social Darwinism.

You mean Hitler's interpretations of Christianity did not agree with yours? If that is what you mean, then yes, I agree. But, that doesn't negate the fact that some of Hitler's views regarding Jews were derivative from Christianity.

d] Jesus was a Jew

And? I think you are trying to say this contradicts Hitler's religiously inspired hatred of Jews? From a theological standpoint, Jesus would have been much more than a Jew. According to the Bible, and Christians, Jesus was the son of a god...and Jews (who were not the son of god) had him crucified. I shouldn't have to explain this to you...

e] It just goes to show how a human [Kim Jung-un] being with human frailties can impose his subjective standard on others without being able to justify it.

Inconsistency. Above you suggest Jack the Ripper (a human) justified his killings, but Kim Jung-Un can't do the same because he is human. You can't have it both ways, buddy.

[f] Jesus was of Jewish lineage. He only elaborated on an already existing standard that was revealed biblically as imposed by the Judeo-Christian God.

Regardless of what Jesus might have actually endorsed, it is fair to say Christians have appealed to their religion to endorse the good and the bad simultaneously. Whatever issues we might have with Kim Jung-Un, he has, at least, never simultaneously agreed and disagreed with himself.

That being said, it should be noted only two from your list were actually engaged in a discussion of morality. The others are a distraction.
The point is that only one qualifies as having what is necessary for morality - Jesus Christ. The others do not have what is necessary for morality.

That is an assertion and beside the point. Bentham and Jesus were attempting to change moral views - the others were obviously not. Thus, only these two are comparable.

Every one of these first four standards is conflicting and logically cannot all be true because they state opposites. They have different identities, which is inconsistent with the laws of logic.
The Law of Identity would apply to all five options - Jesus is not immune from logic.
No, the law of identity would not apply to them all, for they all have differing views of the good.

Different people having different views of a subject does not violate the law of identity. If morality was all of these views at the same time, then you would have an argument, but that is not what anyone is suggesting.

Your 'objective, universal, unchanging standard' has already been shown overkill. A compass works because it points to a non-universal, changing reference point known to be in a general direction. Time to update your argument/views, sir.
Nope. While the compass magnetic north points in the north's general direction, true north is a defined geographic location on earth. True north or the North Pole has an exact grid location.

How does one go "north" if one is not on Earth (or on any planet)? North only works in the context of Earth (or a planet). Thats the point, even your analogy relies on context and is not universal.

Within the context of earthbound navigation, north provides guidance. Within the context of morality, well-being is the guide.

#1029

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,791

12.11.2020 07:00PM

-->

@SkepticalOne

Catholics have historically had a rather problematic relationship with the children of Israel.

#1030

Debates: 9

Posts: 1,720

12.11.2020 07:04PM

-->

@3RU7AL

Catholics have historically had a rather problematic relationship with the children of Israel.

...and children in general, it seems.

#1031

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,013

12.11.2020 07:15PM

-->

@SkepticalOne

Catholics have historically had a rather problematic relationship with the children of Israel.
...and children in general, it seems.

Yeah, but guys, you know that they're just not doing Christianity correctly like PGA, so it doesn't count towards CHristians. Also, god allows bad things to happen to children so they can have a better afterlife sooner, he restores what's lost in the afterlife. Now don't we all feel better?

#1032

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,791

12.11.2020 07:17PM

-->

@ludofl3x

...he restores what's lost in the afterlife.

So, we should probably just step back and let "YHWH" handle injustice.

#1033

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,013

12.11.2020 07:57PM

-->

@3RU7AL

Alternately, you can think really hard until god tells YOU how to handle the injustice on his behalf. Burn the gay neighbor's house down and salt the earth, praise his name, for example.

Topic's author

#1034

Debates: 7

Posts: 3,179

12.11.2020 08:45PM

-->

@Theweakeredge

Some scenarios make sense of our existence others do not. I do not believe an atheistic explanation can be consistent with its starting presuppositions, its causal roots.
[a] A god creating it would make more sense, but [b] it makes less sense that a god is presumed to or exists at all.

[a] Exactly!

[b] Does it, though?

We also have lots of philosophic and empirical reasons to believe He does, the impossibility or improbability of the contrary. Overall, atheism can not make sense of many key aspects of life, such as existence, the universe's origin, and morality. It does not have what is necessary for these three aspects.
I have already explained life, I have already explained existence, and origin, you have not sufficiently rebutted these.

I have shown that your proofs are very doubtable. You failed to address my rebuttals.

Morality doesn't matter, because you would have to prove that objective morality exists at all, which you haven't.

You can't call something moral unless there is a fixed standard for morality. Different cultures, different groups, and different individuals believe opposite things about what is good. It begs who is actually right. Without an objective, universal, unchanging standard, morality does not exist. What exists is preference.

With the moral aspect we are dealing with here, atheism lacks a fixed reference point or ideal of comparison.
Everything lacks a fixed moral point that's demonstratable.

Then it is self-refuting since you have nothing solid/fixed/unchanging to compare the good with. It can mean anything a person wants to make it mean.

Is that too a shifting point of view? Is that too just your personal opinion that cannot be backed up to an objective fixed reference point? If so, why should I value it? How can you demonstrate something is 11.75" long unless you have a fixed scale and measurement. The same for the moral good?

Topic's author

#1035

Debates: 7

Posts: 3,179

12.11.2020 08:58PM

-->

@FLRW

Chance is a possibility of something happening.

A possibility makes nothing happen. A possibility is a mental concept of what is likely provided; there is a means for it to happen.

In 1954, Einstein said : "About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. [...] As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indoctrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but [a] if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. [b] His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking but by immutable laws."

That is because Einstein was a Jew who rejected the Church. He identifies God as existing, but he refuses to believe it is the Christian God.

[a] Notice, Einstein said, "...if I were to speak of Him..." all the while speaking of Him.

[b] Einstein does not rule out God but attributes to God the laws of the universe. The problem that Einstein seems lacking is that he did not sufficiently inquire into the God of the universe.

Also with regard to God, Einstein stated, "I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own — a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms." "A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes. Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death. It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees."

Einstein was not an expert on the biblical God. He failed to understand that a just Judge - God - must address evil.

#1036

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,791

12.11.2020 09:00PM

-->

@PGA2.0

Without an objective, universal, unchanging standard, morality does not exist.

So, what's your "objective, universal, unchanging standard"?

Because "the ten commandments + love thy neighbor" leaves some not insignificant gaps (from a legal perspective).

#1037

zedvictor4

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,404

zedvictor4

12.11.2020 09:38PM

-->

@SkepticalOne

Catholic Priests used to get along just fine with children....Then some do gooders came along and spoiled their fun..... Damn you, problematic Liberals.

And Israelis have this genital mutilation fetish thing going on.

Morality hey.

#1038

Debates: 9

Posts: 1,720

12.11.2020 09:43PM

-->

@zedvictor4

I really wish there were emote reactions on the posts on this site! Its just awkward replying with 'lol'!

Btw...lol! 😆

#1039

Debates: 0

Posts: 137

12.12.2020 08:16PM

-->

@PGA2.0

@Theweakeredge

PGA2.0 669 to Marko
[1] I find your arguments unconvincing too. What the atheist is guilty of as much or more than any Christian is presupposing origins through scientism, not science.

Your fallacy of choice is the hasty generalization. That some atheists presuppose origins through scientism, does not imply all atheists do.

I am now interfering in the discussion in PGA2.0's post 678, where PGA2.0 answered 3RU7AL's parody question about humans and robots.

PGA2.0 580 to 3RU7AL
Did you program it to make moral choices and did you determine what the good was and the boundaries to which it could choose? IOW's, is there a best that the robot can use as its standard for goodness?[138]
3RU7AL 605
IOW's, is there a best that the human can use as its standard for goodness?

Since PGA2.0 answered that question, I can give a parody answer.

[138] Yes, what the human (who does not know all things) has programmed into the robot as good. In its relationship with its fellow robots and all lifeforms, do not steal, deceive, murder, or cause harm. Respect the ecosystem. Help those in need. Protect the weak.

Theweakeredge 677
I'll cover morality first: I do not believe objective morality exists. You can see this from my two negative positions regarding it within my debates.

How does one find the debates of a particular member ?

PGA2.0 680 to TheWeakeredge
[ . . . ] When you consider morality, God gives reason for morality. Preference does not, for it does not answer how values originate from something devoid of them or how they could (is/ought fallacy).[139] Morality needs an ideal, a best to compare 'good,' 'right,' 'better' against.[140] If the standard is not fixed, how would you know something is better? Better than what?[141] And people work hard to change systems of morality - to what?[142] To their own changing system of thought on what should be?[142]

[139] a) Biological evolution gives reason for morality. On top of that, biological evolution is real.

b) You are mistaken, for values originating from something devoid of them is not an is/ought fallacy.

[140] You are mistaken. Qualitative claims do not require an ideal or best for comparison. One can claim Jessica Alba is beautiful without have something most beautiful to compare her with.

[141] That is for you to say. You have a preference for asking unanswarable questions. You often refer to hypothetical situations with little information and then ask questions about it that require more information than what you provided. The point is presumably to deceive, suggesting that your opponent's inability to answer must be their failure, while if fact the failure is yours.

[142] and [142] What are you talking about ?

Numerous mistakes are an indication of a deficient worldview.

PGA2.0 680 to TheWeakeredge
Why should I value your opinion? It goes against what is livable and evidential/experiential by what I or anyone witnesses. For instance, I never witness beings coming from non-beings[143], morality coming from something amoral, or something coming from nothing.

[143] I remember you having made a similar comment on debate.org. I replied that I had never seen anything coming from God. I don't think you had a rebuttal.

Theweakeredge in con#3
P1: Objective Morality is defined as a moral system true independent of a mind
P2: Values and principals are made by minds
P3: Objective Morality has Values, Principals, etc..
Con: Therefore, these systems would be made by a mind
This would lead you to conclude them not objective. It's a contradictory statement to say that objective morality is made up of concepts only existent in minds."
PGA2.0 682
I question P1 to its validity. The premise is false. Objective morality cannot be independent of mind, since morality is a mindful thing. Morality is not possible without this thing called a mind.[144] I would argue that objective morality is dependent on a necessary Mind (i.e., God), not contingent minds. If God did not exist then morality would be nothing more than preference.[145] Preference is a personal taste or opinion. Thus it describes, not prescribes - "I like ice-cream describes what you like, what tastes yummy to you, not what I SHOULD do (an obligation). You are not obligated to like ice-cream although you may like it if it tastes 'good' to you.[146]

[144] Maybe so, but that does not challenge or undermine P1. I haven't read the debate, but important is of course what is meant with objective morality. Whether objective morality exists, depends on what it is supposed to be. If objectvive means completely mind-independent, then objective morality does not exist.

[145] Since you are the one making the claim, the burden of proof lies on you. Go ahead.

Morality consists of preferences, obviously, and if God were to exist, it would still consist of preferences.

[146] Prescriptions can be derived from facts and opinions. For example : “I disapprove if child rape. Therefore, you should not rape children.”

PGA2.0 682 to Theweakeredge
Next, 'good' or 'right' has to be grounded to something for it to be meaningful, a fixed standard. If the standard is not fixed and universal then how can you determine whether it is good or right?[147] Good or right in relation to what?[148] Your personal preference? That makes nothing right.[149] It just makes it doable.

[147] By evaluating 'it' with the standard, obviously.

[148] Nothing. Good and right aren't in relation to something. They are according to a standard or opinion.

[149] That is a non-sequitur fallacy.

PGA2.0 682 to Theweakeredge
Finally, if there is no objective standard, then life becomes unlivable. You can offer your opinion ("I don't like that") but you can never say it is wrong ("It is wrong to torture innocent children for fun").[150] Imagine, that would be dependent on who believes it rather than on it being wrong. You can't live by your own system because as soon as someone applies their preferences on you (that harms you) you realize without objective values life becomes unlivable.

[150] You are mistaken. Nothing prevents one from saying that. It can even be a subjective truth, which doesn't depend on who believes it.

PGA2.0 682 to Theweakeredge
So it does not pass the experiential test of life, let alone the logically consistent one (i.e., the law of identity, or a thing it what it is --> A=A; Right = Right). So your thinking is false in a number of ways, per above.

It is unclear what the experiential test of life is, but a worldview without objective morality passes all the tests it should ...

PGA2.0 607
[Additions by 3RU7AL 609 in bold]
[ . . . ] If a person uses a new word foreign for the meaning 'morality' they fail to communicate or express the standard norm or common usage, but if it catches on, they can invent a new word only if it is widely accepted or communication only between people who know what the person is referring to (or fail to recognize their miscommunication). [1] The point is that the thing describes is what it is, not something else (unless the new meaning and or usage catches on, they can start using it in a novel way if it is widely accepted). If you want to use the word "morality" when [ . . . ]
PGA2.0 690
[1] Morality is a set of social norms or conventions that have to have as their basis a fixed standard to know what is the case. Otherwise, all you have is a set of preferences or desires people in power force others to accept.

You have been claiming that at nauseum, but have not demonstrated it a single time. It is long overdue that you honour your burden of proof.

Ludofl3x asked for a demonstration in post 692, to which you responded in post 781 with

a question,
a bald assertion that you had already made many times,
a non-sequitur half-truth,
a non-sequitur,
a question.

My worldview has what is necessary to make sense of unability to prove your claims. Yours does not.

PGA2.0 690 to 3RU7AL
It seems to me that you are mistaken. Words in context have specific meaning and words refer to specific things.

Consider the sentences :

“There are too many bats in the tool shed.”

and

“I will wait for you by the bank.”

Please explain the specific meanings of the words 'bats' and 'bank' and the specific things they point to.

PGA2.0 608 to 3RU7AL
If it is immoral it should be a concern to everyone.
3RU7AL 612
Why?
PGA2.0 697
Because what is wrong should not be done, even if it feels good. It may feel good/taste good to eat poison mushrooms, but the result is not desirable.[151] Sometimes we hurt ourselves without realizing it.[152] If I say, "Eat this fruit, it tastes good," and we both die, then the choice was not a good one from the standpoint of our survival.[153]

[151] Are you saying that morality is about what is desirable ? Desirable to who ? Desires are preferences. What about the desires of Adolf Hitler, Bashar Al Assad and Kim Jong Un ? Is what what they do good because they desire it ? What if Kim Jong Un desires to throw you in a reeducation camp because he desires it ? Would that then be good ?

[152] Are you saying morality is about selfishness ? I should not steal because that would be bad for me ? I could get caught. So, if I am sure I can get away with it, is it then moral to steal ?

[153] Are you saying morality is about survival ? Whose survival ? Mine ? My tribe ? The one who is in power ?

SkepticalOne <quoted by PGA2.0, post # unknown>
If well-being is our standard, then we can objectively determine right and wrong against this standard. If the will of a god is defined, then we can objectively determine right and wrong against this standard. In no way am I suggesting either is an objective standard.
PGA2.0 704
Now, if you have no objective standard, you run into other problems. How can you objectively determine right without an objective moral standard?[154] Without objective morality, what makes your standard any better than any other? Nothing.[155] It beats me how you can speak of qualitative values such as right and better without having an objective ideal in mind. The objective in relation to what - you?

[154] So we have a chosen standard that objectively tells us what is right and wrong. Now, how do we objectively determine what is right ?

That is indeed a difficult question. Fortunately we have PGA2.0 to tell us that that would be impossible, that we need his god to do that.

[155] Has SkepticalOne claimed his standard to be better than any other ?

#1040

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,791

https://www.debateart.com/participants/Theweakeredge/debates?type=finished

12.12.2020 09:11PM

-->

@Amoranemix

How does one find the debates of a particular member ?

#1041

Wagyu

Debates: 9

Posts: 130

Wagyu

12.12.2020 11:46PM

On a probability standpoint, atheism more reasonable than theism/

#1042

Debates: 0

Posts: 137

12.13.2020 05:06PM

SkepticalOne 615
I've really lost interest in this thread and this argumentation. It is so often 'us vs them' and you consistently attempt to put your interlocutor into an 'enemy' role and pigeonhole them per your views (and not their own). [ . . . ]
PGA2.0 708
It is the competing of two opposing worldview[*], Chuck, each one viaing for control or a say in what should be the case. The issues are contentious issues. The problem with the one (atheism) is that it can't justify itself yet it pretends as though it can (the Emporor has no clothes but thinks he is splendedly arrayed).

[*] Your worldview against the perverted versions of your opponents' worldviews

Dude, worldviews don't justify themselves, not even Christian ones. On top of that, atheism is not even a worlview.

SkepticalOne 615
[ . . . ] Perhaps, we can eventually learn to talk to each other as friends. ;-) I'll be working on this on my end. I encourage you to do the same.
PGA2.0 708
I do not hold contempt for you, Chuck. I care about your moral and spiritual well being. I admit I could be more tactful but I don't want to dampen the effect of being direct. I say what I think, and I have thought about many of these issues long and hard. I think you are greatly mislead by your subjectivism. I recognize something in you that perhaps you fail to see in yourself. You can't make sense of life's most important issues. Now, whether you want to discuss it with me is your choice. I am always willing to give my two-cents worth. And I go to great pain to answer every question directed at me.[156] I do not find atheist's doing that. I understand it is probably due to time restraints.

Let me give you some advice on convincing sketpics. The advice is only useful if two conditionas are met :

1) You belief is rationally warranted based on publicly available evidence. Alas, that is not the case.

2) You really, unwaveringly believe the position you are defending. You behaviour contradicts that.

Supposing those conditions are met anyway :

For your positive case, you should figure out what about your arguments skeptics don't accept. Why don't they accept your argument ? With that I don't mean 'because they have invested too much in atheism'. I mean : which detail/aspect to they reject ? For example, you repeat at nauseum that atheist are illogical with right losing its identity and the like. It is obvious no skeptic believes that and repeating it more won't change their mind. Nail down the hickup. For example, present a formal argument and extract from skeptics which steps they find problematic.

About your negative case, you ask poor questions. Skeptics don't see their difficulty with answering the questions as being due to a problem with their worldview, but with your questions. Also the questions that are important to you ('life's ultimate questions') are not that important to them. Basically, I suspect you give skeptics the impression of being flooded with tripe, some of which you repeat at nauseum. (Remember on debate.org? I actually addressed your tripe and outlasted you.) Moreover, they disblieve the answers your worldview provides and if they have to choose between ignorance and false knowledge, they will choose ignorance. What you need to convince skeptics, is evidence for your worldview, not criticism of your strawmanned version of theirs.

[156] You are joking right ? There are still more than 100 questions waiting for your answer on debate.org.

3RU7AL
It is impossible to believe something without first being CONVINCED.
PGA2.0 720
That is the starting presupposition that Hebrews11:6 lays out. Why would you seek God unless you believed in Him? Once you believe Him, God confirms His existence further.

6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for the one who comes to God must believe that He exists, and that He proves to be One who rewards those who seek Him.

That is confirmation bias. God got the order wrong. First you should get evidence, then you believe. That way your beliefs are rationally warranted i.s.o. superstition.

3RU7AL
How do you convince them that you're the only one who knows the "true-truth"?
PGA2.0 738
I have learned the hard way you cannot convince anyone who does not want to be convinced.

That is also what flat-earthers have learned while confronted with stubborn round-earthers.

PGA2.0 738
Truth does not change. Truth is always true, or else truth would be false, which is a logical contradiction. A logical contradiction is self-refuting. When you have two statements that are opposite and logical contradictions, it means one of the two propositions is false (the car is completely blue/the car is completely yellow). Either something is the case, or it is not. It can't be both the case and not the case simultaneously and in the same relationship.

You are again missing the reason for skeptics' disbelief. In stead of explaining the law of non-contradiction again, you should explain what they disbelieve, like “And when someone discovers that fixed, unchanging standard, that is what truth is.“ Skeptics do not believe the law of non-contradiction is applicable to moral claims, especially when there may be equivocation.

I notice you have changed the guarding term 'in the same sense' to 'in the same relationship'. What do relationships have to do with claims ?

Stephen 642
Something he'd know all about wouldn't he? He's murdered enough men women and children hasn't he.
PGA2.0 750
How can God murder? He is the creator of all life. Does He not have a right to do with it as He wishes? He made it known that there is a penalty for wrongful action, death to Him (i.e., separation from His presence). And He will never take an innocent life without restoring it to a better place, in His presence.

So, when God is doing the killing then it not murder. How convenient for him. I suspect that women who want to abort their foetus would also appreciate such convenience.

If Genghis Khan could decide who is innocent, then he too could never take an innocent life without restoring it to a better place.

PGA2.0 750
Now you, as a finite human being, do not always see justice in this world. You make a big fuss over God's moral decrees, all the while being guilty of falling short of His standards.[*] First, give me the standard by which you can pronounce God unjust. Do you think you know better than God? It seems that you use the standard He provided for humanity to also judge Him. Why would the Creator need to conform to a human standard? He can't covet; everything is His. He can't steal; He owns it all.[**] [ . . . ]

[*] I am confident that God also falls short of 3RU7AL's standards.

[**] How convenient for him. Most thieves know it when they are stealing. God gets rid of the potential conscience problem by deciding he owns everything already.

That is typical for might makes right morality : The mighty decide what is most convenient for them.

Theweakeredge 681
Again, the universe we can observe was literally caused by happenstance, that the big bang expanded the way it did and such, that is literally our only example of a universe, that IS MY PROOF, that the universe is here and the aspects of it now were caused by happenstance. You haven't even demonstrated a god.
PGA2.0 750
I constantly have, but you do not hear my explanation. [ . . . ]

No, you have not. You have not even demonstrated God's existence once.

You have presented a few arguments for God's existence. I have not challenged them because they are off topic, not because they are good arguments.

3RU7AL 653
However, that betrayal is a private matter between the two (or more) people involved.
I can see no reason for anyone else (including god($)) to have any strong opinions on the matter (much less prescribe any sort of mandatory "punishment").
PGA2.0 758
Because God is love. Injustice concerns Him. Such betrayal hurts not only the two but the extended family also.

Hurt is related to ill-being, which is undesirable from an utilitarian point of view, but why would God care about whether something hurts ?

3RU7AL 654
I don't believe it's universally immoral to say things.
PGA2.0 758
Words have the power of life and death. Some have a harmful effect on others. They can be used in destroying people through bullying them. They can tear down a positive image and replace it with a negative one. I believe in speaking my mind, but if someone is bullying, there is a point where enough is enough. Some things need to be said, but it should be gentleness and respect where possible. Directness is one of my faults.

Again you argue against certain behaviour because of undesirable consequences, reducing the well-being of people. So, why are you disapproving of defamation ?

1) Is it that you, like most people, find the consequences (ill-being) bad and God just happens to agree with you ?

2) Or is it that God finds the consequences bad and since you suspect that most atheists happen to agree with God on this issue, you use that as an argument against defamation ?

FLRW 660
A study published in the journal Neuropsychologia has shown that religious fundamentalism is, in part, the result of a functional impairment in a brain region known as the prefrontal cortex. The findings suggest that damage to particular areas of the prefrontal cortex indirectly promotes religious fundamentalism by diminishing cognitive flexibility and openness—a psychology term that describes a personality trait which involves dimensions like curiosity, creativity, and open-mindedness. Religious beliefs can be thought of as socially transmitted mental representations that consist of supernatural events and entities assumed to be real. Religious beliefs differ from empirical beliefs, which are based on how the world appears to be and are updated as new evidence accumulates or when new theories with better predictive power emerge.
PGA2.0 768
[ . . . ]
Have they considered what atheism is doing to the mind in closing itself to God? [156]
Besides, the truth is very narrow-minded! It is not open to various interpretations.[157]
Again, the mind sciences have set up a dichotomy between religion and science, religion and truth, religion and awareness, religion and rightful thinking.[158] [ . . . ]

[156] No. They have not even been able to demonstrate that atheism closes itself to God.

[157] Evidence on the other hand is open to various interpretations. You confuse your beliefs with the truth. Open-mindedness makes it easier to realize the difference.

[158] Clearly, the mind sciences have not been kind to your worldview. Hence, a disparagement of those sciences is in order. (Feel free to verify that prediction by reading the rest of your paragraph.)

#1043

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,791

12.13.2020 05:52PM

-->

@Amoranemix

On top of that, atheism is not even a worldview.

A+

Topic's author

#1044

Debates: 7

Posts: 3,179

12.13.2020 08:05PM

-->

@3RU7AL

Then, you disagree that preference makes things right, at least in the area of tasting ice-cream.
Is that sugar and chocolate ethically sourced, fair trade, and carbon neutral?

Pardon.

Topic's author

#1045

Debates: 7

Posts: 3,179

12.13.2020 08:21PM

-->

@Amoranemix

ludofl3x
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.
PGA2.0 228
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.[65] 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!
I remember in [a] our discussion on DDO that you criticized my morality and all [b] you could present as an alternative was an even worse one.

[a] You bet I criticized your morality.

[b] So you say, without a context.

Worse, in whose opinion? Why should I value your subjective opinion? Whenever you speak of better and worse, you must have some fixed standard for it to have meaning. If the meaning is changing, then how can you say it is better???

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.[65]
[65] No, it isn't. If ludofl3x is like me, then he does not believe what you want him to believe. He merely believes in reality.

It is not a majority view; it is just your opinion that coincides with ludofl3x's. Why should I trust yours or his view of moral reality? Are you an authority and expert in moral reality, or is this another appeal to authority - yours?

We all believe in reality. The question is, do you or he correctly represent it in regards to morality? No, you can't provide a fixed, unchanging standard and best to compare better or worse to. You make it up or adopt someone else's relative standard. Why are they right? You give not strong arguments that they are. You think that just because you can present assertions, that makes them reasonable or true.

Topic's author

#1046

Debates: 7

Posts: 3,179

12.13.2020 08:38PM

-->

@Amoranemix

PGA2.0 228
So, if you want just laws they must be based on what is actually right regardless of how many people like such laws.[66] 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.[67] 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.
[66] Also don't forget, just laws must be based on what is actually right regardless of whether an invisible sky magician likes them.

You miss the point. Do you have such a standard - the actual right? Demonstrate it so.

Abortion is just morally wrong, except where 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.[67]
[67] That is what you claim and it may even be what your god claims, but morality should not be decided by the opinion of a minority or their god.

Like Nazi Germany, a majority makes killing innocent Jews right, just like a majority as with Roe v Wade makes it right with abortion? For you, there is no such thing as an objective measure and final reference. You make it up as you go. What you left out is nothing more than an appeal to the people/argumentum ad populum fallacy.

What a ridiculous fallacious argument you are making.

PGA2.0 228 ludofl3x
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 th...
Indeed. Donald Trump placed many liberal judges in the Supreme High Court, one of them just two weeks before the elections. That is what republican presidents do and that is why now a majority of the Supreme High Court members are liberals.

You don't know what you speak of. Donald Trump did not place liberal but conservative justices on the Supreme Court. You have everything backwards.

Topic's author

#1047

Debates: 7

Posts: 3,179

12.13.2020 10:28PM

-->

@Amoranemix

ludofl3x
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.
So, it is the OT law that was wrong. Were the Ten Commandments, being in the OT, wrong too?

The OT law was not wrong. Homosexual relationships were identified as wrong in both. The punishments for these actions have changed for the covenant believer. The NT covenant has Jesus as the sin-bearer. He not only lives the righteous life required under the OT laws, but He also pays the penalty for those who are not able to but have faith in Him. With faith in Jesus, a close relationship with God is once again established, the Holy Spirit is sent to the believer, and the believer is transformed in heart and mind by that relationship. The OT law's purpose was to showcase the holiness and purity of God and how impossible it was for humans living under that covenant law to achieve that right standing by the "works of the law." From inception, the OT law pointed to a better way - the Lord Jesus Christ and "living by grace."

The lesson is that God did not design human beings for a male with another male sexual relationship, just as sex outside of marriage was/is wrong (either fornication or adultery). The objectification of women as sexual objects results from humanity living outside of God's standard of purity - marriage. The adoption of a standard other than what God had sanctioned came with the Fall and humanity choosing its own standards of "righteousness," which polluted what was right and good and turned goodness on its head. Thus, God chooses a nation of people to make known Himself in His purity and teach what was acceptable to God. God's intention for His people (Israel, and indirectly for the NT believer) was what was best. Anyone within that covenant who broke the covenant law was punished in the prescribed manner (death), depending on what law was broken. It foreshadowed the penalties of sin in the final judgment if repentance did not occur and a suitable sacrifice and penalty for sin were not met.

PGA2.0 228 ludofl3x
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 thesame practices when they entered the Promised Land. In the case ofmarriage, God's decree was a contract or covenant between one man andone woman. It was a sacred bond (still is) and it was symbolic andtypological of the holy union between Christ and His Bride. Thus, thecovenant between God and Israel was a holy covenant not to be brokenwithout punishment. Since the punishment of sin is death, breaking ofsome of the OT laws required the death penalty.
[a] That the punishment of sin is death, does not imply sin requires death as punishment. What is, does not necessarily need to be. [b]That God prefers death being the punishment for sin to satisfy his personal, [c] might-makes-right justice, does not imply it has to be that way.

[a] That was the purpose of faith and trust in God and His provision of the sacrificial system in both covenants. God is holy and pure. Breaking His commandments required a penalty.

[b] God is just and good. A good Judge will not neglect punishing injustice.

[c] Might makes right only when the thing that is done is right. God always does the right.

#1048

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,791

12.13.2020 11:48PM

-->

@PGA2.0

From inception, the OT law pointed to a better way - the Lord Jesus Christ and "living by grace."

(IFF) Jesus absolves criminals who repent (THEN) shouldn't we also absolve criminals who repent?

Topic's author

#1049

Debates: 7

Posts: 3,179

12.14.2020 02:40AM

-->

@Amoranemix

Tradesecret 189
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.
PGA2.0 228
I agree with you 100%. I would argue that what atheists call morality is their 'moral' preference, their likes and dislikes.[68] They impose those on others by laws.[69] 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. [70] 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.[71]
I don't entirely agree with Tradesecret. That atheism would have to borrow from other worldviews, implies it is a worldview itself, in which case it can have it's own morality.

It can't unless an atheist can show they have that exclusive fixed, unchanging, objective reference point. You have not shown they do.

As for a worldview, as I pointed out before, atheists answer the same ultimate questions that other religious worldviews do. Thus, whether you like it or not, atheism qualifies in the same way that Christianity would.

I would argue that what atheists call morality is their 'moral' preference, their likes and dislikes.[68]
[68] Again, likes and dislikes alone do not make something moral or immoral.

Likes and dislikes are preferences, and preferences do are not count as moral unless they correspond to what is actually the case of right and wrong. The question is, how does an atheist arrive at what is actually right and wrong without a fixed, unchanging, objective standard of reference???

They impose those on others by laws.[69]
[69] Atheists aren't the only ones who do that.

True, but they don't have the right basic for doing so.

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. [70]
[70] So you claim, but can you prove that?

Again, Christianity qualifies as having what is necessary. From there, you can test the Bible's internal consistency in several ways, of which prophecy is an excellent reasoning tool. Then, as I have pointed out before, making sense of the universe, existence, morality is more reasonably by presupposing God than chance happenstance. The fine-tuning of the universe, the discovery of natural laws, the fact that we humans think in terms of right and wrong, and look for meaning all are more logical from God's standpoint, but you are entitled to think irrationally if you wish?

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.[71]
[71] Corrections: Christians believe they have a solid foundation and Christians believe they can justify their worldview in this
area.

We all believe things. You, as an atheist, believe things. You believe you can justify various aspects of atheism.

We, as Christians, have a solid foundation for morality. That foundation has what is necessary and can explain morality. Whether you believe it or not is a different matter.

There is much evidence that confirms the Bible. It is reasonable. It says over and over that it is the Word of God, God speaking to humanity.

This whole thread is about one aspect of the Christian worldview versus the atheistic worldview; which is more reasonable to believe, morality from a Christian or atheistic perspective?

Tradesecret 189
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.
PGA2.0 228
I agree that morality cannot be tested through empirical means that science uses. It requires a different standard.[72] [ . . . ]
[72] Indeed. Many things are like that, all subjective things. Then comes along a group of people, who base their beliefs on texts written by ancient goat herds, telling us that morality is the exception and expecting skeptics to roll over and accept.

And then comes along another group who base their beliefs on chance happenstance, telling us that there are no exceptions and that we naturally should roll over and accept their subjective preferences. They don't have what is necessary for moral objectivism but like to preach as if their opinions are BETTER than others. So, as Christians, TradeSecret and I inquire why? I ask, what makes your opinions the bee all and end all? Do you have what is necessary for them to be so, or should I take what you say with a grain of salt?

Notice how you were unable to see the inaccuracy of the prediction Tradesecret made.

I don't follow your meaning.

#1050

Debates: 0

Posts: 137