-->
@Tradesecret
Except of course when you rule out evidence just because you don't like it.
What are your personally preferred Uniform Standards Of Evidence (USOE)?
Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?
Posts
Total:
1,638
-->
@3RU7AL
Evidence comes in various forms. It is normally defined as "any statement, record, testimony, or other things, apart from legal submissions, which tends to prove the existence of a fact in issue".
I like eyewitness testimony.
-->
@Tradesecret
Rule out evidence? Do you mean "testimony" the evidence type that we have non testimonial evidence is the weakest form of evidence, and is essentially just a bunch of claims without other evidence? That type of evidence?
-->
@Tradesecret
Except, according to other lawyers... .its noteriously bad in court, at least if you have literally any other type of evidence
-->
@Theweakeredge
Except, according to other lawyers... .its noteriously bad in court, at least if you have literally any other type of evidence
It is obvious you have not spent much time in a court room or talking to court room lawyers.
95 % of crooks plead guilty based on their own admissions. That is the direct eye-witness of the testimony of the crook.
95% is extremely high proportion of cases resolved by eye-witness testimony.
Testimony of witnesses can be a flawed process - but actually it is one of the best ways to determine if people are telling the truth sincerely or lying.
Academics hate testimonies. It goes against the way they want to the law to work or progress. This is why they prefer other forms of evidence and why they wish to get rid of the jury system.
A good lawyer recognizes easily when people lie in the stand. They also recognize when a couple of their own witnesses have stories that don't seem consistent with each other. Incidentally, when the stories mesh - it is a sign of a conspiracy and a fake story. And when the storys don't mesh - it is a more believable and plausible story.
Academics think the stories should all be perfectly in accord. Yet experienced lawyers and judges know differently.
We all know that some people will lie on the stand. That goes without saying. Yet recognizing that is a huge tool. Many lawyers believe everything their client tells them. Smart ones don't.
The problem with other forms of evidence is that none is foolproof. DNA evidence is totally flawed and many cases are being thrown which try and rely on DNA all by itself. I have seen many cases thrown - when the evidence is simply a cigarette butt - which the police say has DNA on it - which in their mind ties the defendant to the place where the offence took place. What police don't recognize and what most people in the non-lawyer world don't realise is that this DNA evidence which suggests a link with the defendant is not reliable or admissible until it has been rigorously tested. Tests which in Australia take up to 12 months to be ready to be given to the defendant and his lawyer. And until it is given to the defendant's lawyer - the evidence of the cigarettes' butt is treated as circumstantial evidence only.
And circumstantial evidence IS NOT strong evidence, whatever you might like to think about it. IT is not enough by itself - especially when their is eyewitness testimony which denies it. If you don't believe me, look at the recent Cardinal Pell in Australia - High Court Appeal.
Document evidence - video evidence - identification evidence - all are often seen as doctored or fake or bad evidence.
Don't misunderstand me - I think that evidence is typically at its highest point when taken together it paints a pretty good narrative. Yet in most court cases - at least in Australia - it is very rare not to have eye-witness testimony as a main plank in the evidence presented to the court.
Logic and reason by the way are not considered evidence. They are legal submissions and arguments - but not evidence.
And DNA in Victoria has been strongly discredited in the courts. Many police cases had to be delayed for up to 24 months because of the significant flaws in the methodology.
-->
@Tradesecret
Once they admit that testimonial evidence is a real form of evidence (that which provides proof of a claim) then their baloney about there being no evidence to support Theistic propositions falls flat on its face. NDE's for example are a realistic and useful form of evidence that supports the proposition that the soul exists independent of the physical body, and there is well more than enough of them to establish that the conscious experience extends beyond the confines of the human form. Well this just happens to fall in line with tons of religious sources supplying the same informative insight about what we call a soul. Correlating evidence for a claim!
Paranormal encounters and spiritual experiences across the globe by the millions provide more than enough "evidence" that beings exist beyond the immediate physical world, which also supports religious propositions that entities exist outside the physical domain. What do ya know...correlating evidence again.
There's more evidence in the form of eye-witness first hand observations for spirituality than any other topic by a long shot. There's not even a close runner up! the fact that guys like weakeredge like to sweep it under the carpet as having no significance because they believe everyone to be either a liar or mentally ill having any affiliation or experience within the theistic spectrum is laughable. They like it the way they pretend it to be, that Theism and religion are just the products of ignorant wishful thinking dopes. That makes them feel like they have reached some height of intellectual progress lol.
Great post BTW!
-->
@Theweakeredge
Not more doubtful than disbelief in God. That unbelief is unreasonable. Then you have no justification for the way things are other than sh_t happens. You can't account for the uniformity of nature - why things remain constant by chance happenstance. You have no justification for morality because morality is a mindful thing, and in a universe devoid of mind, how does life arise. Our life is meaningless in the big picture of such a universe. Why are you making it meaningful? You are not being consistent with your starting point; I am. There is no overall purpose for you in doing so. You are a tiny, insignificant human being in a vast expanse of meaninglessness once you discount God. You are trying to find meaning and reason in the meaningless. Go figure. It sounds insane to me, and people have gradually gone insane once they jettisoned God. Life without God is ultimately dead-end meaningless.Wrong on literally all accounts, lets break this down.Not more doubtful than disbelief in God.Tu quoque, even if you had a point here, it doesn't prove that god exists. 1 fallacy.
It does not prove God does not exist either. The question of this thread is which is more reasonable, or even reasonable at all. This question is something that escapes you in your effort to undermine the Christian position.
That unbelief is unreasonableLet's see your reasoning for that claim.
Is it reasonable to believe that thinking beings derive their existence from non-living matter? That is your presuppositional position when the causal tree is examined all the way to the root cause. What you find there is devoid of reason and yet you believe it gives rise to reason. Please explain how. Make sense of it. Make sense of how consciousness is derived from something lacking it. Explain how morality is possible without a fixed final reference point that is best, what is actual and real, not derived from wishful thinking that is subjective and fleeting (for it changes).
On the contrary, is it reasonable to believe that reason is derived from a necessary mindful and reasoning being? Yes, there is a reason with such a being and experientially and internally consistently (two proofs of logic) that is all we witness.
Then you have no justification for the way things are other than sh_t happens[a] Yes... because that's the only thing we can demonstrate happening, why is this unreasonable? [b] Were you hoping your crude framing of what reality is would scare me off? [c] Things happen, we don't know exactly what started the first thing, but you claiming "god" isn't proof either, its you asserting something. [d] You are drawing a conclusion from reasoning that doesn't logically follow, [e] Non sequitur. 2 Fallacies.
[a] You make a variety of logical fallacies in most posts all the while making the claim without demonstration (just assertion) that I have committed fallacies. The fallacy of choice for you in that particular sentence is not only begging the question but also using bifurcation, the either-or fallacy. When you say "only" you exclude all else. Only allows no other reasons.
The physical is not the only thing we can demonstrate. And, as I said, I can demonstrate experientially (see my wife woman giving birth to our son) that mindful beings give birth to other beings with the same nature. That is all I see, physically. I realize/understand logical, mindful beings producing other logical mindful beings. I witness humans giving birth to other humans. Thus, that is the way things are. In regards to God, I have a physical collection of writings that claims to be a revelation from God in which people (the writers) claim God said, God spoke, God commanded. The supporting evidence, it is my contention, is reasonable to believe, more reasonable than where atheism is coming from. God can be demonstrated. He is not a physical Being per the Bible. Therefore, the level and kind of proof (demonstration) are different from a quantitative value system. We are speaking from a qualitative value system, the kind you use when you think logically and claim there is such a thing as logical laws. Those laws are not physical either, but without them, communication becomes impossible, because words in sentences are meaningful and convey a particular message. Without God, it is hard to make sense of origins.
[b] I'm not trying to scare you off. I am trying to get you to discuss and justify the atheistic worldview as more reasonable than the Christian one in regards to morality. You are skirting the issue with your ad homs. I realize I can't assert I am right just because you can't prove me wrong( and vice versa), but I can give you arguments why my way of thinking is more reasonable than yours based on logic and yes, facts. Your claim that "God" does not prove anything is a denial that the Bible is reasonable proof of His existence. To that, I whole-heartedly disagree with both your reason and logic. You dismiss the evidence from it as what it claims to be for the very reason that you have substituted it for science, secularism, naturalism inside a closed system.
[c] Again (and I am getting tired of reminding you) the premise of this thread is which position regarding morality is more reasonable to believe, the atheistic or Christian position. Can you understand that???
[d] It logically follows that the Christian position on morality is more reasonable than one that cannot account for morality as anything other than preference. How does preference make something right?
The question is does it necessarily follow? Does it logically follow? Well, what would be the case for necessity? Morality is derived from mindful beings - it is a mind thing. That is necessary. It is logical to believe (some might say self-evident). We as mindful beings lack what is needed for a fixed, objective, unchanging, absolute reference point [whose human mind(s) would that be] that is the best and that has revealed what is right. There are disputes over what is right in every society. That is seen by our cultures in which the grounds of morality shift and one culture has a contrary view from another. Then in the causal chain, how does mindfulness derive from what is lacking consciousness? How do things happen without intent, agency, or purpose? What was the agency that caused the BB and the chain of events that lead to humanity and reasoning mindful beings? Atheism has a longwinded explanation that has gaping holes in its logic and reason. The Christian system of thought has what is necessary.
[e] Instead of just listing them show the logical inconsistency that makes what you say true.
You can't account for the uniformity of nature - why things remain constant by chance happenstance.The why doesn't really matter all that much, just that it did happen, you would have to prove that someone caused it... this isn't a point against me, this is another appeal to ignorance, 3 fallacies.
The "why" does matter. The reason we can do science is that results are repeatable. The reason we can observe the laws of nature is that the same thing is repeatable indefinitely. I liken the uniformity of nature to rolling a dice. First, rolling a dice needs an agent. It does not roll itself. Then to constantly roll six the dice has to be fixed. The same roll, the same landing, the same result indefinitely requires intent. If there is no intent (i.e., perhaps you have weighted the dice) any number can pop up. Without fixing the dice how long can you go experientially, not in theory, before another number is rolled? Not long, yet you surmise or theorize that time fixes the problem, eons and eons of time makes anything possible. The theoretical is not always akin to the practical. I cannot always be lived. Then with the universe, either something came from nothing, and without agency or cause, a logical impossibility, or the universe always existed. Over and over and over again, the atheistic worldview or way of looking at the universe and what is in it is an inconsistent worldview.
Answering the why questions give reason or agency for a thing.
Then you falsely charge me with an appeal to ignorance. I have presented the above argument before in this thread as well as a number of other pieces of evidence for my stated claim. That appeal to ignorance would be the case if I had presented no evidence for God or for the uniformity of nature as not possible from a chance happenstance position, but I have.
-->
@PGA2.0
PGA2.0 930 to Amoranemix 844[a] Again, you make an assertion. Justify it.[b] They are not moral without a fixed reference point (I reiterate, again and again).[358] They are preferences. What makes a preference right or wrong morally?[359] preference is a subjective feeling. It may also be felt and favoured by a group (the likes and dislikes).[c] Again, an assertion that has not been justified.[360] Quit your fluff and give some substance or at least an argument rather than a statement. Why should I believe what you say? No reason so far. Who are you to preach to me about what is necessary without justifying your stance as logical or reasonable?[361]
[a] Orders the guy with a backlog of hundreds of assertions to justify.
[b, 358] You fail to prove that, again and again. My worldview allows me to explain why. Yours does not.
[359] Obviously, not all preferences do. Those that do for example, using your definition in post 906, can be morally right or wrong by being in accord or discord with a doctrine or system of moral conduct.
[c] [360] Again, it is the default position, as no good reason has been provided that God is necessary. You have merely asserted he is.
I have already given a lot more substance than you have, while you keep on spamming fluf like there is no tomorrow.
Amoranemix 844Does your god really know all things, or merely all true, knowable things ?PGA2.0 930I don't understand the question.[361] You can't know something unless it is true. Knowledge conforms to truth. If you have a false belief, it is not knowledge. God is the truth.[362] He knows all things[363], and concerning His creature - the human - knows all things that they think and whether those things are true or not. He knows when you think untrue things. He does not think untruths. Not only this, He is responsible for all things and because of Him, they are sustainable and hold together. Thus, there is nothing about everything He has made or about Himself that He does not know.
[361] At fault is your worldview bias. You ASSUME that everything someone knows must be true and also ASSUME that everything that is not true must be false. The first assumption is confusing, which is probably why have adopted it. Knowledge and knowing are often used for claims and beliefs that are controversial. There are for example many inconsistent religions with adherents who all know they adhere to the true religion.
[362] Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?
[363] If what you say is true (and I am not claiming it is) then God knows all falsehoods. Therefore, all falshoods are true.
Your worldview is intrinsically contradictory.
I will adopt a charitable interpretation of your claims by assuming that God only knows that what is true.
PGA2.0 99 to 3RU7ALSecond, we need a fixed standard, a final reference point. God meets that requirement, we do not for He is unchanging and eternal.Amoranemix 844For what do we need a fixed standard ?[*]God could only meet that requirement if he exists, something so far no one has been able to prove.[**]PGA2.0 931[*]We need a fixed objective standard that is unchanging, or else we contravene the laws of logic and can't make sense of morality, the moral good. It can mean the opposite depending on who holds the belief, which means whose belief is true to what is?[**] There are many proofs for God's existence[363], and regarding morality, one of them is a necessary being to make sense of the moral good[364]. Another is how do you make sense of morality if it is always in flux? How can something that is shifting and has no fixed address be better than something else. How do you compare 'good' to something that shifts? 'Better' concerning what? What is the best? You don't have one. Thus, how do you compare the good? It just shifted.
[*] That is rubbish you again uttered there. You need a fixed standard because of the gaps you have created in your worldview to make room for God. I and most atheists don't need one. We can comfortably not contravene the laws of logic without one and some of us have made sense of morality.
[363] So you claim, but can you prove it ?
No, contrary to what you seem to believe, questions are not proofs.
[364] A necessary being is supposed to prove the existence of God ? How would it be supposed to do that and can you prove the existence of that necessary being ?
PGA2.0 99 to 3RU7ALThird, God is good, which means that to read about Him and understand Him is to see (mirrored) and understand what goodness is.[42] It just is who He is and He allowed us to find out the difference between His goodness and what is evil by giving humanity (in Adam) a choice to know evil. Evil is doing the opposite of what God has said as good. We understand evil since the Fall because God let us experience evil for a purpose, that we might perhaps seek out God, be reunited, and escape from the evil we do in our moral relativism.[43] With human beings, we witness this moral relativism all around us.[44] One society believes one thing is wrong and another the opposite. Just wait long enough and you will see people reversing their beliefs about goodness, such as I pointed out about abortion. The reason abortion is evil is that it does not treat all human life as equal. Some human beings are dehumanized, demonized, discriminated about, and diminished to the point of death.[45]Amoranemix 844[42] [a] That is so sweet. You again [b] forgot to mention the reference standard to avoid clarity (the skeptic's friend). [c] Adolf Hitler was also good according to himself. [d] And we can also read about AH's goodness.[43] Thus far your fairy tale.[44] Aha. That is what we see in the real world. It doesn't look compatible with the former.[45] The real world does have its problems, indeed.PGA2.0 933[ . . . ][c] So what?[365] Why does that make him good, morally speaking?[366] Please explain why you believe he is good. Go ahead. I already challenged you to do this.[367] Many fools think what they propose is good, like Hitler, but it misses the actual mark.[d] Yes, by other human beings who do not claim inspiration from the objective standard of truth, and most of them do not believe Hitler was good in what he did to a massive number of the German population. In fact, most of them are morally outraged by Hitler's evil.[368] They correctly understand that what he did was not good at all, and you say it was good because Hitler thought so does not make it so.[369][43] Another claim without justification. You think just asserting something makes it so. Provide your proof so that I can get into a critique of it if you dare.[44] Yes, we do witness it. The former being a true and fixed objective standard.[A] Your argument does not necessarily follow.[B] It can also follow that without God moral relativism is all we would expect to witness[C], and that is what we witness when human beings diverge from the path of righteousness - God Himself and His revelation. That is the alternative you deny.[D] Denying something does not necessarily make it so. So, make more than just another assertion. Back up your claims.[E]
[c, 365] So nothing. It is just as irrelevant as God being good according to himself, what you keep repeating as if it were relevant.
[366] You again omitted to mention the reference moral standard, to promite confusion (the skeptic's enemy). Assuming you implicitly refer to God's moral standard, you question was : “How does AH being morally good according to himself make him morally good according to God ?” If you used half your brain at half capacity, you should know it does not, or is your worldview getting in the way of such elementary understanding ?
[367] Indeed. It is not the first time you challenge me to prove things I don't even believe, let alone have claimed. In the mean time there are plenty of claims you have actually made that are still in deed of proving.
The inability to prove one's claims is a sign of deficient worldview.
[d, 368] Your fallacy of choice is the equivocation. These people are not judging Hitler's morality by Hitler's moral standard, but by their own.
Are you committing an appeal to popularity fallacy, or is morality decided by popularity ?
[369] You again omitted to mention the reference moral standard to avoid clarity (the Christian's enemy).
[43] Dude, 90% of the bald assertions in this thread are made by you. Why should you get a monopoly on them ?
You made some claims. What about proving them ? Of course not ! PGA2.0 is not into proving claims.
Then I respond with a claim. Immediately I am supposed to prove it. Reality, although not refuting your claims, at first sight constitutes evidence against them at first sight, as I have pointed out in [44].
OK, but you prove your claims first.
[44] [A] The former is not even a standard, let alone a fixed objective standard.
[B] That was not even an argument.
[C] Giving how you keep seeing moral relativism everywhere, I suspect all those claims you made and shared about it were mere slander.
[D] It is what we witness when human beings diverge from anything, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You just ASSUME that is somehow evidence for your god. You just ASSUME your god is the only alternative.
[E] What claims are you talking about ?
- You make a claim.
- I ask you to prove it.
- You don't prove it.
- I don't make a claim.
- You ask me to prove my claims.
That is the sort if silly discussions we have and at fault is not my worldview.
3RU7AL 846The "YHWH" seems to have some strange "moral preferences".Specifically when it comes to slaughtering the children of "non-believers" and keeping foreigners and their children and their grandchildren in "perpetual servitude".PGA2.0 9341) God was judging evil and bringing evil people to account. That is reiterated over and over again in the Bible.2) If God takes an innocent life (allows evil people to take the life of an innocent child, for instance) because of the sins of others and their barbarity, that life will be restored to a better place, a place free of moral corruption and evil.
Skeptics are very gullible, but not gullible enough to believe you or the Bible.
Theweakeredge 853Wrong, while it is true that I wasn't there we have evidence for several mass extinction events, 5 to be precise.All such evidence relies on how you interpret the data. You come to the data from a particular worldview. Thus, you look for evidence that supports such a worldview. You rely on the supposition the present is the key to interpreting the past because that is what we are left with. [ . . . ]
On the other hand, that you are doing the same with your interpration of the Bible you don't see as a problem, because that leads to the conclusions you desire.
PGA2.0 937 to TheweakeredgeFairy-tale scenario: "Once upon a time, a long, long time ago, the universe exploded into being (from nothing)!"
Fairy-tales are usually magical stories found in ancient books written by scientificly illiterate people. Have you read Genesis ?
PGA2.0 937[a] The purpose of the Bible is not to display scientific knowledge but a knowledge of why we, as humans exist (God chose to create us for a purpose [ . . . ]
The purpose of atheism is not to answer what you consider to be life's most important questions and yet you pointed out its failure to do so, as if that were a flaw.
But if the allegedly brilliant holy book fails to demonstrate decent scientific knowledge, then no, that is not a flaw.
You should try hiding your bias better.
Theweakeredge 853[ . . . ] Therefore its existence causes reasonable doubt.PGA2.0 937Not more doubtful than disbelief in God. That unbelief is unreasonable. Then you have no justification for the way things are other than sh_t happens. You can't account for the uniformity of nature - why things remain constant by chance happenstance. You have no justification for morality because morality is a mindful thing, and in a universe devoid of mind, how does life arise. [ . . . ]
Morality requires no justification, so I assume you mean explananation. In the mean time I have already explained it in post 1076. Your explanation for morality on the other hand is flawed, for it is incomplete – no mechanism is included – and relies on questions, bald assertions and equivocation.
ludofl3x 858I agree, we're talking past each other , and I don't have the time to sort through your repetitive screeds. I'll go on not torturing little kids for fun even though I don't believe in god..PGA2.0 946My "repetitive screeds" are an attempt to obtain accountability from the atheistic worldview.[370] IMO, you guys pick and choose what you will answer and refuse to look at your starting presuppositions and why they make no sense.[371] In a meaningless universe where you are a biological bag of atoms and derive your morality from genetic and environmental factors, why is it wrong to torture or kill innocent human beings?[372] How does the atheistic worldview account for objective moral values?[373] You borrow from the Christian worldview in thinking it is wrong. Thus, I continually point out how inconsistent the atheist is in their thinking.[374] Many atheists on this forum admit that morality is a relative preference. They admit that it was good to murder the undesirables of the German society for Hitler, as he understood the good.[375] So Amoranemix sees this as an actual good for Hitler.[376]
[370] Atheism nor atheists owe you any accountability and your repetitive screeds are a poor attempt.
[371] Indeed. Some atheists do that : pick and choose what they answer. Do you have a problem with that ?
That atheistic starting presuppositions make no sense is an ASSUMPTION you make. The reason is that you make up starting presuppositions for them and you prefer your opponents to have non-sensical ones.
I have not refused to look at my starting presupposition : “An appearance is probably true, unless there is good reason to doubt it.”
Whathever set of starting presuppositions you use, it is going to be a lot more complicated than mine. Occam's razor smiles on me, not you.
[372] You again omitted the reference moral standard to promote confusion (the skeptic's enemy).
[373] Moral values that are objective (in the sense that their application is objective) are easy to invent. Most legislation, for example, is in principle objective.
[374] Correction : you attempt to and fail miserably.
[375] The only one who I have seen admit those things is you.
[376] In your dreams perhaps. As far as I know 'wrong for' is rarely used and means 'wrong of'. 'Wrong for' is not the same as 'wrong according to'. You keep repeating that inaccuracy, thereby straw-manning my position.
PGA2.0 937 to ludofl3x[ . . . ]Amoranemix can not identify something really wrong because he has no absolute, objective standard to identify the good.[377] Thus he is willing to concede that people make up good according to their preferences.[378] For him, what Hitler did was evil, but for Hitler, it was good (moral relativism). It is all based on preference. You see, he can't say that what Hitler did was wrong for Hitler.[379] He does not recognize it as wrong for Hitler. He does not recognize an absolute, objective standard, so for some, torturing little children for fun would be good, such as for theMarquis de Sade.
[377] Then neither can you, nor anyone else.
[378] You have already conceded the same. Remind me : who kept complaining throughout the first half of this thread about Kim Jong-Un and the likes making up their own good according to their preferences ?
[379] That is easy to refute : “It was wrong for Hitler to encourage the shoah.”
PGA2.0 937 to ludofl3xME: "In Hitler's Germany, the 'codified mob rule' or law was to round up Jews and other undesirables' and kill them. Fine, unless you happen to be a Jew, right? Then the practice is definitely wrong.[33]"AMORANEMIX: "[33] According to you perhaps and according to me, but not according to the Nazis."Amoranemix does not see this as wrong for those who choose to see it that way.[380] He cannot recognize an absolute, universal wrong. It is absurd, and yet he is consistent with the atheist worldview.[381] Morality is whatever you make it with such a worldview because there is no absolute standard. The atheist is usually inconsistent with his/her belief when they say, "I'll go on not torturing little kids for fun even though I don't believe in god."[382] So you will, but what about those other relativists who think differently?[383a] Unless you have an absolute standard, all you are doing is expressing your personal opinion. Can you say it is absolutely, universally, objectively wrong? If you can, then what is your absolute, objective, unchanging, universal standard in doing so?[383b] Let's see how consistent you are with atheism (a universe in which our lives are ultimately meaningless).
[380] You again ASSUME that with 'according to' I mean 'for'. Hence you are again attacking a straw man. I understand you. The positions that skeptics actually hold are fortresses too formidable to assault.
[381] Why would that be absurd ? Have you forgotten that for more than 1000 posts you have been unable to demonstrate that there is an absolute, universal wrong ? In stead of life's ultimate questions, try answering this one : Why is PGA2.0 unable to demonstrate his claims ? A piece of cake to answer for skeptics.
[382] So you claim, but can you prove it ?
[383a] Stop asking blanket questions. What is it you want to know about these people ?
[383b] Just like you atheists can say that and just like you they would be wrong. However, unlike you, most atheists don't say that because they base their worldview on reason and evidence. Hence, unlike you, most atheists are not wrong.
Theweakeredge 859Chance is [b] not an agent or something that causes things, but a noun to refer to [c] an event does not have an intention or cause. It can also be an adjective to describe something that has happened in what may seem unfavorable circumstances. [a] This seems like either semantics or you being dishonest.PGA2.0 947[a] I'm not dishonest, just working with your definition. So, it is your semantics.[b] You admit it has no intent or agency to do anything. So nothing happened. That is what you are saying.[c] If there is no cause, nothing happened. You are speaking of something from nothing (no cause) since the universe began to exist, or are you thinking it is eternal? It began to exist from nothing, for there was no cause for it. Do you understand the senselessness of that? This once again shows the inconsistency of your thinking.
[a] Your fallacy of choice is : missing the point. Theweakeredge was referring to your behaviour in previous posts, where no definition for chance had yet been given. Hence you could not have been working with his definition.
[b] Do you honestly believe that was what he was saying ?
[c] If you wanted to learn about reality, you would address what people believe and say i.s.o. what you want them to believe and say.
PGA2.0 950 to Theweakeredge[Genesis about God saying things and them being so]Very simple. God said, and it was so.
Declaring something to be very simple does not make it so.
PGA2.0 950 to TheweakeredgeThe cause of the universe cannot be itself. That would mean it would have to exist before it existed, a self-refuting argument. I.e., It would have to exist before it could create itself.
What you mean is : “I don't understand how the universe could create itself. Therefore, that is impossible.” You ASSUME that your understanding determines what is possible. However, reality does not work that way.
I don't go into the rest of your rebuttals about cosmology because that is off topic, not because I agree with it. It could be considered on topic in the sense that your position depends on God' existence. However
a) The burden of proof is on you, as you would have to ovecome the absense of scientific consensus that any god, let alone yours, exists.
b) Your position is easy to challenge, as most of what does not fall under the god-of-the-gaps fallacy can be rebutted with : “Can you prove that ?” and we all know the answer to that question. On top of that, those annoying how questions are also easy to ask.
A more relevant attempt at demonstrating God's existence would be through morality, like W.L. Craig does with the moral argument.
PGA2.0 955 to Theweakeredge[d] There is reasonable evidence, some of which we discuss in the thread - morality and what that means from an atheist and Christian perspective. The atheist cannot account for morality. All they can account for is preference.
In the mean time, an atheist has accounted for morality. It is based on something that exists: nature. You on the other hand, have yet to demonstrate the foundation of your explanation.
-->
@Tradesecret
Evidence comes in various forms. It is normally defined as "any statement, record, testimony, or other things, apart from legal submissions, which tends to prove the existence of a fact in issue".I like eyewitness testimony.
So, I guess you believe in big-foot, the loch-ness monster, and space-aliens?
Since they're all confirmed by eyewitness testimony?
-->
@3RU7AL
Evidence comes in various forms. It is normally defined as "any statement, record, testimony, or other things, apart from legal submissions, which tends to prove the existence of a fact in issue".I like eyewitness testimony.So, I guess you believe in big-foot, the loch-ness monster, and space-aliens?Since they're all confirmed by eyewitness testimony?
This is why you continue to be confused about the issue of evidence and proof. You simply don't have a clue.
Evidence is evidence. Proof is proof. Both are not the same thing. Go back and look at the definition above.
evidence is that which "tends" to prove a fact in issue. "tends" is the key word.
When opposing sides - produce evidence - this is helpful. Evidence by itself is not proof. It will be used together perhaps with other evidence to provide for those evaluating all of the evidence together as a whole to determine the most likely and plausible interpretation of the facts.
There is evidence for God's existence. And there is evidence against God's existence. But what is more plausible and likely in the circumstances?
What will be given more weight by each person? Of course there is alleged eye-witness testimony of the big foot, the Loch Ness Monster and space aliens. But how much weight do we give to these alleged eye witness accounts? That is the question.
This applies equally to the eye-witness accounts described in the Bible. Clearly this is evidence - yet how much weight will be given to it by each person makes all of the difference in the world. This is why atheists take so much time out to discredit the bible. It serves their interests to make believers rely less on the evidence contained therein.
Yet when the atheist simply says - it is not evidence - they are lying or mistaken in their understanding of what evidence is - and what evidence is being used for.
Trump DID have evidence for wide spread fraud. The media lied or misunderstood what evidence is. The issue was not about evidence - but rather how much weight ought to be given to it. By discounting the evidence really was the lever which caused the riots. If the media has been more honest - it would have said - yes there is evidence but it is really quite weak. That way they would not have egged on Trump's supporters. Because you see - when people are told that there is no evidence constantly - when they full well know there is evidence - it creates significant tension and puts up defenses and does not provide for good discussions.
You in your words attempted to mock me - yet you demonstrate an increased ignorance of understanding logic, reason, argumentation, evidence and its purpose. I am quite surprised that you have been able to reach ANY conclusions by reasoning.
-->
@Tradesecret
What will be given more weight by each person? Of course there is alleged eye-witness testimony of the NANABOZHO, the PANGU and APHRODITE. But how much weight do we give to these alleged eye witness accounts? That is the question.
-->
@Tradesecret
Yet when the atheist simply says - it is not evidence - they are lying or mistaken in their understanding of what evidence is - and what evidence is being used for.
Generally, when a skeptic refers to "evidence" they're talking about EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.
-->
@Tradesecret
By discounting the evidence really was the lever which caused the riots.
I hope you're getting paid to spread the official narrative.
-->
@Tradesecret
You in your words attempted to mock me -
SPECULATION ABOUT MOTIVES = AD HOMINEM ATTACK
yet you demonstrate an increased ignorance of understanding logic, reason, argumentation, evidence and its purpose. I am quite surprised that you have been able to reach ANY conclusions by reasoning.
SPECULATION ABOUT GENERAL STATE OF MIND = AD HOMINEM ATTACK
-->
@PGA2.0
SkepticalOne 870I believe you are making a category error. How are evaluations of chess actions and evaluations of life actions fundamentally different...other than you saying so?PGA2.0 969I don't think so. Chess is only subjective because of our limited knowledge and ability to think through the best combinations, starting from the first moves through to the last.[384] [ . . . ]I am saying (comparing apples to oranges) that you are making the categorical error in comparing Chess to morality. Best in Chess is not the same as best regarding morality. I can verify best in chess through the senses/empirically. It could be demonstrated in some situations because the best would lead to an opponent's loss if they did not respond in kind.[385] How do you verify something abstract like the good?[386] One is a qualitative value (morality), the other a quantitative value (a Chess move).[387a] One can be demonstrated through the senses; the other cannot.[387b]
[384] You are mistaken. Chess is also subjective because the game's rules and goals have been created by people.
Our limited ability to think through the consequences of our actions also applies to morality. You imply, that beside that limitation, the quality of chess moves is objective. You claim the moral quality of 'moral moves' (i.e. actions) is also objective. Hence, if you are right, like morality, chess requires an ultimate, objective, absolute, universal, fixed chess standard. What is that standard ?
[385] You are arguing that, contrary to morality, chess is objective, but you are wrong. You can do the same with morality. You would be using a moral standard i.s.o. a chess standard. For example, it could be demonstrated that coveting someone's wife violates the Ten Commandments.
[386] You just explained it ! For example in chess the good is those moves that improve winning chances and/or decrease losing chances.
[387a] How is a chess move a quantity ?
[387b] I can demonstrate chess moves through the senses. What prevents you from doing the same ?
PGA2.0 101 to secularmerlin 26There is a fixed and final reference point with the biblical God. Thus, I have what is necessary for I realize that in and of myself I am not necessary in determining the moral good.Amoranemix 866What would prevent people from picking a different fixed, final moral standard, or people picking a changing, subjective moral standard, or people picking your god's moral standard, but changing their mind or disagreeing on what it entails ?PGA2.0 971Can you demonstrate there is more than one absolute, objective, universal, fixed, eternal standard? If so, let's examine it to see if it has what is necessary and is logically and experiential consistent.If it is a human standard, let's see how it passes the subjectivity test.
As I have told you, I am still not clear on what such a standard is supposed to be. You answering the first question, which you forgot, could have provided clarification (the skeptic's friend). In addition, it is also unclear on what exactly existence entails for an abstract concept like a standard. However, if in order to exist a standard must be tied to something concrete, then there would be no other eternal standard to pick.
You forgot to answer my other questions too.
Thought experiment time!If your preferred god came to you in a dream and told you to murder your child would it be better to do the "moral" thing or to spare your child and not follow this beings horrible commands?PGA2.0 101Why do you think God would do such a thing?Amoranemix 866Nice dodge.PGA2.0 971Sometimes I need to inquire to find out where a person is coming from. Is he referencing the biblical example of Abraham, or is he referring to another example? If the Abrahamic example, I have a particular response. If some other example, I have another response.
In my experience, you rebut a question with a question to dodge. The questions you ask rarely ever lead to relevant, valid conclusions.
Maybe secularmerlin was referencing the example he gave.
Amoranemix 866[a] Where do God's moral values come from ? Are they just made up? If so, by who, and why are they right ?[b] From what is, how does your god get to what ought to be ?PGA2.0 972[a] They are His nature. He is all-knowing and always does what is good, right, and just.[b] You misunderstand the is and ought. The natural realm is what is.[388] God is not of this physical realm. He created it. God is a transcendent Spirit, a mindful Being.[389] Morality requires a mind.[390] [ . . . ]
[a] What does that mean ? Does it mean that God's moral values = God's nature ?
For humans, their moral values are part of their nature. Their is more to human nature than moral values. Humans are not all-knowing and don't always do what is good, right and just.
So God's moral values come from himself only. They are only right because they agree with his nature. They are entirely his subjective opinions, while humans are also influenced by the rest of the world.
[b] I don't understand what it is in your worldview.
[388] What is, is also known as reality.
[389] That looks like word salad.
[390] I have never seen anything apart from nature that has a mind.
So, again, God is in the same boat as everyone else : he can't derive an ought from an is.
I doubt that there is anything relevant and true in the rest of the paragraph that I have not yet addressed. If there is, then please point it out to me.
Amoranemix 866You want that communication to fail to promote confusion (the Christian's friend).PGA2.0 972What are you talking about, and how does it relate to our discussion. I consider this yet another Ad hominem. Are you suggesting my motive is impure or that I cannot communicate what I mean instead of responding to my point about what is necessary for communication to occur?
If they have to choose between reality and God, skeptics choose reality. If you have to choose between reality and God, you choose God. So you want to avoid the truth coming out, and thus clarity. So, making it difficult for others to asses what you mean suits your goal. The most prominent example is omitting to mention reference moral standards. When one person says 'right' and another also says 'right', that these two could be different 'rights' is a threat to your God-belief because it would undemine your argument. So, you just assume right can only mean one thing (avoiding cognitive dissonance), leaving skeptis guessing whose right you are talking about.
Amoranemix 866He [3RU7AL] probably started with his parents in a bedroom. What relevance does that have to morality ?PGA2.0 977I'm not asking for the immediate cause but the root cause. That is what I have asked all along. The relevance is that either morality arises from non-living matter or a necessary Being(s). [ . . . ]
That belongs in a creation versus evolution debate. If you want to make that relevant because you need God for your vision of morality and thus want to prove God exist, then you need to do just that, which asking questions does not accomplish. It can only establish that skeptics don't know everything, which you use to fallaciously conclude that God has to be the explanation. To correctly conclude that God has to be the explanation, you must provide positive evidence for God, and considering all the attributes you have generously given him, much more than you could possibly gather.
Amoranemix 866What evidence can you present that the rejection of group responsibility and inheritance responsibility, as promoted by the Old Testament, causes injustice ?PGA2.0 977[red herring]
Countries have been deviating from a gazillion other things besides the Ten Commandments. They have even been deviating from Adolf Hitler's, Kim Jong-Un's and Bashar Al Assad's moralities. However, that does not imply the malefactions are due to deviation from those principles.
Amoranemix 866Apparrently I was mistaken in believing I was an agnostic atheist.PGA2.0 977Good for you! What is the difference between an agnostic and an atheist? They both ignore the biblical God and look for subjective reasoning for morality. What do you explain in/about life by appealing to the biblical God? Nothing intentionally, right? Instead, you deny Him His existence. You treat Him as if He does not exist. In that sense, how do you differ from a full-fledged "strong" atheist?
Obviously you were wrong about atheists and I am actually one.
I can't be certain that one or other god does not exist. Maybe on the planet Zog there lives a bug called God. I can be certain the Christian god does not exist, in so far as I can coin him, since inconsistent information I get about him comes from many different Christians.
If God is only good according to his own pesonal morality, then that would not exclude an evil or amoral God who is hiding.
PGA2.0 144 to 3RU7ALAgain, atheists usually incorporate naturalism in their belief system, if they have done any serious reflection on origins.If you do not ascribe to God or gods, what is left?[47] It would be a system of belief that looks to nature or matter for the answers in origins. Without personal being there would be no intent, no meaning, no value, no purpose.[48] If you want to space our existence that one step further back you could pose aliens, but if they too are not eternal or almighy then there must be another cause beyond them.[49] Or you could pos the ridiculous and unbelievable that everything comes from nothing.Amoranemix 866[47] How about nature ? [a] Most of the people I thought were atheists believe in nature.[48] There are plenty of personal beings.[49] Maybe so, but Christianity would still be false.PGA2.0 976[47] Precisely! Is that their god, their creator, what they attribute their origin too?[391] Now, the question is, how reasonable is this?[392] No intent, no purpose, no meaning, just indifferent chance happenstance.[a] True, what else would they believe in if they deny God or gods [i.e., personal intentional being(s)]?[393][48] Are they necessary beings? And atheists deny the existence of God or gods as plausible or real. That would leave them with a purely naturalistic explanation, correct?[394][49] Why?
[391] No. Atheists do not believe in a god.
[392] It is reasonable to believe in that what exists.
[393] That varies from person to person, but I think atheists are less inclined to believe in fiction than theists.
[48] That is again an ambiguous question. At least two of them are necessary for morality, but not any two in particular.
[394] Are you ill ? You did not just assume rubbish. Covid-19 perhaps ?
If they have an explanation it would very likely be a naturalistic one.
[49] The Bible does not mention any intermediaries between God and the earth's creation. “God speaks and it is so.” Not “God speaks and aliens made it so.”
-->
@PGA2.0
PGA2.0 157 to 3RU7AL[ . . . ] Although this thread was not created to debate this but rather which worldview better explains and is justified in answering the question of morality, you have not addressed the question. Here it is again:Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?Amoranemix 866[a] I suppose that atheism can be worldview if it is considered to be the collection of all worldviews that do not incorporate a deity. [b] However, many will have different explanations for morality. I think a better question would be whether nature can account for morality and [c] whether adding one or more deities to nature would sufficiently improve one's ability with the worldview to account for morality to warrant the cost of doing so.[d] Nature alone can generate morality through evolution by natural selection. [e] In social animals, morality is advantageous. [f] For humans we more or less expect what we see : varying degrees and kinds of rightness and wickedness, more favouring group-thinking [g] (loyalty is good, treason bad) and of course people contradicting each other. [h] I am not clear on what extra mystery a deity would explain, nor how, especially the Christian one.PGA2.0 977[a] Atheists usually seek to explain everything through natural means.[b] That is dealt with in the is/ought problem and the chance happenstance problem.[c] Atheism is the denial of God or gods. You are speaking of deism or polytheism as a worldview.[d] Can it, though? That is a big assumption on your part that needs proof and reason. Go ahead![e] Advantageous in what way? For the animal or pack that might starve, it is eat to survive, to hell with the others. The advantage of hunting with others is mitigated by the principle of the strongest individuals survive.[f] Kinds of righteousness? Who determines that, and why are they right? Which contrary person? Can two opposing values both be right? That defies common sense and logic. Right loses its identity. Right can mean two opposite things depending on who holds the view.[g] Again, loyalty and trust is a biblical principle.[h] It explains the best by comparison. There is a permanent, absolute, unchanging moral value for right.
[a] It is a sound principle in accordance with Occam's razor : use established knowledge to explain mysteries i.s.o. adding new concepts.
[b] I fail to see what these problems have to do with many atheists having different explanations.
[c] I was talking about theism as well.
[d] That would take hundreds of hours to explain, most of which is established science, not counting the time needed to educate myself. If you are skeptical of my claim, then surely you have reasons why, unless your skepticism is irrational, which I would like not te believe.
[e] The advantage is in reciprocity : if I help you, then maybe next time, you will help me. For example, vampire bats can only survive a few days without food. So a bat of a colonly that has had a successful hunt may feed an unsuccessful bat. However, making such rational judgement is more complicated and may appear less genuine than having a moral nature. Humans would not survive without morality.
[f] What particular case are you talking about ? Right according to who ?
[g] Again, so what ? No one claims that the biblical authors were 100% successful at avoiding reality.
[h] 'The best by comparison' is off topic. So, Christianity may be better for explaining off topic stuff.
Amoranemix 866How would one measure the quality beauty ? What is the ultimate, fixed reference for beauty ?[*]If two tribes have conflicting or opposite views on beauty, then which tribe has the true view ?PGA2.0 978[*] Are you speaking of a physical trait or an inner quality? I will address the inner quality.[395][ . . . ]Again, it is not a moral issue, and what aspect are you speaking of?[396] For humans, physical beauty is largely in the eye of the beholder.[397] For inner qualities, sometimes evil qualities can appeal to us as beautiful, for we mar what is beautiful and good. That is when the value can turn into a moral issue, IMO.
[395] Physical beauty seems more useful as an analogy as it is less ambiguous and harder to associate with God.
[396] I am talking about the physical beauty aspect of physical beauty.
[397] Indeed. Why aren't you serving your usual complaints about people contradicting each other, who is right, the law of identity, Kim Jong-Un and the need for an universal etcetera standard ?
Amoranemix 866[49] These are indirect claims by ancient people. Relying on them to support the existence of Yahweh would constitute an appeal to authority fallacy.[50] Those verifications only verify part of those writings. That some of it is confirmed, does prove all of it.PGA2.0 978It is reasonable/evidential to believe they are direct claims by eyewitnesses as to what they claimed happened concerning Jesus Christ - Yeshua the Messiah, the Anointed One. These eyewitness accounts have been seen as valid by our legal standards in the evidence they presented.[398] They also speak extensively about the OT Mosaic law and its verifiable fulfillment as existing and disappearing in AD 70, which brings in the prophetic argument as additional proof.[399]You are guilty of an either/or fallacy/false dilemma.[400] You exclude that these claims can be true because you believe these ancient people cannot tell the truth or are not authorities in the matters they speak of and appeal to.[401] You are working on the assertion that ancient accounts of any kind that are indirect are false instead of looking at each work's merits.[402] There is good evidence that these people were eyewitnesses. You could give such a negative argument for any ancient work based on indirect evidence, but the quality of this work does not suggest it is false.[403] These disciples actually believe that this man - Jesus - existed and that they communed with Him. Their unified collected accounts include many verifiable facts from that time period - people, places, events.[404] There are also various accounts, both biblical and otherwise, that verify these authors went to their deaths proclaiming that Jesus Christ had risen from the dead, as well as believing He was God incarnate.[405]You are offering only the one possibility for indirect ancient claims; there is no authority to such claims, and that these people were not experts in what they spoke of.An appeal to authority is perfectly valid. An appeal to an inappropriate authority is not. An appeal to an inappropriate authority assumes justification when there is none there, perhaps because the authority is not one in this specific area, or there is no justification the "authority" is actually one.[406][50] While this is true, it gives evidence that at least some aspects are trustworthy.[407] When you combined this evidence with other reasoning, God becomes the most reasonable explanation[408], such as what we are doing here in discussing the moral argument from two different philosophical positions. The Bible speaks of three lines of evidence for the existence of God, 1) the creation/universe,[409a] 2) His Word, the Bible/His Son (the living Word), and [409b] 3) His Spirit who speaks to the believers' spirit.[410] I have tried to get you to engage in the first, the created order, by speaking of morality. The validity of the Bible is a different topic and so is the experiential evidence.
I agree they are not all indirect, barring translations. Some of them are, some are not. Hence it is not reasonable to believe they are direct claims. In addition, they are still ancient.
[398] They are not all eyewitness accounts. By who have those been seen as valid by our legal standards in the evidence they presented ?
[399] How so ?
[400] You are mistaken, for I did not present a dilemma, let alone a false one.
[401] You are mistaken again, for I do not exclude that.
[402] You are mistaken, as usual, for I am not working on that assertion.
[403] Indeed, other historic writings are rarely accepted at face value by historians, even when they make normal claims. Here however, extraordinary claims are being made, which require extraordinary evidence.
[404] It is easy to include historic events into your fiction to give your story a veneer of veracity.
[405] There are many examples of people dying for a cause, like collective suicides of sects, but rarely was the cause right.
[406] Well then, please demonstrate the Biblical authors were unbiased experts and that their accounts were selected without bias at the council of Nicaea.
[407] Disputing that some aspects of the Bible are thrustworthy equals that everthing in the Bible could be false. No one is doing that. You are again arguing against a straw man.
[408] Says you. Why are your assertions correct ? Why is your opinion truth ?
[409a] That evidence is extremely unspecific. If you reject the scientific evidence that the universe (i.e everything that exists) follows uniform laws, and accept the paranormal (including the supernatural) as a possibility, then a gazillion explanations are possible, including many variants of your god.
[409b] You were about to show that evidence is more than insignificant by demonstrating what I asked in [406].
[410] No one has ever been able to prove that is actually God's spirit speaking.
PGA2.0 166 to 3RU7ALSure it does. Members of such beliefs speak about origins all the time.Amoranemix 866What kind of fallacy is that, claiming that when many people who share a (lack of) belief make claims, the (lack of) belief also makes those claims ?Atheism at best excludes some explanations for the origin of life.PGA2.0 984Atheism substitutes belief in God for belief in naturalism.[411] I usually identify four to six areas of thinking that incorporate a religious worldview, and atheists believe in all those areas. Those areas of belief include answering such questions as 1) What am I, 2) Who am I, 3) Why am I here, 4) What difference does it make, 5) How do I know, 6) What happens to me when I die? So they show that they have beliefs that are contrary to the Christian beliefs and contrary to God or gods.[412] Others identify and broaden the scope of a worldview to include more topics, such as the link that provides twelve.I seldom deal with an atheist who does not include what they believe about origins when asked.[413]Here is a quote from the American Humanist Organization,"We atheists and humanists are on the common ground of nature. We are naturalists in that we share the idea that only natural (as opposed to supernatural) laws and forces operatein the world."[414]
[411] You are mistaken. First, not all atheists exclude God. Second, not all atheists ever believed enough in God to make him subject to subtitution.
[412] Believing and speaking about origins are two different things. Also, that some atheists have to different degrees of certainty on those questions where your answer includes God, does not imply atheism does. My dog is an atheists (I think), but he has no opinion on why he is here or on what difference he makes.
[413] First, when asked. What about before you asked ?
Second, are these atheists you deal with representative for all atheists ?
[414] Those are humanists speaking for atheistsn when they shouldn't. Morover, atheism does not exclude supernaturalism.
-->
@Amoranemix
My dog is an atheists (I think), but he has no opinion on why he is here or on what difference he makes.
Well stated.
When it comes to religion, Elon Musk is neither a Christian or Muslim but rather irreligious. His belief system can be best described as atheist or agnostic.
An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God or divine being. On the other hand, An agnostic person is someone who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God. Elon Musk does not claim to have any religious beliefs. In an interview with Rainn Wilson when asked if science and religion can coexist, He replied, “Probably not”. He was the asked another question, “Do you pray?”, he answered, “I didn’t even pray when I almost died of malaria. ”Yet, despite his lack of faith in God, Elon Musk is extremely wealthy. While many people fast and pray for riches, he doesn't do any of those things, however, he is the richest man alive today.
-->
@Amoranemix
[391] No. Atheists do not believe in a god.
It seems like Theists think that the STRUCTURE of their belief system is universal.
They imagine that everyone thinks (STRUCTURALLY) like a Christian and they just plug different names into the authority shelves they use.
It's baked into the idea of a "god shaped hole" in everyone's heart.
For example, Theists often think that Buddhists "worship" Siddhartha in the same way that Christians "worship" Jesus.
When in reality, the two concepts are much more different than many assume.
Another example is when Theists believe that Atheists worship books like "On the Origin of Species".
@PGA2.0 likes to say that Atheists worship other "gods" like "pleasure" or "money" or "status".
The main "problem" with this hypothesis is that NOBODY CALLS THOSE THINGS "GODS".
Theists seem to think everyone implicitly "appeals to authority" they just pick different "authorities".
Some Atheists "appeal to authority" sure, but a lot of Atheists reject "appeals to authority" on general principle.
-->
@PGA2.0
Amoranemix 866[a] I don't know what a system of belief is, but I shall try to answer the question : “How do preferences make something good ?” [b] The question assumes that there are preferences that do make something good. I will start from that assumption.[c] One should ask those with those preferences that claim something is good because of them. [d] Whatever explanation they come up with, according to you, it will be because they like it. [e] Thus, if you are correct, liking something makes it good. Hence, according to you, if preferences make something good, it would be by being liked.PGA2.0 984[a] What do you mean by the underlined?[ . . . ][c] Okay, what is your explanation for how good is determined? I believe you have already explained it but I will give you a chance to explain it again.[d] That has been the case to date. They like it as the means of determining the good. They think it answers the question. The problem is that different people have opposite opinions on the good. Throughout the world, people have different ideas of the good for the same issue. I ask you, can they all be right? Please answer that.[415][ . . . ]People have different likes. As I pointed out in another post, the Marquis de Sade liked torturing little children. Therefore based on your definition of morality, that would be "good for him."[416] You said as much with Hitler. Thus, you have identified yourself as a moral relativist and based good for Hitler on his preferences. On the other hand, I believe that what Hitler called good or right was a fixed objective evil and wrong, coming from a necessary objective standard to determine this. [417]
[a] You probably have a different idea of what a system of belief is than I have, so that is a disclaimer, for clarity.
[c] You are again asking a poor question. It has already been explained how good can be determined. Different goods are determined in different ways. Kim Jong-Un decides his good a certain way, Bashar All Assad his own good a certain way, a particular society its good a certain way.
I can't explain why all these goods were determined the way they were. You will have to ask Kim Jong-Un how he arrived at his good the way he did. However, why there is morality in general has already been explained in post 1076.
How I personally determine good seems irrelevant.
[d] I don't think anyone has actually said that and if they have, it may have been as karikature or parody. I, on the other hand, have said that morality does not always correspond to likes.
[415] Why are you asking that ambiguous question yet again ? If you really wanted an anwer other than ones you have received already, why don't you make it unambiguous ? What good does adding “Please answer that.” (again!?) do ?
I think I have given a more elaborate answer to that version already, but the short answer is no.
[416] You are mistaken, for I have given no defintion of morality that would make compte de Sade's or Hitler's morality good for them. You are again confusion 'for' and 'according to'.
[417] Since you dropped the universal, absolute and ultimate attributes, I think a fixed well-being based morality would qualify.
3RU7AL 956Oh boy.Is that what you're hung up on?The teleological fallacy?PGA2.0 987You are saying that is a false statement. Explain why. The reasoning behind such a statement (underlined) is self-evident. Reason requires mindful being.[418] If the universe is without a mind behind it, there is no reason for the universe. Why is that fallacious???
[418] So you baldly assert, but can you so prove as well ?
SkepticalOne 874That is no answer at all. An evaluation of chess action isn't descriptive because it causes no intentional harm. Likewise, an evaluation of a life action isn't prescriptive because harm might hang in the balance. You are claiming a difference, but providing no explanation beyond assertion. 'Harm' isn't the metric by which we apply the labels "prescriptive" or "descriptive"PGA2.0 991a) It is not moral or immoral to play chess. It is immoral to lie and deceive someone with the intent of physically hurting them. It was not required (a moral obligation) to play chess; I did so because I enjoyed doing it. It was not a moral obligation. Thus the categories are not the same or similar as Skone has stated.b) [ . . . ] Once Skone uses the term "better" in a moral sense, he compares something to a standard. What is that standard? Is it descriptive in the sense that you can use your senses to measure it? No, moral standards are not of that sought. They are qualitative, not quantitative. Qualitative values are not tangible. They are abstract, non-physical values and concepts. You can't describe moral right in a physical sense like you can a game of chess. So, if the right does not exist as anything other than a relative opinion, then it is meaningless, for it can mean anything, whatever Skone wants to make it mean. Right and wrong are moral concepts, not physically tangible things. They are non-descript in a physically observable sense, for you cannot grab hold of right, taste or touch it. They do not express what is but what ought to be. Thus, you cannot put them in the same category as a chess game for these reasons (a + b).
a) Dude, chess actions are an anology for moral actions. Analogies are not supposed to be identical to their analog (=that what is being made an analogy of). Differences to not invalidate an analogy. The use of a different category may be suitable.
b) Once Skone uses the term "better" in a chess sense, he compares something to a standard. What is that standard? Is it descriptive in the sense that you can use your senses to measure it? No, chess standards are not of that sort. They are qualitative, not quantitative. Qualitative values are not tangible. They are abstract, non-physical values and concepts. You can't describe chess move quality in the physical sense like you can real world actions. So if the chess right does not exist as anything other than a relative opinion, then it is meaningless, for it can mean anything, whatever Skone wants to make it mean. Chess right and chess wrong are chess concepts, not physically tangible things. They are non-descript in a physically observable sense, for you cannot grab hold of, taste or touch chess right. They do not express what is but what ought to be. Thus, you cannot put them is the same category as a moral realm for these reasons.
PGA2.0 169 to 3RU7ALThe primary axioms are the Ten Commandments.Amoranemix 866a) What if someone dislikes some commandments ? For example, suppose I want to worship a different god. I would not consider anyone doing so immoral.b) That set of primary axioms seems incomplete. No prohibition against torture of animals seems to follow from them. What if people go about torturing animals for fun ? According to that set of primary axioms it would be morally neutral. I on the other hand find it immoral and think it should be prohibited.These problems do not exist with my personal moral standard. Hence, I have two good reasons to use mine in stead of God's.That is generally true : people who are not infatuated with a particular deity, have no good reason to adopt that deity's morality.[no response]
You forgot to answer my questions.
Hence, your moral standard suffers the same problem as every other one : although it may be good if everyone were to follow your standard, not everone has good reason to follow it. Therefore, your complaints about reality (at least the true ones) are red herrings.
Amoranemix 875@PGA2.0 :I notice that you are again systematically omitting to mention the reference standard for almost all your qualitative claims and questions, making them ambiguous. That contributes to you goal of maintaining confusion (the skeptics enemy).PGA2.0 992In reference to what? Give examples.[420] I think your statement is misleading. I am usually referencing, critiquing or asking what the atheist would have to believe and asking them to defend their beliefs.[421]Whenever I defend my own standards, I refer to the Christian God and no other god.[422] You have actually quoted me saying "without God." I am a Christian. I speak of no other God. That is my reference standard, and it has what is necessary for objective morality, providing this God exists. You even quote me in Post 175 (see below) as saying without God... My statements and inferences find their bearing in the biblical God.
[420] Dude, references are not into something. I am sure you are capable of asking clear questions, if only you wanted to.
You have provided douzens of examples, like from post 80 :
“They like the taste. How does that make tasting ice-cream morally right?“
“Then the practice is definitely wrong.“
“It begs the question of which is the actual right for logically they both can't be.“
Also, in this post :
“show me why what you say as of right is actually so.”
“How is preference good or right?”
[421] I think your statement is misleading. You are usually not mentioning any moral standard.
[422] Except when you don't.
-->
@PGA2.0
PGA2.0 175I'm saying without God, a necessary being, what is right is a shifting preference that cannot be locked down. It always shifting and that is what we see with most cultures for they have rejected the biblical God.[53a] Thus, might makes right and wars are fought over who is right, so this 'moral' preference (although I don't know how you can call it right or good without a best to compare good to) has no fixed address.[53b]Amoranemix 875[53a] [i] So you claim, but most cultures have rejected most gods. Maybe reality is the way it is because of the rejection of some other god. [ii] Or maybe the reality is the way it is because there are no gods. Or maybe reality is the way it is because so many believe in a god.[54b] So what ? [i] You are supposed to argue that adding your god to a naturalistic worldview would allow that worldview to generate a [ii] better explanation for the existence for morality. In stead you are complaning about reality. Yet again.PGA2.0 991[53a, i] That is my point.[423] Without God (and to clarify repeatedly, I speak of no other God than the Judeo-Christian God as my standard), as an objective fixed, unchanging standard, morality is the way it is because humans are relative and changing. What is moral, when there is no fixed, objective, unchanging standard, you can't call it morality but a subjective preference.[424][ii] That is all you have, maybe.It boils down to one of two options, the God or chance happenstance option.[425] The whole idea of this thread is to examine which is more reasonable. Show me your rejection of God answers the question of morality. Please show me your standard is something more than fleeting and relative and show me why what you say as of right is actually so.I have been inviting atheists to demonstrate they can make sense of morality since this thread's inception with little success.[426]You mean [53b], right? [Yes.]So what? So, the atheist cannot explain morality, just preference.[427] How is preference good or right? It just is what you like/desire/feel/want. So what? Provide the standard you use to measure morality.[i] No, you are misrepresenting me again. I am arguing a supernatural worldview as opposed to a naturalistic worldview answers morality. A naturalistic worldview does not address morality.[A] I am arguing for what is capable/necessary for making sense of morality. Is the atheistic or Christian God more reasonable? To do this, I have listed what would be necessary, and the Christian God fits the description.[B][ii] You are using a term (better) that is comparative. You can't use it without thinking of a standard of comparison. Better requires a standard. Without God, how do you measure better morally?
[423] I doubt that is your point, as it actually disputes your claim and you certainly did not make it.
[424] You are mistaken again, as I can call it morality.
[ii] That is a self-imposed limitation. Like you, I can have pretense of certainty.
[425] Your fallacy of choice is the false dilemma, for you have so far been unable to demonstrate these are the only two options.
[426] You also have been unsuccessful in demonstrating they haven't made sense of morality, despite you claiming they can't.
[427] Your fallacy of choice is the non-sequitur. Hence, so nothing.
Expliciting my moral standard would be too much work. However, the ideal, that no one reaches, would be :
the unimpaired desire to maximise the well-being of the exterior world
[i] I had no idea your worldview was that bad. I thought you believed in the natural world. So, your worldview replaces that by a supernatural one. 600 years of science disagree with you. Arguing further seems pointless until we can identify a common ground.
Science describes the basic building blocks of matter as elementary particles : protons, neutrons and electrons. Does matter exist in your supernatural worldview ? Does it have a supernatural equivalent ? If so, what it is it ? If not, how do you explain the observations that have lead scientists to conclude the existence of those particles ?
For the remainder of the discussion I will assume that you expressed yourself very poorly and actually believe in the natural world and that consequently, I was right and you wrong about what you are supposed to demonstrate. Otherwise I would have to wait for you to get this far in the discussion before proceeding.
[A] You are mistaken, as usual. Some do, some don't.
[B] A problem is that you have so far been unable to demonstrate your list is indeed necessary. Another problem is that your worldview does not allow you to explain why you are unable, while mine does. Yet another problem is that you can't demonstrate the existence of God.
[ii] I was talking about better quality of explanation. You try to change the subject to better quality of morality. You said such behaviour is called deflection. For clarity (the Christian's enemy) I prefer to stick to one subject.
In the OP you asked : “Can atheists reasonably justify morality in comparison to Christianity/Judaism?“
In order to make such assessment one would need a standard of quality for justification, but you failed to provide one. So you are blaming me for a failure you commited first.
There are established criteria for the quality of explanations, like deepness, power, simplicity, falsifiability and modesty.
SkepticalOne 993 to PGA2.0In contention is whether chess actions and moral actions are comparable. PGA suggest an apples and oranges comparison because, in his view, chess is descriptive whereas morality is a prescribed. This is false. Statements regarding chess and/or morality can be descriptive (Pawn to A4 is a bad move/Murder is bad) or prescriptive (You should not move your pawn there/You should not murder). The difference suggested between the two is non-existent and suggesting otherwise is, whether PGA admits to it or not, a category error.What PGA tries very hard to discount is that both chess and morality have an understood reference point - neither of which God or gods are required to explain.
The chess material and the chess rules are the anology of the (super)natural world.
The goals in chess are :
- checkmate your opponent
- avoid being checkmated
It is not clear what the equivalent goals are in the (super)natural world according to PGA2.0. Is it to copy God's behaviour ? Is it to please God ? Are they the 10 Commandments ?
PGA2.0 176 to 3RU7ALWhy is your preference significant if there are not absolute, objective standards, like with atheism? Maybe you don't like it (again, a description) but what makes that wrong for someone who does?Amoranemix 875Why is your preference significant if there are not absolute, objective standards, like with atheism?[*] Maybe you don't like it, but what makes that wrong for someone who does ?PGA2.0 994[*] It is not unless I can charismatically convince others or force my views on those who don't like them, for that is all I would have if there were no objective, universal, unchanging standard to appeal to. But the Christian claim is that God has revealed, so we have that objective standard as our appeal.[**] Exactly! What makes it wrong? If there is no objective, universal standard, what makes your opinion any better than mine?
[*] So, if Christianity is true, then
- Atheist believe there is no universal etcetera morality and they would be wrong. (0 points)
- Christians believe there is a universal etcetera morality and they would be wrong. (1 point)
- Atheist believe their morality is a preference and they would be right. (1 point)
- Christians believe their morality is from a true, universal etcetera source and they could be right. (1 generous point)
Score : atheists 1 – 2 Christians
If atheism is true, then
- Atheist believe there is no universal etcetera morality and they would be right. (1 point)
- Christians believe there is a universal etcetera morality and they would be right. (0 points)
- Atheist believe their morality is a preference and they would be right. (1 point)
- Christians believe their morality is from a universal etcetera source and they would be wrong. (0 point)
Score : atheists 2 – 0 Christians
Hence, on average, atheists score better.
[**] You forgot to answer my question.
Amoranemix 875If God is just by definition, then his existence will be very hard to prove and I doubt that will ever happen. If that is merely a property of God, then [a] on top of God's existence, you would have to prove his justness too. I doubt that will ever happen.[54] According to himself no doubt and being as powerful as he is, he is the one who gets to decide. If I were as mighty as God, I too would like might makes right morality.PGA2.0 994I do not limit God, but your language certainly shows how closed you are.[425] Your statements beg the question of what you would accept. Let me test you on this further.Do you think a just and good judge would compromise justice? Would such a judge overlook evil, or would that judge address it and issue a penalty for doing evil?[426]Why is there evil, or do you not recognize anything as evil?[427] That is a question both the atheist and Christian has to answer. So I await your answer before I proceed further.[a] Why does it have to be on top of God's nature?[428] Why can't justice be part of His nature, to want good and to punish evil?[429] If God has given humanity a will, a volition, then eventually we will all be accountable to Him, yet He may choose to let us use our wills to discover the problem of evil. Evil would be doing something again His good nature and against the light of His revealed word.[54] Yes, according to Himself.[430] Who greater could He appeal to?[431] Do you think your authority and your limited mind would be greater than God's?[432] You still have not been able to show me that your moral views are true and right.[433] I am still awaiting you to reveal a semblance of logic on why what you believe is right and good. I actually focused on abortion to get your opinion on what is right with that particular judgment of yours.[434][ . . . ][a] You are under the mistaken idea that might, in itself, actually make something right. Explain why you think so.
[425] How so ?
[426] If you had kept half your brain on you would have know those are not the pertinent questions. The contention is what constitutes justice. God and those not infatuated with him appear to disagree on that. You said that justice implied everyone should be treated equal, but God apparently disagrees with that too. He, IHO, deserves preferential treatment.
Nonetheless, the answer to your questions is no. What did you expect ?
BTW, there is plenty of evil overlooked by God, if he exists.
[427] That would depend on the evil. Not al evils have the same reason, motive or cause.
[428] Because of the stated assumption that it is merely a property. God therefore would not have that property by defintion.
[429] If 'property X being part of someone's nature' means 'someone has property X', then as far as I know, it could.
[ . . . ]
7 days later
-->
@PGA2.0
[Continuation]
[430] Anyone has the right according to themselves, except those less vane than God. Adolf Hitler, Kim Jong-Un and Bashar Al Assad also had lots of rights according to themselves.
[431] First, I have not asked God to appeal to anyone. You appear to be deflecting again.
Second, God is by definition mighty and wise, but since his moral goodness is only according to himself, whether he is great is actually a matter of opinion. To those not infatuated with him, he may not be great.
[432] That would depend. Greatness is subjective and it is unclear what hypothetical situation you are referring to.
[433] And you have not not been able to show your moral views are true and right. That has not stopped you from claiming they are.
[434] You have hidden your intentions well, presumably in the interest of confusion. Your abortion focus did not appear directed at me. And your deception worked, for you failed to get my opinion.
[a] That that idea is mistaken is something you have yet to prove.
Imagine Bob the Weakling would oppose God the Mighty and decide that Bob is the one to decides what is right. After laughing out loud, God would smite Bob and keep deciding what is right. Why ? Not because God is wise, not because he is good according to himself, not because of his greater wardrobe, but because he is more mighty.
PGA2.0 176 to 3RU7ALSo your conclusion is that because of that there can be no universal or true moral values?[55] As I have said before, you can think such thoughtss but you can't live practically with those beliefs[56] for the minute someone cuts in line in front or harms your innocent family members, or tortures you sadistically for fun against your will, you know it is wrong[57], and if you don't I would say you have major problems[58]. There is no, 'Well that is your choice but I would prefer you did not do it.' There is a definite, 'What you are doing is wrong.'Amoranemix 875[55] Although it is unclear what a universal or true moral value is, it looks like such things do not exist.[56] That a belief is impractical doesn't make it wrong. In school they teach the students the Newton theory of gravity in stead of the more accurate theory of general relativity. The latter would be impractical in most situations.[57] a) Wrong according to who ?b) In such situations one can probably not think rationally and would find phylosophical considerations unimportant. Hence one's knowledge would then probably not be reliable. In such situations one is guided by instinct and emotions, in accordance with the rules of biological evolution.c) Why would something being wrong, e.g. according to God's moral standard, imply that there that are true or universal moral values ?[58] If me or my family were tortured, I would have a major problem, indeed. Would you not if you or your family were tortured ?PGA2.0 995[a] It is unclear what is universal for you because you do not have what is necessary to make sense of morality.[435] If you think otherwise, then show me how you do.[b] Are you then saying that what you believe is not moral, but what you like?
Let us analyse what happened here.
- You were talking about a concept, of which the meaning to me was unclear.
- The implied meaning of the concept makes me believe that it cannot exist.
Your response :
- You assume your position is correct and that my position is false.
- You claim the falsehood of my position is the reason for me not understanding the concept.
Assuming that we both want to make progress, that we want to reach intermittent conclusions to resolve the issue of this thread, a common goal should be : establish whether universal, true moral values exist.
Of course, your wordview being fictional, in reality it will be worse tool for explaining morality than the typical skeptical worldview and since you are not an idiot, you know that. So you don't want to make progress. So you don't want to establish whether universal, true moral values exist.
In the hypothetical situation that you had wanted to make progress and not decimated your intelligence, you would have
1) Proven the existence of universal, true moral values.
2) If you could not do the above, proven the possibility of the existence of universal true moral values.
3) If you could not do the above, provide a definition for universal true moral values.
Providing a definition may be a prerequisite for the proofs.
If you had tried to do that, I predict based on my worldview, you would have either
- been unable to prove even proposition 2, or
- have needed to provide a definition that undermines your worldview.
Although you should already know why I doubt the possibility of the existence of universal, true moral values (UTM values), I will explain the reason for that doubt more specifically :
The world is the universe + God if God exist and + UTM values if they exist.
If UTM valuesexist, then they are part of the world.
Therefore, the world with UTM values would be different than the world without it.
However, no such difference can be established, even in principle, as I have argued inpost 982.
The same applies to God. There is to my knowledge a way to establish a difference between a god with UTM values and one without.
We can however examine God's impact on the universe. An unequipped God, would be sharing with us his moral opinions, while an equipped God would share his UTM values. However, I know of no way, even in principle, to tell the two apart. Moral opinions and UTM values, look, smell, feel and sound the same. Perhaps PGA 2.0 can give us a way to tell them apart.
[b] No.
PGA2.0 995[56] We are speaking apples and oranges again. I was giving a moral example. Newton's laws are not moral. I was speaking of morality. Can you live practically or experientially with a moral issue?[436]Morally wise, what I was referring to fails a reasoning test, experience. If you could not live by it, would it be reasonable to impose it on someone else?[437] Sure, you can espouse something, but if it makes it impossible to live by such a standard once turned upon you, you will not be around long.Seriously? Do you not think it is wrong, universally, for someone to torture innocent people?[438] That is definitely a problem you have with your worldview.[439] You do not appear to have the means to universally say it is wrong to torture innocent little children for fun. You just leave it to each person to decide for themselves.[440] That is the downfall of relative changing values. Anything can go, depending on who holds the view and is capable of enforcing it.b) Again, can you say for certain for everyone that torturing innocent little children for fun is wrong???c) Because God is loving and good (being omniscient), knows all things and knows the short term and long term effects of moral action. You do not.
[56] I was speaking of fruit. Both apples and oranges are fruit. Therefore, what applies to fruit also applied to apples and oranges.
[436] I probably misunderstand the question, but the answer seems to be yes.
[437] At first sight not, but it may depend on the circumstances. I don't see what the relevance, is but I think I see what relevance is supposed to be.
Claiming the general theory of relativity is true is not the same as imposing it on other people. They are free to use the Newtonian theory of gravity when that is most appropriate.
Hence, even if atheists were unable to live by their morality, that would not imply atheism to be false. Another Christian red herring exposed as such.
[438] You omitted to mention the reference universal standard to avoid clarity (the skeptic's friend). If you meant according to utilitarianism, then the answer is yes.
[439] You promoting confusion is a problem with my worldview ? How so ?
[440] You have been complaining that I tried to impose my morality on others. That contradicted your current claim that I leave them to decide for themselves. Self-contradiction is an indication of an inconsistent worldview.
Obviously, if it were up to me, I would oppose raping children for fun. If that qualifies as imposing my morality on others, so what ? Your god does the same with his might-makes-right morality.
b) You again omitted to mention the reference moral standard to promote confusion (the skeptic's enemy), but utilitarinism teaches that to be universally wrong.
c) You again omitted to mention the reference moral standard, but i.s.o. of accusing you of you know what, I will assume you meant God's morality (GM). So you argument appears to be the following :
(Although from our discussion about omniscience so far follows the temporary conclusion is that God knows all falshoods, I will ignore that and use a sensible definition for omniscience.)
P1. God is omniscient.
P2. Therefore, God knows all things true.
P3. God is loving and good according to God's morality.
P4. Therefore, God knows the short and long term effects of moral actions.
P5. Amoranemix does not know the short and long term effects of moral actions.
C. Therefore, there exist true or universal moral values.
Is that indeed your argument ? It is invalid.
In response to [58] you are again avoiding clarity without presenting or asking anything new.
7 days later
-->
@PGA2.0
Amoranemix 875[*] I notice that the way you establish the alleged fact that something is wrong, is by referring to someone's knowledge. I think, that if that is the only way to establish something, all you get is an opinion. Can you think of a counter-example, an example of a fact (in a different field than morality) that can be established only by relying on someone's knowledge ?[**] [a] What if two moral knowledges contradict each other ? [b] What if someone knows that snitching one's mischievous friend to the authorities is wrong, while someone else knows that that is right ? They can't both be correct. So who is correct and who is mistaken ?PGA2.0 994[*] How can you establish something as knowledge unless it conforms to what is - the fact?[441] I am asking what is necessary for the knowledge of morality?[442] [ . . . ] As an atheist, I am asking you to show how you can make sense of morality because I believe I can show it is not reasonable to believe like the biblical explanation of morality is reasonable to believe.[443][**] [a] Then one must be false. The contrary of true is false, the contrary of right is wrong. A standard that is contrary is the opposite.[b] It depends on the moral degree of the wrong. Stealing a pen does not warrant turning your friend over to the police. Any wrong is wrong. It depends on whether the friend has actually done something wrong (the has to be a standard of comparison) and the severity of the wrong as to whether it is right to turn them in. Each circumstance would be different.
[441] I could think of something, but if we assume that by definition that one can only have knowledge of facts, then no way.
[442] A mind capable of comprehnding morality and a favourable education and life experience.
Then you follow up with things that I have already addressed and some bald assertions you still have to prove, which will never happen.
[443] I had already made sense of morality before I posted on this forum.
I have made sense of morality by thinking and informing myself about morality, language, philosophy and biological evolution, asking the right questions (not your questions) and debating the topic.
The key question is what a particular moral qualification means. It is a question you avoid like the plague because answering it leads to understanding, shrinking your ignorance and thus the space available for your god. In your head it would get a bit too cramped for him.
In the mean time you have revealed another fallacy in your reasoning: it is circular. You stated in post 176 to 3RU7AL : “... for the minute someone cuts in line in front or harms your innocent family members, or tortures you sadistically for fun against your will, you know it is wrong” implying that it therefore must be wrong.
P1. It is wrong to hurt 3RU7AL's children.
P2. 3RU7AL believes it is wrong to hurt his children.
D. True belief is knowledge.
P3. Therefore, 3RU7AL knows hurting is children is wrong.
C. Therefore, it is wrong to hurt 3RU7AL's children.
Your claim about 3RU7AL's knowledge tacitly assumes 3RU7AL's beliefs are true. However, you have so far been unable to disprove that they are merely opinions.
[**] [a] Does that imply knowledge can be false or it does it mean that the false knowledge was not really knowledge ?
How can one in principle establish which of those contradictory knowledges is true and which is false ?
Assuming the answer is by comparing with the single, true moral standard, how can one establish which standard that is ?
[b] What if it is a borderline case ? Are there only two options for your snitching on your friend or could it for example be a little wrong or both right and wrong ? What is that universal, true morality that allows to determine degree of wrongness and allows one to truly decide whether it would be right or wrong ?
PGA2.0 179 to secularmerlinNo, you are wrong. Although I can reason killing innocent people is wrong, if someone else thinks the opposite it becomes a battle of wills or might unless there is an objective, universal fixed standard of appeal - a should or should not that is universal and fixed. All I am saying is that you can't live by a system of thought that does not treat innocent human beings equally, because eventually, you are going to have the tables turned on you where you are innocent and treated unfairly.[59] While you can argue it matters, how would it ultimately matter in a universe devoid of meaning? And it might matter for you but someone else might not give a damn. [ . . . ]Amoranemix 875[59] Indeed. Such things happen in the real world. Are they not possible in your worldview ?People not giving a damn, is that also not possible in your worldview ?[*]PGA2.0 998[59] My Christian worldview operates in this physical realm so such things happen and Christians do not live up to the ideal of our Saviour, yet unequal treatment of innocent people opposes the Christian worldview.[*] Yes, it is possible when people do not live up to the Christian standard of loving our neighbours as ourselves. And Jesus defined a neighbour as more than the person who lives in close proximity (i.e., everyone).
[59] In fact, what you said in post 179 is false. Not treating others equally does not imply one is going to be untreated unfairly. Also, treating others equally does not protect oneself from unfair treatment. Living by a might-makes-right morality is perfectly possible if one is mighty. Your god allegedly does it.[*]
So, these problems you keep complaining about happen in the real world. These problems also happen in most atheistic worldviews.
And now you claim these problems are possible in your worldview, assuming certain conditions are met.
Hence, since these observations are consistent with both atheistic worldviews and with the Christian one, these problems do not allow discrimination between atheistic and Christian worldviews (if we ignore that the former approximates reality better). However, discriminating between worldviews is what this thread is about. Hence, your complaints are red herrings, presumably designed to distract from the fact that you don't have a case.
PGA2.0 179 to secularmerlinWhether or not it passes the liveability test, some people just don't care. If there is no universal wrong does it matter?[60] If there is no universal accountability what does it matter if you get away with treating others unfairly?[61] That is the problem with atheism.[62] It has no objective, universal court of appeal. Everything is subjective.Amoranemix 875[60] Does what matter ?[61] Personally, I like getting away with treating people unfairly. It is people getting away with treating me unfairly that I have issues with.[62] That would only be true if we define atheism as a worldview. The worldviews of most atheists are based on reality and therefore tend to include many of reality's problems. Does your worldview exclude reality's problems ?PGA2.0 999What people do to one another.[444] If this life is all you have and there is no ultimate meaning in anything, does it matter that you are trying to create meaning for the insignificant number of days you will live?[445] Are you not creating artificial meaning (there is no fixed value for meaning, humans just invent it).[446] Before you existed nothing mattered, and after you die nothing will matter, yet for some reason, you are trying to make it matter now. It seems inconsistent with your core beliefs - a chance happenstance universe.[447]Your right[448], ultimately it does not matter how you treat others if God does not exist and we owe our existence to blind indifferent chance happenstance. Why should I care what you like if there is no universal accountability and ultimately everything is meaningless?[449] I would probably join in by treating you unfairly if I lived consistently with such a worldview devoid of God (dog eat dog!) unless you were willing to do something beneficial for me.[62] As I have argued before, it is a worldview.[450] The same criterion used to classify other worldviews is operational in an atheist's thinking. You look at everything from a naturalistic framework that excludes God.[451]
[444] What it matters to c what a and b do to one another, depends on a, b and c.
[445] To me, yes.
[446] What is artifical meaning in comparison to non-artificial meaning ? Is the meaning God allegedly gave to his creation artificial ?
[447] Appearances can be deceiving.
Nice deflection, by the way.
[448] I usually am.
[449] Because it is in your nature to care, or not. Most people are, to some extent, by nature good people. That implies caring about the interests of others, possibly at the expense of one's own.
The answer to the question why someone should do X, depends on what they care about. (I am talking about reality here. I understand your worldview works differently.)
[450] Unfortunately, that argument has been challenged, leaving you still with the burden of proving your claim.
[451] Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?
You forgot to answer my question.
PGA2.0 183Morality operates on a different standard than physical objects because it is an abstract concept. Morals are mindful things.Amoranemix 875What a coincidence. Opinions and preferences are mindful things too.PGA2.0 999And opinions and preferences are subjective, sometimes a collective subjectivity. Morality requires an objective standard or else it is relative and subjective.
I assume you meanthat without an objective moral standard, morality would relative andsubjective.
What acoincidence. Opinions and preferences are also relative andsubjective.
Could it be thatmorality on the one hand and preferences and opinions on the otherare related ?
What acoincidence. Opinions and preferences are also relative andsubjective.
Could it be thatmorality on the one hand and preferences and opinions on the otherare related ?
Amoranemix 875 to PGA2.0In this case the judge wrote the law : “Worhipping me is mandatory. Failure to comply is punishable by death.”Then God : “Hey you! You failed to worhip me! I am sorry, but the law is clear. It would be unjust not to punish you and I want to be a good judge.”I wonder how God would feel at the other end of such justice.PGA2.0 1000Worship is giving Someone who deserves it their due. Christians realize that God is worthy of such worship as the greatest Being possible and our Creator and Redeemer. Worship is deserved! And when are before His majesty and glory and realize who He is, you will bow before Him you of your own accord, even though you do not think that is possible now.
So far no one has been able to demonstrate that God deserves worship. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to guess why.
-->
@Amoranemix
Does that imply knowledge can be false or it does it mean that the false knowledge was not really knowledge ?
I've never understood the implicit utility of equating KNOWLEDGE with TRUTH.
KNOWLEDGE = DATA
TRUTH = FACTS
-->
@Amoranemix
Taking a breather. I see there are lots of posts to catch up on. I will resume the endeavour sooner or later. (^8
I think I left off on page 38 or 40.
9 days later
-->
@PGA2.0
PGA2.0 217Again, the presentation relies on your merit, your good deeds outweighing your bad deeds. It does not take into account God's moral purity and holiness, and the wrongs we have done that deserve addressing. Remember, God is a good Judge.[63] He does not wink at evil or wrongdoing but addresses it.[64] Thus, I realize my good deeds do not measure up to His perfection and that I have fallen short of the mark He has set for intimate fellowship and peace and joy with Him. That is why I look to the works of another, the Lord Jesus Christ in setting my record straight.Amoranemix 875[63] [a] God is a good judge according to who ? Himself ? Remember, [b] Adolf Hitler was also a good judge according to himself.[64] So did Adolf Hitler.I suspect your good deed didn't even measure up to AH's imperfection.[*]PGA2.0 1000[a] According to the greatest Being, God Himself. No greater appeal can be made.[b] That is the problem with subjectivity that I am arguing against. How can you say Kim Jong-Un's morality is better than yours if the standard is changing and subjective?[452]That is just my point.[453] You can't argue that AH's morality is any "better" than yours unless there is an objective court of appeal.[454][*] Not if morality is subjective. I argue that for morality to exist, it must have a universal fixed, unchanging measure. That is not AH or you or me.
[a] That God is the greatest being has yet to be demonstrated. The problem with God's defined omnibenevolence, is that he is only so according to his own personal moral standard. Those infatuated with God may find that praiseworthy and contributing to greatness, like neonazis may find it great of Hitler to be good according to himself, but most neutral observers will not share that opinion.
I am sure though God has enough vanity to find himself very great. Hitler also thought of himself as great.
[b] No amount of arguing against reality will render it false. That is something skeptics understand.
[452] I could obviously say that, but I wouldn't, because I disagree with it.
[453] Your alleged point undermines your position.
[454] Of course I could. That is what you do with God. You invent a court of appeal (if God does not exist) or choose one (if God exists) and declare it ultimate, universal and everything you want it to be. Skeptics can do that too, but they would not go as far as declaring it has all the attributes they desire.
[*] Arguing something does not make or prove it true. Until then there is no good reason to believe your god is any better than Adolf Hitler.
Amoranemix 875There is overlap, but there are important differences between most legislations and the 10 commandments, even among the ones you listed, like the ones about lying, covetting, committing adultry and honouring your parents.PGA2.0 1001How so?
The first two are more definitions of what is illegal or immoral and look therefore identical.
Covetting is rarely illegal.
Commiting adultry is usually not illegal.
Honouring your parents is rarely a legal obligation.
Amoranemix 875Such ambiguous questions are typically brought up by enemies of clarity (the Christian's enemy).PGA2.0 1001Nice ad hom! Your own statement is very ambiguous. I only see one question. Which others are you speaking of from Post 227?
I was referring to questions like the on you asked.
You could have clarified it, but chose not to.
SkepticalOne 879[a] It is questionable that the first three have a "standard of good" which includes killing others. For instance, Jack the Ripper skulked around and [b] hid his actions from the world as though he knew he was doing wrong. Secondly, it can be argued (and it has in this thread) [c] Adolf Hitler's views were informed by Christianity - [d] his hatred of Jews was, at the very least, inspired by their role in the crucifixion of Jesus. Finally, [e] Kim Jung-un thinks he IS a god and might argue a his own 'universal, objective, and unchanging' standard. Despite how we might disagree with his views, he has the advantage of [f] less than 2 millennia of changing standards Christianity suffers.PGA2.0 1004[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.[455] I have not looked at Jack the Ripper (the person alleged to have savagely murdered at least five people) to ascertain his motives, and the case is sketchy, but the five Whitechapel victims were prostitutes. For some reason, someone had a sick aversion to mutilate prostitutes regardless of what society thought.[b] That is one outlook and just as highly speculative. He 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.[ . . . ][d] Jesus was a Jew.[e] It just goes to show how a human being with human frailties can impose his subjective standard on others without being able to justify it.[455] He forced others to conform to his views. Again, what he believes does not have the requirements for a necessary objective, universal moral standard.
[455] Previously you claimed that without an objective, universal standard there would be no morality. Now you admit there would be. Your beliefs are approaching reality.
[b] Outlooks derived from highly speculative outlooks are also highly speculative.
[d] That did not prevent the Bible from blaming the Jews for his death.
[455] That is your opinion, just like it is your opinion that God can justify imposing his subjective standard and just like it is Kim Jon-Un's fans' opinion that he can justify imposing his standard. All you can do is share your opinion (in addition to asking questions, making bald assertions and committing fallacies).
That reality has all these different opinions is also part of most atheistic worldviews. Hence, if anything, it is evidence for the good quality of such worldview.
SkepticalOne 879That being said, it should be noted only two from your list were actually engaged in a discussion of morality. The others are a distraction.PGA2.0 1004The 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.
Stop making points and start proving them.
PGA2.0 878 to AmoranemixEvery 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.SkepticalOne 879The Law of Identity would apply to all five options - Jesus is not immune from logic.PGA2.0 1004No, the law of identity would not apply to them all, for they all have differing views of the good. Good has different identities to each one of these people.[456] Jesus, the living Word, is revealed as the logos. His logic is perfectly justifiable as meeting the law of identity standard - a fixed, unchanging, eternal, omniscient measure or standard of reference.[457]
[456] You are contradicting yourself. Before they were allegedly violating the law of identity because the good had different identities to each and now they are not violating the law of identity for that same reason. It must be uncomforable to be required to rape logic to hang on to one's beliefs.
[457] Your fallacy of choice is the red herring. Whether Jesus' logic by itself is meeting the law of identity is not the contention, but whether the existence of these 5 moralities violates the law of identity is.
PGA2.0 1004 to SkepticalOne"The North Pole, also known as the Geographic North Pole or Terrestrial North Pole, is (subject to the caveats explained below) defined as the point in the Northern Hemisphere where the Earth's axis of rotation meets its surface. It is called True North Pole to distinguish from the Magnetic North Pole."
Notice how the 'true North' is verifiable and measurable. The direction one follows to is also verifiablable and measurable. The only way to do that for morality, would be, as is done for geography, by choosing a moral standard.
Amoranemix 888@PGA :You often mention the identity of things that do not appear to have an identity, like the good or right. I'll assume what you mean is meaning.PGA2.0 1006The identity of THINGS that do not appear to have an identity? How can a 'thing' not have an identity?[458]I am not following what you are getting at. It is very vaguely stated. The Christian reference point for comparing good is God. Are you saying that the good or right does not have an identity, that, say for a specific example such as abortion, the right cannot be ascertained?All moral values deal with meaning.
[458] By not having what makes up an identity.
What I am saying is that identity appears to be the wrong word. You appear to be using it as if you ought to use the world meaning in stead.
Right cannot be ascertained without reference standard, which is what you have been complaining about too often. Everyone has their own right and to your dismay you cannot demonstrate any of them wrong.
Amoranemix 888[73] The world has many problems. People have invented deities, but the problems persist. Religion has even created problems, as people disagreed on which deity to worship.PGA2.0 1006Human-made deities, yes. Religion, yes. The problem persists because people do not recognize the necessary standard and authority.[459]Logically speaking, the most reasonable answer to this problem is there is only one true deity.[460] Every deity humanity makes glaring contradictions to the next. Denying any deity at all lands you with a host of other problems.
[459] Even if that were true, so what ? Would it make theistic worldviews better tools for explanaining morality than atheistic wordlviews ? Not that I am aware of and if it did, then you should have explained how a long time ago. Until then is merely a bald red herring.
[460] So what ? Even if that were true, reality does not care about what the most reasonable answer is and may as well choose an unreasonable one or fail to provide an answer alltogether.
So again, the world's problems are off topic.
PGA2.0 231 to secularmerlinThen, how does such a standard originate from chance happenstance? There are many hurdles to straddle.Amoranemix 888How does such a standard originate from God ?PGA2.0 1006Very simple - His sovereign will command His creatures to live righteously or be answerable to Him.[461] He sets out the standard, The Ten Commandments, which reflects His nature of good, is a school teacher or guardian to lead us to Christ. We witness all around us how impossible it is to live by relative subjectivism. We see the results of humanity living apart from God's good purposes.
[461] So you start with God's sovereign will, i.e. his opinion, as a brute fact. You don't have an explanation for it. Yet you expect atheists to explain how opinions (which produce standards) can arrive. However, if the atheists explain nothing, then both worldviews are just as non-explanatory.
Nonetheless, in the mean time I have explained to some extent, demonstrating the explanatory superiority of a naturalistic worldview, that is without taking into account the fact that nature actually exists.
45 days later
-->
@PGA2.0
PGA2.0 231 to SkepticalOneYou are confusing God as a person with God as an explanation. God as an explanation is simple.Amoranemix 888Assuming God the explanation and God the person are the same, how can the former be less complicated than the latter ?PGA2.0 1006It is straightforward. God says, "You shall not murder; you shall not lie" before Him. The penalty is alienation from Him. You shall not murder is a command, not an explanation. The command reflects His will and nature. His nature is more complex. The explanation is for our benefit. The explanation is that such things are wrong - period.
Your fallacy of choice is : missing the point. Nothing you said is any indication against God the explanation being infinitely complex.
That is typical for you. You are asked to prove something, to which you babble something that does anything but that and then you pretend you have actually presented a pertinent case.
So again all we have is is your claim that God is a simple explanation, which, if anything, is evidence for the opposite.
Amoranemix 888Don't be silly. Calling only part of the explanation the explanation does not make it any more likely. The complete explanation matters. Otherwise you would require an additional explanation for your explanation. In this example : God.PGA2.0 1006The Big Bang is a cause. What is the explanation for it? Do tell.You have explanations for everything before it. What is the explanation for it? The simplest explanation is God spoke, and it was so because He chose to create it.[462]Do you have any explanation for the Big Bang?
You are evading and deflecting again. You have given no reason whatsoever to disbelieve that God the explanation is infinitely complex.
I don't know the Big Bang's cause. You can find many hypotheses on the internet. The scientific ones are godless.
[462] Dude, anyone can utter a few words and pretend they constitute an explanation. You still have not explained what God speaking (in the absense of the earth) entails, nor how that would cause anything I have summarized in [10] in post post 798.
Amoranemix 888What does ultimately mean in that context? What is the difference not having an attribute and not having an attribute ultimately ? What is the difference between meaning nothing and ultimately meaning nothing ?PGA2.0 1006[a] You could argue that there is no difference but experientially you believe there is. [about fleeting meaning]
You seem to be saying the ultimate meaning is meaning that exists before and after one's earthly life. No one has that, but Christians believe they do.
Amoranemix 888[a] What relevance does any of that have ? [b] What would an atheist doing the effort of answering, without any compensation for the work, contribute to add useful, relevant knowledge to this discussion ?Why would there be God ?[*]PGA2.0 1006[a] The relevance is that atheists live inconsistently with their starting presuppositions.[463a] They are not logically consistent with where they begin. From a supposed meaningless universe, they seek reason and meaning. You are constantly asking for reason and meaning from me, the Christian. I can make sense of it, you can't.Christians are logically consistent with where they start, their core presuppositions and what they would expect to find with such a starting point. Atheists are not.[463b][b] You tell me?[*] The reason for contingent beings and things that start to exist. The necessity of making sense of anything.[464]God provides logical reasons for making sense of existence, the universe, morality.[465]
[463a] No, that is not the relevance. The meaning-related starting presuppositions are off topic. Read the OP to learn the topic of this thread. On top of that, I am not logically inconsistent with where I begin. The meaning one gives may not be ultimate, but that does not contradict any starting presupposition.
[463b] Those are other off topic bald assertions. Go prove them where that is on topic.
[b] I can't see are relevant use of doing the work you request either. It would serve as a distraction, which would be useful to to you, but detrimental to those in search of truth and understanding.
[464] Why are there contingent beings ? Can you prove the necessity of making sense of anything exists ?
[465] That is again an ambiguous formulation of what God is supposed to be doing. If that mean that he allows to explain existence, the universe and morality, then perhaps he could do that, but
a) That it actually allows to explain it, remains to be proven, as I have yet to see such explanation.
b) If the paranormal is acceptable as explanation, then lots of other explanations can be invented, including variants of God.
Amoranemix 888[74] Your question is a contradictio in terminis. Why questions imply intent. There can be no intent in the absense of intent.Try asking intelligent, clear questions for a change.[75] Your fallacy of choice is the loaded question. You have so far been unable to demonstrate that an atheist worldview is inconsistent with its starting points and you never will be able to demonstrate that.PGA2.0 1008Your spelling and run together words make things unclear. Try clearing up your own grammar before you accuse others. I have done so in the past, yet EVERY single post by you is corrupted in grammar and spelling. Is there something wrong with your computer or your copy and paste feature??????????????????[466]You have intent. You constantly answer why questions, yet you are devoid of the why when it comes to beginnings.[467] You can't even provide meaning since meaning is an intentional attribute and from where you begin (in the beginning) there is none. What is more, you find intent and meaning in so many things but cannot offer it here because your worldview is insufficient in answering why questions regarding origins. That is yet another point I am making regarding your worldview. This attempt is your escape hatch.[468]How is it a fallacy of choice?[469] How is it loaded when the Christian worldview has an answer, but an atheist worldview cannot give an answer, or a Christian worldview inquires of other worldviews for their answers?[470][a] Not true. I have demonstrated to date your worldview inconsistent. You, nor any other atheist, have provided cogent answers to the questions of existence, the universe, morality on this thread. What is more, from such a starting point (blind, indifferent random chance happenstance), is it any wonder?
[466] You are deflecting again, this time with a false accusation. Please don't do that anymore.
[467] If you don't want me to answer why questions, stop asking them to me.
[468] What are you talking about ? Your comments were again off topic.
[469] Christians have plenty of fallacies to choose from to defend their faith, such as the straw man, the bandwagon, poisening the well, the survivorship and so forth. This time you chose to rely on the loaded question fallacy. It is a staple of yours.
[470] I told you in post 888. Feel free to read it.
If in the rest of your rebuttal there is something relevant that I have not yet addressed, feel free to point it out to me.
[a] I can imagine that what you must be referring to. If one's desire for God-belief is strong enough, one could manage to believe it constitutes proof of atheistic worldviews being inconsistent. However, I have not challenged such arguments, for they are off topic. So, even if atheist worldviews were inconsistent for the reasons you claim, that would be off topic. Please read the OP to discover what this thread is about.
PGA2.0 247 to zedvictor4Job also understood that God is just. He understood that God would not do wrong, as did his friends, and that human beings are wicked and act wickedly when they live outside of God's good decrees and commandments.Amoranemix 888[*] So what ? I am sure there were plenty of Nazis around who knew what a wonderful guy Adolf Hitler was and who knew that Jews were wicked. Does that imply any of it is true ? No. It is an appeal to authority fallacy.You cannot demonstrate God is just, moral, best or whatever you want him to be without choosing a reference standard.[**] [a] And you won't do that in the same paragraph, but that would it make it obvious your claims are empty and because you are not as stupid as you pretend, you know that.PGA2.0 1011[*] So, the biblical God provides what is necessary to know the good.[471] Hitler does not. The Nazis appealed to a false authority or, better said, as an inappropriate appeal to authority. From an atheist perspective, can you point to an appeal to authority that is suited?[472] I don't believe you can since you do not have what is necessary. Hitler wasn't an expert in moral law.[473] He invented his own subjective preferences based on the hatred of the Jews prevalent in Europe before he even came on the scene. To use Hitler as your reference would be to use someone who is not even an authority on moral law, let alone an expert.[474] So, I still invite you to show me one person, just one, who you think is that expert and authority on the topic of morality - just one.[475] And, human authority does not justify the truth in the matter of morality, IMO. Demonstrate otherwise. Can you? [476][**] [no response][a] Put yourself to the same standards and tests what you require of me with yourself.I can demonstrate God is necessary and show how His moral laws protect the innocent.[477] I can point to His nature, the one described in the Bible, as meeting the necessary requirement - omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, immutable, eternal. I can give evidence of the reasonableness of belief in Him, not only in making sense of existence, the universe, morality, but also because of the biblical evidence and how it corresponds with history. How about you address this paragraph and provide how you arrive at moral justice and the good or best?[478][b] And by the way, thanks for yet another slur! Resorting to ad hom's shows an argument is feeble. You infer, I am pretending to be stupid. So far, you have shown your bias, but you have not provided a suitable explanation from your morality from your worldview perspective that sufficiently explains the good. Go ahead. I am still waiting to see if you have what is necessary.[479]
[471] You again omitted to mention the reference moral standard to promote confusion (the Christian's friend), but presumably you mean that he knows the good according to himself, just like Adolf Hitler and Kim Jong-Un know the good according to themselves.
[472] It would depend on a the circumstances, but I could point to moral philosophers who exist.
[473] Presumably not, but would that have sufficed ? What if Adolf Hitler were an expert on (his) morality ? I would have no good reason to accept him as authority. The same goes for God : his supposed expertise on (his) morality is irrelevant to those who disapprove of it.
[474] One is an authortiy if one is accepted as such. Hence popularity makes one an authority. To me that is no good reason to follow the crowd.
[475] I pick Etienne Vermeersch, a belgian moral philosopher who died januari 18 2019.
[476] No. Can you ?
[**] Despite the underlining you managed to miss that. What is chosen is mind-dependent and thus subjective. Hence your ultimate, objective morality cannot be completely objective when you choose it. By choosing it you make it your preference.
[477] You are again claiming you can demonstrate something in stead of actually demonstrating it. How gullible do you think skeptics are ? I ask you again to demonstrate your claim. What will you do in response ? I don't know, but I do know what you won't do : demonstrate your claim. Who of us has the worldview that allows them to explain why you won't ?
[478] The task you have given is again ambiguous. Please clarify what it is you want.
[479] In the mean time I have already provided an explanation for morality.
-->
@PGA2.0
I can't help but feel Atheism is just yet another theism. Whether or not the word a theism is intentional or by accident is besides the point. Atheism is still a theism as far as I am concerned.
Whilst a theist usually believes in the existence of deities, an Atheist usually believes that deities do not exist.
Atheists usually cite a lack of empirical evidence amongst their reasoning for not believing, whilst apparently forgetting that a lack of empirical evidence does not support an Atheists own beliefs any more than it does a theists.
Atheists also tend to cite the problem of evil in their argument and argue that if their was an actual god there would not be the pain and suffering we experience today. But they do so without empirical evidence that this is the case.
Other popular arguments include the argument from inconsistent revelations, and all arguments are totally conjectural, and ultimately a matter of belief.
An Atheist also typically argues that the burden of proof lies with the theist. However surely if someone is claiming a belief in something then they also have a duty to provide proof for their belief.
Therefore I would not say that Atheism is any more reasonable then Theism. Certainly an Atheist should feel free to express their opinions on the subject. However there is no validation for joining a society which sets itself up in direct opposition, and that is exactly what Atheism has became. To be an Atheist is to be part of a society which opposes the beliefs of others without empirical evidence to support their disbelief.
However there is no validation for joining a society which sets itself up in direct opposition, and that is exactly what Atheism has became. To be an Atheist is to be part of a society which opposes the beliefs of others without empirical evidence to support their disbelief.
Irony at its finest.
Replace 'atheism with Theism' and reverse his original theory and you are much more accurate.