Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?

as related to this thread, atheism/theism are not moral philosophies....neither are reasonable from a moral standpoint. In your thread you drop the theistic ambiguity and name Christianity, which is a moral view, but again, you compare it to atheism which is not a moral philosophy. The comparison itself is not reasonable.

Its like you're pitting "Kumbaya" against silence and asking which is better music. There is a category error in the comparison.

I justify God allowing Israel to experience chattel slavery in Egypt as a typological lesson on what bondage is. As pointed out, I justify the type of slavery or servitude practiced in Israel as different from New World slavery or ANE slavery, a cut above. I did this in Post # 223.

That makes no sense.  God allowed Israel to experience chattel slavery....

and then codified chattel slavery into Mosaic law? If God was trying to teach Israel a lesson regarding chattel slavery..then why would it be condoned...by God?! This reasoning doesn't stand up. 

God: You see, Israel, chattel slavery denies basic human dignity.

Israel: Yes, God, we see.  We'll never do that to anyone.

God:  No, No!!  You've got that wrong - You'll never do that to MY people. Everyone else is fair game.

Israel: Oh...uh..ok.

39 “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. 40 They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Do you think the standards of evidence in a court of law are too high? Would you be willing to be found guilty of murder based on anecdote, hearsay, or spectral evidence? No? Then why should we accept such a low standard for gods...something arguably more important if true?

It depends on what you are referencing.

This doesn't answer my question - what I am referencing is right there in the questions.

Again, if your proof for the Christian deity is built on the unreasonableness of all other positions, then there is no way you should have come to a conclusion.  It is simply not possible that you have evaluated all other positions.  Your reasoning is flawed and disingenuous.

I don't have to evaluate all possibilities on the impossibility of the contrary. 

Well, yah, actually you do.  If your view is that no other view is possible, then you necessarily need to know all other views.

A single super complex "explanation" (that is 'beyond our comprehension') is not more simple than multiple sensible explanations.

How is that super complex? God!

God, by your own definition, is infinite.  That makes god as an explanation infinitely complex.  Occam's razor favors multiple explanations given that they are infinitely less complex.

A subject can be an object? If a subject is the object in your objective morality...wouldn't that make your morality subjectivev?

I have already discussed this with you in previous posts on the other thread. This is a definist or equivocation fallacy. [...]

So, a subject is or isn't the basis of your objective morality?

You demonstrate you do not understand atheism. For me, it is a derivation of evaluating my former beliefs and finding them wanting - not a starting place as you continue to assert. I don't reject gods as a possibility,

Not true, you do reject Him by looking at the universe in a solely mechanical or m[e]tho[do]logical naturalistic way. There is not supernatural consideration involved. 

Mythological naturalism? I think that would describe your view better than mine!

It is your own black and white thinking that has you confused. You are conflating all gods as the one you believe in - I don't.

Also, if someone can define supernatural as something other than "unexplained by our current understanding of nature" and demonstrate it, I would accept it. Spend less time pigeonholing, and you might make some progress changing a mind...perhaps your own.

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

You keep saying that. Demonstrate is rather than assert it.

I've already stated what the evidence is "anecdote, hearsay, and spectral evidence".  This bring us back to the question you dodged: Would you be willing to be found guilty of murder based on anecdote, hearsay, or spectral evidence? If not, then you concede the point.

Yes, Israel experienced chattel slavery in Egypt.

No, He did not codify chattel slavery. He forbid Israel from practicing the same harsh treatment that Israel experienced in Egypt. 

God orders the Israelites to make a distinction between the Hebrew servants and the those of foreign nations. They were:
·        Allowed to 'buy' (not take!) slaves from foreign nations around them...

·        Finally, it should be noted that the passage says that they "can" make them slaves for life--not that they "were automatically" slaves for life. Somehow, freedom was the default and lifetime slavery only an 'option'.

The Great Escape Clause…?
Deut 23.15 has this fascinating passage:
If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master. 16 Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him. (Deut 23.15)...

"A slave could also be freed by running away. According to Deuteronomy, a runaway slave is not to be returned to its master. He should be sheltered if he wishes or allowed to go free, and he must not be taken advantage of (Deut 23:16-17). This provision is strikingly different from the laws of slavery in the surrounding nations and is explained as due to Israel's own history of slaves. It would have the effect of turning slavery into a voluntary institution."

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html

Remember also, Exodus 21:16 forbids kidnapping, thus a slave would have to be bought, per above, thus not against their will.

No, I would not want to be found guilty on anecdotal evidence or hearsay. I fail to see how that ties in with God.  God has given all kinds of reasonable evidence, of which you are brushing off. I offered to debate you on the subject of prophecy, as to its reasonableness.

You are being ridiculous. One object plus another object equals two objectives. 1+1=2. It does not equal something else. If Christianity is true then all other gods and religious beliefs (of which I include atheism as a belief) are false. It is as simple as that. But it is difficult to convince and unbeliever since they have invested their whole outlook on another system of thought. Therefore, I have challenged you, based on atheism, to show yours is more reasonable than my Christian belief in the area of morality, of which you have to date avoided doing. 

You are confusing God as a person with God as an explanation. God as an explanation is simple.  

How does 'subject' apply to God? I think you are confusing two different things, that a subjective being cannot be objective. Then how does God qualify? He knows all things. How would His knowledge be subjective? 

Are you saying that something supernatural is not personal,

Also, as related to this thread, atheism/theism are not moral philosophies

That's one way of looking at things.

I would suggest that humanity created gods, as a way of answering questions that couldn't be answered.

Two valid hypotheses, though I think that mine is somewhat more logical as it doesn't rely upon super-nature to answer unanswerable questions.

Also interesting that you attribute a god with a specific gender (him)....Men creating gods in their own image, for sure.

Sure you can make up meaning, but ultimately it means nothing. 

Something came from nothing!!!

Next, if there is no intention then there is no purpose for the universe being here.

Are we being consistent with such a universe as that? 

Why do we discover (no intent) the laws of nature? These questions are usually left blank by atheists. Do you care to answer them, or should I expect the usual silence? 

Alternatively, you are having an imaginary conversation with your ultra ego because you are lonely. 

Why did "YHWH" create humans?

Slavery.

"there was not a man to till the ground."   Till = dig = mine.

A better question I have asked hundreds of theists, is why did god create anything, at all, in the first place? and like much of the bible, I have never had a answer that couldn't easily be debunked. 

For His pleasure. Because He wanted to, not because He had to.

So simply put then  we were created for his own self serving reasons as his toys or pets, to be discarded (killed and disposed of) at will as he could make more when he got fed up and bored with his old toys.  He certainly knew when to dispose of his childish things didn't he; anytime he felt like it.

Yes. He gave us extremely good examples of his behavior in stories such as that  of poor Job and his ten children where human life was, well, ten a penny.

Marvelous isn't it, that the bible, as do apologist , give us 'reasons' why god destroys humans including children. But has only ever given one reason for the creation of the humans species;   "there was not a man to till the ground".  Genesis 2:5

A better question I have asked hundreds of theists, is why did god create anything, at all, in the first place? and like much of the bible, I have never had a answer that couldn't easily be debunked. 

[A] For His pleasure. Because He wanted to, not because He had to.

So simply put then  we were created for his own self serving reasons as his toys or pets, to be discarded (killed and disposed of) at will as he could make more when he got fed up and bored with his old toys.  He certainly knew when to dispose of his childish things didn't he; anytime he felt like it.

No, we were created to experience a relationship with Him and learn of His love for us, that we may choose to love Him,

` Because he was bored stupid '   would have been a better reply.

The morality of an action can be judged in accordance with Kant's distinction of treating a person as an end not as a mere means.

Again, a megalomaniacal lunitic is not the biblical God.

Why did "YHWH" order the slaughter of prisoners (women and children)?

Numbers 31:15-18

15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?

16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord.

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

That correct interpretation comes from finding the Author's meaning, not interjecting my own meaning into the text. 

Why do you think so many "christians" disagree with each other?

They do not try to understand what God is saying. Their bias, influence from others, and denominationalism gets in the way. His Word is our standard. 

It's because "human evaluation" and "human interpretation" is inescapable.

Even though I use my human filter - my mind - I try to get the Author's meaning. That is possible, so there is a correct INTERPRETATION. 

...because we simply don't understand the Ancient Near East culture,

Well let's look at the Yahweh's actions and pronouncements as described by the bible.

Commands, condones and commits genocide.

Holds people guilty until proven innocent (original sin).

Holds people guilty for crimes committed by other individuals (original sin).

Prefers rape of women to consensual sex between men.

Condones the ownership of people as property in perpetuity including being granted as inheritance. 

Commands Capitol punishment for many transgressions.

Punishes the very best and most loyal of his servants just to prove a point to a third party (job).

Murders children (the flood, the slaughter of many tribes in which the hebrews were commanded to kill all the livestock and babies) and even removes freewill (which I am unconvinced exists but since the biblical view of morality is predicated on choice this seems pretty telling) in order to justify killing more children (hardened Pharoah's heart so that he could kill the first born of Egypt).

Condemns people to infinite punishment for finite transgressions including such things as having a bad attitude when one says one of the names of Yahweh, falling in love with persons who have the wrong genitals, and being skeptical of a being who purposefully cloaks itself in mystery as some sort of test of faith (a questionable virtue hinestly).

If this is your objective moral standard it isn't good enough to satisfy my moral intuition. If that is the behavior and decrees of a perfect moral being I have no interest in being moral whatsoever and instead intend to concentrate my efforts on human welfare and the betterment of quality of life.

It fails the test of livability. I do not want to "be next" under this system. 

If this is your objective moral standard it isn't good enough to satisfy my moral intuition. If that is the behavior and decrees of a perfect moral being I have no interest in being moral whatsoever and instead intend to concentrate my efforts on human welfare and the betterment of quality of life.

Is it okay to kill innocent unborn human beings because you don't want them?

Is it okay to violate my bodily autonomy and force me to donate my kidney to a dying human? Is refusing to donate my kidney the same as killing the human in question? 

So it is about you! What is good is about you? Do you think your system of thought as an atheist is morally justifiable? If so, justify why your subjective opinion is better than mine and how you measure better when there is no fixed reference as a comparison???

Better is a subjective term. It is only useful if we first have a reference point. If the reference point is human welfare then I believe my view is "better" at promoting welfare. If the reference point is some possibly fictional god then until the god is demonstrate along with s ok me methodology for unambiguously (not subject to interpretation) determining the will of said god then even if it exists we are still all just guessing. If I understand your method properly it is very suspect specifically because it is subject to interpretation which allows subjective opinions to again enter the conversation.

just for the record - I am not an American. I am from the southern hemisphere. In the area known as Oceania. 

Well let's look at the Yahweh's actions and pronouncements as described by the bible.

Commands, condones and commits genocide.

Nope, He brings judgment on the cultures that inhabited the Promised Land for their wickedness. He tells Israel to drive out these inhabitants that live there because these people's wicked values will corrupt Israel, and He wants His people to be pure and holy before Him so He can teach them in the way of righteousness. Since they did not listen to God that is in fact what the biblical narrative reveals, they become corrupted by these people groups and so often these people groups wanted to destroy them. That would prevent the coming of the Messiah, as promised. God would have been proven impotent by not being able to fulfill His promises. Thus, God will not let this happen. How could He compromise Himself? Even though Israel is constantly shown to be disobedient to God, He continues to preserve them instead of judge them, until their sin is heaped up to the limit. Then He brings judgment on them and disperses them for a time that they will learn a lesson, then He brings them back into the Promised Land until the fulness of time is reached for Him to reveal His Son, the Saviour.  

Holds people guilty until proven innocent (original sin).

God is omniscient, He knows all things. He knows that if it was you or me in the Garden we would have chosen to disobey God, just like Adam. With Adam came the corruption of what God created as good. Adam passed down his traits and influence to his progeny.  

Holds people guilty for crimes committed by other individuals (original sin).

Explained above. Adam was our federal head but we would have done the same thing. Knowledge without wisdom is evil and that is what happens when human beings choose their own way rather than what is good as revealed by God. 

Prefers rape of women to consensual sex between men.

Not true. This is a misrepresentation and a constant talking point of those who oppose and hate God.

Humans choose to rape. 

Condones the ownership of people as property in perpetuity including being granted as inheritance. 

Not the type of slavery that is inhumane. It is for the protection of the poor or those in debt, or, in the case of war, a war reparation for the damages done. With a foreign person, the person was bought with a price, for the Law forbid the kidnapping of anyone with the penalty of death. Thus, it had to be mutually agreeable. As with our employee/employer relationships, the ownership was one of advantage for both, unlike many ANE cultures. A 'slave' in Israel could own property and the 'property' clause was not like the intent witnessed in Egypt or North America, as I have pointed out with SkepticalOne. I have cited numerous passages where God commands Israel not to treat foreigners as they were treated in Egypt. I have shown that God requires of Israel and us to love our neighbour and not harm them. Thus, it could not be chattel slavery where there was mistreatment. And if the slave was mistreated I showed how in Israel there was an escape clause, as well as answerability to God for doing wrong in not loving others. As for discipline, there were consequences for wrongdoing, both for a 'slave' and owner/employer.

And what makes you think that your situation is much different from that of ancient Israel? As an employee, you AGREED to the conditions set forth by the employer. They own what you do while you are at work. You are their property while you are in their building. They have an obligation to protect you and you have an obligation to preform the duties required by the contract. They have the right to punish you for damages or wrongful actions, as stipulated in the contract you signed on commencement of employment. 

Commands Capitol punishment for many transgressions.

Teaching Israel the sacredness of the covenant they had agreed to.

Punishes the very best and most loyal of his servants just to prove a point to a third party (job).

Satan, in his wickedness wanted God to show him how loyal Job was, that given the circumstance Job would disavow God. He was sure of it. God said Job would not. The trials Job went through were rewarded with a double blessing after He demonstrated that he would not forsake God. That is a typology and spiritual lesson for us as Christians. Because of the unjustness of this world we, as Christians, will be treated poorly, persecuted. Our not giving up or denying Him results in our double blessing too.   

Murders children (the flood, the slaughter of many tribes in which the hebrews were commanded to kill all the livestock and babies) and even removes freewill (which I am unconvinced exists but since the biblical view of morality is predicated on choice this seems pretty telling) in order to justify killing more children (hardened Pharoah's heart so that he could kill the first born of Egypt).

I believe that free will was only present in Adam. He had the choice to sin or not to sin. Because we inherit and are influenced by Adam's choice we no longer have the option not to sin. We sin all the time, as we do not hold to the Ten Commandments. We steal, we lie, we harm our neighbours in all kinds of ways.

Don't get me wrong, it is not that we don't have a will a volition. It is that we choose to sin because of the corrupt nature we inherited in Adam. We desire things that are not right, not good. We continually see evil all around us and that influences us also. We like to do evil. It is our choice. We choose to commit adultery or lie to our fellow human beings. But there is an age of accountability, a point at which we are able to make these choices. But little children, I believe the Bible teaches, are covered by the sacrifice of Jesus. He died to save them because they were not yet guilty of doing or practicing sin or understanding the difference. That is the difference between them and adults. Adults understand wrong and yet still do it. 

All of what I am saying here can be demonstrated through biblical passages. I am not taking the time to do so, but I can.  

Condemns people to infinite punishment for finite transgressions including such things as having a bad attitude when one says one of the names of Yahweh, falling in love with persons who have the wrong genitals, and being skeptical of a being who purposefully cloaks itself in mystery as some sort of test of faith (a questionable virtue hinestly).

Wrongdoing is not following what is right, what is good. Since God is pure and holy, He will not accept sinful beings in His presence except for judgment of their vile deeds. Although there are decrees of judgment those who do not want to accept God and His righteous decrees will be separated from His presence because a bad person, a bad apple, will contaminate the whole flock/batch, just as a little yeast spreads through the whole loft of bread. A righteous Judge will not allow evil or wrongdoing to go unpunished. What GOOD judge would do that? There is a penalty for sin (wrongdoing). It is separation from a pure and holy God. Heaven would not be good if we had a mass of people all doing their own thing. It would be just like what we witness here on earth. Now, God created humanity for eternity, to enjoy Him forever. So, when a human being rejects God he/she is separated from the presence of God forever. That would be hell, everyone doing whatever evil is in their heart to do. 

If this is your objective moral standard it isn't good enough to satisfy my moral intuition. If that is the behavior and decrees of a perfect moral being I have no interest in being moral whatsoever and instead intend to concentrate my efforts on human welfare and the betterment of quality of life.

Sure it is good enough. As an atheist how do they get to a standard that is anything but arbitrary and changing? How can good vary and fluctuate in respect to the same issue (and I picked abortion as an example in other posts)? How do we identify 'good' when two different people believe the opposite is the case? Who is right then? How does that make sense, two people with opposite views on the same thing both being right? How can it? 

If there is no ideal, no best, how is good determined? What best do you have to compare it to and how do you ever get better when the standard is always fluctuating. Better in relation to what??? So, demonstrate that atheism can logically make sense of goodness. Why is what you believe good? It is because you believe it? What about me who believes the opposition? Can't what I believe be good if everything is relative and subjective? No, it can't. Why? Because it goes against the laws of logic that you cannot contravene and still make sense of ANYTHING. So, you can be an atheist, but you can't be consistent and you can't be logical as to morality. Show me otherwise by providing something objective and universally true, by necessity. I do not believe you can without God.

Thus theism and Christianity are more reasonable than atheism in this aspect and others.  

It fails the test of livability. I do not want to "be next" under this system. 

No, you are wrong once again. I have given reasons why it does not and they are reasonable to believe. To get honest you would have to tackle all the points I have made and refute them as unreasonable. That means we have to delve deeper into morality and justice.

Not all human beings are treated with equality and dignity.

Nope, never have been and will not be for the foreseeable future.

And neither the bible nor the U.S. actually promotes such morals. 

Altruistic lip service in the pursuit of wealth and power is typically human, hypocrisy. 

I believe that free will was only present in Adam. 

The analogy you give sucks. What we are dealing with are TWO human beings, one unborn and the other born.

The word "end" in this phrase has the same meaning as in the phrase "means to an end". The philosopher Immanuel Kant said that rational human beings should be treated as an end in themselves and not as a means to something else. The fact that we are human has value in itself.

...denying the legitimacy of sacrificing the rights of one human being in order to benefit others.