3RU7AL

Both you and he have a conceptual framework that you build upon in forming your views of everything.

Not subscribing is a denial of God or gods, yet I bet you know about the Christian God.

You can't be devoid of belief if you are a reasoning being who claims to be an atheist.

Next, you are guilty of avoiding the question, "Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?"

Can you show me other religious belief systems that offer the same kind of quality proofs as biblical prophecy?

Show me that such a god is reasonable to believe in and I will do my best to show the inconsistency in such a belief.  

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

Such belief is logically inconsistent. 

Because there is no reasonable evidence of their existence, for one.

Then there is the internal consistency and unity of these 66 'books' or writings.

And just another reminder, you have not attempted to engage in the topic at hand. 

Before I go further, do you claim to be an atheist? If not, what is your belief?

Any religion which holds to the view of ONE GOD or ONE primary Law or Principle.

The statement of logic is - "There are no absolutes". Or "there is one absolute".  Both are statements of a certain logic - but both are self-contradictory.

Both prove logically that absolutes must exist. 

It does not tell us which absolutes exist or even how we can find them.

And to be honest it does not really matter that they don't. What matters is that it implies logically that absolute truth and principles and laws exist. 

Yet you have failed to justify how nature alone is capable of explaining anything regarding origins...

Cop-out - well worn cliches. I do not find your standards of evidence acceptable when it comes to origins. You keep telling me, "I don't know," yet you are dogmatic that your belief system is more reasonably evidenced than mine. You keep insinuating that my beliefs are not well-founded or well thought out or well evidenced. Assertion after assertion yet you don't want to go to the proofs that show in every area, my beliefs are more reasonable than yours. 

...Especially as related to standards of evidence, burden of proof, Biblical slavery, and the moral relativism of slavery being justified by "it was a different time and culture".

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

And once again, if there is no objective standard, what makes your view any better than mine? Force, duress? How does that make something good or even objective? So you get a bunch of like minded people to push your views and make it law by force. Dictators, benevolent or tyrannical, do the same thing. What is good about that?

SkepticalOne says although he is an atheist he believes in objective morality. Is this reasonable from an atheistic standpoint? How is his view anything but subjective since he needs a true, fixed, unchanging point of reference for something to have objectivity?

An objective standard is not subject to personal preference but to what is the case.

Does SkepticalOne believe we just invent morality too, that there is no objective mind behind morals, just chance happenstance as the root cause?

It takes faith to be an atheist, a blind faith if you look at the causal tree of blind indifferent chance as your maker.

Whereas I believe I derive my moral aptitude from a necessary moral being, you believe you derive yours from chance happenstance.

There is no bridge between what is and what ought to be in that one is a mere description of what is liked or what is while the other is what should or must be the case.

That is because there is a distinction between what is (liking ice-cream) and what should be, a distinction between the two that has been called the is/ought fallacy.

No one will condemn me for my preference of liking ice-cream but they will in my preference for killing others and prescribing others should like it too.

If I liked to kill human beings for fun and believe you SHOULD too, that would be a moral prescription, although not established as an objective one.

Second, how do relative, subjective beings determine anything other than preference - what they like?

IOW's, why is your 'moral' preference any 'better' than mine?

Is it more reasonable? I say no.

It does not have what is necessary for morality.

Preference is just a like or dislike. What is good, morally speaking, about that?

With atheism (no God or gods) what is left for the origins of morality and before that conscious beings?

What is the ideal, the fixed reference point?

A personal Being who has revealed Himself as omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, immutable, and eternal would have what is necessary in determining what is moral because there would be a fixed measure or reference point in which a comparison can be made as to 'the good' (since there is a best).

This topic is about one area of atheisms reason - morality. Can atheists reasonably justify morality in comparison to Christianity/Judaism? That last statement is a nutshell of the topic of debate. 

Atheism examines life's most basic questions and comes to a conclusion from a standpoint lacking God.

You can't deny something you have no idea of and SkepticalOne definitely has views about God. Thus, atheism is a worldview.

...yet something about God too in their denial of Him.

An atheist not believing in God as Creator would have to believe something else as there cause,

The Scientific Method is not a DOGMA, but is validated by demonstrable efficacy (bridges, computers, medicine).

The evaluation of which is informed by qualia.

You call it a computer; you call it a bridge; you call it medicine; you assert that what it does is distinct from what it doesn't do based on definitions used to rationalize your perception of it.

You can test for it, but it's contained within the scope of said perception.

Efficacious toward what? That you're capable of perception? 

Logic is a regulation of consistent perception.

But ultimately what does consistency indicate? Value (qualia.)

Uncertainty cannot be "reduced" because it necessitates certainty of the scope of that which you are uncertain.

Now if you're using uncertainty in a manner synonymous with "unsure" of "not confident," then what is "uncertainty" if not qualia?

What is "useful" if not qualia?

What is reliability if not qualia?

I take the view that absolute [MORAL] right and wrong exists as a matter of logic.   

Hence, if a religion or worldview declares  ipso facto that no such things exist then logically I am able to deduce that as a matter of reason, they are not the correct religion.

This rules out most of the religions and worldviews in the world.

Not all obviously, but it certainly clears the deck somewhat. 

This leaves only religions and worldviews which declare absolute right and wrong and also exclusivity.

You have yet to refute this logically. 

I do in fact. You did not exist for billions of years before your birth and were quite unbothered by it so I wager when you don't exist for billions of years after your death you will find it equally untroubling. Also have you heard the good news? No god(s) are waiting to throw you into eternal torment after you die for real or imagined transgressions you can neither avoid nor understand. In fact I find the whole idea of heaven and hell to be very disquieting and I don't think Christians have much to offer that counts as comfort when examined logically whether they are correct or not. 

The good news of the Gospel is not about heaven or hell.  That misses the point. It is about reconciliation with God.  I would see no point in heaven unless there was reconciliation with God. 

(P1) Athias = happy.

(P2) Athias's cousin = happy.

(C1) Athias is functionally indistinguishable from Athias's cousin.

You need more than just relating them under the context of falisfiability.

...how do tests preclude you from being duped by "con-artists"?

What "point" are you trying to highlight?  Sure, GLOMPRANO-WAVES "might" "exist" "undiscovered".  How is this claim even remotely useful?

All the more reason the statements mentioned by secularmerlin contradict. If something does not necessarily require tests to exist, but also require tests to "claim" existence, then what is the function of the first statement?

In order to distinguish REAL-TRUE-FACT from GNOSIS/OPINION.

In order to QUANTIFY properties that can be engineered into useful systems.

How is "useful" devoid of opinion?