SkepticalOne

Occam did not know, nor did his razor, how to obtain information direct from God.

Theism doesn't give unwarranted answers where necessary questions are posed. 

Why do you atheists always deny the Christian God,and make all of your arguments against that particular God? There are many many versions of God you guys never even address. 

Which verifiable facts might you be referring to, since science cannot totally prove anything.

the question is : Is Young-Earth Creationism really hurting/is an embarrassment to the church?

That would make sense for people who support the mandate. It's interesting that a teacher is considered a mandatory reporter but a nanny isn't, or that a mother wouldn't be legally required to report her husband or something. It seems if the logic stands for one adult it would stand for all adults that are in-the-know. 

But do not these good points all equally apply to the spiritual representation of the accused?

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

[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.

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

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

d] Jesus was a Jew

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

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

That being said, it should be noted only two from your list were actually engaged in a discussion of morality. The others are a distraction. 

The point is that only one qualifies as having what is necessary for morality - Jesus Christ. The others do not have what is necessary for morality.

Every one of these first four standards is conflicting and logically cannot all be true because they state opposites. They have different identities, which is inconsistent with the laws of logic. 

The Law of Identity would apply to all five options - Jesus is not immune from logic. 

No, the law of identity would not apply to them all, for they all have differing views of the good.

Your 'objective, universal, unchanging standard' has already been shown overkill.  A compass works because it points to a non-universal, changing reference point known to be in a general direction. Time to update your argument/views, sir.

Nope. While the compass magnetic north points in the north's general direction, true north is a defined geographic location on earth.  True north or the North Pole has an exact grid location. 

Seriously? Do you not think it is wrong, universally, for someone to torture innocent people? 

It is interesting to me that you acknowledge the subjectivity of chess and still look for a 'best' move. Aren't you the same person that claims there can be no 'best' without a fixed (absolute, universal) reference point? You are contradicting yourself.

You are comparing apples to oranges again. How is chess a moral issue unless I cheat? 

I 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?

I 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. In some situations, we can think of all the best moves for ourselves when our opponent makes an error or chooses a weak opening, such as the various fool's mate openings or a forced mate later in the game. In those situations, you can name mate in four or five or how many moves because for each move; the opponent is forced to reply in a fixed way to avoid mate happening sooner. Your opponent is forced to respond in a specific way to prolong the inevitable.  If both players played a perfect game (no errors, playing the optimum move every time), it becomes more difficult because of the massive possibilities available. I don't think we are capable of that with some opening, but the tempo would go to White and be countered by Black until White's next move, and so on. Thus, I think such a perfect game, selecting the strongest opening by both, would result in a draw, or win by White, but I cannot say for sure since I don't know anyone who has determined the best, most perfect move for every opposing best and most perfect move. We know that some openings are stronger than others because they develop the pieces faster and pressure the opponent's defences. 

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. How do you verify something abstract like the good?  One is a qualitative value (morality), the other a quantitative value (a Chess move). One can be demonstrated through the senses; the other cannot. 

Now, if God exists and has revealed, then we can know the moral best in as much as He has revealed it. And from the Ten Commandments, as well as God disclosing His nature and attributes, we can deduce the good from the bad in other scenarios and from the examples of His interaction in the OT and His physical appearance in the NT. The Bible reveals He created us in His image and likeness (moral beings), so it is possible to know the right, the good. I believe we have an innate sense of the good, but that too can be marred by our subjectivity and ignoring His objective decrees. We choose to be relativists

SkepticalOne is open to anything supported by evidence.

Are you speaking for SkepticalOne now?

...why should we avoid checkmate? 

It is not desirable for our egos. It ends the game and we lose.

It is interesting to me that you acknowledge the subjectivity of chess and still look for a 'best' move. Aren't you the same person that claims there can be no 'best' without a fixed (absolute, universal) reference point? You are contradicting yourself.

We are subjective in our thinking, but in chess (as in morality), there is the best move in any given circumstance. If you could look ahead to every move 'til the endgame and play the perfect game, there would be a fixed reference point for every move, depending on what opening is employed. I still can't decide if the game would end in a draw with particular openings if both players could make every move the perfect move. They can stunt the potential. I believe in tempo, therefore white has the initial advantage. White is able to open up first and should be one step ahead of black in the development of pieces and opening files in putting pressure on the opponent's position. Having said that, some openings are downright weak (i.e., P-R4). Opening up the middle gives the pieces more freedom although the Indian defences can be very effective too.

There is a set move for white for those fool's mate scenarios I gave you earlier that also depend on a set move for black. These are fixed. If white does 'a' and black responds with 'b' it leads to those forced scenarios of checkmate. We do not have the foresight to determine the fixed and best move every time, like when we get ten moves into the game, both players playing a sound game. There are books on openings in which every scenario has been analyzed and documented for a great number of moves for any given opening. When one player exploits the other player's weakness, there again becomes obvious fixed (best) moves five or ten moves ahead that result in checkmate. Every move of your opponent is forced in these checkmate scenarios.  

Moral opinions have no basis for the good unless there is an objective, universal, unchanging best to compare "good" with. What are you comparing "good" with - someone else's shifting standard? 

Kim Jung-un: My standard of good is killing others before you are killed, looking out for my own interests above all others.

Jack the Ripper: My standard of good is killing others for fun.

Adolf Hitler: My standard of good is ridding society of undesirable groups that are an inferior race. Those who meet my standard are safe from persecution. 

Jeremy Bentham's Utilitarianism: Whatever promotes happiness and well-being for most by avoiding harm is good, depending on how you define well-being, good, and harm. 

Jesus Christ: THE standard of good is to love others as yourselves and love God. 

Every one of these first four standards is conflicting and logically cannot all be true because they state opposites. They have different identities, which is inconsistent with the laws of logic. 

It is interesting to me that you acknowledge the subjectivity of chess and still look for a 'best' move. Aren't you the same person that claims there can be no 'best' without a fixed (absolute, universal) reference point? You are contradicting yourself.

You are comparing apples to oranges again. How is chess a moral issue unless I cheat? 

I 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?

No, you are making a categorical error. One set of evaluations has to do with what is (the descriptive), the other with what ought to be (the prescriptive). If I make the wrong chess move, resulting in my loss to you, it is not morally wrong, just an oversight that affects a game's outcome. It was not my intention to lose, and I played the game for my enjoyment. If I steal and lie to you, and it results in an injury to you, I have harmed you by intent. My evaluation has nothing to do with a moral wrong in a chess game. It does when I intentionally hurt an innocent person for my enjoyment and greed. 

...why should we avoid checkmate? 

It is not desirable for our egos. It ends the game and we lose.

How do you define moral relativism? 

The short or long version?

A good move is one that gives you the tempo and puts your opponent on the defensive by applying pressure and exploiting weaknesses. 

For our finite minds, it depends on the opening. Some openings have a standard reply that leads to a checkmate (Fools Mate, two moves each) in a limited number of moves.

we seem to be discussing different things. If you look solely at the electoral college, then sure biden got a big win. If you look at the actual vote totals in the critical states, they are pretty close. The difference between a "big win" for biden and a "bid win" for trump is like 50,000 votes difference. That is a tight race. 

I agree it is significant, because the Dems massively underperformed.

If those states had gone red, then Trump would have won. Which means the difference between Biden winning and losing was 1% of the vote in 2 states. That is a narrow victory.

If like 10,000 people had voted differently in Wisconsin and something like 35,000 people had voted different in PA, then Trump would have won. a 45,000 vote margin is tight. 

...only narrowly beat a president who is widely hated. 

What is this 'see-saw' you refer to? My core position is simple and unchanging: there is no right to use the body of another without consent.

The woman is violating the body of the unborn TO KILL IT and without its consent. 

You keep implying that there is no objective biblical standard because subjective people, such as Christians, cannot make objective judgments. Yet, you yourself claim there is an objective standard (double standard). 

Second, how do they arrive at the 'best' if morality has no fixed address, no fixed reference point? It is a constantly shifting standard that points to 'better' but better than what?

While atheists can and sometimes do live more morally than many Christians do, from where their worldview starts (their most basic presuppositions), there is no reason they should.

Morality is about the well-being of humans,

Whose well-being?

and humans were concerned about what actions and attitudes ensured their survival long before Christianity came to be.

To benefit themselves and ensure their own survival at the expense of others.

Christianity is different; it looks out not only for self but also for everyone, denying oneself for others' benefit. 

Again, biblical slavery  [...]

Ok, it's just a fact most people are non-Christians (and are just as moral as Christians). 

Because they adopt the Judeo-Christian standard - it is wrong to murder, wrong to steal, wrong to lie, wrong to covet, wrong to commit adultery. 

No. Other gods are fake.

That means they [believers] think morality owes its existence to a personal being or beings

How does your personal opinion and preference make something right if you have no objective unchanging/fixed source or reference point?

How can you go north, east, west or south without an unchanging/fixed source or reference point?

You are inferring and projecting again. 

P.S. Magnetic north isn't a fixed reference point - it moves. 

True north or the North Pole is.

P.S.S. Human interpretation of the 'will of God' isn't a fixed reference point either and can be used to support atrocities and oppose equality. (Holocaust, apartheid, Transatlantic slave trade)

The Holocaust, Apartheid, transatlantic slavery are not biblical or OT slavery but a misinterpretation. 

I have denied from the start that biblical slavery is the same as chattel slavery.

Yea, well, you're just wrong, and you squash your own denial when you argue for forced slavery for the purpose of conversion. I mean, seriously, if it's forced it can't be indentured servitude. 

No, you're mistaken. You are comparing the 19th-century chattel slavery to biblical slavery that God condones. [...] 

Its not a matter of how evolution is defined, but how well it is understood and accepted. 

Accepted and understood as in dogma and doctrine? Believe this or be rejected. 

I don't think the answer is dependent upon biblical interpretation but rather upon how evolution is defined. 

There is nothing in the Bible that directly disallows abortion.

There most certainly are. God says that He hates the shedding of innocent blood as the very first principle of respecting human life. That would directly disavow abortion. Then there is the principle of going forth and multiplying. Also, all human life is created in the image and likeness of God, therefore it is God's right to give and take life (human beings are only given a short time on this earth to come to or reject God), not ours. There are also numerous verses I could employ to show that God values the unborn human being. 

On the moral aspect of abortion alone you have a see-saw of okay or not okay which begs the question of which is the correct position. How do you determine this, from an atheistic framework??? 

Although Christians are pro-life I never once used a God-centred argument against abortion in our debates. I don't need to. Abortion is wrong in most cases based on what is killed and upon the principle of justice.

Why are you only mentioning one side of the equation?

Given that humanistic interests came before Christianity, it can only be that your god-based morality is fortified with humanism - not the other way around.

I was a little rushed and did not have time to check over what I had written. I did not explain why I think your statement is an either/or fallacy or a false dilemma. You think that because there were humanists before there were Christians that Christianity is influenced by humanism and not the other way around, that humanism was influenced by rejecting God's moral commandments, yet choosing the same in many cases. Why does Christianity have to be centred on humanism rather than being fortified and centred on the biblical God of the OT? And why does humanism have to come before God? You first have to establish which came first. 

You fail to state how humanism, which works on natural explanations and human reasoning alone, can explain the ought from the is. Your moral basis continues to be shown to work on subjectivism and the subjectivist fallacy (relativism), or from borrowing from another worldview that can justify morality because it has what is necessary.

For instance, you think that because you believe abortion is a 'woman's right to choose,' that makes it right. You think that something can be true for one person and not another, but what is true, morally speaking, must be so for all people, or you lose sight of objectivity and universality.

You have never shown that the unborn is not a human being (although you have likened it to a group of cells, or not as human), although you have degraded it of value by references of dehumanization and discrimination. You have never shown how there can be justice and equality when some humanity members are treated unequally or less than others by subjective laws. What makes that right? 

If your argument is that morality cannot be justified without belief in the Christian god, then the fact that most people don't have that belief and act perfectly moral is a defeator (not an argument from popularity). It counters the assertion that belief in the Christian god is needed for morality.

First off, they don't live perfectly moral.

They sometimes act better than believers and act 'morally' despite not being able to justify why they should. What they do is borrow from another worldview in living life contrary and inconsistently within the bounds of their own worldview system

And most through human history have believed in God or gods.

...an actual argument from popularity. 

It is just a fact. 

No, I have stated that I only stand for and defend the biblical God. I believe all others are fake.

If not, then this fact couldn't help you even if it weren't logically fallacious.

What is fallacious about the biblical God? 

I have always stated there is a correct interpretation of Scripture, and I point to the Scriptures as the final standard in arguing disputes. I have reasoned that the type of slavery you are suggesting as being practiced by Israel is a misinterpretation based on several arguments, one of which is God's warning not to do what was done to them in Egypt and two, the principle of loving your neighbour. I had also argued that the 'slave' was not to be treated harshly, even when punishment was required. The slave was given the same treatment that a Hebrew was in punishment. If the slave was injured in a prescribed way, they were granted freedom. The foreign slave could be acquired in two ways, through war (thus restitution) or purchasing. 

You have actually argued for slavery in the name of god ...today...so ..yea, you have no room to talk. Besides, this undermines the assertion that belief in the Christian god justifies morality.

I have given sufficient reason for biblical slavery. You do not accept it, but the argument is logical. I have asked how a God who promotes love for our neighbours could also promote mistreatment of them? Again, you misread God's intent by not understanding the ANE or Scripture. 

No, Hitler's antisemitism was not rooted in Christian theology.

Apartheid read into Scripture because they ignored the audience of the address. 

The South's view on slavery was one that God explicitly warned His people (Israel) against under the Old Covenant. God made the Old Covenant obsolete in AD 70.  

Even the current resistance to abortion is a manipulation of Christian theology to affect political gain. 

How is that? 

This claim is unfalsifiable.

Not for those who are true believers.

You don't seem to understand what "unfalsifiable" means.

Sorry, a misunderstanding on my part. 

How does your personal opinion and preference make something right if you have no objective unchanging/fixed source or reference point?

Doesn't a stupid person think that a loving God created pediatric cancer?