secularmerlin

Very revealing. It does not matter to you that innocent human beings are killed. Would it matter to you if someone chose to kill your innocent ten-year-old? If so, then you have a double-standard and you are not consistent. Consistency is a sign or indicator that something is dreadfully wrong with your logic. 

It is immoral because if offends the righteousness of God. 

Do you want to live as if there is such a fixed standard

The thing is we are moral agents but how did we become such agents? 

Morality is based on His (the Yahweh's) nature. 

He commands that we do not kill

The 613 Mosaic laws feed off the Ten Commandments and give us feedback as how the commanments work in specific situations that applied to the ANE culture. 

There is a difference between free will and no will. You still have a will to choose. 

What if the will of the people is heinous as it was in the southern states before the civil war? Is a government regulation that informs and enforces the will of the people to be prejudiced a 'good' regulation?

Actually yes.

If a county or a state wants to allow certain behavior within their jurisdiction, no matter how "morally repugnant" that behavior is to "outsiders" they must be free to exercise their sovereignty WITHIN their territorial borders.

When that behavior crosses county lines, it becomes a STATE concern.

When that behavior crosses state lines, it becomes a FEDERAL concern.

What does a 'good' government regulation look like?

I don't know. But I'll offer, express the will of the people.

I 'am Pro Self Reliance, though I don't disagree with Federal Aid/Funding/Emergency Relief.

I figure if communities gave more effort, care, and planning. . They wouldn't 'need the government so much.

If the heating is out in a school, or it doesn't have much money, what type of community is it, that can't look after itself, or has 'NO members of the community able or willing to solve the problem themselves.

Not that I'm one for community or charity work myself.

Just seems to me, people sometimes, perhaps often, have themselves to blame for their circumstance

Yeah, I was just stating that a person in five religious groups must be extra morally. Extra moral.  

Do you agree?

The unborn is a human being. 

Do you believe that justice should be equal? Do you think all innocent human beings should be treated equally, with respect and dignity?

If my body could save a man and I refuse is that immoral?

It shows compassion and mercy. Would you like to be shown those two qualities?

At risk to yourself comes under the topic of the same compassion and mercy. It is excusable by law if you choose not to risk your own life, but in the case where you ignore someone dying not because your life is at stake but because you are indifferent, that is a crime. 

Do you really think that your will is free, or is it influenced by many things?

Yes, but I'd suggest being careful about using Bo Burnham as your frontman. As Burnham said in response to a series of podcasts by Pete Holmes, another comedian, who expressed fear that Burnham, "always makes me feel like a fraud," Burnham replied, characteristically, "Oh, that's not true. My show is a complete fraud." Then you take him seriously at your peril. 

I'm not saying capitalism is perfect, but I am saying that it is the best economic system to feature the individual rather than the collective. The best individual will allow that his successful capitalism will always keep in mind the benefit he can be to the collective. Thereby, capitalism, as a construct of civilization, is a construct that allows an individual to do his best, but remember that he is not in it alone. It allows for generosity without limiting his own potential because it is the only system that has the approach that the money supply is not limited by a ceiling. Not every capitalist feels that way, and, I'll admit, that is a problem, but the problem is not due to the idea of capitalism, but only how some approach it.

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

I believe that free will was only present in Adam. 

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.

Well thanks for your thoughts.  

I would take the view that an atheist, not believing in God must therefore believe in evolution.

  And it also follows they must not believe in Hell or in Heaven. 

Is it possible for an atheist to believe anything else apart from evolution?  If so, can you provide an example? 

If an atheist does not believe in god,  then certain implications flow. Would you disagree with that? 

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.

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???

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

If all I have is preference there is no moral good, just opinion based on likes, dislikes, and/or force or charisma. 

Although I can reason killing innocent people is wrong, if someone else thinks the opposite it becomes a battle of wills

I was referring to the knowledge I have picked up over the years. It is something  I heard along the paths. It surprised me at the time.  Since they talk about heaven and Hell. Yet, there are variants which do believe it. The citation I will get to in due course. A quick look on the internet says Muslims don't believe in reincarnation and yet some sites say they do. https://www.god-muslims.com/islam-and-reincarnation/

That is not true though is it? You cannot decide to be an animal. You cannot decide to be the opposite sex.  You cannot decide to be taller or shorter. you cannot decide to be smarter or not. You cannot decide which country you were born into or when you will die. 

You can only subjectively for the moment you live decide whether or not you want to make it meaningful or not. And this does not make it meaningful - not really. After all, in 100 years no one is going to know who you are and what you have done - unless you are a super important person.  And no one will care either.  Unless there is meaning to history - there is no point in attempting to improve it - or try and not repeat mistakes.  What would be the point of saving the planet for future generations? Some altruistic meaning for you is not going to hit it with others. And why should people not just do whatever they want - not regarding laws if they can get away with it? 

If there is no God and we are all but specks in a moment - then I have nothing to live for but myself.  My children - I might love - but to be honest - if I have no purpose other than what I decide myself - then morality is a nonsense.  This would mean being a narcissist, a pycho-path, a pedophile is ok so far as I don't get caught and end up in prison. 

There would be no need to help others or to restrain myself.  And no one could say otherwise - if I decide for myself what my purpose is.  The restraints of society would have no holds over me.  I would obey the laws so far as they help me - but I would break them if I could get away with it. I would not need a conscious. Whatever for? If I die and everyone hates me - so what? If I live a life in the way that I want and find enjoyment and pleasure in - then this would be my path. 

To say that my belief in God restrains me - is true.  Yet it also provides purpose and meaning and a pleasure to live, plus hope in an otherwise ordinary world.  And yet, if I were today to throw of the yoke of oppression of religion and belief - I would find no desire to do what others want me to do. I would be for want of a better word - my own god. I would make my own rules and live anyway I please- without any regard for anyone else.  This would be consistent with that position.  After all I would have a few short years - and then I would be gone - blotted out forever - having a name after you are dead is meaningless. Having children is meaningless. Who will care? If I get canceled by this generation or all future generations - who cares?  What about children and their futures? What about them? Do I want them to have a good life? I do now because  of my beliefs -and the fact that I have hope to see them again in the future. But if there is no god - then honestly, they become a burden to stop me from pursuing my own happiness.  

Psycho-path - narcisist - nut job - selfish, greedy, mental - pervert - extremist - yes- and all of the above.  

You see you might think that neither atheism or skepticism necessitates nihilism. But it certainly does not prevent it - and it certainly encourages the thinking - of "there is no wrong - there is no right - and so far as I don't get caught - who cares? It does not provide a basis for looking after a world.  OR for the future. When it says it does - it has to borrow from other worldviews because atheism is DEVOID of beliefs. Isn't? You keep saying "Atheism is a non-system of non-beliefs".  But what you never go on to address is the implications of it.  But if you have no- beliefs - you have nothing.  An eclectic mix of every other worldviews' beliefs and doctrines is a fraudulent way of living life.   

Why is your preference significant if there are not absolute, objective standards, like with atheism?

God understands there are some things I must do to live

This is an interesting tidbit too. If he can make exceptions based on the situation isn't that suddenly a subjective standard?

Many financial pursuits are finite, rather than repeatable pursuits.

This is not bad, simply fact.

If a company advocated for more rape, just so they can sell whistles, society ought be hostile towards that company that encourages a social ill for it's own profits.

Best method would just be encouraging of ethical and moral 'good amongst people low and high, I'd think. And regulations to restrain greed.