Do Athiests have morals?

[Monk Of Reason]

It is the study of behaviors within groups. I am sure that is not all it is but in that respect yes it is an argument from popularity (maybe an argument from population would be a better way to state it but it comes down to the same thing).

Then the systems mean nothing? What we have learned about the brain amounts to nothing but opinion? Can't you see it is infinitely more complicated that simply "choosing" to do certain things?

If not lets take abnormal psychology. What is the choices and opinions based around mental illness such as bi-polar disorder or borderline disorder?

Well humanity abhors a moral vacuum. It will never occur that we lack moral codes, but it may be that we lack any moral truth behind those codes. However the worst evils done have been in the extermination of faith. Faith has it's fair share of violence but the masters were Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and the like. Stalin alone killed more in a few decades than Christianity has killed in any form in 2000 years. And abortion eclipses all of them combined.

I don't see abortion as wrong. And the extermination of faith was a side project for his much lager goal. I don't see how its fully relevant unless you feel that if he had been religious he wouldn't have found some way to justify it.

That is a far more complex issue. Christianity is built to run a believer not a state. I do not make many epistemological arguments because they would take a long time. Let me sum it up this way. Even a bumbling effort at identifying God's moral demands holds every advantage in every category over fumbling to find an objective moral truth that does not exist. Denying God is a total net loss in this context. However I do acknowledge that to identify and apply Godly morality would not be a smooth process for an entire society.

I disagree fully. And I think the evidence supports that. Every time we have ever made effective laws or made great social advances towards equality and humanistic minded change has been on the back of secularism rather than religion. Christianity itself did not bring peace and morality during the middle ages. What brought us out of the dark ages were secular items such as science, art and free thought. Religious morality can help. But again and I stress this, religious morality is the same as secular morality but it cannot be questioned or changed. From the arguing point that we can assume there is no god there would be no real moral foundation other than lies in religious morality. This is much how I view it. If there really was a god then obviously it would be better to base morality on god. Actually even this isn't guaranteed.

But that can't be. No atom in our bodies has as moral component. Only with God and a soul or mind do we have moral properties. I agree that we have good and bad but only with God is that perfectly accounted for. Without God there is nothing to dig for. Either X is preferred or not preferred there is no ultimate fact of the matter to find. Christianity does not say we are nothing but vile creatures. It says we are of infinite worth despite whatever faults we have. I do not want to do those things you mention but I do want to do a host of others. It is not God the keeps me from doing them, it is the fact they are wrong because God exists that keeps me from doing them. Actually that is only part of it but that is the part that founds the rest. It is not that I want to murder someone needlessly it is that without a God need is irrelevant. Since the rest is the same let me make one last statement to short circuit them all. I did not say that I needed God to act morally, I said I need God for any moral duty to be based on objective foundations. What I want is not the issue. What is right or wrong is.

You have already said this and I have already said I disagree with your personal opinion stated here. But answer my question if you would. If you found out there was no god would you desire to rape your daughter? Kill your son? Torture your wife? Can you even imagine it? I couldn't. I couldn't even begin to and this is without a single ounce of god in my morality.

Well the feelings might not be but the actions that result from them are. Feelings are not the basis of law.

Temperament isn't simply feelings. It is the measured reaction and behavior to certain stimuli. And to a degree...yes, law is based off of feelings. Feelings of what would be just or unjust. I think that would be better way to describe it. We can have "justice" as objective fact. We can functionally provide justice. We can determine what would be the Just or unjust point of view. And I have already explained how but it was ignored so I don't feel like saying it again just to be ignored once more.

They are in multiplicative equations. If X x Y x Z = a law then if opinion is included at all the equation equals opinion. I think in this context that would be the same for additive equations as well.

Not if the opinion is included within a range. Or if the opinion is universally agreed upon. It doesn't make it objective moral fact but it makes it effectively moral in context.

Informed opinion and pure opinion the same in this context. If our preference is a factor in any part of that equation then it is no longer based in fact.

Unless we use facts to support our opinion.

 

[1robin]

That's the most fabricated set of statistics I have ever seen in my life. Do you actually believe it?

Jesus wept...

I have no idea but I will give you one that I am certain to be true. It is from the CDC.
The 4% of US citizens that are gay produce 60% of all new aids cases. This is not a homosexual thread and that stat was one of many relevant to secularism. If you want to debate homosexuality please use a thread on it. I am burned out on the subject and have ceased debating it for the time being.

 

[ArtieE]

I have no idea but I will give you one that I am certain to be true. It is from the CDC.
The 4% of US citizens that are gay produce 60% of all new aids cases. This is not a homosexual thread and that stat was one of many relevant to secularism. If you want to debate homosexuality please use a thread on it. I am burned out on the subject and have ceased debating it for the time being.

Relevant to secularism? Don't mean to continue the debate just some relevant info.

The Gay Christian Network

"How many gay and lesbian are there in the United States? The 2010 census counted 308 million people living in the U.S. At the very least, 75% of the U.S. population identifies as Christian (it’s probably closer to 80%), which comes to roughly 231 million people. Using the most conservative estimate for the percentage of gays and lesbians in the population, which is 3.5 %, that means that there are, at the very least, 8 million gay and lesbian Christians in the United States alone. If the percentage is 4%, then the figure is 10 million."
How Many Gay and Lesbian Christians are there in the U.S.? | Bible-Thumping Liberal

 

[1robin]

It doesn't actually work. What is sucessful usually is determined through trial and error.

That is only once you have determined b preference that survival is the goal, or empathetic, or whatever else you prefer. Without God there is no objective goals, values, or duties. So we can simply invent a goal and make up rules without the need for any foundation. On goal and any method is equally as good as another. Human survival is no "gooder" than human extinction.

Think of it this way. Moral issues are about value. The value one thing has compared to another, the depriving of value, the wrongful assumption of value. If nature is all there is everything is equally valueless. Any arbitrary value or subjective value we or anything else assigns to anything is equally untrue. I can value another thing but I cannot give that thing actual value. Claiming it is worthless or priceless is equally subjective.

I'm not talking about actions here. I am talking about the sensation of empathy. If it is a choice for you then it would classify you as a psychopath.

It is a choice. What species are you empathic towards? Is it one group, two, all of them? What methods produce the most empathy? At who's expense is who's optimization gained and why? Hitler literally thought (and for very good reasons) that his actions were better for mankind in the long run. Why does your opinion supersede his? Mankind may be twice a strong in general if he had taken over in strength was the actual goal. In fact selecting empathy as the goal is a pure choice to begin with and then you just pile preferences on top of that.

With god we can rationalize anything to fit his opinion or our opinion of what god's opinion is. It simply changes the argument not the fundamentals. The difference is now you are claiming your way is perfect because of god rather than a secular approach which doesn't claim to be perfect and can be subjected to amendments. And I"ll ask again...which god?

Of course I am discussing what is true of the biblical God. I thought that was not only understood but also stated. That God does not establish morality by an opinion and his commands merely reflect his objective nature. So there is no opinion involved, just eternal fact. We can attempt to rationalize our actions by distorting the fact but the advantage is that there is a fact of the matter and we will all be rewarded of suffer loss based on that same ultimate fact of the matter. Without God Stalin's ultimate fate and our are the same. With God justice prevails despite anything man attempts to do. I have not stated a way so I have not claimed it is perfect. A way is a whole other conversation. Claiming something that is perfect to be perfect and adopting it is the highest possible virtue, to deny something that is perfect and adopt something which cannot possibly ever be perfect is what caused the whole nightmare to begin with. So if God exists objective morality exists, it is perfect, should be adopted, and all will be held perfectly accountable to perfect justice. It holds every advantage.

Midnight rain did a good job talking about this one already. There is no moral decline and the basis for "the bloodiest" is more or less due to increased population mixed with more advanced warfare and globilization rather than actual moral decay of the individuals and societies. Crime has decreased. Murder rates have decreased. Overall people are just better to each other in secularized nations in current time than they ever have been in the past.

I explained what is wrong with their conclusion. The ability to wipe out millions is not strictly a moral issue but includes technological aspects as well, but the willingness to do so is moral. I will try and quote some of the most brilliant atheists at the end of this post to clarify.

That human life and dignity is important. Usually implying equality of rights for individuals. This can usually be universally agreed upon. This is a basis in which we can construct morality. And the great thing about it is that it seems to be accepted in almost all secular societies. People struggle with the specifics of what is "equality" and who should be given it but generally it has been the direction that they head.

Without God they are only important to us, they do not objectively matter at all. Cows don't care, trees do not care, nor do birds care about human survival and dignity. You just prefer that goal because you are human. This is not morality or equality, it is self interested speciesm. As for equality nature has never created two equal things ever, equality is just a word we invented that only has a foundation if God exists as Jefferson so well put it.

Certain evolution did in fact change that quickly. Some even quicker. There is a scientist, I don't care to look him up but you can google him, who states he can bring us to the next level of human intellect (such as savant memory, mathematical ability and artistic skill) without the social debilitation that usually come with it and he says he could do it in less than 1,000 years (roughly 50 generations). Of course it is unethical to say the least and his method required forcing several different people to have test tube children with thousands and thousands of surrogates. So he has been shot down.

I really have so little regard for evolutionists who use an ounce of evidence to make a ton of theory. When I was in college I started off mesmerized by theoretical science. By the time I graduated I had lost faith in them and now I am down right dismissive. I really just can't give this kind of stuff any credence. What is known here is that no quantum leap of this magnitude has occurred in this duration in where in the fossil record, not even close.

But there are several types of intelligence that animals beat us in. Chimpanzees for example have better memories than humans. Elephants do as well. I agree that humans have conceptual intellegence that far outweighs the animal kingdom but I simply don't think that its all that surprising. It started roughly 8 million years ago. That is a somewhat short amount of time but not really in terms of evolution. Bats developed their wings rather quickly for example. Birds did not. That dosen't mean that change cannot occur that quickly just because every single trait does not evolve that quickly.

Nothing known competes with us in general. I would imagine that certain animals have higher developed specific abilities. If you have chimps building bi planes, elephants writing poor music, or birds doing even mistaken geometry then you have a basis for comparison.

Can you list a few fundamental changes or alterations to the understanding of the theory of evolution that isn't simply a more specific understanding of the same basic concept?

Yes. However I don't know why your asking this and so do not know which to use.

I don't recall any of your arguments ever throwing me for loops but the problem with your X then Y argument is that you haven't been able to substantiate either except with the other. and the X then Y arguments only work if the X is substantiated and it is reasonable then for Y to follow.

I would hope not, the argument is so intuitive and so absolute it should throw no one for any loops.

I think I have already explained this point in this post.

Natural law does not contain ought to's. We can invent hem but they are not true because we do.

Which is why I am not arguing for an objective argument but for a reasonable one. I'll take reasonable over objective any day.

I prefer truth over theory.

I don't think you understand what context means.

No you don't. I may have gotten it wrong but I know what it means.

Well aside from tge bible this is demonstrably false.

That is not an argument. That is like saying outside of evolutionists little of evolution is known. The bible is in every category a more reliable document than any about any other ancient historical character. It even passes ancient document submission tests.

How does this exactly counter anything that I have said?

Social Darwinism is the use of patterns in nature to validate behavior in society. You have suggested the opposite.

Gonna give you a life lesson rather than a counter to your statement.

That is a little close to arrogance. The fault hardest to see in ourselves but easiest for others to see.

In the real world here as adults there is very often no actual right or wrong. Its just complexity. What actually is the best decision out of a bunch of seemingly good ones or seemingly bad oens? How do we actually know what is right? Often times its only after reflection on the consequences of events and decisions. From there we learn. We pattern ourselves to better ourselves or at least make better choices. The need for easy answers and black and white contexts of situations are childish. So long as you cling to them you will continue to have childish opinions on the world that are often wrong. So learning and having a better fundamental understanding of the world around you can lead you to making wiser decisions. That is what you have to rely no. That is how you develop effective opinions that lead to desired results.

No, almost every adult who has ever lived believes there are actual rights and wrongs, even psychopaths do.

 

[1robin]

Having discussed abortion with you before, I will point out again that Christians do not seem to be any more moral than anyone else, given that the statistics show that they get abortions just as much as anyone else.

And I have responded to this before. I am not discussing which group is the most moral for every specific moral aspect of behavior. That is impossible to do with secular folks because they do not grant many moral failures are failures. I was discussing what moral statistic correlate wit secular swings in culture. I concede Christians in many ways do not obey God but that is what we claim about ourselves to begin with. We are a group who gained entrance to the group by failing to uphold the principles of the group. I have exhaustively explained both Christian moral failures and our unequalled moral exceptionalism. Both fit perfectly with biblical explanations. I should find exactly what I do if the bible is true. Humanity in need of forgiveness but only a portion that admit it. Nothing about any of that changes the implications of the statistic I referred to. I think me and you have already discussed everything relevant to both arguments here.

 

[1robin]

How?

How what?

 

[1robin]

Relevant to secularism? Don't mean to continue the debate just some relevant info.

The Gay Christian Network

"How many gay and lesbian are there in the United States? The 2010 census counted 308 million people living in the U.S. At the very least, 75% of the U.S. population identifies as Christian (it’s probably closer to 80%), which comes to roughly 231 million people. Using the most conservative estimate for the percentage of gays and lesbians in the population, which is 3.5 %, that means that there are, at the very least, 8 million gay and lesbian Christians in the United States alone. If the percentage is 4%, then the figure is 10 million."
How Many Gay and Lesbian Christians are there in the U.S.? | Bible-Thumping Liberal

I do not understand. There are 100% of Christians alive who are sinners in one form or another. Christianity is composed of complete failures. We all not only admit we have failed to obey our own moral codes but we have done so in ways that warrant a death sentence. We also have an unparalleled record of moral exceptionalism as well. I myself have had or still have occasional faults that are as sinful as I consider homosexuality to be. Though they have caused great damage and in ways I cannot even perceive, homosexuality seems to be potentially more destructive at times, not more wrong. To claim to be a Christian is not a claim to moral perfection. In fact it is very logical that if Satan and his minions do exist they would prefer attacking and trying to corrupt Christians and the church instead of people they already have doomed.

 

[1robin]

Do you deny that the US has been a secular government sine its inception?

I do so, and emphatically.

 

[1robin]

Again, straightforwardness. Knowledge of good and evil is expressly forbidden, end of story.

Your responses have been the most absurd posts I have received in over 10,000 examples. Either your not articulating what you are trying to say very well, I have recently had a stroke and don't know it, or you have some very bizarre interpretations of scripture. Your label says Islam and Islam says:

{17:31} And do not kill your children for fear of poverty; We give them sustenance and yourselves (too); surely to kill them is a great wrong.

{16:90} Surely Allah enjoins the doing of justice and the doing of good (to others) and the giving to the kindred, and He forbids indecency and evil and rebellion; He admonishes you that you may be mindful.

{3:104} And from among you there should be a party who invite to good and enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong, and these it is that shall be successful.

{38:24} …. and most surely most of the partners act wrongfully towards one another, save those who believe and do good, and very few are they;

etc.............

The Quran has enough problems on it's own without your saying what it says is evil.

 

[ArtieE]

That is only once you have determined b preference that survival is the goal, or empathetic, or whatever else you prefer. Without God there is no objective goals, values, or duties. So we can simply invent a goal and make up rules without the need for any foundation. On goal and any method is equally as good as another. Human survival is no "gooder" than human extinction.

You have a survival instinct. If you are out swimming and get in trouble without God your goal wouldn't be to stay alive until you're rescued since your survival is no "gooder" than your extinction?

 

[1robin]

So we have established that you don't care about giving meaning to statistics or claims. Got it.

No, we have established that I place statistics in their proper context instead of the one they come in.

In some cases. I was actually talking about how globilization has made unfavorable tactics negative in the eyes of the world economy. The UN and other such organizations have power to place sanctions on economies rather than direct conflict. Though this in and of itself could be stated as "less fair" .

You said war is more fair. Not that international politics has become less violent. I do not even admit that it is but that is a different issue. Again I am placing things in their proper context. Warfare is concerned with making things as unequal as possible. We do not spend trillions trying to arm nation inferior to us but to increase our military superiority.

Then I guess you will be depressed.

Not in any permanent sense, because I know this all gets rectified in the end. Those who killed off human life on an industrial scale will be held accountable and those killed will be justified. If your not sickened by our inhumanity then that proves the point.

So can I. I already posted two different links this thread. (or one this thread and another in another thread) talking about how the rate of murder, rape, violent crime in general, sexism, racism, ect have all gone down dramatically since the 60's (which is when the record started).

I have previously posted hundreds of these statistics, given links to thousands, and recently posted a few examples. I am trying to avoid a statistics war I have already won but will have fight over and over. I will give a few more and differing statistics but for every one I could post hundreds just like them.

A new cultural-values survey of 2,000 American adults performed by the polling firm of Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates for the Culture and Media Institute reveals a strong majority, 74 percent, believes moral values in America are weaker than they were 20 years ago. Almost half, 48 percent, agree that values are much weaker than they were 20 years ago.
The Numbers on Moral Decline by L. Brent Bozell on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent

In 1970, the number of unmarried-couple households with children was under 200,000. That figure now has soared to 1.7 million and climbing.

Most alarming, out-of-wedlock births in the United States have climbed to an all-time high. Indeed, 37% of the babies born last year—nearly 4 in 10—were born to unmarried parents.

12 Signs Of Extreme Social Decay In America That Are Almost Too Horrible To Talk About

I just do not want to spend too much time proving what I already have in exhaustive detail but if you want what to me is absolutely undeniable proof just compare any weeks TV programming from the 50s to today. I don't know a greater moral barometer than that. We have gone from Little House on the prairie and leave it to beaver to sex and the city and Texas chain saw massacre.

If we want to look at it beyond that lets take the middle ages vs now. Big difference.

The best stats in are a multicultural society that has had a marked swing to secularism and good stats on morality. I picked the optimal case subject.

The USSR removed religion because they wanted state worship society. Hitler used religion to get his work done so in no way was that secular. And which nations are you including as "Great Christian Nations" because I have a feeling you simply mean nations that may have had a majority of Christianity as the religion rather than ever being motivated for religious reasons.

They removed it to eliminate competition, but how they rationalized it is irrelevant. It was horrific. Hitler courted the Church when he was on the rise to power, when he did not get his way he instantly shed his veneer of religiosity and turned on Christianity and the Church with a vengeance. I have posted his later and personal testimonies hating anything and everything Christian or Jewish time after time. It gets futile having to properly explain history over and over. Read his diaries or the great work called "table talk". It has his personal testimonies in his later years after he abandoned his false pretexts and his primary motivation was evolution as taught by Darwin's Bulldog (Huxley).

Claiming truth without evidence and continued oppression and forcing of this ideology on others is a symptom of monotheistic totalitarianism. But thats just my opinion.

Whatever it's real or imagined disadvantages, forcing others to spare life, is in every conceivable way more virtuous than forcing death on others.

So long as you cut out everyone who has done wrong in the name of your god, as well as removing the old statesman of a god that supposedly never changes, then you can claim its perfect. Because no one has lived up to that standard. Good plan. Its a near perfect no true scotsman setup.

I will take everyone who has done wrong in the name of my religion. The crusades, the witch trials, all 400 years of the inquisition, the hundred years war, the 30 years war, etc........ and it still will not touch the death toll per time frame that secularism has wrought. I think abortion alone is the greatest amount of human life exterminated per time period in history. The worst genocide was Islam in Indian but it took hundreds of years, next is the great atheist utopias, next imperialism and Hitler's strange Tibetan mysticism, social Darwinism, insanity, then some where down the list are those who used God to justify defying him, then way way down the list are those Christians and Jews who properly justified their violence by the bible.

 

[1robin]

You have a survival instinct. If you are out swimming and get in trouble without God your goal wouldn't be to stay alive until you're rescued since your survival is no "gooder" than your extinction?

We are not talking about instincts, gravity, solar flares or any of the mere immoral furniture of the universe. I have a survival instinct, we can make laws about human survival, what we cannot do is make human survival morally "right". Cows have the same instincts yet we kill them by the millions just for dinner. Making our survival the moral pinnacle of the planet is not morality is self interested, contrived, speciesm. And what is more important it is not objectively moral. If were are just picking instincts and making them into laws then lets legalize rape because dolphins do it, or kill alcoholics because bees do so, or how about eating our young because tigers do it. If you want to be artificially technical and use only human behavior and the be al end all moral absolute then why don't we kill off anyone who competes with our tribe for resources. If your going to acquiesce to nature then to be consistent you must take it good or bad and you can find justification for any behavior what so ever in human nature alone. Only with God is man actually preeminent and only with God can our correct behaviors and wrong behaviors be identified by comparison to a transcendent standard. Without him we only have might makes right and that by preference and chance.

 

[viole]

We are not talking about instincts, gravity, solar flares or any of the mere immoral furniture of the universe. I have a survival instinct, we can make laws about human survival, what we cannot do is make human survival morally "right". Cows have the same instincts yet we kill them by the millions just for dinner. Making our survival the moral pinnacle of the planet is not morality is self interested, contrived, speciesm. And what is more important it is not objectively moral. If were are just picking instincts and making them into laws then lets legalize rape because dolphins do it, or kill alcoholics because bees do so, or how about eating our young because tigers do it. If you want to be artificially technical and use only human behavior and the be al end all moral absolute then why don't we kill off anyone who competes with our tribe for resources. If your going to acquiesce to nature then to be consistent you must take it good or bad and you can find justification for any behavior what so ever in human nature alone. Only with God is man actually preeminent and only with God can our correct behaviors and wrong behaviors be identified by comparison to a transcendent standard. Without him we only have might makes right and that by preference and chance.

Let me ask you a question Robin.

I expect that these moral guidance is written in the Bible, otherwise I would not know where to find it. After all, if I want to compare myself to X, I need to read X somewhere.

What makes you think that what is written in the Bible is what we should compare ourself against?

In other words: what makes you think that the Bible has not be written by humans that just happen to agree with you? And if you do not agree with it, because it contradicts your rebellion instincts or what else, what gives you the assurance that what is written there is true and you should follow it?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That is only once you have determined b preference that survival is the goal, or empathetic, or whatever else you prefer. Without God there is no objective goals, values, or duties. So we can simply invent a goal and make up rules without the need for any foundation. On goal and any method is equally as good as another. Human survival is no "gooder" than human extinction.

It doesn't matter. It really really doesn't. If all we need to do is get everyone to agree that survival is the goal (which it is engraved in us from birth with few exceptions) then I think that settles your problems with it doesn't it?

Think of it this way. Moral issues are about value. The value one thing has compared to another, the depriving of value, the wrongful assumption of value. If nature is all there is everything is equally valueless. Any arbitrary value or subjective value we or anything else assigns to anything is equally untrue. I can value another thing but I cannot give that thing actual value. Claiming it is worthless or priceless is equally subjective.

That is a sad way to look at life. I choose to look at life with value despite the absence of god. It is possible. In fact I could even reduce everything to meaninglessness with god if I wanted.

It is a choice. What species are you empathic towards? Is it one group, two, all of them? What methods produce the most empathy? At who's expense is who's optimization gained and why? Hitler literally thought (and for very good reasons) that his actions were better for mankind in the long run. Why does your opinion supersede his? Mankind may be twice a strong in general if he had taken over in strength was the actual goal. In fact selecting empathy as the goal is a pure choice to begin with and then you just pile preferences on top of that.

Empathy is not a choice. Can you choose not to feel someone else's pain? You actually can't. There is process of dehumanization that can occur that can systematically remove your empathy but the actual experience of empathy is simply not a choice. Again. If it is for you then you need to talk to a psychiatrist and ask for a psychopathic test.

Of course I am discussing what is true of the biblical God. I thought that was not only understood but also stated. That God does not establish morality by an opinion and his commands merely reflect his objective nature. So there is no opinion involved, just eternal fact. We can attempt to rationalize our actions by distorting the fact but the advantage is that there is a fact of the matter and we will all be rewarded of suffer loss based on that same ultimate fact of the matter. Without God Stalin's ultimate fate and our are the same. With God justice prevails despite anything man attempts to do. I have not stated a way so I have not claimed it is perfect. A way is a whole other conversation. Claiming something that is perfect to be perfect and adopting it is the highest possible virtue, to deny something that is perfect and adopt something which cannot possibly ever be perfect is what caused the whole nightmare to begin with. So if God exists objective morality exists, it is perfect, should be adopted, and all will be held perfectly accountable to perfect justice. It holds every advantage.

Yes. If the Christian god exists I suppose it would be a good idea to adopt his morality. Though I still wouldn't agree with many of the "Christian" moral statements such as anti-homosexuality and the like. But again you have to understand that the whole of your argument rests on your single god out of all of the thousands and thousands of gods and goddesses across the world and history that this exact god is correct. And you realize this cannot be verified?

And if we cannot verify it why the hell should we base anything off of it?

I explained what is wrong with their conclusion. The ability to wipe out millions is not strictly a moral issue but includes technological aspects as well, but the willingness to do so is moral. I will try and quote some of the most brilliant atheists at the end of this post to clarify.

I have no need. I already know what and how you think. I also know that I cannot agree with you on this. It would be wasted effort.

Without God they are only important to us, they do not objectively matter at all. Cows don't care, trees do not care, nor do birds care about human survival and dignity. You just prefer that goal because you are human. This is not morality or equality, it is self interested speciesm. As for equality nature has never created two equal things ever, equality is just a word we invented that only has a foundation if God exists as Jefferson so well put it.

Which is why I don't need it to be objective for it to be functional.

I really have so little regard for evolutionists who use an ounce of evidence to make a ton of theory. When I was in college I started off mesmerized by theoretical science. By the time I graduated I had lost faith in them and now I am down right dismissive. I really just can't give this kind of stuff any credence. What is known here is that no quantum leap of this magnitude has occurred in this duration in where in the fossil record, not even close.

Like I said you're free to be wrong all you want .

Yes. However I don't know why your asking this and so do not know which to use.

I'm just tired of your empty claims that evolution is some half-cocked theory with no evidence and you keep saying that evolution keeps changing fundamentally and I would like a single example.

Natural law does not contain ought to's. We can invent hem but they are not true because we do.

This idea of objectivity is not required. That is the point I made.

I prefer truth over theory.

I prefer truth to lies.

No you don't. I may have gotten it wrong but I know what it means.

That given a certain context things are "true". A context allows for givens to certain situations and you simply objected by saying "its not objectively true outside of that context" which invalidates the whole reason I included "context" to the argument. So it led me to believe you didn't know what it means. I am not re-typing my argument and if you have a response for it feel free to look for it in the previous posts.

That is not an argument. That is like saying outside of evolutionists little of evolution is known. The bible is in every category a more reliable document than any about any other ancient historical character. It even passes ancient document submission tests.

I'm not going to convince you that your bible is fake. But you are not going to convince me its true. And even if it is true I really doubt that it is scientific or historical in nature.

Social Darwinism is the use of patterns in nature to validate behavior in society. You have suggested the opposite.

I have stated that if we use the developed social skills that we have obtained from evolution it would not be Socail Darwinism. If thats what you mean.

No, almost every adult who has ever lived believes there are actual rights and wrongs, even psychopaths do.

Everyone has to have a personal code. But the reality of life is that much is uncertain and knowing what is right and wrong is often a grey area when you have all of the facts. If you simply think there is right and wrong in every situation then I don't think we will ever agree on things.

 

[Nakosis]

There are my personal morals, based on my feelings and values I determine.

Then there is group morals, which is based on the assumption of mutual benefit. If I assume your survival somehow benefits my survival we can come up with rules that are mutually beneficial. If we are both greedy we can come up with some mutually beneficial rules there as well.

Religious folks assume there will be some benefit from following their religious morals. Non-religious folks assume there will be none.

Doesn't really seem much else to it. The actual existence of God or an object reality is immaterial to morals. It only requires an assumption that the "correct" behavior will somehow benefit you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

How what?

The bolded part from Post #762:

"That is a far more complex issue. Christianity is built to run a believer not a state. I do not make many epistemological arguments because they would take a long time. Let me sum it up this way. Even a bumbling effort at identifying God's moral demands holds every advantage in every category over fumbling to find an objective moral truth that does not exist. Denying God is a total net loss in this context. However I do acknowledge that to identify and apply Godly morality would not be a smooth process for an entire society."

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is only once you have determined b preference that survival is the goal, or empathetic, or whatever else you prefer. Without God there is no objective goals, values, or duties. So we can simply invent a goal and make up rules without the need for any foundation. On goal and any method is equally as good as another. Human survival is no "gooder" than human extinction.

Think of it this way. Moral issues are about value. The value one thing has compared to another, the depriving of value, the wrongful assumption of value. If nature is all there is everything is equally valueless. Any arbitrary value or subjective value we or anything else assigns to anything is equally untrue. I can value another thing but I cannot give that thing actual value. Claiming it is worthless or priceless is equally subjective.


It is a choice. What species are you empathic towards? Is it one group, two, all of them? What methods produce the most empathy? At who's expense is who's optimization gained and why? Hitler literally thought (and for very good reasons) that his actions were better for mankind in the long run. Why does your opinion supersede his? Mankind may be twice a strong in general if he had taken over in strength was the actual goal. In fact selecting empathy as the goal is a pure choice to begin with and then you just pile preferences on top of that.

Of course I am discussing what is true of the biblical God. I thought that was not only understood but also stated. That God does not establish morality by an opinion and his commands merely reflect his objective nature. So there is no opinion involved, just eternal fact. We can attempt to rationalize our actions by distorting the fact but the advantage is that there is a fact of the matter and we will all be rewarded of suffer loss based on that same ultimate fact of the matter. Without God Stalin's ultimate fate and our are the same. With God justice prevails despite anything man attempts to do. I have not stated a way so I have not claimed it is perfect. A way is a whole other conversation. Claiming something that is perfect to be perfect and adopting it is the highest possible virtue, to deny something that is perfect and adopt something which cannot possibly ever be perfect is what caused the whole nightmare to begin with. So if God exists objective morality exists, it is perfect, should be adopted, and all will be held perfectly accountable to perfect justice. It holds every advantage.

I explained what is wrong with their conclusion. The ability to wipe out millions is not strictly a moral issue but includes technological aspects as well, but the willingness to do so is moral. I will try and quote some of the most brilliant atheists at the end of this post to clarify.

Without God they are only important to us, they do not objectively matter at all. Cows don't care, trees do not care, nor do birds care about human survival and dignity. You just prefer that goal because you are human. This is not morality or equality, it is self interested speciesm. As for equality nature has never created two equal things ever, equality is just a word we invented that only has a foundation if God exists as Jefferson so well put it.

I really have so little regard for evolutionists who use an ounce of evidence to make a ton of theory. When I was in college I started off mesmerized by theoretical science. By the time I graduated I had lost faith in them and now I am down right dismissive. I really just can't give this kind of stuff any credence. What is known here is that no quantum leap of this magnitude has occurred in this duration in where in the fossil record, not even close.

Nothing known competes with us in general. I would imagine that certain animals have higher developed specific abilities. If you have chimps building bi planes, elephants writing poor music, or birds doing even mistaken geometry then you have a basis for comparison.

Yes. However I don't know why your asking this and so do not know which to use.

I would hope not, the argument is so intuitive and so absolute it should throw no one for any loops.

Natural law does not contain ought to's. We can invent hem but they are not true because we do.

I prefer truth over theory.

No you don't. I may have gotten it wrong but I know what it means.

That is not an argument. That is like saying outside of evolutionists little of evolution is known. The bible is in every category a more reliable document than any about any other ancient historical character. It even passes ancient document submission tests.

Social Darwinism is the use of patterns in nature to validate behavior in society. You have suggested the opposite.



That is a little close to arrogance. The fault hardest to see in ourselves but easiest for others to see.

No, almost every adult who has ever lived believes there are actual rights and wrongs, even psychopaths do.

Unless of course Stalin accepted Jesus as his lord and savior before he died in which case he'd be redeemed and get to spend eternity with god. In which case, justice would not be served.

Sorry but I don't see how your system of moral pronouncements (I wouldn't even call it a moral system in the first place) ensures that justice prevails.

 

[SkepticThinker]

And I have responded to this before. I am not discussing which group is the most moral for every specific moral aspect of behavior. That is impossible to do with secular folks because they do not grant many moral failures are failures. I was discussing what moral statistic correlate wit secular swings in culture. I concede Christians in many ways do not obey God but that is what we claim about ourselves to begin with. We are a group who gained entrance to the group by failing to uphold the principles of the group. I have exhaustively explained both Christian moral failures and our unequalled moral exceptionalism. Both fit perfectly with biblical explanations. I should find exactly what I do if the bible is true. Humanity in need of forgiveness but only a portion that admit it. Nothing about any of that changes the implications of the statistic I referred to. I think me and you have already discussed everything relevant to both arguments here.

Then the Christian moral "system" is not superior to secular morality.

 

[1robin]

Let me ask you a question Robin.

Nope, just kidding. I have not read it but I predict your question will involve an epistemological view on an ontological point.

I expect that these moral guidance is written in the Bible, otherwise I would not know where to find it. After all, if I want to compare myself to X, I need to read X somewhere.

That is the epistemology I was expecting but what lets see here. This is a complex issue. The bible is not the primary means by which humanity is to come to know all the specifics of moral values and duties. We are born with a God given conscience, the bible is either specific instructions concerning the Hebrews, the general principles that ground moral foundations, the confirmation of our moral conscience, or the contextual foundation for morality. Also our God given moral consciences are tuned and given power when we are born again. The Holy spirit comes to work with our own conscience and the word to reveal moral truth. The bible was not meant to be a legal codices but to ground in principle our moral duties. IOW the bible shows that man is to dominate nature, that man is created equal before God, that we have inherent rights. However it does not and could not spell out all the resultant rules which those principles justify.

What makes you think that what is written in the Bible is what we should compare ourself against?

There are about a thousand lines of evidence that provide monumental reasons for crediting the bible with accurately representing the truth. The bible makes tens of thousands of claims that can be tested and as far as I know (beyond scribal error) they never fail. That would mean I am perfectly rational to trust even what cannot be verified. Add to that that mankind's moral compass seems to agree in general with Biblical morality (minus the Levitical specific duties) even if our behavior does not. IOW I can give you reasons why faith in the bible is fully justified to no end but I can't give you proof of it's every claim. That is why I have not made any arguments as to which morals are objective. That is a much more complex issue. As it stands the bible is the best moral roadmap we have available, and that would be true even if there was no God.

In other words: what makes you think that the Bible has not be written by humans that just happen to agree with you? And if you do not agree with it, because it contradicts your rebellion instincts or what else, what gives you the assurance that what is written there is true and you should follow it?

First the bible was written by humans but bears every mark of an ultimate divine author. Second the bible does not agree with me, it condemns me. I agree with it, it does not agree with me. If I were to pick a religion to adopt for convenience Christianity would be one of the last on the list. I explained that even what can't be directly verified can be relied upon by what can, second I do find agreement between the truth that is in our collective heads and the bible's moral demands but not what is in our collective desires. I think most would reluctantly agree with the bible if they had to. Chesterton famously said we can almost all agree what is wrong but we disagree on what wrongs are excusable. The collective moral intuition of man and God agree in most part but our moral impulses do not. As Paul said: New American Standard Bible
For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate.

That is just on of those things that makes me have confidence in the bible. It perfectly explains the otherwise moral incoherence between what we know and what we want.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, we have established that I place statistics in their proper context instead of the one they come in.

You said war is more fair. Not that international politics has become less violent. I do not even admit that it is but that is a different issue. Again I am placing things in their proper context. Warfare is concerned with making things as unequal as possible. We do not spend trillions trying to arm nation inferior to us but to increase our military superiority.

Not in any permanent sense, because I know this all gets rectified in the end. Those who killed off human life on an industrial scale will be held accountable and those killed will be justified. If your not sickened by our inhumanity then that proves the point.

I have previously posted hundreds of these statistics, given links to thousands, and recently posted a few examples. I am trying to avoid a statistics war I have already won but will have fight over and over. I will give a few more and differing statistics but for every one I could post hundreds just like them.

A new cultural-values survey of 2,000 American adults performed by the polling firm of Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates for the Culture and Media Institute reveals a strong majority, 74 percent, believes moral values in America are weaker than they were 20 years ago. Almost half, 48 percent, agree that values are much weaker than they were 20 years ago.
The Numbers on Moral Decline by L. Brent Bozell on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent

In 1970, the number of unmarried-couple households with children was under 200,000. That figure now has soared to 1.7 million and climbing.

Most alarming, out-of-wedlock births in the United States have climbed to an all-time high. Indeed, 37% of the babies born last year—nearly 4 in 10—were born to unmarried parents.

12 Signs Of Extreme Social Decay In America That Are Almost Too Horrible To Talk About

I just do not want to spend too much time proving what I already have in exhaustive detail but if you want what to me is absolutely undeniable proof just compare any weeks TV programming from the 50s to today. I don't know a greater moral barometer than that. We have gone from Little House on the prairie and leave it to beaver to sex and the city and Texas chain saw massacre.



The best stats in are a multicultural society that has had a marked swing to secularism and good stats on morality. I picked the optimal case subject.

They removed it to eliminate competition, but how they rationalized it is irrelevant. It was horrific. Hitler courted the Church when he was on the rise to power, when he did not get his way he instantly shed his veneer of religiosity and turned on Christianity and the Church with a vengeance. I have posted his later and personal testimonies hating anything and everything Christian or Jewish time after time. It gets futile having to properly explain history over and over. Read his diaries or the great work called "table talk". It has his personal testimonies in his later years after he abandoned his false pretexts and his primary motivation was evolution as taught by Darwin's Bulldog (Huxley).

Whatever it's real or imagined disadvantages, forcing others to spare life, is in every conceivable way more virtuous than forcing death on others.


I will take everyone who has done wrong in the name of my religion. The crusades, the witch trials, all 400 years of the inquisition, the hundred years war, the 30 years war, etc........ and it still will not touch the death toll per time frame that secularism has wrought. I think abortion alone is the greatest amount of human life exterminated per time period in history. The worst genocide was Islam in Indian but it took hundreds of years, next is the great atheist utopias, next imperialism and Hitler's strange Tibetan mysticism, social Darwinism, insanity, then some where down the list are those who used God to justify defying him, then way way down the list are those Christians and Jews who properly justified their violence by the bible.

Yeah, and stuff like the Honeymooners which had a husband constantly threatening to punch his wife "right in the kisser," and "to the moon." Good old-fashioned family values, right?

I think you might be suffering from the "good old days" syndrome.

By the way, what's so horribly immoral about unmarried-couple households?