Good reason to be an atheist?(moved from Christian Appologetics)

[WingsOfEagles07]

1. Absolute Morality does not exist, all morality is relative (at least as a human is capable of understanding it.)

2. Laws of Logic Our logic is limmited by human understanding and flawed, one can not apply the laws of logic to religion because religion bridges the gap between what is known and understood and that which is not known and understood.

3. Uniformity of Nature, there may be uniformity of nature... however our understanding of nature is so small and limmited that there is considerable risk assuming we know enough to make absolute statements regarding what is and isn't natural and/or in conformance with natural law.

1. Your Wrong (Check My Post after that one) Make sure you read my every post before you post a reply.

2. Your Wrong

3. Your Wrong

You do not know about these preconditions of intelligibility. Come talk to me whenever you do know, Thank you.

 

[ACougar]

You seem to be forgeting that an athiest can see what is positive for thier family, thier community, thier nation and thier world. They can see that wrong action has a negative impact on themselves, thier family, thier community, ect... and they can also see that right action has a positive impact on themselves, thier family, ect... they can decide what role they will play in thier environment without some God looking over thier shoulder telling them what to do. It seems to me that the good Christian seeks to be obedient, while the good Athiest (and Pagan) seeks to be honorable.

Morality is a very difficult problem for the evolutionary worldview. This isn't to say that evolutionists are not less moral than anyone else. Most of them adhere to a code of behavior. Like the biblical creationist, they do believe in the concepts of right and wrong. The problem is that evolutionists have no logical reason to believe in any sort of moral imperative within their own worldview.
In evolution worldview, right and wrong can be nothing more than electro-chemical reactions in the brain -- the result of time and chance. If the concepts of right and wrong are to be meaningful, evolution cannot be true. Right and wrong are Christian concepts that go back to Genesis. By attempting to be moral, therefore the evolutionist is irrational, for he must borrow biblical concepts that are contrary to his worldview.

The bible teaches that God is the creator of all things (Gen.1:1, John 1:3) All things belong to GOD (Ps.24:1), and thus GOD has the right to make the rules. So Absolute Moral code makes sense in the biblical creation worldview.

Some people may say, " Thats true. Morality is just relative. There's no such thing as Absolute morality, and therefore you should not try to enforce your personal moral code on other people!" Whenever people say that they are enforcing their own moral code on them at the same time. If there is no Absolute moral code, then nothing is actually fundamentally wrong: not lying, not stealing, not murder or rape.

This is just some of the beginning information I don't feel like going on. I will if you all want me to.

 

[ACougar]

I know their rubbish, and I told you why... it's false assumption after false assumption. You seem to be trying to go so far into the weeds that you can't see the obvious.

1. Your Wrong (Check My Post after that one) Make sure you read my every post before you post a reply.

2. Your Wrong

3. Your Wrong

You do not know about these preconditions of intelligibility. Come talk to me whenever you do know, Thank you.

 

[Penumbra]

Morality is a very difficult problem for the evolutionary worldview.

I don't see any problems between morality and evolution.

This isn't to say that evolutionists are not less moral than anyone else. Most of them adhere to a code of behavior. Like the biblical creationist, they do believe in the concepts of right and wrong. The problem is that evolutionists have no logical reason to believe in any sort of moral imperative within their own worldview.

In evolution worldview, right and wrong can be nothing more than electro-chemical reactions in the brain -- the result of time and chance. If the concepts of right and wrong are to be meaningful, evolution cannot be true. Right and wrong are Christian concepts that go back to Genesis. By attempting to be moral, therefore the evolutionist is irrational, for he must borrow biblical concepts that are contrary to his worldview.

The bible teaches that God is the creator of all things (Gen.1:1, John 1:3) All things belong to GOD (Ps.24:1), and thus GOD has the right to make the rules. So Absolute Moral code makes sense in the biblical creation worldview.

Some people may say, " Thats true. Morality is just relative. There's no such thing as Absolute morality, and therefore you should not try to enforce your personal moral code on other people!" Whenever people say that they are enforcing their own moral code on them at the same time. If there is no Absolute moral code, then nothing is actually fundamentally wrong: not lying, not stealing, not murder or rape.

This is just some of the beginning information I don't feel like going on. I will if you all want me to.

Two comments:

1. I don't believe in any objective, absolute morality. All morality is subjective as I see it. But if the majority of people in a country agree in a standard, such as people having the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then it makes sense to form laws guarding these rights. Making laws is not implying that they are based on absolute morality. They're just agreements made to help ensure that the goals of that society are met.

And they don't necessarily borrow morals from the Bible, the Qur'an, or the Bhagavad Gita, or any holy scripture. In fact, many, many of my morals are aligned very much against that which is found in the Bible. I find the concepts of genocide, the killing of noncombatants like women, children, and animals, animal sacrifice, and hell, to all be very sadistic teachings. My morals are derived from a variety of sources. A portion of them are derived from nontheistic philosophies and certain religious ideas.

2. Secondly, I don't find morality by authority to be a very convincing argument for absolute morality. If God made all things, and those things have the capacity to disagree with him, then he has forfeited his claim on absolute morality. As long as more than one opinion exists, there is subjective morality.

-Lyn

 

[Penumbra]

1. Your Wrong (Check My Post after that one) Make sure you read my every post before you post a reply.

2. Your Wrong

3. Your Wrong

You do not know about these preconditions of intelligibility. Come talk to me whenever you do know, Thank you.

If you're going to have a good discussion with someone, posts like this are useless. That combined with an arrogant tone strongly reduce your chances of being respected as someone worth discussing things with.

-Lyn

 

[SiderealExalt]

Morality is a very difficult problem for the evolutionary worldview. This isn't to say that evolutionists are not less moral than anyone else. Most of them adhere to a code of behavior. Like the biblical creationist, they do believe in the concepts of right and wrong. The problem is that evolutionists have no logical reason to believe in any sort of moral imperative within their own worldview.
In evolution worldview, right and wrong can be nothing more than electro-chemical reactions in the brain -- the result of time and chance. If the concepts of right and wrong are to be meaningful, evolution cannot be true. Right and wrong are Christian concepts that go back to Genesis. By attempting to be moral, therefore the evolutionist is irrational, for he must borrow biblical concepts that are contrary to his worldview.

The bible teaches that God is the creator of all things (Gen.1:1, John 1:3) All things belong to GOD (Ps.24:1), and thus GOD has the right to make the rules. So Absolute Moral code makes sense in the biblical creation worldview.

Some people may say, " Thats true. Morality is just relative. There's no such thing as Absolute morality, and therefore you should not try to enforce your personal moral code on other people!" Whenever people say that they are enforcing their own moral code on them at the same time. If there is no Absolute moral code, then nothing is actually fundamentally wrong: not lying, not stealing, not murder or rape.

This is just some of the beginning information I don't feel like going on. I will if you all want me to.

No such thing as the "evolutionary worldview."

 

[SiderealExalt]

I am compelled to expound some on this strange mistake many Christians( not all mind you) but many, make in regards to the concept of morality and relativity(not the Einstein kind )

Morality is, by definition, relative. And in typing this, I can almost hear many conservative Christian voices crying out in horror at such a thing. But wait a bit and you might find that you are simply making an assumption I hope to correct. Morality is contextual, and something a cursory look at history will show, that we've wrestled with constantly. Often times I find that some Christians confuse morality being relative with moral relativism. Generally I hear moral relativism expressed as, "well if it's okay for you and yours, then hey who am I to argue." With this taken to it's most extreme levels. Where the "liberal" and others who do not espouse to absolute morality are simply being morally lazy. Apathy and that morality IS relative are not the same thing. Do not confuse the two. At it's strongest, morality is axiomatic. That is the closest you will get, and people find a lot of fun in attempting to strain the bindings of those axioms.

You shouldn't be so surprised that we can arrive at moral axioms. I've heard many Christians expound on how many universal concepts of morality are evidence of a mystical inner spirit guiding people towards the moral absolutism of their deity despite the temptations of sin. Few things could be further from the truth. The pragmatic realities of human existence quite simply impose these axioms upon us. This is no more astounding or evidence of anything save the fact that human beings all share basic biological and psychological existences. The variances that time, culture and circumstances and life experience quite easily show us why personal, national and cultural moral codes vary. Considering that these things are in flux within cultures, nations and individuals. Why then are you so surprised when others quite simply tell you morals are relative.

The concept of moral absolutism is self contradictory.And in fact undermine the concept of morality. Absolute morality is the end game of totalitarianism here on earth. Even if it is convenient to think of a supernatural and perfect(well...at least what some one or some group WANTS to call perfect), that has this perfect,unassailable morality.

Yet none seem capable of showing is it. If you can, and it can be enforced(and it being perfect, one would imagine doing such would be quite easy). It would be very interesting to see how this state of affairs is somehow different from totalitarian dictatorship.

 

[Eudaimonist]

In evolution worldview, right and wrong can be nothing more than electro-chemical reactions in the brain -- the result of time and chance.

There is no "evolution worldview". First, evolution theory says nothing on the subject of ethics. Evolution is not itself a worldview. That requires the addition of philosophy.

Second, there may be worldviews that contain evolution, and there are many of these, and it is not the case that they all say, or even imply, that right and wrong "can be nothing more than electro-chemical reactions in the brain". I certainly don't believe that about right and wrong, and I regard evolution as true. You may attack strawman arguments all you like, but that isn't going to get you anywhere.

Evolution is the dumbest "theory" i have heard of, Evolution cannot be true.

You have already proven that you don't even know what evolution is. You may have heard "of" evolution, but you have never actually listened. You seem to know only some kind of distorted propaganda about evolution that has virtually nothing to do with what scientists and others actually think. You have no credibility on that subject any more. Thanks for the discussion.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

If the only value of this life is to prepare for our future life with God, then my question becomes: What is the value of the future life with God?

I don't think that an afterlife is a necessary consequence of there being a god. A god could exist, create everything, and let it die when it runs its course if he so chose to.

As to what properties a god should have, that's somewhat subjective. Lots of things have been considered gods over human history, including certain people.


What did it answer?

I mean, firstly, any atheist you're discussing this with has to assume for the sake of discussion that your god exists. So the premise is unfounded and only accepted by the person you're discussing with for a moment of time so that the discussion of details can take place. Otherwise, no discussion could get beyond the point of disagreement about whether this god exists or not. If the premise is false, then everything derived from it is false.

Secondly, I still have questions, such as the one I asked about what value an afterlife with god has. (I think it would be a pretty miraculous moment for me to run out of questions. That's never happened before.)

-Lyn

Not every atheists posted on this thread acknowledged that the existence of God is the premise of the discussion. You may be one. So I will respond accordingly.

What is the value to be with God? The concept of God includes meanings like: good, powerful, etc. So, on the opposite, no God means not good, powerless, etc. If you do not agree with this, then we should choose a word which contains these meanings and use that word as the concept of God.

So, the value of a life with God includes a good life and a powerful life. To some atheists, may be the word "good" also needs to be defined. In fact, it is an important word, usually misunderstood and abused.

 

[juvenissun]

Whereas there is only one version of Christianity? I fail to see your point, or or I fail to see why this is a problem. There's only one version of atheism: One where there is no belief in God. What accompanies that, is irrelevant.

A belief is not an easy thing to have. To have that, one must have a strong background and motivation. And there are consequences to the belief. A belief is only a start. Everything follows.

So, if you believe in atheism, you will act accordingly. That is VERY relevant. Muslims kill infidels. That is an examples of serious consequence. Christians do not kill infidels, because they already died. That is another example of consequence.

 

[juvenissun]

I am 42 years old. I've been an atheist since at least my early-to-mid twenties. I have spent around two decades of my life as an atheist.

Know what? While I have refined my worldview since around the age of 25, I have not made any fundamental leaps from one philosophical stance to another. The core of my worldview has remarkable staying-power.

Just because atheists may vary in their philosophical views as a group, there isn't a reason in the world why any individual atheist should have a worldview that makes radical jumps as if blown about by a breeze.

You made me curious. How do you know that your decision is ______ (good? correct? worthwhile? others?). Because I wouldn't know, if I don't have faith in God.

 

[juvenissun]

What degree do you have, and what is your field? Are you a research scientist, or some other sort?


eudaimonia,

Mark

I teach geology in an university. I only work 6 hours per week. It is hard not to do any research under the circumstance.

 

[juvenissun]

I don't think a scientist necessarily has to have a degree. Anyone following the scientific method is a scientist in my opinion.

I think it depends what one is studying or trying to explain whether they should require an advanced degree or not. I mean, if someone's trying to explain something in advanced chemistry, electronics, physics, geology, psychology, or something like that, they really need a degree. If someone's doing an experiment in which they test whether their car gets better gas mileage with the windows down or with the air conditioning on, they really only need basic math and an understanding of how to control variables. Both are science, really. All science only starts with curiosity and reason, and it expands into areas that require knowledge (like in hard sciences and such).

(Not that I'm saying juvenissun is a scientist.)

-Lyn

Very well said. Agreed 100%.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

There is no "evolution worldview". First, evolution theory says nothing on the subject of ethics. Evolution is not itself a worldview. That requires the addition of philosophy.

Second, there may be worldviews that contain evolution, and there are many of these, and it is not the case that they all say, or even imply, that right and wrong "can be nothing more than electro-chemical reactions in the brain". I certainly don't believe that about right and wrong, and I regard evolution as true. You may attack strawman arguments all you like, but that isn't going to get you anywhere.



You have already proven that you don't even know what evolution is. You may have heard "of" evolution, but you have never actually listened. You seem to know only some kind of distorted propaganda about evolution that has virtually nothing to do with what scientists and others actually think. You have no credibility on that subject any more. Thanks for the discussion.


eudaimonia,

Mark

You all still do not get what Im Saying.

You all do not know the definition of Worldview that I am talking about here, and I know you all will go to Dictionary and find all the Fallible information you can about it.

You said that I made a Strawman argument well according to Evolution that which I said is possible since after all, The water, Magma, and other chemicals just randomly bumped into each and made RNA Formations ...etc... These things can be made into Chemical Reactions, Not a Strawman argument for Evolution.I mean you all even believe that the universe came to be through a Singularity then it exploded and here we are we have Millions of Miles times Billions of Light Years, Planets, Stars, Galaxies with certain forms of gas, We have our Sun in our Solar System, and There is also the biggest one we have found Betelgeuse, But then there is only one planet in the Universe that has Oxygen, Plants, Animals and Humans, and This bang made the Male and Female reproductive parts, along with the animals also, It made all the fish in the waters of the earth.

I've got to say, to say that this happened is just stupid, Even If I was an Evolutionist I would not buy into that Crap. NO bang happened.

I have no Credibility, Well, You all still have not given me what I Have asked for countless times already, and Yet you all still refuse to do it.

Yes Evolutionists have Morals to thing and People, but In their worldview there is Basis for Morality in a Logical Explanation Manner, Therefore, Makes Evolution Irrational.

 

[Eudaimonist]

How do you know that your decision is ______ (good? correct? worthwhile? others?).

Through the usual way -- through reasoning to persuasive conclusions.

Because I wouldn't know, if I don't have faith in God.

Oh? Please explain that.

I teach geology in an university. I only work 6 hours per week. It is hard not to do any research under the circumstance.

Do you mean that you teach classes six hours a week, and then do unpaid research for other hours in the week? What sort of research do you do?

Not that it matters. I'm just curious.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dharma Wheel]

Not at all. Christianity says a life which does not believe in Jesus (is God), has no value, zero value.

And that is something I count as a failing. It is similar to ''my, me , mine''; if you believe in Jesus you are superior and more valuable? That doesn't seem right and is something contrary to the Awakened One's wisdom and the wisdom of his followers, which I find superior due to the equality of all living beings in his teachings.

"Whatever living creatures there be, without exception, weak or strong, long, huge or middle-sized, or short, minute or bulky, whether visible or invisible, and those living far or near, the born and those seeking birth, may all beings be happy!" - Karaniya Metta Sutta

"So what of all these titles, names, and races? They are mere worldly conventions." -Sutta Nipata 648


"Although there are northern men and southern men, north and south make no difference to their Buddha-nature. A barbarian is different from Your Holiness physically, but there is no difference in our Buddha-nature." - Sutra of Hui Neng 1

Sounds tyrannical. But it has a theology behind this simple conclusion. For example, the word "value" is yet to be defined.

val·u·a·ble (v

l

y

-

-b

l, v

l

y

-)adj.1. Having considerable monetary or material value for use or exchange: a valuable diamond.
2. Of great importance, use, or service: valuable information; valuable advice.
3. Having admirable or esteemed qualities or characteristics: a valuable friend.

n.


Alll life is invaluable.

 

[Dharma Wheel]

Until you can do the same to atheism, you do not, in fact, have a strong reason.

Bad logic. He was listing the many reasons why atheism is preferable to him much like scientists would list the many pieces of evidence to support their theory.

 

[JGG]

A belief is not an easy thing to have. To have that, one must have a strong background and motivation.

Alright, why would I be motivated to believe in God?

[qyote]And there are consequences to the belief. A belief is only a start. Everything follows.[/quote]

Ummmm...what?

So, if you believe in atheism, you will act accordingly.

I don't believe in atheism. I can't believe in atheism. I simply don't believe in God/a god/gods. This happens to make me an atheist.

How does an atheist act?

That is VERY relevant. Muslims kill infidels. That is an examples of serious consequence. Christians do not kill infidels, because they already died. That is another example of consequence.

I'm sorry, what?! Believing in Islam makes you kill infidels? Not believing in Christianity makes you...dead? That's what you're saying right?

 

[ACougar]

What? Some people who call or called themselves Christian kill people who believe differently than they do... some people who call or called themselves Muslim kill people who believe differently than they do. Most Christians and most Muslims do not kill people because they believe differently than they do.

I don't believe a belief is a difficult thing to have... when we reach the end of what we know and understand (or at least think we know and understand) we use belief to complete our cosmology and make it (relatively) complete. All human beings either form their own or accept some established body of beliefs, Atheist believe there is no God, Agnostics believe it's unknowable and/or unimportant, Christians have their set of beliefs, Buddhists have their set of beliefs, ect...

A belief is not an easy thing to have. To have that, one must have a strong background and motivation. And there are consequences to the belief. A belief is only a start. Everything follows.

So, if you believe in atheism, you will act accordingly. That is VERY relevant. Muslims kill infidels. That is an examples of serious consequence. Christians do not kill infidels, because they already died. That is another example of consequence.

 

[ACougar]

The largest and most glaringly obvious problem (among many) is that accepting that evolution is a part of nature in no way implies what you seem to think it implies.

You all still do not get what Im Saying.

You all do not know the definition of Worldview that I am talking about here, and I know you all will go to Dictionary and find all the Fallible information you can about it.

You said that I made a Strawman argument well according to Evolution that which I said is possible since after all, The water, Magma, and other chemicals just randomly bumped into each and made RNA Formations ...etc... These things can be made into Chemical Reactions, Not a Strawman argument for Evolution.I mean you all even believe that the universe came to be through a Singularity then it exploded and here we are we have Millions of Miles times Billions of Light Years, Planets, Stars, Galaxies with certain forms of gas, We have our Sun in our Solar System, and There is also the biggest one we have found Betelgeuse, But then there is only one planet in the Universe that has Oxygen, Plants, Animals and Humans, and This bang made the Male and Female reproductive parts, along with the animals also, It made all the fish in the waters of the earth.

I've got to say, to say that this happened is just stupid, Even If I was an Evolutionist I would not buy into that Crap. NO bang happened.

I have no Credibility, Well, You all still have not given me what I Have asked for countless times already, and Yet you all still refuse to do it.

Yes Evolutionists have Morals to thing and People, but In their worldview there is Basis for Morality in a Logical Explanation Manner, Therefore, Makes Evolution Irrational.