Does morality exist without God? (2)

[Gishin]

The philosophical burden of proof?

Apologetics.

 

[Insane_Duck]

Apologetics.

So they aren't allowed to defend or prove their claims... That's an odd rule. Is there an apologetics forum open to non-christians?

 

[Gishin]

So they aren't allowed to defend or prove their claims... That's an odd rule. Is there an apologetics forum open to non-christians?

More like we're not allowed to challenge their claims.

And there is an apologetics forum, but non-christians can only start threads to ask questions. Other non-christians can't chime in.

 

[Insane_Duck]

More like we're not allowed to challenge their claims.

And there is an apologetics forum, but non-christians can only start threads to ask questions. Other non-christians can't chime in.

Hm. I'll have to try that.

 

[selfinflikted]

More like we're not allowed to challenge their claims.

This. They know some of the cockamamie claims made by some of their constituents can't hold up to scrutiny. In other words, we win.

 

[Insane_Duck]

This. They know some of the cockamamie claims made by some of their constituents can't hold up to scrutiny. In other words, we win.

It would appear that I'm not even allowed to post topics in General Apologetics.

 

[Verv]

If I remember it correctly, in the old days there were like 2 Christians that did all of the work in the apologetics forum, and like 2-3 very strange fundamentalists that made very embarrassing claims.

The rest of the forum was dozens of atheists and a random Buddhist or two attacking the positions of the aforementioned people.

There is a strange motivation that atheists often have to promulgate their beliefs unceasingly and the sheer volume of material was too much.

I did not bother with the forum because the making of one response would lead to 4-6 responses by atheists and, as anyone who hung out with geeks in Jr. High / High School can attest...

The debate is very old, very tired, and it always goes back to the same stuff.

It isn't a very pleasant debate because we've all done it a thousand times before.

That is terrible logic. Since we are talking about the true nature of morality there is no "stronger". If atheists are right then Christians have subjective morality just like them. If Christians are right then atheists base their morals on imperfect, human standards. No one is stronger than the other until one is proven right.

(a) IF atheists are right, then our morality is far more than subjective... It is outright wrong.

(b) No one is right until one is proven right? OK. You can sit on the fence yoru whole life if that is your thing.

This falls victim to the same failed logic. No one morality is stronger because only one exists. (i.e. morals are absolute or not, who ever is right is right about the morals of all people) If I am right, your morals aren't from God and are therefor not superior. If I am wrong then your morals are from God (assuming you were right) and are therefor superior. You can't assess them on any value other than truth.

It is possible for some moralities to be stronger than others...

E.g., if the Christian interpretation of things is right, a moderate Islamic view on it would be closer to true morality than that of an atheist humanist.

I don´t understand how you use the word "objective" here.

Personally, I´d also like to see everyone agree on questions of morality. The existence or non-existence of God doesn´t seem to make a difference there, though.

It has an influence on some of it just because of the culture that you come from.

People are awlays working to separate themselves from God in a lot of ways, or bring themselves closer to Him, and because of our views of what conservative and liberal are, or what is a Christian thing and what isn't, you can see a lot of people taking silly positions on the issue.

One of my good buddies is a far right wing Atheist who dismisses most atheists as liberals who are atheist because a lot of the conservative agenda they perceive to be from the Christian right.

I generally agree with his assessment.

You keep operating with terms like "greater", "pure" etc. without giving them a definition beforehand that allows for discussion.

However, the bolded part we agree upon: It would be desirable that everyone regarded the same set of morals as true (for this, though, it doesn´t matter what their source is.)

Then we generally agree.

 

[Gishin]

Maybe it's "Exploring Christianity". The idea is for them to try to convert you, not for you to challenge them.

 

[Insane_Duck]

Maybe it's "Exploring Christianity". The idea is for them to try to convert you, not for you to challenge them.

I just posted a topic in Physical and Life sciences and got it moved there. So... I guess that would be right.

 

[Insane_Duck]

(a) IF atheists are right, then our morality is far more than subjective... It is outright wrong.

Whose morality? If atheists establish that morals are fluid and dynamic then any morals with a logical backing would be right. Although it depends which atheists you are talking to, they don't adhere to a central dogma like Christians (per denomination) do.

(b) No one is right until one is proven right? OK. You can sit on the fence yoru whole life if that is your thing.

Not sure where you got that from. One explanation is right and one is wrong. When talking about the source and/or the true nature of morality, we don't judge them on how morally "strong" they are, we judge them on whether or not they are correct. (even if we'll never know for sure)

It is possible for some moralities to be stronger than others...

E.g., if the Christian interpretation of things is right, a moderate Islamic view on it would be closer to true morality than that of an atheist humanist.

Fair enough, but saying that Atheist morals are weak because they don't have a source is incorrect. The only way to access their "weakness" or "strength" is by finding the correct one. Thus your original criticism is moot.

 

[selfinflikted]

Fair enough, but saying that Atheist morals are weak because they don't have a source is incorrect. The only way to access their "weakness" or "strength" is by finding the correct one. Thus your original criticism is moot.

And not to mention, atheists and Christians have far more common morals than not. It's a pretty safe bet that the "source" of Christian morals and the source of atheist morals are one in the same - and it's not biblegod.

 

[Insane_Duck]

The only responses to my topic so far only nit-picked semantics...

 

[Verv]

Whose morality? If atheists establish that morals are fluid and dynamic then any morals with a logical backing would be right. Although it depends which atheists you are talking to, they don't adhere to a central dogma like Christians (per denomination) do.

I think you do not understand logic if you are going about it that way.

Logic can be an extremely cold, calculated thing that lends itself well to the whims of the human heart.

You are wrong.

Not sure where you got that from. One explanation is right and one is wrong. When talking about the source and/or the true nature of morality, we don't judge them on how morally "strong" they are, we judge them on whether or not they are correct. (even if we'll never know for sure)

Fair enough, but saying that Atheist morals are weak because they don't have a source is incorrect. The only way to access their "weakness" or "strength" is by finding the correct one. Thus your original criticism is moot.

No, you were merely misinterpreting it. I gave you a reason why Christians potentially view atheists as not having morals.

You have further established this to be true by what you said in the very first quotation that you released concerning how morals can be fluid and changeable and depend merely on logic.

You've essentially illustrated perfectly why there is a great criticism of the capacity of atheists to be moral.

One can use logic to serve any value.

And not to mention, atheists and Christians have far more common morals than not. It's a pretty safe bet that the "source" of Christian morals and the source of atheist morals are one in the same - and it's not biblegod.

Well, really? You think so?

This would only be because of human culture -- our actual, intellectual conclusions as Christians and atheists do not play much into our perceptions of morality.

You know that.

Finding humans who have developed their own philosophies and outlooks on life is pretty challenging -- of course the average atheist or Christian closely resembles one another in their moral shortcomings.

The only responses to my topic so far only nit-picked semantics...

No, the challenge is pretty direct.

I've spent some time over the years developing an appreciation for these sorts of things.

 

[selfinflikted]

Well, really? You think so?

Yeppers.

This would only be because of human culture -- our actual, intellectual conclusions as Christians and atheists do not play much into our perceptions of morality.

Perhaps in certain situations they would, but I agree with both points for the most part.

Finding humans who have developed their own philosophies and outlooks on life is pretty challenging -- of course the average atheist or Christian closely resembles one another in their moral shortcomings.

Agreed.

 

[Insane_Duck]

I think you do not understand logic if you are going about it that way.

Logic can be an extremely cold, calculated thing that lends itself well to the whims of the human heart.

You are wrong.

What good are the whims of the heart? (yes I'm referring to it as a blood pump) I would think that all our choices should be logical, but you are right that there is a debate over whether logic or feelings prevail as the way to make moral choices. But my opinions aren't really relevant to your original statement.

No, you were merely misinterpreting it. I gave you a reason why Christians potentially view atheists as not having morals.

You have further established this to be true by what you said in the very first quotation that you released concerning how morals can be fluid and changeable and depend merely on logic.

You've essentially illustrated perfectly why there is a great criticism of the capacity of atheists to be moral.

One can use logic to serve any value.

This is the issue. If atheists (again, we don't think as a block) are right, then I would strongly critizise the Christian capacity to be moral. If I'm right, then Christianity (and Christian methods of thinking) doesn't allow for changing morals and often causes immorality. You can't judge someone's "morality" by an objective standard (like you are by saying that atheists moral values/systems are weak) unless you know whose value system is the correct one.

No, the challenge is pretty direct.

I've spent some time over the years developing an appreciation for these sorts of things.

In my other topic? You should respond.

 

[InSearchOfCompassion]

I'd like to clear up a misunderstanding of Christianity being posted here. Someone said the primary mission of Christianity is to convince people they are flawed and that they must repent and live a life in penance for their flaws. This is wrong. Christianity states that no human is perfect ( I'd like to see someone contest that) and then says that Jesus Christ died for our flaws and if we believe in Him, and trust Him, then He will intercede for us. Furthermore, one who believes will receive the Holy Spirit, which will then begin to guide the believer towards perfection, however I don't believe anyone actually reaches perfection before dying. Christians believe in faith not works. You can't earn heaven. You just must believe Jesus died for you.

Which is difficult for most, even people who claim Christianity, you must force yourself to lessen your pride and realize you can't earn heaven, so destroy your ego. The fact that many live lives of that are very restrained and give their lives to God is because they are grateful for the salvation they have received and are trying to allow God to work through them. They don't (or shouldn't) believe that what they are doing is required to their salvation.

 

[InSearchOfCompassion]

Do other forms of biological life have morals? Open question.

 

[Insane_Duck]

I'd like to clear up a misunderstanding of Christianity being posted here. Someone said the primary mission of Christianity is to convince people they are flawed and that they must repent and live a life in penance for their flaws. This is wrong. Christianity states that no human is perfect ( I'd like to see someone contest that) and then says that Jesus Christ died for our flaws and if we believe in Him, and trust Him, then He will intercede for us. Furthermore, one who believes will receive the Holy Spirit, which will then begin to guide the believer towards perfection, however I don't believe anyone actually reaches perfection before dying. Christians believe in faith not works. You can't earn heaven. You just must believe Jesus died for you.

Which is difficult for most, even people who claim Christianity, you must force yourself to lessen your pride and realize you can't earn heaven, so destroy your ego. The fact that many live lives of that are very restrained and give their lives to God is because they are grateful for the salvation they have received and are trying to allow God to work through them. They don't (or shouldn't) believe that what they are doing is required to their salvation.

Not how it works my friend.

While I think that everyone understands what Christianity claims, you have to look at what's behind the curtain. (from a secular perspective) Christianity says that humans are inferior, that they are born in sin and that Christianity is the only way to absolve themselves. And more over, if you don't choose Christianity you are doomed to eternal punishment. The only religious memes that are so obviously parasitic would be the only ones that would survive as long as Christianity has.

I've always thought that Christopher Hitchens has some good commentary on the morality of Christianity:

YouTube - ‪Christianity is False and Immoral. (Christopher Hitchens)‬‏

 

[InSearchOfCompassion]

I've already spent 2 days on this site debating hell up and down, so I'm not going to engage you right now, because I'm sick and tired of it.

The idea that everyone has a good understanding of Christianity's claims isn't even close to true. I'd argue most Christians in this country don't really understand their faiths claims. I don't see why you highlighted what you did, or why that makes "it" (which I didn't understand ever) not work. I'd like to see you argue Christ is immoral. Because thats who I'm trying to follow.

 

[InSearchOfCompassion]

I've seen a lot of people say you don't need God for morality but not very many alternate answers as to where morality comes from? And honestly, how did morality evolve? It seems kind of a large evolutionary leap.