Tricks New Atheists Play (Part 2)

[TagliatelliMonster]

Facts do not speak for themselves; they have to be interpreted and applied, sometimes by individuals, sometimes by groups. So, YES, it really does need explaining. Otherwise what you specifically 'count' as healthy can end up smudging over various aspects of life (and "well-being") that, while not important to you by way of your own personal logic, are still representative of felt needs among some other individuals, or groups.

Health is not a matter of "opinion", but a matter of biology.
But you are welcome to give an example that shows otherwise.

This is because you want to think it can be reduced down to simple terms without actually doing the ethical work of looking at the individual and group contexts of social and moral life.

Huh???
What has that got to do with the difference between "healthy" and "sick"??

In which case....if you did, then you wouldn't just be using some kind of amorphous claim to an application of logic, or using the ambiguities of "well-being" as your semantic catch-all.

You continue to claim ambiguity... but you're never actually explaining how it is the case...

Also, at no point have I said that it is always that simple. I have said that the basic principles of well-being vs suffering are simple.

So, you admit that these inherent understanding of facts can change over time.

Yes, it's called "learning".

Like learning that black folks are humans too. Like learning that animals can also suffer. Like learning that smoking is bad for your lungs. Like learning that using plumping pipes made of lead is a health hazard.

Do you all admit that these facts can be interpreted differently in the current moment between individuals and between groups?

Yes and no.
Yes, in the sense that people can simply disbelieve the facts of reality.
No, in the sense that facts are demonstrable.

Using lead plumbing is demonstrably bad for your health. Sure, you'll be able to find a few irrational folks who'll just claim a conspiracy and that there's nothing wrong with lead pipes transporting drinking water.

But those people will simply be ignoring the facts.

That is such a cop out

lol! Why is that a cop out??
Human morality obviously is only relevant to humans. Remove humans and why would humans morality remain??

, vacuous attempt at analysis which says little to nothing about the actual, ongoing debates we have in the world about all of these forms of ethics and morals.

What debates? Between whom?

What do I mean? As a Christian, I would mean what Jesus would imply, but then I admit up front that I've placed myself into a particular ethical category

So, you do NOT have a moral compass then? Your moral compass is no more or less then whatever your religion teaches you?

To you "moral" is simply that which your religions allows and "immoral" is that which your religion forbids, or something similar?

That's the very opposite of a moral framework. That, is just obedience to a perceived authority.

So, just to make it extra clear, when someone asks you "what do you mean by morality?", then what is your answer? Because the "answer" you gave here, doesn't really tell me anything.

Something which you are struggling to do for yourself.

I'm not struggling... In fact, in this discussion, I seem to be the only one capable of actually answering the question "what do you mean by morality", clearly?

This just shows that Harris is attempting to reduce down a concept to the shape and size he can (and is willing) to work with.

Would you rather have a concept of morality that one can NOT work with?

If you don't care about all those 'labels,' then you don't care that millions of people use these not always compatible ways of thinking about ethics and morals...throughout the world.

No. I don't care about labels, because I care about content.
It doesn't matter what a certain argument is called. What matters, is the argument itself.

And you don't seem to have any such argument. All you are doing is telling me that I'm wrong. Somehow.

But when I then ask YOU the question of what morality is, all I seem to get is "whatever jesus says".

Which also kind of shows that you don't really care about looking at the complexity of it all, which in turn shows that you're not much interesting in becoming educated about the complexities of moral and ethical issues.

I never said that moral judgements can't be complex.
The only thing I said was simple, was the basic foundation of what morality means.

And, once more.... if morality does not pertain to well-being and suffering, then what does it pertain to? What is the point of morality, if not improving the overall, general quality of life in the broadest sense (=well-being) and decreasing suffering?

yes, yes, yes. I know. You keep saying that, which isn't to say a whole lot, even though it is better than saying nothing.

So, do you agree with it or not?
If not, why not?

And if not, then what would you replace it with? Try to actually answer this time.
Fill in the blanks:
Moral = ................
Immoral = ................

Have you ever taken an ethics class at the university level?

Yes, actually. Long time ago, though.

Well...I've already scraped the tip of the iceberg on this ...........

How, exactly? The closest you came to answering the question "what does morality mean to you", was "I would mean what Jesus would imply".

And you're not appealing to any supernatural authority

Why would I?

And it shows

Good.

However, there is a caveat here; unlike some of my fellow Christian brethren, I don't really expect for you to be able to understand the Christian contours of ethics since it's not something that can be concluded just by thinking hard enough. So, I'm not going to place blame on you for a failure to see that Jesus Christ provides the focal point for human ethics.

Is this an elaborate way of saying that only christians can be moral?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Here are a few glaring problems with your understanding of morality

Super, let's see...

1) Morals have to do with responsibility and obligation. We might be able to make inferences to the well being of a person from their actions, but nature does not tell us whether this action is right or wrong and it certainly does not give us an obligation to fulfill those actions.

What is the point of morals, if not to improve / ensure a higher quality of life and a decrease of suffering?

Can you give me a single example of an act that only increases suffering, which would be considered moral?

2) Any fact based value judgements of the actions of other persons will A) lack a moral obligation to fulfill those actions b) lack the complete facts of the result of those actions. For example, a person who shoots and kills another person. At face value, this is murder. Suppose this person was allowed to live and ends up shooting up a mall. Would the original action then be good? This isn't the best example, but the point is clear. You do not have the complete facts surrounding moral value judgements and any facts related to moral value judgements will be based on opinion and bias.

I don't see the point of such "what-if" questions in this sense.

For example: what if during WW2, we would have not taken up arms against the Nazi's and let them conquer Europe and exterminate all jews... after which they would have found cures for all types of cancer, AIDS and ensure world-peace for thousands of years?

It's a ridiculous line or reasoning.
I prefer sticking to the facts of reality and not assuming that someone can accurately tell the future.

3) Euthyphro dilemma isn't an issue with divine command theory. Morals are grounded in the perfect, unchanging, righteous, holy, amazing, nature of God. They are not based on what he says. What he says is based on his perfect nature.

Or so you believe.

Jihadists who fly planes into buildings, believe that too.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let's take a step back for a second. T-monsters proposal was that humans could make objective value judgements of right and wrong on fact based situations. I argued that 1) we have no moral obligation to follow those moral value judgements and 2) we actually lack all of the necessary facts to establish true value judgements.

1. I never said anything about "obligations". You aren't "obligated" to act morally. However, you will suffer the consequences of your own behaviour. Depending on the gravity of your ways, these consequences can range from people simply not liking you all the way to ending up in jail for life.

2. obviously, we can only reason based on the facts that we actually have. And all it takes to realise that that is exactly how it works, is to look at moral development over the centuries. Why is it, that as time goes on, our collective idea of what is moral and what isn't, changes? Did your supernatural authority come down from heaven to give further instructions? Or could it perhaps be that we just learned more about the world and that this new knowledge impacted our idea of what is ethically justifiable and what isn't?

Divine command theory provides both.

Divine command theory only consists commandments and obedience to those commandments. And it seems that theists themselves are extremely divided in their interpretation of these "commandments", I might add. Even within a single religion.

If we wouldn't adjust our moral foundations to match the facts of reality, then there wouldn't be any moral progress/development.

With God, you have 1) a moral law giver who has sufficient authority to command obedience and furnish a moral obligation to us and 2) God also has the necessary knowledge to make fact based value judgements of situations.

Jihadists would agree.


See, this is the problem. As Sam Harris once said in a debate against William Lame Craig: "The only argument that WLC can give against jihadists... is that they worship the wrong god. If their god would be the right god, then under divine command theory, their acts would be moral."

It's moral bankrupcy all the way down.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If genocide is carried out as a moral judgement I don't see that as evil because of my two reasons before (God' has the authority and knowledge required to carry out the action). In this sense, genocide of the Canaanites should be considered a mass execution (I cringe myself by saying these things, but it is only from my fallen human state and my lack of knowing God's knowledge).

Let's address the elephant in the room...................

How do you know that God actually commanded this and that it wasn't just a case of people requiring an excuse to go on a mass-killing spree to get rid of their enemies?

What do you consider more likely:
- that they used god as an excuse, much like jihadists do today?
or
- that it was actually morally justifiable to mass slaughter an entire nation, including toddlers and babies etc?

Now let's look at another word. Murder is objectively evil. Why? Because the definition itself includes a moral imperative. The definition of murder is "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another". This is necessarily/objectively evil by definition, because it is defined as unlawful.

Yes. Murder is an "unjustified killing with evil intent", by definition.

God could not murder someone for the sake of judgement. A person is not murdered in an execution by the state. An execution is the lawful (at least on the states terms) killing of a human being.

Ok.

Now, try to defend how the killing of a baby or toddler can even be a justified execution.
Let's just stick to a single baby or toddler, instead of thousands in a genocidal act.

 

[Moral Orel]

The problem is we are taking a word "genocide" and applying it to God's actions with an implied moral consequence. There is nothing moral about genocide in and of itself. It is defined as "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.". Now we can get emotional about this and say "what deliberately killing a large ethnic group of people isn't evil!?!?!", but I think that would only be an emotional response, because from a human perspective, genocide is usually racially motivated (i.e. this type of people are of race X and we don't like race X, so let's kill them).

If genocide is carried out as a moral judgement I don't see that as evil because of my two reasons before (God' has the authority and knowledge required to carry out the action). In this sense, genocide of the Canaanites should be considered a mass execution (I cringe myself by saying these things, but it is only from my fallen human state and my lack of knowing God's knowledge).

Now let's look at another word. Murder is objectively evil. Why? Because the definition itself includes a moral imperative. The definition of murder is "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another". This is necessarily/objectively evil by definition, because it is defined as unlawful.

God could not murder someone for the sake of judgement. A person is not murdered in an execution by the state. An execution is the lawful (at least on the states terms) killing of a human being.

Weird... So genocide isn't objectively evil, but killing one person is...

When you say "unlawful" now you're back to "obey" again. If God tells you to kill someone, now it is lawful, so now it's not murder. The only reason it is evil is because God said not to (unlawful), so no, you haven't shown me another action that is objectively evil other than "obey".

Is it even possible for God to murder someone? I don't mean in the sense that "God can't sin", I mean it in the sense that is it ever murder under any circumstances if God takes someone's life? As far as Christianity goes, no one is above judgement, so God can kill anyone He wants, any time He wants, and it will always be justified because everyone deserves to die. This doesn't even take into account the whole sovereignty thing and how God can do whatever He wants with whatever He creates. So He can even command you to do it for Him, and it will be a lawful killing, and not murder.

So try to answer it this way: what action can God never do, or command any human to do, without sinning. Not something vague like "God can't sin". Something specific. God can command people to kill each other, one by one or en masse, doesn't matter. God can command people to torture each other. What specific action can God not command people to do? What could God do that you would call a "sin"?

 

[Moral Orel]

Indeed, we cannot know what evil/sin is apart from God's command/law.

Romans 7:7-9
"7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died."

Essentially, we would have no knowledge of good and evil had God not commanded that we not eat of the tree. However, his command enabled us to either listen and obey or not and consequently we did not obey, which is why there's death, which is also why God came in the form of a man named Jesus to take on death even though he did not sin, and overcome it through resurrection in order that we may find freedom from sin and death and receive God's mercy and love through Christ's death and resurrection.

You're missing the point. Nothing is a sin unless God says it is. Sometimes killing another human being is evil, sometimes it is good. Sometimes torturing people is evil, sometimes it is good. Is there any action that is always evil? I've given you one, disobeying God is always evil. Is there one more?

 

[Moral Orel]

Let's address the elephant in the room...................

How do you know that God actually commanded this and that it wasn't just a case of people requiring an excuse to go on a mass-killing spree to get rid of their enemies?

What do you consider more likely:
- that they used god as an excuse, much like jihadists do today?
or
- that it was actually morally justifiable to mass slaughter an entire nation, including toddlers and babies etc?

Actually, this is the one time I'm perfectly happy with the explanation: Goddidit.

 

[Chriliman]

You're missing the point. Nothing is a sin unless God says it is. Sometimes killing another human being is evil, sometimes it is good. Sometimes torturing people is evil, sometimes it is good. Is there any action that is always evil? I've given you one, disobeying God is always evil. Is there one more?

Yes, disobeying God is always wrong.

The teaching and life of Jesus reveals that torture and killing are not loving and he commands us to love one another, so yes doing those things always goes against Jesus' command.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The teaching and life of Jesus reveals that torture and killing are not loving and he commands us to love one another

Unless you believe that he commands otherwise.

, so yes doing those things always goes against Jesus' command.

Unless you believe that he commands otherwise.

Great moral compass, you got there...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How?

...simply by the fact that one individual person can delineate her own "set" of descriptors which in her mind constitute what "well-being" is. To simply say "well-being" is the foundational concept of secular morality is to place your structure on a shifting sand. It is subjective...not objective. Basically, you've created you're conceptual stand in for "God"...................but you still haven't dealt with the issue below.

The issue here is that Sam Harris disagrees with David Hume, and it is this hurdle that has to be successfully ameliorated, and if we have no outside defining authority, which is the case if we assume there is no (biblical) God, then it becomes highly questionable as to the extent to which resorting to supposed 'facts of the world' are going to get us over this IS/OUGHT ontological hurdle. There aren't enough 'facts' in the world to tell us clearly and comprehensively that, if we find that we can be DESCRIPTIVE about well-being by alluding to this or that set of facts, there is then some derivative PRESCRIPTIVE course of moral action that should and has to be followed by each human being, other than than a smart person would at least do "such and such" for themselves for the sake of their own well-being...but not necessarily for someone else.

For example, if I'm a rat, there's very little to specifically tell me to take care of my off-spring...even though I may do so by instinct and simply because I naturally find it within myself "to care." On the other hand, being the same rat, there is nothing that will impel me to think twice, nor judge me if, under moments of duress, I eat my own young ... which some rats have been known to do.

 

[Chriliman]

Unless you believe that he commands otherwise.



Unless you believe that he commands otherwise.

I'm not sure why anyone would think he commands otherwise:

Matthew 22:37-39
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’

Great moral compass, you got there...

What is a moral compass if it has nothing to base itself on?

Happy birthday btw

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm not sure why anyone would think he commands otherwise:

I'ld say, ask the Amalekites, but they are all dead. ;-)

What is a moral compass if it has nothing to base itself on?

My moral compass is based on real things like well-being and suffering and the very real consquences of actions.

Your compass is based on nothing but obedience to a perceived authority.
Which isn't a compass at all in my book. It doesn't point north. It points to where-ever you believe that your authority says it needs to point.

And if it is believed that this authority says it points to genocidal destruction of an entire nation, then.... well, you know.

Jihadists believe their authority says it points to flying planes into american buildings and other such suicide missions.

And the only "explanation" you can give those jihadist to tell them they are being immoral is.... that they are obbeying the "wrong" authority. If their authority was the "correct" one, then such suicide missions would be a moral duty.

This is why I say that it is moral bankrupcy all the way down.

In my world, there is no "context" in which it would ever be okay to mass slaughter babies and toddlers. No matter who "commands" it.

 

[Chriliman]

I'ld say, ask the Amalekites, but they are all dead. ;-)

If I take the atheistic world view on death then I believe it's simply going into non-existence, why is this a bad thing?

My moral compass is based on real things like well-being and suffering and the very real consquences of actions.

Mine is based on real things as well, including the understanding of what death is and who overcame death in order to give everlasting life.

Your compass is based on nothing but obedience to a perceived authority.
Which isn't a compass at all in my book. It doesn't point north. It points to where-ever you believe that your authority says it needs to point.

And if it is believed that this authority says it points to genocidal destruction of an entire nation, then.... well, you know.

Jihadists believe their authority says it points to flying planes into american buildings and other such suicide missions.

And the only "explanation" you can give those jihadist to tell them they are being immoral is.... that they are obbeying the "wrong" authority. If their authority was the "correct" one, then such suicide missions would be a moral duty.

This is why I say that it is moral bankrupcy all the way down.

In my world, there is no "context" in which it would ever be okay to mass slaughter babies and toddlers. No matter who "commands" it.

Again, your world view is that death is simply going into non-existence, why is that a bad thing? You'll have to answer this question coherently in order for your world view to gain any respect when it comes to moral questions about life and death.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

...simply by the fact that one individual person can delineate her own "set" of descriptors which in her mind constitute what "well-being" is. To simply say "well-being" is the foundational concept of secular morality is to place your structure on a shifting sand. It is subjective...not objective.

You keep saying this and I keep asking you to explain it, but no answers are forthcoming.
How is well-being a subjective thing?

Is it really "subjective" that a society with low crime rates, low infant mortality, high literacy, low rates of domestic violence, ... has a higher well-being then a society where the opposite is true?

Basically, you've created you're conceptual stand in for "God"

Not at all. There's nothing "conceptual" about the very real human condition in reality.

...................but you still haven't dealt with the issue below.

You still haven't dealt with my question of what you mean by morals, if not those things that pertain to well-being and suffering.

The issue here is that Sam Harris disagrees with David Hume, and it is this hurdle that has to be successfully ameliorated, and if we have no outside defining authority, which is the case if we assume there is no (biblical) God, then it becomes highly questionable as to the extent to which resorting to supposed 'facts of the world' are going to get us over this IS/OUGHT ontological hurdle.

First... all you divine command theorists have yet to explain why assuming an authority changes anything at all. You're just asserting it, by piling on claim upon claim: "god exists! god is perfect! god knows all! god defines morality!"

Also, I have no particular issues concerning the IS/OUGHT thingy. Not that I'm aware of anyway... but you are welcome to point out such a specific problem by use of an example. I'ld be highly interested.

There aren't enough 'facts' in the world to tell us clearly and comprehensively that, if we find that we can be DESCRIPTIVE about well-being by alluding to this or that set of facts, there is then some derivative PRESCRIPTIVE course of moral action that should and has to be followed by each human being, other than than a smart person would at least do "such and such" for themselves for the sake of their own well-being...but not necessarily for someone else.

You seem to have missed the part where it says "well being of all sentient creatures". Not just the select few........

Also, I find it humurous that you would object to this, on the grounds of appealing to ignorance of certain facts that we don't yet know about, only to then throw it all out and instead just appeal to some non-demonstrable entity that can't be questioned in any praticular sense and who's commandments are "just" to be obbeyed, no questions asked.

And then pretend that it defines "morality".

Humurous indeed.

For example, if I'm a rat, there's very little to specifically tell me to take care of my off-spring... even though I may do so by instinct and simply because I naturally find it within myself "to care."

We're discussing human morality as it applies to human society.
Not really seeing the point of engaging in such a discussion from the perspective of a rat or any other non-human being....

On the other hand, being the same rat, there is nothing that will impel me to think twice, nor judge me if, under moments of duress, I eat my own young ... which some rats have been known to do.

But we aren't rats.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If I take the atheistic world view on death

There is no such thing.

then I believe it's simply going into non-existence

That would be a nihilistic view.

why is this a bad thing?

If you personally don't care about your life, that is your take on it. But others might care about staying alive. I'ld argue that the vast majority of people would prefer staying alive rather then dieing.

Now off course, if you don't value life, health, hapiness,...or any of those things... well not really anything I can do about that. But in that case, why would you care about morality?
Why would I even bother to discuss it with you? I'ld say that in such a scenario, you wouldn't have anything of value to say about it.

Mine is based on real things as well, including the understanding of what death is and who overcame death in order to give everlasting life.

No. It is based on things that you believe are real. On faith, of all things.
These beliefs of yours are indistinguishable from the beliefs of jihadists, in terms of truth value.

Again, your world view is that death is simply going into non-existence

Why is it relevant what I believe or don't believe about death? Morality concerns the living, not the dead.

, why is that a bad thing?

Because I value life. Don't you?

You'll have to answer this question coherently in order for your world view to gain any respect when it comes to moral questions about life and death.

I don't see why. Morality doesn't apply to the dead. It applies to the living.

 

[Chriliman]

If you personally don't care about your life, that is your take on it. But others might care about staying alive. I'ld argue that the vast majority of people would prefer staying alive rather then dieing.

Agreed, which is why I believe death has and will be overcome by God.

No. It is based on things that you believe are real. On faith, of all things.

We all must believe something about reality, you can't live without believing something.

Why is it relevant what I believe or don't believe about death? Morality concerns the living, not the dead.

Because you're making claims that you think I should agree with.

Because I value life. Don't you?

Yes.

I don't see why. Morality doesn't apply to the dead. It applies to the living.

Indeed,

Mark 12:26-27
"Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the account of the burning bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!”

This doesn't mean death doesn't happen and therefore begs an explanation as to why it happens.

Your world view apparently has nothing to say on the issue, therefore people look elsewhere and rightfully so.

 

[Moral Orel]

The teaching and life of Jesus reveals that torture and killing are not loving and he commands us to love one another, so yes doing those things always goes against Jesus' command.

But it didn't always, and God commanded these things be done in the past, so there's no reason He can't command it in the future either. They aren't always a sin, and that's the point. If they aren't always and for everyone (past, present and future) then they aren't objectively evil.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Agreed, which is why I believe death has and will be overcome by God.

Really? Strange. I generally don't let my "wants" and "wishes" dictate my beliefs...

We all must believe something about reality, you can't live without believing something.

In my experience, this is one of the the biggest differences between atheists and theists.
The idea that you MUST believe something.

I'll believe whatever I feel justified in believing as it pertains to the evidence.
For the things I have no clue about or simply have insufficient evidence for, I'm fine withholding belief until I have enough data to take up a position.
Otherwise also known as "I don't know".

Because you're making claims that you think I should agree with.

Again, if don't agree that staying alive and healthy is preferable to dieing, then I have nothing to discuss with you concerning morality.

In a world where life and well-being doesn't matter... morality doesn't matter either.

Yes.

Then what are you objecting to, when I'm saying that staying alive is preferable to dieing?

This doesn't mean death doesn't happen and therefore begs an explanation as to why it happens.

Your world view apparently has nothing to say on the issue, therefore people look elsewhere and rightfully so.

My concern in context of morality is with the living.
I'm not sure why you insist on talking about the nature of death.
Especially not since you already agreed that life is valueable and preferable to death.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You keep saying this and I keep asking you to explain it, but no answers are forthcoming.
How is well-being a subjective thing?

Is it really "subjective" that a society with low crime rates, low infant mortality, high literacy, low rates of domestic violence, ... has a higher well-being then a society where the opposite is true?




Not at all. There's nothing "conceptual" about the very real human condition in reality.



You still haven't dealt with my question of what you mean by morals, if not those things that pertain to well-being and suffering.




First... all you divine command theorists have yet to explain why assuming an authority changes anything at all. You're just asserting it, by piling on claim upon claim: "god exists! god is perfect! god knows all! god defines morality!"

Also, I have no particular issues concerning the IS/OUGHT thingy. Not that I'm aware of anyway... but you are welcome to point out such a specific problem by use of an example. I'ld be highly interested.



You seem to have missed the part where it says "well being of all sentient creatures". Not just the select few........

Also, I find it humurous that you would object to this, on the grounds of appealing to ignorance of certain facts that we don't yet know about, only to then throw it all out and instead just appeal to some non-demonstrable entity that can't be questioned in any praticular sense and who's commandments are "just" to be obbeyed, no questions asked.

And then pretend that it defines "morality".

Humurous indeed.



We're discussing human morality as it applies to human society.
Not really seeing the point of engaging in such a discussion from the perspective of a rat or any other non-human being....



But we aren't rats.

You're the one asserting that "well-being" is the fount of morality...and if there is a Burden of Proof in relation to "well-being" ....IT IS ON YOU!

I've already indicated (and indicted) that God is not surmised by logical deductions or experiments that can be demonstrated. So, unlike other Christians here, I don't believe in any BURDEN OF PROOF either way as it pertains to epistemological or metaphysical matters involved a possible God.

If you can't see this because you're skirting the inherent philosophical issues, then we're done talking and you've shown your level of anti-intellectualism in acts of flat out assertion. I don't have to defend the biblical view here; for all intensive purposes as to the supposed objectivity and/or absoluteness of the meaning of the term 'well-being,' we can even assume that Christianity is false and go from there.

There is no objective or absolute meaning to the term, "Well-Being." So, get over it.

2PhiloVoid

 

[Moral Orel]

If I take the atheistic world view on death then I believe it's simply going into non-existence, why is this a bad thing?

Even if it is "ceasing to exist" death still sucks a lot. First, in the case of the Amalekites, they died a violent death at the end of a sword, and I bet that hurt a lot. Second, their one and only shot at existing and experiencing anything forever was just cut short. Those are bad things even without any afterlife being considered.