Calling all athiests!!

[A. believer]

I see some inconsistencies in this position... perhaps you can clarify those.

We start from the statement that "knowledge" is "justified true belief".
Now this "justification" I asked you to explain, but you did not.

But I did explain how a Christian theistic worldview justifies knowledge by providing the preconditions of intelligibility for the assumptions that lead to knowledge. I'm not sure what's unclear to you, so I'm having trouble clarifying.

First you wanted to deny empirical evidence for being "not philosophical justification".

By itself, it isn't because, by itself, there's no ultimate reference point. Empirical evidence does lead to knowledge, but if one denies the ultimate reference point that grounds the empirical method (the triune God), then one is undermining one's claim of knowledge.

Now when I ask you what would count as that, you switch over to "God created innate knowledge" - which is unjustified.

No, it's not. The triune God is the ultimate justification within the Christian worldview. What I ask of the opposers of Christianity is what is their ultimate justification? Of course, you deny the existence of any ultimate, and that's why end up in skepticism. You already recognize that you have no ultimate justification so, quite frankly, I'm not even sure why you'd be arguing with me.

So it seems to me that you are aware that there are statements that you want to claim as "knowledge", but which cannot be justified.

Is that so?

Not exactly. I'm aware that those who deny the triune God claim to have knowledge, but that they lack any ultimate philosophical justification for their knowledge within their own worldview assumptions. I agree that they have knowledge because, even though they deny God, that doesn't negate the fact that they are His creatures, created in His image, and therefore, unable to escape knowledge. My claim, though, is that their worldviews are inconsistent with their claims to have knowledge.

In the case of skeptics like you who claim that no beliefs can be ultimately justified, your inconsistency lies in your actions and in the operating assumptions by which you think. We can deny what we are, but we can't escape it. But if we claim that we're something other than what we are (i.e., mere energy and matter as opposed to moral and rational created beings), then we end up opposing reason with our rationalizations.

the question should be an easy one: which steps must be taken, which way used, to name the statement "Freodin is an insurance broker" as "knowledge"?

Prior to empirically verifying it, we must initially hold to a worldview that doesn't implicitly undermine rationality.

You continue to make this claim, but I still do not get your justification for that: why would an Atheist be without "philosophical warrant" for believing in a rational world?

An atheistic materialist can "believe in" an intelligible reality, but by denying any ultimate grounding, his belief is just a fideistic notion, and not a rational belief. He's saying something like, "I trust that my brain matter correctly interprets a reality that exists outside of myself because I need to assume that to function, but I have no rationale for assuming that there is any reality outside of my own perceptions."

Just out of curiousity, do you believe that anything exists outside of your own perceptions?

 

[Freodin]

But I did explain how a Christian theistic worldview justifies knowledge by providing the preconditions of intelligibility for the assumptions that lead to knowledge. I'm not sure what's unclear to you, so I'm having trouble clarifying.

"...for the assumptions that lead to knowledge..." - That is the important part. I understand that your worldview allows you to hold the concept of "knowledge" as certain, but I have not seen you describe the precise way of arriving at knowledge.

Back to my example: The statement is still "Freodin is an insurance broker".
You assert that, based on your worldview, it is possible to "know" this statement with certainty.
You assert that your worldview provides you with the necessary base for finding such knowledge.
You asserted that you had "philosophical justifications" to justify this special statement.

So now I want to understand your method.

Empiricism cannot provide certainty, for it always has to allow for contradicting evidence. So logic is the only "philosophical justification" that I can imagine.
But a logical conclusion needs to be based itself on a "justified true belief"... which would start the circle anew.

So how do you do it? Be precise please!

By itself, it isn't because, by itself, there's no ultimate reference point. Empirical evidence does lead to knowledge, but if one denies the ultimate reference point that grounds the empirical method (the triune God), then one is undermining one's claim of knowledge.

The grounds of the empirical method are correlation and conclusion... not the "triune God".

But I would really like to see how you use empirical evidence to arrive at "knowledge" under your definition of "justified true belief".

No, it's not. The triune God is the ultimate justification within the Christian worldview.

"the triune God" is the base for justification, and as that, it can itself not be justified. It cannot justify itself, and it can, by admission, not be justified by another "base".

So it is not possible to fit your basic statement within your concept of "knowledge". You cannot know that your presupposition is true.

What I ask of the opposers of Christianity is what is their ultimate justification? Of course, you deny the existence of any ultimate, and that's why end up in skepticism. You already recognize that you have no ultimate justification so, quite frankly, I'm not even sure why you'd be arguing with me.

To make you understand that a worldview can be internally and externally consistent WITHOUT reference to something "ultimate".

The point I seem to have problems making you understand is that in my - the sceptical - worldview, "certainty" is not some kind of "on/off" switch.
Your view of my position seems to be that if I cannot be 100% certain of some "knowledge", anything could be possible.

So because my statement in an internet forum profile is not "justification" to make "Freodin is an insurance broker" knowledge, it is equally justified to state "Freodin is an three-armed fireeater on holiday".
But such a view is incorrect. Not even your mentioned "common understanding" works in this way... why else would there be phrases like "I´m rather certain."?

Not exactly. I'm aware that those who deny the triune God claim to have knowledge, but that they lack any ultimate philosophical justification for their knowledge within their own worldview assumptions. I agree that they have knowledge because, even though they deny God, that doesn't negate the fact that they are His creatures, created in His image, and therefore, unable to escape knowledge. My claim, though, is that their worldviews are inconsistent with their claims to have knowledge.

In the case of skeptics like you who claim that no beliefs can be ultimately justified, your inconsistency lies in your actions and in the operating assumptions by which you think.

Sceptics do not act or assume based on "ultimate justified beliefs". Sceptics do not hold these concepts. They are part of your worldview, not mine.

I know that you do not accept this... but then at least provide an example instead of repeating this general assertion.

We can deny what we are, but we can't escape it. But if we claim that we're something other than what we are (i.e., mere energy and matter as opposed to moral and rational created beings), then we end up opposing reason with our rationalizations.

Again I perceive an inconsistency in your position... emphazised in the term "mere". The opponents of materialistic positions always claim that we are not "mere animals", "mere energy", "mere matter"... well, so do the materialists. We are not "mere". We are "moral and rational created beings"... but moral, rationality and "being created" are emergent properties of matter and energy, not independent entities.

This is what you need to understand to understand my worldview.

An atheistic materialist can "believe in" an intelligible reality, but by denying any ultimate grounding, his belief is just a fideistic notion, and not a rational belief. He's saying something like, "I trust that my brain matter correctly interprets a reality that exists outside of myself because I need to assume that to function, but I have no rationale for assuming that there is any reality outside of my own perceptions."

That would be an unjustified presupposition... correct.

Just as the postulation of a rational triune creator-God would be...

But your "atheistic materialist" is already nothing more than a strawman. It is not the "assumption" that an atheistic materialist would make. It is the "if not certain, anything goes" fallacy.

Consider rather this statement: "I trust that my brain consistently interpretes a reality that exists outside of myself. This is an assumption that has consistently been verified and reached a high degree of certainty. It may be wrong, but as long as I do not have contradicting evidence, I will keep it."

Just out of curiousity, do you believe that anything exists outside of your own perceptions?

By definition, yes of course.

 

[A. believer]

Oh dear, these responses are already getting long again.

Anyway, sorry for the long delays between posts, but I haven't had as much time to spend on the computer lately since the half of my family that was out of the country came back. Pretty soon, I'll probably have to stop post altogether once my semester starts up again, but I'll do what I can.

"...for the assumptions that lead to knowledge..." - That is the important part. I understand that your worldview allows you to hold the concept of "knowledge" as certain, but I have not seen you describe the precise way of arriving at knowledge.

Back to my example: The statement is still "Freodin is an insurance broker".
You assert that, based on your worldview, it is possible to "know" this statement with certainty.
You assert that your worldview provides you with the necessary base for finding such knowledge.
You asserted that you had "philosophical justifications" to justify this special statement.

So now I want to understand your method.

Empiricism cannot provide certainty, for it always has to allow for contradicting evidence. So logic is the only "philosophical justification" that I can imagine.
But a logical conclusion needs to be based itself on a "justified true belief"... which would start the circle anew.

So how do you do it? Be precise please!

Okay, I see part of your confusion in this portion, and it looks like we have to take a few steps back. I'm not positing knowledge as "certain" or infallible. I'm positing it as rationally justifiable, and I'm saying that your system doesn't provide that. Christian theists have rational grounds for confidence in our beliefs.

The grounds of the empirical method are correlation and conclusion... not the "triune God".

Those aren't the grounds, but the method itself. The method can't justify the method.

But I would really like to see how you use empirical evidence to arrive at "knowledge" under your definition of "justified true belief".

Christians use the empirical method the same way atheists do, but the assumption of the reliability of the empirical method is rooted in a Christian worldview. It's no coincidence that science, which relies so firmly on the empirical method, first blossomed in a culture that was firmly entrenched with Christian assumptions about the nature of reality--assumptions based upon the nature of the triune God.

"the triune God" is the base for justification, and as that, it can itself not be justified. It cannot justify itself, and it can, by admission, not be justified by another "base".

So it is not possible to fit your basic statement within your concept of "knowledge". You cannot know that your presupposition is true.

The triune God is my ultimate starting point, correct. All reason must rest on some ultimate, and my claim is that the triune God is the only rational ultimate starting point. The rationale for belief and trust in the triune God, though, is that He justifies our human assumptions, including our use of logic.

Your ultimate starting point, though, logic itself, does not justify anything. It just is.

I ran across this blog post explaining what I'm not really capable of explaining. Unfortunately, though, the tenor of the discussions on that blog is often pretty deplorable.

To make you understand that a worldview can be internally and externally consistent WITHOUT reference to something "ultimate".

The point I seem to have problems making you understand is that in my - the sceptical - worldview, "certainty" is not some kind of "on/off" switch.
Your view of my position seems to be that if I cannot be 100% certain of some "knowledge", anything could be possible.

So because my statement in an internet forum profile is not "justification" to make "Freodin is an insurance broker" knowledge, it is equally justified to state "Freodin is an three-armed fireeater on holiday".
But such a view is incorrect. Not even your mentioned "common understanding" works in this way... why else would there be phrases like "I´m rather certain."?

Again, infallible certainty isn't what I'm getting at. I'm talking about rational justification.

Sceptics do not act or assume based on "ultimate justified beliefs". Sceptics do not hold these concepts. They are part of your worldview, not mine.

I know that you do not accept this... but then at least provide an example instead of repeating this general assertion.

One obvious example of this inconsistency is the moral outrage with which even skeptics respond to some moral transgressions. They claim that there are no transcendent moral standards, but then they act is if others (politicians, for example) are morally bound by some particular standards, and that they're objectively guilty when they transgress them. Their behavior betrays their knowledge.

The best exposure of this inconsistency that I've seen, though, has been made by Douglas Wilson in his responses to three of the recent book releases by prominent atheists--Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens. (Start with the bottom posts and scroll up to read them in order.) Didn't I link to these earlier? (The first has been published in book form, so is no longer available online.)

Again I perceive an inconsistency in your position... emphazised in the term "mere". The opponents of materialistic positions always claim that we are not "mere animals", "mere energy", "mere matter"... well, so do the materialists. We are not "mere". We are "moral and rational created beings"... but moral, rationality and "being created" are emergent properties of matter and energy, not independent entities.

This is what you need to understand to understand my worldview.

Only by fudging with terms to the point of rendering them meaningless--claiming creaturely status while denying a Creator and redefining rationality and morality as descriptive rather than prescriptive. If we are nothing other than matter and energy, we are, by definition, merely matter and energy, despite muddled attempts to affirm meaning while simultaneously denying it.

That would be an unjustified presupposition... correct.

Just as the postulation of a rational triune creator-God would be...

But your "atheistic materialist" is already nothing more than a strawman. It is not the "assumption" that an atheistic materialist would make. It is the "if not certain, anything goes" fallacy.

Consider rather this statement: "I trust that my brain consistently interpretes a reality that exists outside of myself. This is an assumption that has consistently been verified and reached a high degree of certainty. It may be wrong, but as long as I do not have contradicting evidence, I will keep it."

Verified by what? Your perceptions seem to indicate it? But that begs the question.

The point is not that you should abandon your belief that your perceptions of the physical world are highly reliable. The point is that you should repent of your unbelief in the one Being whose existence can explain the general reliability of your physical, mental, and moral perceptions.

 

[Gizoux]

All this trouble just to try to point to a divine being to explain why we have a conscience.

You could take the cynical approach and make the assumption that you would be caught for your actions, regardless of how unlikely you would be found out.

Or realize that anyone who can summon the least amount of empathy for their potential 'victims' don't do bad things because they understand how their 'victims' feel. That's what apparently allowed people like Dahlmer and Bundy to do what they did, an inability to experience empathy.

My apologies if I sound like a tourist. There's so few places I can contribute in. :/

 

[DoubtingThomas29]

Okay I'll take a stab at jumping into a debate.

You see I believe that the things tha do exist may exist beyond our perception but they leave evidence. There is no evidence for a God, this is why w can't prove God exists. You believe in his existance without evidence for his existance.

The fact is we only know things that can be proven to be true, or theyare just so obvious we have to accept it or define it to be the way we see it, like with a circle. If you can't prove God exists, then you don't know if he exists.

You know your name apriori, you know if you drop an apple on the Earth it will fall towards the Earth, you know that apostori.

I claim that one day our race will get so smart that all the things we know apostori, we will know apriori. The fact is our world is the way it is because it could not be any other way in order for us you and me, to exist.

You have a family tree that is as equally as large as mine, you have parents, grand parents, great grand parents and if any of those people would have said, we will not have children, you wouldn't exist.

Your a product of natural selection and sexual selection and a lot of luck, God did not make you, your parent's made you. And that is true for every sexually reproducing plant and animal that lives has lived, and ever will live.

I'm a doubting Thomas

 

[MattTheAgnostic]

Thomas, all you can ever do is express the possibilities of something occurring. The probability that your name is Thomas and that an apple will fall to the ground if you drop it are close enough to 100% that you can assume that they are (but they are not 100%). The probability that natural selection/evolution is correct is not at that stage yet, but it has the highest probability of all current theories and so it is the one that is used. God may actually be real, and everything that one religion claims may actually be right. In my opion every atheist should identify as agnostic, since as you can't disprove god, then there is a probability (however small), that he is real.

But back to the topic. The question is the wrong question to ask. Why should atheists follow laws and ethics? Because they want to live a happy life, and if they didn't follow laws and ethics then they would not live a very happy life. The question should be is why do atheists value life. Since I'm not an atheist, I'll post something I just read:

"As an atheist, the existence of life is the most valuable, the most special, and wondrous aspect of existence. The universe could just as easily be devoid of life. It was incredibly unlikely that any life, let alone humanity, would come to exist here. That thought is humbling and exhilarating at the same time. How lucky could we possibly be? To be alive, to be conscious, to be a member of a species that has split the atom, and broken the bonds of gravity to travel to the moon. When we could have never existed. Our lives have significance, they have meaning, and they have value. Life is the most precious, the rarest, and the most valuable thing in the Universe. That’s where I stand as an atheist."

Is there anything wrong with that?

 

[MattTheAgnostic]

Thomas, all you can ever do is express the possibilities of something occurring. The probability that your name is Thomas and that an apple will fall to the ground if you drop it are close enough to 100% that you can assume that they are (but they are not 100%). The probability that natural selection/evolution is correct is not at that stage yet, but it has the highest probability of all current theories and so it is the one that is used. God may actually be real, and everything that one religion claims may actually be right. In my opion every atheist should identify as agnostic, since as you can't disprove god, then there is a probability (however small), that he is real.

But back to the topic. The question is the wrong question to ask. Why should atheists follow laws and ethics? Because they want to live a happy life, and if they didn't follow laws and ethics then they would not live a very happy life. The question should be is why do atheists value life. Since I'm not an atheist, I'll post something I just read:

"As an atheist, the existence of life is the most valuable, the most special, and wondrous aspect of existence. The universe could just as easily be devoid of life. It was incredibly unlikely that any life, let alone humanity, would come to exist here. That thought is humbling and exhilarating at the same time. How lucky could we possibly be? To be alive, to be conscious, to be a member of a species that has split the atom, and broken the bonds of gravity to travel to the moon. When we could have never existed. Our lives have significance, they have meaning, and they have value. Life is the most precious, the rarest, and the most valuable thing in the Universe. That’s where I stand as an atheist."

Is there anything wrong with that? What you have to understand is that people don't need the promise of everlasting life, or the promise of a god, or any of those promises to value life. Most people just go through life without questioning what will happen at the end, or what the meaning of it all is. But if you do question, an atheist might come up with what I quoted above.

 

[DoubtingThomas29]

Dear Agnostic Matt I disagree with your answer of we can't know things to 100%.

Look at 2+2=4 we know Apriori that is true, we didn't have to do an experiment to see that is true.

We know our name Apriori, because we tell people our name, we tell our employer and the government what is our name. We know what we tell the government and we know we are telling the truth, because after all you have to verify it to them with your birth certificate usually, then they give you a number. We know our name with 100% certainity, Apriori.

We know Pythagorean's Theroem Apriori, 100% with out question.

We also, know religion is man made, not for reasons tha are obvious you really have to look at some details of christianity to know it is false, it takes work, but you can do it, and with all these other religions out there, they're man made too, hat is why there are so many different ones, and it takes carefull studying with a clear mind from a skeptical stand point to see all these religions are man made, there is not an ounce of truth to them.

Religion cannot stand up to careful scruitiny and is probably why a lot of my posts get taken down because they know it is dead on right.

How can Jesus Christ be sitting at the right hand of the Father, if he is suppose to be the Father too?

There is something right there that if you look at it carefully, you'll get it.

Here is another one, why Does Jesus Christ blood taste like wine? What is God's blood alcohol content?

Religion is complete superstion, prayer is superstion, heaven is imaginary, so is Hell. There is no evidence for any of these places.

There is no record of Jesus' miracles?

Atheism adds up, religion doesn't. If you know religion is man made, then you know there is no God. You cannot know religion is man made and still have it work, it falls apart.

Who answers our prayers for peace? No one. Who among us can say, I have been to Heaven and prove it? Who knows wha happens to us after we die, well the evidence suggests, we just stay dead really. The person at the funeral who is dead, doesn't get up and walk away, he goes to the grave where no one can hurt him any more.

Death happens to every living thing, and it is always going to be like that, it is life, and there is nothing we can do about it, not a thing.

Life is too short to be preparing for death.

I hope you find my post enlightening, my agnostic pen pal Matt.

Thomas

Writing about this stuff cheers me up, and I hope everyone is not offended, it is fun to entertain the atheist's argument from time to time, Mother Teresa did it you can too.

 

[Jersey]

I am curious to know what morals and values atheists hold on to and believe in? If, as an atheist, you believe we go into a hole when we die and thats that, what is the point of living a good life on earth? If I were an atheist, why should I be governed by laws and ethics, when this is the only I have? I should be able to do what I want! Can you see this would lead to utter chaos and destruction, how can we live like this, we need to hold to morals and values, we need to hold on to God!

All you have pointed out is one of the many most common myths about atheists that being they are immoral !

Don't you think you could be a little more original than that?

Atheists are probably the most moral and ethical people on this planet. When was the last time you have ever heard of a group of atheists strapping explosives on their bodies and blowing themselves up in the name of atheism? Or flying airplanes into sky scrapers killing themselves and thousands of innocent people to gain sexual intercourse in the after life with virgins?

 

[Rainbear]

To me, it looks like RomanumCatholicam started this thread in the hopes of causing a conflict because when someone stepped up and answered his question he tried to argue with it.

So you wanna know about my ethics? fine. My ethics come from the teachings of my agnostic father and reform jewish mother, reason, and philosophers such as confucius:

Be not ashamed of mistakes and thus make them crimes.

Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.

Forget injuries, never forget kindnesses.

When anger rises, think of the consequences.

 

[monkeypsycho62]

I just want to help people. I want to leave a positive memory in the minds of my friends and family.

Is that so hard to understand?

 

[MattTheAgnostic]

Dear Agnostic Matt I disagree with your answer of we can't know things to 100%.

Look at 2+2=4 we know Apriori that is true, we didn't have to do an experiment to see that is true.

We know our name Apriori, because we tell people our name, we tell our employer and the government what is our name. We know what we tell the government and we know we are telling the truth, because after all you have to verify it to them with your birth certificate usually, then they give you a number. We know our name with 100% certainity, Apriori.

We know Pythagorean's Theroem Apriori, 100% with out question.

We also, know religion is man made, not for reasons tha are obvious you really have to look at some details of christianity to know it is false, it takes work, but you can do it, and with all these other religions out there, they're man made too, hat is why there are so many different ones, and it takes carefull studying with a clear mind from a skeptical stand point to see all these religions are man made, there is not an ounce of truth to them.

Religion cannot stand up to careful scruitiny and is probably why a lot of my posts get taken down because they know it is dead on right.

How can Jesus Christ be sitting at the right hand of the Father, if he is suppose to be the Father too?

There is something right there that if you look at it carefully, you'll get it.

Here is another one, why Does Jesus Christ blood taste like wine? What is God's blood alcohol content?

Religion is complete superstion, prayer is superstion, heaven is imaginary, so is Hell. There is no evidence for any of these places.

There is no record of Jesus' miracles?

Atheism adds up, religion doesn't. If you know religion is man made, then you know there is no God. You cannot know religion is man made and still have it work, it falls apart.

Who answers our prayers for peace? No one. Who among us can say, I have been to Heaven and prove it? Who knows wha happens to us after we die, well the evidence suggests, we just stay dead really. The person at the funeral who is dead, doesn't get up and walk away, he goes to the grave where no one can hurt him any more.

Death happens to every living thing, and it is always going to be like that, it is life, and there is nothing we can do about it, not a thing.

Life is too short to be preparing for death.

I hope you find my post enlightening, my agnostic pen pal Matt.

Thomas

Writing about this stuff cheers me up, and I hope everyone is not offended, it is fun to entertain the atheist's argument from time to time, Mother Teresa did it you can too.

We can't know things 100% Even though it might sound ridiculous, you have to think of really ridiculous circumstances to find out why.

For example this entire life may be a computer simulation, there may be more dimensions around us than we can know about, 2+2 might not equal 4 in a black hole. Granted this things are stupid, but it means the probability is not 100%. If you can imagine some ridiculous thing that could cause something not to be true, then the probability that thing is not true is not 100%. And that's true even if you can't imagine that thing.

I'm not saying that I believe that life is a computer similution, just trying to argue by logic that you can't know something is true 100%. Is it even relevant? Possibly not.

 

[A. believer]

All you have pointed out is one of the many most common myths about atheists that being they are immoral !

Don't you think you could be a little more original than that?

Atheists are probably the most moral and ethical people on this planet.

I can certainly see why you'd feel that way. If, instead of acknowledging a transcendent moral law, each of us gets to define morals and ethics according to our own personal inclinations, it's not very difficult to be moral and ethical. If I get to define right and wrong, everything I do will be right.

 

[MattTheAgnostic]

That's correct. But what if you use an ethical system developed by humans such as kantian or utilitarian ethics to decide what is right and wrong. I can see atheists looking at you and deciding that you're immoral because you need a 'transcendent moral law' to tell you what you should be doing.

It can be simplified to this really:
A theist such as yourself might say I will do this good thing because god commands it, and if I don't I will go to hell while if I do I will go to heaven.

An atheist might say I will do this good thing because it is a good thing.

Do you think that atheists define what is moral by themselves? No, they base it off what is accepted as moral. What if the whole world were atheist? Well if they all applied kantian principles then life would be alot more enjoyable than it is today.

And why is your transcendent moral law even correct? There are many different religions that believe that god/s gave them transcendent moral laws to live by. Which one is correct? You believe yours is, others believe there's is. Of course you'll just say that yours is the only true religion, but that belongs in another thread I think...

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste RC,

thank you for the post.

I am curious to know what morals and values atheists hold on to and believe in?

you'll be surprised to find that we have a whole wide range of views and beliefs.. it's not very useful to generalize if you are actually trying to understand.

If, as an atheist, you believe we go into a hole when we die and thats that, what is the point of living a good life on earth?

i don't hold this view at all though some atheists do. see what i mean? generalizing isn't going to be useful

i'll presume you mean "morally upright and ethically sound" life by "good life". as such, i engage in moral and ethical actions to mitigate the Vipaka of my Karma.

If I were an atheist, why should I be governed by laws and ethics, when this is the only I have?

i'm not sure i understand. atheists have an interest in having a happy life, raising their childern and being free of pain as any other being does. a society governed by laws allows this same benefit for each being within the jurisdiction of said laws.

I should be able to do what I want!

each being has the right to do as they want provided that they do not infringe upon the rights of another.

a society wherein anarchy prevails is a society that is soon gone.

Can you see this would lead to utter chaos and destruction, how can we live like this, we need to hold to morals and values, we need to hold on to God!

and one does not need a deity to have morals or ethics or values. some beings, however, require such things to behave in a responsible manner and, for them, i strongly encourage their continued religious practice.

let me share a favorite quote of mine.

"I have gained this from Philosophy:

That I do, without being commanded, what others do only through fear of the law." ~Aristotle


metta,

~v

 

[PacificPandeist]

Ok then maybe general chaos and destruction, but my point remains the same, if there is no punishment, then why obey the rules?

If we were really "obeying the rules" of faith, we wouldn't be in this war with Iraq, wouldn't have been in Vietnam, and wouldn't be sending people to the electric chair or building fences across imaginary borders now....

 

[A. believer]

That's correct. But what if you use an ethical system developed by humans such as kantian or utilitarian ethics to decide what is right and wrong. I can see atheists looking at you and deciding that you're immoral because you need a 'transcendent moral law' to tell you what you should be doing.

An atheist can only conclude that I'm "immoral" by his standards, but since his standards aren't my standards, then so what? (And, incidentally, although it's irrelevant to my point, there have certainly been plenty of atrocities committed in the name of atheistic ideologies.)

It can be simplified to this really:
A theist such as yourself might say I will do this good thing because god commands it, and if I don't I will go to hell while if I do I will go to heaven.

I'm a Christian, and what you've described isn't a Christian theistic motive for doing right. A consistently Christian motive is faith working through love. The Bible is clear that we are not saved by our good works.

An atheist might say I will do this good thing because it is a good thing.

Except for that the notion of "goodness" is incoherent in the atheist's worldview, since it implies a fixed standard.

Do you think that atheists define what is moral by themselves? No, they base it off what is accepted as moral.

Really? Accepted by whom? Those with whom they agree, of course.

What if the whole world were atheist? Well if they all applied kantian principles then life would be alot more enjoyable than it is today.

More enjoyable to whom? And on what basis is anyone bound by your preferred ethical system?

And why is your transcendent moral law even correct? There are many different religions that believe that god/s gave them transcendent moral laws to live by. Which one is correct? You believe yours is, others believe there's is. Of course you'll just say that yours is the only true religion, but that belongs in another thread I think...

Yes, that would be another discussion. But it certainly doesn't follow that, because there are competing religious claims, then true religion doesn't exist. As I've been discussing throughout this thread, my claim is that Christian theism is the only worldview that renders reality intelligible.

 

[Jersey]

I can certainly see why you'd feel that way. If, instead of acknowledging a transcendent moral law, each of us gets to define morals and ethics according to our own personal inclinations, it's not very difficult to be moral and ethical. If I get to define right and wrong, everything I do will be right.

What exactly is a "transcendent moral law" ?

And how would you define what is right and/or wrong?

Would it be wrong to kill or lie ? Do you see where there could be areas of gray applied in these two?

Or do you only see only black and white according to your "transcendent moral law" ?

 

[MattTheAgnostic]

Those are all good arguments. It is clear that you believe one thing and I believe another. There is one last point I would like to raise though.

Who determines this "transcendent moral law"? I'm assuming that you determine it through your interpretation of the bible and other sources. The problem with this is that it is still humans interpreting something, and introducing human imperfections into the perfect (if you believe the bible is perfect).

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/jun/04062505.html
This link is about a priest that is pro-choice and pro-homosexual marraige. You might say that he is wrong, but he is just interpreting the same sources that you are, just in a different way. You might say that homosexuality is wrong, some christians don't agree with you. But still you will say that your interpretion is the right one. What you must realise though it is still just your interpretation.

Humans determine "transcendent moral law".

 

[A. believer]

Those are all good arguments. It is clear that you believe one thing and I believe another. There is one last point I would like to raise though.

Who determines this "transcendent moral law"? I'm assuming that you determine it through your interpretation of the bible and other sources. The problem with this is that it is still humans interpreting something, and introducing human imperfections into the perfect (if you believe the bible is perfect).

In a broad sense, my worldview dictates, and my experience of how people across time and cultures think confirms, that the moral law is self-evident. It is innately revealed to man through the instrument of conscience. Sin-seared consciences and human limitations, though, render us fallible, both in our affirmation, and in our application, of the moral law.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/jun/04062505.html
This link is about a priest that is pro-choice and pro-homosexual marraige. You might say that he is wrong, but he is just interpreting the same sources that you are, just in a different way. You might say that homosexuality is wrong, some christians don't agree with you. But still you will say that your interpretion is the right one. What you must realise though it is still just your interpretation.

Certainly I realize that my interpretation of the moral law is fallible. I would dispute, though, that all self-professing Christians are "just interpreting the same sources that [I am]," and I would dispute that the written revelation of God is so unclear as to be functionally incoherent and useless.

Humans determine "transcendent moral law".

If humans were the determiners of the moral law, it would not be transcendent. But perhaps you misspoke, and you really meant to reiterate what you were saying earlier which is that humans interpret the transcendent moral law. This is self-evidently true. But the acknowledgment that there is a law that is morally binding upon humans, regardless of whether we agree with it or not, is a necessary acknowledgment to make before one can even begin to discuss what that law consists of, from whence does it come, and how it ought to be applied.