Does morality exist without God?

[Dave Ellis]

If you do not believe in a God or higher authority than yourself, you only believe by the standards of your own intelligence. Since intelligence differs in persons where do you find common ground? Do you set your morals by the company you keep, what if you hang out with murderers? If you can accept your actions everyone else should to. Chaos is a correct statement for atheists, humanist same thing.

On the contrary... if you need a book to tell you how to act morally, you are not a moral person.

Your second point is senseless, morality does not require high amounts of intelligence. Many animals exhibit moral behavior. Morality is spawned by the fact we feel empathy for people, that's why if you see someone go flying off a bicycle, you cringe. Or if you're watching a loved one succeed at something, you feel happy or proud. It's because you can empathize with them.

That element of our physiology also allows us to know it's wrong to kill, steal, rape or whatnot. On the flipside, it is what makes us feel good when we help others or are generally charitable.

The fact you are trying to assert your book of rules is necessary for moral behavior is silly. The drive for us to act moral must have existed long before civilization itself was founded, or we could have never organized ourselves into cohesive societies.

Your "moral code" must by necessity have existed before it was ever put on paper, because otherwise we would never have any basis to ever write it in the first place. That therefore means morality comes from within us, and not your book.

Atheists are not Chaotic, Atheists are just as moral as anyone else, if not more-so.

 

[Netbug009]

On the contrary... if you need a book to tell you how to act morally, you are not a moral person.

So I'm guessing you gained all your morality without the influence of anything, especially anything you have ever read, right?

 

[Eudaimonist]

It is the root of all sin,worship of self. If you think about flesh and sin it starts with a selfish action, people who are a the top of the list are atheist simply because they do not want to be accountable for their actions.

What do you mean by the claim that atheists don't want to be accountable for their actions?

What makes you think that atheists "worship the self"?

By out shouting and refuting anything said they make their own doctorian another example of worship of self.

No, that's respect for reality and logic. Refuting false ideas is intellectual humility, because it recognizes that reality does not conform to human opinion, but rather judgment should conform to reality. If atheists had worshipped the self, they would be "New Agers" who believe whatever they like, regardless of reality and logic.

In some confused state it is somewhat childlike, I do not like the rules so it's a stupid game I quit!

Do you mean like how Christians insist that there is a God, even though there isn't good reason to think that there is one? Godless natural reality is a stupid game, so I quit!

What amazes me is the effort they put into trying to disprove what they do not belive.

I assure you, it doesn't take much effort.

A rational person when told about some crazy worship shakes his head and dismisses it case closed.

No, that would not be rational, since we all have to share the world together, and rational people understand this. If Christians weren't so political and in-your-face about their religion, rational atheists wouldn't bother so much having these conversations.

After all how many Christians argue and debate the atheist forums .

Plenty!!!


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

If you do not believe in a God or higher authority than yourself, you only believe by the standards of your own intelligence.

Reality is the standard of truth. Intelligence is just a means. An intelligent person is aware that while reasoning is a powerful tool, it shouldn't be regarded as infallible. So, intelligence cannot be the standard. However, it may be regarded as the proper means, and intellectual integrity may be rightly regarded as a proper virtue.

Since intelligence differs in persons where do you find common ground?

Intelligence does not differ between persons. IQ levels may differ, and beliefs may differ, but we all have human intelligence.

Do you set your morals by the company you keep

No, and I can't imagine why anyone would do that.

If you can accept your actions everyone else should to.

No, that's not my view at all. Accepting my actions isn't the same thing as regarding myself as infallible in ethical judgment. A wise individual could certainly explain to me in a convincing way how some ethical judgment I had made was incorrect. I have changed my views on ethics since I was a teenager, so I'm saying this from experience.

Chaos is a correct statement for atheists, humanist same thing.

Chaos is your strawman atheist.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dave Ellis]

I completely agree with your argument. Without the concepts of Christianity our society would be overwhelmed with crime. Christians are the high ground for low percentages of criminal activity in the United States. However, I find it hard to to understand why these atheists lack order and thrive in confusion.

I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic in your response, or posting a genuine response... so if you were writing your post to mock the other posters bigotry, my apologies.

However, assuming this is an accurate post, you are clearly ignorant to reality and prejudiced as well.

First off, the laws are not based on Christianity. Secondly, Christians certainly don't have the high ground for low crime percentages either.

Ironically, the lowest percentage of the prison population per capita are Atheists, at 0.2% of the entire population (Non believers make up at least 15% of the total population of the country, and likely higher). Likewise, 93% of the National Academy of Sciences are Atheists.

Likewise, if your point had any logical backing, then countries such as Sweden would be full-on chaotic nightmares, because only 15-23% of the population (based on what survey you read) has a belief in God. Instead, it is far more peaceful than the United States.

Even looking within the United States, the bible belt states have the highest incidences of violent crime, where relatively non-religious states like the pacific northwest and Maine/Vermont, etc are quite peaceful in comparison.

Your statements simply have no backing in fact. You are acting off your own prejudices, and I request you stop denigrating Atheists, as you clearly have no understanding of them

 

[Dave Ellis]

I'm sorry, but I do have to slow this train down a bit.

now faith -- atheists have much common ground, even with Christians, when it comes to moral issues. They simply do not believe that it stems from God. Have there been no Christians who have sinned? Or even committed murder?

You are, to a degree, correct about is the commonality of thought. But then even between Christian denominations we have much in-fighting.

Reliant -- I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that society would be overwhelmed with crime without Christianity. Ever heard of the Crusades? Since to me God is the reality and morals come from Him, I can only think of atheists in this argument as if they went off and started their own country -- let's give them Australia. Let's suppose that Australia was filled with only atheists, had not Christians, and there was no communication between the outside, Christian (or Muslim or Hindu, etc.) world and themselves. Do you think they would ride downward into a society of crime and chaos? I think some percentage of them would, but a larger percentage would enact laws against the crime.

Why? Because the crime and the hate, the stealing and the murder: hurt. It hurts personally, it hurts society, it hurts the group in general. And the group would rise above it and form some type of "civilization."

To say that a lack of Christianity leads to chaos would be to say that Hindu societies are violent and in chaos. They are not. They are lost spiritually, but they are quite peaceful. Or take a Buddist society. Even a large portion of the Muslim society is based on peace.

The major argument here is that the lack of Christianity -- the Gospel of Jesus Christ and what He did on the cross for mankind -- leads to lost man. A mankind that is eternally separated from God, their Creator, and thus eternally lost and without His Love. We do not preach the Gospel to avoid chaos. We preach to give the Good News to men so that they may be saved and have their relationship with the Father repaired. We preach so that they may be saved.

Thank you for providing proof that there are some open minded, mature and reasonable Christians out there.

I obviously disagree with you on the spirituality bit, however simply because we don't see eye to eye on that doesn't make me any better, or you any worse of a person. In fact, you sound like quite a good person.

Thanks for your post!

 

[Dave Ellis]

It is the root of all sin,worship of self. If you think about flesh and sin it starts with a selfish action, people who are a the top of the list are atheist simply because they do not want to be accountable for their actions.

Further proof you're a bigot.

Not sharing your theological beliefs is not selfish, or showing a lack of accountability. We simply don't accept the claims made by your religion as fact.

Tossing out the statement that you did, shows you are completely ignorant of the mindset of the average Atheist.

By out shouting and refuting anything said they make their own doctorian another example of worship of self. In some confused state it is somewhat childlike, I do not like the rules so it's a stupid game I quit!

Please re-state this part in English, as it makes no sense as written.

What amazes me is the effort they put into trying to disprove what they do not belive. A rational person when told about some crazy worship shakes his head and dismisses it case closed. So this tells me by obsessing over religion their hearts are pricked and their trying to make peace with themselves. After all how many Christians argue and debate the atheist forums . I'm glad their with us and hoping some will find their way home in Christ.

If you had to go through life having some religious wingnuts trying to impede science, pass legislation based on their religion that directly affects you and actively discriminate against you for not sharing their beliefs... You'd be incredibly vocal in fighting back too.

You're right, when a rational person hears about some kind of crazy worship, they usually do shake their head and walk away. However if that crazy worship starts trying to muscle it's way into the government, and gets in your face on a daily basis... A rational person would no longer just walk away, he'd have to take note and do what he can to stop the problem.

If the Christians kept their religion to themselves, I really wouldn't care what they believe. But since you feel the need to push your beliefs on others, and discriminate against others, they need to be actively opposed.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I don't mean to seem like I'm playing with words. I did not say otherwise: God has a clear view of all time. His creation of you did not force your hand. His knowledge of the future (all possible futures) did not force your decisions. His knowledge of your decisions did not change anything in Him about how He created you. God's ways and abilities are so far outside our understanding; His ability to deal with "time" is phenomenal -- and we may not be able to understand it all. But we do know from scripture (whether you like this book or not: I say again, if you want to discuss the Christian God you are discussing the Bible) that (a) He is omniscient and knows all time, past and future; and (b, arguably) that He has given man a free will to choose his eternal destiny.


Why? At least logic as you understand it. Again, you formed your analogy as an eisegesis of your position.


First, we are not talking about an athiest's world of no God. The conversation is about God's view of humans from His POV outside of "time." To have this conversation you must then assume that God exists.

Further, the concept of free will must be then framed in a world where God exists. Given that, I don't see why you say that that my concept of God is contradictory to free will.

(1) He created us with an ability to freely choose.
(2) He allows us to freely choose with that ability.

I don't know what is difficult here. God could create us in the Calvinistic sense, wherein He has chosen the elect (whether of not they then have a will to accept their position and be saved or reject it and be lost with the non-elect; or whether it is Irresistible Grace and they will eventually make the "right" decision). Or God could create in the Arminian sense, wherein He has given us the free ability to choose, outside of His desires, short of His calling which is not forceful but enabling. No contradiction with free will and a Creator God exists here in the second scenario.

(3) God is omniscient and can see the past and the future, even the future that we have not lived yet, because He is outside of "time," having created said time. But His office outside of time, in regards to our salvation, is to offer and observe, because He has positioned Himself such having given man a free will to choose his own destiny. God can see the future, so our end result is not something that has yet to happen, but simply something in "time" that we have yet to experience. God is not limited by our "time." He clearly sees the choices that we will make. But He does not influence or force those decisions. To Him, they have already occurred. He has nothing to influence or force since they are already "done." The problem is that our minds can not comprehend the concept of eternity once "time" has been dismantled and burned up. What then is "time?" I can't tell you. I only know that scripture talks of eternity, which may not be a progression of ticks of a cosmic clock.


I would hope so.


Again, I don't mean to come across as "playing with words." I mean exactly what I've said.

Your new scenario: fair enough. But you ended it with a statement that " would be able to know....a person[s choices]....by setting them up a specific way." Why do you need to presuppose that the choice are set up by the "God." I will acquiesce that it is POSSIBLE for God to have preselected the choices....but that is not my argument. My argument is that God did not preselect or in any manner force or create your decisions. He gave you a free choice and He allowed you to make your own choice. He set before you Life and Death. If there was any inducement it was only in His giving a hint: choose Life!

Think of it this way for a moment: let's say that God was indeed locked in "time" or that He at least honored it to the point that He didn't peek. Then He creates man with a free will and allows him to live his life, without coercion, and allows man to make a free will choice between Life and Death. Would this allow, in your mindset, a harmony between man's free will and God's creation/existence?

And if so, then, after understanding and allowing for man to freely choose, then and only then give God the ability to see the results. Move Him outside this thing called "time" so that He can see the whole thing at once. Allow for Him to read the last chapter of the book, but know that He doesn't come back and rewrite the earlier chapters because of what He sees.

You almost had my agreement. "How a person is created" is not the base for his decisions (does not force them). "How a person is created" is with a free will.


We could go down this path ad infinitum. First let me agree with your first statement. My acceptance does not make it real. In your second statement, there is no reason to assume it is not (Pascal's Wager, for instance). The problem with Pascal's Wager is that simply accepting a God because He might be real is not accepting God and what Jesus did for you: and you, under Pascal's Wager, would still be as lost as ever.


No it isn't.


Ahhh. But you have accepted the reality of cars driving on a freeway. The athiest view in this scenario is that there is not such thing as a Car. The idea of Car came from stories cobbled together by primitive people many many centuries ago.


No. You are saying that you could remove yourself from the reality of the pavement and "see what would happen in the end." Oops a car went by....I guess it was real.....ok I believe in cars. In the religious world, you are saying that you will wait and see, and when the end comes you will see God and say...oops, there is a God; ok I believe. But at that time it is too late (you are given once to die, and then the Judgement).

No, in the scenario I give you deny the car. You stay on the pavement based upon the denial and you go to sleep. You don't get to know the worldview ahead of time....same manner as you have no "proof" of God.


Back at ya.

Atheistic thinking has only been about 4-7% of the thinking; nowadays there are upwards of 12-15% who SAY they are atheist, but under controlled test conditions they answer questions that show their belief in a god, leaving us back around 4-7%. People, whether they choose [what I believe to be] the correct answer, Christianity, WANT to believe in a Supreme Being. I believe that this is because God is whisperring in that small still voice, they are hearing His calling. But they are making a choice to seek after their desires instead of seeking after His Will. Romans 2 tells us that they truly do know the difference, even if they have not learned the details. Just like any baby, they KNOW how to dring the milk.

Ok,

I'll try to cut down what could be an incredibly long winded response!

The whole point behind the initial argument is this:

From a Christian Perspective:
1. God can see all of time
2. God creates everything

Assuming you agree with those points:

Therefore God must know everything about anyone he creates, the moment he creates them. Otherwise he can not see all of time.

Free Will is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the person is free to make his own choices or not. Since God can see all time, he must know what the person's ultimate fate is, even if the person makes all his own choices.

I assume we probably agree so far.


So moving further, we also know a person makes choices based on that person's brain. Some brains are wired differently than others, and that will cause some people to make different choices, or believe different things.

If God created the person, he must have also created that person's brain, and wired it a certain way. Some will be very prone to religious belief, some will be very resistant to religious belief.

Therefore, even with free will, people extremely unlikely to follow religion are starting off with the deck stacked against them. And since God knows all, he must know he is setting many people up for almost certain failure.

---

As to your interstate example, the logical flaw in the example is that you're using a virtual guarantee in your scenario, where God is not a virtual guarantee by any means.

The Atheist viewpoint is not that there's no car... as there's plenty of verifiable testable evidence backing the idea that cars regularly drive down the interstate. He is provided with plenty of good reason to assume he's going to get run over by sleeping on the interstate.

Your scenario depends on the atheist making an irrational judgement by ignoring an obvious situation. There is no verifiable evidence that your god exists to compare to the cars on the interstate. That's where the example breaks down.

A better example would be a christian and an atheist in an area not known for poisonous berries stumbling across a previously unknown species of bush, and debating if the berries are poisonous or not.

The answer is, we really don't know... but given the total lack of death from poisonous berries in the area to date, it's fairly safe to assume the berries are OK to eat. Still, that doesn't mean it's a guarantee, just an educated guess.

 

[Dave Ellis]

So I'm guessing you gained all your morality without the influence of anything, especially anything you have ever read, right?

Views on certain topics can be swayed through discussion, but that's not what my point was.

My point was Morality comes ultimately from within us. We know good from bad, and most people (religious or not) have generally the same ideals that way.

For example Euthanasia is a great example of a moral dilemma. Perfectly moral people could be on both sides of the argument. If you have a terminally ill patient that has a month to live, with no hope of recovery, and is doomed to live in writhing agony until they die... is it more ethical to let them end their lives humanely to spare them further pain, or is it more ethical to preserve their lives at all cost?

I think everyone would be in agreement it's a crappy situation, but it's a legitimate debate on what is the best thing to do. Someone's moral viewpoint could shift there for justifiable reason.

However, in order to make that decision, he would have to already posses an innate sense of right from wrong. That sense people are naturally born with, and is shown to exist in far more species than Humans. In this example, the debate is that we know death is bad, and suffering is bad. It's a matter of prioritizing what is the best of the two options in the situation... and not everyone will agree.

So yes, if you need a book to tell you that murder, rape, theft, suffering, fraud or whatnot is wrong... then you do not have a sense of basic morality within you. If you did, you wouldn't need a book.

 

[differentDemocrat]

in my opinion it really already is not any in our current God-less society that is concentrated on atheism, greed, and evolution. America is declining and declining fast. I fear for the future of this great nation and especially for our children...
I will stay positive and stay in prayer...

-Peace

 

[Eudaimonist]

in my opinion it really already is not any in our current God-less society that is concentrated on atheism, greed, and evolution. America is declining and declining fast.

America is declining, but none of those are the cause of its decline.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dave Ellis]

in my opinion it really already is not any in our current God-less society that is concentrated on atheism, greed, and evolution. America is declining and declining fast. I fear for the future of this great nation and especially for our children...
I will stay positive and stay in prayer...

-Peace

First off... The country is certainly not concentrated on Atheism. If anything it's Christian Dominated.

I will agree with you greed is a major problem in society. Taking steps to ensure the free market is preserved, but everyone has improved ability to care for themselves and family would go a long way towards fixing things

Your third point is nonsensical. How on earth would the Theory of Evolution in any way contribute to the decline of the United States? If anything, our understanding of biology (of which the cornerstone is evolution) has been responsible for saving countless lives and preventing much disease. I don't get how you link a scientific theory to the decline of a country? Why not the Theory of Gravity or the Theory of General Relativity?

Hopefully the U.S turns things around. It's showing signs of finally pulling out of the recession, and once that happens things are bound to improve. Getting the country back on sound financial footing will go a long way towards revitalizing the nation.

 

[now faith]

On the contrary... if you need a book to tell you how to act morally, you are not a moral person.

Your second point is senseless, morality does not require high amounts of intelligence. Many animals exhibit moral behavior. Morality is spawned by the fact we feel empathy for people, that's why if you see someone go flying off a bicycle, you cringe. Or if you're watching a loved one succeed at something, you feel happy or proud. It's because you can empathize with them.

That element of our physiology also allows us to know it's wrong to kill, steal, rape or whatnot. On the flipside, it is what makes us feel good when we help others or are generally charitable.

The fact you are trying to assert your book of rules is necessary for moral behavior is silly. The drive for us to act moral must have existed long before civilization itself was founded, or we could have never organized ourselves into cohesive societies.

Your "moral code" must by necessity have existed before it was ever put on paper, because otherwise we would never have any basis to ever write it in the first place. That therefore means morality comes from within us, and not your book.

Atheists are not Chaotic, Atheists are just as moral as anyone else, if not more-so.

I disagree humans like animals are a product of their surrounding ever heard of cannibals somehow I don't think they would care about a bicycle fall.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I disagree humans like animals are a product of their surrounding ever heard of cannibals somehow I don't think they would care about a bicycle fall.

Well, you're completely within your right to disagree. However evidence shows you are absolutely wrong.

 

[now faith]

You believe that lying is a sin, correct?

Now I accept that it is possible to be sincerely incorrect in your beliefs and thus tell something wrong without lying.
But if you are unwilling to accept correction about your false views, and continue to proclaim them even when you have been confronted with corrections, this would amount to "lying". (And why this unwillingness... perhaps you are "selfish"?)

You have told lies - by repetition of what you have heard - already on this thread. Now again you proclaim a lot of things that are wrong.

Are you willing to be corrected, to accept correction and to stop making these false statements... or are will you be starting to lie?

How do you know what I have heard ? Does the God of the air give you a inside view?

 

[Freodin]

How do you know what I have heard ? Does the God of the air give you a inside view?

I just respond on what I see you write. For example, you mentioned the famous "NASA found the lost day" legend.
I think it quite unlikely, based on the age and origin of that legend, that you where part of it. That means you have heard or read it somewhere. Most likely from other well-meaning Christians who think they can present "proof" for their faith.

But that piece of information is incorrect. It has never happened, in neither of its recurring forms. It is false. It is a pious fraud. It is, harsh words used, a lie.

There are a lot of things that you wrote here that are false. Some of them can be shown to be false, some are a little more difficult to show. But if you continue to repeat at least those of the first category, you are repeating falsehood that you have been correct on. You would be lying.

You don't want to do that, do you?

 

[Shane Roach]

Atheists do not have any core body of work from which to build, and far from laying one down, they seem to thrive on being able to say, "There is no one Atheist viewpoint on anything." As the previous atheist said, "We have no dogma."

One can argue the extent to which religious dogma has been too inflexible, but without any dogma AT ALL, you basically have no cogent system at all. That is the sense in which atheists are in chaos in my opinion. They not only lack a dogma, but seem instinctively averse to following their ideas to conclusions, testing those, and establishing a lasting foundation for morals and ethics in an age they anticipate will be dominated by irreligion.

1. There is no possible uniting value system, because Atheism itself is not a system of belief. It is an opinion on one particular question, the existence, or non existence of God. Anything beyond that is irrelevant. The person you were talking to seems to be an Anarchist of some kind, which is not related at all to Atheism.

2. As for the bigotry statement... read your own words. "I have spoken to at least one atheist" etc...

Well, fantastic, using your criteria I can claim all Christians are anti-semetic because I have spoken to at least one Christian that is. Likewise, I have also spoken to at least one Christian that advocates overthrowing the constitution and establishing a Christian Theocracy. So that must obviously mean Christians don't respect the law either.

Judging an entire class of people based on your conversations with one guy shows ignorance, intolerance and prejudice towards everyone else.

By the way, your entire premise is contradictory as we would need to have a set standard of belief for you to draw the conclusion we all believe what that guy does.



1. If I came out and called you a chaotic, immoral person who is openly angry and resentful of moral behavior, would you not take offense? If you toss out prejudicial insults, you can expect to offend the people you are insulting.

2. Again, Atheism is not a belief system, it is a singular position on a specific question. Likewise, someone who is a Theist also has no holistic morality based on that point, as Theism is not a belief system either. A holistic morality is irrelevant to both positions in and of themselves.

3. As for the current legal system, you are wrong. In fact the legal system is specifically non-religious, while allowing citizens free exercise of whatever religion they choose. As for the historicity of the legal system, American Law is based on British Law. British Law in turn can trace its roots to Roman law, which predates Christianity.




There's also no cohesive philosophy among bald people, or people that believe or disbelieve in Bigfoot. Does that make them Chaotic too?

Likewise, would you be justified in calling them immoral and angry because as Bigfoot disbelievers, they have no unified moral code? That's exactly what you're doing with Atheists.

Just because people have a uniting characteristic, does not mean they need a written set of dogma. It's idiotic to state that they do.

I think your response really does illustrate exactly what I mean. I did not say that atheism in and of itself constituted a belief system. I said atheists seem loathe to sit down and really think about, evaluate, and create a broader value system that includes their atheism. They glom onto ancient religious systems, but then attack them piecemeal without any particular regard for the system they are deconstructing as a whole.

Again and again and again I have seen atheists angrily attacking the very concept of an atheist "world view" or "mindset". So fine. I agree. Why do you find that upsetting? Why are you attempting to characterize my agreement with your statement that atheists have no cohesive philosophy as somehow "bigoted"?

I certainly see atheists tossing that accusation around a lot these days. Pretty much any time you disagree with an atheist, you are bigoted. Now it seems you get that tag if you agree with them as well.

As for the observation that bald people do not have a united world view either, I do not notice bald people uniting continually to attack value systems.

To sum up -- Atheists identify themselves when arguing about values. They have no cogent value system of their own. When deconstructing other value systems, they do not replace them with anything cogent. This results in chaos.

That's why I see atheism as promoting chaos, and atheists as chaotic in their thoughts and actions. Atheists agree they have no cogent set of values or beliefs, and seem to celebrate that.

Why, again, are you then offended when someone agrees with you that you do not? What exactly is wrong with pointing out the chaos that is often the result?

 

[Freodin]

I think your response really does illustrate exactly what I mean. I did not say that atheism in and of itself constituted a belief system. I said atheists seem loathe to sit down and really think about, evaluate, and create a broader value system that includes their atheism. They glom onto ancient religious systems, but then attack them piecemeal without any particular regard for the system they are deconstructing as a whole.

Again and again and again I have seen atheists angrily attacking the very concept of an atheist "world view" or "mindset". So fine. I agree. Why do you find that upsetting? Why are you attempting to characterize my agreement with your statement that atheists have no cohesive philosophy as somehow "bigoted"?

I certainly see atheists tossing that accusation around a lot these days. Pretty much any time you disagree with an atheist, you are bigoted. Now it seems you get that tag if you agree with them as well.

As for the observation that bald people do not have a united world view either, I do not notice bald people uniting continually to attack value systems.

To sum up -- Atheists identify themselves when arguing about values. They have no cogent value system of their own. When deconstructing other value systems, they do not replace them with anything cogent. This results in chaos.

That's why I see atheism as promoting chaos, and atheists as chaotic in their thoughts and actions. Atheists agree they have no cogent set of values or beliefs, and seem to celebrate that.

Why, again, are you then offended when someone agrees with you that you do not? What exactly is wrong with pointing out the chaos that is often the result?

The main thing that is wrong with that is that it is incorrect.

Atheists usually define themselves as Atheists when they are put in contrast with Theists. But Atheists don't use their disbelief in deities alone as a basis for their values, their thoughts or their actions. They can use a number of non-theistic worldviews for that... just as Theists can use a number of different religions for theirs.

And I don't think you would agree that Theists promote chaos, would you?

 

[now faith]

You believe that lying is a sin, correct?

Now I accept that it is possible to be sincerely incorrect in your beliefs and thus tell something wrong without lying.
But if you are unwilling to accept correction about your false views, and continue to proclaim them even when you have been confronted with corrections, this would amount to "lying". (And why this unwillingness... perhaps you are "selfish"?)

You have told lies - by repetition of what you have heard - already on this thread. Now again you proclaim a lot of things that are wrong.

Are you willing to be corrected, to accept correction and to stop making these false statements... or are will you be starting to lie?

Are there no limits on atheist arrogance ! You bash are God Christ you say we are speaking nonsense in a Christian forum. Your position from the start is no God now let's debate. Let's play tennis and I do not give you a racquet, yeah I win!,, then when we try to work on your rigged game you call us liars for giving our opinion . You can no more understand Christians than I can understand atheist.As far as morals I love you all, but I may not like you.

 

[Freodin]

Are there no limits on atheist arrogance ! You bash are God Christ you say we are speaking nonsense in a Christian forum. Your position from the start is no God now let's debate. Let's play tennis and I do not give you a racquet, yeah I win!,, then when we try to work on your rigged game you call us liars for giving our opinion . You can no more understand Christians than I can understand atheist.As far as morals I love you all, but I may not like you.

Excuse me... arrogance?

I corrected you on a false information you were promoting. Are you so arrogant that you think yourself infallible, or that atheists cannot get something right? Are you so arrogant that you cannot admit a mistake, and rather alienate people?

You claim to believe in "Truth". You claim that lying is a sin... an offense against God.

And still you are willing to defend telling falsehoods?

No, you are right... I don't understand Christians. At all.