World's first Atheist TV Channel

[T_Laurich]

This is a false representation of atheism. Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of Gods. Nowhere does that mean atheists can't believe in an ultimate morality, and nowhere is it even reputably suggested, much less logically proven, that atheists commit more rapes, robberies, murders, tortures, child molestations, tax evasions, thefts, arsons, embezzlements, drug distribution, kidnappings, lies or adulteries than Christians do. In fact, the opposite is true.

View attachment 86176

Atheists make up about 10% of Americans, and represent 0.209% of the prison population (as above). Christians make up about 73% of the American population, and contribute to 74.172% of the prison population (as above).

If we correlate those numbers, this means the Christian populations both outside and inside jail are roughly the same, while there are considerably less atheists, percentage wise, inside prison than outside it. 47% of chaplians tracking religious conversion rates in prison say Christianity is growing, while only 12% of chaplians say atheism is growing.

So, even if we assume 50% of those Christians in US jails were not Christian until they went to jail and give the benefit of the doubt to you another way in assuming that all atheists were atheists when they committed their crimes, which is a very generous assumption, this still means that, using some simple mathematics, Christians are 24 times more likely than atheists to commit crimes which land them in prison.

Americans' self-reported belief in God has been relatively constant over the last 6 ½ decades. The percentage of Americans who say "yes" when asked if they believe in God is just a few percentage points lower today than it was in the 1940s, and within six points of the all-time high in the 1950s and 1960s.
However, past Gallup surveys have shown that not all Americans are absolutely certain in their beliefs about God. Given the ability to express doubts about their beliefs, the percentage who stick to a certain belief in God drops into the 70% to 80% range. Additionally, when Americans are given the option of saying they believe in a universal spirit or higher power instead of in "God," about 12% choose the former. Still, the May 2011 poll reveals that when given only the choice between believing and not believing in God, more than 9 in 10 Americans say they do believe.
More Than 9 in 10 Americans Continue to Believe in God







The number of Americans who do not identify with any religion continues to grow at a rapid pace. One-fifth of the U.S. public – and a third of adults under 30 – are religiously unaffiliated today, the highest percentages ever in Pew Research Center polling.

In the last five years alone, the unaffiliated have increased from just over 15% to just under 20% of all U.S. adults. Their ranks now include more than 13 million self-described atheists and agnostics (nearly 6% of the U.S. public), as well as nearly 33 million people who say they have no particular religious affiliation (14%).
A third of adults under 30 have no religious affiliation (32%), compared with just one-in-ten who are 65 and older (9%). And young adults today are much more likely to be unaffiliated than previous generations were at a similar stage in their lives.
In addition to religious behavior, the way that Americans talk about their connection to religion seems to be changing. Increasingly, Americans describe their religious affiliation in terms that more closely match their level of involvement in churches and other religious organizations. In 2007, 60% of those who said they seldom or never attend religious services nevertheless described themselves as belonging to a particular religious tradition. In 2012, just 50% of those who say they seldom or never attend religious services still retain a religious affiliation – a 10-point drop in five years. These trends suggest that the ranks of the unaffiliated are swelling in surveys partly because Americans who rarely go to services are more willing than in the past to drop their religious attachments altogether.
In 2007 Pew Research Center surveys, 15.3% of U.S. adults answered a question about their current religion by saying they were atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular.” The number of religiously unaffiliated respondents has ticked up each year since, and now stands at 19.6%.
These findings represent a continuation of long-term trends.

“Nones” on the Rise | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project



About three-quarters of chaplains say that attempts by inmates to proselytize or convert fellow inmates are “very” or “somewhat” common (73%), and a similar portion (77%) say that either “a lot” or “some” religious conversion takes place behind bars. Fewer chaplains say that expressions of extreme religious views are common in state prison; less than half of the chaplains surveyed (41%) say that religious extremism is very or somewhat common in the prison where they work.
Chaplains’ Perspectives on the Religious Lives of Inmates | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project




I would also like to point out that the statistics on prison religion is hypothetical and not concrete. They asked Chaplins to guess what the prison religious populations were.
Also using the data that crime has been consistently increasing over the years, andyour sources also point to atheism/agnosticism increasing. Do you think there could be a similarity? Take note all information I have used was the from the direct websites and links you were citing.

My question on post 20 still stands.
How do you determine your own morality. And how does atheism as a whole determine ultimate morality.

 

[Esanta]

Americans' self-reported belief in God has been relatively constant over the last 6 ½ decades. The percentage of Americans who say "yes" when asked if they believe in God is just a few percentage points lower today than it was in the 1940s, and within six points of the all-time high in the 1950s and 1960s.
However, past Gallup surveys have shown that not all Americans are absolutely certain in their beliefs about God. Given the ability to express doubts about their beliefs, the percentage who stick to a certain belief in God drops into the 70% to 80% range. Additionally, when Americans are given the option of saying they believe in a universal spirit or higher power instead of in "God," about 12% choose the former. Still, the May 2011 poll reveals that when given only the choice between believing and not believing in God, more than 9 in 10 Americans say they do believe.
More Than 9 in 10 Americans Continue to Believe in God







The number of Americans who do not identify with any religion continues to grow at a rapid pace. One-fifth of the U.S. public – and a third of adults under 30 – are religiously unaffiliated today, the highest percentages ever in Pew Research Center polling.

In the last five years alone, the unaffiliated have increased from just over 15% to just under 20% of all U.S. adults. Their ranks now include more than 13 million self-described atheists and agnostics (nearly 6% of the U.S. public), as well as nearly 33 million people who say they have no particular religious affiliation (14%).
A third of adults under 30 have no religious affiliation (32%), compared with just one-in-ten who are 65 and older (9%). And young adults today are much more likely to be unaffiliated than previous generations were at a similar stage in their lives.
In addition to religious behavior, the way that Americans talk about their connection to religion seems to be changing. Increasingly, Americans describe their religious affiliation in terms that more closely match their level of involvement in churches and other religious organizations. In 2007, 60% of those who said they seldom or never attend religious services nevertheless described themselves as belonging to a particular religious tradition. In 2012, just 50% of those who say they seldom or never attend religious services still retain a religious affiliation – a 10-point drop in five years. These trends suggest that the ranks of the unaffiliated are swelling in surveys partly because Americans who rarely go to services are more willing than in the past to drop their religious attachments altogether.
In 2007 Pew Research Center surveys, 15.3% of U.S. adults answered a question about their current religion by saying they were atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular.” The number of religiously unaffiliated respondents has ticked up each year since, and now stands at 19.6%.
These findings represent a continuation of long-term trends.

“Nones” on the Rise | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project



About three-quarters of chaplains say that attempts by inmates to proselytize or convert fellow inmates are “very” or “somewhat” common (73%), and a similar portion (77%) say that either “a lot” or “some” religious conversion takes place behind bars. Fewer chaplains say that expressions of extreme religious views are common in state prison; less than half of the chaplains surveyed (41%) say that religious extremism is very or somewhat common in the prison where they work.
Chaplains’ Perspectives on the Religious Lives of Inmates | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project




I would also like to point out that the statistics on prison religion is hypothetical and not concrete.
Also using the data that crime has been consistently increasing over the years, andyour sources also point to atheism/agnosticism increasing. Do you think there could be a similarity?

The increase in crime coincides with the increase in population. More people = more crime. And even if the percentages are slightly skewed, I gave room for 50% of those professed Christians to be NOT Christians, so to say 'Christians are 24 times more likely than atheists to commit crime that lands them in prison' is being very, very, very generous to Christians. As for religious data being hypothetical, it's actually largely based on pretty standard record keeping, questionnaires and the like.

So, I really wouldn't worry so much about where atheist morality comes from, and perhaps start worrying why such a larger percentage of Christians than atheists end up in jail. Your moral absolutes don't seem to be quite as practical as you put across.

Crime doesn't seem to be anywhere near as much an atheist problem as a Christian one.

 

[T_Laurich]

The increase in crime coincides with the increase in population. More people = more crime. And even if the percentages are slightly skewed, I gave room for 50% of those professed Christians to be NOT Christians, so to say 'Christians are 24 times more likely than atheists to commit crime that lands them in prison' is being very, very, very generous to Christians. As for religious data being hypothetical, it's actually largely based on pretty standard record keeping, questionnaires and the like.

So, I really wouldn't worry so much about where atheist morality comes from, and perhaps start worrying why such a larger percentage of Christians than atheists end up in jail. Your moral absolutes don't seem to be quite as practical as you put across.

Crime doesn't seem to be anywhere near as much an atheist problem as a Christian one.

The sources you sited were a questionnaire to Chaplin themselves and asked them to explain WHAT THEY THOUGHT the prison's religious population was... Read the link you cited or the link I cited, they are the same link. If you cite those types of sources as fact that is fine, but they are not fact they are hypothesized. Might I also add that the information and statistics given never spoke about what religion they were before prison... The question was, what do you think the prison populations religion is.





Violent crime in 1960 was 160.9 per 100,000 people.
Violent crime in 2012 was 386.9 per 100000 people.

Rape in 1960 was 9.6 per 100,000 people.
Rape in 2012 was 26.9 per 100,000 people.

Robbery in 1960 was 60.1 per 100000 people.
Robbery in 2012 was 112.9 per 100000 people.

Aggravated assault in 1960 was 86.1 per 100,000 people.
Aggravated assault in 2012 was 242.3 per 100,000 people.

Burglary in 1960 was 508.6 per 100,000 people.
Burglary in 2012 was 670.2 per 100,000 people.

Larcencytheft in 1960 was 1034.7 per 100,000 people.
Larcencytheft in 2012 was 1959.3 per 100,000 people.
United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2012


So how does an increase of population change the per capita statistics?

And My question on post 20 still stands.How do you determine your own morality. And how does atheism as a whole determine ultimate morality.

 

[Esanta]

The sources you sited were a questionnaire to Chaplin themselves and asked them to explain WHAT THEY THOUGHT the prison's religious population was... Read the link you cited or the link I cited, they are the same link. If you cite those types of sources as fact that is fine, but they are not fact they are hypothesized. Might I also add that the information and statistics given never spoke about what religion they were before prison... The question was, what do you think the prison populations religion is.





Violent crime in 1960 was 160.9 per 100,000 people.
Violent crime in 2012 was 386.9 per 100000 people.

Rape in 1960 was 9.6 per 100,000 people.
Rape in 2012 was 26.9 per 100,000 people.

Robbery in 1960 was 60.1 per 100000 people.
Robbery in 2012 was 112.9 per 100000 people.

Aggravated assault in 1960 was 86.1 per 100,000 people.
Aggravated assault in 2012 was 242.3 per 100,000 people.

Burglary in 1960 was 508.6 per 100,000 people.
Burglary in 2012 was 670.2 per 100,000 people.

Larcencytheft in 1960 was 1034.7 per 100,000 people.
Larcencytheft in 2012 was 1959.3 per 100,000 people.
United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2012


So how does an increase of population change the per capita statistics?

And My question on post 20 still stands.How do you determine your own morality. And how does atheism as a whole determine ultimate morality.

Atheism isn't a shared consciousness any-more than Christianity is, so I really can't say how 'atheism as a whole' determines morality. Different atheists take different approaches, and while you might think you get some intrinsic, objective, totally consistent moral framework from the bible, the truth is you tailor your own interpretation like every other Christian does, hence the massive variations in beliefs. Instead of asking me where I get my morality, you can much more satisfactorily discover the mechanics of self-moralizing by analysing your own practices in that respect.

As for me, it's little more than empathy. I don't like to suffer; I shouldn't cause others to. I wouldn't like to be killed; I shouldn't kill others. If any characteristic, say lust, obscures my vision, or hinders my ability to morally think, then that is also an undesirable characteristic and something I should try to get rid of.

 

[T_Laurich]

Atheism isn't a shared consciousness any-more than Christianity is, so I really can't say how 'atheism as a whole' determines morality. Different atheists take different approaches, and while you might think you get some intrinsic, objective, totally consistent moral framework from the bible, the truth is you tailor your own interpretation like every other Christian does, hence the massive variations in beliefs. Instead of asking me where I get my morality, you can much more satisfactorily discover the mechanics of self-moralizing by analysing your own practices in that respect.

As for me, it's little more than empathy. I don't like to suffer; I shouldn't cause others to. I wouldn't like to be killed; I shouldn't kill others. If any characteristic, say lust, obscures my vision, or hinders my ability to morally think, then that is also an undesirable characteristic and something I should try to get rid of.

I would appreciate if you did not use your limited knowledge on Christianity to impose that we create our own morality and it is "tailor made". I understand that this view makes it easier to defend your own, but you completely misunderstood my question.

You say "Atheism is not a shared conscious any more than Christianity is". So can I ask, if Jesus Christ is our Lord, who is yours. Who is your leader? You say that you have the same equivalent of shared conscious as Christianity. So who is your leader.

Now you say that we tailor make our own interpretations from the bible, Can you prove that a Christian tailor makes their own interpretations from the bible by proving the bible is open to interpretations. You say that atheists can not form an ultimate morality as a collective, then you throw Christians under the same bus, can you provide some evidence that the bible is open to interpretations. That it allows us to make our own tailor made moralities?



As for when you talk about your own morality, the question was How do you determine your own morality.You did an amazing job describing by-products of that morality, but how did you get those characteristics? What gave you morality as an atheist?
Again can I ask how you got the morality that you shouldn't cause others to kill, and you shouldn't cause other to feel empathy.

NOTICE: I am asking for the cause of your morality and atheism's ultimate morality, I AM NOT asking for by products of that said morality.


I will go first, God gives us morality.
Here is the definition of morality to help you.
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

 

[AntonHolden]

Even by most atheists' standards, this channel is pretty stupid.

 

[Anonimous]

Sorry...but I don't believe in atheism

 

[Anonimous]

Even by most atheists' standards, this channel is pretty stupid.

Hmmm. A bunch of atheists sitting at home watching a TV show about someone they don't believe in? Sounds fun...

 

[Esanta]

I would appreciate if you did not use your limited knowledge on Christianity to impose that we create our own morality and it is "tailor made". I understand that this view makes it easier to defend your own, but you completely misunderstood my question.

You say "Atheism is not a shared conscious any more than Christianity is". So can I ask, if Jesus Christ is our Lord, who is yours. Who is your leader? You say that you have the same equivalent of shared conscious as Christianity. So who is your leader.

Now you say that we tailor make our own interpretations from the bible, Can you prove that a Christian tailor makes their own interpretations from the bible by proving the bible is open to interpretations. You say that atheists can not form an ultimate morality as a collective, then you throw Christians under the same bus, can you provide some evidence that the bible is open to interpretations. That it allows us to make our own tailor made moralities?



As for when you talk about your own morality, the question was How do you determine your own morality.You did an amazing job describing by-products of that morality, but how did you get those characteristics? What gave you morality as an atheist?
Again can I ask how you got the morality that you shouldn't cause others to kill, and you shouldn't cause other to feel empathy.

NOTICE: I am asking for the cause of your morality and atheism's ultimate morality, I AM NOT asking for by products of that said morality.


I will go first, God gives us morality.
Here is the definition of morality to help you.
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

You assume atheists require an external, ultimate moral source with whom the buck stops, but in reality that's your issue, not the atheists'. Deontological morality is only one moral viewpoint, and by far not the best, since it does little to consider cause, effect, circumstance, motive or intent. You also assume atheists require a Lord or a leader for their inherently varied moral stances, which isn't the case, and you clearly can't recognize the evidence of the bible being open to interpretation is not hard to find; how much argument is there on moral tenets of the bible on a daily basis? It's not absolute, totally objective, or unanimously agreed upon.

If you want to know where my morality originates - like all viewpoints in my mind, it originates with my consciousness, thought, perception, observation, understanding, rationalization, logic, emotion and empathy.

 

[T_Laurich]

You assume atheists require an external, ultimate moral source with whom the buck stops, but in reality that's your issue, not the atheists'. Deontological morality is only one moral viewpoint, and by far not the best, since it does little to consider cause, effect, circumstance, motive or intent. You also assume atheists require a Lord or a leader for their inherently varied moral stances, which isn't the case, and you clearly can't recognize the evidence of the bible being open to interpretation is not hard to find; how much argument is there on moral tenets of the bible on a daily basis? It's not absolute, totally objective, or unanimously agreed upon.

If you want to know where my morality originates - like all viewpoints in my mind, it originates with my consciousness, thought, perception, observation, understanding, rationalization, logic, emotion and empathy.

I did not assume anything, I never assumed that you had to have an external morality. But, can you please explain how a Deontological view point on morality is bad? And not the best... Since it is by definition based off of ethics and law.
Edit: by the way you are assuming Deontological ethics do not take into account cause, effect, circumstance, motive or intent.This is true that it doesn't, the reason it does not is because when the law is set up that is taken under account. So to assume that it was never taken under account is a butchering of the ethics themselves.
The defintion is normative ethical position that judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule or rules.
So you saying that Deontoligical ethics does no take into account those 5 things is 100% incorrect. For the rules do take into account those 5 things.

I never assumed that atheists required a Lord, you have taken my words out of context. You stated "Atheism isn't a shared consciousness any-more than Christianity is" I then pointed out that Christianity has Jesus as our Lord, so if atheism is just as shared conscious as Christianity who is yours? Notice I never assumed you had to have a leader, but when you stated the quote above, I asked a question. If your answer is that you don't have one, then fine but don't point to a similarity when there is none.

If the bible is open to interpretation all I ask is that you prove it, if it's not hard to find then this is simple...


If you want to know where my morality originates - like all viewpoints in my mind, it originates with my consciousness, thought, perception, observation, understanding, rationalization, logic, emotion and empathy.


Awesome, thanks for answering part of the question, now can you answer the other part of the question. How does atheism as a whole determine morality.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

You're wrong on both points Esanta.

Point 1: Atheism is spiritually devoid of any actual transcendent ultimately meaningful normative morality, by definition, and posits a hopeless future for all advanced organic life as I stated in post 15.

See: The Absurdity of Life without God | Reasonable Faith

Point 2: The Christian worldview is linked to a variety of positive outcomes, including prosocial behavior (1–4), volunteerism (5), honesty (6–7), an enhanced ability to resist temptation (8–9), and the development of moral communities (10) that foster cooperation.

For example, the Barna Group found that those who hold to the worldviews of atheism or agnosticism in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; abortion; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; pornography and obscene sexual behavior; and engaging in homosexuality/bisexuality.

See: https://www.barna.org/barna-update/...principles-as-the-moral-standard#.U_BQJct0yCg

See: Atheism Doesn't Lead to Immoral Behavior or Poor Ethics - Or Does It?

"Although, in theory, atheists can lead moral lives, the absence of an absolute moral foundation probably leads to moral drifting over time. This phenomenon also occurs in Christians who abandon church and Christian fellowship. As a result, the differences in morality between atheists and evangelicals is striking, with atheists being much more prone [to engage in immorality]."

And specifically, atheistic evolutionary thinking has engendered social Darwinism and given that the proponents of atheism have no rational basis for morality in their ideology, the immoral views that atheists often hold and the low per capita giving of American atheists is not unpredictable.

Atheism has the following characteristics which lent themselves to democide across much of the globe in the 20th century under state atheism. See: What About Atrocities That Have Been Done in the Name of Religion

lack of recognition of an ultimate judge of moral actions and a judge who sets injustice aright in a last judgment, and thus do not recognize the immorality of murder:

• Lack of seeing the importance of human beings as images of God and so easily discarding them as merely material things, products of mere chance.
• Lack of acknowledging an external standard of moral perfection, thus ending up with self-created standards which can include killing for political survival.
• Absence of guidance by divine revelation of the moral law, such as "Thou shalt not kill".
• Following an ethic of atheistic evolutionism that is based on the survival and victory of the fittest.

1. Henrich J, Ensimger J, McElreath R, Barr A, Barrett C, et al. (2010) Markets, religion, community size, and the evolution of fairness and punishment. Science 327: 1480–1484. 2. Norenzayan A, Shariff AF (2008) The origin and evolution of religious prosociality. Science 322: 58–62.
3. Preston J, Ritter RS, Hernandez JI (2010) Principles of religious prosociality: A review and reformulation. Soc Personal Psychol Compass 4: 574–590.
4. Shariff AF, Norenzayan A (2007) God is watching you: Priming God concepts increases prosocial behavior in an anonymous economic game. Psychol Science 18: 803–809.
5. Pichon I, Boccato G, Saroglou V (2007) Nonconscious influences of religion on prosociality: A priming study. Eur J Soc Psychol 37: 1032–1045.
6. Mazar N, Amir O, Ariely D (2008) The dishonesty of honest people: A theory of self-concept maintenance. J Mark Res 45: 633–644.
7. Randolph-Seng B, Nielsen ME (2007) Honesty: One effect of primed religious representations. Int J Psychol Relig 17: 303–15.
8. Laurin K, Kay AC, Fitzsimons GM (2012) Divergent effects of thoughts of God on self-regulation. J Pers Soc Psychol 102: 4–21.
9. Rounding K, Lee A, Jacobson JA, Ji LJ (2012) Religion replenishes self-control. Psychol Science 23: 635–642.
10. Graham J, Haidt J (2010) Beyond beliefs: Religions bind individuals into moral communities. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 14: 140–150.

Review your statement below. Even if your assertion were true it's ultimately not meaningful from an atheistic POV, epistemologically speaking, but also from the practical standpoint that atheism posits doom for all advanced biological life trapped in this universe and nothing is ultimately meaningful without sentient life.

Christianity, on the other hand, teaches the immoral activities you've listed here are absolutely immoral in an ultimately meaningful way as transcendent eternal creator God will punish eternal sentient beings (sans mortal bodies) who engage in them without repentance for eternity.

Nowhere does that mean atheists can't believe in an ultimate morality, and nowhere is it even reputably suggested, much less logically proven, that atheists commit more rapes, robberies, murders, tortures, child molestations, tax evasions, thefts, arsons, embezzlements, drug distribution, kidnappings, lies or adulteries than Christians do.

 

[Esanta]

You're wrong on both points Esanta.

Point 1: Atheism is spiritually devoid of any actual transcendent ultimately meaningful normative morality, by definition, and posits a hopeless future for all advanced organic life as I stated in post 15.

See: The Absurdity of Life without God | Reasonable Faith

Point 2: The Christian worldview is linked to a variety of positive outcomes, including prosocial behavior (1–4), volunteerism (5), honesty (6–7), an enhanced ability to resist temptation (8–9), and the development of moral communities (10) that foster cooperation.

For example, the Barna Group found that those who hold to the worldviews of atheism or agnosticism in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; abortion; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; pornography and obscene sexual behavior; and engaging in homosexuality/bisexuality.

See: https://www.barna.org/barna-update/...principles-as-the-moral-standard#.U_BQJct0yCg

See: Atheism Doesn't Lead to Immoral Behavior or Poor Ethics - Or Does It?

"Although, in theory, atheists can lead moral lives, the absence of an absolute moral foundation probably leads to moral drifting over time. This phenomenon also occurs in Christians who abandon church and Christian fellowship. As a result, the differences in morality between atheists and evangelicals is striking, with atheists being much more prone [to engage in immorality]."

And specifically, atheistic evolutionary thinking has engendered social Darwinism and given that the proponents of atheism have no rational basis for morality in their ideology, the immoral views that atheists often hold and the low per capita giving of American atheists is not unpredictable.

Atheism has the following characteristics which lent themselves to democide across much of the globe in the 20th century under state atheism. See: What About Atrocities That Have Been Done in the Name of Religion

lack of recognition of an ultimate judge of moral actions and a judge who sets injustice aright in a last judgment, and thus do not recognize the immorality of murder:

• Lack of seeing the importance of human beings as images of God and so easily discarding them as merely material things, products of mere chance.
• Lack of acknowledging an external standard of moral perfection, thus ending up with self-created standards which can include killing for political survival.
• Absence of guidance by divine revelation of the moral law, such as "Thou shalt not kill".
• Following an ethic of atheistic evolutionism that is based on the survival and victory of the fittest.

1. Henrich J, Ensimger J, McElreath R, Barr A, Barrett C, et al. (2010) Markets, religion, community size, and the evolution of fairness and punishment. Science 327: 1480–1484. 2. Norenzayan A, Shariff AF (2008) The origin and evolution of religious prosociality. Science 322: 58–62.
3. Preston J, Ritter RS, Hernandez JI (2010) Principles of religious prosociality: A review and reformulation. Soc Personal Psychol Compass 4: 574–590.
4. Shariff AF, Norenzayan A (2007) God is watching you: Priming God concepts increases prosocial behavior in an anonymous economic game. Psychol Science 18: 803–809.
5. Pichon I, Boccato G, Saroglou V (2007) Nonconscious influences of religion on prosociality: A priming study. Eur J Soc Psychol 37: 1032–1045.
6. Mazar N, Amir O, Ariely D (2008) The dishonesty of honest people: A theory of self-concept maintenance. J Mark Res 45: 633–644.
7. Randolph-Seng B, Nielsen ME (2007) Honesty: One effect of primed religious representations. Int J Psychol Relig 17: 303–15.
8. Laurin K, Kay AC, Fitzsimons GM (2012) Divergent effects of thoughts of God on self-regulation. J Pers Soc Psychol 102: 4–21.
9. Rounding K, Lee A, Jacobson JA, Ji LJ (2012) Religion replenishes self-control. Psychol Science 23: 635–642.
10. Graham J, Haidt J (2010) Beyond beliefs: Religions bind individuals into moral communities. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 14: 140–150.

Review your statement below. Even if your assertion were true it's ultimately not meaningful from an atheistic POV, epistemologically speaking, but also from the practical standpoint that atheism posits doom for all advanced biological life trapped in this universe and nothing is ultimately meaningful without sentient life.

Christianity, on the other hand, teaches the immoral activities you've listed here are absolutely immoral in an ultimately meaningful way as transcendent eternal creator God will punish eternal sentient beings (sans mortal bodies) who engage in them without repentance for eternity.

If the only meaningful disincentive for committing these crimes is fear of punishment in hell, then you don't even understand your own teachings. Fear is not a worthy disincentive, so much as compassion is one. 'Transcendent, ultimately meaningful normative morality' is a result of delusional thinking as there exists no tangible, practical morality without the existence of beings who can fathom a tangible, practical morality and such a morality is ultimately cognitively based; as much as you like to assert your personal morality's superior position in a world full of not-worthies and as much as you determinedly assert the existence of totally objective, God-given morality, the actualities of the real world show plainly that not even Christians can come to unanimous agreement on the intricate tenets of that apparently all governing, totally objective moral code of yours.

You assume a very all or nothing position, where the crimes and viewpoints of few atheists somehow represent binding evidence that every atheist would act similarly to these few, and you're extreme in another way; asserting that you have a totally objective, normative moral perception in a world wherein even many Christians don't agree with your ideas.

2000 years ago, Abrahamic religions taught stoning a woman for committing adultery was normatively moral, a practice any sane person would be disgusted at today.

Another fairly out-there view is the position you take that atheists can have no meaningful basis for morality, and of course, taking into account how you think your moral reasoning to be the only kind worthy of reasoning with, that makes sense, but it's still a flagrantly false statement.

I, genuinely, don't know a person who thinks themselves as highly educated as you but fails so miserably to give due consideration to alternative points of view. As I remember, we had a lengthy discussion on this topic in another thread about these things and we're just going around the roundabout again.

 

[Esanta]

Here's a post of mine from the other thread:

I don't think, as a non-Christian, that I need to revise or investigate the origins (where it came from at the very beginning of human thought) of morality itself to understand that it is something that works to humanity's mutual benefit -I don't inherently need to have a deontological set of rules laid out within a religious system which explains the external source of those rules, to understand why some things are 'bad' and some are 'good'. It think that's where your logic misses out. You seem to believe that without an originating source, such as an omnipresent creator, morality has no inherent 'meaning' or 'justification'. But that view of morality is as much a subjective view as any other.

If we only look through your eyes, and demand an originating source, a justification for morality that is 'more than' the atheistic justification, then your ideas about morality are impenetrable, but the matter of fact is that people who don't believe in Christianity can find justification for morality in other ways.

Do I have to justify wanting my child's happiness with an external source? No, of course not. I want my children to be happy, safe, comfortable and loved at no expense to others because I understand happiness to be better in almost every way - emotionally, psychologically and physically - than sadness, for all people. Where does that conclusion come from? Observation of the present moment, both of others and myself. I make someone sad, they are sad. I've been sad, being sad is unpleasant. Thus, happiness is better than sadness. Now, this mightn't work for everything, because some things I like, may not be what others like, but certainly, from understanding of particular things - sadness, hatred, pain, oppression - there can be laid a universal basis for morality. Humans would rather be happy than sad, loved than hated, in tranquillity than in pain, free than oppressed.

Do I have to justify treating others well, with compassion and fairness, with an external source? Absolutely not. I understand compassion and fairness to be things that work to the uplifting benefit of all those near me - I know them to be greater values than bias, unfairness and hatred.

Of course my definitions of what is 'good' or 'better' here may be considered subjective if we assume my ideas of 'good' and 'bad' aren't objective since they lack deontological basis from an outside source, but to side-step the intellectualisms, would you argue compassion is evil? Fairness is unjust? Happiness is sad? Oppression is freedom? Of course you wouldn't.

Thus I argue these are just as objective standards as yours are, the only difference being I don't feel the need to justify them at the level of origination. They are justified by the results they produce, the character which they spawn, the manner in which they are applied - the present moment wherein they can be observed to produce, instil, inspire, perpetuate or compound happiness, freedom, fairness and compassion.

But I think your question goes deeper. It's like you're asking 'why does any of it matter'? And that unnerves me, because I find it extremely easy to say why it matters. I have felt pain, of all types and kinds, and it is so unpleasant that I do not wish to experience it, nor do I wish for others to experience it. So that's why any of it matters. I think the perpetuation of pains of all kinds - emotional, physical, psychological - is what it is; the perpetuation of human pain. Now, knowing that pain, I would see its end, even in the smallest ways I can.

So you see, justification for the 'existence' of normative morality, as you put it, isn't required by me. The justification for one's approach, motive, action, manner of thought or speech, for me, need only be the fruit it produces.

Is murder wrong? Yes, it takes the life of someone else, causes pain for them before death, and suffering for their families after the death. Would I like to be murdered or for a member of my family to be murdered? No.

Is stealing wrong? Yes, it is taking something that does not belong to me, and I would not like to be left bereft of something that belongs to me.

Is oppression wrong? Yes, it removes the rights of others, and I would not like to have my rights removed.

Is hatred wrong? Yes, I do not like to be hated, thus I should not hate others.

Is adultery wrong? Yes, I would feel deep sadness if someone slept with my partner, thus I should not sleep with someone else's partner.

Is lust wrong? A harder to discern answer, but yes. Lust is the often uncontrollable desire towards a thing or person. It bends the thoughts, traps the mind, creates a tunnel vision, makes a person not in control of their senses. To be not in control of ones senses leads people to do things without thinking or caring for the consequences or the cares of others, thus lust is wrong, because if I cannot empathize with the cares of others, I am not able to use my moral sensibilities.

This concept, I have found, can be applied to all scenarios. Of course it requires thought, logic, observation, self-understanding and introspection, but so does any moral system.

You might ask, 'but what binds you to do these things'? And this is where I feel the Christian viewpoint takes a sinister turn. Your answer might be 'fear of hell'. Do you require fear of hell to be moral?? Really? What do I require? Nothing but knowing what I have done has been done from this motive: to help pains of all kinds. Because what's the alternative? An endless cycle of pains and pangs, only being encouraged, motivated and aspired to? No. That world would be horrible for us all.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

You're stumbling badly, as usual, Esanta. You're the only one suggesting that anyone ever stated fear is the only disincentive for committing crimes. No one did.

And, the rest of your post is a disjointed bunch of nonsensical false assertions combined with denial and a wounded ego that reveal you obviously don't understand what I'm talking about so I'm going to attempt to steer you back on track.

While atheists benefit from a residual Imago Dei, they have not been spiritually renewed by the Holy Spirit as "new creatures in Christ" with a new "heart of flesh" that earnestly desires transcendent creator God's eternal, ultimately meaningful holiness.

So in addition to whatever morality or immorality an atheist chooses to live out, it falls short of God's HOLY standard. Furthermore, even if they did accept God's HOLY standard, they are at an impossible disadvantage in their spiritually dead and deceived state to accomplish sanctification which is, by God's design, intended to be accomplished in a spiritually alive state.

Consider the following:

"The term 'new birth' embraces two Greek expressions found in the Gospels: palingenesia (Mt 19:28; variously translated as 'the renewal of all things' [NIV], 'the world that is to be' [NEB], 'the new world' [RSV]) and gennethenai anothen (Jn 3:3, 7; 'to be born again” or 'to be born from above').

These two expressions point to the saving activity of God in imparting spiritual life to his people and in restoring all of creation. This activity has both present and eschatological dimensions, reflecting Jesus’ teaching of the presence and future coming of the kingdom of God (see Kingdom of God)."

Kynes, W. L. (1992). New Birth. In J. B. Green & S. McKnight (Eds.), Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (J. B. Green & S. McKnight, Ed.) (574). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

So while atheists can choose to utter ethical statements or incorporate morality into their lives (to whatever extent they are able to do so on their own without the aid of God); they still fall short of what they would be able to accomplish in this respect with God's spiritual rebirth and personal aid not to mention they forgo God's eternal reward as freewill agents who have rejected God, God's kingdom, God's normative morality, God's plan to redeem and transform creation (including people) back to a normatively moral state (something that is impossible for them to accomplish on their own), etc...

As J. P. Moreland pointed out:

"The ontological nature of the image of God, among other things, implies that the makeup of human beings should provide a set of recalcitrant facts for other worldviews. The reasoning behind this claim goes like this:

(1) If Christianity is true, then certain features should characterize human beings.
(2) Those features do, in fact, characterize human beings.
(3) Thus, these features provide a degree of confirmation for Christianity. These features characterize God and, moreover, come from him. He made us to have them.

From a Christian view, God the fundamental being possesses intrinsic value, and his loving, just character is the source of objective moral obligation for human persons. Moreover, since all human beings share the image of God equally, they all have high, equal value and rights simply as such. Thus, a Christian worldview has a natural place for and provides an explanation of:

(1) the existence of intrinsic value,
(2) the reality of objective moral obligation,
(3) high, equal value and rights for all humans.

But moreover, the Christian worldview ascribes the highest value and meaning to them rooted in nothing less than eternity and God's own normative morality. Atheism cannot and does not.

The scientific naturalism of atheism cannot adequately account for them in any way that even approaches the eternal and ultimately meaningful and valuable standard of the Christian worldview.

As evolutionary naturalist Michael Ruse stated:

"Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says 'Love thy neighbor as thyself,' they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction... and any deeper meaning is illusory."

It is difficult to see how there could even be an intrinsic ultimately meaningful value and an objective moral order or why that order would have anything to do with human persons that is meaningful beyond what atheism posits is a brief biological, in astronomical terms, accident here soon to be purged from existence.

Moreover, the combinatorial processes in naturalism cannot account for the appearance of intrinsic value; thus its existence counts against naturalism and for Christian theism. As atheist Mackie acknowledged: "Moral properties constitute so odd a cluster of properties and relations that they are most unlikely to have arisen in the ordinary course of events without an all-powerful god to create them." <--not so ultimately meaningful or ultimately valuable.

The recalcitrant nature of human persons for scientific naturalism has been widely noticed even amongst atheists. Naturalists can't appeal to emergence to solve their problems because (1) this is just a label for the problem to be solved and not a real solution and (2) it begs the question against Christian theism in a most egregious way."

When a person is functioning properly-and not censoring, repressing or ignoring their conscience-they have a basic conception of right from wrong/good from evil and they can thank God for that as it is a residual benefit remaining of the Imago Dei, but believing that something is right or wrong and justifying one's belief that something is right or wrong are two very different matters especially when one attempts to do so in a way that elevates their morality above others.

In order to have a consistent and reasonable objective moral stance, a moral view in which you can substantiate a claim that this is right and that is wrong in an ultimately meaningful way, you need to have an objective moral basis. Normative morality didn't spew out of the Big Bang and without God is temporary, relativistic, and ultimately doomed.

In atheism, at most, the illusion of moral values was eventually spawned though nothing in biological evolution, especially the alleged selfish-gene phenomenon, is capable of providing the foundation necessary to ground unconditionally binding moral values.

Atheists can pontificate on their morality all they like but they cannot provide a reasonable justification for the existence of nonsubjective universally binding moral values which are ultimately meaningful. For that, they need God and so you.

If the only meaningful disincentive for committing these crimes is fear of punishment in hell, then you don't even understand your own teachings. Fear is not a worthy disincentive, so much as compassion is one. 'Transcendent, ultimately meaningful normative morality' is a result of delusional thinking as there exists no tangible, practical morality without the existence of beings who can fathom a tangible, practical morality and such a morality is ultimately cognitively based; as much as you like to assert your personal morality's superior position in a world full of not-worthies and as much as you determinedly assert the existence of totally objective, God-given morality, the actualities of the real world show plainly that not even Christians can come to unanimous agreement on the intricate tenets of that apparently all governing, totally objective moral code of yours.

You assume a very all or nothing position, where the crimes and viewpoints of few atheists somehow represent binding evidence that every atheist would act similarly to these few, and you're extreme in another way; asserting that you have a totally objective, normative moral perception in a world wherein even many Christians don't agree with your ideas.

2000 years ago, Abrahamic religions taught stoning a woman for committing adultery was normatively moral, a practice any sane person would be disgusted at today.

Another fairly out-there view is the position you take that atheists can have no meaningful basis for morality, and of course, taking into account how you think your moral reasoning to be the only kind worthy of reasoning with, that makes sense, but it's still a flagrantly false statement.

I, genuinely, don't know a person who thinks themselves as highly educated as you but fails so miserably to give due consideration to alternative points of view. As I remember, we had a lengthy discussion on this topic in another thread about these things and we're just going around the roundabout again.

 

[Esanta]

You're stumbling badly, as usual, Esanta. You're the only one suggesting that anyone ever stated fear is the only disincentive for committing crimes. No one did.

And, the rest of your post is a disjointed bunch of nonsensical false assertions combined with denial and a wounded ego that reveal you obviously don't understand what I'm talking about so I'm going to attempt to steer you back on track.

While atheists benefit from a residual Imago Dei, they have not been spiritually renewed by the Holy Spirit as "new creatures in Christ" with a new "heart of flesh" that earnestly desires transcendent creator God's eternal, ultimately meaningful holiness.

So in addition to whatever morality or immorality an atheist chooses to live out, it falls short of God's HOLY standard. Furthermore, even if they did accept God's HOLY standard, they are at an impossible disadvantage in their spiritually dead and deceived state to accomplish sanctification which is, by God's design, intended to be accomplished in a spiritually alive state.

Consider the following:

"The term 'new birth' embraces two Greek expressions found in the Gospels: palingenesia (Mt 19:28; variously translated as 'the renewal of all things' [NIV], 'the world that is to be' [NEB], 'the new world' [RSV]) and gennethenai anothen (Jn 3:3, 7; 'to be born again” or 'to be born from above').

These two expressions point to the saving activity of God in imparting spiritual life to his people and in restoring all of creation. This activity has both present and eschatological dimensions, reflecting Jesus’ teaching of the presence and future coming of the kingdom of God (see Kingdom of God)."

Kynes, W. L. (1992). New Birth. In J. B. Green & S. McKnight (Eds.), Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (J. B. Green & S. McKnight, Ed.) (574). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

So while atheists can choose to utter ethical statements or incorporate morality into their lives (to whatever extent they are able to do so on their own without the aid of God); they still fall short of what they would be able to accomplish in this respect with God's spiritual rebirth and personal aid not to mention they forgo God's eternal reward as freewill agents who have rejected God, God's kingdom, God's normative morality, God's plan to redeem and transform creation (including people) back to a normatively moral state (something that is impossible for them to accomplish on their own), etc...

As J. P. Moreland pointed out:

"The ontological nature of the image of God, among other things, implies that the makeup of human beings should provide a set of recalcitrant facts for other worldviews. The reasoning behind this claim goes like this:

(1) If Christianity is true, then certain features should characterize human beings.
(2) Those features do, in fact, characterize human beings.
(3) Thus, these features provide a degree of confirmation for Christianity. These features characterize God and, moreover, come from him. He made us to have them.

From a Christian view, God the fundamental being possesses intrinsic value, and his loving, just character is the source of objective moral obligation for human persons. Moreover, since all human beings share the image of God equally, they all have high, equal value and rights simply as such. Thus, a Christian worldview has a natural place for and provides an explanation of:

(1) the existence of intrinsic value,
(2) the reality of objective moral obligation,
(3) high, equal value and rights for all humans.

But moreover, the Christian worldview ascribes the highest value and meaning to them rooted in nothing less than eternity and God's own normative morality. Atheism cannot and does not.

The scientific naturalism of atheism cannot adequately account for them in any way that even approaches the eternal and ultimately meaningful and valuable standard of the Christian worldview.

As evolutionary naturalist Michael Ruse stated:

"Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says 'Love thy neighbor as thyself,' they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction... and any deeper meaning is illusory."

It is difficult to see how there could even be an intrinsic ultimately meaningful value and an objective moral order or why that order would have anything to do with human persons that is meaningful beyond what atheism posits is a brief biological, in astronomical terms, accident here soon to be purged from existence.

Moreover, the combinatorial processes in naturalism cannot account for the appearance of intrinsic value; thus its existence counts against naturalism and for Christian theism. As atheist Mackie acknowledged: "Moral properties constitute so odd a cluster of properties and relations that they are most unlikely to have arisen in the ordinary course of events without an all-powerful god to create them." <--not so ultimately meaningful or ultimately valuable.

The recalcitrant nature of human persons for scientific naturalism has been widely noticed even amongst atheists. Naturalists can't appeal to emergence to solve their problems because (1) this is just a label for the problem to be solved and not a real solution and (2) it begs the question against Christian theism in a most egregious way."

When a person is functioning properly-and not censoring, repressing or ignoring their conscience-they have a basic conception of right from wrong/good from evil and they can thank God for that as it is a residual benefit remaining of the Imago Dei, but believing that something is right or wrong and justifying one's belief that something is right or wrong are two very different matters especially when one attempts to do so in a way that elevates their morality above others.

In order to have a consistent and reasonable objective moral stance, a moral view in which you can substantiate a claim that this is right and that is wrong in an ultimately meaningful way, you need to have an objective moral basis. Normative morality didn't spew out of the Big Bang and without God is temporary, relativistic, and ultimately doomed.

In atheism, at most, the illusion of moral values was eventually spawned though nothing in biological evolution, especially the alleged selfish-gene phenomenon, is capable of providing the foundation necessary to ground unconditionally binding moral values.

Atheists can pontificate on their morality all they like but they cannot provide a reasonable justification for the existence of nonsubjective universally binding moral values which are ultimately meaningful. For that, they need God and so you.

Thanks to Austin Cline for this great article on the subject:

How can we adopt a moral system without there being a God? If God does not exist, is there any basis for ever being moral? That's the fundamental issue when discussing atheistic and theistic morality — not whether atheistic morality exists at all but instead whether any atheistic morality can reasonably be adopted. Thus some religious theists argue that only the existence of objective standards which we are required to obey provide a secure basis for morality and moral behavior.

This question can actually be rephrased on a more fundamental level, usually referred to as "metaethics." People who espouse this myth usually subscribe to a metaethical perspective known as deontological ethics. In deontological systems, being morally good is defined as obeying certain moral rules. When you follow those rules and do your duty, then you are good — regardless of any other considerations like whether the consequences of that obedience lead to suffering or happiness. On the other hand, if you ignore or break any of those rules then you are not doing your duty and are morally bad — once again, regardless of any consequences.

If you assume that the only possible moral system that can exist is deontological in nature, we have to ask where those rules and where that duty can come from. If there is a God, the answer will seem obvious, but if there is no God, there wouldn't seem to be a source. If there is no source for the rules to obey (and, by extension, no eternal rewards or punishments for those who obey or disobey), then there would be no reason to obey any rules that might come along.
Given such premises, it will seem reasonable to conclude that if there is no God, then there is no reason to be moral. Must we, however, accept those premises? No. The premises are not unusual, but they are also not unassailable. There is no reason why we should assume that the only justified moral system which can exist is one which is based upon obedience to a set of absolute rules which we must accept as a matter of duty.

There are other metaethical perspectives which are at least as valid at a deontological one, with the two principle ones being virtue ethics and consequentialist ethics. A person might have good reasons for rejecting them and preferring deontological ethics, but even if that were the case it cannot demonstrate the need for belief in any gods. There are valid deontological systems of ethics which are atheistic in nature, lacking any gods to provide a foundation for the rules being obeyed.

Many prefer a deontological morality because in a deontological system, the reason for being moral is generally assumed to be objective and imposed from the outside — that's why being moral "matters." More than that, however, the question of why it should "matter" suggests some set of ultimate "reasons" that, presumably, only a deity can provide. This would be consistent with similar questions asked by many theists: why should love matter? Why should happiness matter? Why should anything at all matter if there isn't a God and a heaven?

The answers to all such questions are fairly similar. First, it need not be accepted that for anything to "matter," then there must be some outside force or entity to make it "matter." Second, it should be argued that if something is going to "matter," this can only occur in the context of some set of values we have. When we value a hot meal, having a hot meal "matters" to us regardless of any gods or spirits, or anything else. A hot meal may seem like a trivial example, but the same basic principle holds true for other things of much greater import as well — and the reason is that the very concept of "it matters" is dependent upon what we do and do not value on a very basic level.

Why should getting along matter? It matters if you value your own happiness and the happiness of others. The question is, do you really need some being (like a god) to require that you take the happiness of others into consideration? Do you need to be told to be kind to others? Are you only capable of caring about others when you are obeying orders to care about others and are threatened with punishment if you don't but promised with rewards if you do? If so, then perhaps you do need to believe in a god in order to be moral and for morality to "matter" and you really do need a god in order to be moral. I'm not sure that I would necessarily call that "morality," though.

Why is it an inferior form of morality? First, there is no real moral merit in following an order — anyone can follow an order while not all orders should be followed. Second, the ability to follow an order is more characteristic of robots and automatons, not free ethical individuals. If a person is to be lauded for their behavior, it should be because they choose the right path, not because they simply followed instructions correctly. Finally, a morality such as this can be the most arbitrary that exists. Decisions are completely separated from their consequences for others and the impact upon one's personality. Orders are followed simply because they are given — not because they reduce suffering, not because they increase happiness, and not because they are in any way virtuous.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Another no nothing speech which is typical of you Esanta. So what? Your position is ultimately meaningless.

Objective ethical principles cannot exist in a metaphysical vacuum. What is morally good (ethical) cannot be separated from what is real (metaphysical) and what is true (epistemological).

Atheism has no transcendent or ultimately meaningful foundation upon which to ground man's conscious awareness of moral obligation. Without God, objective moral values have no metaphysical anchor and thus cannot be accounted for.

Unlike secular attempts to account for morality, the ethics of Christian theism are grounded in the morally perfect nature of God who has specifically revealed his will to mankind.

God is therefore the source and foundation for objective moral values. Absolute moral law extends from the cosmic moral Lawgiver. The God revealed in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures is the morally perfect person who stands behind the objective moral order discovered in the universe.

God's normative morality corresponds with objective absolute truth which carries both temporal and eternal consequences for people when they apply to their lives and societies both in the temporal and for eternity.

 

[Esanta]

Another no nothing speech which is typical of you Esanta. So what? Your position is ultimately meaningless.

Objective ethical principles cannot exist in a metaphysical vacuum. What is morally good (ethical) cannot be separated from what is real (metaphysical) and what is true (epistemological).

Atheism has no transcendent or ultimately meaningful foundation upon which to ground man's conscious awareness of moral obligation. Without God, objective moral values have no metaphysical anchor and thus cannot be accounted for.

Unlike secular attempts to account for morality, the ethics of Christian theism are grounded in the morally perfect nature of God who has specifically revealed his will to mankind.

God is therefore the source and foundation for objective moral values. Absolute moral law extends from the cosmic moral Lawgiver. The God revealed in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures is the morally perfect person who stands behind the objective moral order discovered in the universe.

God's normative morality corresponds with objective absolute truth which carries both temporal and eternal consequences for people when they apply to their lives and societies both in the temporal and for eternity.

Naturally philosophy is a dead language. You say my statements are meaningless? The verifiable theory of meaning states that something is meaningful only if there can be given empirical evidence for or against it. God doesn't fall into that category. You ramble on about God's normative morality yet your position is starkly meta-ethical. It's a bit like Ken Ham claiming to hold scientific views, then saying 'the bible is the ultimate source of scientific authority'. Are you daft?

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Your position is wrong and even if it were right it would be ultimately meaningless. Yes.

As for natural philosophy, it's one of the preferred majors for aspiring Christian apologetics. The problem for you is that it doesn't posit what you think it does unless you make the mistake of acting like Ken Ham, only in reverse, and hypocritically restricting your pool of live options to purely naturalistic explanations.

YOU are the Ken Ham in this discussion: not me. I assert harmony between God's special revelation and natural revelation properly understood. I allow into the pool of live options supernatural explanations involving an extra-mundane intelligent agent and in doing so find it obvious that a reductive materialist explanation falls draconically short.

Naturally philosophy is a dead language. You say my statements are meaningless? The verifiable theory of meaning states that something is meaningful only if there can be given empirical evidence for or against it. God doesn't fall into that category. You ramble on about God's normative morality yet your position is starkly meta-ethical. It's a bit like Ken Ham claiming to hold scientific views, then saying 'the bible is the ultimate source of scientific authority'. Are you daft?

 

[Esanta]

Your position is wrong and even if it were right it would be ultimately meaningless. Yes.

As for natural philosophy, it's one of the preferred majors for aspiring Christian apologetics. The problem for you is that it doesn't posit what you think it does unless you make the mistake of acting like Ken Ham, only in reverse, and hypocritically restricting your pool of live options to purely naturalistic explanations.

YOU are the Ken Ham in this discussion: not me. I assert harmony between God's special revelation and natural revelation properly understood. I allow into the pool of live options supernatural explanations involving an extra-mundane intelligent agent and in doing so find it obvious that a reductive materialist explanation falls draconically short.

Seems to be you that reduces everything to 'God's objective, normative, universal morality is the only justifiable kind of morality' in a world where a great number of Christians have different interpretations of what that morality inherently entails, thereby rendering it not universal, at least not in practical applications. Your position is somewhat paradoxical.

You go on about child murder and the like; God told the Jews to slaughter every man, woman and child in Canaan at one point. So, it's wrong sometimes but not when God commands it? Is that it? So killing children is sometimes okay, since God commands it sometimes, and wrong at other times because he's changed his mind? Looking from your perspective 'only God's morality is right and justifiable', this means there's nothing intrinsically wrong about the act of killing children itself, for if it were absolutely wrong, God would never command it.

Nah, I think I'll stick with 'killing children is always wrong nomatter what'. Feel free to babble on at will.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

No babbling here, I mean how could there be when you've got that market cornered.

But since you brought it up, it's time for another Esanta educating Bible lesson. As Bible scholars assert, God dedicated things or persons to destruction in the Old Testament because they violently and steadfastly impeded or opposed his work over a long period of time (like you're doing Esanta).

This "dedication to destruction" was not used frequently in the Old Testament. It was reserved for the spoils of southern Canaan (Num 21:2–3), Jericho (Josh 6:21), Ai (Josh 8:26), Makedah (Josh 10:28) and Hazor (Josh 11:11).

In a most amazing prediction, Abraham was told that his descendants would be exiled and mistreated for four hundred years (in round numbers for 430 years) before God would lead them out of that country. The reason for so long a delay, Genesis 15:13–16 explains, was that "the sin of the Amorites [the Canaanites] has not yet reached its full measure."

Thus, God waited for centuries while the Amalekites and those other Canaanite groups slowly filled up their own cups of condemnation by their sinful behavior. God never acted precipitously against them; his grace and mercy waited to see if they would repent and turn from their headlong plummet into self-destruction. They chose not to repent.

And not that the conquering Israelites were without sin. Deuteronomy 9:5 makes that clear to the Israelites: "It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations."

These nations were cut off to prevent the corruption of Israel and the rest of the world (Deut 20:16–18). When a nation starts burning children as a gift to the gods (Lev 18:21) and practices sodomy, bestiality and all sorts of loathsome vices (Lev 18:25, 27–30), the day of God’s grace and mercy has begun to run out.

Just as surgeons do not hesitate to amputate a gangrenous limb, even if they cannot help cutting off some healthy flesh, so God must do the same. This is not doing evil that good may come; it is removing the cancer that could infect all of society and eventually destroy the remaining good.

Now God could have used pestilence, hurricanes, famine, diseases or anything else he wanted but for various reasons in this case he chose to use Israel.

In the providential acts of life, it is understood that individuals share in the life of their families and nations. As a result we as individuals participate both in our families’ and nations’ rewards and in their punishments. Naturally this will involve some so-called innocent people; however, even that argument involves us in a claim to omniscience which we do not possess. If the women and children had been spared in those profane Canaanite nations, it would not be long before a fresh crop of adults would emerge to purvey great wickedness just as their predecessors.

Of special concern were the Amalekites. When the Israelites were struggling through the desert toward Canaan, the Amalekites picked off the weak, sick and elderly at the end of the line of marchers and brutally murdered these stragglers. Warned Moses, "Remember what the Amalekites did to you along the way when you came out of Egypt. When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and cut off all who were lagging behind; they had no fear of God" (Deut 25:17–18).

Some commentators note that the Amalekites were not merely plundering or disputing who owned what territories; they were attacking God’s chosen people to discredit the living God. Some trace the Amalekites’ adamant hostility all through the Old Testament, including the most savage butchery of all in Haman’s proclamation that all Jews throughout the Persian Empire could be massacred on a certain day (Esther 3:8–11). Many make a case that Haman was an Amalekite. His actions then would ultimately reveal this nation’s deep hatred for God, manifested toward the people through whom God had chosen to bless the whole world.

In Numbers 25:16–18 and 31:1–18 Israel was also told to conduct a war of extermination against all in Midian, with the exception of the prepubescent girls, because the Midianites had led them into idolatry and immorality. It was not contact with foreigners per se that was the problem, but the threat to Israel’s relationship with the Lord. The divine command, therefore, was to break Midian’s strength by killing all the male children and also the women who had slept with a man and who could still become mothers.

The texts of Deuteronomy 2:34; 3:6; 7:1–2 and Psalm 106:34 are further examples of the principle of ḥerem, dedicating the residents of Canaan to total destruction as an involuntary offering to God.

What YOU would have done is make sure the wicked prevailed. That seems to be a theme of yours in most every discussion. Protect and empower the wicked, persecute and deceive the righteous. This doesn't speak well of you Esanta.