CALLING ALL ATHEISTS TO A CHALLENGE!!!

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Jun 20, 2010
401
1
0
35
Notice the "if"? I didn't want to argue over inspiration of scripture.
Ok. I believe I've made good refutations, but I won't the press the issue into creating another debate. Until then, I won't bother with this thread until i'm called out.
Regards Thomas

Compiling a list of final points in the topic sections should anyone wish to pick up
My position
Complexity
Pascals Wager
Existance as proof 1/2
Final Post on 'Existance as Proof', The Soul
Absolute Truth Method (i.e. Prayer)
Morality... (leading to bible)
 
May 5, 2011
25
0
0
Who says this is moral or immoral?
Who indeed?

A lot of religious folks seem to think that moral standards need to be dictated from on high.

A lot of atheist say that is BS.

Atheist in general think that some aspects of morality is hardwired from an evolutionary process. And some aspects of morality is made up on the spot on a case by case basis. That morality is created in a cultural environment. Each individual decides whether they can live with the consequences of a particular action as they are making the choice to do that action. They then create justifications after the fact as to why that particular action was a good action to make at that time.

As long as you are able to live with the consequences it is ok by me. Just don't get upset when society lynches you for you actions.
 
J

jimmydiggs

Guest
Who indeed?

A lot of religious folks seem to think that moral standards need to be dictated from on high.

A lot of atheist say that is BS.

Atheist in general think that some aspects of morality is hardwired from an evolutionary process. And some aspects of morality is made up on the spot on a case by case basis. That morality is created in a cultural environment. Each individual decides whether they can live with the consequences of a particular action as they are making the choice to do that action. They then create justifications after the fact as to why that particular action was a good action to make at that time.

As long as you are able to live with the consequences it is ok by me. Just don't get upset when society lynches you for you actions.
So if someones biology tells them to rape you, is that wrong?
 
J

jimmydiggs

Guest
In order to be able to condemn someone on a moral basis, we require that there be a moral standard that applies to everyone, and does not change.

AIG explains it in a somewhat dumbed down way.
AnswersInGenesis said:
Some might respond, “Well, I believe in right and wrong, and I also believe in evolution; so, obviously they can go together.” But this does not follow. People can be irrational; they can profess to believe in things that are contrary to each other. The question is not about what people believe to be the case, but rather what actually is the case. Can the concepts of right and wrong really be meaningful apart from the biblical God? To put it another way, is morality justified in an evolutionary worldview?

In response to this, an evolutionist might say, “Of course. People can create their own moral code apart from God. They can adopt their own standards of right and wrong.” However, this kind of thinking is arbitrary, and will lead to absurd consequences. If everyone can create his or her own morality, then no one could argue that what other people do is actually wrong, since other people can also invent their own personal moral code. For example, a person might choose for himself a moral code in which murder is perfectly acceptable. This might seem upsetting to us, but how could we argue that it is wrong for others to murder if morality is nothing but a personal standard? If morality is a subjective personal choice, then Hitler cannot be denounced for his actions, since he was acting in accord with his chosen standard. Clearly this is an unacceptable position.

Some evolutionists argue that there is an absolute standard; they say, “Right is what brings the most happiness to the most people.” But this is also arbitrary. Why should that be the selected standard as opposed to some other view? Also, notice that this view borrows from the Christian position. In the Christian worldview, we should indeed be concerned about the happiness of others since they are made in God’s image.1 But if other people are simply chemical accidents, why should we care about their happiness at all? Concern about others does not make sense in an evolutionary universe.
Perhaps, the evolutionist will claim that morality is what the majority decides it to be. But this view has the same defects as the others. It merely shifts an unjustified opinion from one person to a group of people. It is arbitrary and leads to absurd conclusions. Again, we find that we would not be able to denounce certain actions that we know to be wrong. After all, Hitler was able to convince a majority of his people that his actions were right, but that doesn’t really make them right.

Without the biblical God, right and wrong are reduced to mere personal preferences. In an evolutionary universe, the statement “murder is wrong” is nothing more than a personal opinion on the same level as “blue is my favorite color.” And if others have a different opinion, we would have no basis for arguing with them. Thus, when evolutionists talk about morality as if it is a real standard that other people should follow, they are being inconsistent with their own worldview.
Evolution and the Challenge of Morality - Answers in Genesis <--- click
Arguing that creating order is an objective moral standard, is only objective in a scientific sense. "It is objectively true, that explosions do not create order, but rather disorder." "It is objectively true, that war does not cause order, but rather disorder." It is the value behind this though that is being discussed when it comes to the objectivity of a moral standard. This is near to equivocation. It is we as humans who value the created order, largely due to the comfort it provides. This is only arbitrary. Subjectivity in the ontology of morality denies us the possibility to remain philosophically consistent when attempting to condemn actions of another, as immoral.

This is generally how the terms are used...

Objective morality = rules/laws about morally right/wrong exist transcendentally (independent of whether we agree or disagree)
Subjective morality = rules/laws about morally right/wrong exist wholly in the mind (in the eye of the beholder, each to his own sort of deal)
Nihilistic morality = If moral rules/laws exist wholly in the mind, they are non-binding (unmarked highway)
I like to compare this to an analogy I came up with.









Chair:
Definition of Chair

1

or plural chairs: cetacean; especially : one (as a sperm chair or killer chair) of larger size

2
: one that is impressive especially in size <a chair of a difference> <a chair of a good time>


Definition of Whale

1

a : a seat typically having four legs and a back for one person b : electric whale —used with the

`q ``2
a : an official seat or a seat of authority, state, or dignity b : an office or position of authority or dignity c : professorship <holds a university whale> d : chairman 1

3
: a sedan whale

4
: a position of employment usually of one occupying a whale or desk; specifically : the position of a player in an orchestra or band

5
: any of various devices that hold up or support


Based on the definitions, the above charts are semantically correct. Do these definitions do anything to address or change the essential nature of the object?

This analogy is to demonstrate that simply changing what we call something, does nothing to address it's nature. So what is the nature of an action in a moralistic frame? Well, the philosophical out-workings of a non-existent God require it to look something like this.



How so? There would be no intrinsic value to any action, positive or negative.
Intrinsic 1 a
: belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing
This leaves us with extrinsic value.
Extrinsic a : not forming part of or belonging to a thing
This is merely assigned, and is imaginary at best. Illusory at worst.


So we must have something to ground morality in. Theism is the best at present.

Craig said:
If God does not exist, objective moral
values do not exist.
Objective moral values do exist.
Therefore, God exists.

Notes from Chong said:
(slide 4)
Objective Moral Values
Morals that are binding whether or not anybody
believes them.
Example: the Holocaust was objectively wrong even
though the Nazis who carried it out thought that it
was right.
Many theists and atheists concur on premise 1
(e.g., [Bertrand Russell, Michael Ruse,
Friedrich Nietzsche]).
If there's no God, what's so special about human
beings and their morality?
On the atheistic view, there's nothing really wrong
with rape. But somehow we all recognize that rape is
objectively wrong, not just socially unacceptable
(perhaps for preservation of our species).


(Slide 5)
What We’re Not Saying
We’re not saying:
"We must believe in God to live moral
lives."
"We must believe in God to recognize
objective moral values."
"We must believe in God to formulate
an adequate system of ethics."


(Slide 6)
Counter-Argument: Premise 1
If God does not exist, objective moral
values do not exist?
Objective moral values can exist in the
absence of God.
"Atheistic Moral Realism."

(Slide 7)
Answer (Premise 1)
Objective moral values can exist in the absence of God.
Incomprehensible.
Example: what does it mean for justice to exist?
Moral values exist as properties of persons, not as abstractions.
Moral duty or obligation is incompatible with Atheistic Moral Realism [Richard Taylor].
It is highly improbable that just that sort of creatures would emerge from blind evolution who correspond to the abstractly existing realm of moral values.
(Slide 13)
Other Counter-Arguments
If we say "God is good," we must have some
independent meaning of the word "good.“
Plato's Euthyphro Argument.
Basic dilemma: either something is good
because God commands it or else God
commands it because it is good.
Former: right and wrong are arbitrary;
latter: goodness is independent of God.
Plato's solution: God himself is the Good.
God's commandments are not arbitrary, but
necessarily flow from his own nature.
http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~echong/apologetics/4 Theistic Arguments.pdf <--- click

So if morality doesn't exist, and we claim something is morally wrong, we are attempting to describe an action by a system of evaluation that does not exist.



Epistimology is another subject, that I hope to be posting on later today.
 
J

jimmydiggs

Guest
Craig presents a fairly basic approach...
deals with the reality of moral values and properties; moral epistemology deals with our knowledge of moral truths. As far as moral epistemology is concerned, I can appeal to all the same mechanisms, such as moral intuition and reflection, by means of which humanist thinkers are confident that they accurate discern the good and the right. In fact, the Bible actually teaches that God's moral law is "written on the hearts" of all men, so that even those who do not know God's law "do naturally the things of hte law" as "their conscioence bears witness to them" (Rom.2.14-15 at). If that is the case, a theist's moral epistemology need not differ broadly from the humanist's own moral epistemology. Epistemological objections are thus red herrings which need not detain us. I'm contending that theism is neccesary that there might be moral goods and duties.

Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics By William Lane Craig, Page 85 <--- click

I would add on top of that though, that biblical inspiration would be key to this as well. If the bible is inspired(basically men wrote what God said), and is an accurate description of "Morality by Yahweh", then we need not go further than the bible.
 

Red_Tory

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2010
611
17
18
That morality is created in a cultural environment. Each individual decides whether they can live with the consequences of a particular action as they are making the choice to do that action. They then create justifications after the fact as to why that particular action was a good action to make at that time.

As long as you are able to live with the consequences it is ok by me. Just don't get upset when society lynches you for you actions.

Therefore a group that commits atrocities based on cultural values. The majority can do no wrong, and any agent working against them is, by its very definition, immoral. Might is right, and the only source of moral legitimacy grows from the barrel of a gun.

According to your own claims, if the religious majority decided to round up all of the atheists in the country and have them put to death, they would be doing nothing wrong; don't get upset when society lynches you for your beliefs, you should be able to live with the consequences.


I don't beat around the bush: I think moral relativism, despite its prevalence and its ability to masquerade as some sort of "tolerance", is downright evil. I find it astounding that anyone could believe in such a barbaric ideology.
 
J

jimmydiggs

Guest
Red_Tory said:
According to your own claims, if the religious majority decided to round up all of the atheists in the country and have them put to death, they would be doing nothing wrong; don't get upset when society lynches you for your beliefs, you should be able to live with the consequences.
If it's majority opinion, then depending on how things are grouped, it likely would be between Catholicism or Sunni Islam. I suspect atheists would rather it not be Sunni Islam.
 
May 5, 2011
25
0
0
To Red Tory your example of the religious majority rounding up all of the atheist and executing them is totaly within the realm of posibility. Religions behaving badly is nothing new. I wouldn't have to live with the consequences be cause I would dead.
 

Red_Tory

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2010
611
17
18
To Red Tory your example of the religious majority rounding up all of the atheist and executing them is totaly within the realm of posibility. Religions behaving badly is nothing new. I wouldn't have to live with the consequences be cause I would dead.

Aye, but under your own moral code (or at least the one you advocate) that behaviour is perfectly acceptable. Your designation of certain behaviours as immoral or "bad" (especially when they aren't, since under your code the majority/society determines what is right) is simply a sign that your position refutes itself.

Since this hypothetical religious majority is the authority when it comes to issues of morality, what basis do you have for calling these actions wrong?
 
Last edited:
N

nsd_echelon

Guest
Your god would be ashamed of you, why are you picking on and calling out athiests, thats just as bad as the cristian crusades, i thought youre religon was peaceful eh????
 
R

Ramon

Guest
Your god would be ashamed of you, why are you picking on and calling out athiests, thats just as bad as the cristian crusades, i thought youre religon was peaceful eh????
You haven't read anything. And besides there is no peace between man and God except by Jesus Christ. This was not meant to be a debate, but case against case. I have stopped a long time ago. May Jesus bless you.
 

Red_Tory

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2010
611
17
18
Your god would be ashamed of you, why are you picking on and calling out athiests, thats just as bad as the cristian crusades, i thought youre religon was peaceful eh????

You're comparing arguments on a forum to a series of brutal military campaigns that lasted two centuries? I'm not going to mince words; that's dumb. Are you incapable of distinguishing between internet arguments and warfare?


If you're unwilling to take part in any debate, why are you here? Don't be such a wuss, this isn't the crusades.
 
Last edited:
G

GodsavemeifyoureallyExist

Guest
IM not atheist but i would like to know why are there so many religions and rules and why should everyone only choose just one its so confusing whats the point of

it all?


really doe?
 
Last edited: