S
Sirk
Guest
I've even run into scenarios where "proof" makes an atheist even more mad. They are like a petulant child when it comes to God.
-
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.
I've even run into scenarios where "proof" makes an atheist even more mad. They are like a petulant child when it comes to God.
S
Sirk
Guest
Plus it's cool to be an atheist. All these alternative lifestyles are so trendy....kinda like skinny jeans. 
D
didymos
Guest
That isn't an absolute truth though. There are plenty of examples in the history of mankind when people thought hurting others was just a means to an end, for the greater good.
B
Believer4ever
Guest
This thread has worried me. Some people on here are speaking like true atheists. I will pray for you.
B
Believer4ever
Guest
B
Believer4ever
Guest
Well I'm sure with the help of God he can replace 'most' with 'all'. Praying for you.
B
Believer4ever
Guest
B
Believer4ever
Guest
I have done a lot of praying and reflecting of late and have realized that my opinions/comments have been insensitive. While I don't appreciate being called a troll I can understand it. I have asked God to forgive me and I hope CC users can to.
If you can honestly tell me who said this, where this quote came from, from this apparent atheist 'John' (other than just originating spontaneously on a christian website that directly attacks atheism), then I'll give you a biscuit. But I've looked at the original blogs, the comments, and I can't find a source. Seems like a lot of made up nonsense to me. I don't know a single atheist who thinks that way.
Last edited:
The intrinsic morality of someone who doesn't believe in the Christian God is the same as anyone else's; reciprocity. Hit someone as a kid, they cry, get hit, I cry. It's an unpleasant experience and I don't like being hit, so I won't do it to someone else 'cause they don't like it either. Then I realize the things I don't like, and endeavour not to do them to others, cause peace is a lot more pleasurable than looking over your shoulder every five minutes.
This guy, if an actual person, sounds quite psychopathic, doesn't seem to have any sense of emotion, only thinks about sex, doesn't have any respect. He's no different than Spanish inquisitors, for instance, or Catholic priests that rape kids, or morons that picket gay funerals, or whomever it may be. The point is, character doesn't depend on labels.
If some guy is an idiot that kills people, rapes another guy's wife, abuses a kid or otherwise acts like a moron, then he's a moron. If the atheist who apparently wrote this post is real, he's a moron too.
I don't care if you're atheist, Christian, Jew, Muslim or whatever, if you really ask yourself what the benefit of acting like a moron is, there isn't one.
This guy, if an actual person, sounds quite psychopathic, doesn't seem to have any sense of emotion, only thinks about sex, doesn't have any respect. He's no different than Spanish inquisitors, for instance, or Catholic priests that rape kids, or morons that picket gay funerals, or whomever it may be. The point is, character doesn't depend on labels.
If some guy is an idiot that kills people, rapes another guy's wife, abuses a kid or otherwise acts like a moron, then he's a moron. If the atheist who apparently wrote this post is real, he's a moron too.
I don't care if you're atheist, Christian, Jew, Muslim or whatever, if you really ask yourself what the benefit of acting like a moron is, there isn't one.
In fact, the argument that atheists have no objective standards for morality is based on fallacious reasoning. You assume a deontologically moral position, establish that moral position as the only valid moral position and then force that position on your assessment of atheistic morality. But deontological morality doesn't deal with consequence, only obedience or disobedience to rules, while consequence - whether that action produces harmony or suffering - is more likely to be itself the basis for atheistic morality.
If atheists had no foundation for morality, and thus no regard for morality, no rules of morality or no moral conscience, if that were true, we'd expect to observe an increase in violent or sexual crimes positively correlative with the increase in atheism. This has not been observed. You also hint that atheists have no reason to believe morality matters, which in itself raises questions about whether morality only matters to you because of the bible. If so, I believe that shows how much you require the bible in order to be a stand-up citizen, and it raises concerns about what behaviours you might undertake were you ever to lose faith.
Many atheists won't indulge in violent or criminal behaviours because their happiness, non-suffering and peace matters, and the happiness, non-suffering and peace of others 'matters'. Does it require an outside force to matter?
If atheists had no foundation for morality, and thus no regard for morality, no rules of morality or no moral conscience, if that were true, we'd expect to observe an increase in violent or sexual crimes positively correlative with the increase in atheism. This has not been observed. You also hint that atheists have no reason to believe morality matters, which in itself raises questions about whether morality only matters to you because of the bible. If so, I believe that shows how much you require the bible in order to be a stand-up citizen, and it raises concerns about what behaviours you might undertake were you ever to lose faith.
Many atheists won't indulge in violent or criminal behaviours because their happiness, non-suffering and peace matters, and the happiness, non-suffering and peace of others 'matters'. Does it require an outside force to matter?
A
AgeofKnowledge
Guest
I know plenty of atheists, most of them live immoral lives. Many of them live selfish lives in which integrity is jettisoned when opportunities for personal gain arise.
Some of them lives that put other people at risk. A few I met in my work with Victory Outreach could only be described as evil people. They were criminals who committed violent crimes up to and including murder for profit and who sold dangerous drugs for money. They justified their activities using atheism. Atheism provides the perfect "moral" justification for such people.
The most interesting atheists I met were the ones that succumbed to drug and alcohol addiction forcing them into a place where they needed God to get better. Their internal conflict was obvious. Not many walked away from that experience recovered as atheists. A few did but to my knowledge they all relapsed.
Some of them lives that put other people at risk. A few I met in my work with Victory Outreach could only be described as evil people. They were criminals who committed violent crimes up to and including murder for profit and who sold dangerous drugs for money. They justified their activities using atheism. Atheism provides the perfect "moral" justification for such people.
The most interesting atheists I met were the ones that succumbed to drug and alcohol addiction forcing them into a place where they needed God to get better. Their internal conflict was obvious. Not many walked away from that experience recovered as atheists. A few did but to my knowledge they all relapsed.
A
AgeofKnowledge
Guest
A
AgeofKnowledge
Guest
William James once claimed, "If your heart does not want a world of moral reality, your head will assuredly never make you believe in one."
There ARE a great many atheists who do not want a world of normative moral reality. Thankfully many do not fit in that category though they maintain that a person can live a good moral life without God in the picture.
The elephant in the room, of course, is that 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 God's holiness.
So in addition to whatever morality they choose to ascribe to not being good enough to meet God's HOLY standard, they are attempting sanctification in their spiritually dead state which is 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 gennēthēnai anōthen (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 these three cannot be accounted for adequately by scientific naturalism.
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."
Given scientific naturalism, it is hard to see how there could be intrinsic value and an objective moral order or why that order would have anything to do with human persons. Moreover, the combinatorial processes of the Grand Story cannot account for the appearance of simple, 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."\
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.
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.
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.
Read: https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1412-atheism-the-church-of-amorality
There ARE a great many atheists who do not want a world of normative moral reality. Thankfully many do not fit in that category though they maintain that a person can live a good moral life without God in the picture.
The elephant in the room, of course, is that 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 God's holiness.
So in addition to whatever morality they choose to ascribe to not being good enough to meet God's HOLY standard, they are attempting sanctification in their spiritually dead state which is 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 gennēthēnai anōthen (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 these three cannot be accounted for adequately by scientific naturalism.
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."
Given scientific naturalism, it is hard to see how there could be intrinsic value and an objective moral order or why that order would have anything to do with human persons. Moreover, the combinatorial processes of the Grand Story cannot account for the appearance of simple, 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."\
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.
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.
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.
Read: https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1412-atheism-the-church-of-amorality
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? And endless cycle of pains and pangs, only being encouraged, motivated and aspired to? No. That world would be horrible for us all.
Last edited:
It's funny, because I haven't met anyone who thinks that way either. That's not to say there aren't any atheists who do, but most atheists are good people who consider themselves as moral.
You provide this false dichotomy in which there's either a God who tells us what's right and wrong, or there's no such thing as right and wrong. There's no room for other possibilities such as right and wrong reflecting human emotions in society.
Here's an interesting thought experiment. What if the reality we live in is one in which there is no God? All the good and evil in the world comes from us humans? If, hypothetically speaking, you could obtain knowledge that you were completely wrong about God's existence and that morality is a man made concept, what would you do? Would you continue to do good and live a good life, because that's what seems to work? Or would you do whatever you wanted to do?
If you would continue to do good things knowing your morality stems from human concepts, why?