Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

Although it is true that Atheism is certainly amoral. Atheists are often proud of that fact. If you look back, you'll find they say it has no responsibility at all to have any particular view of morality. So they agree with me about that. You have no grounds to complain, therefore.

Oh Really! Is that really true, or just something you wish to be true?

No, it's inherently true, analytically a fact. And Atheists themselves very often insist, in fact, that it is true.

They don't want to be held accountable to assert any moral judments themselves in a particular argument, nor to defend such. So they say, "Atheism only means there's no God. Nothing more. You can't ask us to justify any moral claims, because Atheism implies none." That's their line.

And it's true. They have a point. In fact, it was first pointed out by an Atheist: David Hume. Atheism does not imply, rationalize, ground or claim any moral particulars at all. All it's concerned with is saying, "There's no God." Nothing more, nothing else.

So Atheism IS amoral. The Atheists say so. And they're right.

[Harbal]

I can't help thinking that this sort of thing is directly at odds with what a Christian attitude is supposed to be. This is confrontational, and, seemingly, intentionally offensive.

Not at all.

What a Christian is supposed to do, is to treat people with respect, but to prefer truth over lies. This is exactly what one should do: be kind to Atheists, since they are people made in the image of God, and utterly ruthless in freeing them from the fatal delusions Atheism.

As Christians see it, there is no "loving" or "kind" response that allows another person, who is valuable, to swallow lies that are toxic to them.

Without a relationship to God, people are lost. But Atheism teaches that there is no hope for people, and counsels them to give up on knowing God.

Thus, a Christian's true responsibility is clear: kindness to the person, and vigorous, uncompromising opposition of the lie.

What an absolute load of rubbish.

[Immanuel Can]

I can't help thinking that this sort of thing is directly at odds with what a Christian attitude is supposed to be. This is confrontational, and, seemingly, intentionally offensive.

Not at all.

What a Christian is supposed to do, is to treat people with respect, but to prefer truth over lies. This is exactly what one should do: be kind to Atheists, since they are people made in the image of God, and utterly ruthless in freeing them from the fatal delusions Atheism.

As Christians see it, there is no "loving" or "kind" response that allows another person, who is valuable, to swallow lies that are toxic to them.

Without a relationship to God, people are lost. But Atheism teaches that there is no hope for people, and counsels them to give up on knowing God.

Thus, a Christian's true responsibility is clear: kindness to the person, and vigorous, uncompromising opposition of the lie.

What an absolute load of rubbish.

I can't see why you think so. Don't you make any distiction between an ideology and a person?

I'm sure you do. Any sensible person would.

[Lacewing]

Nope. I always say, "Atheism is amoral."

I showed you this was untrue. You asked me to show you a quote of your's, and I did. And now you ignore it and offer no response except to continue saying what you want to be true?

Atheist are amoral.

[BigMike]

The argument here is that the concept of a deity is logically inconsistent or contradictory, and therefore cannot exist. It's a type of proof called "reductio ad absurdum." One common example of this is the problem of evil. If a deity is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving, why would there be evil and suffering in the world? If the deity is all-powerful, it would have the ability to stop evil; if it is all-knowing, it would be aware of the evil; and if it is all-loving, it would want to stop the evil. Yet, evil and suffering still exist. This is a logical inconsistency in the concept of a deity.

Yeah, this is an old and lame one. It requires us to think that if we have to ask "why would there be evil and suffering in the world," and don't know the answer, then there can't be one. It's like people expect to drink the Pacific Ocean or to span the stars, or else they're going to deny the possibility of oceans and universes.

An omniscient God is going to know the reason for all that happens. An all-loving one is only going to allow suffering if there is sufficient reason for Him to do so, and an all-powerful one is going to be able to manage all the involved variables perfectly. So you can be sure that IF there's a God, He's got good reasons...and also that you, not being omniscient, are going to fall considerably short of knowing them, unless He tells you some of them. Even He will not be able to tell you them all -- not because of His limitations, but because of ours. You can't get the ocean into a teaspoon.

So even on its own terms, the above objection fails. It assumes that it understands what omniscience, omnipotence and goodness "should" do, and understands it from the limited, fallible, perspectival, small viewpoint of a mere human being...or else there can be no answer.

Not buying it. I don't think you should, either.

It is true that the problem of evil is an old and debated issue in philosophy and theology, and there are various responses to it. However, I respectfully disagree with your argument that the objection fails.

Your response assumes that there must be a sufficient reason for an all-loving deity to allow suffering, but it is not clear what that reason could be. While an omniscient deity may know the reason for all that happens, it does not necessarily follow that there is a good reason for allowing suffering. Additionally, the argument does not assume that it understands what omniscience, omnipotence, and goodness "should" do, but rather raises a logical inconsistency within the concept of a deity that is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving.

Furthermore, the problem of evil is not solely about our ability to comprehend the reasons behind suffering but also about the moral implications of a deity that allows it. If a deity is all-loving, it would seem morally wrong to allow needless suffering, even if there were some reason behind it.

Overall, while the problem of evil may not definitively prove the non-existence of a deity, it does raise significant questions and challenges to the traditional concept of a deity that is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving.

[BigMike]

The argument here is that the concept of a deity is logically inconsistent or contradictory, and therefore cannot exist. It's a type of proof called "reductio ad absurdum." One common example of this is the problem of evil. If a deity is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving, why would there be evil and suffering in the world? If the deity is all-powerful, it would have the ability to stop evil; if it is all-knowing, it would be aware of the evil; and if it is all-loving, it would want to stop the evil. Yet, evil and suffering still exist. This is a logical inconsistency in the concept of a deity.

Yeah, this is an old and lame one. It requires us to think that if we have to ask "why would there be evil and suffering in the world," and don't know the answer, then there can't be one. It's like people expect to drink the Pacific Ocean or to span the stars, or else they're going to deny the possibility of oceans and universes.

An omniscient God is going to know the reason for all that happens. An all-loving one is only going to allow suffering if there is sufficient reason for Him to do so, and an all-powerful one is going to be able to manage all the involved variables perfectly. So you can be sure that IF there's a God, He's got good reasons...and also that you, not being omniscient, are going to fall considerably short of knowing them, unless He tells you some of them. Even He will not be able to tell you them all -- not because of His limitations, but because of ours. You can't get the ocean into a teaspoon.

So even on its own terms, the above objection fails. It assumes that it understands what omniscience, omnipotence and goodness "should" do, and understands it from the limited, fallible, perspectival, small viewpoint of a mere human being...or else there can be no answer.

Not buying it. I don't think you should, either.

Your religious belief that we are incapable of comprehending God's purposes is concerning to me. If we can't understand what God's intentions are, how can we determine what is right and wrong?

Let's say we witness a heinous act like an elderly grandfather sexually assaulting his young granddaughter. If we don't have the ability to comprehend God's purposes, does that mean we should just stand by and do nothing, assuming that God has some master plan that we don't understand? To me, that seems like a very dangerous approach to take.

It's important to have some kind of moral compass to guide our actions, regardless of whether or not we can fully comprehend God's purposes. We need to be able to make moral judgments based on our own understanding of what is right and wrong, and take action accordingly. Simply deferring to the idea that we can't understand God's purposes is not a responsible or ethical approach to dealing with the real-world problems and challenges we face.

[Harbal]

I can't see why you think so. Don't you make any distiction between an ideology and a person?

I'm sure you do. Any sensible person would.

But if you expect me to swallow the rubbish you come out with, you obviously don't think I am a sensible person; you must think me a gullible fool.

[Immanuel Can]

Nope. I always say, "Atheism is amoral."

You asked me to show you a quote of your's, and I did.

You misrepresented my point. You may not have intended to do so, but you did.

[Alexis Jacobi]

An 'atheist' can live as well and possibly much better than a victim of bad-thinking and bad-perceiving Christian projection.

I refer you to my message to Big Mike, above.

You've made the same error he made, and it needs the same correction.

Allow me to perfect the statement I made earlier:

Atheism, as a stance, as a predicate-platform, and even if one that becomes common and universal, will not in itself inhibit any person from living well nor from living ethically.

The basic position of atheism, and therefore of an atheist, seems to be "To propose that a god exists, and can be appealed to or relied on, does not hold up to close scrutiny. Therefore, as an atheist I can let that false-belief go."

There are other ways that it could be stated, too. For example "If there is a god that god has not demonstrated himself to me in a way that has any impact at all on my perception of the world and how it functions. Though some say that god (some inconceivable, originating intelligence) must *logically* be supposed, this proposed god does not enter my perceptual world at any point, and therefore though it could be true that such a god created everything, I do not need to give any energy to investigating it or even worrying about it. Sufficient it is to dedicate my energy to what is within my existential wheelhouse'".

It does seem very clear, to me anyway, that our own 'moral systems' are composites from different cultures, different philosophical systems, and perhaps can be presented as that which divides Greek rationalism (ethics) from Hebrew revelation. In my own view, in my own experience, I have always been more influenced to 'act well' and to conduct myself according to 'good behavior' through rational arguments and not through the 'command' of god.

So, and in fact as it happens, when people have shifted from a position of god-fear to one of "I must make the best choices for myself based on what I feel and believe the best ethical decision to be" it seems to me that people then become more authentically moral.

However, I would not deny (and never have denied) that when a god-construct begins to crumble -- as it has crumbled for the majority with whom you harangue here -- that the people who lived in *god-fear*, but not in an authentic relationship to ethics and morals, when these people have the ground taken out from under them they often do not have defined self-restraint. They correspond to fat, flabby people who have not ever had to exercise their moral and ethical muscles. So, it seems to me that they can easily fall into many of the traps of sensuality, lust, avarice and power-craving which, generally speaking, are man's most seductive traps.

Therefore I acknowledge that religion, and an imagined god sitting up there observing all we do and threatening punishments, is a *picture* that has always had a restraining function.

But it seems to me that a mature man can begin to do away with that imagined restraining power and take on the burden himself.

Again, I am not in any sense an atheist as I have defined it. But I agree with those who opt for the atheist's platform. In fact I would even go so far as to say that if we were to hold in our minds the image of Jesus as pictured in the Gospels -- at the very least a thoughtful and a subtle intelligence -- that such a one would understand and appreciate the atheistic perspective I have outlined here and which seems more 'mature' than whatever it is that you propose.

Make sense? It is a curious way of transvaluing the apparent value that you put forward which to many of us does not seem much of a value at all. I.e. is devoid of valuable content that we can identify.

To try to get a grasp of why people believe the things they believe, and why they cling to fantasies, projections, wild hopes, and so much else, requires a real humanistic psychology. The more that one studies man the more such a perspective is needed.

All of this I cover in the Moral Revival section of my Ten Week Internet Self-Transformation Course -- so what is holding you back Immanuel?!?

[Immanuel Can]

I can't see why you think so. Don't you make any distiction between an ideology and a person?

I'm sure you do. Any sensible person would.

But if you expect me to swallow the rubbish you come out with, you obviously don't think I am a sensible person; you must think me a gullible fool.

Au contraire: I think you capable of seeing through the flaws in Atheism. That's a vote of confidence in your wits, not an insult.

[Immanuel Can]

If we can't understand what God's intentions are, how can we determine what is right and wrong?

By revelation. There's no other way we could. God has given us His laws and priniciples, and by them we are informed of what right moral orientation is. That's exactly how Western society has, in fact, formed its existing moral codes, even if they've become somewhat decayed from their prototype.

Let's say we witness a heinous act like an elderly grandfather sexually assaulting his young granddaughter. If we don't have the ability to comprehend God's purposes, does that mean we should just stand by and do nothing,...

I don't see why you would think that, since God has already told us the moral status of such actions, and what our duty with regard to them is. That's violence, at least, or maybe fornication (you didn't specify), or incest...all roundly condemned by the first five books of the Bible.

It's important to have some kind of moral compass to guide our actions, regardless of whether or not we can fully comprehend God's purposes.

This is the fundamental problem with Atheism that I'm pointing out, and with which the defenders of Atheism also seem to agree: Atheism does not imply any moral judgments.

That means that Atheism has nothing to offer the "moral compass" of which you speak. It can't offer us anything to inform us of what we should do in any moral dilemma, no matter how serious that dilemma may be.

And how bad is that? Just as bad as you suggest.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I think you capable of seeing through the flaws in Atheism.

Let us suppose, for a moment, that seeing through the flaws in atheism could be explained and defended rationally to an intelligent person.

It does not follow that that person would then turn around and accept and believe in the myriad flaws, the myriad contradictions, the myriad irrationalisms of the Christian belief-system.

The tool that you try to use (to notice flaws) is actually quite deadly to your own System! And we who have engaged with you and your brand of religious fanaticism reject your *argument* because it is flawed through and through!

When confronted with that you simply go dumb -- you cannot imagine that we make sense at all!

And then we ask the question: "What keeps him from seeing what is so evident?!?"

My short answer is 'religious fanaticism'.

You are stuck in a vicious circle and you cannot break out of it. If you cracked 'the circle' (the container) you'd crack yourself, so identified with it you are.

Trippy, eh?

[Immanuel Can]

Atheism, as a stance, as a predicate-platform, and even if one that becomes common and universal, will not in itself inhibit any person from living well nor from living ethically.

No, they could live in a way entirely inconsistent with Atheism. That's true. And I've said so.

They could profess Atheism, and live like a Christian. They could profess Atheism, and live like a Muslim, a Hindu or a Zoroastrian. They could even profess Atheism, but in their personal habits, be as restrained and self-disciplined as an elite Buddhist monk. But nothing in their Atheism will tell them they owe anybody to be any such thing.

And if it ever happens that they really manage to take their Atheism to heart, and line up their morals with what they claim they believe is the deep truth of the universe, then they will come to conclusions similar to those of Nietzsche (though even Nietzsche was not brave enough to take them all the way): namely, that there are no morals that are real, and all that's going on under the guise of "morality" is actually a vicious struggle for power...nothing more.

Atheism itself, meanwhile, will supply absolutely nothing capable of resisting such a conclusion. For it has no moral content of its own. It's a one-claim negation, nothing more. So if an Atheist ever should decide to live as if Atheism is really true, then that person would be totally amoral. Good thing that nobody, even Nietzsche, ever managed to do that.

Maybe the Marquis de Sade, or the Earl of Rochester, or somebody like that, we could say, was closer to being a consistent Atheist than even Nietzsche was. They were at least close to amoral in their actions, so the one thing you could call them was "consistent." But I don't think even they could manage to live as if Atheism were really true. Nobody can.

[Harbal]

No, it's inherently true, analytically a fact. And Atheists themselves very often insist, in fact, that it is true.

They don't want to be held accountable to assert any moral judments themselves in a particular argument, nor to defend such. So they say.......

You are doing it again! You keep wheeling out fictitious atheists and putting words in their mouths.

So they say, "Atheism only means there's no God. Nothing more. You can't ask us to justify any moral claims, because Atheism implies none." That's their line.

Who, exactly, says that? I'm an atheist, but I don't say that. I am happy to justify any moral claim I make.

And it's true. They have a point. In fact, it was first pointed out by an Atheist: David Hume. Atheism does not imply, rationalize, ground or claim any moral particulars at all. All it's concerned with is saying, "There's no God." Nothing more, nothing else.

So Atheism IS amoral. The Atheists say so. And they're right.

So atheism is nothing to do with morality, so what? Atheism does not prevent one from having a well developed sense of morality, it has no bearing on it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

By revelation. There's no other way we could. God has given us His laws and priniciples, and by them we are informed of what right moral orientation is. That's exactly how Western society has, in fact, formed its existing moral codes, even if they've become somewhat decayed from their prototype.

This is blatantly false. Greek rationalism and indeed philosophy itself (not a Hebrew endeavor) prove it so.

There very certainly is another we. We can and we do.

That's exactly how Western society has, in fact, formed its existing moral codes.

Wrong again. We have a moral system, or various moral systems, that are composites.