Christianity

[Lacewing]

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.

I showed you what you denied existed. You still denied it, so I showed it to you again. Now you claim I 'misrepresented your point'. There truly is no limit, is there, to what you'll do and say to serve the need/illusion of 'being right' over 'what is true'? Yet here you are heaping judgements on atheists and atheism for being amoral. Your ongoing deceptions are far worse than anything you accuse atheists/atheism of.

[Harbal]

I'll say again (and it now seems for the tenth time or so) I indict Atheism. Some Atheists don't live out the logical amorality entailed by their Atheism, and for that, I'm immensely glad. And maybe you're one of those.

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, no repetition will be any truer than its predecessor. Morality does not come from believing in mythology. For example, there is no threshold of deceit and dishonesty beyond which you will not go to defend your professed beliefs. So God doesn't appear to have a positive influence on your morality.

But you'll find there's nothing in Atheism that gives you reason to have an antipathy to dictators. It's solely concerned with eliminating God, not with your moral condition, good or bad.

Well there you go, then. You now seem to be agreeing that there is no connection between atheism and morality.

You don't. Not if you're an Atheist. But maybe you're better, as a person, than your creed is

What do you suppose my "creed" to be?

Atheism offers nothing upon which to base any moral imperative at all

Yes, I totally agree.

[Lacewing]

nothing is "evidence" for somebody who refuses the evidence. One can always say, of any such evidence, "Well, I don't accept that AS evidence."

Yes, anyone can do that... as you do.

A lot of people seem to think there's quite a lot of evidence for God.

Civilizations often think all kinds of things for thousands of years until they discover something else.

Creation, complexity, cognition, morality, conscience, revelation, the existence of order...all kinds of things.

These are our human concepts. They may be meaningless beyond our world/experience.

The organization and qualities of life do not indicate a particular conclusion by human terms.

that's made belief in God rather easy for most of the people for most of history.

Are you referring to human history or Christian history?

[BigMike]

Atheism offers nothing upon which to base any moral imperative at all, and all we find we can't live without some kind of moral imperatives.

Religious belief does not necessarily provide a better basis for moral reasoning. Many religious doctrines have been used to justify immoral acts, such as slavery, genocide, and discrimination.

[Immanuel Can]

there are a lot of different definitions of atheism out there,

Only one that makes any sense: "No gods." The other "definitions" proposed, such as "not caring," "not thinking about it," "lacking," "believing in no gods," and so on, are just silly.

... it seems to conflate atheism with moral relativism or amorality,

Neither.

Atheism isn't interested in morals, at all. It doesn't say they're relative; it doesn't have any view of them at all. And for this reason, it fits with amorality, but it doesn't explicitly address even amorality.

Moreover, it's not clear why Can believes that atheism necessarily leads to antipathy towards dictators

I did not say it did. I said DAM's three criteria would work for any dictator. And they would.

Finally, I think Can's statement ignores the fact that many atheists do indeed care about their moral condition

It doesn't "ignore" it at all. I've repeatedly stated that all kinds of Atheists can act morally. But to do so, they cannot draw on Atheism. Atheism rationalizes no morals at all.

I'm not sure why it's hard for you to understand the difference between talking about Atheism and talking about Atheists. But one is an ideology, and the other is a type of person. People often do irrational things, things that don't square with what they profess they believe. So there's no reason why an Atheist can't do something good...he just won't have any reason, on Atheism alone, to think it IS "good." Atheism offers no moral content.

[Immanuel Can]

Morality does not come from believing in mythology.

We agree on that. But Christianity isn't based on myths, but on a historical Person.

You now seem to be agreeing that there is no connection between atheism and morality.

I always was. I've said from the beginning that Atheism offers no opinion or justification for any morality at all. And I've said that, too, several times now.

You don't. Not if you're an Atheist. But maybe you're better, as a person, than your creed is

What do you suppose my "creed" to be?

Well, now you're saying you're an agnostic, I guess, though at first you used the word "Atheist." So if you're an Atheist, and still moral, then you're better than anything Atheism can offer you.

Atheism offers nothing upon which to base any moral imperative at all

Yes, I totally agree.

Great.

[Dubious]

However, for Atheism, there isn't even the potential of evidence. So that puts Theism quite a step ahead of Atheism.

So what's the evidence for theism...

It's so widely available, I can't imagine you've even raised the question. But you have a computer, so I'll let you find out. I have already listed dozens of types of such arguments myself, have even argued many of them at length, and I'm weary of going over them for people who are so behind the argument they don't even know that they exist.

I'll leave you to do your research. I'm certain you can easily find out.

I can't find anything which evidences - meaning real evidence - that the bible is the word of god. What evangelists admit as evidence doesn't qualify or live up to what is usually denoted as such in its much more stringent requirements. So where is the proof that there was ever an actual god or any god manipulating events on this planet? What we do know is that aside from scripture none so far, have ever appeared. If anything alien appears or ever appeared in a spaceship - no matter how miraculously advanced - that too is certainly no god.

The Jesus story, whether historical or not is so pathetic, a true remnant of its age, that him being the son of god is not only paradoxical but insane!

So where is the non-evangelistic bona fide evidence upon which your belief is certified?

You always ask others to verify what you so obviously can't give credence to yourself based on any objective, historical event...a very old kludge of yours forever repeated. I can well believe it makes you weary!

[Immanuel Can]

Atheism offers nothing upon which to base any moral imperative at all, and all we find we can't live without some kind of moral imperatives.

Religious belief does not necessarily provide a better basis for moral reasoning.

I agree. Some religions actually offer warrant for attrocities. Atheism just offers nothing. But nothing can be bad: people can use the belief that moral constraints are gone to justify practically anything.

And this is why there's an alarming correspondence between Atheist regimes and attrocities...one far outscaling the viciousness of all false religious creeds combined, by orders of magnitude. So strong is the correlation between Atheism and such things, that it really calls for some sort of explanation as to how Atheism connects to viciousness. Atheist regimes killed 140 million in the last century alone.

By comparison, Islam is responsible for about 3.5% of war fatalities, and all religions put together...Hinduism, Buddhism, paganisms, Sikhism, Catholicism, and so on, are responsible for another 3.5%. But some religions, like Hassidim, Quakers, Mennonites, Anabaptists, and so on, have produced no wars, deaths or repressions at all, ever.

So it's clear that it's not a level playing field... Atheist regimes kill the most, by orders of magnitude. Islam is second. And some religions are innocent of all of it.

[Gary Childress]

He's done that. You don't want to listen, it would seem. And that's your choice.

No. He hasn't, IC.

I just told you how to find Him. And you won't even try. I don't know what else anybody can tell you. But one day, you're going to have to explain why you just weren't interested. So it might be worth thinking of what your answer, then, will be.

More threats. If that's the way God allegedly operates, then I want no part in such evil. If heaven is what you want and there's nothing this alleged God could ask you to do that you wouldn't do for it, then it sounds like you've sold your soul to something. Not sure what.

I'll stick with my own moral intuitions. As far as I'm concerned, any being that defies them is no being worthy of worship. If we live in a world created by an evil being, then I see no point in doing evil other than to garner the favor of that evil being. I prefer oblivion.

[Dubious]

Atheism rationalizes no morals at all.

Atheism offers no moral content.

It must rationalize since it's not mandated. You're not required or permitted to rationalize rules mandated by god but only to obey. Just as society, in the collective is forced to rationalize its own moral rules and equivalences of behavior, the individual does within himself through his conscience, distinguishing what is and isn't acceptable. In effect, atheism is forced to rationalize morals, since they were never delivered as testament written by the finger of god!

You theists have it easy! All you have to do is read the lord's injunctions, accept and obey. No further debate on the philosophy of morals required!

[Harry Baird]

All the versions of [the argument for the problem of evil] I've found don't make a lot of sense.

My condolences on the atrophying of your powers of comprehension.

Oh, I understand what they say: but it's the arguments that make no sense. I find it quite amazing people can make them...but they do.

And from my end, the objections you supply to the arguments (its supposed assumptions, which supposedly are false) are weak, and laden with their own - highly dubious - assumptions.

So do you know a better argument?

No. That's the best I know of.

Wow.

I'm not sure why that's surprising. I'm a theist, after all. I take the problem of evil seriously enough that it has led me to a dualistic rather than a monotheistic theology, but if I did know of a better argument (against theism or in other words for atheism), then I almost certainly wouldn't be a theist at all. Hence my surprise at your surprise.

[Harbal]

What do you suppose my "creed" to be?

Well, now you're saying you're an agnostic, I guess, though at first you used the word "Atheist." So if you're an Atheist, and still moral, then you're better than anything Atheism can offer you.

I think that sound philosophy should always allow for the possibility of being wrong, no matter how firm our belief in something might be, and for that reason I am reluctant to go the whole hog and declare certainty in the none existence of God. But, to all intents and purposes, I may as well declare it. Or perhaps I should say, as far as God of the Bible is concerned; the God of Christianity. Whether you call me atheist or agnostic makes no difference. It's the description of what I am that is relevant, not the noun you choose to force on me.

I don't recognise a connection between religion, or the lack of it, and morality. Atheism neither informs my morality nor obstructs it. I've said this numerous times before, and you have refused to acknowledge it just as many times; my lack of belief in God is not a belief system, it is the absence of one. Not being a Christian has no more influence on my morality, or any other aspect of my life, than not being a Hindu, or Druid, does.

[commonsense]

Throughout this thread there are theists who deny that there is evidence for the nonexistence of God. Likewise the atheists here deny any evidence for the existence of God.

It seems to me that theists and atheists alike should embrace agnosticism.

[promethean75]

"Atheism offers nothing upon which to base any moral imperative at all"

not sure about that but let's grant that it's true. we say at least theism provides moral imperatives. but what does that mean? it means what is 'good' is what god says is good. okay no problem, but what if the fact that what is good is what god says is good, doesn't compel me to do what I think god says is good?

ah, what must be meant is 'u have a damn good reason now to do what u think god says is good if u believe u will burn in hell if u don't.'

so then the real currency here is how well the concept - theism, ergo god provides moral imperative - works to coerce and persuade people to do what is good by making them afraid of some consequence for not doing what is good. hell, in this case, or separation from god or whatever.

but if this is the case, there is nothing substantially different about an ethics derived from a materialistic atheism; u don't need to be religious to create rules and laws that people follow for fear of being penalized.

when i say 'currency', that's what i mean. the phrase 'only theism provides a moral imperative' might look fancy philosophically, but when u analyze it, there's nothing there but hot air.

theism does nothing in ethics that materialism/atheism can't also do.

[promethean75]

Lol, and if u did a survey, I bet you'd find more people not robbing and killing becuz they don't wanna go to jail... not becuz they fear going to hell.

How do I say that? Well u can't be afraid of what u aren't absolutely sure exists.

A jail, on the other hand, is no metaphysical mystery.