The Ever Present Problem of Atheism (HOF thread)
- Thread starter Freak
- Start date
Z Man
New member
I'm shooting for the gold (the first option, of course)... :thumb:Originally posted by Zakath
I think it's time for Roger to have the dubious honor of being the first person in my ignore list in the almost three years I've been here... :thumb:
Or maybe I'll just ignore him totally without doing him the honor... :think:
I like the second option better...
Husband&Father
New member
Are there such a thing as morals? Is there a moral law? Do atheists abide by any moral laws? Do atheists have principles? Who makes the rules for atheists?
If an atheist chooses to impose a moral law upon himself the question is where does that law come from. Is it arbitrary, picked or made up by the atheist to suit himself, or is it a law that is above the man? Is there an absolute moral code or are we, the godless, free to design and live by morals of our own selection?
If the atheist claims morals are arbitrary than he must realize and admit that the morals he has fashioned for himself are of no more value or credibility than the morals any one else cuts from whole cloth. If morals do not come from above but exist at the discretion of each individual than anyone is allowed to call anything good and anyone can call anything evil and no one can criticize anyone else’s morals. One man chooses to respect a woman, one man chooses to rape a woman, there is no right or wrong just preferences.
The atheist who makes this claim has no right to question the existence of God using "the question of evil" tactic (portraying God as immoral for allowing evil thus disqualifying him due to inconsistency) By denying that morals are ultimate and concrete he must concede that they are void of defensible and discernible characteristics; they are whatever whoever says they are. He can’t call me immoral, he can’t call Hitler immoral and he ceartinly can’t call God immoral.
The atheist who will not admit absolute moral law can not, in intellectual or philosophical honesty pose "the question of evil"
The atheist who claims that morals are above men and are inalienable and superintendent must face the fair question of where do moral laws come from if there is no God. This atheist will be stumped. This atheist will eventually bend his knee and bow his head before God. Because the fact of the matter is that if there is no God then there is nowhere from whence moral laws, or absolute truth, or perfect love or even life itself can come from
If an atheist chooses to impose a moral law upon himself the question is where does that law come from. Is it arbitrary, picked or made up by the atheist to suit himself, or is it a law that is above the man? Is there an absolute moral code or are we, the godless, free to design and live by morals of our own selection?
If the atheist claims morals are arbitrary than he must realize and admit that the morals he has fashioned for himself are of no more value or credibility than the morals any one else cuts from whole cloth. If morals do not come from above but exist at the discretion of each individual than anyone is allowed to call anything good and anyone can call anything evil and no one can criticize anyone else’s morals. One man chooses to respect a woman, one man chooses to rape a woman, there is no right or wrong just preferences.
The atheist who makes this claim has no right to question the existence of God using "the question of evil" tactic (portraying God as immoral for allowing evil thus disqualifying him due to inconsistency) By denying that morals are ultimate and concrete he must concede that they are void of defensible and discernible characteristics; they are whatever whoever says they are. He can’t call me immoral, he can’t call Hitler immoral and he ceartinly can’t call God immoral.
The atheist who will not admit absolute moral law can not, in intellectual or philosophical honesty pose "the question of evil"
The atheist who claims that morals are above men and are inalienable and superintendent must face the fair question of where do moral laws come from if there is no God. This atheist will be stumped. This atheist will eventually bend his knee and bow his head before God. Because the fact of the matter is that if there is no God then there is nowhere from whence moral laws, or absolute truth, or perfect love or even life itself can come from
One Eyed Jack
New member
Sure I did. You asked me what I thought of all that, and I told you -- it sounds utterly nihilistic to me.
Now, seriously -- what points have I dodged?
H&F:
>>One man chooses to respect a woman, one man chooses to rape a woman, there is no right or wrong just preferences.<<
And the preference of the woman is NOT to be raped. You said yourself that atheists believe their own moral code is NOT in any way superior to that of someone else. Therefore, we respect her wishes NOT to be raped.
>>The atheist who makes this claim has no right to question the existence of God <<
EVERYONE has the right to question the existence of God. The arguement from evil starts with two suppositions:
1) Evil exists
2) God exists
From there on, the arguement shows that these two suppositions lead to a logical inconsistency. Therefore, either (or both) must be wrong.
>>Because the fact of the matter is that if there is no God then there is nowhere from whence moral laws, or absolute truth, or perfect love or even life itself can come from<<
If there is no God that doesn't mean there are no other gods. Allah or Shiva for example, could also provide it.
>>One man chooses to respect a woman, one man chooses to rape a woman, there is no right or wrong just preferences.<<
And the preference of the woman is NOT to be raped. You said yourself that atheists believe their own moral code is NOT in any way superior to that of someone else. Therefore, we respect her wishes NOT to be raped.
>>The atheist who makes this claim has no right to question the existence of God <<
EVERYONE has the right to question the existence of God. The arguement from evil starts with two suppositions:
1) Evil exists
2) God exists
From there on, the arguement shows that these two suppositions lead to a logical inconsistency. Therefore, either (or both) must be wrong.
>>Because the fact of the matter is that if there is no God then there is nowhere from whence moral laws, or absolute truth, or perfect love or even life itself can come from<<
If there is no God that doesn't mean there are no other gods. Allah or Shiva for example, could also provide it.
One Eyed Jack
New member
So? I still answered your question. So again I have to ask you -- what points have I dodged?
Zakath
Resident Atheist
H&F,
What are you doing, testing Enyart's debate material for him???
You've asked eight questions and I'll give you my answer, realizing that I do not claim to speak for all (or even most) atheists, only myself.
1. Are there such a thing as morals?
If by "morals" you mean "rules or standards of conduct", then I would say that there are such things as morals, yes.
2. Is there a moral law?
I am uncertain whether you are asking if an individual moral precept can be, or has been, codified into law or whether laws themselves can be moral. Could you please clarify...
3. Do atheists abide by any moral laws?
This atheist abides by certain rules or standards of conduct, yes.
4. Do atheists have principles?
If by "principles" you mean a collection of morals and standards, then yes, this atheist does have principles.
5. Who makes the rules for atheists?
While I cannot speak for all atheists (we're a rather eclectic bunch of folk), this atheist essentially makes his own rules. Many of those rules are drawn from what I consider the best (in my opinion) of a variety of social and religious codes of conduct.
6. If an atheist chooses to impose a moral law upon himself the question is where does that law come from.
See my answer to question 5.
7. Is it arbitrary, picked or made up by the atheist to suit himself, or is it a law that is above the man?
See my answer to question 5.
8. Is there an absolute moral code or are we, the godless, free to design and live by morals of our own selection?
If a freethinker, like an atheist, chooses to be part of a society, they must adopt many of the outward appearances of the society in which they live if they wish to remain there. Living too differently from those around you incites a variety of negative emotions in your neighbors including fear, jealousy, and even animosity that can lead to violence or persecution.
So the answer is a qualified yes. The more a freethinker wants to participate in society, any society, the more they must conform outwardly to that society's rules of conduct.
I find the rest of your post to be merely an arguement of exteremes. You take an extreme position and carry it out well past the realm of logic. In dealing with human beings, few individuals carry anything, including devotion to their deity, to its "logical extreme." If they did, then we'd have weekly bloodbaths at abortion clinic sites while fundy pro-lifers were bombing the clinics with explosive vests like Hammas zealots. That is an illustration of the kind of logical extreme that most rational humans would not sink to in pursuit of their devotion to deity. To make a claim that they do is irrational and one not borne out by experience.
What are you doing, testing Enyart's debate material for him???
You've asked eight questions and I'll give you my answer, realizing that I do not claim to speak for all (or even most) atheists, only myself.
1. Are there such a thing as morals?
If by "morals" you mean "rules or standards of conduct", then I would say that there are such things as morals, yes.
2. Is there a moral law?
I am uncertain whether you are asking if an individual moral precept can be, or has been, codified into law or whether laws themselves can be moral. Could you please clarify...
3. Do atheists abide by any moral laws?
This atheist abides by certain rules or standards of conduct, yes.
4. Do atheists have principles?
If by "principles" you mean a collection of morals and standards, then yes, this atheist does have principles.
5. Who makes the rules for atheists?
While I cannot speak for all atheists (we're a rather eclectic bunch of folk), this atheist essentially makes his own rules. Many of those rules are drawn from what I consider the best (in my opinion) of a variety of social and religious codes of conduct.
6. If an atheist chooses to impose a moral law upon himself the question is where does that law come from.
See my answer to question 5.
7. Is it arbitrary, picked or made up by the atheist to suit himself, or is it a law that is above the man?
See my answer to question 5.
8. Is there an absolute moral code or are we, the godless, free to design and live by morals of our own selection?
If a freethinker, like an atheist, chooses to be part of a society, they must adopt many of the outward appearances of the society in which they live if they wish to remain there. Living too differently from those around you incites a variety of negative emotions in your neighbors including fear, jealousy, and even animosity that can lead to violence or persecution.
So the answer is a qualified yes. The more a freethinker wants to participate in society, any society, the more they must conform outwardly to that society's rules of conduct.
This is a red herring. POE (Problem of Evil) may be posed by anyone, based upon the societal norms for the group with which they live. If I lived in a fundamentalist Muslim society, for instance, I could still frame the problem within their moral context without believing in that context myself...
I find the rest of your post to be merely an arguement of exteremes. You take an extreme position and carry it out well past the realm of logic. In dealing with human beings, few individuals carry anything, including devotion to their deity, to its "logical extreme." If they did, then we'd have weekly bloodbaths at abortion clinic sites while fundy pro-lifers were bombing the clinics with explosive vests like Hammas zealots. That is an illustration of the kind of logical extreme that most rational humans would not sink to in pursuit of their devotion to deity. To make a claim that they do is irrational and one not borne out by experience.
Roger, the original quote you are having problems with was:
"Your group is losing the race for the minds and hearts of men, Roger... "
I don't know about anyone else, but I notice only two quantified groups here Roger's "group" (Christians) and ...men (non-Christians).
Therefore your 3-party "voting" analogy doesn't accuratly portray the argument at hand.
The only logic to dividing up the rest of mankind into differing sects would be to intentionally manipulate the statistics to decieve or otherwise add the illusion of credibility to a fallicious claim.
I can only conclude that Roger must be a Republican! :greedy: