The Ever Present Problem of Atheism (HOF thread)

[Husband&Father]

<<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.<<

In other words, they work for you, you go along to get along.

OK I think I see where you are coming from. (the position that morals are helpful in organizing a socity but not founded on anything other than that bit of pragmatizm.)

My question "Is there a moral law" was about absolute moral laws. Is somthing absolutly right or wrong.

The questions were just me thinking out loud (so to speak) Sort of warming up for my post...ya know the one you dismissec as extream.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Husband&Father
<<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.<<

In other words, they work for you, you go along to get along.

To a certain extent. When they no longer work, replacements that do work must be found and implemented.

OK I think I see where you are coming from. (the position that morals are helpful in organizing a socity but not founded on anything other than that bit of pragmatizm.)

Essentially, yes. After some trial and error, of course...

My question "Is there a moral law" was about absolute moral laws. Is somthing absolutly right or wrong.

As you probably can tell from my previous post, I don't think "absolute" applies to morals or ethics.

The questions were just me thinking out loud (so to speak) Sort of warming up for my post...ya know the one you dismissec as extream.

OK.

 

[Husband&Father]

<<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. >>

I don’t mean this as a red herring, this really seems like a impossible hurdle for the atheist who does not believe in a standard of evil that is above man (the individual and the society)

The reason I believe this is that the POE is a challenge of morals.

The foundation of POE is that God allows evil, this is immoral, this is inconsistent, we know there is evil so there must NOT be a God.

So, in my view, the question breaks down if we all can’t agree on some definition of evil.
Some atheists say there is no evil yet the pose the question of evil. What good is defining evil within certain societies? We want to know if the Universe has a God not if some particular society has a God. That is why I say the only ones who can pose the question evil are those who believe it exists, absolutely exists

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Husband&Father
<<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. >>

I don’t mean this as a red herring, this really seems like a impossible hurdle for the atheist who does not believe in a standard of evil that is above man (the individual and the society)

It can become one, yes. It's a bit like asserting that the transporters on Star Trek are real. I've never seen one, nor do I know that the technology currently exists. Without demonstrating it, your assertion is the main evidence to prove your point...

It's similar with asserting that morals come from outside human society without first proving that there is anything outside human society that would influence human morals...

The reason I believe this is that the POE is a challenge of morals.

The foundation of POE is that God allows evil, this is immoral, this is inconsistent, we know there is evil so there must NOT be a God.

Humans assert that it is immoral to allow evil when you have the opportunity and power to prevent it. Since you assert that our morality comes from the very deity that allows the evil in the first place this places your position in a logical quandry. The admitted fact that the being who defines an act as immoral commits that act on a cosmic scale kind of undermines the entire validity of absolute moral values, at least in that case.

So, in my view, the question breaks down if we all can’t agree on some definition of evil.

That would be a good thing in a discussion like this.

Some atheists say there is no evil yet the pose the question of evil.

I'm not one of those...

What good is defining evil within certain societies?

Because we live within those societies, not some cosmic inteplanetary realm with universal rules...

We want to know if the Universe has a God not if some particular society has a God.

That is an entirely different question and should be looked at independently.

 

[RogerB]

Therefore your 3-party "voting" analogy doesn't accuratly portray the argument at hand.

If you're not going to read the entire thread, keep your quips to yourself.

 

[quip]

Originally posted by RogerB
If you're not going to read the entire thread, keep your quips to yourself.

Every post on all 66 pages!?! :down: -- I read enough to justify my quip, thank you.

 

[shima]

RogerB:
>>If you're not going to read the entire thread, keep your quips to yourself.<<

He didnt need to read ALL 66 pages to get the impression in what way the word "majority" is used incorrectly.

 

[RogerB]

Do all atheists have a fear of dictionaries?

 

[RogerB]

(from Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)
majority (NUMBER) noun
1 the larger number or part of something:
The majority of the employees have university degrees.
A large majority of people approve of the death sentence.
In Britain women are in the/a majority.

 

[RogerB]

(from askOxford.com)
majority
/m"drt/ noun (plural -ies) 1 (usually + of) greater number or part. 2 number by which winning vote exceeds next. 3 full legal age. Majority should strictly be used of a number of people or things, as in the majority of people, and not of a quantity of something, as in the majority of the work.

 

[shima]

"The majority of the employees have university degrees.
A large majority of people approve of the death sentence.
In Britain women are in the/a majority."

Exactly my point. These are all two option choises.

Either you got a university degree or you don't.
Either you are for the death sentence or you are not.
Either you are female or you are male.

So, either you are a christian or you are not. Now, 34% is christian, meaning that 66% is NOT. Therefore, christians are NOT in the majority.

 

[Z Man]

Neither are atheists, which just goes to show that most people on this planet acknowledge some sort of supernatural existence out there. This evidence makes it easy to see that atheists are obviously in denial...

 

[Zakath]

Ah, ah, ah, Z Man! :nono:

That is merely argumentum ad numerum, an appeal to numbers. Three hundred years ago, most people believed that malaria was caused by inhaling "bad air" from swamps. Research and time showed that what "most people on this planet acknowledged" was incorrect.

Following your logic, we could point to the observation that most people on this planet are not, and never have been Christians to invalidate Christianity.

Merely because a certain number believe something to be true does not change whether that belief is objectively true or not.

 

[LightSon]

personal question for Zakath

personal question for Zakath

Zakath,
I saw your bio information for the battle royale.
I have a couple personal questions if you wouldn't mind, perhaps just to clarify for me.

Is it true that you used to be a preacher? What denomination?

Have you ever held to the infallability of the Bible?
At anytime in your life did you believe in Jesus's death for our sins and his resurrection?

Thanks.

 

[Zakath]

Re: personal question for Zakath

Re: personal question for Zakath

Originally posted by LightSon
Zakath,
I saw your bio information for the battle royale.
I have a couple personal questions if you wouldn't mind, perhaps just to clarify for me.

Certainly. Even though you asked four questions, not merely a couple...

Is it true that you used to be a preacher? What denomination?

Yes. Assemblies of God (unfortunately the same one as Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker).

Have you ever held to the infallability of the Bible?

At one time, yes. As I read the bible, studied Greek and Hebrew, and the history of the Bible itself, I found that position untenable.

At anytime in your life did you believe in Jesus's death for our sins and his resurrection?

At one time, yes. Again, as I studied the Bible I found vicarous atonment and the resurrection less and less believable.

 

[RogerB]

Originally posted by Zakath
Ah, ah, ah, Z Man! :nono:

That is merely argumentum ad numerum, an appeal to numbers. Three hundred years ago, most people believed that malaria was caused by inhaling "bad air" from swamps. Research and time showed that what "most people on this planet acknowledged" was incorrect.

Following your logic, we could point to the observation that most people on this planet are not, and never have been Christians to invalidate Christianity.

Merely because a certain number believe something to be true does not change whether that belief is objectively true or not.

Oh for Pete's sake....following your logic, what's the use of debating anything at all?

 

[Zakath]

Very good, Roger. You've figured it out. Now you can stop pestering everyone and find something useful to do! :chuckle:

 

[Freak]

Re: Re: personal question for Zakath

Re: Re: personal question for Zakath

Originally posted by Zakath
Again, as I studied the Bible I found vicarous atonment and the resurrection less and less believable.

Yet, the existence of the body of Christ which embraces the resurrection of Christ and teaches it tells us of it's reality (and truth). The teaching and embrace of the resurrected Christ results in changed lives which cannot be denied.

 

[Husband&Father]

>>As you probably can tell from my previous post, I don't think "absolute" applies to morals or ethics.<<

You say morals are arbitrary, chosen for practical reasons, and that absolutes don’t apply to evil. You don’t believe that evil exists you only believe that some people believe evil exists and others label things as evil for various reasons and a few very brave "free thinkers" will admit that there is no right or wrong in any concrete sense.

I maintain that it is intellectually dishonest to use the question of evil to disprove God when you claim not to believe in evil.

I don’t believe in Santa so it would be manipulative for me to pretend I did make an argument. I couldn’t for instance say: Santa is fat, he weighs over 300lb, that is much to much weight for reindeer to carry. This proves reindeer can’t fly.

Atheists must give up on the question of evil as a God buster unless they are ready to say that some things are absolutely evil. Evil has to exist before it can become a problem for God or anyone else.

 

[Husband&Father]

<<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.>>


Even atheists live their lives in a moral frame of reference.

If the rules atheists govern their lives by are ones they made up or chose from a hat then they have to concede that they have no real validity, at least no more validity than those of the next atheists (who may hold to opposite morals). In other words, if they get to choose their own morals than so do I. Sense neither are based on anything other than our particular fancies neither are worth a tinkers cuss.

If, on the other hand, they fees up to the truth that there exists absolute right and absolute wrong then they are at a loss as-to what (or who) makes them absolute.

The final exam to ethics 101 is always one question and it’s always the same question; is it wrong to torture babies for fun, why or why not.

Even the atheist knows the answer to the first part of the question. Even atheist order their lives according to a set of moral laws. Even atheists live their lives in a moral frame of reference. It’s the second part of the question that stumps the atheists, he can’t tell us why it’s wrong. He can’t say that babies are endowed by their creator with certain inaniable rights because he claims not to believe it. Conversely he cant explain why it is not wrong either. The only defense for deliberately hurting babies is the claim that there is no right or wrong so it matters not who gets tortured, there is no such thing as evil. He can try that defense (I doubt that even he will truly believe it) but he can’t say that with one breath then beat up on God with "the question of evil" with his next breath.

Big questions: Does evil exist or not? What makes it evil, your declaration? (who are you God?) Can evil exist without their being a God? Is it wrong to torture babies?…well is it?… (no fair asking God unless you believe he exists)