It brings a tear to the eye to listen to leading Preachers in Atheism imploring their flock to greater heights in moral living.
Do good.
Be good.
For the sake of Atheism show the world what being an atheist can do for your character.
How disheartening it must be to run away from organized religion because it tells you how to live, only to smack headlong into organized Atheism and find it telling you how to live.
Ah, me, could life be any sweeter?
You see, if people are already good, and atheists are infamous for telling us that they don't need God because they are good, then you shouldn't t need to encourage those kinds of people to BE good. One should be able to assume that they're already doing good things. Reality proves otherwise but . . . still.
We Christians, on the other hand come to Jesus because He's allowed us to recognize that we ARE NOT good. It makes perfect sense for our leaders to encourage us toward better behaviour because in reality, we're immoral to the core. But atheists?
If you need material for a comedy series, take a peek at atheism. There's enough there for a life-time.
You see, if people are already good, and atheists are infamous for telling us that they don't need God because they are good, then you shouldn't t need to encourage those kinds of people to BE good. One should be able to assume that they're already doing good things. Reality proves otherwise but . . . still.
We Christians, on the other hand come to Jesus because He's allowed us to recognize that we ARE NOT good. It makes perfect sense for our leaders to encourage us toward better behaviour because in reality, we're immoral to the core. But atheists?
If you need material for a comedy series, take a peek at atheism. There's enough there for a life-time.
When speaking of “ought” and “should” and “objective morality,” atheists are using language borrowed from a world-view to which they are in direct opposition. On atheism, moral values simply cannot be applied to feelings, motives, thoughts and behaviours. Ideas of moral responsibility, regret, praise or blame, are anathema to a deterministic, natural universe. Of course, like the laws of mathematics, and the laws of logic, atheists claim that we invent the laws of morality rather than discover them.
Understandably, and I do understand, atheists would love for moral freedom of choice, and objective morality itself to not exist. Many a famous atheist has announced that his love of, and acceptance of atheism rests firmly on his desire to not be beholding to any restrictions on his lusts and desires. “Let's just do it like they do it on the Animal Channel.”
moral values simply cannot be applied to feelings, motives, thoughts and behaviours.
ReplyDeleteLiar. This is what everybody does. Everybody that has a concept of morality that is. Some psychopath are not able to live by moral values; not atheists.
like the laws of mathematics, and the laws of logic, atheists claim that we invent the laws of morality rather than discover them.
We invented the laws of logic and mathematics, yes, but we did not invent laws of morality... because they don't exist.
atheists would love for moral freedom of choice
We do have moral freedom of choice
objective morality itself to not exist.
Objective morality, by definition, does not exist because even if morality was to come from a unique source that we all follow, it would still be dependent on that source's choice (assuming the source is sentient).
By being dependent on minds, morality is necessarily subjective.
What you don't want to accept is the fact that any person can start with objective truth statements, such as 'all humans feel physical pain' to build a morality framework based on objective truths.
“This is what everybody does."
ReplyDeleteWell, yes, but atheists do it without any basis for their beliefs regarding morality. They make it up as they go.
=====
"We do have moral freedom of choice"
Not on atheism you don't. Not on determinism you don't. You seem to think that you can just make up any world-view you like and have to be true. Just as my post says, atheists like you try to live in two world-views at the same time, regardless of whether it renders atheism absurd and incoherent. Regardless of whether it renders your life and the way you live it absurd and incoherent.
=====
"dependent on that source's choice"
Wrong. Typical atheist nonsense, but still wrong.
Behaviours that are right and good, are right and good only if they cohere to the character of Creator God, from whom all aspects of objective morality flow.
Moral goods are not good because God thinks them, chooses them or even commands them. If that was the case, then the atheist concept of god could choose “torturing children for entertainment” and that would become “good.”
That makes no sense just as your thinking on this issue makes no sense.
In reality, moral goods, obligations and duties exist because a good and morally perfect God exists.
Nietzsche was absolutely correct. Without God, there is no moral standard by which we must abide. The good that we ought to do are not based upon arbitrary or capricious commands or "choices," for the good that we ought to do flows directly from the character of the Being and existence of God Himself. This is why the Euthyphro Dilemma is a nonstarter. Because God is morally good, only those thoughts and behaviours that cohere with God's nature can be called, good. This is what makes morality objective, Hugo. On your thinking, a person could legitimately ask, “Well what if God commanded us to do something evil?” That too is a nonstarter because it is based upon an atheist's errant view of god.
An impeccable God, as He exists and exists necessarily not only would not, but could not command something evil precisely because of His impeccable character.
You are absolutely and completely mistaken on this aspect of morality Hugo. You've invented a concept that has no relationship to reality nor to logical thinking. You can't just make up some half-baked ideas and call them true.
but atheists do it without any basis for their beliefs regarding morality. They make it up as they go
ReplyDeleteCompassion, honesty, transparency, etc... are all basis for morality. Theists and Atheists use the same most of the time. It's only when they cannot answer 'why' something is moral/immoral that some Theists will invoke God, and both Atheists and Theists will quite often simply say that something feels right/wrong for them without any justification, supporting my point that morality is entirely subjective.
Not on atheism you don't. Not on determinism you don't. [...] atheists like you try to live in two world-views at the same time, regardless of whether it renders atheism absurd and incoherent. Regardless of whether it renders your life and the way you live it absurd and incoherent
Mostly insults again. It's not my problem if you are not able to conceive of a universe where humans have free will and gods don't exist.
The irony is that you forget that your god hypothesis also leads to absurd scenario. If a god created this universe and gave us free will, that does not prevent the god from tricking us into believing/seeing/doing a bunch of things. A very powerful god, not even omniscient/omnipotent, just really really powerful, could in principle trick you into seeing a completely different world, putting just the right stimuli in front of your eye at convenient moments so that you believe exactly what that god wants you to believe. You would have no way to differentiate between this fantasy world and what we would consider to be an objective reality devoid of divine intervention.
So if we leave aside these ridiculous solipsist scenarios, and assume that reality is real, you have to show that a god interferes with that reality. By examining this reality we live in, I see no reason to believe that gods exist. I do see good reasons to believe that we really have free will though, or at least something that clearly looks enough like free will to be labeled as such.
=====
[...] In reality, moral goods, obligations and duties exist because a good and morally perfect God exists.
[...] Because God is morally good, only those thoughts and behaviours that cohere with God's nature can be called, good. This is what makes morality objective, Hugo
[...]
You are absolutely and completely mistaken on this aspect of morality Hugo. You've invented a concept that has no relationship to reality nor to logical thinking. You can't just make up some half-baked ideas and call them true.
I understand everything you wrote here. The problem with these definitions is that you equate God with 'Good' or 'Justice' or 'Moral' and so on... and that directly contradicts the other definition of God that you use usually, which is a personal God that interacts with the people he created, can talk to them and even appear as a human on Earth next to them.
In other words, you are extremely dishonest by painting God as 'Good' itself and a personal savior that you accept at the same time. You claim that God has a mind, or is a mind, but at the same time claim that God cannot decide what is good or not, as if God could not think.
More importantly, you completely dodge the REAL question: how do you determine what's good or not? You just pushed the question back by saying that what's good is what God's nature is, and what's bad is not God's nature, but you don't say how you determine what's good or not. You created a tautology, where God = Good. Completely useless and extremely dishonest coming from someone who pretends to study Atheism and various worldview. You keep lying.
“Compassion, honesty, transparency, etc... are all basis for morality.”
ReplyDeleteThey are not a basis for morality. Creator God is the basis for objective morals, values and duties. What you list above are examples of moral living.
=====
“supporting my point that morality is entirely subjective”
Supporting my point that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
=====
“Not on atheism you don't. Not on determinism you don't.” “Mostly insults again.”
Not insults Hugo. That's that reality of atheism of which determinism is a natural implication.
=====
“It's not my problem if you are not able to conceive of a universe where humans have free will and gods don't exist.”
Do you think that's how our material universe came about Hugo? Some one like you just imagined it and there it is, just the way Hugo conceived it to be?
======
“The irony is that you forget that your god hypothesis also leads to absurd scenario. If a god created this universe and gave us free will, that does not prevent the god from tricking us into believing/seeing/doing a bunch of things. A very powerful god, not even omniscient/omnipotent, just really really powerful, could in principle trick you into seeing a completely different world, putting just the right stimuli in front of your eye at convenient moments so that you believe exactly what that god wants you to believe. You would have no way to differentiate between this fantasy world and what we would consider to be an objective reality devoid of divine intervention.”
This whole paragraph sounds like your recreational drug of choice just kicked in.
=====
“By examining this reality we live in, I see no reason to believe that gods exist.”
Why? Because matter can create itself?
=====
“I do see good reasons to believe that we really have free will though, or at least something that clearly looks enough like free will to be labeled as such.”
Yes, except that on atheism / determinism, what looks like freewill must be an illusion.
=====
“You equate God with 'Good' or 'Justice' or 'Moral' and so on... and that directly contradicts the other definition of God that you use usually, which is a personal God that interacts with the people he created, can talk to them and even appear as a human on Earth next to them.
What? What is wrong with you? The rest is just drivel.
======
“but you don't say how you determine what's good or not.”
You know very well how Christians determine what is good, and where to find it. We know what is good by studying the example of Jesus who said, "If you have seen Me, you have see Father God," and "I and Father God are one and the same."
You're too stoned right now to understand the rest I'll give it to you in tomorrow's post.
You're too stoned right now to understand the rest I'll give it to you in tomorrow's post.
ReplyDeleteI am still at work and wrote during my lunch break; different time zones now remember?
Thanks for the laugh though...
Supporting my point that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
ReplyDeleteYou're the one who argues for something which is impossible by definition: objective morality. Morality is purely subjective. It's a judgment; an opinion. Moral statements cannot be facts; cannot be objectively true.
I love how you have some sort of cognitive bias which prevents you from reading my God vs Free will paragraph. Take your time. I assure you that I was not high and that it is actually coherent. In short: you cannot prove that your God, if it exists, is not deceiving you right now.
A morally impeccable God would not deceive. Your paragraph is pure drivel.
ReplyDeleteA morally impeccable God would not deceive.
ReplyDeleteCorrect but you are missing the point because you are apparently unable to process a non-falsifiable hypothetical scenario.
I would explain more but I got another comment to write...
I am curious: why Greta Christina in particular? As opposed to what otherwise appears to be a post about Atheism and Morality in general?
ReplyDeleteIt was just a post I read of hers a few days ago where she was really taking atheists to task for not doing enough good deeds. I'd seen maybe three other atheist blogs doing the same thing around the same time but her name is the only that came back to me. At my age names slip in and out of reach of their own free will and her's came back at an opportune time.
ReplyDelete