|
Jubby
How so?
#2 makes sense by itself, so #1 is unnecessary.
|
If #2 is correct, then morality is subjective.
Let's rewind evolution back to the start and start anew, people with a very different set of moral values might have evolved, as Darwin himself wrote in the 'Descent of man':
'If... Men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering.'
For us to think that human beings are special and our morality objectively true is to succumb to the temptation of speciesism, an unjustified bias toward one's own species.
|
Jubby
Why does it take God to give us significance?
|
Without objective meaning, purpose and value, life is worthless. With atheism, there is no objective meaning, purpose or value, thus life is pointless and whatever significance we give ourselves are nothing but illusionary.
|
Jubby
#1: We all die. #2 Do we need a purpose? If so, why?
|
Yep, we are all going to die, and with atheism there is no hope - not only for us, but for the human race. Think about the second law of thermodynamics, eventually the universe will be a cold, static, lifeless place. As I have said above, given that we are all mortal and lack significance, meaning or purpose, morality becomes subjective.
No we don't need a purpose, but life would be very depressing without one, and I am claiming to know what that purpose is.
So perhaps it would be worth your time to listen to the arguments I have to give that Christianity is true and God exists. The whole point of that response wasn't to prove atheism wrong, but to explain why we need to think over these issues carefully and critically. We cannot afford to ignore the possibility of God (which I know you have not done) but to consider wether he actually exists or not. I believe he does, and I believe that I have good reasons and arguments as to why I believe what I think is true.
|
Jubby
Really? I imagine you refer to atheists as against the idea of a single or group of Gods. I would qualify as that. I'm happy and have been happier without a belief in God over the last 10 years. Actually, my happiness has increased the more informed I've been, as my once firm belief in God has waned.
Please do. I've challenged yours, so you may. I'd suggest by starting with my responses, then revolving them to understand why they don't make sense.
Thank you for your response.
|
It's great that you have been happier as you've learned more about science etc, but what if I could show you why God almost certainly exists, and that Jesus was almost certainly resurrected?
I'm not here to lecture you, I'm here because I think that God does exist and he has infinite importance in your life.
|
niky
Gravity is "just a theory", which means: It's okay to go ahead and try that 20 foot parkour jump between two four story buildings. I doubt you'll fall.
|
|
niky
What does your Bible tell you? That it is all right to yoke the oxen and enslave them to your plow. That it is all right ot slaughter poor, innocent, defenseless lambs as sacrifice. That it is all right to catch and kill fish to eat.
The Bible doesn't much care for animals, since it declares they have no soul. So this argument is a non-starter, because morality and ethics in the Bible are based on what the preconceptions of the Biblical writers were of what was best for people.
|
I don't have time to go over there points that you have brought forward, because I'm not a Bible scholar myself. I will try to answer your point on the Canannites though.
|
niky
Human life is only more valuable to us. And only because we are human.
|
Explain how that is justifiable? We are just animals according to atheism, animals with no objective meaning, value or purpose. Of course we care about other human beings, and that is because human beings are of infinite value and purpose!
|
niky
Why would it be wrong to hurt another human if God=True? There are gods who command us to kill the unbelievers. In fact, in the Old Testament, God made it quite plain that he would be happy to let the Israelites kill off all the ancient Palestinians (Canannites) to take their land away from them.
|
God had to protect the promised land in preparation for the Messiah. I was trying to avoid doing what I had done before (leading people to answers instead of giving my own) but here's a good website I have been using. There is interesting discussion and answers to many questions:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/...rticle&id=5767
On that page, William Lane Craig explains what the actual background to the story was, and how it is justified. I encourage you to look at some other content on that site too.
|
niky
The reason to not hurt another human being is because they are another human being, and you recognize that they have the same right to life as you. Because we are a social animal, and our strength is in cooperation. The reason to hurt or kill another being is also thus: If that human being threatens harm to us or our family or neighbors.
|
Again that is subjective. So basically what you are saying is that morality is grounded on what is best for the flourishing of sentient life (more particularly, human life). If there is no objective value, purpose or meaning to human life however, then morality is purely subjective as I have explained above.
|
niky
Again, opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.
|
Nope. If there is no objective meaning, purpose or value to human life then any meaning, purpose or value is purely subjective - or illusionary. Is this evidence for God? Not particularly, but that's not why I am bringing this point up, I m bringing this point up because I want the people viewing this thread to understand why the existence/non-existence of a personal God is important. I can't prove Gods existence, but If I can make his existence likely (or even plausible) then we are totally rational for believing in his existence.
|
niky
How about: E. Humanity?
A. The Majority doesn't make the right. The majority once thought that slavery was okay and that women were second class citizens.
B. Your choice is already a personal preference, so this is a non-answer.
C. Evolution doesn't tell us anything. Again, you are misconstruing a concept. Evolution merely describes the process of change. It doesn't make moral judgments.
D. Who speaks for God? Every religion has its own moral codes. While some are similar, others are vastly different.
Basing your morality on humanity, arrived at by rational thought, is relatively easy. So easy that, (as we have discussed innumerable times before), several independent thinkers have arrived at the same answer. The greatest morality is to "Do unto others what we wish others to do unto us".
|
Humanity has no objective purpose either, so that is a non-answer. Again, human life will inevitably be destroyed due to the second law of thermodynamics as our universe reaches the state of equilibrium. Plus, you have yet to explain why given atheism being true, there is still objective moral values and duties. All you have done is directed me to Human Rights, which presupposes the value and meaning of human life. Circular logic!
|
niky
We are all human. Being human, we value human life. If we didn't, might as well kill ourselves, right?
|
We are all human (I hope!). Being human, we value human life (well, the majority of us do. Nihilists don't.) If we didn't, might as well kill ourselves right?
Remember the Joker from 'The Dark Knight'? A majority doesn't make an opinion right, or make an opinion objective. You say that all objective knowledge is found in science. I ask how we can derive objective moral values from science (which you claim) and instead you use an opinion of the vast majority to justify your claim. Just because the majority beliefs something true, it doesn't make it an objective truth.
According to Christianity, objective truths concerning morality exist. Is Christianity true? Well, than is what I'm going to try and achieve in this debate. Although I can't prove Christianity true, I can try to make it probable enough for us to base our lives' on it.
I have the burden of proof to explain why the existence of God is probable and the Truth of Christianity probable (did Jesus rise from the dead?), but you also have a burden of proof: to explain how objective moral values and duties exist given atheism is true. Until then, I'm going to continue to remain unconvinced of that claim, and presume that instead if atheism is true, morality is subjective.
|
niky
We want other humans to value our lives as well. So we grant them the respect of not killing them, and they grant us the respect of not killing us.
|
Yep, and I'm glad that the majority of us do! But again some people disagree. Just a mere opinion.
|
niky
As humans, as social animals, our ability to survive is greatest if we cooperate with others. The survival of our species is greatest if we cooperate with each other. We are concerned with the survival of our species because our purpose as a species is to reproduce and spread our genes. And the survival of our children hinges upon how we interact with other humans and our environment.
-
|
The survival of our species will come to an end. Even if we did manage to achieve an immortal human race, then it would still have no objective value meaning or purpose given atheism is true.
|
niky
Simple, straight to the point. And exactly the same answer to exactly the same question you've posted before.
|
Nope it isn't simple or straight to the point. I will move to my first argument of God's existence after I have gotten my claims across, first though, show me why objective moral values and duties exist in nature. I am not saying that the atheist is immoral in any way (as I have said above), I am just saying that in order for objective moral values to exist we need a perfect moral law giver, who has given us meaning, value and purpose, to give them to us. We don't need to believe in God to be good, instead I'm saying that God must exist in order for objective moral values and duties exist. Is killing innocent people wrong? Sure it is, and that doesn't matter wether God exists or not. But if God doesn't exist then killing innocent people wouldn't be objectively wrong, it would be subjectively wrong - a subjectively wrong moral code which we all seem to hold to (well, the overwhelming majority of us do, anyway). Understand?
Tennessee,USA
Philippines
Puerto Rico
Lisbon
Chichester, UK
United Kingdom
Gothenburg
LL57
