Philosoft

This strawman has been incinerated already.

Then so is Christianity. Both are based on axioms.

And your alternative to epistemology is? Assuming the objective truth of a old book?
Maybe, but you'll have to actually convince atheists of this, rather than just yourself.

Neilium

1. There were moral standards before Christianity, there continues to be moral standards throughout Christianity's demise. None of them were objective, and some worked better than others.

Morality at its most basic is the identification of the self in the other, and at its broadest it's a social contract. You don't need supernatural retiribution to have morals.

2. Logic isn't a set of laws. It's a tool for representing abstract concepts, like language or math. And like language and math, it's riddled with flaws and limitations and is constantly being re-examined and expanded.

3. I don't have a satisfiying answer for this, but I don't think anyone does. Simply saying "God" is tantamount to shrugging your shoulders. I'd write more, but I have to go to the bathroom.

4 and 5 are the same question. Cause and effect isn't proof of a supernatural being.

6. See 1.

7. See 1. The only rights humans have are the ones they beat out for themselves. Curiously, many humans are remakably keen on taking them away.

8. Considering the destruction we do to the planet and each other, I'm tempted to say "yes". Some fungii are much better tasting, too.

-Neil

Philosoft

I'm a little confused. I'm used to being told I have to seek God out and, when I don't find him, to have "faith." Now I can just sit back in my atheist la-z-boy and wait for him?

I guess about as long as it will take Christians to prove any of the supernatural claims.

You're catching on. Try to remember that next time you decry atheism for its lack of explanatory power.

Actually, I wonder why there are so many moral dilemmas if there is an objective standard.

They are descriptions of the nature of reality. Try imagining a world in which the principles of logic don't apply.

How can they not?

We rely on axioms. Just like you do.

I suspect you would just handwave over another evolutionary explanation.

Is "justice" such a transcendent and perfect thing that it is impossible for you to conceive of a human-centric source?

From ourselves and each other.

Yes, I take that as axiomatic, as do you.

Keith

You can't have faith in God unless God regenerates you first. Regeneration is a miraculous act of God that causes a person to see God rightly and see one's self rightly. As an atheist, I saw myself as autonomous. I didn't see any need for God, and I viewed Christians as deluded people.

No one finds God unless God causes a person to desire to know him. Not every individual will be regenerated and saved. Many will never seek and never find.

Keith

Philosoft

Is this a version of Calvinism? Either way, I find it odd that you presume to speak for the Truth of Christianity when your particular denomination is such a doctrinal minority.

John Page

My version is "Regeneration is an imaginaryact of non-real God that causes a person to think they see God rightly and see one's self rightly."

I still don't see any facts to support your version.

Cheers, John

Keith

I've found real moral dilemmas to be rare. The objective standard (God) doesn't claim that no moral dilemmas will occur. But the solution is consistent...do what you believe is the best moral good, or alternatively (when no good outcome seems possible) do what you believe will minimize the bad. In all cases, you are being called upon to do what you believe is most right, or most just. You are not expected to be all-knowing. You are held to a moral standard, not a knowledge standard. And you know what you believe is most right, fair, and just.

Keith

Keith

My point exactly! On the atheistic assumption, why is there logic? Where does it come from? Is it material? Can the laws of logic change?

My answer is that logic is another characteristic of God's own nature. We live in an ordered, logical, purposeful universe because God, being ordered, logical, and purposeful creates and controls according to his own unchanging nature.

Keith

Keith

Yes. If we humans can understand and make sense of "justice" as compared to "unjust" it is a valid concept that is descriptive of reality. Where does "justice" exist? What is the standard for deciding what is/isn't "just"?

Keith

Philosoft

How do you tell the difference between real moral dilemmas and fake ones?

Perhaps, but an objective moral standard is necessarily something more than what is written in a book. By that reasoning, Mill's Utilitarianism is an objective moral standard.

Since it's an easily misused term, maybe you could indicate what definition of "objective standard" you prefer or maybe just an example thereof?

This sounds an awful lot like moral subjectivism. How do we even know this method is correct? God allegedly went to some trouble to write down a bunch of things we're not supposed to do. People often behave counter to Bible pronouncements, so it seems what we believe is not always the same as what God considers acceptable behavior.

I don't see how I can be held to a behavioral standard unless I 1) know all about the standard and 2) know that the standard is correct.