Philosoft

I can simplify and summarize my arguments but, and I say this with genuine concern for your endeavor, I and others find that topic to be rather inflammatory. I'm only trying to save you some effort because you're just about guarateed to piss off someone with your dogmatic and egotistical knowledge claims.

Anyway, my argument in a nutshell:

- Morality is demonstrably non-objective for atheists and theists alike

- Christianity's claim of objective morality is empty because it rests on 1) the alleged decree of an independent being and 2) the human interpretation of said decree

- Evolution provides an adequate account of the development of morality alongside society

Silent Dave

Apologist, this isn't exactly on topic, but I wish to ask you a question that I ask most Christian apologists that I come across:

If, hypothetically speaking, it were shown to your satisfaction that every one of your arguments for the existence of the Christian God were unsound, would you then cease to be a Christian?


Dave

[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: Silent Dave ]</p>

Tercel

Silent Dave,
Since you say you ask this question to most Christian apologists you come across, I hope you don't mind if I interpret it as an open question and answer it.

It somewhat depends on what you mean by "argument". Do you mean "objective rational and evidential arguments" or "that which causes me to believe". Clearly it is trivially true that if you proved everything which causes me to believe in god false to my satisfaction then I would not believe in god. However, if you were to disprove every rational and evidential argument ever derived for god as false, I would still believe. My own religious experiences are sufficiently convincing for me for my own belief. Rational and evidential argument is nice to bolster my faith and to convince others - but when it comes down to it, I don't need it for myself.

Tercel

I see...

That's 'cos it's an nice argument. I have yet to see a "refutation" of the morality argument that could stand up any better than a house of cards. In my experience the posters I have talked to on the matter seem to prefer to tell me that the morality argument has been refuted than to explain how exactly.

Of course not. If many atheists are moral it merely demonstrates that many atheists hold to an inconsistent position. (No suprise there)

Thanks for the vote of confidence...

Vorkosigan

Tercel argues:
hat's 'cos it's an nice argument. I have yet to see a "refutation" of the morality argument that could stand up any better than a house of cards. In my experience the posters I have talked to on the matter seem to prefer to tell me that the morality argument has been refuted than to explain how exactly.

Of course not. If many atheists are moral it merely demonstrates that many atheists hold to an inconsistent position. (No suprise there)

The moral argument is a stupid argument for several reasons:

1. The Christian can get forgiveness from god for any transgression, so is free to behave any way he pleases. Worse than the sybaritic atheist, who at least is not a hypocrite.

2. The actual behavior of Christians versus us metaphysical naturalists and freethinking atheists. History shows us the genocidal nature of Christianity (and other authority beliefs, like Communism, Islam, etc). Christians have the highest divorce rates. The jail cells are filled with Christians. States where Christ-inanity is more prevalent have higher rates of teen births, suicide, and a hundred other social problems. To look at one institution, Roman Catholic clerics have protected pedophiles in the US, plotted genocide in Rwanda, promoted Nazis to sainthood, pinned medals on Franco, sung Te Deums to Hitler, ran death camps and served as dictators. And you want to claim that Christianity has some moral weight? ROTFL.

3. No evidence has ever been adduced for the existence of any objective moral standards, much less that such owe their existence to gods. Although theists are invariably asked for a clear definition of an objective moral, none has ever been able to supply one.

That's probably enough. Further refutations will occur to other posters. The moral argument is pretty stupid, which is why more thoughtful theists do not pursue it.

But since it's a great argument, Tercel, why don't you start it off by demonstrating the existence of objective morals? That ought to be good for a laugh.

Vorkosigan

Silent Dave

No I don't mind you answering at all, and in fact thanks for answering. What I in fact meant was rational and evidential arguments -- "that which causes you to believe" is too broad for my question since, for all we know to the contrary, a Cartesian demon could be causing your belief. So I take it your answer is no, you would not cease to be a Christian.

I've asked dozens of Christian apologists that question over the last several years. I have yet to receive a single affirmative answer.

This does not mean that all apologetics arguments necessarily fail, of course (although I personally have yet to see one that does not fail). But it does mean several things that, while not exactly proving atheism, do make me much more confident in my position.


Dave

Ion

Tercel, what happened to your attempts of defense on two past threads regarding the archaeologically unsupported Exodus?

Have you finally graduated from them with the understanding that the Exodus is archeologically unsupported?

Keep in touch.

Pomp

Tercel,

That's 'cos it's an nice argument. I have yet to see a "refutation" of the morality argument that could stand up any better than a house of cards.

Er...I've never actually seen a morality argument for theism that was sturdier than a house of cards in the first place.

We've recently hashed DaveJes's presuppositionalist morality argument over in another thread, but if you've got a different take, I'd enjoy seeing a thread where you presented it. Like Vorkosigan, I just don't think moral arguments are good arguments. I'm personally satisfied that all human ethical notions to which I've been exposed can be explained through evolutionary psychology and social contract theory.

Tercel

I live and learn, which is my primary reason for posting on these boards. I'm not really here to try convince you guys (that would be impossible ) but to expand and improve my own knowledge. As such I now often find myself disagreeing with opinions I have expressed on these boards previously. Which is all good.

In the case of the Exodus, I've come to be of the opinion that it doesn't matter. I don't see that whether or not the Exodus happened actually has any relevance whatsoever to Christianity.
As far as the truth of the Exodus goes, I am hardly an expert, but it seems to me most likely that there most probably was an Exodus which occured in the 15th or 16th centuries and that the OT accounts are tolerably accurate on the matter. It is my understanding that the archeological evidence for the exodus during such a period is mixed - there being evidence both for and against such a proposition.

Unless there was ever complete and absolute archeological certainty against the truth of any Exodus then I would still be inclined towards the view that it occurred, as to me the existence of the Exodus tradition as clearly held by the nation of Israel in the 10th century, would seem to me to render the truth of an actual Exodus likely.

himynameisPwn

Firstly, lemme note I havent read most of this thread, I read the apologists rebuttal question on why atheists are moral or can be, and would like to point out an answer.

Mortality, when you are a kid, is pretty simple. you do what you want until someone says no and offers a punishment for you if you disobey. This is the lowest level of morality, fear of punishment and doing good for reward. Many of us are guilty of this.

The second level of morality, is morality based on societies way. That whatever is normal is ok. Like in high school, you did things to fit in, what was acceptable to society.

The third level would be doing good because its good. This would include volunterring because you want to help.

Saying that you cannot do good without fear of punishment is inherantly wrong, because, even people at the second level will do good(say, not cheating on a girlfriend, or helping a friend in need), above what a first leveler would do.

Why do good then? Because its good, its just, and you were supposedly brought up to be a "man"(no offense to women), and do the right thing, no matter what the consequences are. If you want to break it down further, Id suggest justice is a human value, programmed into us, by our early human needs and societies. In order to function as a society, there needs to be a moral code.

I read this in scientific american and will give you the basics of the experiment. Two people, 100 dollars, and one coin. Coin toss, one person calls it in the air. The people will split the hundred, 50-50, 60-40, etc the way the coin toss winner sees fit, but the other person can say no. Only one offer, and the two will never see eachother again, and yes or no is final. Most people said they wouldn't accept under 20. Anyway, why not accept ANY value the winner would give? Wouldnt you stand to gain 10 dollars even if proposed 90-10 split? Why walk away with nothing when even a dollar is better? You may say vengeance, but then most people *offer* 50-50 or 60-40.

There are also many other arguments you may wish to check out.