Mageth

Originally posted by Keith
If Nature has no Purpose, what is "bad" or "wrong" with the world not being at peace, and in what sense is this bad or wrong?

Still committing the Fallacy of Nature, I see.

What exactly is wrong with me considering war, terrorism, and suffering wrong? I don't want to suffer and I don't want to be a victim of terrorism. I don't want my family or friends to suffer or be a victim of terrorism. Heck, I don't want anybody to suffer or be a victim of terrorism.

I don't want my son to have to go to war. That would be bad. I don't need a god to tell me that. Is that really so hard for you to understand?

I personally witnessed what war (Vietnam) did to my brother and to many others (thankfully I just missed having to go myself). Trust me, what the Vietnam War did to my brother (and to many others on both sides) was bad and wrong. He suffered mentally and physically, and people around him in turn suffered, for 33 years after the war (not to mention the suffering he experienced during the war). He was on 100% military disability for the last five years of his life until he passed away earlier this year in a VA hospital from an illness related to the war.

So don't tell me I have no reason to think the world not being at peace is bad or wrong.

It seems that on your world view, it must be completely natural for human beings to rape and kill each other, make war, impose slavery, and so forth.

WHAT? Why would you think that? I've already told you I don't follow the Biblical example.

And do yourself a favor and read up on the Fallacy of Nature, i.e. the Natural Fallacy, why don't you?

If these things are just natural for humans to do,

No, those things are not "just natural" for humans to do. Strawman, and still the Natural Fallacy.

then it seems that your standard, which says... "each person for themselves, naturally"... is just advocating amorality and complete arbitrariness--

My standard does not say that. Another strawman. Two, actually, because I advocate people following the external moral standards of the society they live in, and that is not amorality.

embracing the status quo, instead of offering any kind of reasoned moral objection to what is morally wrong, or even telling us what is morally wrong, and why it is wrong.

It's been pointed out to you over and over that groups/societies can and do come to a consensus on moral standards for the good of the individuals in the groups/societies. It's to my advantage to adapt the moral standards that allow me to get along in my society. I don't want to be killed, so I consider murder wrong and don't kill. I don't want my daughter or wife to be raped, so I consider rape wrong and don't rape. I don't want other people driving 70 mph in front of my house when my son's playing in the front yard, so I obey the speed limits. It's such a simple principle (and almost universal as an evolutionary advantage, if you look at other species), that I'm astounded you can't grasp it.

Meanwhile, you just keep on piling straw on your strawman arguments.

Keith

No, I don't think atheists should just give in and agree, and no, they shouldn't just keep silent. I do think it is unwise, unfortunate, and unreasonable for people to deny that God exists, however.

No one can instill the Christian faith into a person by their proselytizing alone. But by God's grace alone, some who hear the gospel will believe and be saved.

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by Keith
No, I don't think atheists should just give in and agree, and no, they shouldn't just keep silent.

But when we enter into debate with Christians to defend ourselves, you criticize us for it and use this as "evidence" that we really do believe in a god.

Do you not see the unfairness inherent in this catch-22 situation? We're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

I do think it is unwise, unfortunate, and unreasonable for people to deny that God exists, however.

And I think it's unwise, unfortunate and unreasonable for people to believe in the supernatural, but you won't catch me going to the websites they have set up to discuss their beliefs and saying, "Why do you people talk about this subject so much? It makes no sense to me that you should do so."

Keith

I don't find anything wrong with you considering war or terrorism to be bad. I find them bad, as well. I also don't want anybody to be a victim of terrorism.

I just don't understand WHY terrorism, for example is morally wrong just because you say it's wrong.

On my worldview, I can make sense out of why terrorism is evil, and not just evil in my own view. On yours, moral right/wrong are determined by each individual/culture. So if Osama thinks its morally right to kill thousands of Americans--just for being Americans, who's morality is most morally right, his, or ours? Or are both views equally right?

Keith

No, but you might often discuss their beliefs with them on THIS website, and you might occasionally even criticize their beliefs. But as I said, for people who say that they lack belief in God, atheists as a group act as though the whole God topic is very much on their minds.

Ronin

Come and clean the coffee off my monitor, Keith, you nut!

...and when I'm at work, law enforcement is very much on my mind...and when I'm driving, traffic is very much on my mind...and when I'm at home, my friends and family are very much on my mind...and when I'm playing Diablo II, Mephisto is very much on my mind...and...etc.

Mageth

Originally posted by Keith
I don't find anything wrong with you considering war or terrorism to be bad. I find them bad, as well. I also don't want anybody to be a victim of terrorism.

I just don't understand WHY terrorism, for example is morally wrong just because you say it's wrong.

I don't think terrorism is wrong just because I say it's wrong, and I haven't said so. Have you been reading my posts?

I think terrorism is wrong because it hurts people, causes suffering and death. Not suffering is good. Not being killed by terrorism is good. I don't commit acts of terrorism because I don't want people committing acts of terrorism against me or others. Most people in the world would agree with that. Society as a whole agrees with that. That's why the global socieity considers terrorism wrong, and seeks to put a stop to it by bringing terrorists to justice.

On my worldview, I can make sense out of why terrorism is evil, and not just evil in my own view.

Do you think that billions of people will be sent to hell for eternal suffering just because they don't believe as you do? If so, then you'll have a hard time convincing me that your religion is anti-death and suffering committed against people just because they don't agree with you.

It's interesting that most terrorism is committed in the name of one religion or another. And not all by radical Moslems; Christians and others have done their fair share.

And I'd be interested in hearing how your religion/religious texts clearly teach terrorism as wrong. And explain how that teaching jives with the OT accounts - including Noah's flood, the plagues against Egypt (God's acts of terrorism) and the Israelites' portrayed treatment of the Canaanites.

On yours, moral right/wrong are determined by each individual/culture.

Yup. It's always been that way, and it always will. Hopefully, however, the world will one day adopt some global standards to help bring peace.

So if Osama thinks its morally right to kill thousands of Americans--just for being Americans, who's morality is most morally right, his, or ours? Or are both views equally right?

Obviously, the global society generally thinks Osama's acts of terrorism are not right, and I agree with that. I explained above why I think terrorism is not right - it causes suffering and death. Terrorism obviously is not good for the world - and not even good for Osama and those he thinks he's helping. Osama could obviously do better for himself and his people by taking a more peaceful approach to addressing the problems he's tried to address through terrorism.

But then, a large part of the global society think some of the U.S.'s actions have not exactly been right. I agree with them. I don't condone terrorism, nor do I condone some of the actions that the U.S. has performed during this mess.

In other words, I think both sides could use some adjustment of their moral standards. Peace is good, not suffering is good, living is good - for all of us. Unfortunately, many of the world's religions - Christianity and Islam included - often fail to recognize that, and are used to justify acts of terrorism and war.

So what I think would be most right is for most or all of us to join in a global society to end all of this suffering - far too often justified with religion - and to find a way that we can all get along on this planet without war, without terrorism, and without so much needless suffering.

Outgrowing our need for exclusive religions that are used to justify atrocities against those with different beliefs - or at least the adherents of those religions coming to realize that their religions should teach that peace is the best for all - would be a giant step in preventing much of the violence and suffering in the world.

---

BTW, I'm still waiting for you to provide support or evidence for the supposed objective basis for morality you said should be clear to us all.

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by Keith
No, but you might often discuss their beliefs with them on THIS website, and you might occasionally even criticize their beliefs.

I hope you realize that there is a difference between criticizing a person's beliefs and reading their mind to the extent that I say, "Deep down inside, you know there really isn't a God, and you shudder."

Do you see such a difference?

Moreover, you fail to address my point in the inherent unfairness of atheists being forced to choose between 1. silence or compliance with whatever religious people want of them and 2. defending their beliefs and then being told that that very defence makes them not atheists. Do you see no unfairness in this?

But as I said, for people who say that they lack belief in God, atheists as a group act as though the whole God topic is very much on their minds.

But as I said, for people who say that they lack belief in evolution, creationists as a group act as though the whole evolution topic is very much on their minds.

Keith

Lot'sof people have to go to work, drive, etc. But no one's forcing atheists to spend their time discussing the things they "lack belief in." Atheists are doing this because they need the support of their fellow atheists.

Keith

The basis for objective morality is found throughout the bible. I highly recommend that you begin there.