Andrew the Atheist goes over morality AGAIN for Tim's benefit. Can we go back to how faith is irrational and you agreed?

Morality is a problem, but not one without a solution.  I just don't think religion holds the answer.  Further, I'd say religion holds the WRONG answer.  The idea is that we may not find the solution, but we never try with religion.  Christianity is especially a hindrance to finding real morals.

Tim, I will say your last post was much better than the previous ones.  Is there any chance we can get back to faith and trust and it's benefit to society?  I'm really interested in digging further into those, especially since you agreed my definition of faith renders it illogical.  

Now, your problems with atheistic morality:

First, I have to make a distinction, or my fellow atheists are going to be upset.  I personally find this to be a matter of semantics, but that's me.  Atheism, by its most popular definition, is not a world view, and therefore has nothing to say on morality.  Secular Humanism IS a world view, and has much to say on the topic.  I suppose for many atheists, the possibility that a theist could also be a secular humanist makes this distinction important.  In my experience,  however, I find most theists reject secular humanism.  I know I did when I was a believer.  To me, atheism may not be my world view, but it is certainly accurate to say my atheism colors my world view significantly.

"There are even moral norms that are not dependent on the age in which we live.  For example, it is wrong in every culture and in every age to kill someone without justification.  It is wrong in every culture and in every time for someone to steal someone else’s property, even if the person is justified."

Nope.  Not even close.  Let’s look at these a little.  Killing without justification may be wrong, but what is justification?  How do we determine what that is?  Is it okay to kill adulterers?  Is it okay to kill people who work on the sabbath? Is it okay to kill disobedient children?  These killings are justified in the bible.  If we do NOT think these are moral, how do we justify that? 

Stealing property is ALWAYS wrong?  Even if it is justified?  Really.  Why do you think it is okay for a person to allow his children to starve when he could steal a loaf of bread from the supermarket?  Is it wrong for the person to NOT want his children to starve?  What if there was a crazy person who threatened to kill you, your family and your neighbor’s family if you didn’t steal someone’s car?  Still wrong?  Still not okay? 

There are no absolute moral standards.  They are as imaginary as the god who is supposed to author them.

According to you, I am the sole determiner of what is moral.  Yet, if each of us is a moral island unto himself, then there will inevitably be conflict. And when there is conflict, how is one to determine which position is correct?

That’s not what I meant.  Maybe I didn’t do a good job at explaining this.  I’ll try again.  Everyone has the obligation to develop, maintain, and modify a personal code of ethics.  These individual codes must congeal into a code of ethics adopted by society at large.  The way to influence the code held by society is to change the codes held by individuals.  This is slow, difficult and painful.  There will be mistakes, errors and there must also be corrections.  Think of it this way.  You are not society.  I am not society.  But together, our individual sticks of morality form a faggot of morals.  I’ve been waiting all day to type “faggot of morals”.

Uh, are you trying to imply there is no moral conflict today?  Do you mean that if EVERYONE was a christian there would be no moral conflict?  That’s not true.  Just look at all the in-fighting that goes on within christian denominations today.  How are those conflicts resolved?  Usually, we see the birth of a new denomination or splinter group.  If we had a real way of actually finding a solution, instead of just segregating ourselves from those who disagree with us, that would be progress.

“We each have a conscience, yet a conscience serves no evolutionary purpose. Indeed a conscience actually is anti-evolutionary.  You feel good if you, without any benefit to yourself, help an old lady across the street.  Yet, opening a door for an old lady does not benefit you in any way or serve any evolutionary purpose.”

What the flippy dippy does morality have to do with evolution?  What does the non-random selection of randomly replicating replicators have to do with how these replicators treat each other?  Morality is as much an evolution question as geology is a question of ice cream flavors.

Even if I were to concede that atheism does not grant one morals, it is clear that religion does not either.  We’ve talked about slavery, which is clearly endorsed by the bible.  If you think that slaves in the bible were like prisoners in jail today, you are an idiot.  While I may agree there are issues within our jail system that does not mean prisoners are property of the state.  We’ve discussed racism which is clearly endorsed by the bible, especially in its laws about slavery.  I’ve mentioned in this post horrific examples of murder endorsed by the bible.  These are examples of the kinds of justification given for killing people.  If christianity WAS responsible for leading society AWAY from these things, which is debatable, then it seems clear that the religion is moving AWAY from the morality of its holy book.  How is that possible if the moral absolutes are given in that book?

And I think it is a GOOD thing that we are moving further and further away from the morality of the bible.  When we finally allow gays to marry, it will be a glorious day for moral progress, indeed.  Imagine my glee at watching all the christians who opposed gay marriage to try to convince me that they lead the way in getting these people equal rights and protection under the law.  Then we can get stem cell research going without nutty interference.  Then we can have science education get past fools who think the Flintstones was a documentary.  If atheism is the driver behind progress that pushes us further from the hideous morality described in the bible, then the consequences of atheism are not just good, they’re stupendous!  

Atheism Has Consequences...And They Are Not Good

Andrew, no offense, but your last post was such a mess that I will confine my comments to only one point. Prior to proceeding with addressing that one argument, however, I would point out that you still have failed to answer any of my questions. You mock them, but you do not answer them.

Now to the one argument which to which I will confine my reply.  According to you, Andrew, atheists must develop their own moral code. Specifically, you have written, “It is the duty of every person to develop, investigate, construct, analyze and evaluate a personal code of ethics.  We must be able to look at our code, and modify it if needed.”  This is an extremely problematic position for you for two primary reasons.

First, where does your idea for what is moral come from?  There are moral norms that are universal, not dependent on any culture or societal influence.  There are even moral norms that are not dependent on the age in which we live.  For example, it is wrong in every culture and in every age to kill someone without justification.  It is wrong in every culture and in every time for someone to steal someone else’s property, even if the person is justified.  Where do such moral norms come from?  And, just as important, how are you able to perceive what is moral?  Moral absolutes exist, they come from God, and your ability to perceive what is moral comes from God.

The second issue with your position is that it smacks of relativism.  According to you, I am the sole determiner of what is moral.  Yet, if each of us is a moral island unto himself, then there will inevitably be conflict. And when there is conflict, how is one to determine which position is correct?  For example, a Palestinian believes it is moral to strap a bomb on his body, walk into a pizzeria, and detonate the bomb, killing non-combatant women and children.  Who are you to say that is wrong?  Or to use a more extreme example, Hitler believed it was his moral duty to exterminate Jews.  If it is as you say that each person determines morality for themselves, then you cannot say that Hitler was evil.

No, my friend, as much as you try to deny it, atheism cannot provide a basis for morality.  In fact, atheism fails to provide any idea on how you would even perceive what is moral.  Where does you idea for morality come from? It comes from God who instilled certain moral absolutes in each person.  We each have a conscience, yet a conscience serves no evolutionary purpose. Indeed a conscience actually is anti-evolutionary.  You feel good if you, without any benefit to yourself, help an old lady across the street.  Yet, opening a door for an old lady does not benefit you in any way or serve any evolutionary purpose.

Now to more particularly address your statements about Christian morality. Yes, slavery was once the norm; Christians were the ones who came to the conclusion that slavery was wrong and that it should be abolished.  They came to that conclusion based on what they read in the Bible.  Racism was once the norm, yet Christians were the ones who led the Civil Rights movement.  I challenge you to think of a single ethical “improvement” that Christians did not lead.

Jeffrey Dahmer was sentenced to 900 years in prison

On the other hand, what have atheists offered us?   It is thought that Stalin killed upwards of 10 million people; Pol Pot about 2 million of his own countrymen.  And they pail in comparison to Mao Zedong who is thought to have killed at least 20 million people.  Jeffrey Dahmer was a confessed atheist who brutally killed at least seventeen boys, dismembered them, stored their body parts, ate their body parts and indulged in necrophilia.  As Dahmer said, “if a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?”. He is right.  

Atheism has consequences… and they are not good.

Andrew the Atheist grows weary of Tim repeating arguments that have been refuted in this blog already.

Tim, you’re making me repeat myself.  That’s VERY annoying.  Try READING.  Slow down and flipping READ.  Get out a dictionary if I type a big word. 

Tim said, “Atheists' argument is that there is insufficient proof to believe in the existence of God, and therefore, a theist is somehow wrong in believing in God.”

Right.  There is insufficient proof for the existence of any god, let alone a specific god.  This is why I make the references to the dragon in my pants, the SMAD, Godzilla and the Dragonzord.  Would you not agree that you do not believe these things are real due to a lack of evidence?  Would you not say that the evidence I have provided for the existence of SMAD has not been convincing?  So would I say your evidence for a god has been unconvincing.

Tim said later, “We provide what we deem credible EVIDENCE for the existence of God. It is just that the atheist does not accept such evidence.  The real question is why the theist accepts such evidence, but the atheist refuses to accept such evidence.”

What you deem to be credible is not credible.  It does not become credible because it convinces you.  It must stand on its own merit.  Your evidence has failed every time.  Many times it is an argument from ignorance, but sometimes it is simple foolishness.

I think Tim was trying to produce evidence when he said:

1. How is it more rational to believe that the earth came from nothing than to believe that God created it?

2. Similarly, given the immense complexity of our bodies, of nature, and of the universe, how is it rational to believe that these systems were not designed?

3.  What is your basis for morality if you truly believe there is no God?

4. With some notable exceptions, a belief in God tends to make people better. Why will you not accept that as proof of God's existence?

5.  It seems that your standard for truth is science, yet I believe that science (a) does not answer every question, and (b) actually points to the existence of God.  Why do you believe differently? 

Well, what do we have here?  Crap we’ve gone over before.  Just re-hashing old refuted arguments, in the same dang blog, even.  Yes, folks, we have gone back to the same crap we went over when we talked about Thor.  Here’s another quote from my response to the “more rational to believe the earth was created” idiocy:

Let's say I concede.  I don't, really, but let's say for the sake of argument that I do.  We'll look past the first error.  So we are looking for a creator.  How do you determine which creator it is?  Was it Zeus, Jupiter, chtulu, a giant space turtle, a huge world tree, the flying spaghetti monster, Brahma, Odin, a magic bunny, leprechauns, pixies, invisible pick unicorn, Tiamat, etc?  How can you tell the difference?  If you could use this design argument for the existence of other gods, is it really that good of an argument?  If we could end up with the flying spaghetti monster as the creator, is that really the argument that supports the christian position?

Now in case you missed it, I don’t really concede this point.  I do so only to illustrate that if you start looking for creators, you get in trouble fast.  You eventually have to concede that the SMAD or the flying spaghetti monster and the christian god are all equally likely candidates for the creator of the universe.  And I would actually agree with that.  Your god is as likely to exist as the dragon in my pants.

Point 2:

If complexity only comes about from design, then it stands to reason that the designer would have to be MORE complex than the designed.  Who designed your designer?  No one?  So your god is LESS complex than my butthole?  No?  How does your god escape the logic of the argument that is supposed to support his existence?  He doesn’t?  Seems like a bad argument to me.

Point 3

I explained how morality works.  Here, I’ll post it again.

Finally, I want to get to why I think atheism grants a superior ethical and moral platform.  It is the duty of every person to develop, investigate, construct, analyze and evaluate a personal code of ethics.  We must be able to look at our code, and modify it if needed.   We have to be able to say that we were wrong.  Slavery was once the norm; now we are appalled at the notion.   Inter-racial marriage was once outlawed.  Now we see to outlaw this is immoral.  We must allow our morality and ethics to evolve and change, or watch them stagnate and fail.

If we think our morality is dictated to us in some ancient holy book, why would we ever attempt to grow?  If we think we can be forgiven of any wrong doing, why attempt to make amends?  If we think salvation is not granted by works, why work?

I find that atheism has its own “good news”:  it is the good news of personal responsibility.  We are responsible to each other, for we are the ones who will make the world what it is and what it will be.  Humans are not responsible to a god, but to each other.  God isn’t here; we are.  And while it has no bearing on the truth of that statement, it pleases me greatly.  It inspires me to get off my knees and roll up my sleeves. 

Point 4

I don’t think belief in irrational things is beneficial.  I thought I explained that.  Are you reading ANYTHING?!  Are all my posts now just going to be copy and pastes of my previous posts?  When are YOU going to address ANYTHING I assert?  Besides, this is really irrelevant.  Even IF belief is beneficial, that does NOT make it true.

Imagine I am a member of government.  Imagine I want to pass legislation that allows for SMAD doctrine to be taught in science class along with real science.  Imagine I think that universe was created when the SMAD laid an egg and out hatched the universe.  I want this theory to be taught as an alternative to evolution.  Is this detrimental to society?

Imagine I am a leader of a congregation of draconists.  Imagine I tell my congregation to vote for a particular candidate because they will uphold traditional draconian principles. I want to elect people who will acknowledge this is a draconian nation and it was built on the basic tenants of SMAD law.  Would this be beneficial?

Imagine I am a parent who has young children.  I want my kids to also know SMAD's eternal love and be saved from the Dragonzord.  I tell my kids that they must adhere to the strict teachings of the SMAD, or the Dragonzord will rise up and get them.  I tell my young kids that the Drgonzord wants to torture them for all eternity if they turn from the teachings of the SMAD.  Is this good for kids to hear?

I tell people that the Dragonzord is going to destroy the world.  I tell them that to stop this from happening, they must commit vile acts of violence and evil.  They do so.  Is this helpful?

I sell people dragon blood, which will cure all diseases from cancer to herpes to headaches to small penis size.  People buy the stuff by the truckload.  I make billions of dollars each year which I use to further the dragonic causes in politics and government.  Am I helping?

Point 5

Science does not answer every question.  Science answers questions that it can with a method to find errors and correct them.  Whenever you’d like to present scientific evidence that points to god, I’d be willing to consider it.  I’ll remind you: you have admitted that you do not possess such evidence.  Are you going to make up your mind?

And what the flippy hell is this?  “If you think about it, when the atheist says, "You cannot prove God exists, therefore He must not exist," this really is a form of an argument from ignorance that the atheists say the Christians are guilty of.”

If this statement were true, Tim, you would believe in the dragon in my pants.  You would believe in SMAD, the flying spaghetti monster, Krishna, Vishnu, Tiamat, Maat, Baal, Ra, Thor, etc.  If NOT being able to prove the existence of a thing is NOT a valid reason for DISBELIEF, nothing is.  You must therefore believe in EVERYTHING.  This is by far the dumbest thing I have ever read.  I can’t believe your head didn’t explode when you typed it.

This is what is called a strawman argument.

In other words, atheists argue that we theists are saying, "You, the atheist, cannot disprove God, therefore, a belief in God is rational."

That is NOT what atheists say.  What we are saying, and PAY SOME FLIPPING ATTENTION THIS HONKING TIME, is that you have no evidence of a god, nor of a particular god.  Without evidence, there is NO FLIPPING RATIONAL REASON to believe.  You may believe based on faith.  FAITH IS DELUSION.  You cannot have evidence AND faith.  These are mutually exclusive.

You are trying to shift the burden of proof to the atheist.  You cannot.  Atheism is the default position.  No one is born believing in a god.  We are all born atheists.  It takes instruction, or indoctrination, to believe in a god.  You make the positive claim that god exists.  The burden is on you to show this god is real.  Without the evidence you admit you do not have, there is no rational reason to believe a god exists.

Atheists, Not Christians, Are Guilty Of Making An Argument From Ignorance

This is one of the things that I do not understand about the logic of the atheists' position.  Atheists' argument is that there is insufficient proof to believe in the existence of God, and therefore, a theist is somehow wrong in believing in God.  Atheists, including my friend Andrew, try and say that, therefore, Christians are making an "argument from ignorance."  An argument from ignorance is where a person argues that because you cannot disprove something, it must exist.  In other words, atheists argue that we theists are saying, "You, the atheist, cannot disprove God, therefore, a belief in God is rational."  Yet, there are two issues with this thinking: (a) this is NOT what most theists argue, and (b) if an atheist were to put the shoe on the other foot, they would realize that THEY are the ones who are really making an argument from ignorance, not the theist.

First, Christians do NOT argue that because an atheist cannot disprove that God exists it is, therefore, rational for us to believe in God.  No, instead we provide what we believe to be very rational bases for a belief in God. We provide what we deem credible EVIDENCE for the existence of God. It is just that the atheist does not accept such evidence.  The real question is why the theist accepts such evidence, but the atheist refuses to accept such evidence.

I can tell you why I believe in God... yet, I have a hard time ever pinning an atheist down as to why they do not believe in God.  Rather, the consistent refrain I hear from atheists is, "you cannot prove it scientifically, therefore, it must not exist."  Which brings us to the second and most important point. Namely, it is the atheist who is guilty of making an argument from ignorance, not the theist.  If you think about it, when the atheist says, "You cannot prove God exists, therefore He must not exist," this really is a form of an argument from ignorance that the atheists say the Christians are guilty of.  

Andrew, you say that I have not answered your questions. I believe, actually, that I have and that you have yet to answer any of my more basic arguments.  For example, explain to me:

1. How is it more rational to believe that the earth came from nothing than to believe that God created it?

2. Similarly, given the immense complexity of our bodies, of nature, and of the universe, how is it rational to believe that these systems were not designed?

3.  What is your basis for morality if you truly believe there is no God?

4. With some notable exceptions, a belief in God tends to make people better. Why will you not accept that as proof of God's existence?

5.  It seems that your standard for truth is science, yet I believe that science (a) does not answer every question, and (b) actually points to the existence of God.  Why do you believe differently?