Debate with Chris, Part 3 – By Godless Teen

December 17, 2012 in Answers, General

So, before I go on to see how Chris did answering the questions I gave him in my last post, let’s cut to the beginning of his long and overly detailed rant, shall we?

ME – Too bad you have to stomp off…I actually thought you were better than that…
YOU – “Well, dear, that was rather rude. I’m not sure what position you’re in to tell me that I’m a bad person when you’re the one making such rude comments.”
I’m not sure how you get to this conclusion based on what I said – by “better than that” I meant that you were one to actually defend your position and not just stomp off when you fail to do so.
That’s all.
That you read more into that speaks to YOU and your thoughts – not mine.

If you weren’t meaning to flat-out insult me, and be rather rude, you should’ve made it clearer. By taunting me because I should’ve been “better than that”, you’re only insulting me, not attacking my position.

“ Also, at least I don’t claim that Christians are, by nature, immoral, or necessarily even the cause of immoral activity in this world… “
Not sure what this is in regards to – this is statement that was unneeded and addresses what?
Nothing we were talking about.
“Sure, I believe that Christianity is bad, but Christians are not by nature bad. Even the ones who kill their child for being possessed by demons (though that’s really stretching things): although they still ought to be punished to discourage such behavior, the parents were likely to be legitimately concerned for their child, whom they sincerely thought was possessed by demons. That’s not their fault, necessarily. That’s irrationality’s fault.”
Okay, no issue there – but again, have no idea what you are trying to address/defend here.

I’ll get back to this later in my post. For now, let it suffice that, yeah, I actually did have a point to saying all that.

That out of the way, let’s get to your questions for me – then I’ll address the remainder of your post.

“1. So, uh… What evidence did you have for your god existing, again? Because, if I remember correctly, you never even once presented any. Jus’ sayin’.” No I didn’t present any evidence as we were not talking about it.  We were discussing YOUR moral code, NOT the existence of God. I’m not, however, going to address this here – it’s a longer topic and really deserves it’s own discussion. But again, I didn’t present any during our discussion because we weren’t discussing God – we were discussing YOUR moral code and it’s issues.

Ok, Chris, congratulations. You’ve pointed out the obvious, that we were talking about my moral law and nothing else… For the most part… Even though I did write, multiple times, that there was no evidence for his god even existing, and you never objected even once…

So, I’m sick of all the crap. Cut to the chase. I want your evidence for your god now. I’m sick of you continously trying to attack me and then completely avoiding questions like this one because “it’s a longer topic”. News flash, Chris: I’ve spent hours writing because of you, wasting my precious time on a piddly little theist like you who won’t even answer my questions. So, this is your last chance. I’m offering you the opportunity to email any evidence for your god that you have to me now, otherwise, I’ll just assume you don’t have any.

“2. What is your idea of the “moral law”? Why should we follow it?”
A two part question – or really two questions.
2A. A moral law is the basis of which right/wrong are determined OBJECTIVELY.  That’s is to say, these rules of right/wrong exists whether or not we believe in them, or whether or not we like them. And they exists no matter where we are – IE the moral laws on Earth, exist all over the universe.
In addition to being OBJECTIVE – they are based on an actual moral authority. Not subjective whim of us fallible humans.  But an infallible, perfect, moral authority.
So what is the moral law that I follow?  The one Jesus gave us – 1) Love God, 2) Love your neighbor, 3) Love your enemy.
In short: love.
2B. So why should we follow it? Because doing so offers us the fullness of life.  Because to truly combat evil in the world, the weapon is love.  Hate? Love. Anger? Love.  If you, as I believe you do, wish the world to be a better place, the only way is love.

They are based on an actual moral authority, like your god, who you’ve provided no evidence for?

Not to mention, why do you believe that this source has to be a conscious, sentient source? Happiness doesn’t think; it doesn’t speak; yet, it’s an ingrained part of us, and all actions that we say are moral nowadays appear to follow just the same moral law that I wrote about earlier, where the main authority is happiness. I see no reason why it should be based on a god.

Also, happiness is not the “subjective whim of us fallible humans”. If it was, that would imply that a rational person could go from being happy not being hurt one day to being happy by cutting his or her arm off the next. Of course, we don’t see such behavior in our world, because the happiness/pain mechanism keeps us from doing any such thing to ourselves.

Anyhow, I fail to see how basing our moral authority on “fallible human beings” is even a bad thing in the first place. Everything that we do has some degree of fallibility. When we observe something, we are using the faith that our senses accurately reflect the world. We use the faith that food will help us, based on past observations based on possibly fallible human senses. Yet, Chris doesn’t criticize those areas of our lives. The same could apply to morality: perhaps happiness isn’t Da Truth, Da Truth, and Da One and Only Truth (TM of Religion, Inc.), but we have decided, as human beings, that it’s likely to be pointless to act as if we don’t experience happiness, see things, and the like.

Also, although love is certainly a nice thing, it can’t solve every moral dilemma; personally, I believe it’s just an offshoot of happiness. For example, we would say that it’s ok for someone to destroy a rock (as long as it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of others), but the concept of “love” doesn’t explain this. On the other hand, happiness does; if we desire to destroy a rock, and destroying it will make us happier, then it is within our rights to destroy that rock, as long as it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of others. So love really can’t solve every moral dilemma; it doesn’t solve for the ideas of vacations, movies, playing video games, and such. On the other hand, happiness does.

Not to mention… If there’s anybody that teaches love, it certainly isn’t God, nor Jesus. I find it difficult to believe that a mass murderer, who drowned millions of people and animals, knows anything about “love”. Nor the guy that ordered two bears to rip 42 children in half. Nor the guy who said that we should stone homosexuals. Nor the guy who condemned the Pharisees for not murdering a disobedient child, in violation of God’s alleged law.

“3. You seem extremely concerned about my idea of what morality is, but hey, can you actually dig up some evidence for why you should seem so concerned? In fact, why are you so concerned? Do you sincerely believe that atheism is the cause for much of the evil (synonymous with “bad actions”) that exists in this world?”
Again, multiple questions.
3A. Why should I be so concerned?  Well for one, you believe that I MUST follow it.  That alone is good enough reason for me to be concerned.  You stated that you believe that this is a must follow by everyone (I’m assuming that includes me).
So, if I am to follow your moral code, I should know more about it and question what doesn’t make sense or where it lacks.
3B Why am I so concerned?  Well the above as I stated – also to see if you can actually defend your moral code.  Shouldn’t you be able to?  Isn’t that part of debating, to defend one’s position?
3C. Do I sincerely believe atheism is the cause for much of the evil in this world?  I have to ask, how you even came up with this question.  No where have I ever stated, or hinted as such.
Atheism is no more the cause of problems than theism – it’s sinful humans, period.  Simple as that.
However, again, I have to wonder where you even got this notion from ANYTHING I said.

I don’t believe you must follow it, I just think that rational self-interest would lead a person to want to follow it because they benefit from my moral law. To quote myself:

This will be the last part of my piece here. People might say “fair enough, live your life like that, if you want to. But why should I follow it?”

The answer is this:

If you don’t want to, then don’t.

Just remember one thing, though: humans all have a natural desire to be happy. If you want to try and break that rule, go ahead, but you’ll certainly find yourself a hell of a lot worse off than if you had decided to follow the moral law I’ve defined here.

And apparently Chris didn’t read the page I linked to, because he never once commented about it.

The last part made me laugh:

3C. Do I sincerely believe atheism is the cause for much of the evil in this world?  I have to ask, how you even came up with this question.  No where have I ever stated, or hinted as such.
Atheism is no more the cause of problems than theism – it’s sinful humans, period.  Simple as that.
However, again, I have to wonder where you even got this notion from ANYTHING I said.

Yeah, you know Chris, you totally never said anything about atheism being a root of evil…

3. Where did you pull this from?  Of the theists I know, none of them would make such a claim.  However, what I will argue is that goodness cannot exist without a moral giver – however I won’t address it here.  I would say I wouldn’t call this a myth.

Oh… Well, that’s just a single isolated example, it’s not as if he’s said anything els-

7. Root vs. motive.  Quite a difference.  However, as we just established above, there is no natural, true moral code in the atheistic world view so this statement is irrelevant and based on faulty logic.  You can’t say something is evil if there is no true standard, that is only your opinion.  You also grossly ignore the atheism’s contribution to atrocities such as genocide as well.

(yeah, and I totally didn’t rebut that or anything in the page above him…)

Ok, well, fine, fine, maybe that’s just another isolated example, but-

9. …Your lack of belief in God informs you as to what is moral and immoral…(though your morals are nothing more than opinion).

Ok, ok, ok, but that’s probably just taken completely out of conte-

So, if our value is zero (all things being equal as you would want it) then what does un/happiness plus morality equal = nothing.

…Beginning to notice a pattern, Chris?

Either you tell me that atheism has been the cause of genocide, or that, you “would say [you] wouldn’t call [atheists being immoral without god] a myth”, or that my morals are “nothing more than opinion” (which would imply that morality doesn’t really exist, and that, in an atheist’s world, killing is totally acceptable), or the like. So, yeah, actually, you really seemed to heavily imply that atheists are less decent, more immoral humans than religious people.

“4. Do you just go searching through the internet to find what you believe to be vulnerable targets to bully? Cuz, hey, you decided to try and accuse a teenager of having no idea what the hell morality was (except I’ve studied this a lot more than other teenagers have- nice surprise, huh?). Plus, you earlier stated that you had meddled with certain atheists who had seemed rather… Lackluster in ability.”
If you think this is bullying, you have an interesting idea of what it is.  Not once have I called you a name, said you were stupid, swore at you, yelled…etc.
Hey, if you don’t want to defend your position, then don’t.  But, just because someone actually puts up an offense to your position doesn’t equate bullying.
You either can defend your moral code BEYOND opinion – that is, to objectivity – or you can’t.
I’ve shown you can’t. [Oh yeah, cuz I know you totally just read the entire page I wrote about morality that I linked to in the beginning of my blog post]
Not bullying, GT, and the fact you seem to think this is, again, highlights YOUR thinking.
Also, I didn’t say you have no idea of what morality is…I’m showing your BASIS of morality is faulty.  Quite a difference.
Instead of just reacting, try to read and understand what someone says – clearly you jump to conclusions, and without much basis.
As shown above by some of the questions you have asked me.
Bully?  Hardly. A challenger?  You bet – you either are up for it, or not.

Oh, you didn’t swear? You’re such a good Christian.

However, you did clearly declare that you thought atheists were immoral earlier, and that they were “less decent humans”. Because I’m sure, at this point, that your giant ego will refuse to admit that you said something wrong, I’m guessing that you’re going to say something along the lines of “oh that’s not what I meant” even though it obviously was.

And probably the next thing you’ll say is that you don’t have a giant ego, Mister

C’mon GT – either take the challenge on or don’t. But if you do, don’t whine about it if you don’t “win.”

and

You either can defend your moral code BEYOND opinion – that is, to objectivity – or you can’t.
I’ve shown you can’t.

News flash, bro: you don’t win in online arguments. This is just fuel for my blog, so get over it already.

Anyhow, you’re being rather rude, on multiple levels, so, yeah, I’d probably call you something of a bully. But whatever; semantics, I suppose.

I thought you were interested in debates?  You’re not? You don’t want to be challenged about what you think?

No, I’m just not interested in arguing with people who first tell me I’m an indecent, immoral slob (don’t you dare tell me you never said that), and who refuse to admit that they said something that they wrote- of all places- on the Internet.

You don’t think your good enough to defend your position?

No, it just seems like you’re ignoring me and what I say, so I’m not sure I should even bother arguing with you, when I could serve you up to somebody a hell of a lot more intimidating and popular in the world of atheism.

If I read your blog correctly, you like to go out and challenge Christians…

Which doesn’t mean me going onto other blogs and saying that “I would say I wouldn’t call this a myth.” when referring to people saying that “Myth: Christians are less decent, less moral, and overall worse people than believers.”

You don’t like it when they come to you for a challenge?

No, I’m just sick of people being jerks.

“Also, I’d just like to mention… If you think that I’m just some kind of pathetic, weak little teenage kid, I do have access to a few other atheist contacts who can reply to what you have said to me better than I have, and with more of an air of authority… So don’t think you’re superior to me, KK?”
Again, where do you get the notion that I think you’re “some kind of pathetic, weak, little teenage kid?”
GT you really come to interesting conclusions.
If you need to go to your atheist friends for support to reply to me, by all means do so.
And where on earth do you get the notion that I am superior to you?  Because I challenge you on your moral code?

Actually, yeah, cuz, in my experience, people who say that atheists don’t have a moral code also then say/imply that atheists are immoral.

Again, I don’t need their support, I just don’t want to hear the ranting from you any more.

If you aren’t a weak teenage kid, then why whine about someone challenging you? Like a teenage kid would do?
C’mon GT – either take the challenge on or don’t. But if you do, don’t whine about it if you don’t “win.”

Well, that’s not a stereotype.

Whether or not you call it whining, I certainly don’t refer to simply “challenging me” as the part that bothers me, but the part where “wow your morals are completely based on opinion oh and btw I totally ignored the page that you linked to that explained what your morality even is because I don’t roll like that” certainly did piss me off.

And that last part… Man, talk about overconfidence.

And lastly,

“However, Chris has been extremely shady in answering questions about his own “moral law”. I’ve asked him multiple questions, as well as put up multiple criticisms of his god and morality that is supposedly derived from that god. However, not only has he not replied to a single one of these statements/questions, he’s even acknowledged that I asked those questions but then refused to answer them- supposedly because my leaving the argument was apparently a legitimate excuse for not having to answer them:”

Again, we were discussing YOUR moral code.  However, you do yourself a disservice here of claiming I’m not willing to discuss my belief of a moral code when you turn right around and quote me saying:

”    Now, you did ask a lot of questions – but since you’re done I guess I don’t have to deal with them.  However, if you do wish them answered by all means ask in a separate post (to keep things in order) and we can debate them.”

Oh, wait!  What’s that last line there?

“However, if you do wish them answered, by all means ask in a separate post (to keep things in order) and we can debate them.”

Seems like I’m pretty open to debating them there GT.

The first part of the sentence is to call you out on stomping away and quitting the discussion – but like I said, ask and I’ll answer.

You, because you can’t clearly defend your moral code, were trying to push the argument aside – and look at the Christian moral code.  This doesn’t support your position, but shows that yours is lacking and you’re having trouble defending it.  In my not answering, I am keeping it on topic: your moral code.

Jumping to conclusions (as i pointed out in the other posts) and misrepresenting your opponent (as shown above) is not a good way to debate.

Well, let’s see how you’ve done answering my questions:

1. Evidence for God

Didn’t provide any, blamed writing it out would be too long on it, even though you’ve already written many thousands of words to reply to me.

2. Chris’s Moral Law

He only very briefly mentioned about it: that it had something to do with “love”, which, supposedly, Jesus taught. Of course, it’s not quite like the page I wrote about morality, but, pfft, who cares, right?! And this “moral law” fails to explain tons of things, as I showed earlier.

3. Concern about my Moral Law

Better than his responses to the other two questions, but, then again, for the first part of my question, he completely ignored my writing, and, for the second one, he totally contradicted what he had said earlier.

4. Interest in my blog, and reasons for being a jerk

Well, first, he said he wasn’t bullying/being a jerk (though he did say some stuff about atheists not having a true morality…), then he suddenly goes off on a rant that suggests that he thinks he “won” the debate, and then says that he never said I didn’t know what morality was (although I defined “morality as principles concering the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. (New Oxford American Dictionary)”, and thus, saying that my basis for morality is faulty is equivalent to saying that I don’t know what morality is because, by definition, there cannot be multiple versions of morality, and thus, the version of “morality” that Chris says I have is “not the true morality (TM)”, and thus my morality is false and thus, because there can only be one morality, I don’t know what morality is), but that my basis for morality was faulty (again ignoring the writing that I’ve cited about 31257868329871 times in this post). Then, he accuses me of jumping to random conclusions, despite the fact that he cites very few such alleged conclusions and that, even so, all of those conclusions were based on text that he wrote on this blog. Oooookkkkkk…

So, in other words, Chris has done a fairly crappy job answering my questions, and I’m a bit pissed off. I’m also a bit pissed off that he says that I keep jumping to conclusions when he makes statements like

Me: “Myth: Atheists are less decent, less moral, and overall worse people than believers.”

Chris:”…I would say I wouldn’t call this a myth.”

, and then says

You also grossly ignore the atheism’s contribution to atrocities such as genocide as well.

and then

However, as we just established above, there is no natural, true moral code in the atheistic world view so this statement is irrelevant and based on faulty logic.

and yet still says

Do I sincerely believe atheism is the cause for much of the evil in this world?  I have to ask, how you even came up with this question.  No where have I ever stated, or hinted as such.

Well, it would seem like, after implying multiple times that atheists are indecent slimeballs, that we have contributed to genocide, and that there is “no natural, true moral code in the atheistic world view” (in other words, that atheists are immoral), that, yeah, you did, at best, hinted that atheism had caused much evil, and, at worse, explicitly stated that atheism has contributed to very horrible actions.

Chris, are you actually willing to concede that, yeah, you said something wrong? That you, at the very least, implied that atheists were immoral, and regret having said that? Or are you just going to continue prancing through your fantasy land and say that you never said such a thing… When the evidence is right in front of you?

7 responses to Debate with Chris, Part 3 – By Godless Teen

  1. Well, you did more complaining here, but yes, certainly let’s address the evidence for God.
    Let’s start with the general. And if you have done study – you will recognize these as arguments similarly presented by WLC.
    They offer, what I believe, a good general argument.
    1. Existence of the universe – either the universe has always been, or it came into existence.
    a. Well, there’s no reason to believe that it always existed. More evidence leads us to conclude that it came into existence.
    b. However, if there was nothing prior to the existence – how did this happen? Nothing is not a property. It means no thing. That there was nothing. No energy, no mass, no ways of coming into existence on it’s own.
    c. Let’s say it did come into existence on it’s own – this actually opens a can of worms to why other things don’t just POP into existence.
    2. objective moral values.
    a. Things are either right/wrong. Objectively. Regardless of benefit, emotion or opinion.
    b. I believe they are. Seems you do too.
    3. Jesus’ death and resurrection.
    a. Can’t be done without a God.
    Okay, so there are some general ones.
    Now, here’s my PERSONAL list of evidence and we can go from there.
    1) Sex.
    2) Creativity
    3) Existence of love.
    4) Sin – which includes: evil, hate, anger, selfishness, etc.
    5) Life in general
    6) Sentient life
    7) The Bible
    8) Fine tuning of the earth for our life.
    9) Personality
    10) Feelings
    11) Cognitive ability
    12) Reason
    13) Logic
    So there I have presented 16 piece of what I consider evidence for God. Now, if you wish to go into greater detail, let’s do so, just say so.
    And these are just what I came up with off the top of my head…I may add some later.

  2. Now, I will address the remainder of your post:

    QUOTE: Not to mention, why do you believe that this source has to be a conscious, sentient source? Happiness doesn’t think; it doesn’t speak; yet, it’s an ingrained part of us, and all actions that we say are moral nowadays appear to follow just the same moral law that I wrote about earlier, where the main authority is happiness. I see no reason why it should be based on a god.END QUOTE
    Because as I said it’s OBJECTIVE. You keeping missing or ignoring that point. Anything based on emotion is NOT objective, but subjective.
    Beneficial? Maybe.
    Preferable? Could be.
    Objective? No.
    It’s subjective – I have shown this, you either ignore it or delude yourself that objectivity – that is there IS an absolute right/wrong action (not just preferable or beneficial) – can be found in an emotion that you admit cannot be completely determined prior to an action nor be quantifiable.
    And perfectly moral authority can – a morality NOT based on emotion, but on an objective ACTUALY authority.
    Emotion does NOT offer this.
    Yes, GT, under YOUR moral code you can come up with a list of “wrongs” that fit your code. However, this doesn’t mean that they are ACTUALLY, OBJECTIVELY wrong. All they are, at best, is unfashionable.
    QUOTE: Also, happiness is not the “subjective whim of us fallible humans”. If it was, that would imply that a rational person could go from being happy not being hurt one day to being happy by cutting his or her arm off the next. Of course, we don’t see such behavior in our world, because the happiness/pain mechanism keeps us from doing any such thing to ourselves.END QUOTE
    You need to see the world more then GT if you believe the above is actually true. There are MANY cultures where people self mutilate for reasons to make them happy. It’s a cultural practice.
    Second, people get tattoos – they WILLINGLY let others inflict pain upon themselves for the purpose of expression. They also get implants.
    And in sever cases some people do go from a man to a woman (which involves a mutilation and restructuring of the penis).
    So, yes GT people DO mutilate themselves for happiness.
    Happiness is SUBJECTIVE and influenced by many factors and yes IS fallible and subject to 1) opinion, 2) past experiences, 3) social standing, 4) culture, 5) friends and family influence, 6) political beliefs, 7) religious beliefs..and on and on and on…fallible and subject to MANY outside influences.
    Subjectivity – again, NOT objective.
    To be objective, emotion doesn’t work.
    QUOTEAnyhow, I fail to see how basing our moral authority on “fallible human beings” is even a bad thing in the first place.END QUOTE
    Very telling answer which explains a lot of your beliefs.
    QUOTE Everything that we do has some degree of fallibility. When we observe something, we are using the faith that our senses accurately reflect the world. We use the faith that food will help us, based on past observations based on possibly fallible human senses. Yet, Chris doesn’t criticize those areas of our lives.END QUOTE
    Again, two arguments that don’t necessarily follow. (you do this a lot)
    Yep, when it comes to food, we have to trust past experience. And in cases such as food it works. However, that’s for food. NOT morals. Two different areas.
    And not all foods are good for people are they?
    No, some folks have allergies.
    So a food is neither moral or immoral – it is either beneficial or harmful.
    That you believe they are similar, again, is quite telling of your beliefs about the world around you.
    In morality though – it’s a different ball game. Something is either right/wrong. REGARDLESS if it benefits me or not. Regardless what I think about it, or feel about it and action is either right/wrong.
    Is it immoral for someone allergic to shellfish to each crab? Nope, but it sure isn’t a good idea.
    Is it moral for me to knowingly serve them same meal and not tell them?
    Big difference GT, and if you still fail to see it…wow.
    QUOTE The same could apply to morality: perhaps happiness isn’t Da Truth, Da Truth, and Da One and Only Truth (TM of Religion, Inc.), but we have decided, as human beings, that it’s likely to be pointless to act as if we don’t experience happiness, see things, and the like.END QUOTE
    Thank you for FINALLY admitting that your moral code is NOT objective – though you haven’t explicitly said so.
    Again, GT morality is either objective or subjective.
    To be objective it needs to be binding and true – regardless of what we as humans decide.
    This is impossible without a God.
    Now, if you believe that morals are NOT objective, then you are fine with going along with your set of “beneficial” actions – but they are no more than that GT. And beneficial, is subjective in many circumstances as well.
    QUOTEAlso, although love is certainly a nice thing, it can’t solve every moral dilemma; personally, I believe it’s just an offshoot of happiness.END QUOTE
    And there we differ in beliefs as well.

    QUOTE For example, we would say that it’s ok for someone to destroy a rock (as long as it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of others), but the concept of “love” doesn’t explain this. On the other hand, happiness does; if we desire to destroy a rock, and destroying it will make us happier, then it is within our rights to destroy that rock, as long as it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of others. So love really can’t solve every moral dilemma; it doesn’t solve for the ideas of vacations, movies, playing video games, and such. On the other hand, happiness does.END QUOTE
    Happiness solves EVERY moral dilemma?
    The desire for happiness drives people to adultery. Not love.
    The desire for happiness via money drives people to steal from others. Not love.
    The desire for happiness via power drives people to subvert others and lie. Not love.
    Those are just three big examples. A bit more philosophical than a rock.
    QUOTE;Not to mention… If there’s anybody that teaches love, it certainly isn’t God, nor Jesus. I find it difficult to believe that a mass murderer, who drowned millions of people and animals, knows anything about “love”. Nor the guy that ordered two bears to rip 42 children in half. Nor the guy who said that we should stone homosexuals. Nor the guy who condemned the Pharisees for not murdering a disobedient child, in violation of God’s alleged law.END QUOTE
    Yep, this certainly is a tough area for you to accept. I understand that. But as we have seen, you have quite a view of the world, and people.
    However, because you don’t understand how a god could do such things, doesn’t mean there aren’t morally sufficient reasons.
    Now, I don’t expect you to actually look into these reasons – you have no need to. You’re fine with just assuming that what God did was “evil” or “bad”.
    However, is saying such a thing you are again placing yourself as arbiter of morality – and in a round about way saying there IS objective morality.
    But where does this morality come from?
    Where does your OBJECTIVE morality come from to accuse God of not following it as you would want him to? Or think he should?
    Happiness? A fallible, influenced emotion?
    Not good enough, I’m afraid.
    And lastly – I would ask you this: does God have a right to judge his creation?
    I’m all for going down this road and looking into this if you’d like GT – but remember, you have no actual objective moral ground to stand on to do so.
    Just preference and emotion.
    QUOTEI don’t believe you must follow it, I just think that rational self-interest would lead a person to want to follow it because they benefit from my moral law. To quote myself:
    This will be the last part of my piece here. People might say “fair enough, live your life like that, if you want to. But why should I follow it?”
    The answer is this:
    If you don’t want to, then don’t.END QUOTE
    This isn’t what you said before: shall I quote you? So you are now back tracking on your moral code in that it isn’t binding?
    QUOTE:Just remember one thing, though: humans all have a natural desire to be happy. If you want to try and break that rule, go ahead, but you’ll certainly find yourself a hell of a lot worse off than if you had decided to follow the moral law I’ve defined here
    And apparently Chris didn’t read the page I linked to, because he never once commented about it.END QUOTE
    Well, since you stated this: I’ll quote you:
    From your Email to me: Your last question is whether or not my code of morality is a “must follow” for others. I would say yes; unless a more improved theory of morality, better supported by the evidence, comes along, I would suggest that everybody follows this moral code.

    You then go on to say that Gov. should ENFORCE this code as well.

    Well which is it GT? Either we have to and you want Gov. to enforce it, or we don’t have to at all.
    QUOTE: Yeah, you know Chris, you totally never said anything about atheism being a root of evil…
    3. Where did you pull this from? Of the theists I know, none of them would make such a claim. However, what I will argue is that goodness cannot exist without a moral giver – however I won’t address it here. I would say I wouldn’t call this a myth.
    Oh… Well, that’s just a single isolated example, it’s not as if he’s said anything els-
    7. Root vs. motive. Quite a difference. However, as we just established above, there is no natural, true moral code in the atheistic world view so this statement is irrelevant and based on faulty logic. You can’t say something is evil if there is no true standard, that is only your opinion. You also grossly ignore the atheism’s contribution to atrocities such as genocide as well.
    (yeah, and I totally didn’t rebut that or anything in the page above him…)END QUOTE
    LOL!
    Oh, my GT do you grasp at straws.
    Do you read what people type or just, as you have in the past, jump to conclusions.
    Let’s take a look at what I said.
    1) I will argue that goodness cannot exist without a moral giver.
    Yep, that’s what I’m saying. However, that does NOT say that atheism is a root of evil. No where in that statement can you draw that conclusion. Not there.
    Okay, but let’s look at my other statement: However, as we just established above, there is no natural, true moral code in the atheistic world view so this statement is irrelevant and based on faulty logic. You can’t say something is evil if there is no true standard, that is only your opinion. You also grossly ignore the atheism’s contribution to atrocities such as genocide as well.
    Nope, no statement that says that atheism is the ROOT of evil. What do I say? Under and atheistic world view there is no TRUE moral code. You can’t say something is evil beyond opinion.
    (anything there about atheism being the root of evil?—–um…..nope.)
    Ah, well it must be in that last line: You also grossly ignore the atheism’s contribution to atrocities such as genocide as well.
    Hmm….nope, nothing there about being the ROOT of evil. Just a statement that atrocities have been done by atheists too.
    Any more “evidence” of this claim that appears to actually NEVER have happened?
    QUOTE:Ok, well, fine, fine, maybe that’s just another isolated example, but-
    9. …Your lack of belief in God informs you as to what is moral and immoral…(though your morals are nothing more than opinion).
    Ok, ok, ok, but that’s probably just taken completely out of conte-
    So, if our value is zero (all things being equal as you would want it) then what does un/happiness plus morality equal = nothing.
    …Beginning to notice a pattern, Chris?
    Either you tell me that atheism has been the cause of genocide, or that, you “would say [you] wouldn’t call [atheists being immoral without god] a myth”, or that my morals are “nothing more than opinion” (which would imply that morality doesn’t really exist, and that, in an atheist’s world, killing is totally acceptable), or the like. So, yeah, actually, you really seemed to heavily imply that atheists are less decent, more immoral humans than religious people.END QUOTE
    Well, as I just slammed the crap out of your so called: hinting atheism is the root of evil ( as you again, as you have in the past, JUMPED to a conclusion based on…want? I don’t know)
    Atheists have caused genocide. That is a fact. Admit it or don’t. However, that doesn’t mean I believe that atheism is the ROOT of evil – and to pull that from what I said is to not READ what I said.
    Your morals are nothing more than opinion – I have repeatedly shown this.
    However, again this doesn’t mean that your beliefs are the ROOT of evil.
    So NO GT – I do not imply that atheists are less decent, more immoral humans.
    And the fact that what you believe what you quoted supports that?
    Wow…really, is all I can say. Wow…
    You really need to read, then UNDERSTAND what someone says – not just jump on it, thinking it means something when clearly it doesn’t.
    Maybe you won’t get so riled up.
    QUOTE:I’ve shown you can’t. [Oh yeah, cuz I know you totally just read the entire page I wrote about morality that I linked to in the beginning of my blog post]END QUOTE
    I didn’t need to, what you provided was enough to do this. Once something is based on emotion and opinion – it will never rise higher than that, no matter how much you talk about it.
    It’s opinion. YOUR opinion that morals should be based on happiness. You can ignore this fact, but it won’t change it.

    QUOTEOh, you didn’t swear? You’re such a good Christian.END QUOTE
    Ah, this old attack. Always loved this one because if you really knew me, you’d know I swear like a sailor – worse than actually.
    QUOTEHowever, you did clearly declare that you thought atheists were immoral earlier, and that they were “less decent humans”.END QUOTE
    Um, no, I didn’t you JUMPED to that conclusion quite erroneously as I just showed you. Again, take time to read and understand, don’t just REACT.
    QUOTE Because I’m sure, at this point, that your giant ego will refuse to admit that you said something wrong, I’m guessing that you’re going to say something along the lines of “oh that’s not what I meant” even though it obviously was.END QUOTE
    Well, I just showed you EXACTLY what I meant by REQUOTING exactly what I said and showing how YOU jumped to the conclusion you either wanted or wished was there.
    QUOTEAnd probably the next thing you’ll say is that you don’t have a giant ego, MisterEND QUOTE
    Nope, I’m sure mine is larger than it should be…
    QUOTENews flash, bro: you don’t win in online arguments. This is just fuel for my blog, so get over it already.END QUOTE
    Huh, then why are you trying so hard to do so?
    And if you think this is fuel for your blog…well, by all means use it sir!
    QUOTEAnyhow, you’re being rather rude, on multiple levels, so, yeah, I’d probably call you something of a bully. But whatever; semantics, I suppose.END QUOTE
    Well, if you can please show me where I actually am being rude I will apologize for it. However, as we have seen you do jump to conclusion and misread quite a bit.
    But I will man up and apologize if you can present something that truly is rude and insulting.
    QUOTENo, I’m just not interested in arguing with people who first tell me I’m an indecent, immoral slob (don’t you dare tell me you never said that), and who refuse to admit that they said something that they wrote- of all places- on the Internet.END QUOTE
    Well, again, we showed that I didn’t say any of that.
    QUOTENo, it just seems like you’re ignoring me and what I say, so I’m not sure I should even bother arguing with you, when I could serve you up to somebody a hell of a lot more intimidating and popular in the world of atheism.END QUOTE
    No, I heard you and replied to what you said. You are the one not reading correctly and understanding. Several times I have pointed this out, including this reply from you.
    Not ignoring you, but staying on topic and keeping in context.
    QUOTENo, I’m just sick of people being jerks.END QUOTE
    Again, if you can actually show where I am being a jerk, I will apologize.
    However, what you have presented does not fall into that category – you MISREAD and MISUNDERSTOOD what I wrote.
    On you, GT, for reacting rather than understanding.
    QUOTE ME:“Also, I’d just like to mention… If you think that I’m just some kind of pathetic, weak little teenage kid, I do have access to a few other atheist contacts who can reply to what you have said to me better than I have, and with more of an air of authority… So don’t think you’re superior to me, KK?”
    Again, where do you get the notion that I think you’re “some kind of pathetic, weak, little teenage kid?”
    GT you really come to interesting conclusions.
    If you need to go to your atheist friends for support to reply to me, by all means do so.
    And where on earth do you get the notion that I am superior to you? Because I challenge you on your moral code?
    YOU:Actually, yeah, cuz, in my experience, people who say that atheists don’t have a moral code also then say/imply that atheists are immoral.END QUOTE
    Your statement doesn’t follow. No where (again even in what you posted) do I say this. To be blunt, atheists can be moral upstanding people. Got that? Read it again GT so you don’t get confused about what I write.
    Atheists CAN BE good, moral, upstanding people.
    Clear?
    Good.
    Now, READ what I type next:
    But that’s ONLY if there are objective morals to begin with. That can only be if there is a moral giver – God.
    If not then NO ONE is actually moral because objective morals don’t exist. (this would include me)
    Understand?
    QUOTEAgain, I don’t need their support, I just don’t want to hear the ranting from you any more.END QUOTE
    You don’t hear ranting from me, the only one ranting is you. I’m just pointing out what’s wrong with your moral code and what you keep misunderstanding and when you jump to conclusions.
    QUOTEWhether or not you call it whining, I certainly don’t refer to simply “challenging me” as the part that bothers me, but the part where “wow your morals are completely based on opinion oh and btw I totally ignored the page that you linked to that explained what your morality even is because I don’t roll like that” certainly did piss me off.END QUOTE
    Well, I can’t help that it pissed you off, but the fact is that your morals are completely based on opinion – I showed you this time and again. If that pisses you off, that’s your problem for ignoring that fact.
    You cannot get your morals BEYOND opinion, that just a fact.
    Now, you can ignore it an move on..but a fact is a fact, regardless if it pisses you off or not.
    And that your lack of understanding on how your morals are based on opinion, well, shows that you haven’t critically looked at the code you put forth.
    Seems that you’re pissed that someone did look at it critically.
    That shouldn’t piss you off, though.
    QUOTEAnd that last part… Man, talk about overconfidence.END QUOTE
    LOL
    And your post: How to always be right…is a classic humility piece if I ever read one.

    The rest of your post is more…well, you know what it is.
    But here’s a chance for clarification:
    GT: “Myth: Atheists are less decent, less moral, and overall worse people than believers.”
    Chris:”…I would say I wouldn’t call this a myth.”END QUOTE
    Okay – well let’s read the COMPLETE post I submitted:
    “Where did you pull this from? Of the theists I know, none of them would make such a claim. However, what I will argue is that goodness cannot exist without a moral giver – however I won’t address it here. I would say I wouldn’t call this a myth.”
    Now, I supposed you could say that I was claiming that I was saying: “no, it’s true atheists are less decent, less moral, and overall worse people than believers.”
    However, what is my VERY FIRST LINE?
    “Of the theists I know, none of them would make such a claim.”
    What claim?
    “Atheists are less decent, less moral and overall worse people than believers.”
    I wouldn’t call that a “myth” of atheism, because I don’t know who makes that claim.
    Again, GT, jumping and not reading. And certainly NOT providing FULL context for a quote.
    QUOTE, and then says
    You also grossly ignore the atheism’s contribution to atrocities such as genocide as well.END QUOTE
    Yep, addressed that.
    QUOTEHowever, as we just established above, there is no natural, true moral code in the atheistic world view so this statement is irrelevant and based on faulty logic.END QUOTE
    I addressed that….
    QUOTEand yet still says
    Do I sincerely believe atheism is the cause for much of the evil in this world? I have to ask, how you even came up with this question. No where have I ever stated, or hinted as such.END QUOTE
    Well, it would seem like, after implying multiple times that atheists are indecent slimeballs, that we have contributed to genocide, and that there is “no natural, true moral code in the atheistic world view” (in other words, that atheists are immoral), that, yeah, you did, at best, hinted that atheism had caused much evil, and, at worse, explicitly stated that atheism has contributed to very horrible actions.
    Chris, are you actually willing to concede that, yeah, you said something wrong? That you, at the very least, implied that atheists were immoral, and regret having said that?END QUOTE
    Nope, because as I just showed you JUMP to conclusions. For whatever your reason. AND I even went so far to make the statement: Atheists CAN BE moral, upstanding, people.
    You fail to understand what a statement such as: as we just established, there is no natural, true moral code in the atheistic world view so this statement is irrelevant and based on faulty logic.
    Says nothing to BEHAVIOR, GT, but LOGICAL CONCLUSIONS.
    Settle down and READ what people write. When you jump to such wild conclusions, it actually makes you look bad. Honestly.
    QUOTE Or are you just going to continue prancing through your fantasy land and say that you never said such a thing… When the evidence is right in front of you?END QUOTE
    Well, we know what I did, GT…
    Sadly, I don’t think you’ll even realize that you misread those statements and jumped to conclusions. The fact that you LOVED to use them over and over again, despite clearly not even hinting at what you thought they did says something about you.
    If you still believe they say what you mean they do, then please show me how you could even have come to that conclusion – I honestly don’t see it.
    But just, again, so you know EXACTLY what I believe: atheists can be good, moral, upstanding people and atheism is NOT the root of evil.
    Got that?
    Because if you ever try to claim I say otherwise again, I will call you out on that. I am assuming you misunderstood my statements (though I don’t know how) and not purposely trying to reframe them (which you failed to do, so I’m of the position you just jumped to conclusion)
    Though you did cherry pick quotes of mine…
    So now, GT, the evidence is in front of you – will you admit that you read them wrong? Or will you assert that I still believe atheists are evil, disgusting, no good people?

  3. Ah, to add to this quote:
    “Not to mention, why do you believe that this source has to be a conscious, sentient source? Happiness doesn’t think; it doesn’t speak; yet, it’s an ingrained part of us, and all actions that we say are moral nowadays appear to follow just the same moral law that I wrote about earlier, where the main authority is happiness. ”

    it’s BECAUSE happiness doesn’t think that it, many times, is irrational and cannot be trusted in ALL situations. This makes basing a moral authority on an dynamic emotion – it CAN’T be an authority since we can’t trust it at all times in all situations. Even you admit it can’t do this and that we have no way of knowing to one-hundred percent certainty that happiness is the result or be trusted.

    It can’t be an authority. It’s faulty, it fails…yet, you want your moral code based on something faulty?

    By all means run with it…but it’s not objective.

  4. Let’s start with the general. And if you have done study – you will recognize these as arguments similarly presented by WLC.
    They offer, what I believe, a good general argument.
    1. Existence of the universe – either the universe has always been, or it came into existence.
    a. Well, there’s no reason to believe that it always existed. More evidence leads us to conclude that it came into existence.
    b. However, if there was nothing prior to the existence – how did this happen? Nothing is not a property. It means no thing. That there was nothing. No energy, no mass, no ways of coming into existence on it’s own.
    c. Let’s say it did come into existence on it’s own – this actually opens a can of worms to why other things don’t just POP into existence.

    The evidence for the existence of the universe is just that. It is not evidence that it was made.

    2. objective moral values.
    a. Things are either right/wrong. Objectively. Regardless of benefit, emotion or opinion.
    b. I believe they are. Seems you do too.

    Morals are man made. It is possible for non-believers to set perfectly acceptable and workable standards of morality, as it is for the religious. As an atheist, I find many of the moral standards in the Bible repugnant.

    3. Jesus’ death and resurrection.
    a. Can’t be done without a God.

    1. Firstly, you need to establish that the Biblical Jesus actually existed There is scant evidence that he did. Nor is there any evidence
    that the stories attributed to him are true.

    2. Resurrection is not a rare occurrence in the Bible.

    Okay, so there are some general ones.
    Now, here’s my PERSONAL list of evidence and we can go from there.

    1) Sex.
    What of it?

    2) Creativity

    Again, what of it?

    3) Existence of love.

    Ditto

    4) Sin – which includes: evil, hate, anger, selfishness, etc.

    See morality, above.

    5) Life in general

    Life is no more evidence for the existence of deities than non life eg. Rocks. It’s just that non-rocks have more fun.

    6) Sentient life

    See 1-3 above

    7) The Bible

    It’s a book. Most if it is myth and fantasy, even when based on possible real people and events. It’s entirely fallible throughout.

    8) Fine tuning of the earth for our life.

    That’s luck, not judgement. Given the number of observable stars in the universe, the chances are it had to happen somewhere.

    9) Personality
    10) Feelings
    11) Cognitive ability

    All human qualities shared with many other animals on this planet. The fact that we possess these qualities is not evidence that they are provided by any supernatural entity.

    12) Reason
    13) Logic

    All human qualities, sometimes shared with many other animals on this planet. Ditto as above.

    • Hey Dave,

      I’m only going to address a few of your replies. Don’t want to deal with them all before GT put in his two cents – if he plans to do so.

      “The evidence for the existence of the universe is just that. It is not evidence that it was made.”

      Okay, you are missing two critical points which I did bring up. The universe either has always existed, or it began to exist.

      There are quite a few scientists who believe there is evidence that the universe came to be and did NOT always exist. Now, they didn’t just pull this out of a hat or flip a coin – they believe they have evidence for such.

      If this was the case, that the universe BEGAN to exist (IE Big Bang Theory) – what caused it?

      And since this belief (the universe began to exist) implies that before this there was nothing, then how does everything come from nothing?

      But if the universe always existed, then one must grapple with the problems of an infinite history, infinite past.

      Your statement completely ignores these two issues, and does nothing to detract or debunk (if you will) my contention that it’s evidence for God.

      “Morals are man made. It is possible for non-believers to set perfectly acceptable and workable standards of morality, as it is for the religious. As an atheist, I find many of the moral standards in the Bible repugnant”

      Certainly man can make up moral rules – we do! But they aren’t OBJECTIVE, and that is what you are missing. “Acceptable” and “workable” are fine but not objective and true. They are opinion and beneficial.

      So, for you to say that the moral standards of the Bible repugnant, is your opinion that they are. You cannot point to anything objectively true to support your claim.

      I’m not arguing, nor I have ever argued, that man cannot develop a moral code or set of “social rules” to live by. My argument is that those morals cannot ever be objective.

      Your reply, while correct, ignores the objectivity claim I made.

      Moral cannot be objective without a transcendent moral being. Without a god.

      If you care to address the objectivity, I would be interested, since you didn’t do it here.

      So, Dave, what do you believe? Objective morals? Or just man made “opinion based” for benefit morals?

      “That’s luck, not judgement. Given the number of observable stars in the universe, the chances are it had to happen somewhere”

      Actually no it have to happen somewhere. There is no necessity – especially if you hold to “luck”. “luck” is not a necessity. Second, you claim: luck + time. trumps judgment.

      But as we know – luck is not a necessity.

      Now, if you are saying that it “had” to happen at least one – they you are claiming that a “life prohibiting” universe is an impossibility. That is: the universe HAS to be fined tune for life in at least one case.

      I would be interested in hearing your defense for that position: why the universe in one case HAS to be life permitting.

      “12) Reason
      13) Logic

      All human qualities, sometimes shared with many other animals on this planet. Ditto as above”

      Here again, you are missing the point. I’m not saying that humans are exclusive to USING reason and logic – but that reason and logic exist at all.

      Reason and Logic are NOT human qualities – they are independent of humans and animals. We need not exist for logic and reason to exist and still hold.

      Unless you wish to take the side that neither exist at all. Or that we humans created logic and reason.

      If they do exist (as I contend), it only stands to reason that ANY living being would use both tools in some degree or another for survival. But, as with ANY tool, said tool has to exist prior to it’s being used.

      Like I said, I’ll address the others when GT does – but these answers of yours have their issues and don’t act as defeaters of my claims.

      And finally to both you and GT: as it pertains to historical people (especially around 30AD and earlier) what evidence would you accept and how much of it is needed to establish the historicity of a person?

      • I also meant to address this one as well: “5) Life in general

        Life is no more evidence for the existence of deities than non life eg. Rocks. It’s just that non-rocks have more fun.”

        Well, like fine tuning, life arose out of 1) necessity, 2) Chance (or luck as you would say, 3) creation

        We know it’s not 1.
        As for 2 – this would be the second time of invoking “chance” over design in a different occasion.

        And considering that we only observe life coming from life – that is, we don’t observe life coming from a chance assembly of the correct and needed parts.

        So it’s either 2 or 3.

        well, 2 fails in probability and goes against what we observe and know. So, yes, I would say that it would be evidence for a creator.

        And since we need the universe BEFORE we need life – you either need to invoke necessity in both cases (fine tuning AND life). Or you need to invoke lucky in two separate occasions which increases improbability to happen. Especially when it comes to life. As a universe is NEEDED prior to life.

  5. “Actually no it have to happen somewhere.” – this is to be “Actually no it didn’t have to happen somewhere.”

    I’m sure you figured that out, but just want to be clear.

Please leave a reply!

%d bloggers like this: