Here is the response:
Oh, I misunderstood. I thought you were asking in what manner I condemn them as opposed to what justification I’d use for condemning them.
Still, it’s easy. The deaths of innocent children, pain and suffering, (would you want that kind of thing done to you), and then there’s the fact that acts of genocide aren’t really conducive to the human race’s survival.
Your god set up a lot of lousy precedents in the OT which history shows that your fellow believers made use of.
Does an atheist condemn certain actions because they are immoral or are certain actions immoral because an atheist decided to condemn them?
Answered above.Thing is, I can turn that back on you. Is something moral because your god says it is in which case it’s purely subjective or does your god say that something is moral because it intrinsically is moral, in which case “morality” is something that exists outside of your god, and he, like us, just picks out what seems moral to him.
Too bad he’s not consistent though. You know, the so-called “pro-lifers” who worship a being who had pregnant women and babies killed in the OT.
Well, he certainly attempted to turn things around on me. Yet, in seeking to condemn God, the Bible, etc. he is still lacking a justification for his condemnation. This is a typical atheist tactic: when asked for justification for condemnation they will pile another condemnation upon the one you are asking them to justify. In this way they, consciously or not, attempting to get you to start defending God, the Bible, etc. and forget that they have failed to provide a justification in the first place.
Incidentally, I deal with the Euthyphro Dilemma at the very end of my opening statement.
I simply asked for further elucidation:
I do not mean to be difficult but I am interested in understanding your views.
Why are the deaths of innocent children, pain and suffering condemnable?
Also, why should I be the least bit concerned about the human race’s survival?
Here is the erudite response:
Well, so much for the xian claim of atheists having no moral code then. I’ve shown it and you’ve said, in effect, “so what”?
Please don’t deconvert then. You’ve shown yourself to be nothing but a psychopath who’s restrained by a belief that someone is watching him.
In general, atheists view the human race as something worth preserving, for our children’s sake if nothing else. You religious people don’t have even that, I guess.
What you have seems to be “morality” dictated by rewards and threats of punishment. That’s a child’s level of morality and not a morality based on consequences or empathy or even compassion.
There is quite a bit to note here: 1) the atheists (plural; I do not know whence he got the authority to speak for atheists in general but whatever) moral code is the Judeo-Christian Golden Rule, “pain and suffering, (would you want that kind of thing done to you)” and “the human race’s survival.” But this is not a code; this is merely more assertions without foundations. 2) I stated that “I am interested in understanding your views” and he, very, very quickly jumped to an emotive personal besmirchment in referring to me as “nothing but a psychopath.” 3) “atheists” (again, plural; with the qualifier “In general”) “view the human race as something worth preserving, for our children’s sake if nothing else.” But again, this is an assertion and does not state why. “for our children’s sake” but why for their sake? And another emotive personal besmirchment, “You religious people don’t have even that, I guess.” Well, he guessed wrong. 4) The last statement about rewards and punishment is an ubiquitously promulgated well within the box atheist talking point de jour. It is one that I have discredited and showed him was fallacious.
See The Red Light of Punishment and On Morality, Reward, Punishment, and Crowns for some examples of dealing with this issue.
See the next segment for my response.