Discussion with Atheist on morality vs. ethics, 1/9

dan barker, charles darwin, morality, ethics.jpg

The following discussion took place due to my video Atheist defines morality “I want what I want…it’s good because it’s what I want.” See all portions of this discussion here.


The following discussion took place due to my video Atheist defines morality “I want what I want…it’s good because it’s what I want.” See all portions of this discussion here.

While you are at it, see my book Pop-Atheist Bible Expositors starring Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Dan Barker, and Neil deGrasse Tyson and also my book Reasons for Being An Atheist: A Comprehensive Guide.

A certain “johnloves jesus” commented
atheists have no moral code.

A certain “eddy eldridge” replied
Correction: Christians have no morals. They’re just trying to avoid hell.

At this point, note that johnloves jesus is making an observation and that eddy eldridge is playing mind reader. They had some back and forth and I chimed in.

My reply—Ken Ammi
My argument is that yes, they do in fact have a “moral code” (given certain definitions of “moral” such as I offered in the video: and that is the problem, they can just invent any subjective thing they want and then declare themselves “moral” which ends up being circular reasoning such as “I want what I want…it’s good because it’s what I want.”

eddy eldridge
As opposed to doing whatever you want and then claiming its what God wants? Or doing whatever you want and asking for forgiveness later? Or deciding on your own that slavery is immoral despite the bible clearly allowing it? Or deciding on your own that wearing outfits made of mixed fabrics is fine, despite the bible saying its not?
EVERYONE developed their morals based on their own level of empathy. Christians just claim otherwise.

Ken Ammi
No rather, as opposed to contemplating an actual real life evil and claiming “Hey, I subjectively interpret bio-chemical reactions occurring within my haphazardly evolved brain to the conclusion that some temporarily and accidentally existing bio-organisms did something to other temporarily and accidentally existing bio-organisms that I decided to not like.”
I am afraid that you may be unaware of the many scenarios to which you are referring by the relatively modern-day term and concept of “slavery.”
However, since you imply that there is something wrong with it then upon what premise does your worldview condemn temporarily and accidentally existing bio-organisms enslaving other temporarily and accidentally existing bio-organisms?
Lastly, yes, if you listened to my argument I agree 100% that “EVERYONE developed their morals based on their own level of empathy” as the Bible puts it, “everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” Yes, that would be the “mores” but the “ethos” is that upon which you rely to post comments online attempting to condemn people for not agreeing with you.

dan barker, charles darwin, morality, ethics.jpg

eddy eldridge
Firstly, you’re only an accident if your dad’s condom broke.
Secondly, when I refer to slavery, I’m referring to owning another human as property. Which the bible very clearly allows.
And I deem such an act as immoral. Yes, that is my opinion, but its one I, and many others who agree with me, will absolutely fight to enforce.
Even if God is real, morality is still 100% subjective. He has his own set of morals, and if the bible is an accurate account of them, I disagree with a number of them. And I’m sure you do, as well, but rather than saying you disagree with them, you reinterpret them to be more favorable, then say they’re acceptable.
And I’m not condemning you for disagreeing with me. I’m pointing out why you’re wrong.

Ken Ammi
Actually, you can be an accident as per the “faith” based belief in abiogenesis. As for slavery, you will have to provide citations since you cannot just assert such a claim.
Well, at least you are honest enough to admit that your view that slavery is “immoral” is exactly as I argued: subjective, intrinsic, tentative, etc. since that is merely your “opinion” and the opinion of “many others who agree with” yet, of course, many disagree with you and may the fittest survive.
But then, upon what premise do you subjectively assert that slavery is immoral? What is it about your worldview that demands that such a conclusion is imperative? So, I agree that “morality is still 100% subjective” since that was my argument all along. It is the ethos/ethics which is absolute, objective, extrinsic, etc. which my argument proved.
Now, that you disagree with God “morals” that is essentially meaningless upon my stated definitions: one thing is certain, you agree with his ethos/ethics.
Also, by stating that you disagree with God on morals then you are basing that on a moral code via which you are making that judgment, you declare yours to be better and you are making yourself God’s god by claiming to be over Him. As for your attempts at mind reading me: I would say that you should not even attempt it.

eddy eldridge
“Actually, you can be an accident as per the “faith” based belief in abiogenesis.” Funny how theists use faith to discredit other peoples beliefs, yet think using it in regards to their own somehow make it stronger. And no, abiogenesis is the result of various materials behaving in accordance with various universal laws. It was bound to happen at some point. And the evidence shows it happened at least once. Not that you’d accept any evidence of it being true.
“As for slavery, you will have to provide citations since you cannot just assert such a claim.” Sorry, I thought you’ve read the bible. Are you not familiar with Exodus 21, for example?
“and may the fittest survive.” Considering most theists don’t understand that term, I doubt you do either.
“What is it about your worldview that demands that such a conclusion is imperative?” Empathy. That’s all it takes.
“It is the ethos/ethics which is absolute, objective, extrinsic, etc. which my argument proved” No, ethics is merely a system which takes morals and tries to organize and refine them. They’re not objective. At best, they are widely agreed upon.
“one thing is certain, you agree with his ethos/ethics.” Again, no. If I don’t agree with his morals, I don’t agree with his ethics. I don’t care what you think ethics are, but I’m going by Webster’s definition.
“Also, by stating that you disagree with God on morals then you are basing that on a moral code via which you are making that judgment, you declare yours to be better and you are making yourself God’s god by claiming to be over Him.” I’m claiming moral superiority over the desert nomads who made the character up, in the first place. But if all it takes to be a god over your god is to be morally superior to him, than your god is a pushover.
“As for your attempts at mind reading me: I would say that you should not even attempt it.” I’m not reading your mind, I’m predicting the future. Based on the evidence: every other Christian I’ve talked with who thinks like you do has done the exact same thing, every single time, without fail. I’ve only met two Christians who acknowledged the bible allowed slavery. One openly admitted he pretends the bad stuff isn’t in there, and the other is now an atheist.

Ken Ammi
On the faith issue: that is likely because we have had a definition of faith for millennia but then Atheist invented a new one so we use yours when noting how you do that which you accuse us of doing. This brings us directly to abiogenesis which refers to a statement of your “faith.” If you have evidence you will become instantly rich and famous.
As for slavery, citing a chapter elucidates nothing: have you read it? Various scenarios are outlined therein (plus, the English term “slave” is relatively new with regards to how they many scenarios are contextually understood).
Friend, replying with “Empathy” merely moves the question back one notch so, “What is it about your worldview that demands that such a conclusion is imperative?”
Now, if you listened to my argument you will know what I mean by “ethics” and know that it is not that which you assert. Thus, on my definition I not only state that ethics, the ethos, is objective but I proved it and they are agreed on and always have been. Although, it is fascinating that Atheists will demand that I accept that morality and ethics are relative but then go on to condemn that which they decided to not like. You should also consider that looking up a word in a grammatical dictionary (only one at that) is getting in the way of you digging deeper into this issue. You should read the definition in texts about etymology, philosophy, etc.
Please prove your positive affirmation to possess knowledge that “desert nomads who made the character up.”
Also, it is as I pointed out: you claim moral superiority over the desert nomads but how do you define this morality and what makes you think that your personal version is superior? By stating that yours is superior you are implying a standard via which to judge.
I know that you are not reading my mind but you are replying as if you think that you can: call it what you will when you are caught. Lastly, I know not about those two Christians but I would wonder how they researched the issue: if they did at all. It is fascinating that one of them is an Atheist so that now he has no hopes of condemning slavery in absolute terms but can only say that they have personally decided to not like it: and may the fittest win.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.