Discussion with Atheist on morality vs. ethics, 2/9

dan barker, charles darwin, morality, ethics.jpg

Continuing a 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.


Continuing a 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.

eddy eldridge
“If you have evidence you will become instantly rich and famous.” Well, you don’t understand how science works. Making a discovery about the universe doesn’t make you rich. Its not even guaranteed to make you famous, since the evidence you find is often discovered by you and your team, and is just another step in the direction we already knew we were going. Amazing scientific discoveries are made all the time, but the average person just doesn’t pay attention to the scientific community. Do you know how many people still think dinosaurs had scales and stars are flaming balls of gas?
Here is SOME proof of abiogenesis.
1. Abiogenesis a website summarizing the whole subject 2. R Shapiro. A simpler origin of life. Scientific American 296: 46-53, June 2007. 3. http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~pa…
4. Szostak’s lab http://www.hhmi.org/research/inv… 4. Computational from small polymers to bigger ones: BioTechniques – How Life Began
I don’t see the point in listing more, since I doubt you’ll even read this.
“As for slavery, citing a chapter elucidates nothing: have you read it?” Yes. It goes into rules about how to buy and treat the human beings that you own as property. Slaves.
“(plus, the English term “slave” is relatively new with regards to how they many scenarios are contextually understood).” The definition I use is “a human owned as property, by another.” That’s also the definition the bible uses. What other definition are you thinking of? Are you one of those Christians who think slavery is bad because the slaves are mistreated? That if they were cared for, slavery wouldn’t be a bad thing? Because I’ve talked with A LOT of Christians who argue that.
“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?”” Is not blindly following some sort of master such an alien concept to you? The idea that a person could not only come to a conclusion, but then act on it for some other reason than the love of sin or the fear of hell? Its my informed opinion that treating others how I’d like to be treated makes the world a better place.
“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.” Why is that fascinating? Its the logical conclusion. Person A has his morals, Person B has different morals, B conflicts with A, A opposes B.
“You should read the definition in texts about etymology, philosophy, etc.” Basically, use the definition YOU prefer, as opposed to the more widely accepted definitions.
“Please prove your positive affirmation to possess knowledge that “desert nomads who made the character up.”” You know it was written by nomadic Hebrews in the Middle East, a desert climate, yes? As for the made up bit? Various inconsistencies in the bible makes it pretty obvious they were making crap up. Unless you think its reasonable to accept your god can create a universe in a week, but is powerless to save his people from iron chariots.
“By stating that your is superior you are implying a standard via which to judge.” Yes. The standard of morals which I made for myself, and aligns with most of modern society, is superior to the morals established by those slave owning nomads because mine helps more people. Mine does the least overall harm. That’s why I deem it superior. The morals I have are superior to the morals your god allegedly made up. My morality is every bit as subjective as everyone else’s, including yours and your god’s. You may argue yours is somehow objective, but that doesn’t make it so. You’re just fighting for your own opinion just like everyone else. And I know how much Christians hate being told they’re not special.
“I know that you are not reading my mind but you are replying as if you think that you can” You make a habit of never reading words at face value and reinterpreting them to suit your own ends, don’t you?
“I would wonder how they researched the issue: if they did at all.” They read the bible. How else do you know the bible allows slavery unless you read it?
“It is fascinating that one of them is an Atheist” Former priest, too.
“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” The hell are you talking about? How has God condemned anything in absolute terms? He just decided what he personally doesn’t like and threatens people with eternal suffering if they don’t fall in line. Is that how he one condemns things in absolute terms? Threats? Again, if you disagree with ANYTHING in the bible, you’re following your subjective morality. If you don’t, you’re following God’s subjective morality.
“and may the fittest win.” Isn’t the main reason your god’s in charge because he’s the one with the biggest stick? You keep making these accusations of how atheists run things and your god’s doing pretty much the same damn thing. You just act like he’s not because that’s what Christians do: pull out the double standard for God.

dan barker, charles darwin, morality, ethics.jpg

Ken Ammi
Friend please do not waste our time being condescending: if you have evidence for abiogenesis then I guarantee that you will become instantly rich and famous. I will attempt to track down all of those sources but I have also already read into the subject and the only thing on which scientists agree is that there are many, many theories but no evidence.
So, if you read the chapter you will note that this is about issues such as indentured servitude, working off debt, being released from supposed “slavery,” being treated in the best possible manner when rending such service, etc. What mostly is meant by “slavery” to us moderners—basically kidnapping people who then work for no pay and are never released—is likened to the crime of murder in the Bible.
I see that you ignore the fact that you are merely asserting the word “emphathy” and are unable to back it up: why empathy and not enmity, why love your neighbor rather than eating your neighbor? Your worldview has no answers for that nor can it provide you a premise upon which to chose between them. Thus, you rely on your tentative interpretation of bio-chemical neural reactions to come to such subjective conclusions.
Now, authoritatively asserting that your view is based on what “makes the world a better place” merely moves the question back one notch so, “What is it about your worldview that demands that such a conclusion is imperative?” Also, you just proved my point about the ethos as you are, yet again, appealing to that upon which we can all agree: treating others how we would like to be treated.
Yes, it is a logical conclusion that Atheist demand that I accept that morality and ethics are relative but then go on to condemn that which they decided to not like but it is illogical for Atheists to do so. This time you proved my point about the mores.
If you do not realize that there are different sorts of definitions and that a vocabulary based grammatical definition is insufficient for a philosophical discussion, or theological discussion, etc. then you are simply mistaken. For example, your doctor has a medical dictionary for a reason and, believe me, you do not want her to treat you based on grammar.
Now, when you generically refer to “Various inconsistencies in the bible” you are appealing to and holding me to standards of logic but what is it about your worldview that demands that such a conclusion is imperative and upon what does your worldview premise logic? I am unsure what references to the universe has to do with chariots.
How do you know that your subjective morality helps more people and does less harm? Also, you are, yet again, merely authoritative asserting that helping more people and doing less harm is somehow superior but how and why? You see your worldview also allows you to authoritatively assert the exact opposite: in fact, many people who share your worldview have done just that. Why would I argue that my “morality” is objective when I argue that it is subjective? Why would I hate being told that I am not special? I know for a fact that I am not special.
Friend, your follow up point about your friends and slavery just prove that you are simply unaware of how to tackle such a complex issue, and you imply that your friend also had a mere surface level (mis)understanding of it.
“How has God condemned anything in absolute terms?” by going so. Conversely, you admit that you condemned thing in subjective, relative, tentative, intrinsic terms which means that your condemnations are impotent and essentially meaningless emotive expressions of bio-chemical reactions.
Now, what makes you think that, according to your own theology, God “just decided what he personally doesn’t like”? You seem to be typing out a lot of Atheist one liners and since they are so generic and vague I will leave them aside unless you can elucidate.
In short, you are demanding that you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong and yet, your worldview fails—fails to even get going—which is why you are left to only express emotions, which themselves are based on bio-chemical reactions occurring within the haphazardly evolved gray matter of an accidentally and temporarily existing bio organism.

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

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.