Discussion with Atheist on morality vs. ethics, 5/9

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
Well, no, atheism pointed me to none of that. Atheism doesn’t say anything about slavery, morality, brain chemistry, etc. You clearly don’t even know what atheism is, yet you feel qualified to discuss these other things?
And no, you INSIST there is some objectivity to morals, on some level, but you don’t prove it. Because you don’t like everyone’s opinions to be on the same level. You want there to be some tangible sort of rightness to the universe. And there simply isn’t.
“Everyone agrees heroes should be praised and villains should be punished.”
That’s not true, and even if it was, that still doesn’t make it objective. Its just that everyone would share the same subjective opinion.
And your brand of theism says that your god came to the same conclusion about slavery (even though the bible says otherwise), also based on his own opinion, but that if a being lives long enough, that his opinion somehow graduates to objective fact. And at least I have chemicals that got me to my conclusion, your god doesn’t even have that much.

Ken Ammi
Atheism is your worldview. Yes, I insist there is objectivity on level “B” and I proved it within the video and subsequent discussions. What I like or do not like is irrelevant: people disagree on “A” but agree on “B.”
I offered commonsensical prima facie examples. Also, I never claimed “Everyone agrees heroes should be praised and villains should be punished” so you are misquoting me (to myself no less) but note that your reply is merely an authoritative “That’s not true” without any evidence or argumentation, you merely state it as an assertion.
Note that you simply ignored my recontamination of your view and opted for more taunting. You admit that there is nothing actually, really, in and of itself, objectively, absolutely, extrinsically wrong, bad, evil, etc. with slavery: that is what Atheism has done for you. All you can say is that you have personally decided to not like it and yes, you say that based on bio-chemical reactions.

dan barker, charles darwin, morality, ethics.jpg

eddy eldridge
“Atheism is your worldview.” Just like “not stamp collecting” is my hobby. Atheism is not a worldview. Your “not believing leprechauns exist” is not a worldview. So no, you still don’t know what atheism is.
“Yes, I insist there is objectivity on level “B” and I proved it within the video” No, you didn’t. You made the assertion its true. You provided a faulty example and claimed that example to be proof.
“people disagree on “A” but agree on “B.”” And there would be people out there who disagree on both A and B. And C and so fourth. And YOU ignored my point that them agreeing, on some level, doesn’t make it objective. If everyone on Earth agreed that they preferred chocolate over vanilla, that doesn’t make it objectively better. It simply means everyone agrees on a subjective point.
“Also, I never claimed “Everyone agrees heroes should be praised and villains should be punished” so you are misquoting me (to myself no less)” I was “paraphrasing.” Maybe you’re familiar with the concept.
“but note that your reply is merely an authoritative “That’s not true” without any evidence or argumentation, you merely state it as an assertion.” No, my reply was me throwing out YOUR assertion. You know, the one YOU presented without evidence? Because assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence? Feel free to leave a time stamp of where you actually presented evidence of morals being objective. Because I’ve gone through, multiple times. Didn’t find anything of the sort. So now I’m curious what you think “evidence” is.
“Note that you simply ignored my recontamination of your view and opted for more taunting.” No, I addressed it. Do you not see that “And” at the very beginning of the last paragraph? That was me agreeing with you. And is it taunting to just bring up facts? Or are you under the impression anything I said in that last paragraph was untrue?
“You admit that there is nothing actually, really, in and of itself, objectively, absolutely, extrinsically wrong, bad, evil, etc. with slavery” Yes, and yet you keep coming back to this. Constantly restating a portion of my stance doesn’t make it untrue. Anymore than claiming to have proved something actually counts as proving it.
“that is what Atheism has done for you.” No, because even when I believed in God I knew there was nothing objectively wrong with slavery. I thought it was wrong because I thought God thought it was wrong. Then I found out he was cool with it. Then I found out my opinion on the subject was different from his. Because I still thought it was wrong.
“All you can say is that you have personally decided to not like it and yes, you say that based on bio-chemical reactions.” You’re wasting both of our times by repeating this. Time you could spend actually proving YOUR point, rather than reestablishing how much you don’t like mine.
Been waiting weeks, now.

Ken Ammi
Well friend, since I already noted that “this is getting unmanageably verbose” then writing a lot more and attempting to cover various subjects at the same time is only making it worse. So, how about one issue?
If “Atheism is not a worldview” then you disagree with Dawkins and that brings us to the point of whence did you get the authority to define “Atheism” for all Atheists?
Now, I am willing to consider your denial so, if Atheism is not a worldview then simply tell me one single area in your thinking, about anything and everything (anthropology, philosophy, cosmogony, mathematics, etc.), where you make provision for an actually existing God.

eddy eldridge
I’ve never heard Dawkins refer to atheism as a worldview, but you seem okay with letting him define it for all other atheists. And I’m not the one defining it for everyone else. I’m correcting you, by giving you the textbook definition of the term.
If Dawkins did say that, its not that I’m merely disagreeing, he’s just wrong. We give words standard definitions for a reason. And atheism, by definition, is not a worldview.
And I’m not sure what you mean by “make provision for an actually existing God.”

Ken Ammi
Friend, this is a fascinating discussion and I thank you for continuing to engage me—even though my time is limited and I keep you hanging for about a week at a time. Now, I merely pointed out a simple fact: Dawkins published that statement in The God Delusion and you disagree—period. Now, the fact that you and another Atheist disagree proves that you cannot tell me that you are correcting me since there is no absolute but only personal opinions stated by various Atheists.
Moreover, you cannot expect me to accept that you were giving me “the textbook definition of the term” because 1) you do not bother citing this authoritative textbook and 2), for example, I can show you very many dictionary quotes and citations which affirm that Atheism is the affirmation of God’s non-existence which is a definition away from which many Atheists run.
However, if you say that Dawkins is “just wrong” you are making a mere assertion based on your self-appointed authority. Atheism, by definition, is a worldview. What I am asking in where, within your thinking about anything and everything, is there place, room, provision, for you to accept that there really and truly is an actually existing God.

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

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.