Discussion with Atheist on morality vs. ethics, 8/9

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
I’ve decided to help humanity by pointing out dangerously irrational behavior through the same chemical reactions you decided people have souls that require saving.
Just because you think you get our decision making ability comes from God and I know ours comes from chemicals, doesn’t mean mine comes from chemicals and yours from a god. We both came to different conclusions through the same medium.
Except my conclusion I’d based on verifiable, falsifiable reality, and yours is based on “I don’t like there not being a god, so there is one.”

Ken Ammi
Friend, I appreciate you engaging with me again (even though you are most certainly misrepresenting me). I am unsure how you are helping humanity by denying absolute ethics/ethos (as per my definitions) which opens the door wide open for dangerously irrational behavior—such as the world record Atheist’s body count in the 1900s AD. Also, you can see who is engaging in dangerously irrational behavior in the news every day: are you active in speaking out against that, against them, or are you of the sort that views Atheism as an anti-Christian support group? We all have different brain chemistry, we all have the same ethics/ethos so that proves that your worldview is faulty.

eddy eldridge
No, we clearly don’t all have the same ethics. if a guy is trying to kill himself, is it more ethical to stop him, or let him have control of when it’s his time to die? I’ve known atheists and theists, and neither side gives a uniform answer. That proves ethics are subjective. They’re all based on opinion.

Ken Ammi
I am afraid that you have missed everything that I have been saying about the fact of the difference between morals/mores and ethics/ethos. What your scenario proves is that I was right in my description of morality/the mores which is the level at which people disagree. So, pointing out that people disagree to someone who made the argument that people disagree is merely affirming my claim. In fact, the very reason people disagree is that there is the absolute ethic/ethos and they are just choosing to end up on different sides of how they apply it: as per the example of the statues wherein the argument is about who is a hero and who is a villain and is not that there is no such thing as heroism or villainy or that villainy is what is to be praised and heroism is what is to be condemned.

dan barker, charles darwin, morality, ethics.jpg

eddy eldridge
You also haven’t proven there are an absolute ethics. You just use a very vague, loose definition, and claim that there’s an absolute underlying ethos. Which, even if there was, could still be attained through purely biological processes.

Ken Ammi
I see that you hit upon a main issue with your Atheistic worldview which is also that you tie it into your evolutionary worldview: you turn a theory that is supposed to be about biology into a worldview so that it becomes a theory of everything which, actually, turns it into a theory about nothing.
Philip S. Skell made a point about how people claim that evolution “makes humans self-centered and aggressive — except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable…produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed — except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”
So, it appears that you are so sold on materialism, naturalism, physicalism, reductionism (all by any other name) by “faith,” of course, that no matter the evidence—and you seem to deny evidence because you find it inconvenient—you can always appeal to the “purely biological processes” of the gaps.
So, I provided various examples that prove that people agree on the ethical level and that, in fact, this is why they disagree on the moral level as if there was no underlying agreement on the deeper level it would simply not be an issue.
A similar example is that an Atheist will demand from me that I be truthful, logical and ethical even thought their worldview cannot account for truth, logic or ethics. They are appealing to an underlying reality even whilst engaging in cognitive dissonance since they are having to beg, borrow and steal from the Judeo-Christian worldview: the very worldview that they then seek to discredit.

eddy eldridge
+Ken Ammi And I see that your tactic is to try and turn atheism into something it’s not and beat it down as much as you can, because you can’t raise your own position up. Every single one of your responses is just berating and conflating atheism, and acting like your point is already am established fact before laying out a shred of evidence in favor for it. Its an attempt to dodge the burden of proof. That atheists don’t deserve evidence, because they’re little more than slime, but theists deserve all the evidence, because they’re basically demi gods, practically sitting on their god’s lap.

Ken Ammi
Friend, you appear to be experiencing the psychological phenomenon of transference. I view you and all Atheist as the 100% exact opposite of slime but view you as being made in God’s image. Ironically, your Atheistic worldview tells you that all of humanity is slime.
I generally discern when an Atheist sees or is close to seeing the reality of their worldview—which is that literally everything they ever do think or say is utterly meaningless—when they decide to vent in an emotive manner.

eddy eldridge
Right, except when we regard ourselves as being more than slime, you call us arrogant. Claiming we deny God so they we can be gods, ourselves. Ken Ammi on top of which, as you inadvertently admitted, that since your perception of the “atheist worldview” means that we must tho.k everything is meaningless, simply because YOU see no meaning in a godless universe, that either allows you a free pass on having to prove anything you claim, or an atheist has to admit to something that you can twist into them having proven your own point.

Ken Ammi
So then you have pointed out that your statement was hypocritical, very well then. But then again, your worldview provides you no premised upon which to condemn illogicality and/or unethicality such as hypocrisy. In fact, why do you hold me to standards of truth, logic and ethics when your worldview fails to even provide you the prerequisites upon which to establish such?
Now, if someone is arrogant then they are arrogant and if someone denies God so they can be gods themselves then someone denies God so they can be gods themselves—those are merely observations.
So overall I see quite clearly that you cannot support your worldview because your worldview is unsupportable, unlivable and offers you no explanation for yesterday, no reason for today and no hope for tomorrow and picking on me will not change that.

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

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.