Mr. Shizzle,

 With respect to your comment "This is one of the most irrational ideas in Christianity." Might I inquire: what specific criterion of rationality have you employed in order to arrive at such a conclusion?  Or is your assertion merely an assumption? With respect to your comment "The idea that people are punished for something a very distant ancestor did." It appears as though you are not sufficiently conversant in the orthoox doctrine of original sin, and I suspect completely unaware of the orthodox doctrine of original righteousness. With respect to your comment "Religious war is people killing each other over who has the best invisible friend." To what then do you attribute the systematic murder of countless millions in this century alone by atheistic ideologues such as Stalin, Hitler and Mao. Moreover, on an atheistic worldview how could one object to such systematic murder? Interesting....

Agustine  

Mr. Shizzle. With respect to your comment "Woop! Woop! Woop! Irrationality!" What specific criterion of rationality are you alluding to? With respect to your comment "Hitler was a Christian..." What! This is nothing more than historical romancing.... How does one arrive at such a position devoid of historical precedent? With respect to your comment "Mao and Stalin killed in the name of Communism, not Atheism." Collectivist ideologies are inherently atheistic. The individual is pronounced subordinate to the state, and thus the state is exalted to the status of deity. Were you not present during history and economics 101.

Agustine

You're saying that your only objection to murder comes from god(or the bible) saying it's wrong?

Where do you live?  I'd like to avoid that area if possible. 

You are commiting the "No True Scotsman" Fallacy - by defining a Christian too narrowly.

To Mr. Spewn. With respect to your comment, "As much as the crusaders of the 11th to 13th century did. We call them christians too." Interesting response…. I’m not entirely clear regarding the substance of your comment. The crusades were largely defensive actions. After the death of Mohammad in 632 - among his last words were instructions to “Push the infidels out of the Arabian Peninsula.” - and the subsequent fall of Jerusalem in 644, Muslim armies ventured out from Arabia and conquered the areas surrounding Jerusalem including Syria and Egypt, all of which were formerly Christian territories. They eventually conquered all of North Africa and Spain by the end of the eight century. They continued their forays into Christian territories from Spain well into the ninth and tenth centuries. During the eleventh century, a new Islamic people, the Turks, swept through Asia Minor. The Christian Emperor in Constantinople was left without options and in 1071 called upon the Pope to raise an army. Thomas Madden professor and chairman of the Department of History at Saint Louis University and author of The New Concise History of the Crusades, is widely regarded amongst historians as one of the foremost experts on the Crusades. According to Professor Madden, there were two central elements motivating the first crusade. 1. It was viewed as an act of Christian Charity, insofar as there was an enormous expense associated with forming an army and moving it thousands of miles away from their homeland, in addition to the great risk of loss of life associated with such an endeavour. The first crusaders took unto themselves a vow to liberate their Christian brothers from the control of the Muslim empires that conquered the former Christian territories while halting and thus reversing the Muslim aggressors. 2. Liberation of the Holy Land was a secondary concern, achievable only in the event they were successful at halting and so reversing the Muslim aggressors. According to Madden, most historians are in agreement that the Popes call for the first crusade had as its object the cessation of Muslim aggression in Asia Minor. Nevertheless my friend, it appears as though you have drawn a false analogy between Hitler’s purported Christianity, insofar as his reference to Christ is not a veiled reference to himself, and a strained attempt to cast the first crusaders in a negative light as aggressors, despite every historical detail in opposition to your thesis, and particularly in light of the great sacrifice and acts of charity performed by the first crusaders. A better grasp of history will contribute greatly toward avoiding such mistakes in the future.

Agustine

To Mr. Shizzle. With respect to your comment “Unfortunately, this part of your post essentially proves there are no Christians.” This appears to be merely an assumption, predicated upon, might I say, an underlying animus toward Christianity. Although there are many that profess Christ as Lord and Savior, scripture itself admonishes us regarding false professions, to wit: Luke 6:44 wherein the Lord said “Each tree is known by its own fruit…..,” 1 John 2:4 “Whoever says I know Him but does not keep His commandments is a liar…..,” 1 John 2:19 “They went out from us, but they were not of us…..” With respect to your comment “I can go to any secular group of Christianity…” A gathering of Christians would not be described as “secular”. The term “secular” is a derivative of the Latin “saeculum,” which when translated means “other worldly”. The term is used to describe a person, groups of person or activities and/or organizations that are devoid of religious content. With respect to your comment “and get a whole list of reasons why any person "isn't really Christian".” To actually label Adolf Hitler as a Christian strains the imagination, and yet the attributes of Biblical Christianity I described in my previous post are manifested quite well by scores of professing Christians who are truly known by their fruit. With respect to your comment “Compile these reasons together, and they will cover every person alive.” Good point, you have just affirmed the Christian doctrine of Total Depravity. Well done my friend! With respect to your comment “If that's the case, I'd accuse you of wishful thinking.” Accusations aside, even the most inveterate atheist with a cursory grasp of history would not put forth the argument that you have attempted to advance concerning Hitler. I have been subject to certain lines of argumentation whereby Hitler has been characterized as an antichrist. I suspect such a charge would be more fitting and thus entirely consonant with the cannon of historical investigation.

God bless…..

Agustine 

First of all, I stopped reading Augustine's remarks when he appealed to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.  Because none of those murders were religious in nature.  Hitler, of course, did believe he was serving God by eradicating Jews and that made his murders all the more reprehensible.

We are not being punished for the act of actually eating the apple.  The story of the Garden and original sin are spiritual stories as much as they are literal history.  Eating the apple gave us the knowledge of good and evil; it awakened us to the potential of our free wills.  Unfortunately, God's judgement was that we would then face death.  The wage of sin is death. We inherit the nature to commit sin from our ancestors.  We will then sin as the opportunities arise.  I know I do!

This is why the plan of salvation is necessary. We cannot be justified by a set of rules or laws because of our self-serving natures.  We will violate the laws; it is just of question of when for what purpose.  Christ bore the punishment for us, provided we believe this and that God raised Him from the dead, then we will never have to suffer the fires of hell.

Hell, by the way, to me is a place of eternal mental and emotional anguish.  Constant boredom, constant despair, and continuously feeling "left out" of something greater than you could have ever imagined.  This is not a place I would wish on anyone, which is why I endeavor to evangelize and preach the Good News. 

It was due to them being dictators and their version of communism, NOT ATHEISM! Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam Hussein all had mustaches - does that make mustaches evil? It's called false cause.

Mr. Shizzle. With respect to your comment "It was due to them being dictators and their version of communism, NOT ATHEISM!" I think you are incorrect. Communism is one amongst varying economic modalities thus termed Collectivism. Expressed in strict economic terms, Collectivism is the government’s exertion of control over the means of production, distribution and supply. However, extending it tenets into the social strata, Collectivism is a socio-political worldview whereby the individual is pronounced subordinate to the collective, or within the broad political context, subordinate to the state. The underlying premise of Collectivism and accordingly its hybrid forms such as Socialism and Communism is the egalitarian ethic, or more modestly, the equality of condition and result. The central thesis of collectivism in general, and Socialism and Communism in particular, is founded upon the dialectic. For example, not the employer or the employee, synthesize the two and produce a classless society, a veritable utopia.      This is achieved by eliminating social distinctions predicated upon either wealth or class; however the two are most often viewed as correlative. In order to implement the pure Collectivist program, the dispersal of power common to democratic societies such as ours must be reversed. That is, the legislative, executive and judicial powers must be consolidated in either one person or one political organ of the state. Any restraint placed upon the state’s unilateral exercise of power either explicit or implicit such as those found in our constitution must be eliminated. All exertions of the collective and the individuals that compose it must be directed toward advancing the interests of the state. This is usually accompanied by a strong inducement of Nationalist expressions. Nationalism is the cohesive fabric of the collectivist state. Any dissent is viewed as individualism, which is inherently antithetical to the advancement of the collective interests. Accordingly, dissent cannot be tolerated. Individual rights cannot be allowed insofar as they would constitute restraints upon the power of the state to act unilaterally and therefore achieve its goals. Most often, pure Collectivism leads to Socialism but most often Communism, whereby the last vestiges of individualism are stripped from the collective through the nationalizing of all private property. Here the collectivist program is fully realized whereby individuals are thus transformed into mere microcosms of the state. Now, I have two questions for you: 1. What specific worldview contains the requisite moral construct, or lack thereof, that permits the implementation of the collectivist program and all of its attendant implications such as the stripping of its citizen’s individuality from themselves, the seizing of private property, and the overall elimination of the soul’s right to breath, to wit: freedom? 2. Other than Communism, what underlying worldview did Lenin, Stalin and Mao have in common?

Agustine

To Mr. deludedgod. I do so apologize however I forgot to inquire about the following comment “EXCUSE ME??? There was to be sure a mixture of both at Wannsee.” A mixture of both? I’m not certain I understand your assertion. Are you suggesting that there were both Philosophers and Scientists present at Wannsee for Hitler’s declaration? What is the point of your comment? If I am correct in my assumption, whether philosophers or scientists were present is irrelevant. The point of relevance is the nihilism they espoused, which is entirely consonant with and dependent upon atheism. Thank you Mr. Neitze…

Agustine

No, what I meant was that there were both theists and atheists and Wannsee. The Nazi party stance on religion was somewhat enigmatic. Considering what Hitler had done at Concordat in 1934 (lied to the Pope and convinced him to dissolve the Catholic political party) I think it was fair to call him a backstabbing traitor. The Nazis were oddballs on religion. It is clear they regarded it as useful suppression yet they could not always control when it spoke out against the Nazis (like the T4 program for example) because it was so popular.

But such a proposal is inherently meaningless, just like it doesn't matter that every soldier in the Wehrmacht and the SS that ran the concentration camps had Gott Min uns on their belt buckles.

Furthermore, you must not have read my essay, which does in fact deal with your questions: here is a snippet:

Furthermore, on what basis does a theist state that God is necessary for morality? The typical argument is that absolutism and malum in se are meaningless without God. But is absolutism genuinely a desirable state of affairs? (The rhetorical question is employed because a theist who makes that argument is imlicitly stating that absolutism is desirable. No, actually, they would be calling it necessary. The question was set up to demolish the presupposition.) It seems to me that “you cannot be moral without God” is the same as saying “I get my morality from four gospels and a collection of letters written by Paul to various groups of people 2000 years ago, collated by a savage ancient culture”. Richard Dawkin’s objection was similar: Does a theist genuinely believe that the only reason he/she is moral is fear of God? Is it really true that faith in God’s existence and law is the thin shield which stops such a theist from acting immorally? If such is the case, I do not wish to be anywhere near the person who would claim so.

In fact, it would seem to me that such a claim about morality would validate a standard atheist objection that religion is inherently fear-based. This is also validated by another, rather strange and similar religious objection: “If one does not believe in judgement after death, on what basis does one live a moral life, what is the purpose in doing so?” This typical argument from despair against metaphysical naturalism is another argumentum ad consequentiam which is hopelessly naïve. It is simply a way of saying “I am so unable to think for myself that I need the fear of judgement to restrain my baser urge to act in an immoral way”. So, we return to the point made two paragraphs ago: On what basis do religious adherents claim absolutism is a good thing? On what basis do they claim fear-based morality is a requisite for a moral life?

Indeed, there is no evidence to suggest that theists are any more moral than atheists. This claim is just like every claim in theism: There is no evidence. Witness the wine and attractive women that flowed mysteriously into monastaries in England and the 50 billion dollars the Vatican sucked from it's starving constituents and I think it is fair to say that the pious, who are the only ones arrogant enough to claim moral high ground, are hardly so.

Ah, a theist might say. But these were not true Christians. Please. The no true scotsman fallacy is ridiculous. The very fact that so many people have completely different interpretations of the same book of fables and all of them believe in Jesus Christ and God means that there really is no such thing as a true Christian. It is merely a projection of the underlying character of the Christian hence the litmus test analogy. The preists who strapped innocents into chains and ripped off their limbs were true Christians. They believed in Jesus Christ, they believed they were doing the work of God.

Of course, such a term as morality is rather difficult to quantify, but if we look at history, the Spanish Inquisition and the Witch hunts alongside Stalin’s purges and Mao’s Great Leap Forward, I would say that atheists and theists both have their fair share of things to atone for.

An extension of such a line of thought is Albert Camus’ question: Why don’t we all commit suicide? This seems to me an offshoot of the argument from despair. It is a testimony to human arrogance that we can create ridiculously over-inflated teleological significance for our own existence to comfort ourselves. Indeed, this would seem to be an entirely human phenomenon as we are the only creatures capable of philosophizing. After all, no other animal has higher cognition therefore no other animal operates under the delusion that their life has teleological meaning. We do not see morose little bunnies hurling themselves off cliffs. If one requires the notion that their life has teleological significance attached to it to prevent oneself from suicide, it would seem that we are quite a sorry species.

and another snippet:

If someone cherry-picks their scripture, choosing the pieces they like and ignoring the parts they find unpalatable, what right do they have to criticize atheists for lack of absolutist morality? Indeed, it begs another question. They (theists) must have another source of morality which guides them to select only scripture which does not command them to bludgeon their children with heavy stones. What this means is that religion is merely a litmus test for someone’s morality. If you are immoral and believe it is right to kill people by flying a plane into a building, well, your Holy Book can certainly iterate that for you, as evidenced by the nineteen men who did just that. If you are moral and believe in love and compassion, then if you scour enough, you can find that too. So, that means that there must be an external source of morality that guides someone to decide which passages are right, and which are not.

To this, a common theologian’s response is the phenomenon of allegory. These terrible passages should not be interpreted as calls to violence. Rather they are just nasty stories which should not be taken as literal tenets. Indeed, nearly every theologian today takes allegorical reading of the nasty stories of the ancient texts.

But this argument cannot coincide with the argument that scripture is the basis of one’s morality. Firstly, allegory for violence is a modern phenomenon. As evidenced by the ghastly atrocities committed by the cross-bearers and followers of Muhammad throughout the pre-Enlightenment era, a literal interpretation of violence was indeed utilized for over one and a half millennia. What actually used to happen was that the nice passages were ignored. Indeed, there are still people who adhere to such Orthodox literal readings, such as Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church. The idea of interpreting the worst of the Bible metaphorically has only been around since the Romantic era.

This in itself completely defeats the notion of morality from scripture. When society is violent, the interpretation of scripture is violent. When society is complacent, people fall for sappy Romantic-era insistence of theologians that the Bible doesn’t really warrant you to kill people, when in fact it does. Now matter how someone tries to construe it, absolutist morality from a Holy Book is a logical contradiction. Everyone’s interpretation is different. Don’t think so? Check how many distinct denominations of Christianity exist today. Those lunatics holding up signs saying Thank God for AIDS are just as much Christians as the run-of-the-mill peaceful churchgoer.

Ironically, any theist who says a violent Inquisition preist is not a true Christian is merely defeating his own argument by admitting that religion is subject to the forces of social and moral change which of course, is caused by secularism. The passages that people follow and interpret would merely reflect a litmus test of society as a whole. Since it is so open to interpretation because it doesn't really have any absolute message, the theists adovocation of absolutist morality from the Bible collapses on itself.

It is secular influence that has morphed religion into a passive stance. moral progress almost never goes hand in hand with religion. I choose my words carefully here. Obviously religious people can make great contributions to moral progress, like Martin Luther King, but it does not require a history degree to realize that if Europe was still a theocracy, genial old scholars would still be burned alive for blaspheming the Bible (this, in fact, is exactly what is happening in Islamic nations, except, of course, with the Qur’an). In fact, “justice” only ceased to be a misnomer when the British secularized judiciary in the 19^th century.

On how religion steals from secular morality, the argument I always use is the comparison of Islam and Christianty.

When Islam was at the height of it's empire, Christianity had sunk. Europe was a miserable ignorant cesspool. They were so evil and theocratic that when the Islamic armies stormed Barcelona, the Jewish inhabitants begged them to liberate them from the ghastly horrors of Christendom. Now, Islam was not much better but it certianly flourished! It brought the literacy, mathematics and astronomy back to Europe to later rekindle the Enlightenment. What made it successful? It was much more secular than Europe. The Islamic empire needed talent. It didn't care if the talent was Jewish, or Asiatic or from anywhere across the Fertile Crescent. It was not bound under the iron grip of the Quran just yet.

Of course, the Islamic empire collapsed and Christianity surged through to the Enlightenment, benefiting off the knowledge the Arabs had brought to Spain. It was only when science tore free from being a branch of theology (Enlightenment) that it took off. The success of the West was it's secularization. The reason that it had such moral progress was secularization. The reason we don't behead unbelievers or ship slaves from the Canary Islands. You think it is faith that led such a revolution?

Now let's look at what happened to Islam. With the collapse of the empire, the secular intellectual tradition vanished. Islam turned inwards and embraced fundamentalism. The black pearl of religious intolerance has passed to Islam. It is the only religion still in existence where proselytizing, religious debate, atheism, Judaism, apostasy, blasphemy, homosexuality, premarital sex and adultery are still punishable under the criminal code. Far worse, all of the above-mentioned offences carry the death penalty.

When religion is running the morality show, you can be guaranteed that the results are not going to be good. Here is formula I use:

Religion + Secular influence = diluted influence = good

Religion - secular influence = dogmatism = theocracy = bad

When societies are subject to religious revisionism (the 1979 Revolution of Iran), the results are grave.

 The salient points and conclusion are as follows:

-It is inherently ridiculous to state God as a requisite for morality because if you need a requisite for morality, you are not inherently moral, merely a suck up

-Furthermore, there is no evidence from history to state that theists are more moral than atheists

-The first argument is little more than an offshoot of Camus' argument from despair, which would seem to imply that humans require teleological significance because they are so self-centered that they cannot give meaning to their own life. At any rate, any theist claims that life is "pointless" is inherently ridiculous in and of itself because no one claimed that teleological "point" to life was a requisite for life and morality.

I would say that any theist who would make such a claim about morality is nailing their own coffin. They are implicitly stating that

a) Fear-based absolutist dogma is necessary

b) They are only moral out of fear

Which means they are not moral which in fact would mean the argument can be turned on it's head to state that atheists are actually more moral.

And thus validate every atheist objection about religion! It's absolutist nature, it's dogmatic rigidity and the fear. History has taught us that absolutism in social codes in a terrible force. Any theist who thinks that absolutist religious codes are necessary for morality should look up the human rights records of Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.

I think the single most important sentence out of that is: -It is inherently ridiculous to state God as a requisite for morality because if you need a requisite for morality, you are not inherently moral, merely a suck up.

I think this deals with your insistence of absolutism and lack of source of morality quite well.

Now If you wish to read on where atheists get their morality from, you will have to read the whole essay.

No, he's correct. Their atheism was merely incidental. The motives for Stalin were Stalinism. The motives for Mao were, Maoism. 

The real danger here is there unwavering, dogmatic adherence to ideology - which is a  problem shared by religion.

You're claim therefore commits the fallacy of 'accident'... you've confused an incidental element for a causal one.

Any worldview that inculcates dogmatic adherence to ideology.

There is nothing within 'atheism', a lack of belief in theism, that has anything to do with this.

However, religion does inculcated dogmatic thinking.

Probably many..... They also wore pants, and wore underware. Do you seek to implicate wearing pants too?

You're commiting a basic blunder here... And you're compounding it with an irony: religion inculcates blind allegience to ideology just like Stalinism and Maoism do.... whereas Atheism is simply a lack of belief in the exceptionally poor logic found in theism....

To Mr. todangst. Please excuse me for my brief hiatus; however, the demands of business are unavoidable. Nevertheless, how interesting it is that what I would otherwise consider to be a mundane dialogue has in effect been so ennobled by the participation of a titled participant, and such a lofty title at that. I applaud your discriminating eye sir, well done! However, I must say sir, you greatly err. Atheism is not incidental to Stalinism or any other form of collectivism, it is foundational. Turning now to the substance of the matter, and in the interest of brevity, I find it difficult to envision how you along with Mr. Shizzle cannot recognize the most evident extension of atheistic principles into a coherent political framework, to wit: Stalinism, Leninism, Maoism, or any other variant of collectivism. I find your indifference on this point confounding to the sensibilities. My argument was in point of fact predicated upon the relationships that obtain between the atheistic worldview and its logical outworking. Now, a worldview, in a very broad and general sense, is the total set of beliefs a person holds or, in an effort to be sensitive to my atheist friends, a human animal holds, and the relations among those beliefs. The range of beliefs encompassed within a coherent worldview contain in-part the following subject matter:

1. Beliefs about “Origins”

2. Beliefs about “Meaning”

3. Beliefs about “Morality”

4. Beliefs about “Destiny”

Now, atheism has come to embody an episteme or conceptualization of knowledge and justified true belief consisting, again in a very broad and general sense, of the following threefold concepts:

1. Hard Empiricism, or the belief that all knowledge is exhausted by sense perception; and,

2. Scientism, or the belief that scientific knowledge exhausts what can be known; and,

3. Evolutionism understood as the Dawkinian blind watchmaker thesis, whereas our etiology is explained exhaustively by the atomic theory of matter and biological evolution.

In light of the epistemic context I have illustrated, I submit to you sir that it is entirely rational within an atheistic worldview to affirm a political ideology such as Stalinism or any other form of collectivism whereby the person or animal is viewed as nothing more than matter rearranged in a more complex form, by a process consisting of time + chance + primordial slime. Operating within the political sphere of the collectivist in general and thus the Stalinist in particular, it is quite rational upon atheistic principles to affirm a concept of man and his relationship to the state as one characterized most agreeable to “subordinationism,” wherein the person is pronounced subordinate to the state, thus stripping him of any sense of individuality and/or personhood. There is no rational basis for ascribing personhood to the human animal. He is merely another animal, largely the product of a cosmic accident, coming from nothing and going nowhere, and within the collectivist political context he is reduced to a mere microcosm of the state. The state is therefore free to act unilaterally in all things and thus define for itself the relevant sphere of good and evil. On this basis Stalin’s decision to murder is no different than deciding whether to have a tuna fish sandwich or a bowl of spaghetti for lunch. I do so apologize for the short answer but I am pressed for time….

God Bless

Agustine

.

To deludedgod. Well sir, it appears that you have clearly enough misunderstood my argument. My argument is one predicated upon logical coherence. I have argued that such atrocities are entirely consonant with the logical outworking of an atheist worldview. I have not argued that every outworking of atheism produces such a result. What I am interested in is the degree to which such atrocities cohere with an atheistic worldview. For example, one could not provide a logical foundation for Stalinism based upon Christian teaching. The sacrificial love exhibited by Christ is entirely antithetical to the relations that obtain between man and the state within a Stalinist political framework. Take for instance your claim that moral absolutes do not exist, quote “Right and wrong are fully subjective.” You have just affirmed my point. Operating upon atheistic foundations and thus extending those principles into his political ideology, Stalin thought that murdering millions in order to advance the interests of the state was not only permissible, but favorable, insofar as such exertions are indicative of the ends sought to be accomplished by a collectivist state. Thank you for the assistance.

What I find troubling is your characterization of the Abrahamic faith and their central tenet which is the belief in a “….ruthless, judging God.” Within an atheistic worldview how can one rationally make such judgments, moreover any judgments at all? insofar as to affirm such a judgment requires a way to differentiate between ruthlessness and non-ruthlessness. Yet this is what you are trying to disprove and not prove. It appears to me that from your own moral construct your characterization cannot be objectively supported. What I find more interesting is your comment “not to mention your utter failure to dictate that Origin belief has no bearing on morality because everyone acknowledges that by the creation of society, humans have fully departed from their evolutionary origins.” I think C.S. Lewis said it the best. When a ship sets out to sea it must answer three questions:

1. What it is doing out there in the first place?
2. How to keep from sinking?
3. How to keep from bumping into other ships?

The first question answers essential ethics, the second question answers individual ethics and the third question answers social ethics. Yet if one does not know why he is out there in the first place the other two questions are meaningless. Why? Because the answer to the first question provides the foundation for all ethics. If I am just the product of a cosmic accident, devoid of any value or meaning, then the comment made by the atheist philosopher Jean Paul Sartre in a moment of his reflective consciousness or “Nausea” is absolutely true, that in the end it does not matter whether you help the old lady across the street or run her over with your car, it really does not matter. I think he understood quite well the entailments of asserting atheism. Whether you have a society founded by humanism, which I find absolutely absurd, or a Stalinist society, within an atheistic worldview it really does not matter. In fact there really isn’t any point to asserting atheism insofar as a point presupposes value. Yet, within an atheistic construct value does not exist in the objective sense.

God Bless

Agustine

To the most gracious Mr. deludedgod. At your behest I have undertaken a perusal of the post you unremittingly tout as, inter alia, a comprehensive refutation of my arguments. However, a well studied examination yields the opposite of the intended effect. It merely affirms the substance of my position. For example, with respect to your comment “But is absolutism genuinely a desirable state of affairs?” I was under the impression that in positing God as the locus of moral values I was arguing for a moral ontology. Nevertheless, from the preceding quotation it appears as though ontological investigation from at least your perspective ought to include such fleeting notions as human desires. You follow with a rationale for positing the rhetorical question that contains a patently false statement, to wit: “The rhetorical question is employed because a theist who makes that argument is implicitly stating that absolutism is desirable.” No sir, this is entirely presumptuous, and to my knowledge neither I nor any other theist has ever grounded arguments in support of a moral ontology in the desires of men.

Operating within the sphere of “desire” as the prime motivator that you find so appealing, the ontological question is motivated by a visceral desire for logical coherence. Outside of a transcendent foundation, there is no common point of reference for the unconditional ought. If man is thus the locus of moral values, they cannot by definition be objective. If a moral ontology exists such that the values they embody are objective, a transcendent foundation is in point of actual fact metaphysically necessary. You then proceed to make the following assertion “It seems to me that “you cannot be moral without God” Sir, please identify where in this thread have I argued that an individual cannot lead a moral life unless that person were a theist. I submit to you sir, I have not employed such an argument, nor would I ever embark upon such a faulty course of argumentation. Moreover, I have explicitly argued to the contrary, to wit: “I would absolutely agree that such a proposition as “One cannot be moral unless they were a theist.” is inherently fallacious.” see Agustine, post 14, responding to your comment “As to point two, this is merely a rephrasing of the ridiculous "how can you be moral without God fallacy, which is answered by my essay on this forum "Morality without God". Also, scripture is quite clear that God has endowed men with a moral sense insofar as man is created in the image of God. Genesis 1:26, 27; 5:1; 9:6; Romans 2:15; 1 Cor. 11:7 The forgoing proposition affirms in substance that an individual can lead a moral life to the best of his ability apart from God yet it preserves in substance the proposition that God is the locus of objective moral values. An interesting aside however, within scripture the Lord does in point of fact draw a marked distinction between “that which is highly esteemed among men” being in most cases an “abomination in the sight of God”. Luke 16:15

You then provide a riposte of sorts to the assertion in what appears to me to be an attempt to clarify a most substantively fallacious argument, to wit: “is the same as saying “I get my morality from four gospels and a collection of letters written by Paul to various groups of people 2000 years ago, collated by a savage ancient culture.” A few points…. First, your comments betray a distinctive strand of argumentation known to the theist as a variant of the common atheistic prejudicial conjecture, or the “seems likely” argument. Here you have placed particular emphasis upon the antiquity of the Judeo/Christian scriptures and thus prejudging them on that basis it “seems likely” that they are irrelevant, the very product of a “savage ancient culture”. The propriety of drawing such an inference from the antiquity of a document without considering its substance is on its face spurious. Second, the underlying premise of your comment confirms my overall suspicions. You have blurred the most critical distinction between moral epistemology and moral ontology, thus confusing the question regarding how we come to know moral values with whether they are real. Our gradual, fallible apprehension of objective moral values in no way undermines their reality. This is an elementary example of the genetic fallacy. One cannot simply explain away the reality of something on the basis of how we come to know it, or the degree to which anyone even agrees with it. Knowledge of something or one’s assent to the validity of something has never been tests for truth. In the end, your argument here appears to take on the very character of a strawman. Third, in your condemnation of the culture that produced the vilified writings, you invoke a moral law in the very condemnation as “savage”. This appears to be to be the most, might I use the descriptive “irrational,” aspect of your argument. Why? Because in order for you to shoulder the burden of proof requisite for such a condemnation, it require a way to distinguish between “savage” and “non-savage”. Yet this way as you have described it in your previous post as ontologically “subjective” militates against your argument. You may think they were savage but your opinion does not carry with it the weight of objectivity. It is merely ephemeral.

You then proceed to cite that most inveterate of atheists Richard Dawkins, quote “Richard Dawkin’s objection was similar: Does a theist genuinely believe that the only reason he/she is moral is fear of God?” Interestingly enough, the Lord Christ answered that question two thousand years ago. Jesus said to the disciples, “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” John 13:34-35, He then proceeded to explain to the disciples that the very the foundation of obedience rests not upon fear but upon love, to wit: “If you love me you will keep my commandments.” John 14:15; Jesus then said shortly thereafter “Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves Me will be loved by my Father, and I will love Him and manifest myself to him.” John 14:21 He then followed with “If anyone loves Me, he will keep my word, and My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.” John 14:23 Accordingly, it appears as though Mr. Dawkins, insofar as his comments pertain to Christianity, is patently incorrect. The primary source documents affirm the proposition that obedience is not predicated upon fear but upon love.

You thereafter continue to proverbially “beat the dead horse” with your comment “In fact, it would seem to me that such a claim about morality would validate a standard atheist objection that religion is inherently fear-based.” Nevertheless, as it pertains to Christianity we have effectively dispensed with the notion of a “fear-based” obedience. However, your comment does raise an interesting question, why should anyone pursue a moral and/or ethical life? On an atheistic worldview I don’t think there is any good reasons for affirming the unconditional ought or duty. For morality to be truly objective, it must be universal and binding upon all of humanity whether the individual accepts it or not. I cannot identify any good grounds within the atheistic worldview for binding and thus rendering universal the unconditional ought, or notion of duty.

Moving now to your summation, quote “In fact, it would seem to me that such a claim about morality would validate a standard atheist objection that religion is inherently fear-based. This is also validated by another, rather strange and similar religious objection: “If one does not believe in judgment after death, on what basis does one live a moral life, what is the purpose in doing so?” This typical argument from despair against metaphysical naturalism is another argumentum ad consequentiam, which is hopelessly naïve. It is simply a way of saying “I am so unable to think for myself that I need the fear of judgment to restrain my baser urge to act in an immoral way”. So, we return to the point made two paragraphs ago: On what basis do religious adherents claim absolutism is a good thing? On what basis do they claim fear-based morality is a requisite for a moral life?” A few points…. Christians do not fear the judgment of God upon our sins; our sins were judged upon the cross. “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” Romans 8:1 This is the substance of the Gospel, the certainty of salvation by the merits of Christ. “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” II Cor. 5:21 Herein lies the critical distinction between the Gospel and world religions, and thus underscores the uniqueness of the Gospel revelation. Religion is man’s attempt to work himself into God’s favor by being perfect. The Gospel is God condescending to cloak Himself in human flesh and become perfection for us. Second, this poor horse is dead, why continue to do him harm? Neither I nor any other theist I know have appealed to emotivism in an effort to sustain a moral ontology the logical outworking of which are unconditional. I reject metaphysical naturalism because it does not provide any good grounds for positing an objective moral ontology.

Your comment “Indeed, there is no evidence to suggest that theists are any more moral than atheists. “ From the Christian perspective I don’t think your point carries with it any validity. Appealing again to the primary source documents, “The heart of a man is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it.” Jeremiah 17:9; “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.” Psalm 51:1; “If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us….If we say we have not sinned we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.” 1 John 1:8-10 “For there is none righteousness, no not one. No one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside…..no one does good, not even one.” Romans 3:11-12; “For there is no distinction, all have sinned and all have fallen short of the glory of God.” Roman 3:23 Christians are the only people that regularly gather together to affirm and thus declare the fact that they are miserable sinners and require a savior. The Puritan theologian Thomas Manton once said “God only had one son without sin, but none without a cross.” Another once said, “….the ground at the foot of the cross is level.” We all come before God as miserable sinners.

I would suggest you spend some time in the primary source documents in order to better acquaint yourself with the substance of what you have already judged to be irrational.

God Bless

Agustine

Blaming atheism for the atrocities of Stalin/Mao is the logical equivalent of giving credit to primitive tribesmen banging on drums for making an eclipse end.

To Mr. todangst. I would expect a far more cogent argument from one who purports to be included among those who fancy themselves as the paragon of rationality. Nevertheless, your thinly veiled attempt to avoid the substance of the argument from coherence by invoking causality and/or causal error is at best sophomoric. I have never argued that atheism causes Stalinism. My argument is best represented by the following question: does atheism cohere logically with Stalinism? The answer is a resounding yes. My argument is structured along the lines of logical coherence. I have never alluded to causality. There is an observable distinction made amongst intellegent men between causality and coherence. This is not rocket science my friend……

God Bless

Agustine

Christianity even more so coheres with Fascism. By the way, you are starting to border on trolling.

Flying Spaghetti Monster touch you with his noodly appendage

MattShizzle

Well lets see: the whole idea of obeying a dictator without question, believing things without evidence, the death penalty for trivial offenses, the fact that fascism is extreme right wing which is invariably Christian, etc.

OK. Now you are definitely a troll. Buh-bye now!

To Mr. deludegod. With respect to your comment "The argument from morality from theists is divided into two parts: The argument from value and the argument from scripture." Incorrect sir... Try again...

Agustine  

To Mr. deludedgod. I am at a complete loss sir.... I have never argued that the absence of a revelatory volume renders one immoral. I have explicitly argued the opposite, and then repeated it. Please sir, I think we may be at an impasse, insofar as I am concerned with a moral ontology and thus less concerned about how we come to know moral absolutes. I am not aware of any theist of good repute that has made the argument you have posited.

God Bless

 Agustine