The problem of morality can be synopsized in the following question; In what way does moral goodness and moral evil manifest in actions?

In answering the question, it is perhaps more important to understand just what moral goodness and evil is.  Loosely defined, "Moral goodness" is that which renders praiseworthiness for one's volition and "moral evil" is that which renders blameworthiness for one's volition.  Yet such definitions are unsatisfactory insofar that it only points to an unknown THAT which renders praiseworthiness and blameworthiness for our individual choices.  Plus, one may choose to focus on certain ambiguities bound up with "praiseworthiness" since, for example, we would praise a football coach who made good play decision though we would be hard pressed to say that what he did was morally correct.  There thus may not be any clear definition of the aforementioned terms.

Yet we experience this every day.  If a child steals another child's crayons, we typically explain to the child that his actions were bad.  If a man drives his car all over someone else's lawn, we reprimand him for ruining another person's property.  It's something so common to the everyday status quo, and yet so many people have a difficult time accounting for it.  What is this mysterious thing in our actions that we deem good or evil?

 An article about theism claims that the earth is in the perfect
distance from the sun, and that a bit farther, we will all freeze, and
a bit closer, we will all burn up.

What would an atheist say about this?

Atheist: If God exists, why does he allow evil to happen?

Theist: Why shouldn't He?

A: He is supposed to be an eternally loving God isn't he?  Why would he allow innocent people to suffer?

T: Due to original sin, we live in a fallen creation.  God created people in His image.  In order to do that, he had to allow mankind to have a will.  But by logical necessity, man could not be perfect, otherwise, man would be identical to God himself.  Therefore, mankind had the capacity to fall short of God's glory and choose to go against Him.  Mankind chose to do that and introduced evil into the world.  Today, we are part of a species that has an inherent propensity to disobey God.

A: But if God created us, and God is all-knowing, he would have known that we were going to disobey him.  Why would he allow original sin to happen if he is such a good God?

T: God created a universe that was distinct from Him.  By logical necessity, it must be imperfect or it would be identical to God himself.  It is not reasonable to ask a theist what God's motives are, as we cannot guess God's motives anymore than we can objectively judge the motives of any other person.  But even without original sin, the world is imperfect.

A: The world is imperfect, but it could still do without things like the Holocaust, or the Fall, earthquakes, floods, etc.  Why would an all-loving God not intervene on such things?

What do you make of it? I currently find myself embroiled in debate with nominal Atheists seemingly spouting the most convoluted Pro-Life apologetics! http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php?topic=8103.0

Regarding: http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html?gclid=CNvmlcO88Z4CFchn5QodXykvKA  from the banner add reading: "Is there a God? Click to find six reasons God exists"

Hey everybody, I am pretty much new to the forum and I have tried to show some theistic friends of mine this site. They in turn showed my icr.org, a creationist site that presents scientific evidence for creation. It seems pretty legit, but I'm not as educated as many of you and can't debate any of their claims on the scientific level I know many of you can. I would appreciate if you checked out the site and presented some arguments to things such as "Where Did Apple Trees Come From?" and "New Dinosaur Causes New Confusion" - or any other topic that piques your interests!

PS - I do hope i posted this on the proper forum. If not, holler at me, delete this and start a new one, or whatever is necessary.

It usually goes like this:

Atheist: The God of the OT is evil.

Theist: How so?

A: He kills babies, encourages slavery, and punishes people for not worshipping him.

T: Ok.  He kills babies.  So?

A: You don't see a problem with that?!

T: It depends on the situation.  All babies have a fallen nature and are under God's righteous condemnation.  We all deserve death, according to God's law.

A: Babies deserve death?  They haven't done anything.

T:  It doesn't matter.  It is in their nature to break God's law.  God has a lawful right to kill any baby that He wants.

A:  That's sick.

T: Just because you don't like it does not mean it is wrong.  God is eternally holy and righteous.  When we sin, it is eternally against Him and warrants an eternal punishment.  To have a sinful nature is to be inherently against Him.  But God is also merciful, and he may have very well allowed the babies into Heaven, which would mean that he did not punish them at all.  Neither you nor I know either way.

A: God allows slavery.

T: So?

A: Slavery is wrong.

T: Why?

A: It devalues people.

T: I'm glad that you concede people have value.  But okay, God allows slavery.  Do you have a point?

A: God can't be good if he allows slavery.

T: Just because he allowed it does not mean he liked it. 

a request for witness, evangelizing, preaching or conversion? 

One of my pet peeves about it, is the theists saying "well, you just need to witness a good miracle".

To me, it's like telling a lesbian that she just hasn't met the right guy yet.

I've seen things I can't explain directly.  I'm ok with that.  Sometimes weird shit happens.  Just because I don't know or understand how it happened doesn't make a god involved. 

Comments to my blasphemy challenge have been very amusing in the conversion arena. 

I guess the bigger complaint is that if they attack my atheism and lack of belief and I rebound and attack their belief and god, I am being rude and socially unacceptable, while theirs is tolerated by most. 

The conversation usually goes like this:

Theist: So who gets to decide what is right and what is wrong?

Atheist: The individual does.

T: So if I decide that murder is okay, then it is okay?

A: No, because we have laws against that.

T: So then the government gets to decide what is right and what is wrong?

A: Yes, we have to act in a way that is most beneficial to society.

T: Okay, so then are you saying that murder is okay if a government allows it, such as Nazi Germany?

A: No, because no society would survive if murder was allowed.

T: What if murder of specific groups was allowed?  For example, what if a society said that it is okay to kill disabled individuals since they have no ability to contribute to the proliferation of society in any meaningful way.  Certainly, society could survive and even become more affluent if we allowed that.

A: That would be wrong, because we are biologically wired to have empathy, which precludes us from doing that kind of a thing.

T: Okay, so you just changed your position.  You first stated that a group of individuals get to decide what is right and what is wrong, now you are saying that our morals are given to us by our brain chemistry.

A: I didn't change my position.  I believe all of these factors work in conjunction.

1) What is faith?

2) Do you have faith?