Posted on 08/05/2015 11:23:15 AM PDT by Heartlander
Let’s review what you need in your worldview in order to have a rationally grounded system of morality.
You need 5 things:
1) Objective moral values
There needs to be a way to distinguish what is good from what is bad. For example, the moral standard might specify that being kind to children is good, but torturing them for fun is bad. If the standard is purely subjective, then people could believe anything and each person would be justified in doing right in their own eyes. Even a “social contract” is just based on people’s opinions. So we need a standard that applies regardless of what people’s individual and collective opinions are.
2) Objective moral duties
Moral duties (moral obligations) refer to the actions that are obligatory based on the moral values defined in 1). Suppose we spot you 1) as an atheist. Why are you obligated to do the good thing, rather than the bad thing? To whom is this obligation owed? Why is rational for you to limit your actions based upon this obligation when it is against your self-interest? Why let other people’s expectations decide what is good for you, especially if you can avoid the consequences of their disapproval?
3) Moral accountability
Suppose we spot you 1) and 2) as an atheist. What difference does it make to you if you just go ahead and disregard your moral obligations to whomever? Is there any reward or punishment for your choice to do right or do wrong? What’s in it for you?
4) Free will
In order for agents to make free moral choices, they must be able to act or abstain from acting by exercising their free will. If there is no free will, then moral choices are impossible. If there are no moral choices, then no one can be held responsible for anything they do. If there is no moral responsibility, then there can be no praise and blame. But then it becomes impossible to praise any action as good or evil.
5) Ultimate significance
Finally, beyond the concept of reward and punishment in 3), we can also ask the question “what does it matter?”. Suppose you do live a good life and you get a reward: 1000 chocolate sundaes. And when you’ve finished eating them, you die for real and that’s the end. In other words, the reward is satisfying, but not really meaningful, ultimately. It’s hard to see how moral actions can be meaningful, ultimately, unless their consequences last on into the future.
Theism rationally grounds all 5 of these. Atheism cannot ground any of them.
Let’s take a look at #4: free will and see how atheism deals with that.
Atheism and free will?
Here’s prominent atheist Jerry Coyne’s editorial in USA Today to explain why atheists can’t ground free will.
Excerpt:
And that’s what neurobiology is telling us: Our brains are simply meat computers that, like real computers, are programmed by our genes and experiences to convert an array of inputs into a predetermined output. Recent experiments involving brain scans show that when a subject “decides” to push a button on the left or right side of a computer, the choice can be predicted by brain activity at least seven seconds before the subject is consciously aware of having made it. (These studies use crude imaging techniques based on blood flow, and I suspect that future understanding of the brain will allow us to predict many of our decisions far earlier than seven seconds in advance.) “Decisions” made like that aren’t conscious ones. And if our choices are unconscious, with some determined well before the moment we think we’ve made them, then we don’t have free will in any meaningful sense.
If you don’t have free will, then you can’t make moral choices, and you can’t be held morally responsible. No free will means no morality.
Here are some more atheists to explain how atheists view morality.
William Provine says atheists have no free will, no moral accountability and no moral significance:
Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either.
Richard Dawkins says atheists have no objective moral standards:
In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, or any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference… DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. (Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995))
When village atheists talk about how they can be moral without God, it’s important to ask them to justify the minimum requirements for rational morality. Atheists may act inconsistently with their worldview, believing in free will, expecting praise and blame for complying with the arbitrary standards of their peer group, etc. But there is nothing more to morality on atheism that imitating the herd – at least when the herd is around to watch them. And when the herd loses its Judeo-Christian foundation – watch out. That’s when the real atheism comes out, and you can see it on display in the Planned Parenthood videos. When God disappears from a society, anything is permissible.
Neither is provable.....both require faith.
Well, they can give reasons. Of course, I can give reasons why I believe.
But the quesstion, “Prove that there is no God”, requires the proof of a negative, which is impossible.
What you have to do is to refute their arguments. Of course, with an atheist. upi are attacking their faith, and they don’t like it, and really cannot be reasoned with, IMO.
Let me restate. Atheists believe that there is no evidence for the existence of God. I disagree. However, just because no one has ever seen a unicorn, doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. But one can assume so as a working proposition. So if you believe in unicorns, or God, and you want to convince someone that doesn’t, you have to present your arguments and evidence.
This is not easy to do. But to me, a God that could be put in a test tube to see whether He changed from red to blue, like litmus paper, isn’t a God worth worshipping.
In the end, it is the Holy Spirit, not you or me, that will convince them.
What can they point to that shows there is no or cannot be any G-d? Just by saying "I believe there is no G-d" without any factual basis other than a statement doesn't seem like a valid argument. They're saying they don't believe therefor He doesn't exist.
But people who have faith can state the reasons for their belief. An atheist just says they don’t believe G-d exists with no foundation for that belief other than to state it.
There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death.
No God.
No Porposes.
No coal fired powerplants.
There is no life after death.
So, atheists never question where they were
before they were born?
They are funny and their mothers dressed them that way.
Dennis Prager has said the question he would ask an atheist is: “Do you hope you’re wrong?”
God's name isn't "God" ... it's "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or ..., but not "God".
That's a myth. Negatives can be proven, and are, all the time.
"Some swans are not white" is a negative. Proof: Present a black swan. QED.
What cannot be proven is a universal negative: say, "No swan is red." To prove it true, you would have to have exhaustive knowledge of all swans. The best we can do is an inductive argument: based on all the available evidence, no red swan is known to exist. (But who's to say there isn't one paddling around a forgotten pond somewhere in Paraguay?)
Of course, positive atheism asserts exactly such a universal negative.
Can you prove there is no Santa Claus?
I gave you my reasons, apparently you don’t understand the point of my post. Let me put it bluntly, NO ONE CAN PROVE A NEGATIVE!!!!!! When you ask someone to prove the negative you are admitting that you have no proof of the positive! The only way conceivable to prove a negative is to prove a corresponding positive which makes the negative case. For example, suppose I were to be accused of committing a murder that recently occurred in my neighborhood and I had to prove I DID NOT do it. I would have to be able to prove that the murder occurred during a certain limited time period AND prove that I was somewhere else at the time which is proving a positive. I cannot prove the negative except by proving a positive. Can you grasp that? The burden of proof is always on the positive. Have you figured out how to prove that those fairies I mentioned don’t exist? I have zero reason to believe that they do but I have no idea how to prove that they don’t. If you intend to allow me to get away with putting the burden on you to prove they don’t exist I think you have a problem. Remember that Islam claims to believe in a God who commands that they strike the heads off of Christians who refuse to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax. Are you going to allow them to put the burden on you to prove that their God does not exist and does not command that your head be cut off?
Actually YVWH has several names and the word Jehovah is nothing but putting vowels in order to better pronounce it. YVWH has several names depending - such as YVWH (Jehovah)- Jireh meaning - Yahweh will provide -but He has called Himself “I Am” - that is His name. When Moses asked who shall I say sent me, YVWH answered “I Am has sent you unto them”.
Thanks for the info. Appreciate my new knowledge!
Wow! Chill, no need to get all excited - we’re having an intellectual discussion but I guess it’s a might impossible with you. I have better things to do like discussing with my cat her upcoming wedding this weekend. It’s more interesting than reading your rant.
There is a Santa - I see him every Holiday Season at the Mall. With that in mind, are you able to disprove your eternal destiny?
PS - how’re things in Texas with Elvis and JFK?
And Yeshua referred to Himself as I Am ... (John 8:12)
“Atheists ain’t got no songs.” - Steve Martin
Well, that explains a lot.
With that in mind, are you able to disprove your eternal destiny?
Let's start with you defining what that means. Let's agree on a definition of God before we start arguing on whether God exists.
And as far as that Santa crack of mine, sarcasm.
Atheism is a faith like any other. I guess they’re waiting for God to whack them upside the head. Which He will, but it’ll be too late for them then
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.