Wilgrea7:

You've only stated that things like belief in a God are of no interest to you, which is completely fine. But I don't think that's any reason to say the people who engage in these discussions are not interested in "better ways of thinking".

I agree. That wasn't my reason for saying that.

This is the religious section, where people come to debate topics related to a belief in a god/gods, or lack thereof.

If that isn't your interest, then that's completely fine. But it's no reason to say the people who take interest in it are somehow not utilizing sufficiently good thinking methods.

I agree. That wasn't my reason for saying that.

ReubenSandwich:


I think that's a good point, and I was thinking that too at one time, but now I don't think that makes "God says" any worse than some other popular excuses. My point is still the same. I don't think that people losing their God beliefs is doing anything to help solve any social problems, and I don't think it ever will.

Like i said before

1) It's not specifically about losing belief in a God. I explained how certain beliefs are more problematic than others. Belief in general is not the problem.

2) “God says" makes it significantly more complicated.. and makes it possible for things to turn bad really quick.

As I've also explained earlier, human morality has to do with human affairs and wellbeing. Even if a non-religious person has their own “personal reasons" for doing bad, it is easier to reason with them, to show why if human well being is taken as the basis of morality, certain things will be objectively wrong.

Even if they carry on doing said bad thing, you've clearly shown them that said action, is objectively wrong. They may carry on doing the bad thing, but they cannot claim anymore that what they're doing is somehow “good".

All that changes when you bring “God says" into the equation. Because morality isn't dependent on human wellbeing, but simply on what “God says".

Anything, and I mean literally anything can be considered good simply because God said so.

In addition to that, the appeal to a higher power makes all possibility for rationality entirely useless. Theists will cite excuses like;

a) God's ways are above our ways
b) God knows best
c) We should not question God

Or something along those lines to defend even the most abhorrent crimes that are blatantly and glaringly wrong.

Wilgrea7:

Even if a non-religious person has their own “personal reasons" for doing bad, it is easier to reason with them, to show why if human well being is taken as the basis of morality, certain things will be objectively wrong.

Even if they carry on doing said bad thing, you've clearly shown them that said action, is objectively wrong. They may carry on doing the bad thing, but they cannot claim anymore that what they're doing is somehow “good".

The first paragraph might work; if the person in question is a saint! Otherwise, assuming they are averagely intelligent, they will inquire as to the choice of collective wellbeing as the standard for good, rather than just their own.

Then they can carry on in peace.

The fact of the matter remains that it should be theoretically easier to make someone reconsider an act as either good or evil if they are religious. This isn’t to say that this is the reality.

I know this is anecdotal but I’m one such person whose entire moral compass has been recalibrated by coming to believe I’d misunderstood or intentionally misinterpreted the Bible. The atheist on the other hand is unfortunately driven by what he finds in or out of taste. Morality depends on what appeals to him even if he adopts the useful fiction that human wellbeing is the root of all good. We’d still have atheists argue over what constitutes this wellbeing, whether or not it can be overridden, whether it should extend to enemies and so on. On this matter, it is clear that theism is the more consistent worldview.

Wilgrea7, it may interest you to know that I’m doing some reading on abstract objects and their relationship with God as an extension of our argument on morality. When (or if) I finally wrap my head around it I’ll update my views and let you know.

Endtimer:


The first paragraph might work; if the person in question is a saint! Otherwise, assuming they are averagely intelligent, they will inquire as to the choice of collective wellbeing as the standard for good, rather than just their own.

Then they can carry on in peace.

Of course this is a very good point. Individual well-being vs collective well-being is something I'm still trying to wrap my head around, which is why this title of this thread includes the phrase “the moral dilemma".

It's something I hope to learn more about in the future. I think we have tough moral questions to answer regardless. But i don't think accepting the existence of a God makes those questions any eaiser.

Endtimer:

The atheist on the other hand is unfortunately driven by what he finds in or out of taste. Morality depends on what appeals to him even if he adopts the useful fiction that human wellbeing is the root of all good.

I don't identify as an atheist, but I don't believe in the reality or existence of any creator God. I've gone back and forth more than once between believing and not believing in that, and it has never had any effect on my standard of morality, which has always been based on learning to live the way Jesus says to live, even if I haven't always thought of it in those terms.

Endtimer:
The fact of the matter remains that it should be theoretically easier to make someone reconsider an act as either good or evil if they are religious. This isn’t to say that this is the reality.

I wouldn't even say it's theoretically easier. I think it's a more complicated issue, because as I was saying earlier, belief in a God in general is not the issue. It's what someone believes about said God.

Making someone reconsider often fails, depending on how religious said person is. I was explaining something similar to ReubenSandwich just a few minutes ago.

Wilgrea7:


In addition to that, the appeal to a higher power makes all possibility for rationality entirely useless. Theists will cite excuses like;

a) God's ways are above our ways
b) God knows best
c) We should not question God

Or something along those lines to defend even the most abhorrent crimes that are blatantly and glaringly wrong.

Of course here I'm not referring to all theists. Mostly the deeply religious kind. But i think it gets the message across. Which is that in some cases, belief in a God can hinder certain people from reevaluating their moral stance.

I know this is anecdotal but I’m one such person whose entire moral compass has been recalibrated by coming to believe I’d misunderstood or intentionally misinterpreted the Bible.

I just want to point out that I think this is great, especially in your situation. But there are also people who insist that their current interpretation, which could lead towards more problems, like slavery for example, is the correct “interpretation"

I think the problem is even complicated further in Christianity when people make statements like “you need the holy spirit to understand"

The atheist on the other hand is unfortunately driven by what he finds in or out of taste. Morality depends on what appeals to him even if he adopts the useful fiction that human wellbeing is the root of all good. We’d still have atheists argue over what constitutes this wellbeing, whether or not it can be overridden, whether it should extend to enemies and so on. On this matter, it is clear that theism is the more consistent worldview.

Like i said, i think we still have difficult moral problems to answer. The topics you've mentioned above, like if wellbeing extends to enemies and things like that, are good questions to ask in my opinion.

I see morality as a complex thing. But what I think the theist does in this situation, is to try to simplify the problem by adding a God into the equation.

Although I don't blame them for doing so, I don't think it solves or even nearly simplifies the problem, as I've tried to explain in this thread.

Using the “human wellbeing extending to enemies example"

One God can say it's okay to forgive your enemies. Another can say they all deserve to be slain by the sword. Another can say they should be punished for a while and then released.

We still run into serious problems on how to treat enemies, regardless of whether we're theists or atheists. Which is why I said even if we accept existence of a God, it doesn't really solve anything.

Wilgrea7, it may interest you to know that I’m doing some reading on abstract objects and their relationship with God as an extension of our argument on morality. When (or if) I finally wrap my head around it I’ll update my views and let you know.

I'm certain it would be an interesting read, and possibly a new insight into the topic.

As always, I'd be delighted to hear your thoughts. I may be a bit busy these coming weeks, but I'll always be sure to check in when I can

ReubenSandwich:


I don't identify as an atheist, but I don't believe in the reality or existence of any creator God. I've gone back and forth more than once between believing and not believing in that, and it has never had any effect on my standard of morality, which has always been based on learning to live the way Jesus says to live, even if I haven't always thought of it in those terms.

You seem to be something related to a Christian deist, minus the belief in a God part, which I think is pretty interesting.

But if I may ask, why do you choose to emulate the life of Christ, without believing in the words he allegedly said?

Wilgrea7:

But if I may ask, why do you choose to emulate the life of Christ, without believing in the words he allegedly said?

Actually, it's just the opposite of that. I'm trying to learn to live the way He says to live, in the gospels, not to emulate His life. I trust the wisdom in His teachings, and believing or not believing in the reality or existence of a creator God has never had any effect on that. How I learned to trust Him is a long story.

ReubenSandwich:


Actually, it's just the opposite of that. I'm trying to learn to live the way He says to live, in the gospels, not to emulate His life. I trust the wisdom in His teachings, and believing or not believing in the reality or existence of a creator God has never had any effect on that. How I learned to trust Him is a long story.

Understandable

Wilgrea7:

... even if we accept existence of a God, it doesn't really solve anything.

100% agreement between us on that.

In my view part of the solution to all moral issues is people recognizing Jesus as a person to serve and obey above all others, and being filled with a desire to learn to live the way He says to live.

Wilgrea7:


Of course here I'm not referring to all theists. Mostly the deeply religious kind. But i think it gets the message across. Which is that in some cases, belief in a God can hinder certain people from reevaluating their moral stance.

This is actually a good thing.

Using the “human wellbeing extending to enemies example"

One God can say it's okay to forgive your enemies. Another can say they all deserve to be slain by the sword. Another can say they should be punished for a while and then released.

We still run into serious problems on how to treat enemies, regardless of whether we're theists or atheists. Which is why I said even if we accept existence of a God, it doesn't really solve anything.

This isn't a problem for the theist (who is actually just a Christian, Muslim or Jew). Belief in one God means that there is only one objective choice regarding enemies. It is good to think of this from the perspective of an adherent of a theistic faith. He does not struggle with whether to believe Allah, Yahweh or God. He only believes in one. What you are saying does not imply that theism does not solve the problem-it certainly does when reduced to one faith. I believe the issue here is how we know which god is God, not whether God solves the problem of morality.

Wilgrea7:

One recurring statement I see theists make, is that without the existence of a God, then morality, or better still, the definitions of right and wrong would be subjective, or a mere matter of opinion.

I don't remember seeing anyone say that. If you could find an actual example, I would like to see it. What I've seen people saying is that without a belief in God, people have no reason to try to be moral.

(later) Never mind. I'm seeing that now.

Endtimer:
Belief in one God means that there is only one objective choice regarding enemies. It is good to think of this from the perspective of an adherent of a theistic faith. He does not struggle with whether to believe Allah, Yahweh or God. He only believes in one. What you are saying does not imply that theism does not solve the problem-it certainly does when reduced to one faith. I believe the issue here is how we know which god is God, not whether God solves the problem of morality.

I don't see how the question of which god is God is any less subjective than deciding what is right and wrong without a belief in any God.

Even for people who agree on which scriptures to use, I don't see how deciding what is right and wrong is any less subjective, because they have no way of resolving disagreements about what those scriptures are saying, and their ideas of what they're saying about what's right and wrong range as widely as the views of right and wrong in all of society.

(later) Oh. Maybe you're thinking of morality based on belief in a God as being more objective because it gives you a standard of morality outside of yourself, that doesn't depend only on your own personal ideas and interests and/or the society around you. I think that's an illusion, because your choice of what scriptures to use, and what you think they're saying about what's right and wrong, depend on your own personal ideas and interests and the society around you, as much as anyone else's ideas about what's right and wrong.

If you're thinking that at least your scriptures give you something to measure against that wasn't written by you, that's promoting a moral standard that's better than what you would have without it, even if that's true, I'm a witness that it doesn't require a belief in the existence of any God, to use those same scriptures in the same ways. It's very easy to find naturalistic explanations and reasons for doing so. No matter whether or not a person thinks they are from a God, ultimately the reasons for using those scriptures are in what happens when people use them to help them learn together to live the way Jesus says to live.

Also, maybe you would agree that people can and do find reasons in those same scriptures for promoting ideas of right and wrong opposed to yours, and it isn't only those scriptures that you are trusting to guide you. You're trusting the Holy Spirit to use them to guide you. Again, I don't think that requires a belief in the existence of any God, and I don't think that Christian scriptures are the only writings that the Holy Spirit uses for that purpose.

Wilgrea7:

One God can say it's okay to forgive your enemies. Another can say they all deserve to be slain by the sword. Another can say they should be punished for a while and then released.

No. Every God can say all those things, different things to different people, or sometimes even to the same person from one minute to the next.

The most important point that I would want to make is that a person believing or not believing in the existence of a God doesn't tell us anything at all whatsoever about their character, their capacities, or anything else about what kind of person they are.

Apart from that, I don't think that believing or not believing in the existence of a God has anything to do with how much people can agree and learn together and from each other about what's right and wrong.

Endtimer:


This is actually a good thing.

How exactly?

This isn't a problem for the theist (who is actually just a Christian, Muslim or Jew). Belief in one God means that there is only one objective choice regarding enemies. It is good to think of this from the perspective of an adherent of a theistic faith. He does not struggle with whether to believe Allah, Yahweh or God. He only believes in one. What you are saying does not imply that theism does not solve the problem-it certainly does when reduced to one faith. I believe the issue here is how we know which god is God, not whether God solves the problem of morality.

Exactly. You're beginning to get my point. Even if we want to go by some sort of objective source for morality, we still need to determine where the source of said morality is.

Also, I don't think it is limited to just the abrahamic God. There are tons of other monotheistic religions that have existed throughout history. I personally don't think the fact that some have stopped existing invalidates them in any way.

So at the end of the day, we still run into the question of "which monotheistic God is right"... one has to be. Or they could even all be wrong, and the true objective moral laws are set by a different deity entirely, unknown to us throughout history.

I think it's something we have to consider as a possibility.

That's what I was trying to explain as the second problem in this thread.

ReubenSandwich:
In my view part of the solution to all moral issues is people recognizing Jesus as a person to serve and obey above all others, and being filled with a desire to learn to live the way He says to live.

For someone who claims to lack belief in a God, your concept of "serving Jesus" above "all others" is something I find a bit odd.

Also, while the Jesus character is admirable in certain areas, I don't consider him in any way to be a perfect guide, capable of solving "all moral issues" like you've claimed... at least based on the information we have about him in the gospels

ReubenSandwich:


I think that's a good point, and I was thinking that too at one time, but now I don't think that makes "God says" any worse than some other popular excuses. My point is still the same. I don't think that people losing their God beliefs is doing anything to help solve any social problems, and I don't think it ever will.

You guys have said a lot but I really want to lend my own voice.

I'll be borrowing a lot from Wilgrea7's reply because he has made my point.

Firstly, I want to reiterate that the goal here is not lead people away from theistic beliefs but to challenge theistic beliefs that are wrong. I don't know if that is the goal of every other non-believer here but it is my goal and reading Wilgrea7's comments, I think it is his too.

Secondly, for people who, religious or not, do not base their morality on God (a being who supposedly created us and has the final say in our lives). It is very easy to challenge their views on morality, to understand their motives and possibly find ways to come up with better ways of dealing with moral issues. There are so many ways of doing that which I don't want to elaborate now but the point is that it's more easier to challenge people's views on morality when they do not base it on an authority figure who has a final say on everything.

But just look at people who use "God says" to make their decisions. All forms of rational discourse is closed up. I gave an example with a nairalander here (let me not call his name again to avoid fight ) who vehemently believes that non-believers of his God and his Bible are evil and even deserves to die, this guy has no better reasons to back up this belief except from what the Bible says (or maybe from the parts he picked from the Bible that falls in line with his true personal beliefs and personality). As long as he has used the Bible as a form of defense, it's almost impossible to reason with him. Again, I allude to Wilgrea7's examples... Take a look at Muslim majority countries and see how they kill apostates, gays, blasphemers, etc. How they beat their wives, etc. How they control people's lives, all these based on the fact that their god commands them to do so. You can't argue with these people because it means you're arguing with God himself, the supposed creator of the universe.

Another way we run into moral problems asides religious beliefs is authoritarian regimes, but it still falls in line with my point... Any form of appeal to authority, be it God, military leaders, religious leaders, parents, etc as a form of coming up with moral solutions is still problematic because anything, I mean anything can be justified as long as it's what that authority commands.

For the other authority figures (asides religious leaders anyway), we can challenge them. Either by usurping the military leader or giving the parents other perspectives to think about. But when it's God! It's just impossible to challenge it

And that is why we challenge the existence of this God.

Wilgrea7:


...Of course here I'm not referring to all theists. Mostly the deeply religious kind. But i think it gets the message across. Which is that in some cases, belief in a God can hinder certain people from reevaluating their moral stance.

Sir, are you sure with the bolded?

Wilgrea7:

...One God can say it's okay to forgive your enemies. Another can say they all deserve to be slain by the sword. Another can say they should be punished for a while and then released.

You're also forgetting that even people who believe in the same God can believe different things about this God.

ReubenSandwich:
In my view part of the solution to all moral issues is people recognizing Jesus as a person to serve and obey above all others, and being filled with a desire to learn to live the way He says to live.

And why should we recognize him as a person to serve and obey above all others?

ReubenSandwich:


I don't see how the question of which god is God is any less subjective than deciding what is right and wrong without a belief in any God.

Even for people who agree on which scriptures to use, I don't see how deciding what is right and wrong is any less subjective, because they have no way of resolving disagreements about what those scriptures are saying, and their ideas of what they're saying about what's right and wrong range as widely as the views of right and wrong in all of society.

The answer to the first line is: if there is only one God, there is only one. This is strangely apparent and yet elusive. The implication is that morals exist and can be discovered if one can find the belief system most likely to be true. To do this we'll have to examine the positive proofs of Christianity as well as the evidence against other religions. This is fairly difficult to do considering Christianity's rich 2,000 year old tradition, graced by the finest minds suited for the job. There are also certain other religions that fail to stand up to scrutiny. We can do away with these quite simply. However, the easiest means is the first one I suggested: examining Christianity's claims. If Christianity is true, no other faith can be as well, because of Christianity's claim to exclusivity.

On the other hand (so I'm not just playing defense) atheism does not have even this hope. On atheism, the goal isn't to find God. It is nothing, as there is no source of morals. The atheist can of course abandon morals as well as God (which is the threat of the moral argument anyway).

(later) Oh. Maybe you're thinking of morality based on belief in a God as being more objective because it gives you a standard of morality outside of yourself, that doesn't depend only on your own personal ideas and interests and/or the society around you. I think that's an illusion, because your choice of what scriptures to use, and what you think they're saying about what's right and wrong, depend on your own personal ideas and interests and the society around you, as much as anyone else's ideas about what's right and wrong.

I don't understand what you mean by our choice of scriptures to use. As a Christian, I obviously use the Bible. The existence of several versions only helps in ascertaining the message. Other than that, you've hit a vital point. The worse we can do in Christianity is pervert morality. If we are lucky, we approximate it. If we really work at it, we get it. Atheism, on the other hand, lacks morality in all its forms. It lacks that external standard you wrote of and is entirely dependent on the atheist's personal taste and heavily Christianized socialization, which he ironically works to rid himself of.

"I don't fancy killing, so killing others is wrong". Atheist pseudo-morality.
"Killing is wrong". Theist morality.

Anyone who objects can tell me why killing is wrong without providing the circular answer that it is wrong because it causes harm. In which case I'll reply: "Why is causing harm wrong?"

Wilgrea7:


How exactly?

Well, because it is theoretically possible to convince him. It is good that he doesn't listen to what you regard as good or evil because it is simply your opinion. If you want to have better luck convincing theists in future appeal to the Bible, which we believe is the source of morality. By conveying the authors' intent correctly you have a standard against which you can be right or wrong. If you insist on explaining that something is wrong on your own, then you cannot expect to convince any believers.

Exactly. You're beginning to get my point. Even if we want to go by some sort of objective source for morality, we still need to determine where the source of said morality is.

Also, I don't think it is limited to just the abrahamic God. There are tons of other monotheistic religions that have existed throughout history. I personally don't think the fact that some have stopped existing invalidates them in any way.

So at the end of the day, we still run into the question of "which monotheistic God is right"... one has to be. Or they could even all be wrong, and the true objective moral laws are set by a different deity entirely, unknown to us throughout history.

I think it's something we have to consider as a possibility.

That's what I was trying to explain as the second problem in this thread.

This is quite different from the moral argument. The argument shifts from morality to something else.

ReubenSandwich:
The most important point that I would want to make is that a person believing or not believing in the existence of a God doesn't tell us anything at all whatsoever about their character, their capacities, or anything else about what kind of person they are.

Apart from that, I don't think that believing or not believing in the existence of a God has anything to do with how much people can agree and learn together and from each other about what's right and wrong.

The first sentence is completely correct. People can act morally without belief in God. They have no reason to, but they can. They can be wonderful people in spite of not believing God exists.

The second statement is false. We cannot agree about right and wrong except where our beliefs intersect. We can learn nothing from one another unless it backs up our individual beliefs. Faith in the same God provides common ground to discuss morality. Without it we are left talking past each other.

AuthenticKing:


Again, I allude to Wilgrea7's examples... Take a look at Muslim majority countries and see how they kill apostates, gays, blasphemers, etc. How they beat their wives, etc. How they control people's lives, all these based on the fact that their god commands them to do so. You can't argue with these people because it means you're arguing with God himself, the supposed creator of the universe.

Another way we run into moral problems asides religious beliefs is authoritarian regimes, but it still falls in line with my point... Any form of appeal to authority, be it God, military leaders, religious leaders, parents, etc as a form of coming up with moral solutions is still problematic because anything, I mean anything can be justified as long as it's what that authority commands.

This is another good example of pseudo-moral indignation. AuthenticKing, what you are saying is very much in line with the the point I've been making in this thread. You condemn Muslim extremists as immoral because they do things you disagree with. What you don't understand is that those things are very much moral to them. Whether we like it or not there is nothing innately immoral about beating ones wife or killing unbelievers. We interpret these actions through our own moral lenses. You cannot convince them that your Christianized notions of morality are correct because they do not adhere to the Christian morality that you do. You and I only believe those actions are wrong because we were raised in Christian Nigeria. Telling them that those actions are wrong holds as much weight as their telling you that not killing apostates is wrong. In fact, your own position weighs far less because your positions are grounded in mere opinion. You think killing is wrong because you think it is wrong.

Were I a Muslim, I would resort to the Quran of Hadith to explain that their actions are wrong. As a Christian, I can challenge their morals by attempting to nullify their belief in Allah and converting them. As an atheist, you can only call them close-minded because they don't agree with something you've provided no proof of.

For the other authority figures (asides religious leaders anyway), we can challenge them. Either by usurping the military leader or giving the parents other perspectives to think about. But when it's God! It's just impossible to challenge it

What we are talking about is not whether you can organize a coup against God. To use your own terms we are talking about how we know what right or wrong themselves are, and how to ascribe them to actions. Theists here agree that God is the answer. Atheists disagree and provide no answer, other than what they just believe is right or wrong.

Were you and another atheist here to disagree on the morality of an issue, how would you go about convincing him? Would you tell him that his view would cause harm to other people and is therefore bad? What if he disagrees that causing harm to others makes something bad. What then? How does causing harm (or anything else you can come up with) tell us what good and evil are, without being a circular answer?

Some final thoughts for now.

- I've wrongly stated that atheists do not believe in objective morality. I was wrong. Most atheists simply believe that their view of morality is objective and clearly defines right and wrong.

- The title of this post is wrong. The consensus here is that the existence of a god does solve the moral dilemma. The question arising being which god? All the same, the moral argument stands undaunted. Perhaps we can discuss how we know which God on another thread.

AuthenticKing:

Sir, are you sure with the bolded?

I think to a certain degree. There are a number of Christians that try to be rational. What I've noticed anecdotally is that the more deeply religious a person is, the less room they give for rational thought, especially when it opposes their beliefs.

Some of the less religious ones tend to have a bit more wiggle room in terms of that.. and sometimes try to update their beliefs as time goes on.

At least that's what I've observed with some of the theists I've engaged with.

You're also forgetting that even people who believe in the same God can believe different things about this God.

Yes Sir... Correct... I think i said something about this earlier. Especially in Christianity where you see people making claims like “you need the holy spirit to understand". It's a topic I intend to address one of these coming days.

Endtimer:


Well, because it is theoretically possible to convince him. It is good that he doesn't listen to what you regard as good or evil because it is simply your opinion. If you want to have better luck convincing theists in future appeal to the Bible, which we believe is the source of morality. By conveying the authors' intent correctly you have a standard against which you can be right or wrong. If you insist on explaining that something is wrong on your own, then you cannot expect to convince any believers.

So this is where I think the fundamental issue is. I don't see any reason why appeals to the bible, or any religious book need to be made in order to convince someone of something.

I understand that these books are where they get their sense of morality from. But I don't see how the view of morality in their book is any more objective than the one I hold.

The theist may believe that their book holds some sort of objective moral truth.. but i don't think that makes it any more true.

Until they can somehow prove their objective morality, it remains subjective to me.

This is quite different from the moral argument. The argument shifts from morality to something else.

It may seem different, but i think it is still very much related.

In my opinion, proving the correct source of objective moral laws is the first hurdle we need to overcome, if we truly want to have a level playing field in the moral discussion.

Endtimer:


This is another good example of pseudo-moral indignation. AuthenticKing, what you are saying is very much in line with the the point I've been making in this thread. You condemn Muslim extremists as immoral because they do things you disagree with. What you don't understand is that those things are very much moral to them. Whether we like it or not there is nothing innately immoral about beating ones wife or killing unbelievers. We interpret these actions through our own moral lenses. You cannot convince them that your Christianized notions of morality are correct because they do not adhere to the Christian morality that you do. You and I only believe those actions are wrong because we were raised in Christian Nigeria. Telling them that those actions are wrong holds as much weight as their telling you that not killing apostates is wrong. In fact, your own position weighs far less because your positions are grounded in mere opinion. You think killing is wrong because you think it is wrong.

Were I a Muslim, I would resort to the Quran of Hadith to explain that their actions are wrong. As a Christian, I can challenge their morals by attempting to nullify their belief in Allah and converting them. As an atheist, you can only call them close-minded because they don't agree with something you've provided no proof of.



What we are talking about is not whether you can organize a coup against God. To use your own terms we are talking about how we know what right or wrong themselves are, and how to ascribe them to actions. Theists here agree that God is the answer. Atheists disagree and provide no answer, other than what they just believe is right or wrong.

Were you and another atheist here to disagree on the morality of an issue, how would you go about convincing him? Would you tell him that his view would cause harm to other people and is therefore bad? What if he disagrees that causing harm to others makes something bad. What then? How does causing harm (or anything else you can come up with) tell us what good and evil are, without being a circular answer?

So I couldn't help but notice several things here.

Firstly, i think we're saying very similar things here, albeit approaching it from completely different angles.

I noticed you made reference to the bible for Christians, and the Quran for muslims as the source or basis of morality for the respective adherents.

I think this is where the problem lies.

Until we, as humans can find a sort of common ground to use as the basis of morality, the debate on morality will continue to be polar.

For example, if we take “what God said" as the basis of morality, and what this God allegedly said is clearly evident to all, then it is easy to make moral judgements based on the commonly accepted moral foundation.

Of course we run into obvious problems when we have several books, all claiming to be inspired by this said “God", and giving very conflicting messages. And that's to say nothing about the reliability of the “books" themselves.... Or things like “interpretation"

Endtimer:
Some final thoughts for now.

- I've wrongly stated that atheists do not believe in objective morality. I was wrong. Most atheists simply believe that their view of morality is objective and clearly defines right and wrong.

I don't think this accurately represents the atheistic position on morality.

- The title of this post is wrong. The consensus here is that the existence of a god does solve the moral dilemma.

It doesn't. The first point I made in this thread assumes a God whose objective moral laws are clearly well defined... And we still run into problems.

The question arising being which god? All the same, the moral argument stands undaunted. Perhaps we can discuss how we know which God on another thread.

I don't see how the moral argument can stand undaunted, when the issue of “which God“ is yet to be resolved.

If the God who is supposed to be the source of objective morality is not well-defined or proven, then claims about said God in regards to morality are no different from the claims made by other humans which you consider to be mere “opinions”.

I would love to see a theist prove one God above the rest without any appeal to sentiment or subjective bias. Its something I've been interested in for a long time now.

Endtimer:

We cannot agree about right and wrong except where our beliefs intersect. We can learn nothing from one another unless it backs up our individual beliefs. Faith in the same God provides common ground to discuss morality. Without it we are left talking past each other.

False. Wishful thinking.

(later) I'm wondering if you honestly, seriously think that you can more easily agree with any Bible-believing Christian about what's right and wrong than you can with anyone else. Seriously? I'm wondering if you even believe, honestly and sincerely, that there couldn't be more non- Christians than Bible-believing Christians who could agree with you about some moral issues.

(later) What do you see God saying about His reasons for His wrath against Israel?