21 May 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkSo can we say that babies are atheists given that God decided that babies are not righteous?
As with other cases of mass judgment in the Old Testament, the following points apply:
The people judged were guilty of very grave offenses
The people judged had the opportunity to repent
Righteous people were spared judgment
21 May 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadIn response I am just going to quote a snippet from this article:
So can we say that babies are atheists given that God decided that babies are not righteous?
"The extreme irony of the atheistic argument against God’s morality is that atheism is completely impotent to define the term “moral,” much less use the concept against any other system. On February 12, 1998, William Provine delivered a speech on the campus of the University of Tennessee. In an abstract of that speech, his introductory comments are recorded in the following words: “Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent” (Provine, 1998, emp. added). Provine’s ensuing message centered on his fifth statement regarding human free will. Prior to delving into the “meat” of his message, however, he noted: “The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them” (1998).
It is clear then, from Provine’s comments, that he believes naturalistic evolution has no way to produce an “ultimate foundation for ethics.” And it is equally clear that this sentiment was so apparent to “modern naturalistic evolutionists” that Dr. Provine did not feel it even needed to be defended. Oxford professor Richard Dawkins concurred with Provine by saying: “Absolutist moral discrimination is devastatingly undermined by the fact of evolution” (Dawkins, 2006, p. 301).
If atheism is true and humans evolved from non-living, primordial slime, then any sense of moral obligation must simply be a subjective outworking of the physical neurons firing in the brain. Theoretically, atheistic scientists and philosophers admit this truth. Charles Darwin understood this truth perfectly. He wrote: “A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones” (1958, p. 94, emp. added). Dan Barker admitted this truth in his debate with Peter Payne, when he stated: “There are no actions in and of themselves that are always absolutely right or wrong. It depends on the context. You cannot name an action that is always absolutely right or wrong. I can think of an exception in any case” (2005).
If there is no moral standard other than human “impulses and instincts,” then any attempt to accuse another person of immoral behavior boils down to nothing more than one person not liking the way another person does things. While the atheist may claim not to like God’s actions, if he admits that there is a legitimate standard of morality that is not based on subjective human whims, then he has forfeited his atheistic position. If actions can accurately be labeled as objectively moral or immoral, then atheism cannot be true. As C.S. Lewis eloquently stated:
My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust...? Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too—for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist—in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless—I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my idea of justice—was full of sense. Consequently, atheism turns out to be too simple (Lewis, 1952, pp. 45-46, italics in orig.).
If there truly are cases of justice and injustice, then God must exist. Furthermore, we will show that the God of the Bible never is unjust in His dealings with humanity. On the contrary, the atheistic position finds itself mired in injustice at every turn."
You can read the entire thing if you want.
http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=260
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
21 May 16
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIt's an opinion based on empirical observation. (Of cats!) It's a pretty good way to form an opinion, as opposed to basing that opinion on things that can not be observed or verified.
Is that your absolute, ultimate opinion or just your atheist one?
I absolutely do not believe in absolutes. (Or the acting ability of Ben Affleck).
21 May 16
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
In response I am just going to quote a snippet from this article:
"The extreme irony of the atheistic argument against God’s morality is that atheism is completely impotent to define the term “moral,” much less use the concept against any other system. On February 12, 1998, William Provine delivered a speech on the campus of the University of Tenness ...[text shortened]... entire thing if you want.
http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=260
Religion and morality are not synonymous. Morality does not depend upon religion although this is "an almost automatic assumption."[2] According to The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics, religion and morality "are to be defined differently and have no definitional connections with each other. Conceptually and in principle, morality and a religious value system are two distinct kinds of value systems or action guides."[3] Morality is an active process which is, "at the very least, the effort to guide one's conduct by reason, that is, doing what there are the best reasons for doing, while giving equal consideration to the interests of all those affected by what one does."[2]
Value judgments can vary greatly between religions, past and present. People in various religious traditions, such as Christianity, may derive ideas of right and wrong by the rules and laws set forth in their respective authoritative guides and by their religious leaders.[4] Equating morality to adherence to authoritative commands in a holy book is the Divine Command Theory.[2] Polytheistic religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism generally draw from a broader canon of work.[5] There has been interest in the relationship between religion and crime and other behavior that does not adhere to contemporary laws and social norms in various countries. Studies conducted in recent years have explored these relationships, but the results have been mixed and sometimes contradictory.[6] The ability of religious faiths to provide value frameworks that are seen as useful is a debated matter. Religious commentators have asserted that a moral life cannot be led without an absolute lawgiver as a guide. Other observers assert that moral behavior does not rely on religious tenets, and secular commentators point to ethical challenges within various religions that conflict with contemporary social norms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality_and_religion
22 May 16
1 edit
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
In response I am just going to quote a snippet from this article:
"The extreme irony of the atheistic argument against God’s morality is that atheism is completely impotent to define the term “moral,” much less use the concept against any other system. On February 12, 1998, William Provine delivered a speech on the campus of the University of Tenness ...[text shortened]... entire thing if you want.
http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=260
If atheism is true and humans evolved from non-living, primordial slime, then any sense of moral obligation must simply be a subjective outworking of the physical neurons firing in the brain.
Not the case. Firstly, one would also have to argue that mathematics, science, art, music and for that matter religion are a subjective outworking of the physical neurons firing in the brain. That does not provide a good enough description and does great violence to rational and scientific thinking. There have been extreme Positivists who might tolerate that kind of terminology - and we do still hear from Positivists - but on the whole such extreme "reductionism" is a dead letter today.
However, this is not the only way to express things and not at all accurate. The more meaningful and scientifically sound description would instead use a phrase such as " any sense of moral obligation must arise as an emergent property of physical neurons firing in the brain"
But nobody would now seriously propose (what was once thought possible at least in principle) that it would make much sense to use the language of biochemistry to discuss conceptual thinking in such matters as morality, mathematics, art, or religion. It is not that there is no connection but that the connection is not informative.
For analogy, we know that computers can only function with two states - 0 and 1 - but no human could read a book written exclusively in binary code. Switch off the electricity and the computer will fail; switch off the blood supply to the brain and let's see how you make moral judgements. But we cannot use our knowledge of electricity or blood to understand what we are reading.
It is curious that these religious arguments depend on such misrepresentations. Religion does not have to be quite that crass and ill educated.