Can Atheists Be Moral?: A Conversation with Atheists from a MarketFaith Video

Can Atheists Be Moral?: A Conversation with Atheists from a MarketFaith Video

Recently I posted a video on the topic of morality. The premise of the video was that Christianity has an objectively real foundation for morality while Atheism has only the opinion of adherents to base their moral stance upon. (See the video at: http://www.marketfaith.org/2013/06/can-atheists-be-moral)

Shortly after the video was posted, I started receiving all kinds of comments from Atheists who viewed it on YouTube. Obviously, all of them were critical of what I had said, but it gave me the opportunity to engage them. Below is the back and forth from that.

There are a couple of things that will be helpful for you to know as you read this.

First, the format for interacting on YouTube is very limiting. A post can be no longer than 500 characters. Thus, responses must be very short which makes it quite a challenge to get into deep discussions.

Another matter is that the conversations with particular individuals get broken up since anyone can post at any point. You will have to pay close attention to keep from getting confused. One possible way you can mitigate this problem is to just read one poster at a time. Begin with a particular individual and just skip all of the others until you have read that person’s entire string, then move on to another one. They are all copied here as the conversations unfolded in real time.

There is one last matter that I also want to comment on. Many of the people who come out of the woodwork to attack begin very aggressively, and sometimes even in quite an ugly manner. I try to be very careful to have the right attitude toward them. Some of these people are trolls (people who come on just for the sake of argument and try to keep it going as long as they can just for the fun of it). Others, however, while beginning harshly, will mellow out and begin showing more respect when they realize I am serious about the discussion and treat their arguments seriously.

Occasionally I receive criticism from various Christians for giving sharp replies. However, be sure that I am doing it for a purpose and that I am always careful with my attitude. Many of these folks will simply not respond to a mamby-pamby reply. Too soft and they honestly believe they are getting the best of me. My purpose is to help these individuals step past their atheistic presuppositions. Sometimes it just takes a little verbal shaking.

You should remember also that there is virtually always a secondary audience. Many people will read this but would never respond themselves. The answers I give are not just for the people I am directly dealing with. Others also need to see the bankruptcy of the Atheistic ideas.

As you read, take note of the kinds of arguments that come forth. It is my prayer that seeing this play out will also be a learning tool for you as you experience the kinds of arguments that Atheists will use to attack you.

This string is rather long. Don’t feel that you have to read the entire thing at one sitting. Use it as a learning tool.

June 3, 2013

robtbo
Having a foundation you can’t objectively prove makes it nothing more than a personal opinion. But thanks for acting as if atheists are morally inferior to you… it shows your character.

Freddy
You have, obviously, missed the point. You have made accusations based on what? All I have said is that Atheists have nothing to base a moral standard upon except for their personal opinion. If you are an Atheist, what do you base your morality upon and how do you know it is moral?

Ukandystreet1
So Christians are objectively moral because of Christ; where does Christ get his objective morality from?

Freddy
Actually, I didn’t say Christians are objectively moral. I said that the moral standards Christians follow have an objective foundation. As for the source – God himself is the source, and an objectively real morality is based on his character which he has revealed in the Bible.

Harizl
“My beliefs are better then yours because they are inwardly consistent with their disdain for your beliefs. You can tell this is true because I run a company which you can pay to explain it to you.”

Freddy
This makes no sense at all. Are you saying that your company goes around making nonsensical statements then gets people to pay you to explain them? Why would anyone do that?

Harizl
It’s not personal opinion, any more then Christians have only their personal opinion of what they think of your god’s standard.

There are many things unaddressed by the bible which society considers immoral for very clear and objective reasons, if you think morality is either just opinion or is necessarily from a objective standard from a source which may or may-not actually be objective or existent, you are simply incorrect.

Freddy
And how do you know that is true? That seems like a statement of personal opinion to me. What do you base it upon?

ukandystreet1
“God himself is the source” – So it isn’t objective morality, just an opinion.

Freddy
Your statement is true only if God does not objectively exist and has not revealed himself. I believe he does and he has.

Harizl
I don’t know, I don’t run a seminary.
Maybe you should go ask yourself.

Freddy
So, you say you don’t know but you are asserting you are right? Another nonsensical statement.

ukandystreet1
How can “it isn’t objective morality, only God’s opinion” only be true if God does not exist?

Freddy
If God represents actual reality, which I believe he does, it is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of the way things actually exist.

Harizl
Which part of my response are you addressing because in both cases you have already agreed in other comments.

You can insist that the basis for the morality Christians follow is objective, but you cannot assert that their personal morals are not simply an opinion of those morals, making them no different then an atheist who holds an opinion based on his own justifications.

Insisting the ‘base’ of the morals is irrelevant if your objection is that atheists have only* opinion.

Freddy
The fact that individual humans may not understand well or not follow the objective morality that has been revealed by God does not change the fact that the basis for Christian morality is objectively real/true. This is one of the reasons competent Bible study is so important.

I think I have insisted that the “base” of the morals is quite relevant. You seem to be misinterpreting what I have said.

Harizl
You asked me a question, I said I didn’t know.
Then you insisted I asserted I was right.
How am I* the one making nonsensical statements?

Freddy
I think you need to go back and read your previous posts. Perhaps I am wrong (it is hard to follow some of the logic you have put down), but it seems to me that the entire focus of your posts has been to say that my approach is wrong. You came here attacking, remember?

Harizl
You have insisted the base is relevant, and I disagree. Mainly because your entire view of morality is inwardly consistent while making no testable claims which are not attributable to far more likely causes.

I don’t know if you are a creationist or actually understand evolution, but the evolution of societal morality and ethics is not something both unsupported or irrelevant.

Your assertions about morality are intrinsically based on beliefs for both validity and the attribute of absolute.

Freddy
I have not claimed otherwise. But it is interesting that you are asserting that my claims are not testable and there are more likely causes based on an untestable claim. Actually my claims are testable, just not based on a Naturalistic framework. You are insisting on using a Naturalistic framework which, itself is a religious (faith) belief. If you are going to insist that experimental science be the standard, it is going to have to be so for you as well. Prove your beliefs.

ukandystreet1
Could you expand on this please? Do you believe in God the creator? If so, how does reality not reflect his preference and therefore his opinion?

Freddy
I already stated this earlier. Reality reflects God’s personhood/character, not his preferences. Big difference. Objective reality can only be based on something objectively real.

EssenceOfThought
Simple, atheism is just a mere lack of belief. My moral standard comes from my humanist side. But on the basis of morality, is killing 42 children moral or immoral in a biblical view? Well why don’t we look Elisha and the two bears has Elisha curse the children by the lord and so go apparently sends two she-bears to maul them to death. Does this repulse you as it does me? If so you have a moral anchor outside of Christianity.

Freddy

Not true. There is no such thing as mere lack of belief. In fact, you have clearly stated the basis for your moral beliefs (though no specific expressions of it). Your humanism has no way to establish what is universally right and wrong. It is purely left to opinion.

I figured someone would soon begin to try and proof text from the Bible. If you would like to use a different format to discuss this, I can do it (nearly impossible with a 500 character limit). But your hermeneutic is lacking.

Harizl
My first comment was satire.

If you think satire is an attack yet choose to ignore the duplicitous nature of the propagated memes of the video you made, then I don’t know what to say about that.

Freddy
Your first comment was nonsensical, but the tenor of it appeared attacking to me. So, are you now saying you agree with me? If you are then my apologies. However, you have not yet said one thing which would make me think that. In fact, even this post is attacking my position. You can’t have it both ways.

Harizl
“Actually my claims are testable, just not based on a Naturalistic framework.”

I guess you don’t understand what testable means then, because naturalism does not actually matter when it comes to testing, only logic. Also, when did I insist on a naturalistic framework?

“You are insisting on using a Naturalistic framework which, itself is a religious (faith) belief.”

If the null hypothesis is a faith position, please elaborate.

Freddy
I guess you don’t understand what Naturalism is. Do you not realize that your very logic is based on your worldview foundation? Naturalism is the belief that the material universe is all that exists (there is no supernatural). If that is true, everything (literally) is subject to experimental science. That seemed to be what you were demanding of me. Did you mean something different?

ukandystreet1
Sorry, I’m still not getting it. How are someone’s preferences not an attribute of their character?

Freddy
We are not talking about preferences being an attribute of character. We are talking about preferences being an expression of character. For example: God is love and the moral command to love others is based on the objective reality of God’s being as a person of love, not on his preference that we should do so. Thus, every expression of morality revealed in the Bible is an expression of his personhood, not of his preferences.

EssenceOfThought
You lack a belief in the tooth fairy do you not? Oh, I wouldn’t say that. What about human empathy, our drive to help one another innately? A predisposition that’s then built upon by our environment and our social interactions. I don’t argue how things should be, or would best be but look at how they are, the reality of the matter.

Oh, I have an understanding, the Hebrew originals do translate into child. Qatan na’ar, the grammar qatan dictates the translation as child.

Freddy
What do you mean by innately? From your point of view, are you talking about a biological necessity or an actual free will possibility? You are talking about “how they are” after all. So, be a little clearer. How are they in reality?

You seem to have left out the larger context – the nature of sin, the nature of God, the nature of humanity. You also seem to have made some assumptions about the text that are simply not right. Your hermeneutic is simply in error.

EssenceOfThought
Ah, free will. Another problem for you and morality. Do your supposed “objective moral values” pre-determine your actions, or do you act as a free persons regardless of your moral values, i.e they are not a determining factor. I hope you see the block you’ve now put yourself in, be sure to get back to that one.

And yet you are incapable of explaining why. You just want to sweep the killing of 42 children for calling a man bald, you prove my point on you having morals outside the bible.

Freddy
Actually, all you have demonstrated here is that you have no concept of biblical beliefs. Objective values don’t predetermine anything. They are only a standard. People choose whether or not to follow them. No block at all. In fact, it is Naturalism (I am assuming you are a Naturalist) which has the block as you have no way of making any kind of moral judgements beyond your personal opinion.

Absolutely capable, but not in 500 characters. I have already offered you a way to deal with this.

EssenceOfThought
For your last two lines, you are fully incapable as shown repeatedly.

Ah, so they’re not really moral values then if a person doesn’t hold them. Sure, it can be a universal measuring stick, just like pain, emotions etc etc so you’ve successfully lowered your playing field down the naturalistic level. Congrats. So these standards don’t effect you unless you take them on as your standards, just like me and my humanist standards. Well done, you’ve done half the work for me.

Freddy
For your first line, you have not demonstrated anything except that you don’t have any idea what you are talking about.

Are you serious? Do you even understand the meaning of the concept of a moral standard? So pain is a universal measuring stick? How so? There are people who experience pain differently. And emotion? Seriously? That claim is meaningless.

So how do you figure morality can possibly be based on naturalism? What experimental science demonstrates that? Your statement is senseless.

EssenceOfThought
Keep on lying to yourself.

Oh, pain can be quantified very much so, and we all share many of the same emotions. It’s no more silly than your measuring stick, especially considering the lack of evidence for what you claim. Otherwise would be a special pleading logical fallacy.

First you must understand not everything is yet known, but God of the gaps is no solution. However, look at how morality is formed. The morals of one nation are completely different to that of another.

Freddy
Ditto!

Quantified to the point of being a standard? Not! And how do you quantify emotions? Sharing is not the same as measuring.

So, you claim that your approach is measurable and mine is not but you are not able to do actual measurements because not everything is known. Very interesting faith (religious) assumption you have made there.

And now you are asserting that morality is based purely on a naturalistic foundation. How do you know? So far, you have given no science, only your opinion.

TheSpHornet
just because there is a “fixed” moral code in christianity does not mean it is the right moral code to measure against. You need to esthebilish that before you can say that atheists can’t be moral.

“fixed” is in quotemarks because slavery was moral once under christianity and now it is not

Freddy
I have established it. Perhaps you just don’t like my evidence. What do you require?

Slavery was never moral under Christianity. You are simply mistaken on that.

Jimbo Jones
I’m interested in your view of ‘morality’ as you define it. Do you consider the members of other faiths other than yours to have morals?

Freddy
Everyone has some standard of morality that they live by. That is not the issue. We are dealing here with where the standard comes from.

ukandystreet1
“every expression of morality revealed in the Bible is an expression of his personhood” – which is subjective not objective. If another god, vengeful and full of hate, created a universe with morals based on the objective reality of his nature we would have two differing objective realities.

Freddy
Not so. How do you know that what you are saying is true? You are replying as if any claim could possibly be true. Just because a person, or a religion, claims something does not make it true in an objective sense. Reality exist in some objectively real way and not in any other way.

ExUnoPlures
atheists can do what is right, no matter what they are told; theists must do what they are told, no matter what is right. “god” says kill, killing becomes good! that is the “logic” of the theist.

strongatheism(DOT)net/library/-philosophy/case_for_objective_-morality/

Freddy
Really? How would an Atheist ever know what is right? You seem to have missed the entire point of the video.

I’m not sure what you are trying to say with your rant about killing.

ExUnoPlures
stick your hand in a fire and get burned. don’t want to get burned, then don’t stick your hand in a fire. simple as that. can a murderous hate filled maniac be convinced that they should not kill? not by you and not by me.

Freddy
I am not sure the point you are trying to make here. It doesn’t seem to relate to anything we are discussing. I have no plans to stick my hand in a fire.

ExUnoPlures
whether or not it is right or wrong for me to kill my neighbor has nothing to do with anyone’s subjective opinion. it is an objective fact that I love my neighbor and wish him/her well. it is an objective fact that killing my neighbor harms them. it is therefore an objective fact that I should not kill them.

Freddy
Objective fact? I don’t see a single objective fact in your entire post. All I see is your stated beliefs and your opinion about what is or is not moral. Do you know the meaning of the word objective?

Jimbo Jones
So are you saying atheists are equally capable of morality in that case?

Freddy
I am saying that people are capable of behaving in ways that they deem moral. An understanding of morality that is objectively true, though, has to be based on a standard that is objectively true. So, Atheists are capable of acting in ways that they deem moral, but not in ways which correspond with God’s standard of morality.

robtbo
Actually, you’ve missed the point. It’s your personal opinion that there is an objective moral standard.

As an atheist, I subjectively base my morality on the objective facts that I am human, that humans have survival instincts, that humans survive best through cooperation and coexistence and empathy.

Others aren’t required to hold this standard. If I was a timberwolf, my morality would probably have no regard for the notion of human survival.

Freddy
An opinion and a belief are not the same thing. The standard for belief is higher.

The “objective facts” you have listed are not all objective facts. Some are conclusions based on your worldview beliefs which you have not demonstrated in any sense to be objectively true.

Timberwolves don’t have morality. To have a moral sense, a being must be a self-aware, free will creature.

ExUnoPlures
it is theists who believe in subjective morality – morality is subject to “god”!

Freddy
Strange use of the English language. “Subject to” and “subjective” are not the same. There is no point here.

Mark Bertrand
How very sad, it its you as a Christian that is by your “logic” without morals and must be told not to harm others, must be told not to cause suffering to others that you wish not done to you. You must be told not to take a life or what is not given to you, told not to rape a child or anyone, etc. How sad a human you are.

Freddy
This does not even make sense. So, you have laid out some “standards of morality” that you seem to be asserting are true. Where do you get those from? What gives you the right to assert these things to be good morality? Do these apply in EVERY situation? Your approach to morality does not allow definitive answers to any of these questions.

Mark Bertrand
cont:

What is equally as sad is the Bible tells you that when God says so , orders it or does it himself that rape is ok, murder is ok, to kill a child is ok, to sell your child as a slave, to own other humans is ok, to steal is ok, mass murder etc etc.

You of course in your prejudice and hate of anyone who dare not believe as you do, do not know that beliefs like Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism as a few examples have no gods are far more more peaceful and moral then your belief.

Freddy
Your interpretation of the Bible is simply false. Making false statements does not make them true.

And now you accuse me of prejudice and hate because I have a particular belief. By default, that means that you are the same because you are showing prejudice and hate towards me for not believing like you. Disagreeing with someone does not necessarily imply what you have said. It is simply a false statement.

Mark Bertrand
cont:

Perhaps you should more time showing to all others the same respect and kindness you seek for yourself, your loved ones and what you choose to believe or disbelieve.

It is you that and this childish selfish ego driven desire to attack anyone who may not believe as you do that is the cause great suffering prejudice, hate that devised the world.

Freddy
It seems to me that you are the one who has come to my site and begun spewing hateful things. I have not sought any respect from you, so your statement about that is meaningless. You should practice what you preach.

Jimbo Jones
Your view would acknowledge a morality based Hindu, Muslim, Jain, Taoist, Buddhist, Wiccan etc. beliefs which vary even in their understanding of morality. Also, as an atheist I also believe in an objective morality based on an understanding of natural systems of ecology, not individual agency, so do you consider me moral?

Freddy
Acknowledging the existence of moral systems does not necessarily mean those systems are objectively true/real. So, yes, I do acknowledge other systems exist, but I do not believe they correspond with reality.

The definition you gave of your morality doesn’t work. A natural system is based on the objective reality of the existence of nature. However, nature does not provide a moral system. Naturalists must insist on the law of the jungle as a foundation, but morality requires a personal basis.

Harizl
No, I understand what naturalism is, but you seem to assume there is some assertion on my part of naturalism.

The only assumption I make procedurally is the Null Hypothesis.

Naturalism or Super-naturalism can arise from either but asserting super-Naturalism before any kind of justification outside of personal belief based on the same justifications as their myths and legends without specification is just pointless.

There is a difference between philosophical and methodological naturalism.

Freddy
You don’t seem to realize that the Null Hypothesis is based on naturalistic presuppositions. If you are going to take that stance, you are going to have to prove experimentally that the presuppositions of naturalism are true – which you cannot do.

There certainly is a difference between philosophical and methodological naturalism. The big problem is, most Atheists (Naturalists) equate the two. Basically, that is what you have done in asserting the null hypothesis.

oldgordo61
If morality has no absolute basis that there are no moral absolutes only that morality is relative to the individual..which each of us or the society/culture we happen to live in has a certain set of morals that differs from someone else or another culture’s moral standards.. problem with that some societies past and even recent times infantcide was perfectly acceptable whereas in our society that would be horrific..so the vlogger brings up a very important question.where do morals come from?

Freddy
Thank you.

Mark Bertrand
Sad, you accuse me of Making false statements but offer no proof? You are bearing false witness but I forgive you, my love has no conditions.

I did NOT accuse you of of prejudice and hate because you have a particular belief, my friend you have lied again or your reading ability is poor. I said you were prejudice for attacking anyone who dare not believe as you do, PLEASE stop being a liar.

Freddy
So, what kind of proof do you require? How can you accuse me of false witness when I have not done so. Not answering a question to your satisfaction is not the same as lying.

Let me quote you – “It is you that and this childish selfish ego driven desire to attack anyone who may not believe as you do that is the cause great suffering prejudice, hate that devised the world.” Seems to me to be an accusation of prejudice and hate.”

Now, who is bearing false witness?

Mark Bertrand
cont:

then you accuse me of being prejudice against you and Christianity, who more lies and hypocrisy, you are clearly free of all morals. I respect all beings right to believe as they wish as long as they cause no suffering, and give all others the same respect they seek. Perhaps you have some read my post to you.

Freddy
So, you respect all beings right to believe as they wish …. I guess that means everyone but me? Your hypocrisy is killing me.

Mark Bertrand
You are most dishonest and demonstrate a profound hypocrisy. YOU make videos attacking Atheist and others of other beliefs ( of which you have not read all if a single holy book of yet call them lies) . I make comments now you whine persecution.

You need to grow up my friend.

Freddy
It seems that all you do is throw out hate speech to anyone who disagrees with you without backing up your own beliefs. Insults do not prove your point, they only make you look small.

Mark Bertrand
You say you have not sought respect from me, your dishonesty is boundless. The fact is you are whining I am attacking you and your belief and of course you want Christianity respected and would cry as you are now if you feel it is not being so.

You are a very confused man.

Freddy
Those who are not able to argue their point resort to insult. You have not given any evidence that what you believe has any substance to it whatsoever.

Jimbo Jones
I think you fail to understand that the natural system is the morality it’s constituents acts are measured against. However, I’m interested in what you consider proof of your moral systems truth/reality that differs from the proofs a follower of other faiths would give in justifying the truth of their idea’s of an objective morality?

Freddy
I think you fail to understand that your “natural system” is based totally on subjectivity. I am interested in what proof you have to demonstrate that your moral system represents reality.

As for me: I generally don’t use the word proof because Naturalists misinterpret that to mean proof based on experimental science. Evidence is probably the better term. There are numerous categories which include science and logic, but the ultimate “proof” for me is the personal relationship I have with God.

Mark Bertrand
You say you do not seek respect from me, a quick look at your videos tells a different story “Freddy Davis shares some ways for Christians to interact with people who are determined to put down Christians and the Christian faith.”

you lie freely as do you attack others and dare call them haters?

grow up my friend.

Freddy
So, are you a Christian? Based on all of the things you have said to try and put down my beliefs, I would not have guessed that.

Seriously, if you read it again you will see who my primary audience is – and it is obviously not you.

I accept your apology.

robtbo
You can try to make a distinction, but the only standard is one’s conviction, which has no bearing to the objectivity of the notion.

If you disagree that what I wrote are objective facts, please point out how those are conclusions and not observations. Those observations contribute to my worldview, not the other way around.

Timberwolves exhibit moral behavior in their social behavior. If you’re saying that timberwolves aren’t self-aware and make no decisions, you know very little about them.

Freddy
That is your opinion, obviously, but what proof do you have that what you are saying is true?

My point is, your conclusions are not objective facts. They are your interpretation of life based on your naturalistic worldview beliefs. You cannot make any kind of objective moral statement based on that.

Have you ever heard of anthropomorphisms? Your assertion about timberwolves (or any other non-human animal) is simply false.

Mark Bertrand
1- You have accused me as I have proven of saying things I did not, doing things I had not that makes you a liar. Now you say I said it because you did not answer something the way ” I wanted’ you are dishonest.

RIGHT you posted my words of YOU attacking anyone who does not believe as you do, YOUR videos prove me correct. You do seem confused and are self inflecting wounds.

Freddy
I am not attacking you. All I I have been doing is pointing out the fallacies of your arguments – that is while you were still making some. Lately all you have done is throw out insults. That still fails to demonstrate your point. I think you need to reread what has been said.

Mark Bertrand
WOW you are dishonest, Please have someone read my post to you as clearly you struggle with reading comprehension.

Where did I say I did not respect your right to believe as you wish/ being Christian? PLEASE stop lying.

My point was you feel free to personally attack anyone who does not believe as you do then whine that people are attacking you and Christianity. You call them haters for doing what YOU are doing. Grow up my friend.

Freddy
The only one I see whining is you. You gripe and complain about what I say and then say you are not griping and complaining. If you respected my right to believe as I wish, you would not be throwing out these continual insults. If you think you have the truth about morality, then I am all ears. Make your point. So far, all you seem to be able to do is give insults.

Mark Bertrand
You write “So, what kind of proof do you require?” well you said “Your interpretation of the Bible is simply false. Making false statements does not make them true.”

The proof was how my nterpretation of the Bible is simply false and what false statements I have made.

Can you really be this dishonest?

Freddy
What? This makes no sense at all. Would you like to reword that? I asked you a question and I don’t see an answer. What kind of proof do you require?

Harizl
The null hypothesis based on naturalism, explain to me how it is without vague nonspecifics instead of simply asserting it is.

The null hypothesis is simply a starting point for discussing justified or unjustified claims, be them natural or supernatural is irrelevant to application of the concept of the null hypothesis.

You equated naturalisms. I kept them in context and addressed points properly whereas you insisted I (and atheists) claimed philosophical naturalism, which is nonsense.

Freddy
I’m sorry, You said you understood Naturalism and I was trying to not insult you by answering in a way that made it seem like you didn’t.

Your null hypothesis requires that I prove my point using natural proofs – even to demonstrate the reality of the supernatural. That simply can’t be. You can’t demonstrate the supernatural using naturalistic proofs.

Philosophical naturalism is based on beliefs which cannot be demonstrated using experimental science. It is a belief system.

TheSpHornet
You didn’t establish it, you made a statement, you have yet to put forth an argument.

“Slavery was never moral under Christianity”

you’re saying the pope always said we should stop slavery but all christian european and american nations just ignored him? secondly why are there so many rules how to treat slaves in the bible? Why have rules for something that is illigal?

Freddy
Perhaps you have not made the effort to read all that I have written here. I have clearly put forth my beliefs on this topic.

I am not Roman Catholic and don’t recognize the authority of the Pope. Frankly, I don’t know what he has said.

Having a teaching on how to treat people is not the same as condoning an institution. You are asserting Christian beliefs based on your personal beliefs about it rather than on what the Bible really teaches.

Mark Bertrand
wow you do struggle with the written word. Where did I

1- say I was Christian?

2- attack Christianity? If you will say my pointing the facts of the Bible, no that is simply facts of the Bible, which you said I was using wrongly yet could not prove how.

3- Your primary audience is tiny but seems to be people who like you hate anyone who dare not believe as you they do? That would make the first true thing you said, I am not part of that audience.

grow up

Freddy
1. Read what you wrote. My response was an obvious (if not factious) reply to it.

2. Your “facts” are error. You have only demonstrated your lack of knowledge about the Bible.

3. You don’t know anything about my audience and once again all you have is insults. You have still yet to give evidence that what you believe is true in any sense.

Jimbo Jones
You say subjectivity, by what understanding is an inherent ecology across levels of a system is subjective? To what is it subjective if nothing by definition is beyond it?

I thought ‘personal relationship’ would be your evidence, but that is a subjective belief, however, beyond that if I accept it, it is no more evidential than that supplied by those of other faiths, so would you in my position accept all, or dismiss all, as the evidence favours none?

Freddy
Okay, I’ll bite. What objective moral rules can you derive from your natural system?

You only took part of my answer. I also said that the categories of evidence included science and logic along with the personal experience. They all work together. That said, there is no such thing as experimental proof for worldview beliefs. That does not imply that they are not true. All of the evidence has to line up. There is a way reality is actually structured and it is not structured any other way.

Mark Bertrand
You can not really be this dishonest can you?

1-your video and others are attacking Atheist and people who do not believe as you do, thus another lie.

2-where have you fallacies of my arguments? You have done no such thing. READ my post.

Freddy
You are mistaking what I said for an attack. You are taking something personally that is not personal – in fact, as I have said, is not even for you. Your feeling of hurt is your problem, not mine.

I have pointed out the “what” of your fallacies. What you seem to want is the “why.” I have told you on more than one occasion that I will do that for you, but not in this format. The 500 character limit does not allow the kind of explanation that would be necessary. Now, put up or shut up.

robtbo
The proof that conviction has no relevance to truth is that there are atheists with unshakeable conviction that your religion is false and that you have similar conviction that it is true. If you’re observing reality you shouldn’t need to ask for proof of that.

You just repeated yourself instead of presenting any reason to support yourself. Was anything I said false or unobservable?

You’re saying that no animal other than humans are self-aware or can make decisions. Where do you observe this?

Freddy
I never said that conviction has no relevance to truth. I said there is an objective way that reality is structured and is not structured any other way. Thus, anything not true is not true. The fact that some people sincerely believe untruth should be rather obvious.

You are asserting a conclusion you cannot demonstrate to be true and representing it as true.

You’re not serious about the animals, are you? Try putting a mirror in front of your timberwolf and see if it recognizes itself.

Mark Bertrand
lol you are childish, your only retort is ” I know you are but what am I”. You are the one whining my friend, you make statements about me but offer no facts, you refuse to address my points from my very first post.

You do have issues understanding what is written, ask someone to read my post to you.

Read back to my first post if you can muster any honesty.

Freddy
Again, nothing substantive.

Mark Bertrand
1- I read it, it was empty statement containing no facts juts an accusation.

2- Again you make an statement but offer no facts, how do I have lack of knowledge about the Bible? Where are your facts?

I do know about your audience, your videos are barely watched thus making your “audience” tiny.

Freddy
1. I’m glad you are finally beginning to recognize the depth of your retorts.
2. I don’t need to repeat myself.
3. Most of my audience sees the video in other places, not directly from YouTube. You don’t know much about technology either, do you?

Jimbo Jones
There is a natural balance between the interplay of any number of the relationship of ‘things’ which is iterant throughout its entirety (shorthand, but I’m happy to develop it if you want).

Your points in the paragraph hold true for those other faiths no less?

Freddy
You have not answered the question. You have only thrown out a theoretical framework which doesn’t seem to have any kind of basis that you can definitively show to have an objective foundation.

No. Every other one breaks down at some point either on logic, science or human experience – including Atheism.

Jimbo Jones
‘morality’ is simply the natural balance of the entirety of things, not some set of codified rules set in stone. You may not see the world that way, but it confers a systemic structure that is beyond any individual comprehension, the only difference with your model is it don’t require an entity beyond it (which would make an objective quality questionable to me).

You may assert that, but so do those other faiths

Freddy
Interesting definition, but how do you know it actually represents reality? How do you know the definition is true?

If it is beyond individual comprehension, then how do you even comprehend it? It is not in any way like what I believe.

You can question the concept of objective reality if you like, but there is some way that reality actually exists and that is objective reality. Your definition does not hold up.

People assert false things all the time. That does not make them true.

Kristen70364
Atheists and Christians base their morality on secular principles of of rights agreed upon by the masses, not a thousands year old book that advises you to stone unruly children and not wear clothes with mixed fabrics (because I can almost guarantee you’re probably wearing a cotton/polyester blend, you sinner).

Freddy
Your first statement is simply false. Christians do not base their morality on secular principles. It is based on revelation.

You may think that your assertions about the Bible somehow hold water, but your understanding of biblical hermeneutics is horrible. Beyond that, your assertion has absolutely nothing to do with the topic that is on the video.

robtbo
And when something cannot be objectively proven to be real, it’s no different from a personal opinion, regardless of if personal conviction graduates the opinion into a belief. You have no more of a foundation for objective morality than I do.

I’m stating observations.  Is anything I said false or unobservable?

Yes, I’m serious about animals. Did you ever touch an animal and have it react? How the animal reacts is a decision it makes. That’s self-awareness and free will. That’s reality.

Freddy
When you say objectively, do you mean empirically based on experimental science? That is not the only way to test for reality. Your assertion is flawed.

Yes. Your observation that humans survive best through cooperation and coexistence and empathy cannot be proven by experimental science. But beyond that, your claim that “morality” can be derived subjectively is an admission that it is not observable.

Did it ever occur to you that the reaction is instinctual rather than thought out?

Jimbo Jones
Last point first, but you do see that your position holds nothing more itself.

All things are beyond individual comprehension beyond an isomorphic interpretation through what limited senses we poses. A truth that is as relevant to any religious testament as anything else (blind men & elephant metaphor etc.) Similarly, the idea of an objective morality doesn’t dismiss it as dynamic. All the questions you pose me are no better answered by your position, in fact requires a greater model.

Freddy
As long as you insist on experimental science being the end all be all, you have no choice but to accept your assertion. I believe that a supernatural reality exists and I have a personal relationship with the one who created the natural. There is reason and reasonableness behind biblical morality, even though it cannot be fully attained by natural means. Human beings are spiritual beings who are able to connect with the supernatural because we, also, have a part that is beyond the physical.

Jimbo Jones
Anyway, have to go, but happy to continue tomorrow if you want, it’s always interesting to look into others models. :)

Freddy
It goes beyond models. I actually know an objectively real relationship with God who has revealed himself to humanity. Blessings! :-)

Kristen70364
You claiming that my assertion is false doesn’t make it so.

Define “revelation”.

Lastly, my point is relevant because you asserted that morality is objective, and I’ve shown that morality is subjective BECAUSE we don’t follow biblical law.

Freddy
Revelation, in the case of biblical Theism, is that which is revealed by God from outside of the material universe.

You have asserted that morality is subjective, but you have not shown it to be so. You can attempt to live your life as if it is subjective, but at many points you certainly bump up against reality and your subjective morality will fall apart. You can no more flaunt spiritual/moral laws than you can flaunt physical ones.

robtbo
When I say objectively, I mean outside your own mind. You’re wrong to assume I meant scientifically and avoiding the truth that you can’t prove objective morality. The existence of many moralities other than yours should indicate how unrealistic your assertion of objective morality is.

Do you observe humans surviving better in wartime than when coexisting and cooperating? Seriously? Do you want to retract that absurdity?

My own empathy is what I was referring to, which is observable.

-cont

Freddy
You don’t get to make up your own definition of objectivity. It means actually, really, real. And what is “outside your own mind” and how does that make something objective?

The fact that different people follow different moral codes does not change something that is objectively true. It is very possible for people to live by false beliefs and many do. Your assertion is simply not true.

All you have proposed is anecdotal evidence. You have not proven anything. It is a subjective conclusion.

robtbo
-cont

It does occur to me that some reactions are instinctive rather than thought out. Which is why I referenced the human survival instinct. Animals can learn to act against their own instinct. That is self-awareness and decision-making and it’s observable to everyone but you, apparently.

Freddy
The fact that your empathy is observable does not make it any less subjective. I might observe it and interpret it to be pandering. It is internal to you and subjective.

Animals can be trained. But it is Pavlovian learning which is based on instinct, not self-conscious decision making. Only humans are capable of that.

Your reference to a “human survival instinct” is only a partial truth. Humans have something beyond that “instinct” – the ability to consciously process information.

Kristen70364
Do you have falsifiable evidence for this “revelation”?

Also, the fact that we no longer follow biblical law to the letter is proof that morality is subjective. If it weren’t, it wouldn’t change over time and people wouldn’t have different ideas of what is considered moral. Not so long ago, it was considered moral to own slaves. Now we know it isn’t.

Therefore: morality = subjective

Freddy
Very strange reasoning on every front.

First, you are demanding that I prove Theism based on naturalistic presuppositions. If you will prove those presuppositions to be true, you win the argument. Until then, your request is absurd.

Secondly, the fact that some people do not follow the truth does not make falsehood true. People’s beliefs may change, but God’s revelation doesn’t . Your assertion is again, absurd.

Thus, your conclusion is not demonstrated. You have proven absolutely nothing.

robtbo
I wasn’t. Objective: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers Nobody in their right mind denies morality exists objectively, but nobody can prove their morality is objectively correct.

The fact that different people have their own morality compounded with the fact that nobody can prove one’s own morality true makes it rational to consider that one might be wrong.

-cont

Freddy
That is one definition of the word. However, many words have more than one def. I actually gave you the definition I was using so you have no excuse for using a different one in order to try to say my argument is wrong.

Again, you are demanding that I use naturalistic proofs to prove my Theistic beliefs. Prove the presuppositions of Naturalism and you have a case. But until then, your argument doesn’t hold water. Your “rationality” is only valid if you prove your worldview presuppositions.

robtbo
cont. –

It’s observational, not anecdotal. A human can observe their own humanity and empathy. A human can observe the human survival instinct. A human can observe the fact that humans survive better through coexistence and cooperation, unless you’d like to claim there’s an overabundance of survival during wartime.

These are simple facts that humans are not required to acknowledge or place value on, but if one does, therein lies a fine objective foundation for human morality.

-more

Freddy
As I said, anyone can observe it, but no one outside of yourself can determine if it is genuine. There is no science here, only personal assertion.

Your survival assertion is still anecdotal. Show me the experimental science to back it up.

Your simple “facts” are not facts, they are your opinion. That is certainly not an objective foundation in any sense of the word. Nothing you said here meets even your own standard of evidence.

robtbo
cont. –
Humans are subject to Pavlovian responses as well, silly. That’s just a cause-effect conditioning but it’s the basis of all decision-making. How can an animal be trained if it can’t decide to ignore its’ own instinct, if it can’t “consciously process information”, such as processing awareness of its own need to eat, a dinner bell and the presence of food?

You’re denying basic observations of reality… there’s no way around it.

Freddy
I never denied that humans are not subject to their DNA. BUT, human beings are able to decide beyond purely natural responses. We can consider our options and make a decision.

Your entire post is simply inaccurate, and I don’t even have to appeal to my Christian faith. Science itself has dismissed what you are saying. It simply is not true.

Kristen70364
It’s not my job to prove anything. All your reasoning depends on the claim that god and the revelation are real. Until the burden o proo for your god claim has been met, all the rest is fiction.

But whatever. I’m getting off this merry-go-round.

Freddy
I beg to differ. You came here and initiated an attack on me. It certainly is up to you to back up your attack. All your reasoning depends on the claim that the natural universe is all that exists. Why should your faith trump mine without any kind of accountability at all? Sorry, it simply doesn’t work that way and I will not let you off the hook to simply lob bombs and run away.

robtbo
cont –

You have a warped notion of who you’re discussing with. You’ve said that science isn’t the only way we learn things. I agree. Do you see the open hypocrisy of now asking me for scientific proof of casually observed facts that you can verify with your own casual observation? What does Christian faith say about hypocrisy?

You’ve already said you’ve observed human survival instinct and your own empathy. Between you and me, they’re objective, otherwise you testify against yourself.

Freddy
Have you completely lost it? Do you even know the worldview presuppositions of your Atheist beliefs? All I am demanding of you is that you justify your beliefs based on your own beliefs. If you can’t do that, you have no right to question mine. So far, you have given NO objective justification (experimental scientific proof) of anything you have asserted. All you have done is blow smoke.

robtbo
cont –

Now all that’s left is that you can observe your own humanity and one other part. You haven’t observed that humans survive better through warfare. Do you observe that humans survive better through cooperation and coexistence?

Animals can learn to decide beyond purely natural responses as well as humans. Otherwise, animals would always act solely on instinct and domestication and training wouldn’t be possible. Do you observe nothing except what you want to?

Freddy
You are still using totally anecdotal arguments. You have not demonstrated one thing using experimental science. Your argument is based on a logical formulation that you have yet to justify. Show me the science.

You can continue beating your “animal” horse all you want, but it is already dead. Nothing you have said has a basis in scientific fact. It is simply false on its face. Non-human animals DO NOT make rational, considered decisions about what they do.

June 4, 2013

Marshall Mjob
Factor of the matter is, when it comes to morality, Christians are forced to rely on their opinion about how god wants them to behave. Sure, they’ll claim that they have the bible to guide them; yet the bible endorses every variety of atrocity that today we all agree to be evil. In rejecting the atrocities of the bible, Christians are using a source other than their religious faith to decide what is and is not moral…just like atheists.

Freddy
Fact of the matter is, you are wrong. Christians rely on the teachings of the Bible for that. To make your argument, you have simply used a false hermeneutic and a false logic. Until you get those things right, you will continue to make silly mistakes like you have just done.

As for the basis of morality, who is it that “agrees” to what is evil? The point of the video is that morality is not based on consensus. If you can prove differently, I would like to hear it.

Justin Atheist
* throws banana over creationist`s left shoulder and slowly exits the page*

Freddy
Thank you.

Harizl
“Your null hypothesis requires that I prove my point using natural proofs”

That is simply not correct, all it does is make existential claims require justification. Even supernatural claims can be justified, the issue is that your* claims are unfalsifiable in many ways.

It does not insist on naturalism, no matter how often you assert it to avoid justifying your beliefs are accurate.

You might as well simply say “You can’t question God.”, because it’s the same hand waving and special pleading.

Freddy
Okay, just for fun, what do you require for justification? I have answered your question to numerous posters already and you seem not to be willing to accept any answers that I have given (if you have actually read them). So, what do you require?

Pyramides Head
Can theists be moral?

The only standart they have is an opinion. Ok, it might be an opinion of a god, but so what…

Fallowing orders is not a moral system, it’s a system of obedience. If that god told you to kill, it would become good… just because that god tells you so.

(cont.)

Freddy
See reply on the conclusion of your post.

Pyramides Head

If that god told ME to kill, it would still be morally bad. Because my reason, why I don’t kill is because it is harmfull to the person I’d kill. And that harmfullness doesn’t change, wheter a god tells me to do it or not.

So actually: My morality is not relative. Because it’s not based on the opinion of somebody (or something).

Freddy
What? You have given no justification for anything you have said. And honestly, what you have said makes no sense. First you set up a straw man which has no relationship to anything. Then you go on to say that your morality is not relative because it is based on your own opinion rather than the opinion of somebody (or something) else. Give me a break!

robtbo
No, you’ve lost it. Nonbelief requires no specific positive belief.

And you have no objective justification, just a subjective notion that your morality is objective. You said that if I can’t prove my beliefs I have no right to question yours, but that doesn’t stop you from questioning mine. That’s hypocrisy, too.

What does the Christian faith say about that? Don’t you know?

Freddy
You are simply wrong. You do hold a positive belief and your have been asserting it from the time you came here attacking me. How silly is even the notion that you would tell someone they were wrong if you didn’t have some belief that you thought was right.

Your statement about no objective justification is correct only if God does not actually exist. I know he does and I know him in a personal relationship, so I do have a basis for saying what I do. Your charge of hypocrisy is baseless.

robtbo
Neither of us don’t rely on experimental science, hypocrite.

It’s like pulling teeth to get you to make simple observations.

You’ve observed empathy. You’ve observed survival instinct. Do you observe humanity? Do you observe that humans survive best through cooperation and coexistence, and if not, what do you observe?

Non-human animals are faced with choices to make and can learn. That’s free will and consciousness. That’s basic observation of reality that you continuously deny.

Freddy
You still don’t get it, do you? Theism is a different worldview with different beliefs about the nature of reality. My belief is that God does exist which allows me to use evidence beyond experimental science. Atheism does not allow you that possibility. You are arguing your point using beliefs from places which do not fit your stated worldview beliefs. You need to go back and figure out your own belief foundation.

Continuing to make a false assertion about the animals will not make it true.

robtbo
I never said I had no positive beliefs. I said atheism requires no specific positive belief. You’re imagining that I said something else.

And if you cannot objectively prove God, you should accept that your position is subjective, not objective. Just like mine.

My charge of hypocrisy is based on you continuously asking for scientific evidence when you reject it as your standard. Have you not done this? Simple observation of your comments will show your hypocrisy.

Freddy
You don’t seem to understand the significance of what you are asserting. Atheism absolutely DOES have a specific positive belief. Are you saying you are not an Atheist?

You also don’t seem to understand the concept of objective vs. subjective. The fact that God cannot be put under a microscope does not means he does not objectively exist.

You are still requiring that I prove God based on your worldview beliefs. That is an illegitimate requirement. You don’t even understand what you are saying.

robtbo
That all my perceptions, both sensory and otherwise, are evident to me allows me to use them as evidence outside of experimental science. What’s your obsession with experimental science?

My worldview is subjective, and I’m stating objective observations which form my beliefs.

I’m not making false assertions, I’m making observations of reality. Ignoring basic observations of animals learning to make their own decisions against their instincts doesn’t make those observations false.

Freddy
How do you know that your sensory experience is real? How do you know you don’t live in the Matrix? Your logic is fatally flawed. You seem to think that the test for reality is your beliefs.

So, you are making objective statements based on subjective beliefs? Right! The more you say the deeper you are stepping in it.

Do yourself a favor and go do some research from actual science about the animals. You are assigning human characteristics to animals which have no basis in scientific research.

Pyramides Head
What strawmen?

Isn’t it true, that you take the basis of your moral from your god? You justify your “objective” morals as god given, so how is that different from just his opinion. And how could you possibly hold or be against any position, if god would order something? I don’t want to set up a strawmen, and I don’t think I did. But if that’s not the position you hold (even though from your video it seems that way) feel free to correct me.

(cont.)

Freddy
You don’t seem to have read the string before jumping in. We have dealt in-depth with this already. The basis for biblical teaching is not God’s “opinion,” it is his person. Very different. That is your straw-man. You are setting up God and his ways to be something different than what I believe and then attacking your false assertion. Very rude to do what you have just done – especially since you could have avoided this by knowing what has already been discussed.

Pyramides Head

Where did I say my morality is based on my opinion? I don’t think it’s my opinion that f.e. killing is harmfull, right? I mean, wouldn’t you agree that that’s an objective assesment of that example?

Freddy
No, you have not given an objective assessment. I assume you are an Atheist since you are attacking me based on the topic of the video. So, exactly where do you get your morality? What is your moral foundation that killing is not right? There have been plenty of people with your worldview background who have a very different belief about killing. Based on an atheistic approach, you have nothing other than your personal opinion from which to draw.

robtbo
Wrong. Atheists have positive beliefs. Atheism requires no specific positive beliefs. You seem to be reading everything with willful bias.

By your own admission, God does not objectively exist. That makes your moral platform subjective, just like mine.

Again, I have never asked you to prove your god. I’ve asked you to make basic observations of reality… and you refuse.

Freddy
Oh? So I can believe just anything and still be an Atheist? I can believe in God and still be an Atheist? Wow!

What? I have said over and over that God DOES objectively exist. You seem to be losing it.

You are not asking me to make basic observations of reality. You have only asked me to believe your subjective assertions based on your personal beliefs and non supported anecdotes. You have yet to provide even one piece of actual proof that what you are saying is true.

robtbo
I know based on Merriam-Webster’s definition of knowledge: 2 a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association.

If all observers can make the same observations, the observation can be considered objective. That’s why I’ve you to make simple observations. You refuse.

Do yourself a favor and observe reality. You seem to think an animal has no choice but to ignore its instincts when it doesn’t learn. Completely nonsensical.

Freddy
Do yourself a favor and do some study to understand your own logic. Your quotation of a definition does not make your case – especially when the definition you quote does not address the issues we are dealing with.

Here is your problem: All observers are not making the same observations. You have no basis for making your claims. Every post does nothing but assert your opinion. Your so called “simple observations” are simply not as conclusive as you believe they are.

robtbo
For the 4th time, atheism requires no specific positive belief. What you’re saying does not address that statement. I think you’ve established your willful ignorance.

My mistake. I misread an earlier comment. If you cannot objectively prove god then you should admit it and accept that your position is subjective, just like mine.

Do you observe your own humanity? Do you observe that humans survive better through cooperation and coexistence, and if not, what do you observe?

Freddy
And for the forth time you are simply wrong. If Atheism has no beliefs, you couldn’t argue for it.

Again, you require me to use Naturalistic beliefs to prove Theism. It doesn’t work that way. Seriously, you need to learn something about worldview beliefs.

Your problem is, you are not merely asking for observations, but conclusions based on the observations. It is your conclusions which you are not backing up. You haven’t even defined what you mean by “better, cooperation and coexistence.”

robtbo
The definition I quote is an English definition. Are you not observing English?

The discussion is between you and me. I understand there will be exceptions.  For the purposes of this discussion, you and I are the observers. We’re not using scientific experimentation here. You say my observations are not objective, but you’ve agreed with some, haven’t presented any observations to the contrary and simply refused to answer questions about if your observations of others are the same as mine.

Freddy
I don’t give a rip if it is in Pig Latin. If you use a definition which is different than what I meant in the video, you are talking about a different topic.

If you are insisting on not using scientific experimentation, then you are not talking about reality based on an atheistic foundation. It seems to me that your entire attack on me was based on your belief that Atheism is right and Theism is wrong. If you want to use a different foundation, then quit being coy and say what you believe.

robtbo
For the 5th time. Atheism requires no specific positive beliefs. The adjectives aren’t there for you to willfully ignore. I can argue for atheism based on my observations which give me reason to consider theistic claims unbelievable.

I said “If you cannot objectively prove god then you should accept that your position is subjective, just like mine.” I made no naturalistic stipulations.

You can look up “better, cooperation and coexistence” in a dictionary if you don’t know the words, friend.

Freddy
And for the 5th time your assertion is nonsense. Your conclusion is also nonsense. You are arguing from two separate logical structures which contradict one another.

Again, you are requiring that I use naturalistic proofs to prove Theism. You absolutely are making naturalistic stipulations. You don’t seem to know the definition of Naturalism.

Thank you for making my point. You are working off of definitions which no one knows but yourself.

robtbo
Then present an alternate English definition for consideration. I assumed that since we began a dialogue in English that we had an unspoken agreement to use the language instead of Pig Latin. If you don’t agree with the language, why are you bothering to communicate?

“If you are insisting on not using scientific experimentation, then you are not talking about reality based on an atheistic foundation.”

Observe this comment: “My opinion is that no gods exist.” Re-think your absurd statement.

Freddy
It is not the language, silly. And I have already given the definition several times to different people, even to you. If you are paying so little attention to actual arguments, perhaps I have misjudged you. Maybe you are not really serious but are only a troll on this string.

Your opinion? If it is nothing more than your opinion, then how is my statement absurd? You have presented no evidence at all, only your opinion. BTW, that is a positive belief.

robtbo
Then present your definition of “knowledge” again. I didn’t see you citing any definition for it.

The statement refers to me having an opinion. An opinion is not a scientifically proven fact. If any atheist has any opinion at all, an atheistic foundation cannot universally rely solely on scientific fact.

Rethink your statement “If you are insisting on not using scientific experimentation, then you are not talking about reality based on an atheistic foundation.”

I’m talking about objectivity.

Freddy
I’m sorry, but if you are not willing to even consider the things even the two of us have discussed (not to mention all of the other posts in this string), that’s too bad. Your opinion means nothing to me unless you can back it up – and back it up based on your own worldview requirements. Only problem is, you don’t even know the implications of your own atheistic beliefs. I will not do your work for you. You are making silly and contradictory statements. Do some study.

robtbo
And I think it’s pretty obvious that I’ve allowed you to lead us far astray of the topic.

I assert that if you can’t objectively prove your morality, you should consider it subjective by definition, just like mine.

I assert that subjective consideration of basic observations of humanity can account for a rational and emotional foundation for human morality.

You observe empathy and survival instinct. Do you observe humanity and that humans survive best through cooperation and coexistence?

Freddy
Again, you have no clue as to the difference between subjective and objective. You think something is objective if you believe it. Simply not so. You think that the fact something exists (empathy & survival instinct) means your interpretation of its implications automatically represent the truth about reality. Simply not so. You think that your subjective consideration of a belief makes it objectively true. How silly. Your logic is now ranging at about the middle school level. Do some study.

robtbo
I’m just asking you to make simple observations and see if we agree on what we observe and if a logical and emotional basis for human morality can be established. No scientific experimentation required.

You observe your own empathy and human survival instinct. Do you observe your own humanity and that humans survive best through cooperation and coexistence? No trick definitions. Just observe and report back.

Freddy
You still don’t get it. It is not the observation that is at issue, but the interpretation of the observation. Naturalistic worldview beliefs require a natural explanation for EVERYTHING! You claim to be a Naturalist by virtue of your claim to be an Atheist, yet you want to explain everything by opinion (your personal interpretation of what you think you observe). I continue to insist that you be consistent. YOU must have an explanation based in experimental science to validate your belief.

robtbo
Obviously I do have a clue, since I’m the only one presenting actual English definitions. The definition of objective qualifies it as being mind-independent and perceptible by all observers. I’m trying to establish a way that you and I, as observers, can agree on a few objective and subjective things. Subjective is “characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind”

If you disagree with this, present a different standard by which we may judge it.

Freddy
Obviously you don’t since you are offering definitions of things that are not pertinent to the video.

The definition of objective that is being dealt with in the video is that which is actually, really real. That does not necessarily mean that it is perceptible by all observers. In fact, you don’t even acknowledge the actual reality of God which I have asserted to be objectively real.

AGAIN, you do not grasp the concepts of objective and subjective as they are being used in this discussion.

robtbo
We both agree that naturalism isn’t the only way we learn things.

Atheism is different from naturalism and objectivity.

You’ve already agreed that we observe a few things. Why do you now take a step back and say observations are opinions?

Make an observation showing why an opinion that no gods exist requires that I must use scientific experimentation as the sole basis for belief. Otherwise, you’re presenting an opinion with no support at all, and in opposition to reality.

Freddy
Here we go again.
1. Naturalism is not a learning process, it is a worldview.
2. Atheism is a belief system based on Naturalism.
3. Observations are not opinions, but the interpretation of them are based on a person’s worldview.
4. Naturalism asserts that only the natural universe exists. Thus, everything, including your assertion that God doesn’t exist, must be dealt with based on naturalistic presuppositions.
5. So, prove your presuppositions and you have a case. Until then, you have nothing.

robtbo
You’re saying the definition of “objective” is not pertinent to “objective morality”. Again, denying reality.

Again, suggest a standard for how we judge what is “actually, really real” since you reject the standards of English definition. How else am I to grasp the meanings you’ve invented for the words you use?

Freddy
No, I am saying that objective morality is tied to the objective reality of the existence of God (which you totally deny). Quit asserting that I believe things that I have said I don’t believe. It is as if you don’t understand the concepts we are dealing with.

I have more than suggested a standard, I have said how to do it. Come to know a personal relationship with God and you will get it. Your problem is, not only do you not understand Naturalism, you don’t understand Theism, either.

robtbo
1. Naturalism currently does not describe conscious behavior. If one accepts the existence of conscious behavior, naturalism is insufficient to establish a worldview.
2. Atheists can be solipsists, Buddhists, Satanists, or have no distinct reason to reject claims of divinity. Atheism requires no specific positive belief.
3. We haven’t even gotten to interpretations of observations. Are you claiming worldviews come before observing the world?
4. See #2
5. I’ve made no presuppositions.

Freddy
1. You do not understand what a worldview is. Naturalism IS a worldview.
2. They all have one thing in common (a specific positive belief) – that God does not exist.
3. YES!!!!
4. See #2
5. You don’t understand what a presupposition is. You have asserted nothing but presuppositions.

robtbo
So your standard of what is “actually, really real” requires you to presuppose a specific concept is not only believable, but real, with no indication of how you arrive at that standard.

Yet your criticism of me is “You seem to think that the test for reality is your beliefs.” which is untrue because I’ll freely admit that I can be wrong.

What does the Bible say about hypocrisy again?

Freddy
No indication? I know exactly how I came to know a personal relationship with God. Again, you are thinking totally in naturalistic terms which doesn’t allow you to even acknowledge that what I am telling you could be actually, really real. I am perfectly following my worldview beliefs.

You are the one who can’t seem to consistently follow what you claim is your worldview. You admit you can be wrong yet bash me the way you are? And you accuse me of hypocrisy? Right!

robtbo
1. Do you think naturalism is sufficient to form a complete worldview?
2. Every example of atheism I gave there was explicitly non-naturalistic. This should prove that atheism is not a belief system based on naturalism.
3. If worldviews are not subject to observation, then you assert that worldviews can never change through observation. They do. That’s reality.
4. See #2.
5. I’ve made observations that you can verify with your own observations.

Why won’t you?

Freddy
1. Naturalism IS a worldview system. Do you understand what a worldview is?
2. You named atheistic systems, not Atheism. Atheism is a naturalistic belief system. There are other systems which are also atheistic but not naturalistic. My point holds.
3. You don’t understand what a worldview is. Observations are made through worldview lenses. That is reality.
4. See #2
5. I don’t deny your observations, but don’t necessarily agree with the conclusions you draw from them.

robtbo
AND BTW, for #2… rejection of theistic beliefs can entail suspension of judgment as opposed to having a positive belief in the opposite.

Freddy
Even in your state of animated suspension, you stand on some set of worldview presuppositions. You must still have some criteria for making your final evaluation. You will finally decide based on the worldview beliefs that you accept. Your “suspension of judgment” is not the kind of belief in “nothing” that you think it is.

robtbo
If you entered into a *personal* relationship with God, how does that not make it subjective? How does that apply to me? What definition are you going to invent for “subjective”?

I haven’t expressed my worldview. It’s not possible to do because my worldview is based on a lifetime of previous observations and I perceive new observations every waking moment that may change my worldview.

You, on the other hand, deny basic observations to maintain your worldview. That’s observation, not bashing.

Freddy
Again, you don’t understand the concept of objective. You think that if you can’t experience it with your physical senses, it is not real (a product of your naturalistic presuppositions). Simply not so!

You simply do not understand the concept of worldview. I continue to suggest some study. You continue to make the same error over and over.

What I understand is that you have no clue regarding the worldview lens you are using to draw your conclusions.

robtbo
1. Answer the question. Do you think naturalism is sufficient to form a complete worldview?
2. You claim atheism is naturalistic while admitting atheism includes non-naturalistic systems. Your hypocrisy holds.
3. You’re denying reality again. Worldviews form and change due to observations. If all observations conformed to worldviews, worldviews couldn’t change. Worldviews change. Do you agree?
4. See #2, hypocrite. You never did mention what the Bible says about that.
5. -more-

Freddy
1. I did answer it. Naturalism IS a worldview. Your question doesn’t make any sense.
2. Your snideness holds. Did you not notice the difference between Atheism and atheistic? Obviously not.
3. You have no clue what a worldview is. I can’t help you until you get up to speed on this.
4. I didn’t need to. You also need to look up the definition of hypocrite.
5. You obviously can’t comprehend the English language. There are distinctions you totally miss. I have answered your question a dozen times.

robtbo
-cont

5. FINALLY. Now that you admit my observations are observations and NOT opinions or presuppositions (no, I’m not going to ask you to apologize or specifically admit you were wrong) maybe we can continue on how subjective acknowledgement of these observations can form a basis for human morality.

Do you observe your own humanity? Do you observe that humans survive better through coexistence and cooperation?

Freddy
See previous.

robtbo
And not everyone has a complete worldview.  Not everyone has a worldview that will never change. The notion of “finally” that you present seems to be limited to those who will never admit that they can be wrong.

That’s not everyone.

Freddy
Actually, very few people even recognize their own worldview and many people hybridize their worldview foundation. This leads to ignorance and internal contradictions. Willingness to admit wrong is not a part of the equation in this.

We certainly can change our worldview, but it is generally conversional, not incremental. And most of the time it does not happen based on deliberate consideration.

robtbo
Wrong. I can’t experience morality with my physical sense and I admit it’s real. I agree that it’s “simply not so” and have agreed all along.

I understand my worldview and my bias toward it and that I may be wrong. I wouldn’t consider any single philosophy, such as naturalism, to be sufficient to explain reality on all levels. That’s why I may use such words to describe a worldview, but never to be a worldview on their own. Make sense?

Freddy
Wait! You switched the subject. The reference was to my relationship with God, not the concept of morality. Your response makes no sense.

If you hybridize worldview beliefs, you automatically bring in internal contradictions. All you have said here is that you are a very confused person and have no clue as to what is real.

So, if you are that unconvinced about your own beliefs, where do you get off attacking mine? How do you know that what I believe is not the truth?

robtbo
1. I disagree. If you consider naturalism insufficient to describe all worldly phenomenon, you should agree that naturalists must hold additional philosophies to have a sensible worldview.

2. Get a piece of paper. Draw a line down the middle. Write “Naturalistic” on one side of the line and “Non-naturalistic” on the other. Draw a circle on the “naturalistic” side and label the circle “atheism”. This represents what you call atheism.

-more

Freddy

1. You still don’t understand. I do believe Naturalism does not explain reality. I think I have been quite clear on that. They don’t need to hold additional ones, they need to drop Naturalism and come go know God.
2. Your model is wrong. Solipsism, Buddhism and Satanism belong in entirely different worldview categories. They don’t fit in Naturalism. You really do need to get up to speed on this.
3. See #1
4. Atheism is still a positive belief.
5. I know the distinctions, you obviously don’t.

robtbo
-cont

Now try to draw circles within “atheism” to represent solipsism, Buddhism, Satanism and “no reason” AND have them be on the “non-naturalistic” side of the page. You can’t do it unless you redraw “atheism” so that it is on both sides of the line, which means atheism may be naturalistic OR non-naturalistic. It’s not snide, it’s an observation.

3. See #1.
4. Obviously exhausted. I doubt either of us remembers what the initial assertion was :)
5. It was you ignoring the distinctions.

Freddy
See previous. I got it all in one post.

robtbo
The previous does not answer my questions:

Do you observe your own humanity? Do you observe that humans survive better through coexistence and cooperation?

Freddy
I do observe my own humanity. But mere observation it does not compel the conclusion you are trying to draw.

I observe that humans often coexist and cooperate, but that they often do not, as well. Your question continues to be fraught with issues which compel conclusions which must be evaluated based on people’s worldview beliefs. Your question is flawed for this conversation. It cannot be definitively answered the way you are requiring.

robtbo
I agree that not many people have thought about WHAT they think about the world. This is why I say many people have views that are insufficient to describe the world and require additional observation to form an actual worldview.

If one never admits one can be wrong, one’s worldview can never change. It’s an important factor.

If we can change our worldview, then not all of our observations conform to our current worldview through interpretation. It’s definitely a 2-way street.

Freddy
It is a very different thing for a worldview to be insufficient to describe the world and for individuals to have an incomplete or contradictory worldview foundation. You are mixing the two.

You don’t understand conversion either, do you?

Your last statement is a little iffy. People don’t just go around changing their worldview. People’s worldview can change, but it is not like deciding to join a club.

robtbo
If you didn’t change the subject to a false assertion of what I consider objective, I wouldn’t have followed you.

Explain how your personal relationship with God is not subjective. Explain what validates your standard, as opposed to, say, a man who perceives that giant bugs are nesting under his skin despite the fact that nobody can perceive those bugs.

My perceptions are evident to me and I have no evidence other than what I perceive. There’s no practical value in doubting their reality.

Freddy
My statement was very plain. You switched out relationship with God for morality.

An actual relationship is objective if it actually exists. My relationship with God actually exists so it is objective. Does the fact that I can’t see your thoughts mean you don’t have thoughts? You are assuming that there is no objective spiritual reality. But there is, and human beings can interact in that arena. It exists even if you say it doesn’t. You have made no effort to “perceive” beyond the physical.

robtbo
You observe your own humanity.

1 step closer. No trick definitions, no hypotheticals, just observation.

Keep in mind the survival instinct which you admittedly observe presents survival as a goal. Consequentialism is valid when determining the worth of action in the achieving of a goal.

Do you observe that we survive best when we cooperate (work together for the purpose of a goal, eg, survival) and when we coexist (tolerate each other’s existence)?

Freddy
I have never denied observation, of my humanity or of the value of cooperation. The problem is, you are creating value judgements regarding these things. My question, from the beginning – what is the basis for your valuing one thing over another (your moral stance). You are arguing based on utilitarianism. But the utility of those values is situational. You still have no objective basis for claiming morality. That is where the problem lies in your argument.

robtbo
Now you’re making a distinction between a worldview and a worldview foundation, but when I suggest that a worldview which doesn’t adequately describe the world shouldn’t be considered a worldview, you’re completely closed to the idea.

Whatever.

Of course I understand conversion. A conversion IS a change. I’m saying our worldviews are formed and changed by our observations while admitting that our current worldviews can cause us to interpret our observations a certain way.

It’s a 2-way street.

Freddy
No distinction intended. The worldview is the belief set itself while a foundation is the acceptance and use of the belief set by individuals.

Observations can be at least a partial influence on the conversion process, but I believe there is a spiritual aspect of humanity that also comes into play (something which you totally deny). Naturalism must evaluate the concept of conversion completely as a physiological phenomenon. I don’t believe that is the case.

robtbo
sigh… I presented a rebuttal to your false assertion of what I consider objective. Morality seemed an appropriate example since I’ve admitted its existence ALL ALONG.

Again, you’re simply asserting, just like the man who asserts that giant bugs are nesting under his skin. Your standard for objectivity is completely subjective, supported by imagination, not observation.

I do perceive metaphysical existence, but I certainly do not perceive your god or your relationship.

Freddy
sigh 2 … The assertion was not false. But the rebuttal fell flat because you replied in a way that did not correspond with what was said.

You say I am simply asserting. But how do you know my relationship with God is not objectively real? How do you know that there is not an objectively real spiritual reality? You don’t. You are just asserting.

And just how do you perceive it? How do you know your perception is actually metaphysical? You are just asserting. Why is it okay for you to assert?

robtbo
The human survival instinct, which you observe, presents a goal. The goal is survival. Actions affecting the achievement of the goal have value. Utilitarianism and consequentialism are appropriate logical tools to use here.

Simple general observation. No need to propose exceptions or complicate meanings. Are cooperation and coexistence of value to the survival goal, and are they better than the behavioral opposites, conflict and killing?

Freddy
A goal for who? Who makes that the ultimate test for anything? Appropriate for who? You are making assertions which have no basis except for your personal opinion that these are good.

All of the questions you are asking have no objective basis in a naturalistic system. What may be good for one may be bad for another. What is good for your survival may be harmful for mine. Now, we are once again at the point of the video.

robtbo
I’m glad you admit observations influence change to a worldview. That’s all I was saying. It’s like pulling teeth to get you to admit the obvious.

Depending on your definition of spirituality, I may not deny the existence of spirituality.

Naturalism is currently incapable of evaluating such phenomenon in any meaningful way.

Freddy
I have never denied that. What I have been careful not to do is allow that observation (what occurs in the natural world) is the only influence that exists.

I have not talked about spirituality. I have only spoken of an objectively real spiritual reality.

Currently? It never can because there is a reality which is beyond the reach of material inquiry.

robtbo
I can perceive metaphysical concepts that I cannot perceive through the 5 physical senses. Are you going to ignore me every time I say it a different way?

I don’t know that there AREN’T giant bugs nesting under the man’s skin. I don’t perceive them, nor your god. Doesn’t mean either of them are objective. Seems to me that those asserting them should consider them subjective if others don’t perceive them.

I never said it wasn’t OK, but I’ve been asserting things you can perceive yourself.

Freddy
Yes, but concepts do not necessarily correspond with actual reality. I can conceive of a unicorn too, but it is not real. But, how do you know that what you think you perceive as metaphysical is actually so? It may have been the mushrooms you had for lunch.

Why should I consider something subjective that I know in a real personal relationship? That’s a silly thought. The fact that you don’t know God reflects on you, not on me.

I certainly don’t perceive all of your conclusions.

robtbo
You observe the human survival instinct. It’s a drive to survive. Survival is the goal for every human who has a human survival instinct. Simple observation.

Appropriate for the circumstances. If survival is the goal, suicide has the ultimate negative value. Simple logic.

We’re making observations, not testing them. No hypotheticals or exemptions, just observation. Just say what you know is obvious. If humans coexist and cooperate towards survival is it better for us than the alternative?

Freddy
Of course I observe it. In fact, I experience it. That said, I am capable of overriding it if I decide something has a high enough value. Your “simple observation” has much more complexity than you give it credit for.

But you are not just making observations. You are proposing conclusions based on your observations – that survival is the goal, suicide is of ultimate negative value, …. You already have in place a bottom line set of values you are arguing for even while denying they are there.

robtbo
Then let me be more specific. When I said “observe”, I was using Merriam-Webster’s definition 1 a: “to take notice”. The word was never intended to be limited to material observation.

You’re asserting that naturalism will never be capable of meaningfully evaluating changes in a person’s worldview. That’s an opinion. My opinion differs.

Freddy
No need to be more specific. I knew exactly what you meant. What I was concerned with was if you understood what I meant. The definition alone does not address what we have been talking about. The inferences from the definition must also be taken into consideration.

My assertion is that Naturalism does not account for all of reality. It can account for physical changes, but when dealing with worldview, there is much more than empirical data to be taken into account. Prove me wrong.

Robtbo
Because the things I observe, physical and metaphysical, are perceived by everyone in their right mind.

If it’s personal… how can it NOT be subjective? The silly thought is that you think you can determine what is objective by a standard which has no basis in what any dictionary defines as objective, and by what every dictionary would call subjective.

The fact that you know God like the man knows giant bugs are nesting under his skin reflects on you, not on me.

Freddy
Oh really? Metaphysical is beyond the physical. How can you be so confident that other people understand what you perceive which is beyond the physical? You have been crashing all over me for claiming that.

My love for my wife is personal, but is also objectively real. It is not just feelings. You are simply using definitions which don’t allow for what you don’t believe. Awful convenient dictionary, if you ask me.

Your analogy is false unless the bugs are actually objectively real. Straw-man.

robtbo
There we have it. An observable goal. Observable purpose. Observable value for behavior by which an individual can objectively judge some basic principles of behavior as “right” and “wrong”… some might call that a moral foundation.

In fact, I think most everyone in their right mind would call that a moral foundation.

No god necessary.

Please don’t blow a tire when you begin backpedalling.

Freddy
No doubt it is a moral foundation, but its basis is purely your opinion of what is good and right. There is no objective foundation by which you can say it is universally good and right (again the point of the video). You still don’t get it, do you?

robtbo
A agree that is among the current limitations of human science. Time will tell if you’re right or wrong. I have no need to prove you wrong.

Freddy
Wow! That is a pretty strong statement of faith that human science will one day be able to solve this. You really do have strong religious beliefs.

No need to prove me wrong? Man, you sure have spent a lot of time and energy not fulfilling that not need. :-)

June 5, 2013

robtbo
In response to your first paragraph, I will reference your second.

I feel love. You feel love. Your observation matches mine. Unless you’re a figment of my imagination, you confirm to me that love exists. That’s the power of having a standard for communication.

Your claim is false unless your god AND your relationship are real. I never presented a strawman. I simply stated that I do not perceive them, and so I do not perceive the objectivity of either your claim or the hypothetical claim.

Freddy
Here is the problem. How do you know that we mean the same thing when we use the word love? You referenced “feeling.” My meaning goes to an entirely different level and includes decisions and commitments. We are not even talking about the same thing. You have, literally, given no standard at all.

The relationship is real, so your argument falls apart. Again, your meaning concerning perception is purely physical. I do perceive God, but it is at a different level than feeling.

robtbo
I made no statement of faith. If it could happen, it may never.

You’ve misread me from the start. I don’t care what you believe as long as you coexist and cooperate in society. Your assertion that atheists have no solid moral foundation while Christians do is nothing more than moral discrimination which seeds conflict.

You’ve observed my moral foundation firsthand. You understand it. I understand why you turn to the Bible.

Understanding is a key component of coexistence. :)

Freddy
Seriously? Virtually nothing you have said here is true.

Everything you have said is based on your faith in your worldview beliefs.

You have arbitrarily set up coexistence and cooperation as the most fundamental moral standards without any objective reason for doing so.

You are the one sowing seeds of discrimination (against me).

Based on all of your misstatements, you really don’t understand even though you think you do.

robtbo
It’s not on opinion if you can observe it for yourself, which you have.

Unless you want to backtrack and say your own perceptions are only opinions, I think we’re done. Of course, if you do that, you admit your moral foundation is just an opinion.

Do you get it?

Freddy
Again, you seem to have no understanding of what you are saying. Let me help you. Go to my website, and at the top of the homepage is a place to sign up for my newsletter. When you do, you will begin to receive a 9 part basic explanation of worldview. You can also download a free e-book which has articles to explain even further. After you get them, you can unsubscribe if you like. But you really do need to learn what you are talking about. You don’t know the implications of your assertions.

Pyramides Head
Ok, so it’s not gods opinion, it’s his… person.

Fine. How is that different than saying “My person, or my nature is, that wearing red shoes is morally wrong”. So, now we also have an “objective” moral standart, right? We have MY nature, as the moral standart. Of course, you wouldn’t accept that, would you? But when it comes to your gods person, than suddenly it becomes acceptable? I don’t get it. I honestly don’t.

(cont.)

Freddy
See next.

Pyramides Head

Now, about your claim, that I haven’t given any objective basis: I’ve just asked you, if you don’t think that killing objectivly is harmfull, didn’t I? You didn’t answer that, you’ve just claimed again, that I didn’t give you any objective basis. So I have to aks again: Do you or don’t you think, that killing somebody is harmfull? Isn’t that objective?

Freddy
If you were eternal, morally perfect and the creator, you could be the standard. But you are not, so you don’t qualify. God does. Now, do you understand?

Something being objectively harmful is an entirely different issue than something being objectively real. You have changed the subject to a topic we have not even been talking about. You are so confused that you probably didn’t even realize what you did. You still have no basis for claiming any moral standard is right.

nitelite78
Your video is illogical.

There’s no split between Christians being moral and Atheists not. Either the Christian world view is true or not. If true it applies to everyone including atheists.

Similarly the Atheist world view is either true or not. If it is true then it applies to Christians too.

The Bible teaches that God made man in his own image in which case he created us good. Where do you get that you NEED a relationship with Jesus to be moral? What does this mean for muslims/other faiths?

Freddy
It would be illogical when viewed through your logic lens. You have made assertions that are not true or make no sense.
1. Christians and Atheists have entirely different moral viewpoints – a massive split.
2. A worldview is a belief system. What you mean is God either exists or he doesn’t. If he doesn’t I am deluded but not harmed. If he does, Atheists are deluded and harmed. BTW – he exists.
3. We are also fallen, so are not good. ALL outside a relationship with Christ are separated from God.

nitelite78
No I definitely DON’T mean God either exists or he doesn’t. I was careful how I worded it for a reason. Mankind has come up with thousands of gods….there are many denominations of Christianity too. What you propose is pascals wager….you may have the wrong god. You are deluded and you may well have the wrong god…so you may suffer the consequences.

Please answer the question you ignored….can Muslims be moral? Can someone who doesn’t know anything about Jesus be moral e.g. a child?

Freddy
Then your entire post was illogical. Mankind may have come up with thousands of Gods, but there is only one actual God and he exists as an objectively real person. The fact that many people follow false beliefs does not change the reality of what is real.

And I was not proposing Pascal’s wager. I was expressing the logical conclusion of YOUR post.

All, including Muslims, can act morally, but outside of a personal connection with God, morality has no objective foundation.

robtbo
Same problem applies to you, but if you don’t trust that I feel love just like you, why in the world would I trust your testimony of a god? Weak.

Your relationship leaves no identifying traces outside your own mind. There’s nothing in the material world and nothing in anyone else’s mind to verify it. That’s what “subjective” is by definition.

You can continue to insist it’s real, but just remember what tends to happen to the guy who insists the giant bugs nesting under his skin are real. :)

Freddy
You missed the point. Love goes beyond feelings as does a relationship with God. And my testimony is only my testimony. You are the one who has to answer to God on your own.

You are simply wrong. Just because you only accept material evidence doesn’t mean other evidence is not there. You are just not willing to see it.

Again, your analogy is flawed. Continuing to use it will not make it accurate. It only works if the bugs are actually real, which they are not.

robtbo
Seriously. The only untrue thing I’ve said was because I misread one of your posts. I admitted it and apologized. Don’t just call me a liar, provide an observation against anything else I’ve said that you claim is untrue.

You observe the value that coexistence and cooperation present to survival. You observe human survival instinct. There’s nothing arbitrary about it. It’s “actually, really real” and to deny it is to deny your own observation.

You should just admit it.

Freddy
I did not call you a liar because I don’t think you are intentionally telling falsehoods. That does not keep you, however from saying things that are not true – which you have done since you started. If you reread my last post, you will see the list of falsehoods from your previous post.

Again? The problem is not the existence of these things, but your conclusion that they are an objective basis for morality. They simply are not. That is purely your opinion. Can you not make that distinction?

robtbo
You refuse to admit what you have observed. You refuse to admit your own observation of reality. The only subjective thing is that I had to maneuver your perspective in such a way that you could see it.

If I were you, I’d stop lying to myself and admit your observation of a godless objective purpose and value-based foundation for morality is just as real as your observation of your personal relationship with God.

Stop being prideful.

Freddy
Go back and slowly reread my last post. You continue repeating the same mistake in spite of the fact that I have pointed it out to you repeatedly. Are you capable of making the distinction between an observation and conclusions drawn from the observation. They are very different things, you know.

And if I were you, I would get my head out of the sand and recognize the existence of the God who is there and has actually provided a revelation of himself for you. He loves you, you know.

ToxicAudri
funny how the personal morals of bronze age shepherds that were written in a book are the morals Christians refer to at one time thoses morals were the public accepted morals just proving that morals change with the times as we begin to understand the world around us.

Freddy
Funny how someone can read eternal truth and not recognize that the morality that God revealed over a 1500 year period is just as applicable today as it was centuries ago. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

The fact that various generations throughout time reject God and his ways does not mean that morality has changed. Only that some peoples reject God and choose to live by their own standards.

ToxicAudri
not to mention these “morals” have, were, and are being used to keep some people from having equal rights from women, blacks, and even gays the bibles morals have be used in an attempt to keep these groups from having equal rights it was thoses who dared to question and think outside the box that have truly fought for equal rights because they personally felt it was right not because a book told them it was, religion is the greatest tool man has invented for war and loyalty.

Freddy
All you have demonstrated by your post is that you have no clue concerning the moral standards you are dissing. The very concept of equal rights is a biblical concept. The fact that some in history who have claimed to be Christians have contradicted that does not change the teachings of the Bible.

Your other problem is that you are putting some things in the category of equal rights which have nothing to do with it. Building a straw-man and knocking it down does not make your point.

ToxicAudri
So its discrimination when Christians like you get called out on the bull—- you preach but its not discrimination when Christians (judge) people like atheists or thoses who follow a different religion like Muslims or Hindus morals are and have always been objective from the time of kings to the modern age we live in today some morals never change some do at one point is was moral to own a slave even endorsed by the Bible but we know its not moral to own a person in such a way.

Freddy
Continuing to assert misinterpretations of the Bible does not make your point correct. If you are going to make a point, you really should use your sources accurately. When you don’t it lowers your credibility.

So, you are asserting a moral standard to me and putting mine down. What makes your beliefs right? Where did they come from? Why should anyone accept the morality your are putting forth? Something is not moral just because you say it is.

June 6, 2013

robtbo
Yeah, love goes beyond feelings. Love can overpower the objective survival instinct.

You must be stupid. I just got you to observe an objective godless foundation for morality with no material evidence.

You can’t objectively prove my analogy is flawed any more than the man claiming giant bugs are nesting under his skin. Make an observation that I can observe of how it is flawed.

Freddy
Once again you clearly lack an understanding of what you are asserting. You require that I give evidence of MY beliefs based on YOUR naturalistic beliefs. That assumes that Naturalism is true. So, if you are going to continue to insist on this, prove to me that the presuppositions of Naturalism represent the way reality is actually structured. Until you do that, nothing you say has any validity whatsoever. All you are doing is spouting your unsupported opinion which I do not believe to be true.

robtbo
lol

You observe human survival instinct. You observe that it presents a goal. You observe the value of coexistence and cooperation… in fact, you “experience” it. God wasn’t involved.

YOU said it constitutes a foundation for morality… based on OBSERVATIONS YOU made.

If your observations just an opinion, admit that your observations of God are an opinion.

If your observations are real, a godless foundation for morality is real.

Which is it?

Let’s see how much you want to be a hypocrite.

Freddy
You have made a value judgment that a goal is of ultimate value – (with coexistence and cooperation). I say there are other values which place higher. In order for your assertion to be true, your values must be higher. So, why should the values of reaching a goal (and who gets to determine which one?), coexistence (in what way?) and cooperation (what kind?) be ultimate? You have given your opinion with no definitions. I continue to point our this same problem and you ignore it. Very trollish!

Robtbo
You made the observation that coexistence and cooperation are better for survival than the alternative, based on your observation of the human survival instinct presents a goal and that your own humanity includes you in that behavior.

There’s no conclusions in there, friend. Those were all observations YOU made.

Join reality. Even if your god is real, atheists have an objective foundation for morality.

Stop being so proud, you’re lying to yourself, making it worse.

Freddy
I did not!! I observed that they exist but have not made the value judgement you have said. There is way too little information about what you mean by these words for me to agree with you (which is my main complaint about you continuing to repeat it).

Seriously? You don’t even know the difference between an observation and a conclusion (you show that every post).

Your last statement is simply false. You don’t even know the meaning of the word objective. You are really making yourself look bad.

Pyramides Head
How can you be “morally” perfect, when you ARE the standarts for morals? You say god is morally perfect. Ok. By what standarts? Oh, by his standarts? Now it becomes extremly circular. He is morally perfect by his standarts and his standarts count because he is morally perfect.

(cont.)

Freddy
You don’t have a clue, do you? You have misrepresented the entire argument. God didn’t make up the standards as you suggest. He IS the standard. The morality he has revealed is merely a description of his personhood. If you can’t understand that concept, you will continue to make the same mistake you just made. (Also, there is no such word as standart. The word is standard. I would have thought it a typo, but you spell it wrong every time.)

Pyramides Head

How did I change the subject? I was talking about objective morality. Morals are the rules and values that tell us how to treat each other in a society, which comes down to fairness and the minimisation of harm.

Or… well, you claim that I’ve changed the subject. So, maybe you want to give me a definition for “morality” or “morals” first, just be clear that we are talking about the same thing.

Freddy
I told you in the post how you changed the subject. Can you not understand? The topic was objective morality and you changed it to a discussion on the morality of a single temporal topic. The question is not is any particular thing wrong, but on what basis do you judge whether or not it is wrong.

I don’t necessarily have a problem with your definition. However, you have made moral judgements of my morality. What gives you the right to do that? Why is your moral code the end-all-be-all?

nitelite78
Proposing pascals wager is precisely what you are doing.

You have changed from a relationship with Jesus to a relationship with God. Muslims don’t accept Jesus is the son of god.

You also missed the last part of the question. Can a child or someone who knows nothing of Jesus or you god be moral?

I accept morality is subjective…but it is subjective for you too. You claim you have a relationship with Jesus but this is false. You have a relationship with the self. This is easy to illustrate.

Freddy
I understand Pascal’s Wager. You don’t seem to understand the context of why I said what I did. I was not proposing the wager, I was expressing the logical outcome of YOUR comment.

Jesus is God. No change of subject. The fact that Muslims don’t accept it doesn’t change the facts.

Read the last sentence of my last post. I answered your question.

Your basis for morality is subjective, mine is not. Mine is based on an objectively real God who has revealed himself and his ways.

nitelite78
Yours is 100% subjective. Thats why there are so many differences in the way Christians interpret the Bible or discuss their beliefs.

There is no reason to believe I would be harmed if it turns out God exists. Subjective morality does not = “just an opinion”. At least you admit you believe that people bought up without any knowledge of God or contact with monotheism can’t be moral.

Again your relationship with Jesus is false. It is a relationship with your own ego. This is very easy to show.

Freddy
What is your criteria for objectivity? Your making a claim does not make it true. I have already stated twice why mine is objective.

There is reason if God exists – which he does.

Are you deliberately misstating what I said? Reread. I didn’t say they could not act morally, only that their morality has no objective foundation.

Your assertion about my relationship with God is simply false. You have said twice now that it is easy to show but all you have done so far is make a baseless claim.

nitelite78
Morality doesn’t come from a relationship with God. It necessarily comes from two things. Sentience and an ability to understand suffering. Without sentience and the ability to understand suffering there is no morality. This isn’t “just an opinion”.

I have a birthmark on my body. Please communicate with Jesus and ask him where it is. Then get back to me. I will give you a week. Let me know if you need more time. Jesus is god so is meant to be all powerful so I guess it should be enough time.

Freddy
Oh really? And how do you get that? Sentience is necessary for morality to be meaningful to an individual, but that is not a source. And suffering is also not a source for anything. What you have said has no relationship to this discussion.

Your birthmark comment also has absolutely nothing to do with anything we are dealing with. And what makes you think that God would tell me where your birthmark is? Quite a meaningless point.

nitelite78
It is the source. Our sentience lets us rationalise suffering and know that it is undesirable.

You claim objectivity but are unable to show objectivity because you are unable to show any god exists. It is just an assertion. I can do that to….morality is beamed from the centre of the sun. Easy.

My request for you to ask Jesus where my birthmark is has everything to do with this. You claim you are moral because you have a relationship with Jesus. So please ask him. No excuses now.

Freddy
It is not a source. Sentience only allows us to recognize morality, not create it.

“Objective” means it actually exists, not that it can be detected based on naturalistic presuppositions. If you are going to demand that standard, I demand you first demonstrate that Naturalism is true. Until you do that, your statements about the nature of reality are meaningless.

I never claimed to be moral, only to have an objective basis for my moral understanding. You need to actually read what I write.

nitelite78
You are the one making the claim that morals are objective not me. You claim it but you are unable to show anything.

Sentience precisely allows us to create morality. This is why our views on things such as slavery and homosexuality and animal cruelty have changed over time. Our ability to think, discuss and learn through science allows us to shape our understanding of suffering.

I will be waiting patiently for that reply from Jesus about the location of my birthmark. No excuses now.

Freddy
Since you don’t seem to be able to understand the concept of objective, let’s do it this way. You tell me what evidence would satisfy your requirements.

As you said, sentience ALLOWS us to UNDERSTAND morality. It doesn’t CREATE it. Do you not understand the distinction?

Perhaps you missed what I said about your birthmark. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything we are dealing with. It is like asking me what time the mail comes. No answer contributes to the topic.

robtbo
Nonsense. I asked if you observed that coexistence and cooperation were BETTER than the alternative. YOU observed that.

If your worldview is making you interpret your observations as my opinions, I think you need to ditch that worldview, because it doesn’t match reality.

I’m the one presenting dictionary definitions of my words, which you reject for definitions you made up, despite your saying that I can’t make up my own definitions.

You’re just flat-out lying.

Freddy
And I answered with qualifications which you continuously ignore. You don’t seem to be able to distinguish between observation and conclusion.

It is not a matter of me ditching my worldview, it is a matter of you learning to distinguish between objective reality and opinion. You continuously repeat the same mistake. Are you in high school?

Don’t you realize that many words have more than one meaning? I have specified what I mean. If you can’t understand, you have a serious learning problem.

robtbo
No, you have observed there is objective value in humans coexisting and cooperating based on the observation of human survival instinct presenting a goal. That value is observable to any human with a survival instinct.

If a person subjectively places a higher value on factors that don’t apply to all humans… THAT’S an opinion.

I ignore it because it’s irrelevant and you’re just trying to backtrack instead of accepting your own observation of reality.

You’re really fighting to reject reality.

Freddy
The “value” is a judgment based on worldview presuppositions. You seem to think the values you keep asserting are the ultimate human values. So, how do you know? What makes these particular ones of ultimate value? Give me an answer!

And your statement about subjectivity is flat wrong. In fact, it doesn’t even make sense.

Irrelevant? You ignore it because you don’t have an answer. It gets to the very heart of this topic and you have no clue how to deal with it.

Pyramides Head
Yes, I understand, that we are talking about the subject of objective morality. And I’ve given you an example (killing) simply to illustrate, how the question of fairness and harmfullness of an action is not a matter of opinion. That’s also why I asked you if you don’t agree that f.e. murder is in fact harmfull.

(cont.)

Freddy
Since you don’t have any code of morality that you consider objectively real, where do you get off saying that killing is bad? Who gets to decide what is fair and harmful? That is the point of the entire video. Atheists do not have any kind of objective reason for declaring anything good or bad. What may be good for you may be bad for me and the stronger gets to be the winner. You have yet to give me any reason why I (or anyone) should accept your standard.

Pyramides Head

I think if we agree that morality is about harmfullness and fairness (you didn’t say that you agree with that definition, but you said that you don’t have a problem with it) and I think we can agree that we can actually (in some cases, not in all, I think) objectivly evaluate the harm an action does, I don’t see where the problem is. I don’t see how that is not an objectiv evaluation.

Freddy
That is the point. We don’t agree that morality is about “harmfulness and fairness.” And who gets to decide what is harmful or fair? Again, you have no way, from your naturalistic worldview platform, to objectively evaluate anything related to morality. There is no such thing. Naturalistic morality is based on the situation. It is totally subjective based on the opinion of the one advocating for it. Do you understand what it means for morality to have an objectively real existence?

nitelite78
I don’t ask for any evidence at all. Theres no evidence for any gods in the past and none for yours. I am ok with there not being any god at all. But I do have a problem with people like you who spread lies, tell non-believers they are immoral and make unsubstantiated claims.

My request has everything to do with this. You claim you get your morality from a relationship with god. I am illustrating the relationship is purely with your ego….so lets see….ask Jesus. Im still waiting.

Freddy
Do you even know what YOU have written? I quote, You claim it but you are unable to show anything.” In other words, you are demanding that I show you something. Now then, what are you insisting that I show to demonstrate my point?

I’m not sure what you think you are trying to show with your continued insistence about your birthmark. Let’s say I told you where it was. Would that demonstrate anything at all about morality? No, nothing! And what would you respond? Lucky guess?

You have no point.

robtbo
You don’t qualify observations. You either observe them or don’t. I asked for your observation, not your opinion, not your conclusion. Simple observation. Now you want to lie and say you didn’t observe what you observed.

You refuse to admit any of the dozen factual errors and multiple hypocrisies you’ve committed. Your worldview is bankrupt, my lying friend.

Words have more than one meaning, and you invent them, reject Merriam-Webster’s and have to ask me what “better” means. Idiotic.

Freddy
Balderdash! Once they are observed they must be interpreted. Your assertion is totally ludicrous! You have no idea what you are even saying. You never answered me. Are you in high school?

Name even one factual error. The only factual errors in this entire conversation have been yours and I have pointed out many.

Your last comment is silly. Seriously, are you in high school.

robtbo
I asked you to observe value, not infer value. I never claimed they were ultimate, liar, I just asked you to observe them, not to give me your opinion of them. You observed them.

Pick up a dictionary for once in your life and learn what “subjective” means. You keep saying I’m wrong but never give any observations to back it up.

They’re irrelevant because we’re talking about YOUR observations, not my opinions or conclusions.

Don’t keep on lying to yourself.

Freddy
This does not even make any sense. You have never asserted any ultimate value except those. Everything you have posted has used those two. Now you are saying the are not that important? Cut and run when you can’t give a consistent answer?

Observation does not give you meaning. Meaning must be inferred from observation. Yours is a very shallow argument. Seriously, are you in high school? It would help explain your lack of understanding of these concepts.

nitelite78
I write to illustrate that you are a either a fraud or are delusional. Either way this is dangerous to other people and you should be called out.

I ask you to ask Jesus about the location of my birthmark because I know you, like many others have done who claim to have such a relationship, will try to skirt around and avoid it because you know precisely that you will get no answer because your relationship is not real. I know you can’t give an answer and this invalidates your moral claim.

Freddy
It is hard to believe that you are continuing this line. I have demonstrated several different ways how your entire argument is bogus. Continuing to say a falsehood over and over again will never make it true. It is illogical and silly.

Now, back to what you have ignored. I asked you to demonstrate that your naturalistic presuppositions represent realty. So far, you have totally ignored me. Unless you can show that your beliefs are true, nothing you say about my beliefs have any meaning at all.

robtbo
You’re a liar. I simply agreed to YOUR observation that they have value.

You observed the human survival instinct, which logically gives humans with a survival instinct an observable goal to survive. That’s an observable purpose and your own humanity means it observably applies to you, along with the values you observed. I agree with those observations. I observe them, too.

Freddy
Obviously you neither remember all of the things you have written nor the explanations I have given. Sir, if anyone is a liar, it is you. And if you cannot be civil in this conversation, you will be banned.

You never answered my question. Are you a high school kid? Your level of understanding of the nuances of words seems to be at that level. Again, for about the 10th time, observation is only data. Data must be interpreted. You are interpreting using naturalistic presuppositions. Prove them!

robtbo
Your observations require no interpretation. For humans with a human survival instinct, cooperation and coexistence are better principles of behavior than the alternatives. That’s what you observed.

How about the repeated error of you claiming that I accept nothing but material evidence, despite my acknowledgment of morality, which is metaphysical, on my VERY FIRST POST. You are dumb.

My last comment was only silly if you redefine “true” as “silly”. I can show you everything if you’d like.

Freddy
Observations do require interpretation. Your continued repetition of false statements do not make them true. I believe this concept is over your head. Again, who gets to define the terms “better, cooperation & coexistence?” By whose values are these better? In what situations?

Yes, and you never explained your basis for believing anything metaphysical or what you meant by it. Nor have you explained what your moral standard is or its basis. Making generalized assertions do not make them true.

ToxicAudri
There is no one correct way to interpret the Bible that is why there are many different sects of Christianity and how do you know you have the right interpretation? My morals are my own I don’t need a God or the fear of hell to know what is right and what is wrong anything that affects another negitivly due to your actions is wrong like denying equal rights based on gender, sexuality, color, religion or lack of are all wrong again just my morals I make no claim that my morals are the only morals

Freddy
Your first statement makes no sense. What is correct and what many different sects do are not equivalent. Thus, your conclusion is in error.

You have a right to believe anything you want, even if it is wrong. How do you know what you are saying is true?

You have laid out a moral standard. Where do you get that from? Did you just make it up? What makes your standard right? What if your standards infringe other people’s desires? This is the point of the video. You have nothing to base belief on.

June 7, 2013

Pyramides Head
1. If we are not agreeing on the definition of morality,then what are we talking about?That’s why I asked you to give me a definition you use for morality. Because it makes no sense to discuss something, if we are not even talking about the same thing. It’s like you claiming that all dogs bark, and me disagreeing… until we find out that you mean by “dog” the hous-pet with four legs, a tail and related to wolfs, while I mean with “dogs” the animals that can fly, have beaks and feathers.

(cont.)

Freddy
Morality is a moral code. Look back at what you asserted. You specified particular elements which define morality as you see it. Your elements are parts of a particular code. You did not define morality, but a particular set of beliefs. You have gone in an entirely different direction than what the video dealt with.

Pyramides Head

Words only describe concepts. And if we talk about different concepts to use a word, we are talking about different things… in which case: Sure, different things have different attributes. So we will never agree on anything, if we don’t use the same word for the same thing.

So again: Maybe you could give me your definition of morality, just to make clear that we are talking about the same thing.

(cont.)

Freddy
I agree. The baseline for this conversation was the video. If you will deal with the topic of morality the way it is dealt with in the video, rather than trying to come up with some different idea, we will be on the same page.

Pyramides Head

2. Are you saying there are no objective ways to determine if an action causes harm? And what’s fair? Fair is treating all people equaly. I don’t think there is any ambiguity, to what “fair” is.

Freddy
You may want to watch the video again. I am saying that the determination of what causes harm (and other issues) are based on some foundation. Christians have an objective foundation for determining right morality. Atheists reject the very idea that God exists, so they have to make up their own on the fly. You have suggested, here, fairness. So, should a PhD and a high school grad have an equal shot at the university professorship? With your def, that would be fair. Your code is arbitrary.

nitelite78
You & I both have basal assumptions of reality. We use our reasoning to make observations & trust that reasoning because there is no reason not to. Its circular sure but it applies to both of us. You add additional circularity in claiming you your reasoning comes from god. But it could be that your god is not trustworthy at all….this is playground apologetics.

Nice try in avoiding asking Jesus about my birthmark. Let the record show this is the 6th time I have asked you this. 6 days left.

Freddy
Yes we do. It is called a worldview. Mine is based on the belief that God exists and has revealed true morality. Yours is that there is no God and humans make up morality.

There is a way reality is actually structured. It is not based on reasoning. Your point, as usual, is in error.

And for the 6th time, your reasoning about the birthmark is faulty. It has nothing to do with the basis of morality. If you want to talk about God’s existence, that’s a different discussion. You are mixing points.

robtbo
If you can find any comment of mine stating that cooperation and coexistence have ultimate value, I’ll apologize. Since I cannot find one, due to the fact I never made one, you’re a liar.

If I were in high school, I could still claim a superior vocabulary than you, who doesn’t seem to have a grasp of what “better” means.

The data you observed identified the positive value of coexistence and cooperation amongst humans with human survival instinct. No interpretation necessary.

Freddy
I was basing it on the fact that since these are the ONLY values you have offered, they must be ultimate. If you want to share the source of your moral code and its contents, I’m listening.

So, you are in high school, then. That’s what I thought. It’s certainly nothing to be ashamed of, it just explains your inability to grasp certain concepts.

The data identifies the existence of the two, but certainly not their value. So, what do you base your evaluation on? You still don’t get it, do you?

robtbo
You observed that for humans with a human survival instinct, cooperation and coexistence are better principles of behavior than the alternatives. What’s to interpret?

I held your hand and answered all those questions before you made the observation.

Unless you think I used scientific experiments to demonstrate morality to myself… you were dumb to repeatedly say I only use material evidence. Accept your mistakes like a man.

Freddy
I have not said what you say I have said. I said there is value, but have never evaluated them as better. In fact, I have continually questioned your assertion that they are better. Are you simply not reading what I am writing.

Actually, you have refused to answer most all my questions. You have dodged virtually every one.

As an Atheist, you don’t acknowledge the existence of the supernatural (unless you have been lying about being an Atheist). As such, material evidence is all you have.

nitelite78
It has everything to do with your claim that we need a relationship with your god to be moral….if you have a relationship then ask your god where my birthmark is. Just go ahead and do it right now.

But you and I both know he won’t get back because that relationship where you claim you get morality from is just a relationship with yourself. You get your morality by thinking it though…..just like me. Both subjective. Unless god gets back with an answer of course. I will be waiting.

Freddy
That is not the topic this video is about. But I already told you that you have no standing to even broach that question until you justify your belief in Naturalism. So far, you have totally ignored that. You are making assertions that are based on fantasy. Give me the proof that naturalistic presuppositions are true, then your accusations to me will have standing. Until then you have nothing.

ToxicAudri
How do you know your right when the Bible permits slavery, murder, even rape we know these things are wrong today, but the book you get your morals from allows it so then tell me how do you know not to follow thoses morals? My morals don’t affect anyone except those who do harm to others and I got these morals from life itself seeing someone suffer when we could fix even prevent it we atheist work to fix this world to make it a better place rather than hoping for a better place after we die.

Freddy
So now you are a Bible scholar? Obviously, you have no hermeneutical skills at all or you would not have made such a grossly inaccurate statement about biblical teachings.

Actually, your morals do affect others – they allow you to be Christophobic. You have no sense at all that attacking me for no reason is wrong. You could care less how it affects me or anyone else you disagree with. Is this what you call making the world a better place – trying to destroy those you disagree with?

robtbo
That’s stupid. If I tell you I’m observing two of my fingers, does that mean I have no other fingers? Does that mean those fingers are ultimate? No. You’re lying about me.

What you observed is the source of my moral code.

Lying again. I’m not in high school, nor did I say I was.

You observed their value. I agree. Are your observations false?

Freddy
Obviously it seems stupid to you because you don’t understand the concepts you are trying to talk about. Even your example makes no sense. You continue to confuse the concepts of value judgments with physical observations. How can you continue making such a basic mistake? So now are you saying that your fingers are the source of your moral code? Seriously?

I see, you are not yet in high school. Middle school perhaps.

Where does your moral code come from and what does it consist of?

robtbo
Lying again. I asked, “If humans coexist and cooperate towards survival is it better for us than the alternative?”

You replied, “Of course I observe it. In fact, I experience it.”

I’m just agreeing with your observation.

In the from which I just quoted myself, I answered those questions, which allowed you to make the observation.

See? You’re ignorant of reality. There is no material evidence for morality and I’ve acknowledged its existence since my VERY FIRST POST. You’re lying about me.

Freddy
First, I told you that if you cannot be civil, I will cut you off from this discussion. Your accusations of lying when there is none crosses the line.

Let’s try again. Do you not understand the difference between experiencing something and assigning meaning to the experience? Your continued assertion that they are the same is false. I am not calling you a liar, I am saying there is a distinction that seems to be intellectually over your head. Do you even know the source of your moral beliefs?

robtbo
Re-read my question and your response to it.

You’ve made an observation which has meaning to any human with a survival instinct.

I agree.

Freddy
It may have meaning, but the meaning is not predetermined. You may interpret it one way and I another. Your logic simply doesn’t hold.

robtbo
If I’ve already admitted that a person may consider subjective goals to be more important than coexistence and cooperation, which I have, it is a stupid lie to claim that I consider those ultimate. You’ve made that claim multiple times.

More lies. I did not say I was not yet in high school. You make statements based only in your imagination.

The foundation of my moral code is what you observed. Cooperation and coexistence are better than the alternatives for humans with a survival instinct.

Freddy
I have asked you many times what you consider the ultimate foundation for your moral beliefs. The ONLY thing you have ever stated is coexistence and cooperation. Then you blast me for arriving at that conclusion. Now, you are saying it again. You either don’t know what you are saying, don’t understand what you are saying or have no idea how to express your beliefs. Say it bluntly. What do you base your moral beliefs upon?

Why are you so afraid to admit your education level?

Robtbo
You’ve never asked me for an ultimate foundation. I’ve presented an observable foundation, one that can be observed by every human with a survival instinct. This is an objective foundation for human morality.

Subjective factors play a huge role in everyone’s personal morality. Empathy, emotion, environment and an incomprehensibly huge amount of personal human preferences compose additional foundations for any individual’s morality. The difference is that not everyone can observe them.

Freddy
Are you serious? What do you think the video and the entire conversation is about?

This entire post is gobbledygook. Are you saying that the survival instinct is the observable foundation? Are you saying your “subjective factors” are not objectively real? Are you saying that they cannot be quantified? What the dickens are you saying? There is NO objectively real information here.

robtbo
No interpretation is necessary if the observation on its own has meaning. You can get anyone to observe it, just as you do. For someone to deny there is meaning once they’ve observed it doesn’t mean they’ve interpreted their observation, it means that they’ve denied their own observation. Such denial is what’s illogical.

Freddy
This is ridiculous. Observations do not have their own meaning. Two people can see the same thing and come up with entirely different interpretations of what is going on. You really do need to get that principle. The only thing illogical here is that you keep on repeating the same falsehood. What you are saying is simply not true.

Pyramides Head
Again, it seems that we are talking about different things.

That’s why I ask you again (for the fourth time) what you understand under the word “morality”. You use the term “right morality”, but again you don’t define the word. Could you please do that.

Because here is the thing: I’ve given you a definition for “morality”. And under that definition, fairness is NOT an arbitrary criteria. It’s at the heard of the concept.

Freddy
Have you made any effort at all in this string? I have specifically defined is on more than one occasion to different posters, and have even done it for you. Right morality is that which corresponds to actual reality – which is an expression of the person of God.

As for yours, you claim fairness but it IS arbitrary. Whose definition of fairness gets to hold sway? What happens when you claim fairness and I disagree? You have no objective basis for defining it. It is based purely on human opinion.

June 8, 2013

ToxicAudri
Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. There is your proof that slavery is acceptable in the Bible.

Freddy
Did you even read my last response? Simply throwing out a verse out of context proves nothing. Do you not realize that the Bible is not just a single book, but is an entire library of 66 books written by about 40 authors over a 1500 year period in different cultures, languages and in numerous genres? Bible interpretation must take the text in its entire context. Have you investigated the circumstances of this particular text, much less how it fits into the whole? The answer is NO!

ToxicAudri
I’m not attacking you only using reason and logic, if that is an attack on you or your religion then your religion is not as strong as you claim nor is it as “right” as you claim likewise if it is an attack on you then you need to do some serious thinking about why it is so easy to attack you or your religion using only reason and logic. Scholar me? No but I have read the Bible have you? If you really have then you should know many horrible things are permitted by it so what of your morals now?

Freddy
Reason and logic? Based on what? You are making all of your arguments based on a naturalistic worldview foundation which has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. If you want to validate your criticism, you must first demonstrate standing by validating the presuppositions of Naturalism. Until then your criticisms fall flat.

Have I read the Bible? You really should check out who you are interacting with before you begin. My background info is very easy to find.

See previous post about the Bible.

ToxicAudri
Because not only is slavery permitted but in some cases murder and even rape are permitted how can you claim that your book of morals is just and rightwhen nearly everything is permitted you are free to believe what you want but expect someone like me to call you out on your bull, you claim that yo ate moral because you follow the Bible but yet I am certain you wear cloth of two materials eat shellfish and work on Sunday that would make you just as immoral as you claim athiest to be.

Freddy
See previous post about biblical hermeneutics. Your observations are totally baseless and every claim you are making is amateurish. The more you make claims like this, the more difficult it becomes to take you seriously.

But, you are making your attacks against me based on your naturalistic beliefs. I have yet to hear one peep from you justifying the naturalistic presuppositions you are using to attack me. How do you know your beliefs are right? What is the basis of your moralizing toward me?

ToxicAudri
And as for my morals they allow me to live comfortable knowing that I do no harm to others if you don’t like me pointing out flaws in your “good book of morals” then again I say that you need to rethink long and hard about your religion and your god because a book tells you everything is true does not mean you should blindly accept it as truth just look at Scientology same concept different figures yet still people accept it blindly as truth and again how do you know your right?

Freddy
So your beliefs and opinion about morality is the standard I have to live by? Who gives you the right to decide what is moral and point out my moral flaws? On what basis is your opinion correct?

What makes you think that your assertions about “blind acceptance” is true? How do you know my personal motivations? You are projecting on me your own beliefs which have no basis in reality. It simply doesn’t work that way. Your observations mean, literally, nothing. I want an answer these questions.

nitelite78
It is what the topic of the video is about…you claim I can’t be moral. You claim you are moral because of your relationship with Jesus.

I already told you the only thing I presuppose is that my senses are real. This applies to you to. We are on the same ground. You are the one who adds additional presuppositions.

So lets see if this relationship is real:

I have a birthmark on my body….ask Jesus where it is. 5 days remaining.

Freddy
You really don’t get it, do you? The video deals with how Atheists (you) don’t have an objective basis for moral beliefs, not that you have no morality. Common mistake you continue to make.

No, you also presuppose that there is no supernatural and that God does not exist. You, obviously, don’t understand the implications of that. Still waiting for you to justify your naturalistic presuppositions.

Why do you continue to try to change the subject? I can discuss that, but not in this string.

ToxicAudri
You have just proved your ignorance about your own Bible yes it was but one verse but there are many like it slavery not to mention the pu.ishment for rape is the man must pay 20 peices of silver to the father and the woman must marry the rapist and what about murder well if you catch your wife sleeping with another man you must stone them both to death all in the Bible there is no context other than what is says how could you possibly interpret that another way?

Freddy
You have just proved your own ignorance. After I gave you numerous clues about legitimate interpretation, all you have done is dig your heels in and say principles of interpretation don’t matter. Using your approach, I could take virtually any book in the world and make it say anything I wanted it to. In fact, I could pick out things from your own posts and prove you believe in God. Sorry, it simply doesn’t work that way.

ToxicAudri
Reason and logic we know the world is older than six thousand years and have proved it your Bible stories are full of holes and your God has murdered millions and has had millions murdered in his name how can you claim that your God is moral when he has killed more than the worse serial killers in history?

Freddy
First, you have tried to change the subject again. This has nothing to do with to topic of the video. Secondly, who said the world is only 6000 years old? There are people who make that interpretation, but that interpretation is not necessary for the Bible to be true. The Bible doesn’t say how old the world is. Again, your lack of understanding of biblical interpretation makes you jump to conclusions which are simply false. The more you make these false statements, the worse your credibility.

ToxicAudri
My claim are taken from your very book there is a saying do not blame the messager for the message blame the source that would be the Bible? sorry the truth does hurt sometimes but we are human and the smarter ones learn from past mistakes we live in 2013 AD yet people like you would have us live as tho we were still in Biblical times time to wake up leave the fairy tales behinde and instead of fighting progress help us to create a Paradise on earth for our children and our children’s children

Freddy
Your claim is taken from a misinterpretation of the book. Just because you state a falsehood does not make it true.

You think it is possible to create a Paradise on earth and you claim my belief is a fairy tale? That is too funny. Have you ever done any study of history? Check out all of the societies which have tried to use Atheism as a foundational belief system. You find totalitarian dictatorships which literally slaughter all dissenters. You call that progress?

ToxicAudri
Nope my morals are my own you can follow my morals if you want but I made ni claim to having morals everyone should follow unlike you with your Bible people are different and will always have different morals with or without the Bible but to force everyone Into cookie cutter morals is plain stupid when the Bible permits so many things the are considered illegal in these modern times and again I’m am not here to attack you I’m here so others can see and decide if your book is full of s— or not.

Freddy
You continue to make claims about the Bible which are simply false. The more you do it, the less cred you have.

What happens when your morals bump up against the morals of someone who believes differently? Whose takes priority? Even though you are asserting differently, you are insisting that I follow your moral approach, even though I don’t believe it. And you are attacking me for believing what I believe. You can’t even follow your own stated beliefs. How do you reconcile that?

ToxicAudri
And you have done the same and even worse by defending the Bible you have defended slavery murder and even rape things your bible allows all I had to do was point it out and I do encourage people to read the Bible for themselves its a great tool for making atheists when we see just what the Bible allows and the great claims it makes many that have been proven false by science and again how can you claim to be moral when such things are allowed the we now agree are immoral?

Freddy
You are unbelievably intolerant of anyone who doesn’t believe what you believe, aren’t you? And you continue to show utter ignorance of biblical hermeneutics. Your false interpretations may give you comfort to think that you are not accountable to God, but it is simply not true.

Again, you are asserting the truth of your naturalistic presuppositions. Since you are keeping on with this, I must insist that you demonstrate they are true. Prove your fairy tale Naturalism is true.

ToxicAudri
How else can one interpret Leviticus 25:44-46? It is possible to create a Paradise on earth it wont be the same type of Paradise that is promised in the Bible but a world without hunger is possible and is a step twords that goal with science the world has slowly become a better place despite many of the setbacks from religion many things we did not understand have been explained by science things many religious were content on leaving at “God did it”

Freddy
When you ignore the nature of God, the nature of man, the purpose of God, the nature of progressive revelation and on and on, it is no wonder you don’t have a clue about biblical interpretation. You are trying to interpret the Bible through your naturalistic lens. It doesn’t work!

I believe in eradicating hunger – and disease and other bad things. But that would still not create paradise. The heart of human beings is evil and evil would remain – like intolerance and the hatred it produces.

ToxicAudri
I have not changed the subject because it is still about the Bible the place you claim to get your morals and the place you tell other to get theirs otherwise they are not truly moral unless they take it from the Bible I’m showing that your Bible makes many false claims that have be proven to be such but you have been dodging my question how do you know that your way is the right way? How can everyone who follows another religion or thoses who follow none are wrong?

Freddy
You have changed the subject. It was about the foundation for morality. You come in asserting that your naturalistic foundation is right, but have yet to give one reason why that is so. You are the one making false claims and that remains the case. Prove that naturalistic morality is true! You are the one who came to me asserting you were right. Until you give me a reason to believe you, your questioning of me is senseless. What do you base your moral superiority on?

ToxicAudri
Intolerant? I guess you could say that I am intolerant to ignorance and to people who think they are better than other because of morality people like you who are intolerant of other who don’t follow the same beliefs you made the claim that you are more moral because you follow the Bible with your interpretations others like myself who do good with no want or need of reward are not as moral because we don’t follow the Bible in your way sounds like a dictator to me.

Freddy
It’s good of your to acknowledge your intolerance. And I take it you think that is a good moral stance? What makes that good morality?

You call me ignorant, yet continue to spew falsehoods about the Bible, all the while admitting that you don’t know anything about biblical hermeneutics.

You continue to miss the meaning of the video. I have not even dealt with more or less moral (though I could). The topic is the objective or subjective foundation for one’s moral stance.

And I’m ignorant?

ToxicAudri
I claim I have my own morals never have I claimed they were the “right” morals unlike you, you are the one making that claim I made the claim morals are objective and ate subject to change while some will never change others have like slavery and murder its you who claims they never change and that they only can come from the Bible.

Freddy
If they are not the right ones, then why would you have them? You are such a fantastic illustration of the very point of the video. Since you get to make up your own morals, you can dip and duck and never take responsibility for anything while bashing others who don’t agree with you and everything is hunky-dory. With no objective moral foundation, you have no means of determining if anything is right or wrong. You just make it up as you go. Perfect illustration of the point.

ToxicAudri
You believe in praying to God to end hunger and disease how has that work for you for the many numerous years that Christians have prayed for such while we atheist really try to make such things possible using science we don’t pray for it we work for it while yes evil does exist your faith is not immune to it but more susceptible to it in a book where again slavery is permitted among other things we know are wrong.

Freddy
You don’t seriously believe that I pray and don’t do anything else, do you? Aren’t you aware that Christians are the most generous people on earth? Don’t you know that they out-give Atheists in charitable giving by light-years? Don’t you know that more schools, hospitals, orphanages, and the like have been begun by Christians than any other group in history? And do you think that we don’t believe in science? Your point is so off base that it is laughable.

ToxicAudri
As I have stated before my intolerance is only towards thoses who spread such to others with a book that is intolerant of differences in religion, sexuality, and opinion I have made my point several times and you have still been dodging my question if you wont answer then that is fine just proves the religion such as your fears logic and questions? I am just here for others to see that you don’t practice what Jesus preached because you have judged others like myself without even knowing us.

Freddy
So my intolerance (the belief people ought to be free to follow any belief they want) is bad, but your intolerance (that wants to squash any dissenting viewpoint) is proper. Classic! Another great example of how your situational ethics fails.

I have never judged you. You must be feeling guilty about something. Your judgment is purely between you and God. I am only a messenger. Sorry to burst your bubble.

I told you I will answer when you prove your naturalistic presuppositions. I’m waiting.

robtbo
I’ve explained the difference between REAL definitions of subjective and objective. The video claims atheists only have their opinion and claims that the opinion that Christian morality is objective is more than an opinion.

You’ve observed a godless objective moral foundation. Anyone can observe it.

There’s other things that are foundational to my own morality, and I don’t see how everyone could observe them, so they’re subjective.

Your morality has the same type of subjective preferences.

Freddy
So, then, what objective foundation is your morality based on? What the dickens is a “godless moral foundation?” Spell it out. What is moral and immoral based on your godless foundation? Answer the question!!! Honestly, this answer is pure bunk!

Subjective does not mean others can’t observe it. It has nothing to do with that. It means you make it up on your own – it has no objective anchor. You say you are not in high school. Did you drop out?

robtbo
You observed some behavior is better than alternative behavior. You can’t do that without observing meaning. If one observe meaning, rather than interpreting it, one must argue against observation to claim the opposite.

You aren’t admitting that you observed what you said you observed. Are you now arguing against your own observation or not?

Freddy
You can’t be serious with this answer, right? This makes about as much sense as snow at the equator. I have addressed this assertion at least a dozen times to try and explain to you the difference between observation and interpretation. Come back when you understand the difference.

ToxicAudri
But that is my point there is no one set of right morals and unlike you if my morals are bad then I am directly responsible because they are MY morals unlike with yours where you can blame God being at fault because of his morals that you chose to follow my morals have never cause the death of anyone have never caused rights to be deny to anyone based on sexuality, gender,color,or religion my morals have never been used as a reason to go to war or cause harm to others can you claim the same?

Freddy
And how do you know that is true? It is your opinion, obviously, but how do you know there is no single set of right morals? Who told you? Where do you get that from? I want an answer.

After that first phrase, you lost me. Do you realize how senseless the ramble on this post is? Read it again and see if you can make any sense of it. I think you will be embarrassed.

ToxicAudri
By generous do you mean you are nice because it is the right thing to do or is it because you have an insentive to do so ie the promise of heaven athiest like myself need no insentive to do good we do it cause its right.

Freddy
By generous I mean giving time and money and resources because we have a high regard for human beings and want to help. You really don’t know anything about the Christian faith, do you? Actually, our motivation is not to get to heaven. We do it because we love God and want to please him.

How sad it is that you have so much hate in your heart that you accuse other people of having bad motives when doing good for people. That is really sad.

ToxicAudri
So your saying that you did not call athiest immoral because we don’t follow your doctrine? But wait your video proves otherwise you are the one trying to squash dissenting veiwpoints by aruging morality

Oh but you have judged you judged athiests saying they ate not as moral as you and I have stated this many time in my comments I feel guilty only because we live in a world were people can be taken advantage of like your U name suggests you ate in the market of faith and profit from such.

Freddy
Did you even watch the video? Nothing you have said is even remotely true. Do you not know the difference between discussing a topic and trying to squash dissenting viewpoints? You are either losing it or you don’t understand basic English.

Okay, you have crossed a line here. You have now moved to a personal attack which is totally unacceptable. If you want to continue with the privilege of discussing here, you will refrain from that. I can’t believe you think that is a moral way to act.

June 9, 2013

Pyramides Head
What corresponds with reality? What does that mean?

I mean,let’s take as an example murder. We both would agree, that killing is morally wrong, right? So, not killing corresponds to reality? How does killing NOT correspond to reality?

And I didn’t say that fairness is the only criteria for one thing. But it still isn’t arbitrary! F.e. if I would kill somebody but claim that it is not ok for me to be killed, that wouldn’t be fair. Because fairness is, as I’ve said, equal treatment for everybody.

Freddy
There is a way reality actually exists and anything outside of that is not real.

On what basis do you say murder is morally wrong? What is your basis for saying that? Just because you personally don’t like it? This is what the video is about. There are those who think it is okay under certain circumstances. What makes your judgement the right one?

Everything you are saying screams arbitrary. Your example doesn’t work. The example I gave still applies. You only changed the particular issue.

ToxicAudri
Funny I asked you how you knew you were right and never got an answer so again how do you know your morals are the only right ones?

Freddy
Funny I have answered that numerous times on this string. Have you not read what I have written?

Funny I have asked you about a dozen questions and you have not answered a single one. You keep jumping to something else to change the subject. Tell you what, I will answer it again just for you when you answer some of the questions I asked.

ToxicAudri
Classic I must be mistaken because it was taken out of context that means the same thing as I said slavery is permitted in the bible

Freddy
Your interpretive skills are not just bad when it comes to the Bible, I see.

ToxicAudri
I did but i am done with you I will leave knowing my comments will show others who come to watch how full of s— you are either your lying and know you are or you ate gullible to all hell. Farewell as long as it wad written down in an ancient text farewell I made my point clear you are dishonest you Dodge my questions and redirect the discussion.

Freddy
I just hope people can understand what you wrote. Much of it is pretty garbled and the rest is totally without logic. You never did answer why your approach to understanding morality is right – or even what it really is. Hope this conversation has given you some things to think about and some directions to go in learning to think logically.

robtbo
You observed it. Cooperation and coexistence with other humans is better than the alternative. I have my own subjective preferences which play into my behavior as well. Just like you.

Pick up a dictionary. Subjective: 3 a : “characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : phenomenal — compare objective 1b” This is the meaning of subjective in direct contrast to objective. Your weak descriptions of the words would make them redundant.

Freddy
For about the 20the time, observing that it happens and making the evaluation that it is “better than the alternative” are two different things. There is a definition of crazy that says: continuing to do the same thing but expecting a different result. You continue to make the same assertion and expect that one day your falsehood will become true. It won’t happen.

I have been very clear as to what I mean by subjective and objective. Your inability to understand me is your problem, not mine.

robtbo
Of course I’m serious. I asked what you observed, not your opinion or interpretation.

I’ve understood the difference all along.

You don’t seem to understand that you made an observation and now you reject your own observation.

That is what makes no sense, and why you shouldn’t take yourself seriously.

Freddy
Seriously? Pronouncements of morality are assertions of right and wrong (interpretation) based on one’s moral foundation (worldview presuppositions). You simply do not seem to have the cognitive ability to grasp the distinctions necessary to deal with this topic. That is why it makes no sense to you.

nitelite78
I already said that my moral view is subjective. The issue is so is yours. The Bible was written by subjects and you are unable to demonstrate your claim of a relationship with an objective source of morality. Claiming objectivity does not make it so.

Fine I am presupposing no supernatural realm and that god does not exist. That is based on zero evidence. The list of things I presuppose do not exist is infinite. Which is why it is pointless to highlight.

4 days remaining.

Freddy
Simply incorrect. My moral view is based on the objective reality of an objectively real God who has revealed himself and his ways to mankind. Your assertion about the origin of the teachings of the Bible is simply incorrect. And I can demonstrate it. The fact that you are not willing to accept my evidence doesn’t change reality.

Interesting. You finally acknowledge the point of the video and you deny the point in the same sentence. You don’t care about truth, only about denying God.

robtbo
I asked, “If humans coexist and cooperate towards survival is it better for us than the alternative?”

You replied, “Of course I observe it. In fact, I experience it.”

As a human being with a survival instinct, I am agreeing with your observation. I observe it, too, as can any human with a survival instinct.

I completely understand you. You deny your observations of reality.

Freddy
I have answered you over and over. An observation by itself does not provide an evaluation of the observation. We obviously take different things from the observation as our moral beliefs are different. You say you understand, but the fact you keep repeating the same mistake shows you do not.

robtbo
The reality is that humans with a survival instinct have an objective preference to survive, and therefore prefer behavior which is objectively conducive to survival, not accounting for purely subjective goals, eg. “I’d kill for a big juicy cheeseburger right now! ”

That my worldview consists of observations of what I am and what the world is only supposes that what is evident to me is evidence. No presuppositions necessary.

Freddy
Preference does not dictate morality. I can act contrary to my preference in order to follow principle. Your assertion does not hold.

Your worldview consists of beliefs, not observations. You use your observations to buttress or challenge your worldview beliefs. Presuppositions necessary.

robtbo
Then why did your observation include a statement of value that you now reject?

Freddy
What statement of value do you think I accepted and now reject?

robtbo
Preference dictates what is right or wrong amongst those who hold the preference.

Humans with a survival instinct share a preference to survive. The observation that our survival is better accomplished through coexistence and cooperation speaks only to the value of that behavior, not to the notion that we may subjectively consider something else of greater value.

That which is evident to me is evidence. That’s a supposition which allows me to change my mind. Exactly what is presupposed?

Freddy
Your assertion is only true if Naturalism is true. What is presupposed is that your worldview beliefs are true. Prove them and you have a case. Until then, your post is totally senseless.

robtbo
I asked, “If humans coexist and cooperate towards survival is it better for us than the alternative?”

You replied, “Of course I observe it. In fact, I experience it.”

Unless you’re defining “better” as “meaningless” or “valueless”, you’ve observed meaning and value which you now deny.

Freddy
I am not going to repeat myself again. Continuing to make false assumptions will not make your assertions true. You obviously have no clue what you are even asserting.

robtbo
You observed it. Now you deny it.

It’s just that simple.

Freddy
How long are you going to continue this charade? I have already answered you. I will not do it again.

robtbo
That which is evident to you is NOT evidence then? Wow.

Freddy
Evidence has to be interpreted – something you don’t seem to have much understanding of.

Your continued saying the same thing over and over is making you look like a troll. I will not continue allowing you to act this way.

robtbo
You observed something being better than something else.

Now you’re saying you can’t observe something is better than something else.

It’s your charade, my friend.

Freddy
Better is a value judgement. You don’t have anything to prove “better.” You are trolling.

robtbo
You seem to be saying that observing a ball requires interpretation before I can say… “I observe a ball.”

I’m not saying that observations can’t be interpreted, just that your assertion that they “must” be interpreted is false, and a poor attempt to deny the observation you made.

Freddy
Observation is observation, but there is no meaning in the observation until one is assigned to it. The assignment requires making an interpretation.

I am pretty certain, now, that you are a troll. I gave you the benefit of the doubt for a long time, but I will not allow you to continue the charade. Unless you can prove your naturalistic presuppositions, I will not let you continue.

June 10, 2013

robtbo
I asked, “If humans coexist and cooperate towards survival is it better for us than the alternative?”

You replied, “Of course I observe it. In fact, I experience it.”

Your argument is with yourself.

Freddy
You have very conveniently taken out of context what I said. You forgot all of the other qualifications and explanations that went along with it – which I have reiterated over and over again.

Your problem is that you are so determined to make your point that you are using illogical arguments. You can correct the problem by recognizing reality as it really is. God actually exists and he loves you. He wants you to give your life to him. Take this step and many things will clear up for you.

robtbo
Wrong. If I observe a ball, the meaning is that I observe a ball. No interpretation required.

I asked, “If humans coexist and cooperate towards survival is it better for us than the alternative?”

You replied, “Of course I observe it. In fact, I experience it.”

No interpretation required.

Why do you deny your own observation?

Freddy
Observing the ball does not let you know why it is there, the full context of its presence and many other things. Again, no context. Your point is useless without a context.

We, you included, human beings find ourselves in a fallen condition. Because of that, there is a natural tendency to push away from him and attempt to become autonomous. Only problem is, we lose connection with reality. The only solution is to turn back to him. He loves you, you know.

Pyramides Head
Yes. I agree. There is reality…

And I ask again: How do you get from that to what’s moral? Murder is real. It happens in reality. It confirms with reality. Therefor it’s morally good? I hardly think that this is what you want to say… but that’s the entire case from you that I have heard: Morality is what corresponds with reality.

(cont.)

Freddy
Here is your problem. Without an objective standard, you have no way of determining that murder is wrong. There are people who believe it is good under certain circumstances. What gives you the right to dispute them?

When I speak of actual reality, I am speaking of God and his ways. He is the one who has determined that human life is valuable. It is his objective standard of the value of life that makes murder immoral. If you deny his existence, all you have is your opinion against others.

Pyramides Head

And please go back through my comments. Nowhere did I say that murder is bad because I don’t like it. My case is, that murder is harmfull. And if you kill you also act unfairly, because you wouldn’t want the equal treatment extended to you. These things are NOT arbitrary. That’s why I asked you in the beginning: Do you really think the harmfull nature of murder depends on my opinion? Do you think there is ANY definition of “harm” or “harmfull” that could exclude murder?

Freddy
Again, harmful based on whose evaluation? In certain circumstances, there are those who would say it is a good thing. That was exactly Hitler’s and Stalin’s rationale. To them mass murder was moral because they believed it served the common good. Without an objective moral framework, all of your pronouncements are totally arbitrary. What makes your moral opinion right and others wrong? Your simple appeal to “harm” doesn’t solve your problem.

robtbo
Irrelevant. A single observation still means that a single observation was made, and requires no context. If we can all observe, just like you, that a survival instinct presents an objective goal for humans and that coexistence and cooperation are objectively better principles of behavior in achieving that goal, observing our own humanity and survival instinct presents an objective context.

No god necessary.

Freddy
It is not irrelevant. It is critical. Even your “goal” implies a context. A goal requires someone to value something in order to make it a goal.

The goal of all of life is for us to know a relationship with God. It is only here that it becomes possible to recognize reality since reality is an expression of the person of God. Since you do not have this relationship, your view of reality is skewed and it is causing you to make false statements. He loves you, though and would like you to join him.

nitelite78
Again you are claiming objectivity but are unable to show anything. The Bible was written by subjective minds. You have no evidence.

I do not deny any gods….it makes no sense. That implies they exist. There is just no reason to believe it/she/he exists….the list of things that I would have to deny would be infinite.

When you ask Jesus about the location of my birthmark can you also ask him:

Is owning a Pet immoral?

And

Is having a coal fire to heat the home immoral?

4 days remaining.

Freddy
Again, I ask: What do you require? You say I have not shown anything. I have but you don’t acknowledge it. What kind of evidence would be acceptable to you?

You say “I don’ not deny any gods,” then turn right around in the same paragraph and say they don’t exist. You just contradicted yourself. If your logic is so messed up on this point, how can I take seriously your claims?

You have claimed your beliefs are subjective. That means you can’t demonstrate the truth of anything you are saying.

Pyramides Head
Actually, it does, and I’ve explained it before, I think.

But ok. Let’s go for the moment, that there is no objective way to evaluate the morality of an action based on its consequences.

How do you get around it. I still don’t get what framework you have to say that murder is objectivly wrong… except an appeal to somebody elses opinion of course.

Freddy
You completely ignored the source of this entire discussion and are trying to make some other point, it seems. God is objectively real and has provided an objectively real moral standard which places a high value on human life. Based on his standard, murder is immoral. The reason you are having a hard time with this is that you don’t accept an objective moral source – you don’t believe one exists. This is the entire focus of the video in the first place. What is it that you are trying to argue?

Pyramides Head
Yes, I get it. You believe that god is real. You can’t demonstrate that, but that’s actually completly irrelevant.

Your god has things he wants us to do and things he doesn’t want us to do. Ok so far. What is it, that makes these things good? Measured on what are his commants, or however he wants us to behave objectivly good?

Freddy
You have made the same mistake as numerous others. I have demonstrated it. It is just that you don’t accept the evidence I have given. So again my question is: What kind of evidence do you require? What will you accept and not accept?

God, himself is the standard. He has revealed to mankind what that looks like. It is good because it expresses actual reality. He is the measuring stick.

Again, you are looking through your naturalistic lens which has no such thing as an objective standard.

robtbo
It is irrelevant in light of the other observations you made. Please explain how a survival is not a goal for humans who are driven to survive, and how your own humanity isn’t an observable context.

Your goal may be to know a relationship with God, but it isn’t observable outside your own mind, much less throughout “all of life.” That’s what makes it a subjective claim. A god I imagine right now would have just as much likelihood of being true as the one you claim.

Freddy
You have not proven that all humans are driven to survive. Why do so many commit suicide? You have not demonstrated your premise to be valid. Until you do, your point is not valid.

Of course it is observable. But to see and understand it, you have to step into the reality. You think the material universe is all that exists, but there is a spiritual reality that those related to Christ experience. Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean it isn’t real or observable. You can enter it.

Pyramides Head
It’s not a mistake.

Again, take the example murder. What is it, that makes murder objectivly moraly bad? The fact that god doesn’t like it? Ok, in that case we have his opinion. We have other opinions that might conflict with his. What is it that makes his the “objectivly” good one?

Objective standarts don’t depend on who or what the source for it is. If all you can do is point to the source you think gives us a set of rules… well sorry, that’s not objective by any definition.

Freddy
The word is “standard,” not “standart.”

It is a mistake. I asked you what evidence you require. You didn’t answer.

Did you even read my last post? I didn’t say it was God’s opinion. I said it is based on his very character. Big difference. He, himself, is the ultimate foundation of reality.

Your statement only holds if God is not real. If you want to make that claim, you are going to have to prove your point of view is correct. It is not true just because you say it.

Pyramides Head
Ok, so it’s not his opinion, it’s his…nature? Doesn’t really make a difference. Because it makes it arbitrary. If his nature or character was that murder was ok, it would be. Simply because it’s his character.

So actually, my objections don’t only make sense if god exists. I’m now assuming, for the sake of argument, that he does. And I still want to know, what makes something good. Take the example of murder that I’ve given and give me an argument that shows me on your basis if it is good or bad.

Freddy
Arbitrary is that which doesn’t have an objectively real foundation. Your speculation about what his nature “could be” has no meaning since it has no relation to what actually exists. Your point here is meaningless.

The answer: God is the author of life and he values it as it is an expression of his person. That which destroys life unjustly (murder) is contrary to his nature, so it is immoral.

But you didn’t answer my question. What proof do you have that Naturalism represents reality?

robtbo
Humans who aren’t driven to survive don’t survive, except in a vegetative state. They have nothing to say about what is right or wrong for people with a survival instinct. People commit suicide because they subjectively judge other factors to be more important than their objective survival instinct. These are really basic observations that I’m sure you’ve already made.

The man who thinks giant bugs are nesting under his skin claims he can dig them out and show them to me, too. He can’t.

Freddy
You have totally ignored what I said. Nothing you have said is of any value until you address the context of the goal. Who gets to choose what value prevails and on what basis?

I have already debunked your false bug analogy. Unless you can prove it is valid, it would be childish to bring it up again.

Now, again, prove your naturalistic presuppositions. And when you can’t, you might want to consider that God actually is real and open your life to him.

Pyramides Head
I don’t need proof for naturalism, since I’ve never tried to argue for it.

I’m arguing for morality. And here is the thing: Murder is morally wrong. Why? Because it harms the person that gets killed and the people who love him/her. It’s unfair, because whoever kills most of the time wouldn’t like to be killed himself, so if somebody did to him what he did to the other person, he would object. And finally, you can’t live together as a society if the members of the society kill each other.

(cont.)

Freddy
Do you even know what Naturalism is? Every argument you have made is based upon it. It is your belief system (even if you don’t understand what it is).

All of the moral beliefs you have expressed are nothing more than your opinion. There are people who believe differently. What makes your beliefs better than theirs? Are you the king of the world who gets to dictate morality to everyone else?

Pyramides Head

These are facts. There is nothing arbitrary about it. And since morality is about preventing harm, fairness and our life as a society, murder is not moral, because it stands against all of these things. Therefor what your gods nature is is irrelevant. He is against murder? Well that’s nice! That’s not what makes it morally bad, though. And if he wasn’t against murder it wouldn’t make it good. (cont.)

Freddy
Who said morality is about preventing harm, fairness …. What makes that the standard? It is not so just because you say it. All you have said is your opinion.

Pyramides Head

And you can say as long as you want, that “woulds” are irrelevant, you have no basis to say, that god couldn’t just change his mind or character, because you have NO basis to say that murder isn’t ok outside of his nature. My arguments against it they are real. And they would remain valide, even if your god suddenly did change his nature, opinion, or whatever it is that makes you think murder is bad.

Freddy
Of course I have a basis for it. He has revealed his nature. You seem to have no understanding at all of what you are saying. God can’t change his character because he is who he is. Changing his mind does not even enter into the picture.

Again, your arguments are totally arbitrary until you provide an objective, unchangeable basis for them. Until that time, all you have given me is your unsupported opinion. Seriously, why do you get to decide what is moral?

Pyramides Head
Read my comment again! Tell me one step that is NOT objectiv! One step where I just thruw in an opinon!

And you say he has revealed his nature? Well great! You know, religous suicide-bomber have literally the same basis for their claim that what they do is good as you have! They have gotten a revelation from god (or at least they claim that… just as you) and that’s why they act that way. Because it’s gods nature. Literally the same argument as yours for the exact oposit position.

Freddy
I already have, several times. Your whole argument is based only on your opinion. I keep asking you what you think is objective about anything you have said and you simply have ignored me. Reread my response.

The difference is, their God is not real. It doesn’t matter what they claim if the claim is based on falsehood – just like your claims. There are many false beliefs in the world. Saying an apple is an orange doesn’t make it so just because both are round.

robtbo
Because you ignore your own observation of your human goal to survive, your observation of the value of behavioral principles toward that end and your own humanity to present cases which are outside the observed principle, making them, irrelevant to the observed principle.

You can present no more support for your position than the man claiming giant bugs are nesting under his skin. The analogy is fine.

I observe the existence of the metaphysical. You know it, and you continue to lie about it.

Freddy
This is silliness. You are going into troll mode again – repeating what has already been shown over and over to be false. I told you I will not allow you to continue if you don’t change your tact. All data (observation) has to be interpreted. You are making assumptions that you have not backed up. Back them up or you are out.

1. Where do you get survival as the ultimate goal upon which to base morality?

2. What are the specific moral principles you derive from your stated goal?

Pyramides Head
Well… sorry, but your god is as real to me as their god is to you. But ok, perfect example: Your opinion about what makes morality objective is as “objective” to me as the suiciders is to you… and THIS is the problem with arguing morals from a god.

And again: What is “only my opinion”?

That murder causes harm to the people killed and their loved ones? Is that really an opinion?

That a society based on the idea of killing each other can’t survive? Is that an opinion?

I don’t think so!

Freddy
I don’t care what it is to you. I am only interested in knowing what is objectively real – and the God of the Bible is. Your observation is only true if we are arguing non-objective ideas. But God is objectively real, so your point does not work. He is real no matter your opinion.

Yes, you have only given your opinion. What about world leaders who see killing certain people as accomplishing the greater good by helping maintain societal order? Why is your opinion of killing better than theirs?

ToxicAudri
Grammer and spelling errors happen more so because I am replying with my phone, but regardless now you are saying I used no reason or logic funny because I’m not the one making the claim that we have to follow morals from a 2000 year old book that for all we really know was make up with bits of fact put in here and there to keep it believable that’s how good fiction writers do things anyway so before anyone should takes morals from a book you have to prove its not a work of fiction.

Freddy
No, you are saying we have to follow morals made up by you. Prove to me that your moral standard is superior to mine. What do you base yours on that makes it so good?

ToxicAudri
When terrible immoral and even evil things can be explained away with interpretation it draws into question how can your interpretation while others are wrong what makes you so right where others are wrong?

Freddy
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Every book you ever read has to be interpreted. There are principles you apply to your reading to determine what is fact, fiction, poetry, literal, figurative and a host of other things. The Bible is no different. You just don’t have enough background to know how to interpret the variety of books that make up the Bible. Your point is simply not legitimate.

Pyramides Head
Well… these leaders who have desided that have very well proven that:

-It’s harmfull to the people they kill and their family.

-The society they build is not fair, because they only accept the killing as long as it’s not them who gets killed.

-The society they build is not stable, because they don’t build a society that’s viable for the people in it.

Again: These are facts. Not my opinion. That’s why they are wrong, and it’s not a matter of opinion.

(cont.)

Freddy
It certainly is your opinion! You have only asserted that your beliefs are better, but proven nothing. Why are they better? Why do you get to define what is harmful and fair? Where is your research showing your way gives stability? You are stating that these things are facts, but all I see is your opinion. Where do you get these “facts” from? Obviously they are not from God. If you have some book you are getting them from, I would like to know which one. Or are you just making it up?

Pyramides Head

Ok… you claim you have an objective moral code… which you don’t care if you can demonstrate its validity to anybody else…?

How the heck is that objective! Sure, if we all agreed with you and what you believe your god wants, we would all have an objective frame of reference… but the same is true if everybody would agree with what I just say is true! That’s NOT objectivity in any way!

Freddy
I keep asking you what kind of evidence you require. You have not yet answered so I don’t know how to answer you. You seem to have rejected the evidence I gave, but have never really said why. What evidence do you require? Give me an answer.

You really don’t understand objective, do you? If it is objective, it doesn’t matter what anyone thinks. If it expresses reality, then any differing opinion is simply not true. Objective reality is not up for a vote.

ToxicAudri
No I have not read other strings where you may or may not have answered a question similar to mine nor will I bother looking for it as I did not ask you to point me to an answer to a question similar to what I asked an to suggest such is a dishonest answer from you I can not point to an answer I gave someone else and tell you to go look it up its a waste of my time and anyone who reads the comments time stop dodging and answer.

Freddy
I have answered and I have spent a lot of time doing so. If you are too lazy to read what I have written, you are certainly not interested in anything I have to say. Seems you are so focused on trying to put me down that truth is of no concern to you. That’s your choice.

ToxicAudri
Putting words into my mouth now another underhanded dishonest attack on my character I never claimed people should follow my morals because they are my morals and work best for only one person ME I said you could follow if you wanted I can’t stop you but never did I ever say people should follow my morals quite the opposite from you tho if you keep up such dishonest behavior I’m afraid you will lose what credibility you have left.

Freddy
Really? Then why are you attacking me for my moral position? You obviously do think you have a superior morality and that my not following it is somehow bad.

And I have never said you must follow my way. In fact, that is not even the subject of the video (which is what caused you to attack me in the first place). I didn’t even address that subject. Talk about dishonest and hypocritical!

ToxicAudri
Allow me to give you a lesson on words my words need no interpretation my words mean exactly that you read them as they is no underlying hidden meaning to them, but somehow the bible is special and the same rules we have about words is irrelevant because of interpretation if your book can’t stand up on its own words you change them through interpretation against very dishonest of you.

Freddy
Simply not true. Your words must be interpreted within the context of a whole series of things – vocabulary, tone, circumstances, education level, accuracy, what is left unsaid, etc. While you may not mean to have anything hidden, the reader must still interpret what you write to make sense of it. I hate to tell you this, but you are not so special that your language has special rules all its own.

Pyramides Head
I agree! Objective reality is NOT up for vote! And the three points I’ve listed up there are NOT up for vote! They are fact! Therefor it doesn’t matter if a tyrant thinks he can create a stable society by murdering or that he is not harming the people he kills when he kills them! He’s wrong! He IS harming those people, his society IS bad to live in for the population and since he’s not subject to his own rules it’s not fair either! No opinions!

Do you HAVE any evidence for god? You’d be the first!

Freddy
You really don’t get it, do you? If you really think they are facts, then I insist on seeing the research that has established those facts. I want them in the next post. Everything you have written is your opinion. I understand that you believe them with all your heart, but you still have not given me any reason why they are facts.

I do have evidence for God, but you have not been willing to accept what I have said so far. So once again, tell me what kind of evidence are you willing to accept.

ToxicAudri
If your too lazy or dishonest to do so then I guess no one should listen to what you have to say you have proven to not only me but to others who will read and see how lazy or dishonest you are you can’t answer my question because you claim to have answered it for someone else already but rather than copy and paste it you take more time to explain why you wont answer my question perplexing problem we have isn’t it.

Freddy
Yeah right! So far I have over 90 pages of interaction with people on this string. I don’t feel guilty for not doing your work for you.

It’s not perplexing for me.

ToxicAudri
I’m attacking where you get your morals from the Bible you made the claim that you are not moral unless you get your morals from the Bible I must have answered this a dozen times by now you get your morals from a book where as I decided mine I used my brain and what I value to determine my morals I don’t like to see people suffer therefore I make no action that could cause such and because they are my morals I am responsible for my actions and my morals because morals are differ for everyone.

Freddy
You have completely misrepresented what I have said. If you don’t even know what I have said, no criticism you have made has any validity.

Actually, your assertion about morality makes the point of the video – that Atheists do not have any objective basis for making decisions about morality. I did not say anything on the video that you didn’t just confirm. I don’t know what your problem is.

Pyramides Head
Hang on, what you have said so far is NOT evidence for god! What you have said so far DEPENDS on there being a god!

Honestly? You want a research paper that killing is harmfull for the people getting killed and their loved ones…? 0_o Are you for real?

And what research paper could I give you that shows that rules against some people but not against the other isn’t fair? What could I give you there? An line from a dictionary with the definition of “fairness”?

Freddy
Hang on, there are other kinds of evidence besides experimental science. I have given some of the other kinds, but you have not been willing to acknowledge it. So, for the 20th time, tell me what kind of evidence are you willing to accept!

Are you beginning to catch on a little? You are close to the point. The whole video is making the point that Atheists have no objective basis for making moral decisions. If there is an objective basis, you should be able to point me to something to prove it.

ToxicAudri
Thats more because you are dishonest in fact your doing my work by not answering and once again making excuses for why you can’t just prove me wrong and you should feel guilty for that if you were as moral as you claimed to be and that’s why its perplexing how one who claims to be so morals resorts to underhanded dishonest tatics dodging questions redirecting questions and conversation draws me to the conclusion that you are a very immoral dishonest person.

Freddy
Look, if you don’t want to read, that is your choice. But I will not take responsibility for what you choose to do or not do. That has nothing to do honesty or tactics. It is a matter of choices. You are making yours and the results are on you. Throwing out insults does not help your point.

robtbo
Your own observation backs me up, silly. Your observation, not my assumption. That’s what you keep denying.

There’s no need for you to ask these questions of me. You’ve observed what I observe. You can show it to others just like I showed it to you.

I don’t get survival as an ultimate goal, merely an objective goal.

You observe that cooperation and coexistence are objectively better than the alternatives for humans with survival instinct.

No interpretation necessary.

It’s simple.

Freddy
I have given you every chance, but you insist on being a troll. You are out of here.
(At this point I revoked robtbo’s privilege of participating in this discussion.)

ToxicAudri
Because everyone values things differently you can not have one set of morals for everyone like it or not but a Christian with the same book will have different morals than you because of his/her values if they don’t value excatly as you value then your morals don’t work well for them as my morals don’t work for them in the same way just because you have a book telling you what morals to have in no way means that you have the same morals as God because you value things differently

Freddy
Your entire argument is based on naturalistic presuppositions. You are arguing that all morals are subjective. So, I will give you another chance. Demonstrate that your naturalistic presuppositions are true. If you can do that, you win the argument. But you can quit just asserting that a subjective approach to morality is true. I want you to tell me why you think it is true. Your postmodern morality simply cannot be demonstrated to be valid.

Pyramides Head
I did. You just claim that it is possibel that f.e. killing somebody doesn’t harm him and/or his loved ones… You claim that’s an opinion and I have to say, I find that… strange, to say the least! Maybe you should talk to people who have already lost people or got attacked or so…

I didn’t even talk about experimental science, so I have no clue why you bring it up.

I haven’t seen any evidence, no matter what you claim you have given me. Give me your best shot!

Freddy
I never said it doesn’t harm people. But you are claiming that harming people is immoral. There are others who make a different claim. Why are your moral assertions right others wrong? I don’t accept “just because.”

Seriously? Do you not realize that there are different kinds of evidence (ex. logical, experiential, experimental). You reject what I give but refuse to say what you will accept. If you can’t even understand the conversation, maybe you are in over your head.

ToxicAudri
I have read what you wrote TO ME I again I never asked you if you had answered a question similar to mine I asked you a question you are now out right refusing to answer based on the grounds that you answered it already for someone else I do not care if you answered it already I asked you to answer my question even if it was just a copy paste of the answer you gave to the others you once again provide only excuses yet again I can not be held responsible for the inability on your behalf.

Freddy
Okay, specifically, which one of your questions do you want answered that you think I have not?

Pyramides Head
Ohhhhhh… so you’re argument is that causing harm can be moral?

See, THAT’S why I’ve tried to make it very clear in the beginning that we are talking about the same thing, when we discuss morality! Sure, you can define a word however you want! And if somebody wants to define moral as “Whatever causes the most harm” or “rules that are as destructive to society as possibel”… well, ok.

(cont.)

Freddy
Did you even watch the video? The argument is that Atheists don’t have an objective way to determine a moral stand. So, again, what makes your definition of causing harm better than the dictator who is wanting to maintain societal order?

Pyramides Head

In that case I don’t care for morality! Morality is a horribel thing in that case! Then let’s talk about “bughadada”. Bughadada are the rules and values that deal with how we have to treat each other to live together in a society. So far I’ve thought these rules and values are called “morals”, but when somebody just claims that “morality” means something completly else… well, I won’t waste time with semantics! And that’s why I’ve given you a clear definition right from the beginning!

(cont.)

Freddy
In what case? Your argument is making less sense with every sentence you write. You seem to be mixing up moral acts with the basis for determining moral principles. Did you even watch the video?

ToxicAudri
Fine I will prove it an experiment involving you is required you are now part of the equation during your daily routine attempt to ask people at random what do they consider to be the 3 most moral behaviors and the 3 worst immoral behaviors are then ask them if the got these answers from the Bible. This is the only way I can prove to you in a way that I cannot be dishonest about but nor can you can record the data with video and upload it to your channel.

Freddy
I understand what you are trying to do, and it might be interesting to get people’s answers. But it has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about. True morality is not based on people’s opinions, it is based on the character of God as revealed in the Bible. This does not even come close to proving your point. You are proposing a scenario where morality is determined subjectively. Biblical morality has an objective basis.

ToxicAudri
What makes you right where others are wrong? How do you really know you have the right morals where people like athiest other religions and other sects of your faith must be wrong? And please explain your answer without the use of “because its in the bible” or “because “God said it”

Freddy
First, I cannot honor your request and give you a truthful answer. I have met the God whose character true morality is based upon. That relationship is the final confirmation of the truth.

However, there is other evidence. Because of space I can only list some. There are others.
1. Archaeology
2. Textual studies
3. Eyewitness evidence of Christ’s resurrection
4. Bibliographic evidence
5. Falsification of other belief systems.
Each of these are deep studies.

Pyramides Head

Where did I say that I don’t realise that there is different kind of evidence? What in my last poste could have possibly given you that idea? I haven’t seen you presenting any evidence, and here I am, asking, and asking, for a single shred and all you do is… well, saying that I don’t accept your evidence? Why are you dancing around? You obveausly think you have evidence and you’ve given it to me… Ok. I can’t find it! Why don’t you just repeat it?

Freddy
See the last post I made for ToxicAudri. I have given her more detail than I did you so you can feed off of that. The evidence I specifically gave to you had more to do with the personal part. Now that you have it, you quit dancing around and tell me what kind of evidence you are willing and not willing to accept – and why.

Pyramides Head
BECAUSE IT’S NOT ABOUT DEFINITIONS!

I’m talking about the concept of values that we use as a society to live together! I don’t care how you call that, but most people would call these values “morals”! The finsih would call it “moraali”, but the word doesn’t matter! That’s the reason why I’ve given you a definition right from the beginning! So we can be sure that we talk about the same thing!

(cont.)

Freddy
It is about the video! Did you just pop up here to be a troll? Did you come here under false pretenses to try and bash my Christianity under the guise that you wanted to deal with the foundational sources of morality? You still have given me NOTHING related to where you get your morality. You want to bash my concept of objective morality but are not willing to justify your subjective opinion.

Pyramides Head

Yes! A tyrant can call acts that increas his power “moral”. And my mother can call the flowers she grows outside in her garden “morals”. It’s useless, because when everybody just makes up his own definition, we can’t communicate to each other, but hey… it’s a free world!

(cont.)

Freddy
You still don’t get it, do you? That is exactly what you are doing. You are making up a moral code. Now answer! What makes your sense of morality right and other people’s wrong? Is it just because you say so? That’s all I see so far.

Pyramides Head

If your argument is, that anybody can just call anything “morals” and we have no way of determining which definition is the proper one… well, congratulations! You’ve just proven that objectivity doesn’t exist, because everybody can make up his own words and definitions for literally everything!

Freddy
Perhaps it would be good for you to actually watch the video. It is your naturalistic worldview which provides the necessity for human beings to make up human morality. That is your faith position, not mine. I believe there is an objective morality that is based on the character of God and revealed to humanity by him. Do you not see the difference?

ToxicAudri
But that is the entire point because if people who say they follow the Bible and hold the same top 3 morals you do as well as the 3 immorals while people who don’t follow the Bible can’t have thoses 6 answers all the time thus you are right but if no one agrees on any morals you hold Bible or not then everyone’s morals are different as I stated cause I am giving you the chance to prove you are right before I’d do the same experiment to either back you up or disprove you.

Freddy
Did you not understand my post? The experiment you propose does not prove anything. It only elicits human preference from a limited number of individuals. Morality does not come from the preferences of individuals, it comes from God. All we can do is follow it or refuse to follow it.

Pyramides Head

5. Ahm… wrong. Even if you could disprove or falsify all other believe systems (which I doubt you can), yours wouldn’t win by default.

So… this line of evidence certainly seems unimpressive.

Freddy
Oh, and you are an expert in this field? You don’t even seem to be conversant with what evidence is, much less what it takes to falsify such. You have made a baseless accusation without knowing what I know or what is necessary to study this topic.

But here you are cherry picking one thing on the list and have not done the one thing I asked of you – tell me what evidence you would accept. What is unimpressive is your understanding of the topic we are dealing with.

Pyramides Head

And yes, I see a difference to what you say. My proposal is actually objective. Because harm and the well-being of a society can be quantified. What you think your god wants… well, even if he exists, that has no meret on the question if what he wants is moral or not… unless of course you define morality as “whatever is in gods nature”, but in that case, under that definition, I’m not interessted in “morality” and I don’t find it usefull.

Freddy
Seriously? Are you in high school? Nothing wrong with being in high school, but the maturity level and repetitive nature of your answers leads me to that conclusion. This is simply amateurish. You keep repeating the same things I have already falsified for you. You talk about things that have nothing to do with the video. And you talk in circles.

Don’t find morality useful? Of all the crazy things you have said, that has to be the dumbest!

Pyramides Head
No faith position.

I’ve given you a definition of what I understand under morality. And I’ve given you a pathway of evaluating f.e. actions in the light of that definition. And nowhere did I use my opinion.

Unless you say that it is my opinion that morals are the values we use to live together as a society. But if that’s all you can counter with… sorry, I’m not interessted in talking semantics.

(cont.)

Freddy
You are clueless!! You have no idea what we are talking about but you are arguing just for the sake of argument. I have been very patient with you, but you are showing yourself to be a troll. I have already kicked one person off for acting this way. If that is what you want, it can happen with you, too.

ToxicAudri
Then let the experiment begin please pm me the 3 moral things you say are moral and the 3immoral things 3weeks from now I will examine the data and post the conclusion and we will see who’s right as I said you are part of the equation already.

Freddy
Sorry, I am not interested in your experiment. I have already told you, even given a pretty good explanation about it – that getting other people’s opinions about what is moral does not effect what is actually moral. For me, it is a waste of time.

Pyramides Head
Riiiight…

Because I don’t find your evidence convincing, I must be ignorant.

And because you can’t find a way to make a convincing case from morality from authority it must be me who doesn’t understand the subject (even though I’ve given a proper definition, and went on from there, while you jump around on the subject, because your model doesn’t allow consistency).

Don’t try to attack other peoples position, when you don’t understand them AND when you can’t even defend your own.

Good night.

Freddy
You still have not said what evidence you will find convincing. I think you are stalling because you don’t have a clue how to answer the question.

ToxicAudri
But how can everyone that says they follow the Bible have a different answer than you they can’t all be wrong unless everyone’s morals are different in which case means I’m right cause if people who claim the same as you can’t agree then there is no way to prove me wrong.

Freddy
Your premise is incorrect. The Bible is the standard, not the morals people live by. If a person claims to be a Christian and doesn’t follow biblical morality, the morality hasn’t changed. It is just that the person is acting immorally. If 1000 people act immorally, morality has not changed. The standard is the same.

Pyramides Head
I’m not stalling.

You make a claim. And you believe that claim. So why can’t you just present the evidence you have and I tell you if I accept it or not?

But heck… if there actually was an all-knowing god, he knew exactly what it would take to convince me, maybe you should ask him! I can’t tell you exactly what would convince me… it’s not really my job, is it?

Freddy
I have presented evidence, but you seem to be clueless about what it even means.

The last answer is childish. If you don’t know what evidence you would accept, then you don’t even know the implications of your own beliefs. If you enjoy wallowing around in that kind of ignorance, you are welcome to it, but you are no longer welcome on this string.
(At this point I revoked Pyramides Head’s privilege of participating in this discussion.)

ToxicAudri
Too bad if you wont tell me what 3 things you say God says are moral and what 3 things you say that gods says are immoral then I shall attempt to get whole of Freddy Davis here and ask him the same and use him like I would you in this experiment and I will even make it a special video response to you.

Freddy
Have you ever checked out the 10 Commandments?

ToxicAudri
Thats why I am going to be sure to include minasters who follow the same sect teachings as either you or Mr. Davis.

Freddy
Audri, your post is getting a little creepy. If this is designed to be some kind of threat or coercion, I will not let you continue here. What you seem to be indicating appears very much like a childish prank, and this is not a place for that kind of behavior.
(At this point I revoked ToxicAudri’s privilege of participating in this discussion.)

June 11, 2013

nitelite78
Lets just say “denying” god(s) is a semantic game I am wary of because religious folk often use the word “deny” to mean “reject” rather than “deny the existence of”.

As I already said I don’t ask for evidence from you because I already know you are unable to provide any other than a subjective book. I write for others to read to illustrate that when religious folk are asked to show their relationship with god(s) is real they? are unable to.

Where is that birthmark? 3 days remaining.

Freddy
You can play semantics if you want, but you are ignoring your own religious bias. Your entire argument is based on your belief that naturalistic presuppositions are true. If you can demonstrate that based on your own worldview beliefs (using experimental science), you can take me down. Until then, your attempt to show others my worldview beliefs are wrong are nothing more than an illustration of the bankruptcy of your own logical framework. Nice try, but no cigar.

June 12, 2013

nitelite78
I don’t have a religion. Now who’s playing semantics.

Your entire argument is based on the presupposition that an invisible entity has a relationship with you and a book which is written by humans was somehow influenced by this hidden being.

I am confident that most readers who aren’t already Christian pre-suppositionalists will be able to learn and see your school yard game.

Where is that birthmark? 2 days remaining.

Freddy
You do have a religion (a faith position). You make the assumption that the material universe is all that exists. Everything you have written is based on that presupposition. I continue to ask you to back it up. So far all I hear is silence. Until you demonstrate that your faith trumps mine, your assertion is nothing more than a charade (as is your silly game with the birthmark).

You came here accusing me of falsehood. Until you demonstrate that you have truth, your accusation is meaningless.

nitelite78
You are playing semantics. If you call my position a religion or faith then we need a new word for a doctrine based theistic view.

My world view is based on Science and senses….what I feel see and hear. Tangible objects. You claim you want evidence for naturalism being the only realm but the supernatural is placed outside of the natural realm so is untouchable. It is placed there by theists precisely because it is untouchable.

But this places the burden of proof on you.

1 day remaining.

Freddy
Really? Okay then, I want the science on these particular foundation stones of Naturalism. Unless you can show me the science, your entire argument is based on faith.

1. What is the origin of matter/energy?
2. What is the origin of life?
3. What is the origin of human self-consciousness?

I don’t want you to point to theories. I want you to point me to the actual science that proves the answers to these have a basis in the physical science you say your worldview is built upon.

Good luck.

nitelite78
1. What is the origin of matter/energy?
– I don’t know

2. What is the origin of life?
– I don’t know

3. What is the origin of human self-consciousness?
– I am not sure. I think probably it is something that emerges through evolution. This is why we see self-consciousness in other mammals.

I am not afraid of not knowing. I don’t pretend to have knowledge as you do. And I don’t use other peoples writings to condemn others. This is an honest world view. Unlike yours.

Reminder: 1 day left.

Freddy
Not only do you not know, science has no answer either. In your last post you accused me of a religious position while yours was based on science. But that is obviously not true. Your assertions are based on the BELIEF that everything can somehow be explained naturally. I hate to tell you this, but that is a faith (religious) position. Now, who is not being honest?

You have come here attacking my beliefs and you can’t even demonstrate your own to be true. I don’t owe you any explanation!

June 14, 2013

Nikifuj908
Wait wait wait. Who says atheists have to rely on their personal opinion for morality? Sir, with all due respect, most atheists can READ. They have access to secular moral philosophies created by good and intelligent people. I know an atheist who actually reads the Bible, not because he believes in God but because he sees the merit in the text. Also, if people around us enjoy our company and reciprocate our love, does that not serve as an external moral compass? I would love to hear your input.

Freddy
So what are you saying, that Atheists read other people’s books and follow them blindly without deciding what they think is good or bad? I don’t think that is what you mean. What happens is that they read different stuff, then decide, based on personal opinion, what they want their morality to be. The point of the video is that Atheists don’t have an objective basis for developing a moral code. All that is available is personal opinion.

Nikifuj908
Does someone who makes the choice to be Christian not utilize personal opinion in the same way? The only tools we have to judge what is true and what is not are our senses, which are inherently subjective. So you can’t blame others for coming to different conclusions. Maybe what atheists are doing is immoral by your standards, but you shouldn’t characterize it as objectively bad (emphasis on “objectively”).

Freddy
Your assertion is only true if God really doesn’t exist. But he does. It is not true that our senses are all we have to make truth evaluations. There is an objectively real spiritual part of human beings which gives us the capability of connecting with God. I literally have a personal relationship with him. His revelation to mankind is truly his communication to us. Christians don’t get their beliefs from just subjectively making stuff up.

nitelite78
No. My beliefs are based on the fact that every thing that we can see taste hear and test is natural.

Whilst God is a possible hypothesis there is an infinite amount of other hypothesis that have equal weight. E.g:

a) Deism – A sentient being created the universe but has no connection with humans
b) Deism/Atheism – A sentient being created the universe but has subsequently destroyed itself.

cont…

Freddy
Fact? Do you not remember the 3 questions I asked you about your “natural” beliefs that you could not answer? Everything you have said is based on faith! Throwing out hypotheses (speculations) without any evidence for anything is a rather meaningless exercise.

nitelite78
We do however have plenty of concrete evidence that humans are very susceptible to creating entities, creating different religions, making up stories to explain events they don’t understand. This is why I am Atheist.

It also puts the burden of proof on to you. 0 days left. As expected you are unable to demonstrate your relationship with Jesus is real. Therefore there is no reason to believe it is anything other than a relationship with yourself and confirms Atheism as the most rational view,

Freddy
You mean creating beliefs and making up stories like the naturalistic ones you have been using to argue your point? Based on your approach to determining what is true, you ought to be questioning your own beliefs.

Again, you expect me to give you naturalistic proofs for my theistic beliefs when you cannot even show Naturalism to be true. There is no reason to believe that your religious faith is true and thus still no reason to humor you with your meaningless game.

Final Words
At this point the posts quit coming, which is what usually happens at some point. The Bible teaches us to always be prepared to give a reason for the hope that is within us. There are numerous ways to do this. As Christians, the really important thing to recognize is that we really do have a leg to stand on when it comes to defending and promoting our faith. That is a meaningless concept, however, if we don’t take the time and make the effort to get that foundation. An important part of our faithfulness in Christ is to prepare ourselves with both the intellectual and personal knowledge of our faith in Christ. With that, We can stand strong personally and are in a strong position to share our faith in Christ at any time.

© 2013 Freddy Davis