Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.

In actuality, that is false. And easy to prove.God in the Bible has had to, on numerous occasions, perform a 'reset' of his creation because things were not proceeding according to his plan. When Lucifer rebelled. Adam and Eve eating of the Apple. The need to destroy humanity with a flood. That would imply that whatever transpired was not known to God.And the need to 'test' people of faith, such as Abraham or Job. The requirement to 'test' immediately infers that one requires the test because they are not cognizant of the outcome.Ergo, God is NOT all knowing.Additionally, he is not all powerful, as evidenced by this quote:

quote:

---

Judges 1:19
And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

---

Not all-knowing. Not all-powerful. If he is neither, than he cannot claim 'absolute morality' in any sense.

In actuality, it doesn't. Free will is often cited as the 'reason' things have not transpired according to god's plan or will. But it is an oxymoron. If god is all knowing, he would be cognizant of the outcome of whatever scenario is meant to transpire regardless. If one creates a specific set of variables knowing full well the outcome of what will occur, then any tests are meaningless. Also, being 'all knowing' actually undermines the 'free will' argument. If god is all knowing and is fully aware of the outcome of future events, then free will is a complete illusion. Once again, a pointless exercise. If god is all powerful, he would already be aware of Abraham's faith. The test is irrelevant. And a little sadistic quite frankly. I am afraid I don't understand what you are stating here. If the bible is the word of god, as is cited by fundamentalists, then I am reading it in absolute terms as it pertains to your assertions. Are you implying it isn't the word of god? Well that's an interesting view. You basically label yourself as a Christian with specific views about god. Your primary reference for those views is the bible. Yet if the bible contradicts those views, you ignore it?
Circular logic anyone?

Let me see if I can help.Consider this statement:"Theism is a belief in the existence of God(s). Theism doesn't try to explain morals."Someone who is a 'theist' does not yet have any moral frame of reference since theism in and of itself does not say anything about morals or morality. It is a response to a claim. In the same way atheism is a response to the same claim.People who are 'theists', such Christians, Muslims, Jews, and the various sects within are all responding to the same claim in the same way. Yet they CLEARLY have different views on what is moral. Specific tenets in the Muslim religion, such as how they treat women, are things we find morally inconsistent with our western values. Christians and their dogma around homosexuality also have morals that we consider inconsistent with our values and our constitution.So within two 'theist' camps, we have differing views on morality. Which leads to the inevitable conclusion that these morals have to be subjective in nature.To drive the point home further, consider slavery. This was a sanctioned legal practice in our country until the Civil War. It was also sanctioned in the Bible; the supposed word of god. Yet we all now as a society agree that slavery is actually immoral. Our society evolved and our morals evolved accordingly. Once again, proof positive that morals are indeed subjective.

Morals are a social construct. They 'evolve' as societies advance. This is very evident by simply looking at your own bible and seeing things within its pages that we would consider to be immoral in modern times. Slavery. Selling your daughter to the highest bidder. That sort of thing. I bet most 'evolutionists' understand grammar and spelling better than you do. And have you 'studied' genetics? And I don't mean read a book. Do you have a degree in biological sciences specializing in genetics?

quote:

---

Innate Behavior

​

Behaviors that are closely controlled by genes with little or no environmental influence are called innate behaviors. These are behaviors that occur naturally in all members of a species whenever they are exposed to a certain stimulus. Innate behaviors do not have to be learned or practiced. They are also called instinctive behaviors. An instinct is the ability of an animal to perform a behavior the first time it is exposed to the proper stimulus. For example, a dog will drool the first timeand every timeit is exposed to food.

---

Innate Behavior ( Read ) | Biology | CK-12 FoundationAnd that is from a basic ck12 class. Did you not even get that far in school? Based on the aforementioned, it actually appears as though evolution is taking you to school (literally and figuratively) and the individual peddling creationist nonsense is making a fool of themselves.

*sips coffee*. Ok, I am good. No he did not and yes it did. Don't worship them. Just acknowledge they exist and the mechanism that caused them to evolve. I actually feel pretty relaxed. You on the other hand are starting to sound like the guy on the corner with the 'End is Near!' sign. Incorrect. (See previous post and details) Incorrect. (See previous post and details) We are presenting evidence and data. No lying needed. Facts are just facts. Your need to label us as 'liars' is actually just a vain attempt to divert attention from your own massive insecurity. Took a semester of biological genetics in university. Have you?Regarding getting a life, I kind of like the one I have. It is quite pleasant and enjoyable. And thanks to the wonders of the internet and individuals like yourself, it is filled with copious amounts of free comedy that make me laugh and snicker at the sheer absurdity of the ill-informed.

quote:

---

In evolutionary biology, an organism is said to behave altruistically when its behaviour benefits other organisms, at a cost to itself. The costs and benefits are measured in terms of reproductive fitness, or expected number of offspring.

​

Biological Altruism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

---

Oh, and you're welcome.Anything else we can help you with Davidjay? Perhaps this link will also be of assistance:English Grammar for Dummies Cheat Sheet
English Grammar For Dummies Cheat Sheet - dummies

My suspicion is that we are dealing with a Christian troll. I don't believe he is actually interested in dialog. He just wants to preach and is looking to get a rise out of people. His responses are so off the wall and nonsensical, that my guess is he is just here to spew nonsense, not engage in meaningful debate.Eventually, he will be banned and that will fulfill his messianic need to be the poor 'persecuted' Christian who was treated badly by those nasty 'evolutionists'.