Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.

I agree. We just disagree over the fact that this creator is divine. I see no reason to suppose the creator is divine, or has infinite wisdom. I see reason to suppose the contrary. What do you think the 'Naturalistic doctrine' is? Which would explain why everybody disagrees all the time. Huh, this theory seems to have legs after all. Or did God put different absolute moralities inside us?

Well yes, morality does change to suit the purposes and circumstances of the society involved. No absolute morality, no. In fact, it's people who believe in absolute morality who have no actual morality. All you're doing is following orders. There's a reason why that isn't an excuse for flouting actual morality.

Then it isn't rational.

But I don't act morally. I've picked up sticks on Saturday. I've eaten shellfish. I've worn garments woven out of more than one kind of fabric.And more generally it seems that we don't all have the same intrinsic law put inside of us by God, since we all think that different things are right and wrong.

And if you actually read the Bible stories you will see that the God character really hasn't a clue about what absolute morality or even common morality entails. In the Bible it is even necessary for a common human to educate the God character on how to behave morally.

That's not the Moral Law. The Moral Law is based on the Ten Commandments, it's about lying and murdering and adultery and coveting and stealing, and of course you disobey those too because we all do, but you aren't asked to obey the specific laws God gave to Israel, the food laws, the fabric law, the Sabbath observance laws. And of course you know that Christ fulfilled them all so you're just being an obfuscator as usual anyway.The Law written on the human heart isn't a perfect reflection of the written Law in the Old testament, because we're fallen and get our own ideas mixed up with God's, but I'm sure even you would acknowledge that you have a moral code of your own, and that reflects your having the image of God in you (much as I might want to dispute that at times).Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's impossible for you to have a moral compass if you need a book to tell you what morality is.
The bible is evil and Immoral.

The religious right have managed to elect a moral monster as US president.How dare they lecture us on morals.HOW DARE THEY.

And so that explains why us all having the same moral law written on our hearts by the same god looks exactly like us not all having the same moral law written on our hearts by the same god.

Any human being who cannot determine and accept a basic secular human morality in their society is mentally sociopathic. For the less extreme of this condition there are surrogates ready for the deficient individual to adopt with a more-or-less rigorous training and enforcement regimen.Unfortunately for humanity, religious inculcation in non-secular segments of societies is so prevalent that the religious morality-of-the-chosen-cult is often enforced through mental brutality seeking to replace the natural secular morality that would develop within most members of the society.The danger is that, while all moralities are relative, natural secular moralities seldom turn evil except in the most extreme circumstances while religious moralities manifest evil with great regularity in human history. When these evils arise, in the secular moral society there is a natural base upon which the evil can be recognized and, depending on circumstance, corrected. In the religious morality-of-the-chosen-cult the religious morality is whatever the priests so determine as their religious justification/interpretation. The inculcated adherents no longer have any natural way to see or correct the religious-moral evil from within the religiously determined framework to which they are so rigorously forced to adhere.When religious moralities turn evil, as they all eventually and periodically do, the only corrective mechanism available is a strong secular society steeped in natural secular morality.As proof of this proposition I offer the same evidence as the OP.

Riga writes Well don't mean to mean here but since these are just observations, asserions and not actual arguments, not much to response to here. I will though
RAZD asked me for an example of what else God has done besides create the world. I gave him one that could be verified in reality, the moral law placed on the heartThe infinte source tells us in Jeremiah 10:23 that it is not in man to direct his steps. So even if he has a perfect source he might still get things wrong. Duh. The source however is perfectYes,we have access to this infinte mind, through not only natural law, the law of the heart, intrinsic law but also specific revelation. Since , there is,ample evidence for both in reality , all u need to do is make that evidence vanish.
My response to,your post is adequate to the evidence to the contrary. The moral law that I can see is still there There is more than enough evidence to support the existence of an infinite God. I'll be happy to debate to debate that in another thread, should you wish to do so. However, here Rig we are assuming what the results and logical conclusions would be if we adopted each other's position for the sake of argument. Try to stay up ok. For example, I'm ASSUMING your Naturalistic position to follow it to its logical conclusions.If you could for the sake of argument adopt the characteristics of the God of the Bible, ie infinte in knowledge, we can see where that might lead. Even so I have already provided an EXAMPLE of his existence in the form of the moral lawDawn Bertot

qsWhat has atheism got to do with morality?Does your thesis work equally well asHindism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals? OrAncestor Worship Cannot Rationally Explain Morals? OrSpaghetti Cannot Rationally Explain Morals?[/qs]Should just ask do morals exist in a strictly Naturalistic world. No

RAZD writes I'm assuming your using the Bible for your source that God told them to stone someone correct, if not what what source are using. So the same source tells us that this same God is infinte in knowledge, omniscience. If this is not the case, then there is also no need for me to believe, YOU BELIEVE, that God actually asked someone to stone someone elseTry to atleast be legitimate and rational. Double talk is not necessary,, if you cant handle the argument. Well no I was just trying to be kind In relationship to the fact that no matter how much consistency you think you have, that If it is less than perfect knowledge it's subjective nonsense. The word Moral implies by its very nature a standard, if there is no standard then there is no reason to call anything evil, bad or wrong. Now you could call it correct or incorrect, but that would only be if it conformed to some known fact in reality. But not right or wrong.The moment an Atheist opens his mouth and starts claiming someone is moral or immoral, he involves him or herself in the worst form of contradiction. Well this is proof positive you have no intention of being objective. You ask for an example from something God did besides create the universe, then I give you a clear cut example, by demonstrating the visible morality In man, his sense of right and wrong, sense of ought and these kinds of things. That's PHYSICAL RIGHT?. But Because I was able to provide an answer, your best response Is I don't like itDoesn't matter that it's out of a book, I can see it in reality. Do you have any other questions you'd like me to answer? Not surprisingly, again you miss the point. It's not a matter of what you choose, it's a matter of what the implications are if such an infinite, all knowing being does not exist. That being that you are involved in the worst form of contradiction, NOT Just BECAUSE he may not exist, but because subjective can never be objective, which means morality, if you want to call it that, is nothing of the sortYou could not provide me with an example that would not involve itself in the worst form of contradictionOn the other hand, there would not be anything objectively wrong with a dog chasing down a rabbit to kill it, than one human killing another in the octagon, correct? Not in your reality. How long do u think it will be before it will be acceptable to fight and kill one another for sport in the ring.. Hmmmmm? I believe they were called gladiators. Is that murder, evil, moral or immoral, right wrong. You fellas tell using this massively subjective "Morality" you possessDawn Bertot

Now here's the punny fart. In your Naturalistic worldview, nothing of which you just said has any real meaning, because there is no value in that world view. How could there be it's just matter in motion. How could you demonstrate otherwise. If I disagree with your above statement, which of us is correct right or wrong. See your problemSo if your follow the laws of your land, which I assume some you believe to moral, your a evil person for following orders?Dawn Bertot

No one said you don't have the freewill to ignore the intrinsic law inside of you anymore than you would a traffic law. You seem especially wilfully ignorant and bent on ignoring his intrinsic law. You are a perfect example of why we know its there
Maybe you were created for just that reason. Just a Naturalistic thought