Life without God

quote:

---

I think you're missing the key difference here:

​

In my worldview, absolute good and bad exists. It does not depend on my opinion of it. I can be mistaken about what it is, with the consequences this can have for myself and others.

---

Unless you KNOW what is and is not absolutely right or wrong it's not a key difference at all. It's merely an opinion which has no practical import at all.

quote:

---

In an atheistic worldview, it does not exist. Whatever good and wrong is from your POV, it is strictly dependant on yourself, with consequences that are ultimately either good or bad only in the eye of the observer. In reality, killing thousands of people is no different then mowing the lawn.

---

Even the first sentence is false. There's simply no rational reason to link a belief in absolute morality with a belief in God. The last sentence on the other hand is simply vile. How can you justify saying such things under your "absolute morality" ?

quote:

---

Of course, my contention is that I know this moral absolute is found in the Bible. So it does reveal to be a key difference

---

Which only proves that I was correct - belief in an objective morality is NOT a key difference.
And to take the Bible as a good guide to morality is rather questionable.

quote:

---

Not at all, it is a direct conclusion from the atheist claim ''everything just IS''

---

I'm sorry but making blatantly false assertions won't help you.

quote:

---

You haven't really thought this out, did you ?

---

You just keep on getting things wrong, don't you ?? In fact I have thought it out quite carefully, which is why I am confident that I am correct.

quote:

---

An absolute morality cannot exist if only matter and energy exists, therefore if an absolute morality is to exist it can only be in the case where not only matter and energy exists. ie supernatural exists. (the next step that can be taken from absolute moral laws to lawmaker is trivial at this point)

---

Firstly, atheism does not entail rejection of the supernaturalism. Secondly there are atheists such as Sam Harris and the Objectivist movement who argue for objective morality without the supernatural. Finally the "trivial" step that you refer to is a major obstacle as you would know if you were better informed on the issue (see the Euthyphro dilemma - which has yet to be adequately answered).

quote:

---

Question-beggin epithet

---

It certainly doesn't beg any questions.

quote:

---

It's a form of reductio ad absurdum; given the premises of atheism, it is a logical consequence. One arrangement of atoms is not intrinsically more valuable then any other.

---

Obviously that is NOT a logical consequence, unless you deny the whole concept of inherent value (you might like to consider the relevant prices of diamond and graphite before you insist on that). I suppose that if you assume that atheists both deny inherent value AND make moral judgements on the basis of inherent value (a rather silly view) you would be correct. But the mere need to make those assumptions shows that your claim that it is a "logical consequence" is completely false.But let me say that someone who sees no value in humans as they are and considers a book that glorifies acts of genocide (and a murdering vigilante) as a source of "absolute morals" - and who makes remarks like that is sitting in a greenhouse, throwing very large stones.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Within a God-creating worldview, one arrangement of atoms can have more intrinsic value then another. For example, God created humans in his image, and this gives them higher value then anything else.

---

Any inherent value must be in the arrangement of atoms itself, not in it's relationship to anything else. Therefore the inherent value of any particular arrangement of atoms is independent of whether a God exists or not.