How do I turn the table on atheists?

[MindOverMatter2]

Value is therefore subjective.

That you cannot understand moral value in any other sense than as a subjective desire for the well-being of an object, is irrelevant to the argument that I am making.

If value is subjective then it is not objectively true of human nature. If it is not objectively true of human nature, then it is irrational to say that it is true that human nature has true moral value; that we ought to treat people in a particular way. Given metaphysical naturalism, human nature does not have any value, accept what you imagine it to have. A fantasy is a fantasy; it does not matter how strongly you state it.

So all of those things do actually make it immoral to treat someone as if they had no value.

No it does not because your argument is blatantly irrational in that it ignores the relevance of objectivity when stating that something is true. Moral value is only true of a nature if the basis of that value is objective as opposed to subjective. You argument amounts to nothing more than the fact that you would like to force your subjective opinion of the objective nature of things.

It is another question whether it is immoral to avoid buying from a particular company for personal reasons. It is much easier to argue that it would be wrong to boycott a business because of the beliefs, rather than behaviour, of the proprietor.

What you are saying here is meaningless

 

[DCNBILL]

All very well and good, but if something was ok and now no longer is, then that’s relative. The very thing atheists are accused of day in day out.

Sarah x

This statement is not entirely accurate, sometimes this is called progress. When I was 5 years old it was not ok for me to drive. When I turned 16 it was ok for me to drive. When I turn 85 (if I make it that is ) it may not be ok for me to drive any longer. This is not relativism.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

It seems you are just arguing for the sake of it. We have indeed come to the same conclusion, the difference being I came to mine rationally, you came to yours by a variation on the theme of divine command. But we both agree humans have intrinsic value and worth, and actions which violate that value and worth are not moral.

Sarah x

Please, do not charge me with anything unless you are willing to rationally demonstrate the charge. Its disrespectful. I demonstrated why your argument is not a rational conclusion. Stop being a troll and address the arguments that are being presented, or say nothing at all. An assertion is never an argument, and you cannot expect me to think you are a serious thinker if all you ever do is assert your position. You might have others fooled, but you have not fooled me.

If you don’t understand my argument, admit it so that we can move on.

 

[DCNBILL]

Heres another bit that loses me. God, you say, loves us, and wants us to love Him back. We are only moral because God gives us the capacity to be so. Ok, so, why the eternal punishment and hell fire and damnation for not loving back?

You misunderstand the concept of hell. Hell is being separate from God for eternity. If one, on earth, chooses to turn against God then when that person dies God will not impinge upon that persons decision, thus eternal separation, hell. (btw I personally believe one would have to truly believe in God to reject Him. How can one reject that in which one does not believe)

If it truely is free will, then there should be no punishment attached. Thats like me saying to my husband, I love you, and I want you to love me back, but if you chose not to, then that’s ok, I will always love you, and you are free to leave - however, know this, if you do leave, I will remove your menparts with a rusty blade and give you the death of a thousand cuts, dosing you in vinegar just before you expire!!!

That’s hardly free will is it???

Sarah x

You are close except for the last part, the punishment is the separation. In your analogy it would be like the wife saying I will love you always and if you choose not to love me back and walk out on me know that I will respect that choice and never try to force you to love me.

 

[atheistgirl]

There is absolute truth, which existed in the Old Testament, but with a poor understanding of it, they did not follow it correctly. God does not change, so the truth is absolute, but the proper understanding of it is gradual through time.

Does that make sense?

Yes, if what you are saying is that Moses, Abraham, etc behaved immorally when in certain of their actions - which, then of course, raises another whole clutch of issues.

 

[atheistgirl]

Please, do not charge me with anything unless you are willing to rationally demonstrate the charge. Its disrespectful. I demonstrated why your argument is not a rational conclusion. Stop being a troll and address the arguments that are being presented, or say nothing at all. An assertion is never an argument, and you cannot expect me to think you are a serious thinker if all you ever do is assert your position. You might have others fooled, but you have not fooled me.

If you don’t understand my argument, admit it so that we can move on.

Now you call me a troll.

It’s best I simply ignore you I think - it seems when your unconvincing argument does not win the day, you have to resort to personal insults.

Sarah x

 

[Bobber90]

That you cannot understand moral value in any other sense than as a subjective desire for the well-being of an object is irrelevant to the argument that I am making.

**(x)**If value is subjective then it is not objectively true of human nature. If it is not objectively true of human nature, then it is irrational to say that it is true that human nature has true moral value; that we ought to treat people in a particular way. Given metaphysical naturalism, human nature does not have any value, accept what you imagine it to have. A fantasy is a fantasy; it does not matter how strongly you state it.

No it does not because your argument is blatantly irrational in that it ignores the relevance of objectivity when stating that something is true. Moral value is only true of a nature if the basis of that value is objective as opposed to subjective. You argument amounts to nothing more than the fact that you would like to force you subjective opinion of the objective nature of things.

What you are saying here is meaningless

I think we just disagree.

Moral value cannot be objective is what I am saying. I am not talking about merely one aspect of morality, this is my view of what the whole of morality is - subjective. Importantly and necessarily subjective. It seems like it would be helpful for your argument if I was merely making the mistake of talking about another point, but that is not the case. Morality is not just about subjectively wishing others well.

****For a subjective moral value to be true, it merely has to be held - if most people hold that humans have value, then it is morally true to say they have value. Morality comes down to negotiating social life in myriad webs of relationships, desires, fears and commitments. Moral values are created and calibrated by these exchanges as far as they deal with present or anticipated harm or happiness/wellbeing. (x) Values do not have to flow from human nature to be real

 

[atheistgirl]

You misunderstand the concept of hell. Hell is being separate from God for eternity. If one, on earth, chooses to turn against God then when that person dies God will not impinge upon that persons decision, thus eternal separation, hell. (btw I personally believe one would have to truly believe in God to reject Him. How can one reject that in which one does not believe)
You are close except for the last part, the punishment is the separation. In your analogy it would be like the wife saying I will love you always and if you choose not to love me back and walk out on me know that I will respect that choice and never try to force you to love me.

Ok, well those answers are not what I thought - I thought christians believed hell was a real place of pain and suffering that never ended

Ok, so, what happens - just obliteration as in ceasing to exist?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

That seems unnecessarily threatening IMHO.

Are you trying to usurp Christ’s position as the “Hound of Heaven”?

Explain to me why it is threatening? What is wrong with what I said?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Now you call me a troll.

It’s best I simply ignore you I think - it seems when your unconvincing argument does not win the day, you have to resort to personal insults.

Sarah x

No. I am simply frustrated by trolls.

 

[atheistgirl]

This statement is not entirely accurate, sometimes this is called progress. When I was 5 years old it was not ok for me to drive. When I turned 16 it was ok for me to drive. When I turn 85 (if I make it that is ) it may not be ok for me to drive any longer. This is not relativism.

But we are not talking about the same thing.

4000 years ago, it was ok, and in fact blessed by God, to take the young girls in a tribe as war booty (one can only imagine their fate!!!) and to slaughter every man woman and child in a conquered nation. Thats is a fact. We have it in the Bible. It was perfectly moral and blessed by God.

4000 years later, we have the concept of the just war, rape is a war crime and immoral, and the conquerers can not just slaughter every man woman and child in sight. That too is immoral.

I see that as moral relativism. Tell me why I shouldnt???

 

[karebear92]

Yes, if what you are saying is that Moses, Abraham, etc behaved immorally when in certain of their actions - which, then of course, raises another whole clutch of issues.

Immorally? No, as they followed God’s will, as He instructed them to. But that does not discount the divine perfection. If we act outside of God’s will it is sinful, but if it is His will it is not. God Himself, in perfection, does not change and therefore the absolute truth, from which we get morality is unchanging. But, as it was God’s will, they did not sin.

As Jesus said, He came to fulfill the prophets, not to abolish them. Meaning that He did not abolish the laws and the teaching of the prophets, but He did build upon them.

He also says that the reason the prophets had them was because of the hardness of their hearts. I believe that our hearts are slowly softening, if you will, as God slowly reveals Himself to us.

Basically, it wasn’t the changing of God’s absolute truth but the softening of the human heart. He created a convenient with them, not with us. For example, and this will fall a bit short, but think of sex. Sex, in and of itself is good, but if children have sex (I just grossed myself out ) then it is immoral. Sex in and of itself is good, but one must be able to understand it before it is good. It is kind of the opposite with them. In order for it to be good their hearts had to be open to it. It was always good, but they had to reach a certain point before they could adhere to it. (That was a terrible explanation, so I will think about a better way to explain it)

 

[karebear92]

Ok, well those answers are not what I thought - I thought christians believed hell was a real place of pain and suffering that never ended

Ok, so, what happens - just obliteration as in ceasing to exist?

Hell is separation from God, which is eternal suffering, as love and happiness are only found through God and because of God. Without God, that disappears and one enters a state of eternal damnation. I don’t think that it is necessarily actual fire, but rather a state of immeasurable pain and grief (that is just my opinion though). I think that fire may have been used as figurative language, as burning for eternity would be something that one can understand, but nobody can understand the separation from God’s love, as I and you alike, are completely filled with it.

 

[atheistgirl]

Hell is separation from God, which is eternal suffering.

Right - sips coffee and takes a deep breath

Now, lets say a person lives their life, a long and happy life, free from religion and faith and beliefs - and throughout their life, they never once, for a moment, felt they were missing something, or ever thought about God, or heaven or hell, or anything like that - it just isnt on their radar.

And then they die.

Where does the pain enter into it. During life they had no interest in God, didnt believe in God, never thought about God, nothing - so now, in death, they just carry on the same way - this is assuming there is an afterlife etc - so carrying on the same way, where does the pain come from or enter into the equation? Is God inflicting the pain? Because if that’s the case, I AM being punished for using my free will not in an approved way - and therefor I dont really have free will !!!

 

[karebear92]

Right - sips coffee and takes a deep breath

Now, lets say a person lives their life, a long and happy life, free from religion and faith and beliefs - and throughout their life, they never once, for a moment, felt they were missing something, or ever thought about God, or heaven or hell, or anything like that - it just isnt on their radar.

And then they die.

Where does the pain enter into it. During life they had no interest in God, didnt believe in God, never thought about God, nothing - so now, in death, they just carry on the same way - this is assuming there is an afterlife etc - so carrying on the same way, where does the pain come from or enter into the equation? Is God inflicting the pain? Because if that’s the case, I AM being punished for using my free will not in an approved way - and therefor I dont really have free will !!!

You have no interest in God but God unconditionally loves you. Without God’s love we cease to exist as we know it. There is no happiness, joy, or hope, or anything good, as you would have totally rejected God’s love, and with it anything good. God is not inflicting the pain, you cause it by rejecting Him and with it His love. For example, you enjoy drinking chocolate shakes (with God this is all of your joy) but you decide that you won’t go to the store and buy more chocolate ice-cream. You wouldn’t say that the ice-cream is causing your sadness in not having a chocolate shake, for it is because of your rejection that you do not have it. It is sitting there waiting for you to accept it, and in your refusal you eject the happiness that chocolate shakes give you.

 

[atheistgirl]

You have no interest in God but God unconditionally loves you. .

I dont see how though. Unconditional love to me would say, ok Sarah, you didnt believe in me when you were alive because you could find no evidence, despite your best efforts, but here I am … so, come on it, put your feet up, have a coffee, and I’ll go through the program with you when youre settled in … instead, it seems it will be, ok Sarah, here I am, you didnt believe, but I always loved you, and now you KNOW Im real, Im afraid it’s off to hell for you my girl, where you will feel the pain of seperation for all eternity with no relief!!!

I mean, even the very idea of having a punishment system that never ends, is immoral.

Except in the worst most seriously mentally ill cases, we as humans dont punish people in the penal system for ever!!! We set a time limit!!!

 

[MindOverMatter2]

****For a subjective moral value to be true, it merely has to be held - if most people hold that humans have value

That is a load of rubbish. There is a difference between utility-value and moral value. It doesn’t matter how many people value something, it does not mean the a thing in and of its self has intrinsic moral value, if by that we mean there are things which posses a particular nature that is as such that they have value regardless of whether or not anyone exists to recognise or agree with that value.

In the case of metaphysical naturalism, that we subjectively value anything is purely relative to what we want from life as individuals. This is relativism. My desire to survive does not mean that I ought to see the moral value of you or your service; It only means that I am being coerced to put a utility-value on your service because I see it as relevant to my survival. This is how capitalism works. The only truth that can be said in this situation is that there are people who for what ever reason see a utility value in the existence of other people relative to their personal needs or wants. You value some of the Christian concepts of morality for its utility insofar as you want to live without suffering. You value that people have a sense of guilt. You have a utility-value which is purely subjective and relative to your desire to survive. You choose to value them because you perceive a threat if you don’t. Your doing so, has nothing to do with recognising their true moral-value as persons irrespective of their utility value.

If finite survival is the rational standard of placing a utility-value on a person, then its cannot always be true that people have a utility value, because to reduce all people to that value system would make it irrational to place value on anything or person that would be a liability to the survival of the individual value-giver. In which case it would be irrational to give your life for other people, just as it would be irrational to give your life for an ant, since both their value is relative to your survival. In which case there can be a situation where some human beings have a zero utility value. Such people have no hope under such a draconian system.

In reality, people save other people and help other people not because they perceive a utility value in them, but because they think that it is objectively true that people have an objective moral value and that it would be truly wrong to not save them on the basis of some-kind of utility-value system. People like my sister who has brain-damage is only alive and being supported by the state because people who take it for granted that her life has value have frighted for her moral value as a human being. Whether we like it or not most people unconsciously subscribe to a Christian definition of objective morality, and they act according to that definition regardless of whether they are Christian or not.

 

[karebear92]

I dont see how though. Unconditional love to me would say, ok Sarah, you didnt believe in me when you were alive because you could find no evidence, despite your best efforts, but here I am … so, come on it, put your feet up, have a coffee, and I’ll go through the program with you when youre settled in … instead, it seems it will be, ok Sarah, here I am, you didnt believe, but I always loved you, and now you KNOW Im real, Im afraid it’s off to hell for you my girl, where you will feel the pain of seperation for all eternity with no relief!!!

I mean, even the very idea of having a punishment system that never ends, is immoral.

Except in the worst most seriously mentally ill cases, we as humans dont punish people in the penal system for ever!!! We set a time limit!!!

I also don’t think that when you die you have a meeting with God or St. Peter and they’re like “hey, look, I’m in here and you are out there. Bet you wished you believed in me now, huh.” It is your separation from Him, the only difference being that He allows it after you die. He, I believe at least, still loves you after you die but He allows you to fully reject His love by A) not repenting and showing true sorrow for rejecting His love in life and B) not accepting that love, which would entail sorrow for rejecting that love after one dies.

I would like to stress that I, being human, and quite alive, have no clue what anything is like after life. This is only speculation based in part on doctrine and the rest by filling in the gaps with my own interpretation of God.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Is God inflicting the pain?

No. You are.

Because if that’s the case, I AM being punished for using my free will not in an approved way - and therefore I don’t really have free will !!!

You cannot be eternally opposed to the objective reality of love and be spiritually fulfilled by it at the same time. Hell is the absence of spiritually fulfilment.

 

[atheistgirl]

I He, I believe at least, still loves you after you die but He allows you to fully reject His love by A) not repenting and showing true sorrow for rejecting His love in life and B) not accepting that love, which would entail sorrow for rejecting that love after one dies.

Why would I be sorrowful though? And why is it necessary to punish me for using my free will? It cant truely be free will if, failing to use it in an approved manner, eternal punishment awaits me?!!!