Atheistic morality

[chang50]

Excellent, so we should be free to discuss the reality that scientist have convinced atheists they live in and what such a person may believe to be right.

Obviously..bearing in mind not all atheists are convinced by science..

[shickingbrits]

No, but we can say the main body.

We can't call multi-verses science, as they were merely invented to account for the unlikelihood of the big bang producing conditions for life. Now again we've stripped away some atheists, I understand, but we are specifying the main body.

So let's start with the big bang. Without God, a single random event generated the conditions for life. Are you ok with this as the main body?

[chang50]

No, but we can say the main body.

We can't call multi-verses science, as they were merely invented to account for the unlikelihood of the big bang producing conditions for life. Now again we've stripped away some atheists, I understand, but we are specifying the main body.

So let's start with the big bang. Without God, a single random event generated the conditions for life. Are you ok with this as the main body?

The multiverse idea is highly speculative,nowhere near as speculative as goddidit mind you...to the best of my understanding as a non-scientist the big bang theory is the best we have thus far for explaining observable existence.

[BigBallinStalin]

Baptizing a baby doesn't make it Christian. Go fish.

According to your Christian splinter cell, sure.

I'll cut to the chase: you're not going to explain how 'Christian'/shickreligion morality is inherent.

[jonesthecurl]

Good. So then there are no atheistic morals.

As such, atheists either have none, at least the possibility exists, or they are founded in other areas. I know that many forms of atheist exist, but in the west, would you say atheists mainly adhere to a "scientific" explanation of creation?

There are no morals inherently implied in not seeing evidence of a creator.
So we have no explanation of "creation". It didn't happen.

[jonesthecurl]

Don't beliefs drive motivation?

A Christian has a global motivator, an overriding belief from which others stem. Doesn't this exist for an atheist? If it does, is it the state? family? wealth? acclaim? Which of those are inconsistent with a Christian belief?

Will the global motivation produce specific actions? Did wishing to fulfill those specific actions determine the global motivator?

Determining morality depends on what we know to be right. If the main body of western atheist knows science to be right, then it should be pertinent to the thread.

So where did God's morals come from?

[jonesthecurl]

No, but we can say the main body.

We can't call multi-verses science, as they were merely invented to account for the unlikelihood of the big bang producing conditions for life. Now again we've stripped away some atheists, I understand, but we are specifying the main body.

So let's start with the big bang. Without God, a single random event generated the conditions for life. Are you ok with this as the main body?

It's not random. It is the first thing that ever happened and thus had no cause. There was no time to have a cause in "prior" to the Big Bang. I don't think your question is entirely relevant to the rest of your rambling, but never mind. Oh, and life came a lot lot later.Conditions certainly were not right for life at the time of the Bang.

[AndyDufresne]

No, but we can say the main body.

We can't call multi-verses science, as they were merely invented to account for the unlikelihood of the big bang producing conditions for life. Now again we've stripped away some atheists, I understand, but we are specifying the main body.

So let's start with the big bang. Without God, a single random event generated the conditions for life. Are you ok with this as the main body?

--Andy

[tzor]

According to your Christian splinter cell, sure.

And which "Christian splinter cell" does shickingbrits belong to? Pray tell.

(It sounds like one of those jokes about the "true cross" ... I've got this "Christian splinter" stuck in my finger.)

[jonesthecurl]

According to your Christian splinter cell, sure.

And which "Christian splinter cell" does shickingbrits belong to? Pray tell.

(It sounds like one of those jokes about the "true cross" ... I've got this "Christian splinter" stuck in my finger.)

A creationist, anti-science, one.
Would you care to specify, Sb?

[tzor]

So let's start with the big bang. Without God, a single random event generated the conditions for life. Are you ok with this as the main body?

Who ever said it was a single event?

Indeed you seem to have an exclusive or to your reasoning. Who says God does not use "random" events. Consider, if you will the parable of the sower in Matthew 13:3-9. Just as the word was scattered without consideration for the optimal effectiveness could not life itself have been distributed likewise among the plethora of worlds in the universe until it found "good soil" on this planet?

[shickingbrits]

If the Big Bang was not a single event, then are you suggesting that a multi-verse generator exists? Do you have any observable evidence, the basic requirement of a scientific theory, to back that up? No, what you have is the choice to call the single observable event random or by design. In saying it is random, you have decided that against all odds, there is no God.

As for saying it came first, and therefore it has no cause, and therefore is not random, why hasn't it reoccured?

You have also decided that your life and the lives of others are random. This is why through God morals are inherent, but through the main body of western atheist, morals are not. If everything is God and everything acted to bring me and you into creation, then I cannot be better than you or worse than you. If the entire universe acted to bring you about, then how can I be better than that as I was created through the same act?

From this, the golden rule naturally follows. If we are all equal and everything combines to tell me this is so, I would be going against everything I know to treat someone in a way I would not want to be treated. And in doing so, I would be ignoring my global motivation, knowingly harming myself and bringing ugliness instead of beauty.

In saying that everything is God, my position becomes unassailable. All scientific discoveries, become knowledge of God, all uses of the discoveries become a balance of God, and all people and things have God in them.

This is my preferred world and realization of this lead me to say that the Big Bang and every result of it is God. It's no more jump than speculating on multi-verses, but it has the nice side effect that it provides me with a governing motivator that leads me to work towards the good in the world.

But I have yet to come to Christianity. All of the above observations can stand alone, but if they are true, then others would have understood them to be true as well. That is, some decent moral codes must have already been derived from this concept.

When I read the Bible, I read the words and acts of Jesus. Many bibles come with his words highlighted so it's a quick read. What does he have to say regarding who God is? Everything and the father of everything. Who does he say he is? The son of the father and the brother to us all. If Jesus is the brother to us all, then are we not also the children of the father? If God is everything according to Jesus, and he is only part of everything, then how can he be everything? Indeed he said, God is everything, we are all part of everything, so we are all completely God.

So in this I find that Jesus has a congruent belief in the existence of everything that I have reached. Yet his acts and words show his understanding is far beyond mine. And far beyond others as well. As such, in supporting Jesus, I'm supporting the belief that we are all equal, that life itself demands we treat each other accordingly and that the greatest good is to raise the level of equality for all within my understanding of God's mechanisms.

In evaluating any given situation, I can put a global - or + before each result. I have an unassailable platform on which I can make comprehensive global decisions. An atheist struggles in a random sea of corrosion trying to trounce his neighbour to end their individual corrosion which act in itself is causing the corrosion of all. Me, I'm chilling at the resort telling you to come to shore, You, you're too busy creating your own hell to even listen.

Sure, the Church is blocking your view of the resort, so is everything else in that hellish sea, but you can still find it if you are looking. They are blocking your view because there are some massive - signs lying in front of money and power that people decided to ignore. Their choice to ignore it would be meaningless and self-destructive unless they could convince others to ignore it as well.

I cannot ignore the massive + sign before thorium while others blatantly ignore it and discuss the trivialities of the subset pluses of uranium based on subset pluses of weapons based on subset pluses of dominance based on subset negatives of subservience. With a global motivator based on the entirety of reality I have a global standard to add to the global good, without which I am only able to inadvertently work towards the global good and far more likely to in fact just be trouncing my neighbour, leading to the global bad.

Saying that the global good can be achieved without actively applying global signs before each act, makes engaging in acts which allow for the global good highly unlikely. Therefore, BBS's baptized children would be ignorant of their path and would be less likely to find their way than one with a map. Did not God give us the understanding or the ability to understand and use the materials he made available? What you are doing in your example is what economists like to do, they like to restrict resources and then make claims based on the restrictions.

Anyways, there's enough material for you guys to try to shred for the moment. Enjoy.

[BigBallinStalin]

Anyways, there's enough material for you guys to try to shred for the moment. Enjoy.

It's not necessary. You've done a good enough job to yourself.

[jonesthecurl]

See, your basic argument is right there in the first paragraph...

you have decided that against all odds, there is no God.

Why "against all odds"?
I mean, that's odd.

The existence of the universe does not in itself imply the existence of God. That's my point exactly.

[chang50]

See, your basic argument is right there in the first paragraph...

you have decided that against all odds, there is no God.

Why "against all odds"?
I mean, that's odd.

The existence of the universe does not in itself imply the existence of God. That's my point exactly.

It's no more of a jump than the multiverse lol

[shickingbrits]

No, no more of a jump, no more scientific of a jump and one made specifically to avoid God and the morals which God entails.

And someone willing to make such self-serving jumps is not someone who I'd trust to make important decisions regarding the future of man. I'd also question their logic and motives.

[chang50]

No, no more of a jump, no more scientific of a jump and one made specifically to avoid God and the morals which God entails.

And someone willing to make such self-serving jumps is not someone who I'd trust to make important decisions regarding the future of man. I'd also question their logic and motives.

And I certainly wouldn't trust anyone as divorced from reality as a creationist,not even to cross the road.

[shickingbrits]

If you can't trust yourself, maybe you need to get married.

[chang50]

If you can't trust yourself, maybe you need to get married.

Wtf are you on about?

[shickingbrits]

Didn't you just admit you are divorced from reality and therefore unable to trust yourself?

[degaston]

[shickingbrits]

At worst, a creationist is a step away from reality, at best an atheist is a step away. Chang states that anyone as divorced from reality as a creationist, he wouldn't trust, i.e. an atheist, i.e. himself.

Degaston, you are displaying a marked ability to come to the shallowest conclusions available on all fronts.

[jonesthecurl]

Atheists are not avoiding "God"/Gods.
They are saying "God? Where?".
If you think that morals require a God to define them, then you are simply wrong. "Morals" are not inherent in the universe. Rocks, stars, quarks, photons, earthworms, toenails, and black holes do not have morals. Humans have morals. They are a human thing. The question of how to decide what is moral (while a vital question) is not solved by saying
(i) The universe, therefore God.
(ii) Therefore read the bible (and interpret it in the same way as I do) or you are immoral.

[jonesthecurl]

And I ask again, "Where did your god's morals come from?"