Is there a God of atheism?

[Jimmy Higgins]

The 'foundation of morality' as you mention - in a reality which doesn't have this as a commandment. Should allow people to freely care only about themselves and not care for the feelings of others, if they choose to

This reads as if the entire concept of evolution as it applies to social species was something you've missed in your education.

Ok. The concepts of moral subjectivity and moral objectivity seems to have gone over you. Perhaps this concept understanding was not taught in your evolution classes.

Moral subjectivity is what we have. Moral objectivity is something most people wish we had.

 

[steve_bank]

If the Christian God was the Source of Objective Morality, one would expect Christians to agree on moral issues. The evidence for that isn't very compelling.

Again... more misleading conceptual errors. I mean think about it. For example: Even if some people abide by the Moral law and some people don't. The Source of Objective Mortality would still be the Source of Moral Objectivity'!

The only thing that Christians agree on is that the vast majority of their fellow brethren are wrong about what Christians should do.

We can test a conceptual thinking.

Can you tell me or show me if there are any Christians "disagreeing" with the narrative that 'God is the source of Objective Morality?'

All Christians agree that God is the Moral Objective Standard.

That is the crux of the moral issues with Christianity.

All may agree god is the source of an objective absolute morality. However Christians disagree based on the 'holy babble' what that morality is in practice.

Conservative Christians argue homosexuality is wrong because it is explicitly stated in Leviticus, yet rationalize not following the food rules. Another is divorce and fornication. Jesus explicitly in the gospels reinforces marriage and considered fornication a serious offense.

The bible as a whole can be quote mined and interpreted to fit someone's view.

In contrast Buddhism at its core has a set of explicit requirements regarding social practices and behavior. Each artcle is fleshed out with deatail in scriptures.

The Noble Eightfold Path

Right understanding (Samma ditthi)
Right thought (Samma sankappa)
Right speech (Samma vaca)
Right action (Samma kammanta)
Right livelihood (Samma ajiva)
Right effort (Samma vayama)
Right mindfulness (Samma sati)
Right concentration (Samma samadhi)

Ther was at heory I heard back in the 70s Jesus had traveled to India.....

 

[James Brown]

Maybe there is an Objective Morality. Maybe there isn't.

That's the thing. There's no way we Subjective Beings can know what it is.

Oh, some people seem quick to tell us that they know what Objective Morality is. But put two of those people in a room together for a while, and it will be clear that they don't agree on what it is.

So either one or the other doesn't know what Objective Morality is. Or neither of them do, which is far more likely.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's interesting insofar as the only belief of the physicalist atheist is that the universe exists and they exist completely as a construction of its stuff, and that all existence is as stuff in similar fashion.

It's a reasonable belief based on the information yielded by observing stuff doing things, so an informed belief.

This IS a belief, but is a reasonable one.

Theism requires belief in another "host" universe which contains a "host" organism which simulated this universe. It is the belief not merely that there "may" be a container but that a container exists necessarily.

It is abusive of the very terms "universe" and "god" to equivocate belief in existence and belief in a containerized existence. Acceptance of "could" does not equate to belief in "is".

 

[pood]

The suite of behaviors we label as “moral” are evolved behaviors among social species, and they evolved because they had a survival advantage. Things like empathy, reciprocal altruism, compassion, kin selection, etc., were advantageous for survival so genes promoting these traits spread. Asocial animals evince little of what we would call ”moral” behavior, and eusocial species have somewhat different “moral“ behaviors. The concept and the word “moral” are inventions of our complex minds. And of course, because humans are so heterogenous with varied social and cultural histories, they will not always agree on what constitutes moral behavior. But even to have the concept requires a complex mind in a setting of social animals. There are species that practice sexual cannibalism. Hypothetically, were they to develop complex minds, while retaining that particular sexual behavior, then eating one’s mate after copulating would be considered normal, and probably even moral, behavior. Outside of these contexts, talk of “objective“ morality is nonsense. It‘s not just that no objective morality exists, it’s that no morality of any kind, subjective or intersubjective, exists outside of a species context. The rest of the universe isn’t moral or immoral, it’s just amoral. Is Saturn moral? A rock? The number three? Atoms? Quantum fields?

 

[Learner]

If the Christian God was the Source of Objective Morality, one would expect Christians to agree on moral issues. The evidence for that isn't very compelling.

Again... more misleading conceptual errors. I mean think about it. For example: Even if some people abide by the Moral law and some people don't. The Source of Objective Mortality would still be the Source of Moral Objectivity'!

You changed the words.
James said “people would agree on moral issues”
You said “abide by moral law”

I said his statement was erroneously misleading, a misrepresentation of believers since we're "supposed" to be taking the angle from the atheist view. Stating the notion that when Christians aren't agreeing with moral issues, for example, then this should mean "All Christians are wrong; automatically and therefore there couldn't be any Moral Objectivity'.

Not sure how the conclusion was made. Has he factored-in the simple equations, the simple things like for example : Some Christians may have studied more than others resulting in knowing more than others? Some may practice (abide) by the Moral Laws more closely than others. Christians are made up of a variety of people, each with their own individual minds.
Even if there should exist a common Objective Moral law ( in the Christian world). People will still be individuals under the same law.

These, of course, are not the same thing.

Agreeing that a moral code exists is like saying “we all agree that theft from a store is against the law”
Uniformly abiding by that law, is an obviously different topic.

Um...they're synonymously packaged. As previously indicated above. Using the term abiding - in context, that variably each person would be practicing (or not at all) from the very same Moral law. In the Christian world view, the Objective Moral Code is only the 'one and same' understood by All Christians...even when there are differences between denominations, which may be trivial differences in terms of All things Universally Biblical.

I ponder whether you do that on purpose, or whether, in your mind, you don’t understand that there is a difference between understanding a moral issue and abiding by a moral code.

As I said: moral issues between people doesn't conflict with the existence of Objective Morality as an idea. Ironically ... It's the atheists who often highlight Christians not following their faith - not abiding by their own laws....

... It is here... where we see the atheist repeating the same rhetoric mantra... 'Christians don't agree among themselves etc..' Both the 'moral issues' and the term 'abiding' are contained in the same package.

“If the Christian God was the Source of Objective Morality, one would expect Christians to agree on moral issues,” regardless of whther they all can, will or do abide by them.

“The Source of Objective Mortality would still be the Source of Moral Objectivity'!” and everyone would agree on what that morality from that objective source is.

You did not refute James’ point. At all.

The only thing that Christians agree on is that the vast majority of their fellow brethren are wrong about what Christians should do.

We can test a conceptual thinking.

Can you tell me or show me if there are any Christians "disagreeing" with the narrative that 'God is the source of Objective Morality?'

All Christians agree that God is the Moral Objective Standard.

aaaaaahhhhh I would say that no, not all Christians agree that “God is the Objective Moral Standard” first because many Christians have a real problem with the world-drowning god’s morality - they are deeply troubled by it - and they think Jesus has better morals than YHWH, and second because they cannot agree that an objective standard exists or what that standard is, one can no longer argue that they agree on its objectivity.

We could clarify the context of God, so we can be on the same page.
Jesus is not God then by your book?

 

[steve_bank]

Liberal and conservative Christians disagree on abortion. It is not about moral right or wrong.

The question is on Christian absolute assumed mayoralty. The question is a claim that all morality is to be derived from the bible, which is a mess of disjointed unrelated writings across time and authors. For conservative Christians especially all moral issues must fit within the context of the bible.

God wants this because the bible says that.

Again Leviticus which Christians on the forum have generally avoided responding.

Why oppose homosexuality and ignore the dietary restrictions? One ratinalization was Levicus was written in a different time for different people, but then how can the bible be an absolute morality from a god?

Another rationalization is that Jesus ended the Old Testament and created a New Tedtment or deal with god, and the old rules no longer apply.

But then Christians always refer to the OT on morality.

Soooo.......Chtrsinity does not and never has represented any absulute immustable morality.

 

[Rhea]

If the Christian God was the Source of Objective Morality, one would expect Christians to agree on moral issues. The evidence for that isn't very compelling.

Again... more misleading conceptual errors. I mean think about it. For example: Even if some people abide by the Moral law and some people don't. The Source of Objective Mortality would still be the Source of Moral Objectivity'!

You changed the words.
James said “people would agree on moral issues”
You said “abide by moral law”

I said his statement was erroneously misleading, a misrepresentation of believers since we're "supposed" to be taking the angle from the atheist view. Stating the notion that when Christians aren't agreeing with moral issues, for example, then this should mean "All Christians are wrong; automatically and therefore there couldn't be any Moral Objectivity'.

“There you go again.” (Ronald Reagan)

He never said “all Christians are wrong,” that was your fabricated martyrdom at play. He said,
“The evidence for that isn’t very compelling”

Again, I watch you do that and I wonder, “does he really not know the difference between, ‘that evidence isn’t very compelling’ and ‘he’s misleading by saying all christians are wrong,’?”

Do you? Do you really not understand the difference between him saying your evidence isn’t very compelling and him accusing all christians of being wrong?

I watch Christians do what you just did pretty regularly. And while the phrase “the atheist is misleading” comes out of their mouth while they do it, I just watch and think, “dude, you realize it’s all in writing in front of all of us, don’t you? You just changed his words and called him misleading.”

It’s fascinating. Like there’s no objective morality about bearing false witness that could be there to guide you or anything.


But seriously, it really is fascinating. You leap to, “he’s calling us all wrong,” and of course the inevitable, ”Jesus said we’d be persecuted” is seldom far behind. The Christian wants SO BADLY to feel persecuted that they will just create it when it wasn’t there to satisfy them.


But it’s fascinating. Keep going.

Not sure how the conclusion was made. Has he factored-in the simple equations, the simple things like for example : Some Christians may have studied more than others resulting in knowing more than others?

Why does your morally objective god require people to study so hard, one wonders.

Have you ever sat and pondered that? Why did my source of objective morals, who has the power, verily I say, to manipulate even molecules to create human life, why does he make it hard to understand his objective morality? Why does he make it difficult to know whether we should stone those who talk back to their parents or love our enemies?

I think about that. I think about how Christians must think about that. Or rather, that that must not bother them one little bit. And again, it is fascinating.

Keep going.

Some may practice (abide) by the Moral Laws more closely than others. Christians are made up of a variety of people, each with their own individual minds.
Even if there should exist a common Objective Moral law ( in the Christian world). People will still be individuals under the same law.

That is Not the point he was making - that you ignored to create this point.
His point was that even if they practice (abide) differently, if there WERE an objective moral standard that was competently communicated by an all powerful being, everyone would be able to articulate it accurately before they decided to not abide it.

We all understand perfectly that if you hold a person’s head under water, including your own, you will only have about 3 minutes of life left. Not everyone abides that, such as Andrea Yates, who felt that she needed to do this to her kids so they could go to god and not get trapped by Satan, but she definitely understood the objective fact of it because that’s how she was sending her kids to god.

And the fact that christians, who actually care about their god and religion and want to do good, can’t agree on what the moral code is means that the evidence for an objective moral code is not very convincing.

It would be more convincing if they were all able to articulate the same moral code, since it is purported to be objective and given by a single being, even if not a one of them abided it (practiced it). But the shifting foundation of the claim is that they can’t even agree on what it is, despite its purported objective truthiness, making the whole structure sketchy.

These, of course, are not the same thing.

Agreeing that a moral code exists is like saying “we all agree that theft from a store is against the law”
Uniformly abiding by that law, is an obviously different topic.

Um...they're synonymously packaged.

What? No they are not.

As previously indicated above. Using the term abiding -

Which you brought up, he did not, so this is a derail from his point….

in context, that variably each person would be practicing (or not at all) from the very same Moral law.

We’re still not talking about whether anyone practices it. That was not his point, that’s your straw man.

In the Christian world view, the Objective Moral Code is only the 'one and same' understood by All Christians...even when there are differences between denominations, which may be trivial differences in terms of All things Universally Biblical.

“One and the same understood even when there are differences”?
That’s not understanding one and the same.

Do go on…

I ponder whether you do that on purpose, or whether, in your mind, you don’t understand that there is a difference between understanding a moral issue and abiding by a moral code.

As I said: moral issues between people doesn't conflict with the existence of Objective Morality as an idea. Ironically ... It's the atheists who often highlight Christians not following their faith - not abiding by their own laws....

And again, that is not what he said. Do you really not know the difference between
“Not everyone practices it so it must not exist as an objective standard”
and
“No one can agree on what it is, so it is unlikely to exist as an objective standard”


I’m beginning to think that no, you really honestly do not understand the profound difference between those two statements.

... It is here... where we see the atheist repeating the same rhetoric mantra... 'Christians don't agree among themselves etc..' Both the 'moral issues' and the term 'abiding' are contained in the same package.

That’s your package, dude, not ours. That makes it a straw-man.

“If the Christian God was the Source of Objective Morality, one would expect Christians to agree on moral issues,” regardless of whther they all can, will or do abide by them.

“The Source of Objective Mortality would still be the Source of Moral Objectivity'!” and everyone would agree on what that morality from that objective source is.

You did not refute James’ point. At all.

And still haven’t.

The only thing that Christians agree on is that the vast majority of their fellow brethren are wrong about what Christians should do.

We can test a conceptual thinking.

Can you tell me or show me if there are any Christians "disagreeing" with the narrative that 'God is the source of Objective Morality?'

All Christians agree that God is the Moral Objective Standard.

aaaaaahhhhh I would say that no, not all Christians agree that “God is the Objective Moral Standard” first because many Christians have a real problem with the world-drowning god’s morality - they are deeply troubled by it - and they think Jesus has better morals than YHWH, and second because they cannot agree that an objective standard exists or what that standard is, one can no longer argue that they agree on its objectivity.

We could clarify the context of God, so we can be on the same page.
Jesus is not God then by your book?

I don’t have a book. It’s not the same by their book.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Mike Johnson, our esteemed Speaker, was asked on Fox how he'd make policy. "Well, go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it. That's my worldview."

So, my daydream: Trump does a rally in Stockton, so as to be close to his favorite park (Yo, Semite!) On the way to the rally he wolfs down a Quarter Pounder, a 40 oz. Coke and two large fries. At the rally, as he gets to his 'vermin' remarks, his face goes purple, he collapses and dies on the stage. Because there is little turnaround time before the primaries, Speaker Mike jumps into the race and the party circles around him as the best Trump substitute.
Now Mike comes into his own and puts forth a campaign platform that truly reflects the Eternal Moral Standards of his favorite Book.
> Get rid of Medicare and Social Security, because doesn't God take care of the birds in the field? Why then would He not take care of you, His children? Anyway your church elders can practice miracle healings.
> Sometimes we will have to fight wars where we exterminate our enemies, and if God is on our side, then it is just. And we'll be killing the babies and the toddlers and the teens and the adults and the elderly. And all their pets and livestock.
> But we might save back a few virgins for the army guys.
> It's too late to bring slavery back, but let's at least teach our kids that God is okay with it.
> The Federal Code needs death specifications added for numerous offenses, so let's do this all at once. It is now a capital offense to...
curse your mother or father (Exod.)
be a sorceress (Ex.)
trespass on Mt. Sinai (Ex.)
sacrifice to a foreign god (Ex.)
profane the Sabbath (Ex.)
work on the Sabbath (Ex.)
own an ox that gores a person to death after a warning (ox dies, too) (Ex.)
blaspheme the name of the Lord (Lev.)
commit adultery (Lev.)
have an affair with one of dad's wives (both of you die) (Lev.)
be a male homosexual (Lev.)
have a three-way with your wife and mother-in-law (all three of you die, but in some cases, the punishment might have been in the
commish, who knows) (Lev. 20:14, read your Bible)
bestiality (and Bossy gets killed, too) (Lev.)
urge another religion on your family (Deut.)
be a 'wanton' or 'harlot' (Deut.)
be accused by your new husband of not being a virgin, and having no proofs to offer for your virginity...town gets to stone you
to death (Deut.)
be the prostitute daughter of a priest (Deut)
perjury (Deut., so that Quarter Pounder spared Trump an execution)
(All of the death specifications above are given in the Bible as the direct orders of God.)

And at last America has the chance to be a Biblically justified nation with God-mandated laws.

 

[steve_bank]

Rhea, IMHO your last post is very well written.

 

[Jarhyn]

And the fact that christians, who actually care about their god and religion and want to do good, can’t agree on what the moral code is means that the evidence for an objective moral code is not very convincing.

Because Learner will not catch this... The fact that Christians can't agree and are almost certainly wrong about the delivery of objective morality by some divine secret-teller and then humans being bad at holding onto it for very long is not evidence against the existence of either a God or of objective morality.

It simply means that "God" does not arbitrate it, and neither is the existence of people who believe God is a dishonest researcher invalidate the concept that morality actually comes from some naturally emergent principle of "most effective action in some general evolutionary context".

I would make a universe "like this one" with various forms of evolution possible just so I could show that there is in fact an objective morality that can be seen emergently from any such system over a long enough period of time. The religious people therein would simply be making shit up and fantasizing about being bigger and even more powerful than I actually am, and being just as wrong about me as religious people are about whatever deities do or do not exist.

That and to play skeet ball, or whatever silly game comes to exist in my shit ass universe, once the tech exists for me to do that.

 

[TomC]

Mike Johnson, our esteemed Speaker, was asked on Fox how he'd make policy. "Well, go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it. That's my worldview."

Ya know what would be great?

A staunch Christian asks Mike Johnson point blank:
"How do your policy goals comport with the Teachings of Jesus? Do you, as a Christian leader of America, think that Jesus's admonition "What you do for the Least you do for Me." should guide U.S. domestic policy concerning the homeless?"
Tom

 

[Learner]

If the Christian God was the Source of Objective Morality, one would expect Christians to agree on moral issues. The evidence for that isn't very compelling.

Again... more misleading conceptual errors. I mean think about it. For example: Even if some people abide by the Moral law and some people don't. The Source of Objective Mortality would still be the Source of Moral Objectivity'!

You changed the words.
James said “people would agree on moral issues”
You said “abide by moral law”

I said his statement was erroneously misleading, a misrepresentation of believers since we're "supposed" to be taking the angle from the atheist view. Stating the notion that when Christians aren't agreeing with moral issues, for example, then this should mean "All Christians are wrong; automatically and therefore there couldn't be any Moral Objectivity'.

“There you go again.” (Ronald Reagan)

He never said “all Christians are wrong,” that was your fabricated martyrdom at play. He said,
“The evidence for that isn’t very compelling”

I would only need to 'quote' the actual words he said, if I wanted to make the exact point verbatim.

So, to clarify. I am the one who's saying it! That was my example: making a comparison to what he was saying below:

"If the Christian God was the Source of Objective Morality, one would expect Christians to agree on moral issues. The evidence for that isn't very compelling."

Responding to the above, I'm saying that it's like saying:
IF there is no Objective Morality then All Christians would be wrong - the disagreements between Christians would obviously be pointless. That's how I see it.

Again, I watch you do that and I wonder, “does he really not know the difference between, ‘that evidence isn’t very compelling’ and ‘he’s misleading by saying all christians are wrong,’?”

See above.

Do you? Do you really not understand the difference between him saying your evidence isn’t very compelling and him accusing all christians of being wrong?

See the above. But I'll say, they work hand in hand.

I watch Christians do what you just did pretty regularly. And while the phrase “the atheist is misleading” comes out of their mouth while they do it, I just watch and think, “dude, you realize it’s all in writing in front of all of us, don’t you? You just changed his words and called him misleading.”

His post, like the other posters was an atheistic world view. That understanding is different to the Christian world view. But I understand what he means, considering whos perspective this was. So basically... misleading. In terms of describing and giving an atheistic, anti-god opinionated view. I mean in context that it would be misleading to think this was the representation of an Almighty God and the Christianity.

It’s fascinating. Like there’s no objective morality about bearing false witness that could be there to guide you or anything.

What are you on about? If you abide by the Two Greatest Commandments, the thought of "bearing false witness" won't enter your mind.

But seriously, it really is fascinating. You leap to, “he’s calling us all wrong,” and of course the inevitable, ”Jesus said we’d be persecuted” is seldom far behind. The Christian wants SO BADLY to feel persecuted that they will just create it when it wasn’t there to satisfy them.


But it’s fascinating. Keep going.

The fascination is mutual. Keep going I will. Long posts will not deter me from engaging.

Not sure how the conclusion was made. Has he factored-in the simple equations, the simple things like for example : Some Christians may have studied more than others resulting in knowing more than others?

Why does your morally objective god require people to study so hard, one wonders.

Ah but you don't necessarily need to study hard to understand the bible. Jesus/ the bible speaks
with a variety of understandings on different levels. I am you could say with the little children, the understanding is through the language of compassion etc , the emotional sense.

Have you ever sat and pondered that? Why did my source of objective morals, who has the power, verily I say, to manipulate even molecules to create human life, why does he make it hard to understand his objective morality?

The Two Greatest Commandments.

How difficult do you think it is, in your minds (the posters who responded to me) for Christians or anyone else for that matter, to grasp or understand these two greatest commandments?

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments!

Why does he make it difficult to know whether we should stone those who talk back to their parents or love our enemies?

Perhaps you should change religion. It's best to follow Jesus's example. Take note of the above, the love your enemies, those who try to harm you etc.. You could shout out to those who are willing to cast stones:
He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her

I think about that. I think about how Christians must think about that. Or rather, that that must not bother them one little bit. And again, it is fascinating.

I'm sure Christians do, plus the verse with "Who casts the first stone" too.

Keep going.

Bless..and you too.

Some may practice (abide) by the Moral Laws more closely than others. Christians are made up of a variety of people, each with their own individual minds.
Even if there should exist a common Objective Moral law ( in the Christian world). People will still be individuals under the same law.

That is Not the point he was making - that you ignored to create this point.
His point was that even if they practice (abide) differently, if there WERE an objective moral standard that was competently communicated by an all powerful being, everyone would be able to articulate it accurately before they decided to not abide it.

Moral laws should be simple, especially if there are 'consequences' attached to them. I'm a simple fellow, God wouldn't make it difficult for simple folk. Difficulty does occur when there are attempts to distort and cause confusion. These opposers/enemies and their attempts have always been about, running parrallel, since from the time of Jesus.

Anyway, if one should be confused, they only need look at the easiest to remember laws, declared by Jesus: The Two Greatest Commandments, which ARE Moral law Objectives!

We all understand perfectly that if you hold a person’s head under water, including your own, you will only have about 3 minutes of life left. Not everyone abides that, such as Andrea Yates, who felt that she needed to do this to her kids so they could go to god and not get trapped by Satan, but she definitely understood the objective fact of it because that’s how she was sending her kids to god.

Unfortunate as it was for those souls, that sad case does not represent the Moral Objective understood by billions of Christians today.

And the fact that christians, who actually care about their god and religion and want to do good, can’t agree on what the moral code is means that the evidence for an objective moral code is not very convincing.

I've got a response somewhere for this.

It would be more convincing if they were all able to articulate the same moral code, since it is purported to be objective and given by a single being, even if not a one of them abided it (practiced it). But the shifting foundation of the claim is that they can’t even agree on what it is, despite its purported objective truthiness, making the whole structure sketchy.

Yes that is how you see.
I already have a response somewhere.
(I'll leave it there. I haven't done too bad via my phone, getting better)

These, of course, are not the same thing.

Agreeing that a moral code exists is like saying “we all agree that theft from a store is against the law”
Uniformly abiding by that law, is an obviously different topic.

Um...they're synonymously packaged.

What? No they are not.

Oh yes they are.

As previously indicated above. Using the term abiding -

Which you brought up, he did not, so this is a derail from his point….

I brought it up, yes indeed! Just as people do in any other conversation, introducing different words not used yet in a discussion. I brought in the word consequences, I bet you could make up a "derail" line for that too.

in context, that variably each person would be practicing (or not at all) from the very same Moral law.

We’re still not talking about whether anyone practices it. That was not his point, that’s your straw man.

It was my talking point, my example. Not an implication that someone else said it.

In the Christian world view, the Objective Moral Code is only the 'one and same' understood by All Christians...even when there are differences between denominations, which may be trivial differences in terms of All things Universally Biblical.

“One and the same understood even when there are differences”?
That’s not understanding one and the same.

Do go on…

See Two Greatest Commandments response.

I ponder whether you do that on purpose, or whether, in your mind, you don’t understand that there is a difference between understanding a moral issue and abiding by a moral code.

As I said: moral issues between people doesn't conflict with the existence of Objective Morality as an idea. Ironically ... It's the atheists who often highlight Christians not following their faith - not abiding by their own laws....

And again, that is not what he said. Do you really not know the difference between
“Not everyone practices it so it must not exist as an objective standard”
and
“No one can agree on what it is, so it is unlikely to exist as an objective standard”

No one agreeing on what it is.. doesn't mean that someone isn't right. But then I see the context you're making here - the 'existence of Moral Objectivity is defined by a commonality'. Well in that context though different, that's fine by me, I was not refuting that point. My point was: the Moral Laws were defined, passed and declared. What Christian understands from it is irrelevant. The Moral Objective stands.

I’m beginning to think that no, you really honestly do not understand the profound difference between those two statements.

No counter argument necessary here.

... It is here... where we see the atheist repeating the same rhetoric mantra... 'Christians don't agree among themselves etc..' Both the 'moral issues' and the term 'abiding' are contained in the same package.

That’s your package, dude, not ours. That makes it a straw-man.

Christians disagreeing with each other, should mean that with their differing positions on the moral matter; they would each be making the suggestion that between them...their side of the disagreement abides follows the moral laws as according to the scriptures.

“If the Christian God was the Source of Objective Morality, one would expect Christians to agree on moral issues,” regardless of whther they all can, will or do abide by them.

“The Source of Objective Mortality would still be the Source of Moral Objectivity'!” and everyone would agree on what that morality from that objective source is.

You did not refute James’ point. At all.

And still haven’t.

I refuted the atheistic biblical view as a foreign understanding, so different and at odds with the Christian view.
Disagreements will occur.

The only thing that Christians agree on is that the vast majority of their fellow brethren are wrong about what Christians should do.

We can test a conceptual thinking.

Can you tell me or show me if there are any Christians "disagreeing" with the narrative that 'God is the source of Objective Morality?'

All Christians agree that God is the Moral Objective Standard.

aaaaaahhhhh I would say that no, not all Christians agree that “God is the Objective Moral Standard” first because many Christians have a real problem with the world-drowning god’s morality - they are deeply troubled by it - and they think Jesus has better morals than YHWH, and second because they cannot agree that an objective standard exists or what that standard is, one can no longer argue that they agree on its objectivity.

We could clarify the context of God, so we can be on the same page.
Jesus is not God then by your book?

I don’t have a book. It’s not the same by their book.

Do you mean there are more than one? If you can show those differing books that would clear up a few things. Cheers.

 

[steve_bank]

Learner,

Rhea asked the main question. If god is he source of absolute morality, how does this god communicate the required moral behavior to the people?

How is it communicated unambiguously and not open to interpretation?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The Two Greatest Commandments.

How difficult do you think it is, in your minds (the posters who responded to me) for Christians or anyone else for that matter, to grasp or understand these two greatest commandments?

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’

So if you hear a voice in your head telling you to murder your son on an altar, you should do it?

38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40

What if I hate myself and want to hit myself in the head with a hammer? Then, I should love my neighbor in the same way by murdering them. That's subjective, not objective. If, however, the commandment was "love everyone," then it would be objective except that love needs an objective definition first.

The contradictory one in the bible doesn't work.

All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments!

Do they really??? How does stoning a gay person derive from love your neighbor as yourself?

Show your work.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Mike Johnson, our esteemed Speaker, was asked on Fox how he'd make policy. "Well, go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it. That's my worldview."

Ya know what would be great?

A staunch Christian asks Mike Johnson point blank:
"How do your policy goals comport with the Teachings of Jesus? Do you, as a Christian leader of America, think that Jesus's admonition "What you do for the Least you do for Me." should guide U.S. domestic policy concerning the homeless?"
Tom

I don’t think he meant for you to read the whole thing. Just the parts he likes.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Certainly not Romans 13, with its earnest teaching that it's your Christian duty to pay your taxes. Satan musta written that chapter.

 

[TomC]

Do you mean there are more than one? If you can show those differing books that would clear up a few things. Cheers.

I can't speak for Rhea, but I have a firm opinion on that.

The Christian Bible isn't really a book, it's a collection of books. Books from across the centuries and wildly disparate cultures. With wildly different moral principles and ethical codes. Christian Scriptural Morality is not objective in any sense of the word. It includes everything from ugly bronze age teachings to the Beatitudes and Golden Rule. It's a moral smorgasbord where anyone can justify almost anything with a bit of Scripture. And they have, for centuries. From the oppression of women to the global orgy of looting, slavery and genocide known as "Euro-Christian Colonialism".

What Christians consistently mean by "objective morality" is "interpreting and prioritizing Scripture to suit myself". That's rather the opposite of objective in any real sense of the word.

Most of the modern moral improvement in modern world are the result of people(including Christians) dropping scriptural morality for the far more objective morality of Secular Humanism.
Tom

 

[ideologyhunter]

Insisting that the men of a village should stone a woman to death because she cannot prove she was a virgin the night before is not a law that could have been inspired by a deity who designed the human body and thus knew everything about it.

 

[Emily Lake]

You can get the gist in my response to Emily Lake #466.

Posters trying to make the argument, explaining moral-objectivity is "not possible" because of the evolving biology!? Read what you're all saying. People are liking and agreeing to the absurdity too!?

Moral objectivity requires that there be some external force that defines morality in a consistent fashion. It implies that what constitutes moral behavior and actions be universal. That's obviously not the case.

Morality is observably NOT objective.