Key Questions for Atheists and Agnostics

Healthy skepticism of ALL worldviews is good. Skeptical of non-belief like found in Atheism? Post your challenging questions. Responses are encouraged.
Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3755
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Key Questions for Atheists and Agnostics

Post by Kenny »

Kenny wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:What is "right" and what is "wrong"?
In order for me to answer this question properly, you need to understand things from my perspective.
Kurieuo wrote: That is what my two previous questions attempted to do. It seems your perspective is confused, logically inconsistent.

You said, some views are wrong regardless of what anyone thinks. Understand, this means that views right/wrong independant of people, or what any one of us thinks. Therefore:
You’ve misunderstood what I said. Remember when I said; “what is right or wrong” is another way of saying; “what I call right or wrong”? When I say some things are wrong independent of what other people say, I mean people other than myself; NOT everybody including myself.
kenny wrote:somewhere out there in the eather, there is something called morality
Kurieuo wrote: The "yardstick" cannot be found within each us, unless you revise your two previous responses to me and make your views logically coherent and consistent. I'm not being mean here. You said that:
1) You believe some views are better than others.
2) You believe we, or the majority of people, can be wrong.
#1 I believe my views are better than all others that are different, and I will continue to believe it until convinced otherwise.
#2 How do you conclude my view that the majority of people could be wrong means my yardstick can’t be within me?
Kurieuo wrote: The conclusion therefore is that this "yardstick" by which our views ought to be measured, which results in our being wrong must exist outside of humanity (whether or not we can know that we are truly wrong is another question regarding knowledge).
The reason we are talking past each other is because you are talking about 1 yardstick for all of humanity, and I am talking about a different yardstick for each person. Again; I don’t believe there is such a thing as a single yardstick for all of humanity; I thought I was very clear about that.
Also I was wondering if you would answer the same question you asked me; if there IS a right and there IS a wrong, what is right and wrong?

Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 10038
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Key Questions for Atheists and Agnostics

Post by Kurieuo »

Kenny wrote:
Kenny wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:What is "right" and what is "wrong"?
In order for me to answer this question properly, you need to understand things from my perspective.
Kurieuo wrote: That is what my two previous questions attempted to do. It seems your perspective is confused, logically inconsistent.

You said, some views are wrong regardless of what anyone thinks. Understand, this means that views right/wrong independant of people, or what any one of us thinks. Therefore:
You’ve misunderstood what I said. Remember when I said; “what is right or wrong” is another way of saying; “what I call right or wrong”? When I say some things are wrong independent of what other people say, I mean people other than myself; NOT everybody including myself.
You affirmed the following, which includes yourself:
  • Can we, or even a majority of people subscribing to a particular view they see as good or better, be wrong?
If you now answer this question in the negative, meaning you can't be wrong about your moral views (only others can), then based upon such a response you are that "yardstick" by which all moral questions are answered. I think deep down, you know that if you do something wrong, you couldn't just now deem it morally alright and such be right. Deeper down, you see yourself as morally responsible and accountable to something more than yourself, such than you can't just dictate what is wrong or right. You can reflect on that personally outside of this discussion where you're in the spotlight.

"Indeed, when people, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves... they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them." (Romans 2:14-15)
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 10038
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Key Questions for Atheists and Agnostics

Post by Kurieuo »

Kenny wrote:Also I was wondering if you would answer the same question you asked me; if there IS a right and there IS a wrong, what is right and wrong?
What is morally "right" isn't that which is selfish, but rather based upon a love for God and love for others.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3755
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Key Questions for Atheists and Agnostics

Post by Kenny »

Kenny wrote:
Kenny wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:What is "right" and what is "wrong"?
In order for me to answer this question properly, you need to understand things from my perspective.
Kurieuo wrote: That is what my two previous questions attempted to do. It seems your perspective is confused, logically inconsistent.

You said, some views are wrong regardless of what anyone thinks. Understand, this means that views right/wrong independant of people, or what any one of us thinks. Therefore:
You’ve misunderstood what I said. Remember when I said; “what is right or wrong” is another way of saying; “what I call right or wrong”? When I say some things are wrong independent of what other people say, I mean people other than myself; NOT everybody including myself.
Kurieuo wrote:You affirmed the following, which includes yourself:
  • Can we, or even a majority of people subscribing to a particular view they see as good or better, be wrong?
No; when I responded to that, I was not including myself. I apologize if I weren’t clear enough about that.
Kurieuo wrote: If you now answer this question in the negative, meaning you can't be wrong about your moral views (only others can), then based upon such a response you are that "yardstick" by which all moral questions are answered.
No; I am the yardstick that MY moral questions are answered. Everyone else has their own yardstick that they like to use. Nobody goes to me for moral guidance.
Kenny wrote: Also I was wondering if you would answer the same question you asked me; if there IS a right and there IS a wrong, what is right and wrong?
Kurieuo wrote: What is morally "right" isn't that which is selfish, but rather based upon a love for God and love for others.
Okay; so good is based on love for God and others; but I didn’t ask what it is based upon, I asked what is good and bad?

Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
User avatar
Philip
Site Owner
Posts: 9519
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains

Re: Key Questions for Atheists and Agnostics

Post by Philip »

Ken:
No; I am the yardstick that MY moral questions are answered. Everyone else has their own yardstick that they like to use. Nobody goes to me for moral guidance.
So, your moral views are merely based upon personal preference?

So many would say that - that they decide for themselves what is right or wrong. And many of them wouldn't assert that their sense of what is moral is any more definitive than the views of others - although, situationally, they might well assert a superior view in a particular circumstance. But the bottom line would appear to be that Ken decides what is moral, for himself.

So how do you decide?

Again, killing is an act, often of great brutality, and certainly, of finality. Are you a vegetarian? Most atheists are meat eaters - or at least an omnivore. While many might not like hunting, or meat-processing plants, they clearly are known to enjoy a nice steak dinner, give the chance. So why is killing animals for food okay, if human cannibalism is a moral horror? A lion kills a zebra - no biggie, right? Or one lion kills another - "survival of the fittest," right? But if one many deliberately decides to kill a rival over a woman - that's an evil crime - least in most sane persons' book. But from a naturalism viewpoint, why is one considered a great evil and the other just another day in the normal activities of a species in nature? Again, how do you decided which of these is wrong, and WHY?
Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3755
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Key Questions for Atheists and Agnostics

Post by Kenny »

Ken:
No; I am the yardstick that MY moral questions are answered. Everyone else has their own yardstick that they like to use. Nobody goes to me for moral guidance.
Philip wrote:So, your moral views are merely based upon personal preference?
Yes
Philip wrote:So many would say that - that they decide for themselves what is right or wrong.
That’s because as far as we know, anything outside of mankind is inferior to mankind. Why would we base a standard on something that we see as inferior to ourselves?
Philip wrote:And many of them wouldn't assert that their sense of what is moral is any more definitive than the views of others - although, situationally, they might well assert a superior view in a particular circumstance. But the bottom line would appear to be that Ken decides what is moral, for himself.

So how do you decide?
Logic reason, and common sense; and exchanging views with those who disagree with my view of right and wrong.
Philip wrote:Again, killing is an act, often of great brutality, and certainly, of finality. Are you a vegetarian? Most atheists are meat eaters - or at least an omnivore. While many might not like hunting, or meat-processing plants, they clearly are known to enjoy a nice steak dinner, give the chance. So why is killing animals for food okay, if human cannibalism is a moral horror? A lion kills a zebra - no biggie, right? Or one lion kills another - "survival of the fittest," right? But if one many deliberately decides to kill a rival over a woman - that's an evil crime - least in most sane persons' book. But from a naturalism viewpoint, why is one considered a great evil and the other just another day in the normal activities of a species in nature? Again, how do you decided which of these is wrong, and WHY?
Morality is only applied to humans; not animals. Animals kill one another without cause, rape, steal, walk around naked, have sex in public, and a host of other behaviors that humans refuse to do because we consider ourselves better than that. Standard behavior for an animal is considered immoral behavior for a human.

Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
User avatar
Philip
Site Owner
Posts: 9519
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains

Re: Key Questions for Atheists and Agnostics

Post by Philip »

Ken: I said I don’t know, but that I suspect matter has always existed. Remember, it is you who are making the claim that matter did not exist prior to the singularity. I don’t think science knows what pre-existed the singularity that lead to the Big Bang, and that’s why you haven’t been able to present something that supports your claim.
Below are some links that support my claim that though there is a lot of speculation out there, science just don’t know, thus there is no established theories out there pre-big bang.

https://www.space.com/13320-big-bang-un ... ainer.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre–Big_Bang_physics

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/0 ... /23012729/

http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictio ... theory.htm
Ken, your links have not helped your contention about there supposedly being matter before the Big Bang began – this is NOT what science believes, per the data and models currently theorized. Just to note, your first link is broken. And the third and fourth ones don't work either.

Here is the latest accumulation of data of what can be known about the early moments of the universe:
http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/top ... eline.html (reference sources for the linked page: http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/sources.html.)

From the linked page: “But from the earliest moment of the universe that is theorized, per the existing data, the closest first moment - of which little can be known, is the Planck Epoch (or Planck Era), from zero to approximately 10-43 seconds. And a Planck length is believed to be the shortest meaningful length, the limiting distance below which the very notions of space and length cease to exist.”

Of course no one knows what preceded the Big Bang. But what emerged from it did not previously exist. Particles are not thought to have existed before the Grand Unification Epoch portion of the first moments of the Big Bang beginning. There are two classes of particle in our universe; bosons and fermions. Fermions make up matter - electrons, protons and other - while bosons mediate the interaction between them. But prior to Grand Unification Epoch (from 10–43 seconds to 10–36 seconds of the Big Bang's beginning moment (“in which the force of gravity separates from the other fundamental forces - which remained unified), and the earliest elementary particles (and antiparticles) begin to be created”) - so, in these early moments of the Big Bang, NO particles yet existed, and thus the Fermions that make up matter did not yet exist. Fermions cannot occupy the same space and hence things composed of fermions have physical size. So, the first MATTER was composed of those first, previously NON-existing particles that came into existence. So, physics does not believe matter pre-existed the Big Bang! Period! READ up on it! So, Ken, you have a personal belief, and not a scientific one. But that's not your biggest difficulty.

The Big Bang event itself, and not only the extraordinary things that IMMEDIATELY proceeded from it, show great intelligence from an eternal source. Otherwise, you have time and blind chance – even though the source HAD to be eternal – instantly producing extraordinary things that science scarcely can understand. One believing random, blind, non-intelligence can produce such things – HOWEVER long before the Big Bang they might have existed - is just an irrational belief in magic. The Big Bang and the elementary building blocks show, not random chaos, not billions of years of mathematically, immensely improbable things slowly developing, but ALL such things coming into physical existence IMMEDIATELY – with incredible designs, functionality, and instantly obeying complex laws! It's just not rational to conclude that breathtaking complexity immediately proceeded from blind, random things – and this would be true no matter ANY length of time ANY such un-assembled/undesigned/non-functional building blocks might have pre-existed in another, non-physical dimension.

Lastly, as per the unimaginably small space pre-existing all things prior to the first particles, a universe of things of huge mass could not have existed. And, per the studies of the red shifts of star light, and many other studies, while the earliest moments of the Big Bang might not be well understood, reversing the calculated and proven expansion rates, and per many studies and extensive data, show that all of the mass of the universe was once together and that it expanded from a certain, unfathomably small point. Those studies are also how the age of the universe has been calculated. And, again, JUST the right things happened to immediately emerge with such precision – WITHOUT an intelligence???!!! When I think that anyone can believe THAT is possible – it kind of blows my mind!
User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 10038
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Key Questions for Atheists and Agnostics

Post by Kurieuo »

Kenny wrote:
Kurieuo wrote: If you now answer this question in the negative, meaning you can't be wrong about your moral views (only others can), then based upon such a response you are that "yardstick" by which all moral questions are answered.
No; I am the yardstick that MY moral questions are answered. Everyone else has their own yardstick that they like to use. Nobody goes to me for moral guidance.
That is what I said, you are that yardstick. If doesn't matter what anyone else believes, your moral views of what is right/wrong is above everyone elses views.
Kenny wrote:
Kenny wrote: Also I was wondering if you would answer the same question you asked me; if there IS a right and there IS a wrong, what is right and wrong?
Kurieuo wrote: What is morally "right" isn't that which is selfish, but rather based upon a love for God and love for others.
Okay; so good is based on love for God and others; but I didn’t ask what it is based upon, I asked what is good and bad?
This has been in fact answers multiply. The measure of what is right/wrong is found within us, because, for anyone with a properly functioning heart, God has written it within us.

You see, my answer isn't much different from yours in a practical way. Yet, the difference, is that logically beyond yourself, views can't REALLY be more or less truer than anyone elses. You're in quite a logical pickle there.

It's what and why you continue having these types of moral discussions with people at this board. You have no ontological grounding for your moral views making them logically much like you like chocolate whereas a rapist likes strawberry.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3755
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Key Questions for Atheists and Agnostics

Post by Kenny »

Ken: I said I don’t know, but that I suspect matter has always existed. Remember, it is you who are making the claim that matter did not exist prior to the singularity. I don’t think science knows what pre-existed the singularity that lead to the Big Bang, and that’s why you haven’t been able to present something that supports your claim.
Below are some links that support my claim that though there is a lot of speculation out there, science just don’t know, thus there is no established theories out there pre-big bang.

https://www.space.com/13320-big-bang-un ... ainer.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre–Big_Bang_physics

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/0 ... /23012729/

http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictio ... theory.htm
Philip wrote: Ken, your links have not helped your contention about there supposedly being matter before the Big Bang began – this is NOT what science believes, per the data and models currently theorized.
I didn’t supply the links to support that; I supplied the links to point out that science doesn’t know what existed prior to the singularity that lead to the big bang.
Philip wrote: Just to note, your first link is broken. And the third and fourth ones don't work either.

Here is the latest accumulation of data of what can be known about the early moments of the universe:
http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/top ... eline.html (reference sources for the linked page: http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/sources.html.)

From the linked page: “But from the earliest moment of the universe that is theorized, per the existing data, the closest first moment - of which little can be known, is the Planck Epoch (or Planck Era), from zero to approximately 10-43 seconds. And a Planck length is believed to be the shortest meaningful length, the limiting distance below which the very notions of space and length cease to exist.”

Of course no one knows what preceded the Big Bang. But what emerged from it did not previously exist.
What preceded the Big Bang was the singularity. What emerged from it was the Universe as we know it.
Philip wrote: Particles are not thought to have existed before the Grand Unification Epoch portion of the first moments of the Big Bang beginning.
But they will not say particles did not exist, because they just don’t know
Philip wrote: There are two classes of particle in our universe; bosons and fermions. Fermions make up matter - electrons, protons and other - while bosons mediate the interaction between them. But prior to Grand Unification Epoch (from 10–43 seconds to 10–36 seconds of the Big Bang's beginning moment (“in which the force of gravity separates from the other fundamental forces - which remained unified), and the earliest elementary particles (and antiparticles) begin to be created”) - so, in these early moments of the Big Bang, NO particles yet existed, and thus the Fermions that make up matter did not yet exist.
Just because science cannot claim particles existed, does not mean they claim particles did not exist. It seems you are making a bit of a leap here in order to make a point.
Philip wrote: Fermions cannot occupy the same space and hence things composed of fermions have physical size. So, the first MATTER was composed of those first, previously NON-existing particles that came into existence. So, physics does not believe matter pre-existed the Big Bang! Period! READ up on it! So, Ken, you have a personal belief, and not a scientific one. But that's not your biggest difficulty.
Bruh! I have been telling you that I suppose matter has always existed, is a personal belief not backed up by science, since the beginning of this conversation! You just now figuring this out now? Sherlock Holmes would be proud.
I’ve been very clear; “I don’t know if or how things began, but I suspect matter has always existed in one form or another”. I’ve never claimed this was backed up by science.
Philip wrote: The Big Bang event itself, and not only the extraordinary things that IMMEDIATELY proceeded from it, show great intelligence from an eternal source. Otherwise, you have time and blind chance – even though the source HAD to be eternal
How do you know blind chance is not responsible?
Philip wrote: – instantly producing extraordinary things that science scarcely can understand. One believing random, blind, non-intelligence can produce such things – HOWEVER long before the Big Bang they might have existed - is just an irrational belief in magic. The Big Bang and the elementary building blocks show, not random chaos, not billions of years of mathematically, immensely improbable things slowly developing, but ALL such things coming into physical existence IMMEDIATELY – with incredible designs, functionality, and instantly obeying complex laws! It's just not rational to conclude that breathtaking complexity immediately proceeded from blind, random things – and this would be true no matter ANY length of time ANY such un-assembled/undesigned/non-functional building blocks might have pre-existed in another, non-physical dimension.

Lastly, as per the unimaginably small space pre-existing all things prior to the first particles, a universe of things of huge mass could not have existed. And, per the studies of the red shifts of star light, and many other studies, while the earliest moments of the Big Bang might not be well understood, reversing the calculated and proven expansion rates, and per many studies and extensive data, show that all of the mass of the universe was once together and that it expanded from a certain, unfathomably small point. Those studies are also how the age of the universe has been calculated. And, again, JUST the right things happened to immediately emerge with such precision – WITHOUT an intelligence???!!! When I think that anyone can believe THAT is possible – it kind of blows my mind!
Philip I can understand your desire that I have an actual position on this issue; because it is easier to refute someone’s position when they have one rather than remaining neutral as I am doing.
I can also understand you using cosmology in an effort to prove the hand of God, you seem to know a lot about it. But as I said before, I know little about cosmology, which is why I am happy to admit I don’t have an answer. If you want to prove God to me, you will have to find another route because I am aware that you could be giving me false information and because of my ignorance on the issue I wouldn’t be able to distinguish it from the truth. And don't assume that because I don’t accept religious claims that I automatically accept everything science says; the same skepticism I apply to religion I apply to science as well. If science makes a claim that doesn’t make sense to me, I will reject it just as I have religious claims.

Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3755
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Key Questions for Atheists and Agnostics

Post by Kenny »

Kurieuo wrote:
Kenny wrote:
Kurieuo wrote: If you now answer this question in the negative, meaning you can't be wrong about your moral views (only others can), then based upon such a response you are that "yardstick" by which all moral questions are answered.
No; I am the yardstick that MY moral questions are answered. Everyone else has their own yardstick that they like to use. Nobody goes to me for moral guidance.
That is what I said, you are that yardstick. If doesn't matter what anyone else believes, your moral views of what is right/wrong is above everyone elses views.
Kenny wrote:
Kenny wrote: Also I was wondering if you would answer the same question you asked me; if there IS a right and there IS a wrong, what is right and wrong?
Kurieuo wrote: What is morally "right" isn't that which is selfish, but rather based upon a love for God and love for others.
Okay; so good is based on love for God and others; but I didn’t ask what it is based upon, I asked what is good and bad?
This has been in fact answers multiply. The measure of what is right/wrong is found within us, because, for anyone with a properly functioning heart, God has written it within us.

You see, my answer isn't much different from yours in a practical way. Yet, the difference, is that logically beyond yourself, views can't REALLY be more or less truer than anyone elses. You're in quite a logical pickle there.

It's what and why you continue having these types of moral discussions with people at this board. You have no ontological grounding for your moral views making them logically much like you like chocolate whereas a rapist likes strawberry.
Okay; let me ask you another way; Do you believe right/wrong, good/evil has an actual existence by itself?

Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 10038
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Key Questions for Atheists and Agnostics

Post by Kurieuo »

Kenny wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
Kenny wrote:
Kurieuo wrote: If you now answer this question in the negative, meaning you can't be wrong about your moral views (only others can), then based upon such a response you are that "yardstick" by which all moral questions are answered.
No; I am the yardstick that MY moral questions are answered. Everyone else has their own yardstick that they like to use. Nobody goes to me for moral guidance.
That is what I said, you are that yardstick. If doesn't matter what anyone else believes, your moral views of what is right/wrong is above everyone elses views.
Kenny wrote:
Kenny wrote: Also I was wondering if you would answer the same question you asked me; if there IS a right and there IS a wrong, what is right and wrong?
Kurieuo wrote: What is morally "right" isn't that which is selfish, but rather based upon a love for God and love for others.
Okay; so good is based on love for God and others; but I didn’t ask what it is based upon, I asked what is good and bad?
This has been in fact answers multiply. The measure of what is right/wrong is found within us, because, for anyone with a properly functioning heart, God has written it within us.

You see, my answer isn't much different from yours in a practical way. Yet, the difference, is that logically beyond yourself, views can't REALLY be more or less truer than anyone elses. You're in quite a logical pickle there.

It's what and why you continue having these types of moral discussions with people at this board. You have no ontological grounding for your moral views making them logically much like you like chocolate whereas a rapist likes strawberry.
Okay; let me ask you another way; Do you believe right/wrong, good/evil has an actual existence by itself?

Ken
In a similar way to how sunrays exist, I believe goodness exists in our world. Remove the source however, which is the Sun, and there would be no sunrays / no sense of goodness within either of us. So then, can sunrays exist by themselves? Not really. Like sunrays, ultimately what we perceive as goodness is all reduced to a fixed source.

To use the analogy further, your "sunray" (moral views) might differ here and there to my own, since our knowledge and understanding is often had through a veil dimly. Nonetheless, I'm sure we both see core values like love, self-sacrifice, kindness and the like as "good" which is an embedded part of who we are as human beings. So then, it seems our "sunrays" are quite similar on a foundational level and as such derived from a similar source.

A foundational source for goodness I'd argue must necessarily exist.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3755
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Key Questions for Atheists and Agnostics

Post by Kenny »

Kurieuo wrote:
Kenny wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
Kenny wrote:
Kurieuo wrote: If you now answer this question in the negative, meaning you can't be wrong about your moral views (only others can), then based upon such a response you are that "yardstick" by which all moral questions are answered.
No; I am the yardstick that MY moral questions are answered. Everyone else has their own yardstick that they like to use. Nobody goes to me for moral guidance.
That is what I said, you are that yardstick. If doesn't matter what anyone else believes, your moral views of what is right/wrong is above everyone elses views.
Kenny wrote:
Kenny wrote: Also I was wondering if you would answer the same question you asked me; if there IS a right and there IS a wrong, what is right and wrong?
Kurieuo wrote: What is morally "right" isn't that which is selfish, but rather based upon a love for God and love for others.
Okay; so good is based on love for God and others; but I didn’t ask what it is based upon, I asked what is good and bad?
This has been in fact answers multiply. The measure of what is right/wrong is found within us, because, for anyone with a properly functioning heart, God has written it within us.

You see, my answer isn't much different from yours in a practical way. Yet, the difference, is that logically beyond yourself, views can't REALLY be more or less truer than anyone elses. You're in quite a logical pickle there.

It's what and why you continue having these types of moral discussions with people at this board. You have no ontological grounding for your moral views making them logically much like you like chocolate whereas a rapist likes strawberry.
Okay; let me ask you another way; Do you believe right/wrong, good/evil has an actual existence by itself?

Ken
In a similar way to how sunrays exist, I believe goodness exists in our world. Remove the source however, which is the Sun, and there would be no sunrays / no sense of goodness within either of us.
Sunrays have a physical existence. Do you believe good and evil have a physical existence as well?

Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
User avatar
Philip
Site Owner
Posts: 9519
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains

Re: Key Questions for Atheists and Agnostics

Post by Philip »

Philip wrote: The Big Bang event itself, and not only the extraordinary things that IMMEDIATELY proceeded from it, show great intelligence from an eternal source. Otherwise, you have time and blind chance – even though the source HAD to be eternal

Ken: How do you know blind chance is not responsible?
Because, Ken, there is absolutely no evidence that shows that to be possible in anything science studies or mankind has ever known. Blind things don't see, can't plot, understand, bump into each other and "recognize" advantages, can't design - they don't have intelligence - they simply exist. They don't have any control over themselves or anything else. And yet, they are governed by laws that we can observe - but they didn't create themselves, much less their own laws. But all things also had to have a source! And things showing awesome intelligence show that the Source HAD to be eternal, unbelievably intelligent - and unbelievably powerful. This is just basic logic. At the moment of the Big Bang - and before it with Singularity - the most astonishing things man has ever pondered or studied occurred. And what actually emerged during and after the Big Bang are no mystery - they are all astonishing things. And yet, people assert that there is no evidence of God. I believe that such people don't want to view such things as evidences of God, and that they "suppose" such things are possible without some Super Intelligence, mostly because they are determined to resist all possibility of that Source being God. So, the problem isn't a lack of evidence, it's a problem that people are unwilling to face up to a logical application as to the implications of such amazing evidences. Einstein, one of modern times most brilliant minds - he got it - once he realized that the universe wasn't static, that it was expanding at a rapid pace. It's just that he acknowledged the god aspect, but not the IDENTITY of the God Christians know. But at least he was honest and rational in acknowledging that their HAD to be some kind of god behind all that exists - that there was an astonishing level of incredible evidences that some sort of eternal, all-powerful, Super Intelligence was necessary to have produced our universe.
PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9224
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Key Questions for Atheists and Agnostics

Post by PaulSacramento »

Kenny still isn't grasping the basic logical reasoning that one can NOT have the subjective without the objective.
I am not sure how one can NOT see the dangers of the subjective view.
User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 10038
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Key Questions for Atheists and Agnostics

Post by Kurieuo »

Kenny wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
Kenny wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
Kenny wrote: No; I am the yardstick that MY moral questions are answered. Everyone else has their own yardstick that they like to use. Nobody goes to me for moral guidance.
That is what I said, you are that yardstick. If doesn't matter what anyone else believes, your moral views of what is right/wrong is above everyone elses views.
Kenny wrote:

Okay; so good is based on love for God and others; but I didn’t ask what it is based upon, I asked what is good and bad?
This has been in fact answers multiply. The measure of what is right/wrong is found within us, because, for anyone with a properly functioning heart, God has written it within us.

You see, my answer isn't much different from yours in a practical way. Yet, the difference, is that logically beyond yourself, views can't REALLY be more or less truer than anyone elses. You're in quite a logical pickle there.

It's what and why you continue having these types of moral discussions with people at this board. You have no ontological grounding for your moral views making them logically much like you like chocolate whereas a rapist likes strawberry.
Okay; let me ask you another way; Do you believe right/wrong, good/evil has an actual existence by itself?

Ken
In a similar way to how sunrays exist, I believe goodness exists in our world. Remove the source however, which is the Sun, and there would be no sunrays / no sense of goodness within either of us.
Sunrays have a physical existence. Do you believe good and evil have a physical existence as well?
Not every question has a point, and there is none I see to that. You've missed the point entirely. Bye old man. :wave:
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
Post Reply