Evidence for God from Science

There's an argument that MANY Christian apologists use nowadays is the argument that in the Atheist worldview, there is no morality or "good or bad", and so Atheists cannot use the argument that how can the Christan-Judea God be benevolent and loving if He killed all of those people in the Old Testament and nowadays as well. I know there are a lot of other counter-arguments against this, but I just want to use this one as an example.

The counter-argument i'm talking about is when the Christian replies, "But if you are an atheist, you don't believe in a moral compass since there's no high intelligence to judge what is 'good' or 'bad'."
Actually, in my experience, a lot of my Atheist friend DON'T believe in morality, and if they do, they simply say that it's a result of evolution and that primitive humans decided what was "good" and "bad" based on survival and the instinct to continue living, which is basically what evolution is about: survival of the fittest.

So when they use the argument that God is bad because He killed so many people, they aren't actually saying they believe in good or bad, they're simply stepping into our playing field and saying that "in theory, if we're playing by your rules that there is such a thing as good and bad, wouldn't your God be violating those laws".

I'm not sure if this "morality" argument is such a good thing to use against atheists in debates.

You answered your own question and can use that in a debate as well...
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:You answered your own question and can use that in a debate as well...
-
-
-

LOl hey BW did you read Mariolee's post right? Isn't Mariolee saying that the Moral argument is a bad one for athiests?

I frankly don't think that the morality argument is all that good for Christians for be arguing. First, there are very detailed and worked out morality systems outside of Christianity and even in the realm of atheism. Now we can argue that they aren't as valid or that ultimately they have no real basis in reality, but then what you end up with as a field of battle is Christians claiming they are moral and atheists are immoral. The reality is that apart from Christ and a personal change in our lives Christians are no more moral than anyone else and so the focus should be upon Christ and not systems.

CeT-To wrote:

B. W. wrote:You answered your own question and can use that in a debate as well...
-
-
-

LOl hey BW did you read Mariolee's post right? Isn't Mariolee saying that the Moral argument is a bad one for athiests?

What right do new atheist have imposing their morality upon the rest of us?

I rest my case...

For Bart, i would have agreed with you about two days ago but tossing it back at them is effective...

What right do they have imposing their world view upon the rest of us - who made them the harbingers and the only arbitrators of ultimate truth?
-
-
-

I probably didn't make my question clear.

Atheists don't believe in morality. What would you say to a person who doesn't believe in morality? Certainly not the above argument.

I'm not an atheist, nor am I defending atheism.

I think it behooves us however to be careful how we use terms. Not all atheists lump well together in terms of their particular views. I think many atheists would take issue with being told that they don't believe in morality. They may not base their morality upon the same platform that Theists do and Christians in particular, and I may rightly point out the inconsistencies and reductionism that follows in the absence of moral absolutes, but that is a far cry from asserting that all atheists do not believe in morality.

Truth be told, there are some atheists I'd trust in areas before I'd trust some professing Christians and whose practice in terms of their personal lives and values are humanly speaking quite admirable.

I agree with the observation B.W. makes in terms of "new" atheists in general. That's a very vocal and very active group that actively campains to impose their values upon others. They don't have that right. In fairness, they're not representative of all atheists any more than Westboro Baptist Church is representative of all Christians.

We have some atheists who visit on this site and others who will come. Let's give those who come from that perspective the courtesy of taking them one at a time and be willing to discuss things with them without having to resort to stereotypes.

My thoughts anyway, and not intended to stop discussion.

bb

Mariolee wrote:I probably didn't make my question clear.

Atheists don't believe in morality. What would you say to a person who doesn't believe in morality? Certainly not the above argument.

They do believe in moral relativism and many of the new atheists believe Christianity as evil or wrong or a worthless superstation.

I’ll pose a few rambling comments and raise a few points one can refine on his/her own below:

-Ask, why should we listen to them since morals are relative? What makes their views superior to all others – forcing the rights of others to cease worship, etc & etc...?

-If morality is based on moral relativism – then what they say does not matter however their acts of suppressing religion is oppression – is oppression right or wrong?

Revelation 22:11 sums up what Christianity offers – a simple choice to remain as you are or become a follower of Christ. Choice is not oppression…

Of all religions, which offers such an impartial choice to the individual to either freely receive or freely reject God’s offer of saving grace?

+Genesis 1:26 states God granted humanity the ability to govern (exercise dominion). With this comes the responsibility to develop moral codes in which guides our governance. By which objective standard can one use to determine if their moral code is correct?

Answer: truth

Atheist response - all truth is relative

Ask - Can you live without a space suite 300 miles above the earth?

NO –

Then Objective truth exist…

Is the choice offered by true biblical Christianity oppressive? NO –

If they say yes – read them Revelation 22:11 again – how can a free choice be oppressive?

Is atheism oppressive?

Explain why we can’t present the choice God offers anymore in the public square in words or symbols – is that fair? Who is forcing whose view down another’s throat?

What’s the truth???

Please note - These pointers can go in many differing directions – so be prepared…
-
-
-

Mariolee if there is 1 truth..just one this is proof that there are others. For example if i have found THE most efficient way of doing a particular action and it is proven ( again this is an example) Then the matter of this method as being the best becomes FACT. Now i ask you which method is the best for asking a person for having a lick of their icecream?
1) Asking him/her in a calm tone and with respect, while also considering the possibility of a "no" and accepting it ( as that comes with respect)
2) Snatching it off their hands and cursing them for having it and you not.

Now which way is the best? You have to understand MORALITY is based on REALITY. which way is life lived the best? Which method is the best for doing any act?

If you say lying could also be a way ..well yes! But is it the best way? Are you going to get the same reaction? What happens if he/she finds out? Are you always going to get away with it? Remember that lying does have its consequences such as breaking trust. You have to understand that some actions create perversion and other actions create justice. The same way that these actions of perversion lead to a life of chaos and just actions lead to a self controlled life.

CeT-To wrote:Mariolee if there is 1 truth..just one this is proof that there are others. For example if i have found THE most efficient way of doing a particular action and it is proven ( again this is an example) Then the matter of this method as being the best becomes FACT. Now i ask you which method is the best for asking a person for having a lick of their icecream?
1) Asking him/her in a calm tone and with respect, while also considering the possibility of a "no" and accepting it ( as that comes with respect)
2) Snatching it off their hands and cursing them for having it and you not.

Now which way is the best? You have to understand MORALITY is based on REALITY. which way is life lived the best? Which method is the best for doing any act?

If you say lying could also be a way ..well yes! But is it the best way? Are you going to get the same reaction? What happens if he/she finds out? Are you always going to get away with it? Remember that lying does have its consequences such as breaking trust. You have to understand that some actions create perversion and other actions create justice. The same way that these actions of perversion lead to a life of chaos and just actions lead to a self controlled life.

Very good - we can make are own moral codes but it is by the grounded truth one determines which are correct!
-
-
-

True. Just because a moral code exists doesn't make is valid. There's a world of difference between telling someone, who doesnt' accept your definitions, that their moral code is not rooted in defensible truth or just making a blanket statement that all atheists are "immoral." Most people hear that differently, than we might intend it at best or they may understand it exactly as we intend it at worst. In the end, as Christians, the role of morality and ethics ultimately show us that we are all sinners and that we need Jesus Christ and His finished work upon the cross to stand for us in our stead as without Christ we are without hope. Apart from Christ, we are "immoral" and even under Christ, we have not yet arrived.

Maybe before we strike off to slay the dragons of "immorality" in others, we should step back for a moment and be reminded of it and then adjust our tone and terms accordingly. It's certainly a discussion worth having and an issue worth pursuing on several different levels. Just realize that others often hear more than we think we're saying.

B. W. wrote:

CeT-To wrote:Mariolee if there is 1 truth..just one this is proof that there are others. For example if i have found THE most efficient way of doing a particular action and it is proven ( again this is an example) Then the matter of this method as being the best becomes FACT. Now i ask you which method is the best for asking a person for having a lick of their icecream?
1) Asking him/her in a calm tone and with respect, while also considering the possibility of a "no" and accepting it ( as that comes with respect)
2) Snatching it off their hands and cursing them for having it and you not.

Now which way is the best? You have to understand MORALITY is based on REALITY. which way is life lived the best? Which method is the best for doing any act?

If you say lying could also be a way ..well yes! But is it the best way? Are you going to get the same reaction? What happens if he/she finds out? Are you always going to get away with it? Remember that lying does have its consequences such as breaking trust. You have to understand that some actions create perversion and other actions create justice. The same way that these actions of perversion lead to a life of chaos and just actions lead to a self controlled life.

Very good - we can make are own moral codes but it is by the grounded truth one determines which are correct!
-
-
-

B.W. i have this forum to thank and especially you for achieving this conclusion! I finished reading your book today and it gave me so much insight on everything around me!

Thank you so much ! God Bless you B.W. Melvin and everyone on this board, you guys have truly changed my life! <3

Francesco

CeT-To wrote:B.W. i have this forum to thank and especially you for achieving this conclusion! I finished reading your book today and it gave me so much insight on everything around me! Thank you so much ! God Bless you B.W. Melvin and everyone on this board, you guys have truly changed my life! <3

Francesco

Hi Francesco, Be thankful and praise God - not us - we are just fellow laborers for Christ - amen!


Here is a Link to


the Christian Research Institute article on the subject of this thread.

After reading it - what do you all think?
-
-
-

B.W. ,

Many of those "ghosts" are incredibly effective in producing a "haunting" response like the article said. I think the problem, however, is when some of those points are brought up like a logical proof for use in argument (although the cosmological argument DOES stem from some logic, i'm talking more along the lines of the morality ones).

For example in regards to ghost #6, you cannot say, atheism leads to a world without meaning, therefore God. The ghost by itself is not proof of anything, it's just a feeling in the back of your mind. I'm not saying It can't be effective, because it is. When you present points like #6, #7, #8, etc. you aren't saying they are undeniable proof, they are meant to be introduced to describe reality AS IT IS, and when thought about in conjunction with experiencing the world you can come to KNOW THEM as truth.

I don't really agree with the arguments for design such as #2, insofar as they are constructed like a proof. However, it goes back to what I was saying, taking the realm of seeking God outside of theoretical argument, and real experience. Passages like Psalm 19:1 come to mind to express the divine nature of things even in our realm of existence.

Echoside wrote:B.W. ,

Many of those "ghosts" are incredibly effective in producing a "haunting" response like the article said. I think the problem, however, is when some of those points are brought up like a logical proof for use in argument (although the cosmological argument DOES stem from some logic, i'm talking more along the lines of the morality ones).

For example in regards to ghost #6, you cannot say, atheism leads to a world without meaning, therefore God. The ghost by itself is not proof of anything, it's just a feeling in the back of your mind. I'm not saying It can't be effective, because it is. When you present points like #6, #7, #8, etc. you aren't saying they are undeniable proof, they are meant to be introduced to describe reality AS IT IS, and when thought about in conjunction with experiencing the world you can come to KNOW THEM as truth.

I don't really agree with the arguments for design such as #2, insofar as they are constructed like a proof. However, it goes back to what I was saying, taking the realm of seeking God outside of theoretical argument, and real experience. Passages like Psalm 19:1 come to mind to express the divine nature of things even in our realm of existence.

Your right but they are good to know what they are. The article was from 2009 and a lot has changed over the year...
-
-
-