objective moral values

[achilles12604]

By definition :

Objective : Grammar.
Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb.
Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.

Moral : mor·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (môrl, mr-)
adj.
Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

values : duh!


Based on these definitons, I am wondering if objective moral values even exist for an atheist. I do not mean to say that there are NO moral atheists. However, can atheists have objective moral values? What do they base there morals on? is a better way of asking the same question.

Since they deny any form of deity or religious structure, what do they base there morals on and furthermore, why are their morals correct instead of just the opposit being true?

[Cathar1950]

I was reading that comparing liberal and conservative churchgoers that liberals have less divorce, less abortions and less unwanted pregnancies then the conservatives “family values” members.
It occurred to me that maybe the conservatives do need “family values” and they should quit blaming the liberal, atheist and gays.
I would like to see some statistics and research. Any one got any sources?

[achilles12604]

I was reading that comparing liberal and conservative churchgoers that liberals have less divorce, less abortions and less unwanted pregnancies then the conservatives “family values” members.
It occurred to me that maybe the conservatives do need “family values” and they should quit blaming the liberal, atheist and gays.
I would like to see some statistics and research. Any one got any sources?

I would suspect that any source material on this subject would be so biased towards whomever was doing the survey, that any information gathered would be useless, for either side.

[Cathar1950]

I would suspect that any source material on this subject would be so biased towards whomever was doing the survey, that any information gathered would be useless, for either side.

Why would you think that. I know of studies tha suggest the bible stattes have higher divorce rates then the non bible states. Do you just asume that anything that does not promote your view is biased?

[achilles12604]

I would suspect that any source material on this subject would be so biased towards whomever was doing the survey, that any information gathered would be useless, for either side.

Why would you think that. I know of studies tha suggest the bible stattes have higher divorce rates then the non bible states. Do you just asume that anything that does not promote your view is biased?

Why not. Atheists do all the time.

[McCulloch]

Do you just asume that anything that does not promote your view is biased?

Why not.

Theist, atheist or agnostic, it is wrong to assume that a source is biased or not biased because it agrees or disagrees with your particular view. Every information source has a bias. Honest debaters seek to determine what bias and how strong a bias each information source used on both sides of an issue might have.

Atheists do all the time.

This is an unsupported generalization. Do you mean atheists in general or atheists on this site? If on this site, please provide examples. If in general, do you mean some atheists, most atheists or all atheists?

[achilles12604]

Do you just asume that anything that does not promote your view is biased?

Why not.

Theist, atheist or agnostic, it is wrong to assume that a source is biased or not biased because it agrees or disagrees with your particular view. Every information source has a bias. Honest debaters seek to determine what bias and how strong a bias each information source used on both sides of an issue might have.

Atheists do all the time.

This is an unsupported generalization. Do you mean atheists in general or atheists on this site? If on this site, please provide examples. If in general, do you mean some atheists, most atheists or all atheists?

Ok examples.

astounding wrote: Strong believers in something will always invent evidence in order
to justify and provide more proof for what they already believe.

IE anything we offer is untrustworthy because we must be biased. However, this ignores the validity of the facts that exist. Ignoring facts is also bias at its finest. I didn't invent the scraps of the New Testament which date to 130 AD. I didn't invent the writings of Josephus. I didn't invent anything I use. So caliming I did, is rather . . . silly isn't it? Biased opinion perhaps.

Another example.

Bernee51 after examining an apologetic source

Eye witness accounts? There are none outside the bible as far as I am aware. Biblical accounts are obviously biased towards the existence of the Christ. Which 'hostile' sources is he referring to

?

You will notice that Brenee ignored the answer to his question. This source answered his question about biased source just a couple paragraphs later but Bernee either didn't bother to read them, or else ignored them because his preconcieved notion is that there are no hostile sources. Since there are hostile sources and these were described just a few lines later, I would submit that while Brenee claimed Bias on the part of the apologist, it was Bernee who's bias caused him to no allow the apologist to finish his thought before inserting what he already felt was the truth. He never examined what the apologist said without ciritical or unbiased consideration.

Another example:

juliod wrote:

The article is unsubstantial. For one thing, the author is just another christian liar. He says Hitler was an atheist. As we know, beyond doubt, Hitler was a christian. A religion of liars need not be considered as possibly true.

This is a fantastic example of an atheist throwing out an arguement of an apologist before any consideration was made to the validity of the arguement. Why did juliod do this? Because all christians are liars from a religion of liars.


More examples:

bernee51 wrote:

1John2_26 wrote:

"I" was an atheist that became a Christian. "I'm" not lying.

I don't believe you. You have confabulated enough on this forum to not even be worth the benefit of the doubt

Now because John is defending his views and was actually congradulated by other atheists for his

unbiased views

, now he is untrustworthy to the point of not believing him about his own life.

He is accused of lying, just because Bernee didn't like his explainaitons about his posts. This would suggest that Bernee is so set against any form of evidence, that he has begun to suspect apologists of lying about their own lives. Doesn't this seem to point to extream bias on Bernee's part?



You see there are examples of this throughout this whole forum. And this forum is one of the best I have been on. Try going on some of the atheist founded forums and you will see bias that would blow your mind.

Now As I pointed out, atheists and theists alike are biased in their views. What surprises me, is to hear atheists state they are not biased.

This strikes me as someone who is blind claiming they can see. On the other hand at least theists who admit they are coming from a belief are openminded about this point. I have yet to find a single atheist who will admit he is founding his arguements and his opinions on the bias that there is no God, but logically this is what ALL atheists must do, is it not?

[Grumpy]

achilles12604

astounding wrote: Strong believers in something will always invent evidence in order
to justify and provide more proof for what they already believe.

IE anything we offer is untrustworthy because we must be biased. However, this ignores the validity of the facts that exist.

This illustrates why we insist that science is not a belief system. Believers do at times claim false data(AIG) to support their agenda. As a scientist it is a given that evidence may be found that falsifies our current understanding(Newton/Einstein).

Eye witness accounts? There are none outside the bible as far as I am aware. Biblical accounts are obviously biased towards the existence of the Christ. Which 'hostile' sources is he referring to
?

You will notice that Brenee ignored the answer to his question.

But in this case Bernee was correct, there are no eye witness accounts of Jesus outside of or in the Bible. Such were written, but were excluded and suppressed by those who compiled what we call the Bible. Wonder why???

juliod wrote:

Quote:
The article is unsubstantial. For one thing, the author is just another christian liar. He says Hitler was an atheist. As we know, beyond doubt, Hitler was a christian. A religion of liars need not be considered as possibly true.

This is a fantastic example of an atheist throwing out an arguement of an apologist before any consideration was made to the validity of the arguement.

Hitler's Christianity was certain, he often used it to justify his evil(I blame him, none the less anyone who tries to shirk Christianities long history of anti-semitism and try to blame it on Atheists(many of whom DIED in the Death Camps) will get short treatment from me as well).

1John2_26 has plenty to answer for in these fori. I agree with Bernee that if john said it was raining, I would still stick my hand out the door to check.

Grumpy

[achilles12604]

achilles12604

astounding wrote: Strong believers in something will always invent evidence in order
to justify and provide more proof for what they already believe.

IE anything we offer is untrustworthy because we must be biased. However, this ignores the validity of the facts that exist.

This illustrates why we insist that science is not a belief system. Believers do at times claim false data(AIG) to support their agenda. As a scientist it is a given that evidence may be found that falsifies our current understanding(Newton/Einstein).

Granted. However, the further along science goes, the more seems to fit with the bible.

The fossil record for example has shown that creatures did in fact emerge along the pattern given in the creation account. Science advances and supports the possibility, not certainty of the creation account.

I have no problem with science. I am able to read about black holes and underwater studies and still hold firm (if not firmer) to my faith through what I read.

Eye witness accounts? There are none outside the bible as far as I am aware. Biblical accounts are obviously biased towards the existence of the Christ. Which 'hostile' sources is he referring to
?

You will notice that Brenee ignored the answer to his question.

But in this case Bernee was correct, there are no eye witness accounts of Jesus outside of or in the Bible. Such were written, but were excluded and suppressed by those who compiled what we call the Bible. Wonder why???

Ah, true. But I was not argueing with the eyewitness accounts. I was arguing that there were hostile sources which he ignored and so did you just now. You focused on the bible sources and missed my point.

Bernee was not wrong about the extra-biblical eyewitness accounts. He was wrong about lack of hostile sources. I'm sorry if I did not make myself clear on this.

juliod wrote:

Quote:
The article is unsubstantial. For one thing, the author is just another christian liar. He says Hitler was an atheist. As we know, beyond doubt, Hitler was a christian. A religion of liars need not be considered as possibly true.

This is a fantastic example of an atheist throwing out an arguement of an apologist before any consideration was made to the validity of the arguement.

Hitler's Christianity was certain, he often used it to justify his evil(I blame him, none the less anyone who tries to shirk Christianities long history of anti-semitism and try to blame it on Atheists(many of whom DIED in the Death Camps) will get short treatment from me as well).

I found an interesting pattern in Hitler's "Christianity." The quotes that we are sure of, (ie not table talk but actual speaches), where Hitler refers to his beliefs, are almost all before 1930. Hitler's reign of terror was not for another 10-20 years from these speaches. Therefore, I submit that while Hitler may have had Christian beliefs (as many atheists on this forum also claim "former Christians") he turned from those beliefs when his plan for life fell apart.

Hitler wished to be an artist. He loved to paint. But the college in Vienna (I think) rejected him. Only then did he enter the world of politics, a world which would test and destroy all but the most firm beliefs.

Hitler may have been a Christian at first, but like many atheists on this forum, his faith was not strong enough to endure and when he committed those attrocities, he had either abandoned it or lost so much of his former self, that what was left had no impact on his life decisions, which is just as bad.

Regardless, his actions were certainly not of the teachings of Jesus which by itself is enough to convince me that during at least that time, he did not have the love of Christ in his heart and was therefore, not a Christian, whatever he claimed before.

Since this issue is not even close to over yet, I doubt many people would find Juliod's statement without any bias, especially since he did not limit his claim to one source but in fact called all Christians liars from a religion of liars. How much more biased can someone be than that?

[Grumpy]

achilles12604

Granted. However, the further along science goes, the more seems to fit with the bible.

The fossil record for example has shown that creatures did in fact emerge along the pattern given in the creation account. Science advances and supports the possibility, not certainty of the creation account.

I have no problem with science. I am able to read about black holes and underwater studies and still hold firm (if not firmer) to my faith through what I read.

And I have no reason to disabuse you of this position, if more theist held simular views(as in Europe) we could have much more fruitful conversations on these subjects. As an Atheist I still revere the teachings of Jesus and do my best to follow them in my life. We must all strive to refrain from throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Hitler may have been a Christian at first, but like many atheists on this forum, his faith was not strong enough to endure and when he committed those attrocities, he had either abandoned it or lost so much of his former self, that what was left had no impact on his life decisions, which is just as bad.

I would not argue that Hitler was a good christian, but the anti-semitism in Germany goes back many centuries , including Martin Luther, who advocated burning all Jewish places of worship and putting to death any of them who prayed to god. Hitler received his anti-semitism from the pulpit of the German churches.

And Hitler hated Atheists, gays and anyone else deemed deviant, many died in the Death Camps alongside the Jews.

Grumpy

[achilles12604]

Hitler may have been a Christian at first, but like many atheists on this forum, his faith was not strong enough to endure and when he committed those attrocities, he had either abandoned it or lost so much of his former self, that what was left had no impact on his life decisions, which is just as bad.

I would not argue that Hitler was a good christian, but the anti-semitism in Germany goes back many centuries , including Martin Luther, who advocated burning all Jewish places of worship and putting to death any of them who prayed to god. Hitler received his anti-semitism from the pulpit of the German churches.

And Hitler hated Atheists, gays and anyone else deemed deviant, many died in the Death Camps alongside the Jews.

Grumpy

And I have no problem admitting that Hitler claimed to be christian and at one point he may have actually been. However, my point was not about Hitler but rather that Juliod's post shows how misinformation and miscommunication can cause either side (in this case the atheist side although it can be true for Christians as well) to become so biased they will believe anything and make any excuse so long as they oppose the view offered by the other side. Extream bias was shown by Juliod when he claimed that the apologist must be lying and that all Christians lie because thier religion is nothing but a bunch of liars.