So Easy To Be An Atheist!

[seer]

interpretation of that law.

One can change one's view as he studies the texts more in depth, and more often than not the texts and meaning are plain and not open to "interpretation." Any more than what you just wrote is open to interpretation.

I'm not sure what you are getting at this seems to describe a moral relativist. But let me give an example. Growing up in the 50s and 60s sex outside of marriage was generally frowned on, it wasn't just a religious thing but a cultural thing. By my middle teens I changed my belief on this and was rather promiscuous. I was not religious, and I saw no logical reason to deny my desires. The same with smoking weed and such. And I could just as easily have change my beliefs back. Now as a Christian I see both excesses as morally wrong, and I know Scripture well enough to know that these behaviors are sin, and the only way I could go back is to change my worldview, which is not likely to happen.

[seer]

Interesting how god's moral laws seem to coincide with the social prejudices of the day.

That just does not make sense, what prejudices of the day?

[seer]

And authority is what it all comes down to for you, because you're a fascist authoritarian who holds a "might makes right" view of morality that has been mocked for thousands of years, but you make a continued fool of yourself on this forum parading it around constantly. Disgusting.

How does that rant change anything I said? It is obvious that the law of God would have an inherent governing authority that a moral theory like utilitarianism just doesn't have. And yes God's immutable moral character and omniscience does define right. What else would - our morally fickle, ignorant natures?

[firstfloor]

Except I am comparing these to the law of God, which can not be changed or evaded no matter what the individual does or doesn't do. In principle neither moral objectivism or moral relativism have inherent moral authority. No so with the law of God.

[seer]

Of course FF, you must be right! Why didn't I see it before...

[firstfloor]

Of course FF, you must be right! Why didn't I see it before...

[JimL]

Of course FF, you must be right! Why didn't I see it before...

Must be the blinding scales of scripture.

[seer]

So?

[firstfloor]

So?

So, if being atheist was easy, you would be atheist too.

[crepuscule]

One can change one's view as he studies the texts more in depth, and more often than not the texts and meaning are plain and not open to "interpretation." Any more than what you just wrote is open to interpretation.

That doesn't explain the dozens (at least) of church denominations. Of course you don't agree with their interpretations, but that's beside the point.

I'm not sure what you are getting at this seems to describe a moral relativist.

It does not; it's not about moralism but about physics; and the laws of physics are objective, not subjective.

But let me give an example. Growing up in the 50s and 60s sex outside of marriage was generally frowned on, it wasn't just a religious thing but a cultural thing. By my middle teens I changed my belief on this and was rather promiscuous. I was not religious, and I saw no logical reason to deny my desires. The same with smoking weed and such. And I could just as easily have change my beliefs back. Now as a Christian I see both excesses as morally wrong, and I know Scripture well enough to know that these behaviors are sin, and the only way I could go back is to change my worldview, which is not likely to happen.

But it could happen, right? Each day, moral objectivists such as Christians change their worldview and become atheists or muslims or whatever. That necessarily implies a change of belief in at least some laws they up to then believed to be objective and unchangeable.

[seer]

That doesn't explain the dozens (at least) of church denominations. Of course you don't agree with their interpretations, but that's beside the point.

I said most things, and most the moral imperatives in the New Testament are quite clear.

It does not; it's not about moralism but about physics; and the laws of physics are objective, not subjective.

Ok, then why bring it in?

But it could happen, right? Each day, moral objectivists such as Christians change their worldview and become atheists or muslims or whatever. That necessarily implies a change of belief in at least some laws they up to then believed to be objective and unchangeable.

Correct, but changing a worldview is much more difficult than me (as an agnostic back then) deciding that promiscuity was not immoral. So the case of the theist and non-theists are not analogous. The believer has a moral an objective standard that he attempts to live up to, the atheist only has whatever he decides is right. And if what he thinks is right conflicts with his present desire for whatever, why not just change what he believes is right thereby removing the conflict? It would be perfectly rational do do so.

[mossrose]

Why is your designation not "atheist" instead of "unspecified". You are clear here that you believe God does not exist.

Please change your designation.

[Starlight]

It is obvious that the law of God would have an inherent governing authority

What? By "authority" do you just mean "power to punish"? Or is there something else you mean by that word?

In my vocabulary, "authority" is something voluntarily granted to a person by society (e.g. democratically elected politicians have authority to govern), if it not granted voluntarily it is merely "power" / "dictatorship" not "authority". So the phrase "inherent authority" is oxymoronic to me - you can't have inherent authority.

a moral theory like utilitarianism just doesn't have.

If what you mean is, "in atheism there isn't a deity armed with a carrot and stick to "back up" the morality system with rewards and punishments for obedience/disobedience" then I agree. Is that all you're trying to say in this thread? If so, can you perhaps elaborate as to why you see that concept as important?

And yes God's immutable moral character and omniscience does define right.

Yawn. I see zero reason whatsoever to accept this claim on your part as true. It's about as plausible and uninteresting as saying my cat defines right and wrong. If you want to say "I seer, personally follow God's rules as my definition of right and wrong", sure. And I regard that roughly the same way I would regard "I seer, personally flip a coin before taking an action to decide what is right and wrong".

What else would - our morally fickle, ignorant natures?

Reality would. By learning about the world through observation and experience, and by empirical study and scientific research, we can observe and measure how our actions affect ourselves and others in society. We can come to understand how different actions affect people's freedom, happiness, well-being etc.

[One Bad Pig]

Be a peach and change your 'faith' designation to atheist, eh? This post rather puts the lie to 'unspecified'.

[Starlight]

This post rather puts the lie to 'unspecified'.

Um, "unspecified" is tautologically true. He is literally not specifying it. It's a somewhat amusing self-referential truth.