I - an atheist - have an objective standard for Good

[Sparko]

No Sparko making pejorative remarks about your interlocutor is not sarcasm. Although it does make it clear you have no coherent or cogent comments to make.

My reply to you was.

[Sparko]

What about those who DID accept Jesus but in all good faith got his so-called objective morality wrong? The Christians of Salem killing 'witches' for example, or the Christian slave owners of the Deep South - which resulted in the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention? Will they "stand trial" for their actions?

That will be up to God. I don't know their hearts or motives. We will all stand before God. If we are saved then we will have Jesus' righteousness credited to us. If not, we will have to answer for our sins. If they truly were just acting 'in good faith' then they will be forgiven.

[Whateverman]

I did. more than once. In this thread. Maybe you should actually read people's replies instead of just bloviating on your own farts.

Ah, the ad-hominem in lieu of a substantive reply.

You're a pro :)

[Whateverman]

I would like to be present when you face God and explain to him how you are better than him.

I would like a Porsche.

If we're done with uselessly wishing for things we'll likely never get, could we please get back to the thread topic?

Or are you signalling your inability to address it?

Seems more like you are signalling your inability to deal with the fact that I have addressed your nonsense many times in this thread

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/se...st&showposts=1

A list of your posts is not a list of your attempts to address the thread topic

Try to describe Christian objective morality in a coherent way. Just try. Remember, that description has to:

• Be consistent with Christian doctrine
• Be consistent with individual Christian beliefs and apologetic arguments
• Use proper definitions of the words "objective" and "morality"
• At least make possible an argument which refutes/attacks/debunks the thread's OP

Give it a shot :)

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Ah, the ad-hominem in lieu of a substantive reply.

You're a pro :)

When various individuals find themselves out of their intellectual and educational depth, or can not arrive at a cogent and coherent defence, the default position is to make pejorative and/or puerile comments about their interlocutor.

I read an amusing neologism some years ago - so strictly it is no longer a neologism.

The term was Kidult and was used to describe the behaviour of many so-called adults who react to daily life as if they were still waiting to celebrate their tenth birthday.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

My reply to you was.

See my post #155

[Sparko]

Ah, the ad-hominem in lieu of a substantive reply.

You're a pro :)

I even gave you a comprehensive list of my substantive replies on the topic of this thread in the post right above the one you quoted. Strange how you ignored that in your own ad hom reply.

Objective Morality is the idea that something is right or wrong independent of how many people believe it is.

[Whateverman]

I even gave you a comprehensive list of my substantive replies on the topic of this thread

No you didn't.

You provided - via a simple user name search - a list of posts you made to this thread.

That doesn't show that any of them substantively addressed the thread's subject.

[Whateverman]

When various individuals find themselves out of their intellectual and educational depth, or can not arrive at a cogent and coherent defence, the default position is to make pejorative and/or puerile comments about their interlocutor.

I read an amusing neologism some years ago - so strictly it is no longer a neologism.

The term was Kidult and was used to describe the behaviour of many so-called adults who react to daily life as if they were still waiting to celebrate their tenth birthday.

I am now going to adopt that term. It works on a number of levels...

[Whateverman]

No Sparko making pejorative remarks about your interlocutor is not sarcasm. Although it does make it clear you have no coherent or cogent comments to make.

His profile titles him a "Troll Magnet".

Perhaps he's accumulated so many that he's indistinguishable from the pile?

[Sparko]

No you didn't.

You provided - via a simple user name search - a list of posts you made to this thread.

That doesn't show that any of them substantively addressed the thread's subject.

You would have to read them to see that they do. Do you always require being spoonfed? Or, as I suspect, is this just an avoidance tactic to pretend to not having had your butt kicked from here to the moon on the topic?

[Sparko]

His profile titles him a "Troll Magnet".

Perhaps he's accumulated so many that he's indistinguishable from the pile?

I see I caught another one.

[JimL]

That will be up to God. I don't know their hearts or motives. We will all stand before God. If we are saved then we will have Jesus' righteousness credited to us. If not, we will have to answer for our sins. If they truly were just acting 'in good faith' then they will be forgiven.

But what if they weren't acting in good faith, as none of you are when you sin, because as you say, you know right from wrong in your hearts. So long as you believe in Jesus as god then, and that he died for your sins, then your sins are already forgiven you, right?

[Mountain Man]

Agreed.


I guess that depends on what one thinks the logical implications of his worldview might be. To my knowledge, there's nothing in my worldview to suggest that one can't expect or demand certain behaviors from others.


It doesn't really matter whether I'm comfortable with where atheism ultimately leads. (Though as it so happens, I am pretty comfortable with it.) Arguing against a position based on the consequences of that position is a fallacy (i.e. appeal to consequences).


You mean, let everyone do what they want, with no laws? There are arguments against anarchism that don't depend on a belief in God.


Similarly, there are arguments against hedonism that don't depend on a belief in God.

This is why some of us rather detest the tactic of breaking a post up and answering each sentence out of context, because it has the veneer of a rebuttal without actually being a rebuttal. So let's look at my complete argument that was presented across two posts:

You really don't understand the problem, do you? Suppose you saw a fellow atheist stealing a $20 bill from his mother's purse. You say, "Dude, that's objectively wrong, you know." It would be no contradiction to his world view if he were to smile and say, "Yes, I do know that it's objectively wrong, but since I have no obligation to only do what is objectively right, I steal with a clear conscience."

Even if I grant for the sake of argument that your opening post represents a rock solid, irrefutable standard for objective morality, it doesn't matter, because as far as the moral argument for atheism goes, you're literally back where you started.

Sneering mockery does nothing to solve the moral problem for atheists. If atheism is true, then any atheist who expects or demands that others live according to whatever objective standard of morality the atheist has defined is rejecting the logical implications of his own world view. Why would you do that? Aren't you comfortable with where atheism ultimately leads? If it's really the worldview you believe, then why not gladly embrace [its] implications and live and let live? Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you die.

As you can see, the problem for the atheist is not coming up with an objective moral standard or arguments against hedonism and anarchy but coming up with a reason why anybody else should care.

[Tassman]

That will be up to God. I don't know their hearts or motives. We will all stand before God. If we are saved then we will have Jesus' righteousness credited to us. If not, we will have to answer for our sins. If they truly were just acting 'in good faith' then they will be forgiven.

So, those atheists who were in their non-belief, will also be forgiven and enter heaven. That's nice.