5 Faulty Arguments Religious People Use Against Atheists

[_huckelberry]

I am a bit shocked by the proposal that morality is out of reach of atheists because it is based upon authoritive command. There is a problem which SomeSchmo is pointing out. Does belief prevent a religious believer from finding the basis for morality?
I followed the link to the athiests and sex to find this fragment of moral reasoning. quote following:
" If we want our relationship to be monogamous and our sexual partner doesn’t, we don’t get to say, “Non-monogamy freaks me out, and you’re a bad person for wanting it.” If we’re not interested in bondage and our sexual partner wants to try it, we don’t get to say, “Bondage scares me, therefore you’re a bad person for being curious about it.”

And the reverse of that is also true. If we are interested in bondage and our partner isn’t, we don’t get to accuse them of being unadventurous and uptight….

We need to base our decisions on principles of consent, honesty, fairness, and harm, not on the principle of what we find disgusting."
....................................................................................
I find myself agreeing consent honesty and fairness should be basic to human relationships. However respecting those ideas involves a real committment to the health and best well being of those we are involved with. There is pleanty of human potential for mutually assisted self destructive behavior. I wonder whether the above quote leaves to much room for controlling demands of one party of the couple to override the wellbeing of the other.

I think moral decisions involve a search for the best health and wellbeing of others which must involve respect for the best potential of those others. I think religious faith should help people understand rather than simply provide some rules.

[_Hughes]

Except that you can't show with authority what those rules are. No god has ever made an appearance and said, "These are my rules." All we have is hearsay.

The arbitrariness or not of morality is connected to the corporal or collective belief, as opposed to the individual belief of said morality.

In other words, the fact that you disagree with the claims of the believers (that God publicly gave morals to us) doesn't make the morals arbitrary. In order for the morals to be arbitrary, they would have to be decided on an individual basis, by each person.

For example. Theists generally believe that is wrong to steal. Ok... this isn't based on an arbitrary feeling, but rather an edict, believed to have come from God.

Yes, but why is that believed?

Probably different for different people. Some are persuaded by the facts. Why or how they believe doesn't mitigate their holding to a collective moral, which makes it the opposite of arbitrarily decided.

There is no indisputable, iron clad code of ethics that any group is expected to adhere to. I'd love for you to find my two theists of the exact same denomination and background that agree on every single ethical notion, let alone an entire group.

But just because atheists aren't influenced by a religiously based set of ethics doesn't mean they feel free to do whatever the hell they want to. I hate to break it to you, but I'm an atheist, and I think stealing is wrong. How do you explain that, given that I don't feel compelled to answer to a higher power?

My argument is that for an Atheist, morality is arbitrarily arrived at. Saying that all Theists don't agree on every single ethical notion doesn't disprove this argument. Theists don't necessarily agree on the same God either, but the fact that they all subscribe to a higher being (God), means that they themselves aren't deciding for themselves what is and what isn't moral because they are deriving it from another source, beyond themselves, the Creator of all.

You, personally, have decided for yourself that such actions are wrong because they harm the "wellbeing" of another. Well, all of that is based on your own feeling on the matter, by definition atheists don't believe anyone is "greater" so there is no edict that everyone must follow, or by extension, to judge anyone else by. In other words, the most you can say is, "You are violating my definition of what is moral."

That's true; that's the most I can say. The problem for you is, that's the most you can honestly say too. As I said before, if all theists agreed on one code of ethics, you'd have a point. But they don't, so the best you can say is that everyone has their own code.

Here's where we differ. You see, you think that such actions are wrong because they harm the "wellbeing" of another. Now, for the Atheist there's no absolute reason to *not* harm another, as harm or not, both are equal, because life has no value more than anything or anyone else. For example, human life can't be valued above dirt or anything else for that matter. Because, it's all personally decided on. It's all arbitrary, nothing is standard, nor could anything be standardized, or it wouldn't be Atheism.

This is not the case for a Theist. For all life has value because of who created it, the Creator. And so the value of not harming or stealing or what have you, has universal application. So, for a Theist, it's not only decided on an individual level, but rather for a Theist, one comes to the realization that all these moral laws come from the Creator. For the Atheist, it's only decided on an individual level.

What makes it arbitrary? Stealing and not stealing are equally moral by this standard, since the standard is set by each individual and how they feel. Pick the one you like (arbitrarily) and it's moral for you.

Again, if theists were honest with themselves, they'd recognize they're doing the exact same thing. The only difference is they attempt to give their own sense of morality greater weight by attributing it to the divine.

Seriously, ask yourself why you don't feel moved to stone your disobedient children? Deuteronomy 21:18-21 says you should. Why would you disobey this theistically mandated moral behavior?

Honest with ourselves? Realizing that the Creator exists as a result of observing all of his creation with an open mind, is about as honest as it gets. I could turn it around and say, if Atheists were honest with themselves, they'd realize that random chance couldn't have ever produced all the complex information we see in all of life, they would realize that there must be a Creator of all.

Why don't I feel moved to follow the Jewish Laws? I'm not Jewish.

You need to reread what I said more carefully, I think.

Sorry. I misread.

[_Hughes]

I am a bit shocked by the proposal that morality is out of reach of atheists because it is based upon authoritive command. There is a problem which SomeSchmo is pointing out. Does belief prevent a religious believer from finding the basis for morality?
I followed the link to the athiests and sex to find this fragment of moral reasoning. quote following:
" If we want our relationship to be monogamous and our sexual partner doesn’t, we don’t get to say, “Non-monogamy freaks me out, and you’re a bad person for wanting it.” If we’re not interested in bondage and our sexual partner wants to try it, we don’t get to say, “Bondage scares me, therefore you’re a bad person for being curious about it.”

And the reverse of that is also true. If we are interested in bondage and our partner isn’t, we don’t get to accuse them of being unadventurous and uptight….

We need to base our decisions on principles of consent, honesty, fairness, and harm, not on the principle of what we find disgusting."
....................................................................................
I find myself agreeing consent honesty and fairness should be basic to human relationships. However respecting those ideas involves a real committment to the health and best well being of those we are involved with. There is pleanty of human potential for mutually assisted self destructive behavior. I wonder whether the above quote leaves to much room for controlling demands of one party of the couple to override the wellbeing of the other.

I think moral decisions involve a search for the best health and wellbeing of others which must involve respect for the best potential of those others. I think religious faith should help people understand rather than simply provide some rules.

Who said that, "morality is out of reach of atheists"?

My only point is for an Atheist morality is arbitrarily arrived at. For an Atheist, seeking the wellbeing of others or not are equally moral.

[_Some Schmo]

Except that you can't show with authority what those rules are. No god has ever made an appearance and said, "These are my rules." All we have is hearsay.

The arbitrariness or not of morality is connected to the corporal or collective belief, as opposed to the individual belief of said morality.

In other words, the fact that you disagree with the claims of the believers (that God publicly gave morals to us) doesn't make the morals arbitrary. In order for the morals to be arbitrary, they would have to be decided on an individual basis, by each person.

But that's my point. They are decided on an individual basis. If they weren't, you'd have a pure collective.

Probably different for different people. Some are persuaded by the facts. Why or how they believe doesn't mitigate their holding to a collective moral, which makes it the opposite of arbitrarily decided.

If you could definitively show that they actually do hold to a collective moral, you'd have a point, but you can't. Again, this is my point. The how and why of their belief is exactly what determines whether their belief is arbitrary or not, not whether it happens to coincide with what others think since they were persuaded in their own way.

Again, for this to not be arbitrary (and I only mean arbitrary in the sense that people decide their own morals, not in the sense that people can choose whatever the heck they want and call it moral), we would need god to make an appearance and deliver a list that everyone has access to.

My argument is that for an Atheist, morality is arbitrarily arrived at. Saying that all Theists don't agree on every single ethical notion doesn't disprove this argument.

Yeah, true (well, to an extent. As I mentioned above, there are a couple of meanings for “arbitrary” in this context, but I get what you’re saying here).

Theists don't necessarily agree on the same God either, but the fact that they all subscribe to a higher being (God), means that they themselves aren't deciding for themselves what is and what isn't moral because they are deriving it from another source, beyond themselves, the Creator of all.

So how do they choose which god's rules they're going to follow? It seems to me that theists tend to favor the god they think aligns with their own sense of morality.

All you're doing is putting the cart before the horse.

Can you please be explicit about how this creator to follower communication about morals has taken place? It seems to be extremely unreliable. We can measure its lack of reliability by noting how many differences there are in each individual's sense of morality.

Here's where we differ. You see, you think that such actions are wrong because they harm the "wellbeing" of another. Now, for the Atheist there's no absolute reason to *not* harm another, as harm or not, both are equal, because life has no value more than anything or anyone else.

I'm enjoying our conversation, so I'll try not to offend, but this last comment is utter BS.

I'm an atheist, and life has way more value to me than most everything else, probably because I happen to be alive. I'm part of the sea of life, and I value it. Therefore, I find meaning and purpose in not harming/destroying it. There's nothing arbitrary about that except to the extent that valuing other life is arbitrary for a living creature.

It sounds like you're trying to say that you think life has no value without god. That's just... well... sad.

For example, human life can't be valued above dirt or anything else for that matter. Because, it's all personally decided on. It's all arbitrary, nothing is standard, nor could anything be standardized, or it wouldn't be Atheism.

You have an extremely odd notion of what it means to be an atheist. Where on earth did you get this idea?

This is not the case for a Theist. For all life has value because of who created it, the Creator. And so the value of not harming or stealing or what have you, has universal application. So, for a Theist, it's not only decided on an individual level, but rather for a Theist, one comes to the realization that all these moral laws come from the Creator. For the Atheist, it's only decided on an individual level.

So, if we don't have a creator, we aren't valuable? You really don't think much of life for its own sake, do you?

I don't even know how else to respond to such a desperate statement.

Honest with ourselves? Realizing that the Creator exists as a result of observing all of his creation with an open mind, is about as honest as it gets.

Open-mindedness does not preclude incredulity. Frankly, it's been my experience that the most close-minded people around are dogmatic theists. An atheist is free to change his mind based on empirical evidence. A theist must discard evidence if it contradicts his preconceived dogma. There's nothing open-minded about that.

And no, it is not honest to make a claim about evidence where the evidence doesn't necessarily lead us.

I could turn it around and say, if Atheists were honest with themselves, they'd realize that random chance couldn't have ever produced all the complex information we see in all of life, they would realize that there must be a Creator of all.

This is known as a false dichotomy. It's not either "random chance" or "a creator."

Before I make any assumptions, what's supposed to be random?

Why don't I feel moved to follow the Jewish Laws? I'm not Jewish.

See, this is how it happens. This is how you narrow down your own personal sense of morality yet still try to maintain it's divine. You've decided it's not from god with the rationale, "oh, that's just Jewish Law." How much other stuff in the Old Testament do you discard under the title "Jewish Law?" Thou shalt not steal, maybe? Thou shalt not kill?

And by the way, why isn't Jewish Law divine? I'm pretty sure they think it is.

You need to reread what I said more carefully, I think.

Sorry. I misread.

No worries.

[_Hughes]

Probably different for different people. Some are persuaded by the facts. Why or how they believe doesn't mitigate their holding to a collective moral, which makes it the opposite of arbitrarily decided.

If you could definitively show that they actually do hold to a collective moral, you'd have a point, but you can't. Again, this is my point. The how and why of their belief is exactly what determines whether their belief is arbitrary or not, not whether it happens to coincide with what others think since they were persuaded in their own way.

Again, for this to not be arbitrary (and I only mean arbitrary in the sense that people decide their own morals, not in the sense that people can choose whatever the heck they want and call it moral), we would need god to make an appearance and deliver a list that everyone has access to.

And indeed this is what Theists believe what has happened.

Theists don't necessarily agree on the same God either, but the fact that they all subscribe to a higher being (God), means that they themselves aren't deciding for themselves what is and what isn't moral because they are deriving it from another source, beyond themselves, the Creator of all.

So how do they choose which god's rules they're going to follow? It seems to me that theists tend to favor the god they think aligns with their own sense of morality.

All you're doing is putting the cart before the horse.

Can you please be explicit about how this creator to follower communication about morals has taken place? It seems to be extremely unreliable. We can measure its lack of reliability by noting how many differences there are in each individual's sense of morality.

I can see where you are coming from (I think). And the question is where do people get a sense of morality? Theists say it's from the Creator. Our sense of morality was created inside of us, which is why the world over all of humanity has a sense of right and wrong. Not saying they all agree on what that morality specifically is, but rather the sense that there is a right and wrong, is evidence of a moral creator.

But of course that isn't our only source for communication from the Creator. He has done so explicitly, as through Moses and Jesus.

So is the source for a Theistic morality arbitrarily decided, as it is with the Atheist? No, the source isn't, since it comes from a greater source than ourselves.

Here's where we differ. You see, you think that such actions are wrong because they harm the "wellbeing" of another. Now, for the Atheist there's no absolute reason to *not* harm another, as harm or not, both are equal, because life has no value more than anything or anyone else.

I'm enjoying our conversation, so I'll try not to offend, but this last comment is utter BS.

I'm an atheist, and life has way more value to me than most everything else, probably because I happen to be alive. I'm part of the sea of life, and I value it. Therefore, I find meaning and purpose in not harming/destroying it. There's nothing arbitrary about that except to the extent that valuing other life is arbitrary for a living creature.

It sounds like you're trying to say that you think life has no value without god. That's just... well... sad.

You have misunderstood me to say that there is no value in life. Let me try and restate what I mean.

From an Atheistic point of view, there is no absolute standard one can point to and say, "See Life has meaning for everyone..." Nope. All one can do is say, "For me, life has meaning because..." There is no universal standard or way of placing value on life or death for that matter.

Let me put it another way. Say a group of people think that stealing is the moral and right thing to do. The better the deception, the better the person is in their morality. As an Atheist, you cannot point to their group and say they are wrong based on a universal standard code, rather you can only say that they are wrong according to your viewpoint, and that is all.

Life can have meaning for an Atheist, but it is by no means a universally applied standard.

For example, human life can't be valued above dirt or anything else for that matter. Because, it's all personally decided on. It's all arbitrary, nothing is standard, nor could anything be standardized, or it wouldn't be Atheism.

You have an extremely odd notion of what it means to be an atheist. Where on earth did you get this idea?

I used to be an Atheist.

This is not the case for a Theist. For all life has value because of who created it, the Creator. And so the value of not harming or stealing or what have you, has universal application. So, for a Theist, it's not only decided on an individual level, but rather for a Theist, one comes to the realization that all these moral laws come from the Creator. For the Atheist, it's only decided on an individual level.

So, if we don't have a creator, we aren't valuable? You really don't think much of life for its own sake, do you?

I don't even know how else to respond to such a desperate statement.

I'm not making a personal statement. Rather, I'm simply pointing out the source for the value of life.

Honest with ourselves? Realizing that the Creator exists as a result of observing all of his creation with an open mind, is about as honest as it gets.

Open-mindedness does not preclude incredulity. Frankly, it's been my experience that the most close-minded people around are dogmatic theists. An atheist is free to change his mind based on empirical evidence. A theist must discard evidence if it contradicts his preconceived dogma. There's nothing open-minded about that.

And no, it is not honest to make a claim about evidence where the evidence doesn't necessarily lead us.

Indeed, I didn't say follow where the evidence doesn't lead us. And a Theist is free to change his mind as well.

I could turn it around and say, if Atheists were honest with themselves, they'd realize that random chance couldn't have ever produced all the complex information we see in all of life, they would realize that there must be a Creator of all.

This is known as a false dichotomy. It's not either "random chance" or "a creator."

Before I make any assumptions, what's supposed to be random?

It's simply an example. What is random? That usually is the opposite of something directed or chosen.

Why don't I feel moved to follow the Jewish Laws? I'm not Jewish.

See, this is how it happens. This is how you narrow down your own personal sense of morality yet still try to maintain it's divine. You've decided it's not from god with the rationale, "oh, that's just Jewish Law." How much other stuff in the Old Testament do you discard under the title "Jewish Law?" Thou shalt not steal, maybe? Thou shalt not kill?

And by the way, why isn't Jewish Law divine? I'm pretty sure they think it is.

All Theists don't believe exactly the same. However, all do reference the source of their morality isn't from themselves.

I agree that we all choose what morality to follow, the difference I was attempting to point out was that for the Atheist, the source is 100% human. But for the Theist the source is the Creator.

[_Some Schmo]

If you could definitively show that they actually do hold to a collective moral, you'd have a point, but you can't. Again, this is my point. The how and why of their belief is exactly what determines whether their belief is arbitrary or not, not whether it happens to coincide with what others think since they were persuaded in their own way.

Again, for this to not be arbitrary (and I only mean arbitrary in the sense that people decide their own morals, not in the sense that people can choose whatever the heck they want and call it moral), we would need god to make an appearance and deliver a list that everyone has access to.

And indeed this is what Theists believe what has happened.

And hence the problem. Unless theists can prove this, it's just an assertion and holds no more weight than anyone else's asserted source of their morality.

You have misunderstood me to say that there is no value in life. Let me try and restate what I mean.

From an Atheistic point of view, there is no absolute standard one can point to and say, "See Life has meaning for everyone..." Nope. All one can do is say, "For me, life has meaning because..." There is no universal standard or way of placing value on life or death for that matter.

Let me put it another way. Say a group of people think that stealing is the moral and right thing to do. The better the deception, the better the person is in their morality. As an Atheist, you cannot point to their group and say they are wrong based on a universal standard code, rather you can only say that they are wrong according to your viewpoint, and that is all.

Life can have meaning for an Atheist, but it is by no means a universally applied standard.

True. Basically what I'm pointing out is that there is no universally applied standard of morality, which kind of puts a damper on there being a universal standard in the first place.

I used to be an Atheist.

Well, given what you've told me about what you think atheists are, I guess I'm not surprised that you turned theist. Let me assure you, however, that the atheists I've encountered don't think the way you've described. I certainly don't.

I'm not making a personal statement. Rather, I'm simply pointing out the source for the value of life.

"Value" is a concept. It exists in the minds of those who consider it. Therefore, the source of the assessed value of life is they who think life has lots/some/no value. Same thing with "meaning." The source is consciousness.

You value life, I assume. As a consequence, because you believe there's a creator, you've endowed him with the attribute "the source for the value of life" but that says more about your priorities than it does about some asserted creator.

Have you endowed god with the attribute "genocidal maniac?" The Bible describes him that way in a lot of places, and since the Bible seems to be the one place people point to as their source of theistic morality, I wonder why you wouldn't (if, in fact, you don't).

Indeed, I didn't say follow where the evidence doesn't lead us. And a Theist is free to change his mind as well.

They are, but it's interesting how seldom that seems to happen. And when it does, it often leads a person away from theistic belief completely. Evidence does not favor theistic conclusions.

It's simply an example. What is random? That usually is the opposite of something directed or chosen.

I was looking for a specific example of the information that was produced randomly.

All Theists don't believe exactly the same. However, all do reference the source of their morality isn't from themselves.

I agree that we all choose what morality to follow, the difference I was attempting to point out was that for the Atheist, the source is 100% human. But for the Theist the source is the Creator.

Well, they think it is, anyway, but objectively we can tell that it doesn't appear to be the case.

Just so we're clear, "morality" is simply a word we use to describe the body of thought that encompasses what we consider right and wrong (and we all have different ideas about that). It does not have built into the definition anything about its source. Morality is still morality whether it's divine or not.

[_Hughes]

And indeed this is what Theists believe what has happened.

And hence the problem. Unless theists can prove this, it's just an assertion and holds no more weight than anyone else's asserted source of their morality.

Theist don't need to prove their source for it to be "other" or "unarbitrary". Your argument is that since Theists can't prove they have heard from an outside source, they are then simply in the same boat as Atheists, who rely solely on human sources. This is false for two reasons. One is because Atheists and Theists make different claims. Atheists claim their source is themselves, while Theists don't. Two because there is evidence that those who are believers are persuaded by, which Atheists are not. So, just because Atheists are not persuaded by the same evidence (of the outside source) doesn't negate the evidence or the fact of the outside source.

Let's say that a group of people hadn't ever felt what it was like to swim in water before. The "Awets" said to the "Wets", "It doesn't look like it's any different than not being wet to me, so I don't believe you, that there is a difference." The Wets could argue until they are blue in the face, that there is a difference, that the feeling of the water is so warm and all encompassing, but the Awets could still claim these were just assertions unsupported by evidence.

So, just because the Awets accuse the Wets of making false and unsupported assertions, doesn't negate their experience.

You have misunderstood me to say that there is no value in life. Let me try and restate what I mean.

From an Atheistic point of view, there is no absolute standard one can point to and say, "See Life has meaning for everyone..." Nope. All one can do is say, "For me, life has meaning because..." There is no universal standard or way of placing value on life or death for that matter.

Let me put it another way. Say a group of people think that stealing is the moral and right thing to do. The better the deception, the better the person is in their morality. As an Atheist, you cannot point to their group and say they are wrong based on a universal standard code, rather you can only say that they are wrong according to your viewpoint, and that is all.

Life can have meaning for an Atheist, but it is by no means a universally applied standard.

True. Basically what I'm pointing out is that there is no universally applied standard of morality, which kind of puts a damper on there being a universal standard in the first place.

Wait. You are making a universally applied standard, which you are applying to Theists, which you are calling, "There is no universally applied standard..." In effect, an Amoral. Your application of it to all, universally is a fallacy which cannot be proven. In other words, I would say, "How can you prove there is no universally applied standard?"

I used to be an Atheist.

Well, given what you've told me about what you think atheists are, I guess I'm not surprised that you turned theist. Let me assure you, however, that the atheists I've encountered don't think the way you've described. I certainly don't.

I was a happy Atheist. I am not saying that Atheists aren't moral or happy or anything of the sort. All I'm saying is that Atheists haven't any absolute standard to say that anyone else is harming anyone else, based on their views alone.

I'm not making a personal statement. Rather, I'm simply pointing out the source for the value of life.

"Value" is a concept. It exists in the minds of those who consider it. Therefore, the source of the assessed value of life is they who think life has lots/some/no value. Same thing with "meaning." The source is consciousness.

You value life, I assume. As a consequence, because you believe there's a creator, you've endowed him with the attribute "the source for the value of life" but that says more about your priorities than it does about some asserted creator.

Have you endowed god with the attribute "genocidal maniac?" The Bible describes him that way in a lot of places, and since the Bible seems to be the one place people point to as their source of theistic morality, I wonder why you wouldn't (if, in fact, you don't).

False. I haven't endowed my creator with anything. If you wish to mis-read the biblical text, it can say anything you'd like.

Indeed, I didn't say follow where the evidence doesn't lead us. And a Theist is free to change his mind as well.

They are, but it's interesting how seldom that seems to happen. And when it does, it often leads a person away from theistic belief completely. Evidence does not favor theistic conclusions.

I disagree. I follow the evidence right to back to God. Where did it all come from?

It's simply an example. What is random? That usually is the opposite of something directed or chosen.

I was looking for a specific example of the information that was produced randomly.

Such as the complex information found wrapped up in the DNA that produces all the flora and fauna we see?

All Theists don't believe exactly the same. However, all do reference the source of their morality isn't from themselves.

I agree that we all choose what morality to follow, the difference I was attempting to point out was that for the Atheist, the source is 100% human. But for the Theist the source is the Creator.

Well, they think it is, anyway, but objectively we can tell that it doesn't appear to be the case.

Just so we're clear, "morality" is simply a word we use to describe the body of thought that encompasses what we consider right and wrong (and we all have different ideas about that). It does not have built into the definition anything about its source. Morality is still morality whether it's divine or not.

We agree on what morality is. I don't agree with your use of the term "objectively". Because as stated above you are using it as a new universal standard, with out stating it as such.

[_Some Schmo]

Theist don't need to prove their source for it to be "other" or "unarbitrary". Your argument is that since Theists can't prove they have heard from an outside source, they are then simply in the same boat as Atheists, who rely solely on human sources. This is false for two reasons. One is because Atheists and Theists make different claims. Atheists claim their source is themselves, while Theists don't.

Well, theists can claim whatever they want, but it doesn't make it so.

If a person claims to get a message from a Ouija board, should we take that claim seriously when we can tell he's been pushing the little arrow around? How does his claim invalidate reality?

Two because there is evidence that those who are believers are persuaded by, which Atheists are not. So, just because Atheists are not persuaded by the same evidence (of the outside source) doesn't negate the evidence or the fact of the outside source.

No, but we can call into question the leap theists make from evidence to conclusions. You don't get to say the evidence proves whatever you want. I could say there are giant invisible worms living underground that are magnetic to everything causing loose objects to fall toward the earth (they aren't really falling so much as being sucked in by these giant invisible worms). That's what causes the illusion of gravity. There's plenty of evidence for that, right? Stuff always falls to the earth. That's my evidence!

Should you believe in my giant invisible worm hypothesis? If you don't, why aren't you persuaded by the evidence? You do realize that not acknowledging the evidence doesn't disprove my worm hypothesis, right? So should you take it seriously?

Let's say that a group of people hadn't ever felt what it was like to swim in water before. The "Awets" said to the "Wets", "It doesn't look like it's any different than not being wet to me, so I don't believe you, that there is a difference." The Wets could argue until they are blue in the face, that there is a difference, that the feeling of the water is so warm and all encompassing, but the Awets could still claim these were just assertions unsupported by evidence.

So, just because the Awets accuse the Wets of making false and unsupported assertions, doesn't negate their experience.

I would never call into question the power of one's spiritual experiences. Never. They felt what they felt (actually, I think it's more a case of remembering feeling something powerful, but I'll put that aside for now). The dispute is not over the power of the experience. The dispute is over the source of that experience.

I think if dreams or even pharmaceutically induced psychotic episodes are any indication, our brains have the capability to produce some very powerful experiences with very little help.

And your last comment assumes I've never felt powerful, transcendent experiences before. That's about as likely as a person never knowing what it's like to be wet.

True. Basically what I'm pointing out is that there is no universally applied standard of morality, which kind of puts a damper on there being a universal standard in the first place.

Wait. You are making a universally applied standard, which you are applying to Theists, which you are calling, "There is no universally applied standard..." In effect, an Amoral. Your application of it to all, universally is a fallacy which cannot be proven. In other words, I would say, "How can you prove there is no universally applied standard?"

Throwing me softballs now? (hehe)

This one is so simple. To prove there is no universally applied standard (of morality, remember), all we need do is find two individuals applying a different standard. That's it. Two people doing something different means the standard hasn't been applied universally. Elementary, my dear Watson.

I was a happy Atheist. I am not saying that Atheists aren't moral or happy or anything of the sort. All I'm saying is that Atheists haven't any absolute standard to say that anyone else is harming anyone else, based on their views alone.

But that just isn't true (well... depending on exactly what you mean by "absolute" in this context). As an atheist, I view the chopping off of others' heads to be harmful. Absolutely harmful, in fact. I don't need an external source to tell me it’s harmful. I just consider causing someone else's death harmful. I've seen how death causes family members grief, so I think I'm justified in saying, "The decapitator caused the family harm." Does anyone need a god to tell them that?

I could name hundreds of other acts that I consider harmful, and I think I'd be justified in calling them absolutely harmful.

False. I haven't endowed my creator with anything. If you wish to mis-read the biblical text, it can say anything you'd like.

Ah ha! Now we've finally gotten to the crux of it. You accuse me of misreading the Bible. Why is that? Could it be because my interpretation is different from yours? I am just as justified in telling you that you've misread the Bible as you are. And in the end, it doesn't matter one bit who's actually right and who's wrong. What matters is that our interpretations are different, and therefore, this mode of divine communication is shown to be highly faulty. So all we're left with is deciding what our own morality is, and for religious folks, reading the Bible in such a way as to support what they already have determined morality is.

I disagree. I follow the evidence right to back to God. Where did it all come from?

Wow. "I follow the evidence right to back to God?" Well there you have it. I'm not sure what you need evidence for if your destination is predetermined.

I was looking for a specific example of the information that was produced randomly.

Such as the complex information found wrapped up in the DNA that produces all the flora and fauna we see?

I thought you were talking about evolution, but I didn't want to assume.

Evolution is not random. The DNA was selected to reproduce based on its ability to adapt to the environment in which it found itself long enough to do so. How in the world is that random?

[_Hughes]

Wait. You are making a universally applied standard, which you are applying to Theists, which you are calling, "There is no universally applied standard..." In effect, an Amoral. Your application of it to all, universally is a fallacy which cannot be proven. In other words, I would say, "How can you prove there is no universally applied standard?"

Throwing me softballs now? (hehe)

This one is so simple. To prove there is no universally applied standard (of morality, remember), all we need do is find two individuals applying a different standard. That's it. Two people doing something different means the standard hasn't been applied universally. Elementary, my dear Watson.

So, then when your universal rule is applied to your own view that there is no universal standard it defeats it own purpose of trying to tell the Theist there is no universal standard.

In other words, by making the universal claim, that there are no universally applied standards, you've defeated your own argument. Which proves that there is in fact a universal standard, according to you, at least one.

I was a happy Atheist. I am not saying that Atheists aren't moral or happy or anything of the sort. All I'm saying is that Atheists haven't any absolute standard to say that anyone else is harming anyone else, based on their views alone.

But that just isn't true (well... depending on exactly what you mean by "absolute" in this context). As an atheist, I view the chopping off of others' heads to be harmful. Absolutely harmful, in fact. I don't need an external source to tell me it’s harmful. I just consider causing someone else's death harmful. I've seen how death causes family members grief, so I think I'm justified in saying, "The decapitator caused the family harm." Does anyone need a god to tell them that?

I could name hundreds of other acts that I consider harmful, and I think I'd be justified in calling them absolutely harmful.

After thinking about this for a while. I think I can shorten my reply with one question.

On what basis are you justified?

[_NorthboundZax]

Hughes, if two gods give you different moral standards (let's call them Jehovah and Lucifer just for fun) , how would you discriminate between which should be adhered to? If you view one as intrinsically more moral than the other, you must be supplying some secular standard to evaluate.