Assessing The Logic Of The Atheists Claim The Bible Is Evil

[mike the wiz 1,210]

The logical error is that the atheist ASSUMES (begging-the-question) that his own morals are the, "correct" morals. The atheist "attacks" the bible from the assumption that the atheist has the correct knowledge of right and wrong. 

 

Whether the bible is or is not, "evil" or, "immoral", is not the topic, the topic is to assess the logic atheists use when they attack the bible. We shall leave the bible alone, and just look at the logic.

 

Here we have an atheist, that presumably is smart enough to realize that if atheism is true then one of the inescapable deductive implications of atheism is that objective morality has no basis. It is simply impossible that the universe could chaotically create itself for no reason and yet there is a "correct" morality, for to refute that all you would have to say is, "says who?" ..Think about it - there is no objective morality if atheism is true there would be no life after death, and no justice for victims of crime, etc...so how can there be right and wrong? If it objectively mattered, then justice would follow after death and there is no life after death with atheism, which means there is no justice therefore logically under atheism, it can't objectively exist for it would not "matter" to the universe.. Ergo, there cannot be right and wrong if God is not there. So then, for morality to actually mean something more than irrelevant opinion, first the atheist needs to be theist before he mounts his bible-attack, otherwise when he tells us the bible is, "wrong" he's giving us his subjective and irrelevant opinion, I can go and find five decent moral people who disagree with him. Who is to say they are wrong? All six opinions might as well be regarded as favourite flavours of ice-cream for all they would mean.

 

So when the atheist attacks the bible, they only do so from a position of personal-opinion. It is a fact that many agnostics would not agree with the atheists' cynical interpretations of the bible, or they may agree with SOME of the atheists morality but not all of it.

 

The point is - logically, which person is, "correct"? If people all subtly differ from one another and nobody fully agrees about morality, which person is, "correct"? Logically the answer is, "none".

 

So then logically if the world is atheist there is no such thing as immorality, ultimately so for it to really mean something God has to be there. 

 

It is simply logically impossible to attack the bible without having the, "correct" morality otherwise to refute an atheist that says the bible is evil, you literally just have to say two words; "I disagree". As soon as you say, "I disagree" then who is to say that the person that disagrees is not the person with the, "correct" morality? Why does the atheist assume their opinion is the correct one? (begging-the-question fallacy)

 

Deductively, there is no way around this problem - atheists attack the bible, but the morality they attack the bible with, has no root for they have not proven that "their" morality is the, "correct" morality. And if there is no "correct" morality as atheism implies, then why is the bible, "wrong"?

 

So my conclusion is that to even enter the debate you must first have morality exist, and it is clear that under atheism it is an illusion of the human imagination.

 

Yet it is clear that morality really does exist because we are aware of it. Just like by contrast we are aware that darkness exists because it contrasts with light. Could we discuss darkness if there was only light present in the universe? The way we know that immorality truly exists is because of morality. We know the two exist but if they didn't exist in some objective manner then like darkness, how could we talk about it? Nobody would have even been able to contemplate darkness unless it is firstly present to be contrasted by light. 

 

Therefore because humans usually have a higher knowledge than animals, it is highly reasonable to infer that morality is a higher knowledge. Would we say that a knowledge of language is false? Would we say that the laws of nature don't exist? No - we know that as humans we are capable of understanding things the animals can't understand, therefore why would we treat morality any differently? It is clear we have a knowledge of it, therefore it exists even if our moral compasses differ, for that is bound to happen if moral systems are unwittingly designed that the creator of them might sin and deem it moral.

 

We are so compelled by the conscience because we know right and wrong exists ERGO God must exist, for it is not possible that morality would exist in an atheist system and yet we are aware that it does exist, like we are aware that light and darkness exist.

[Calypsis4 640]

Mikethewiz:

 

So then, for morality to actually mean something more than irrelevant opinion, first the atheist needs to be theist before he mounts his bible-attack, otherwise when he tells us the bible is, "wrong" he's giving us his subjective and irrelevant opinion

 

 

Right on, Mike. If there is no Supreme Being then there is no ultimate and final authority about right vs wrong or good vs evil and all concepts of morality are purely arbitrary. In such circumstances the majority rules. But you see, this is precisely the reasoning of revolutionaries like Robespierre, Mirabeau, etc. during the French Revolution when they murdered the aristocracy and tens of thousands of heads were cut off and then later the same reasoning of Lenin/Stalin/Trotsky when they likewise murdered the nobility of Russia. Each of the latter were atheist/evolutionist/marxists that merely applied the doctrine of the survival of the fittest. Pol Pot (atheist/evolutionist/marxist) did the same thing to over a million of his own people in 1975. So at bottom line, that is what evolution does.

[mike the wiz 1,210]

Well said Cal'. Usually when we look at the Christians that genuinely follow the morality of the bible such as the fruit of the spirit, and base their morality on the bible, actually you get people like the Amish, with little to no crime rates but when the atheists feign moral-horror because we accept our bible, then they overlook that their non-Christian societies are a shambles, with high crime rates and all sorts of rotten fruit.

 

I like what David Pawson said about walking in the spirit - he said it is, "the freedom to not sin". 

 

Now that's freedom! But the atheists preach that indulging sin is the answer, and have the audacity to tell us that our morals are wrong.

 

So basically anything atheists say is fine, and morally right, simply because they say it is?   

 

.

[Fjuri 119]

...

 

So my conclusion is that to even enter the debate you must first have morality exist, and it is clear that under atheism it is an illusion of the human imagination.

 

Yet it is clear that morality really does exist because we are aware of it. Just like by contrast we are aware that darkness exists because it contrasts with light. Could we discuss darkness if there was only light present in the universe? The way we know that immorality truly exists is because of morality. We know the two exist but if they didn't exist in some objective manner then like darkness, how could we talk about it? Nobody would have even been able to contemplate darkness unless it is firstly present to be contrasted by light. 

 

Therefore because humans usually have a higher knowledge than animals, it is highly reasonable to infer that morality is a higher knowledge. Would we say that a knowledge of language is false? Would we say that the laws of nature don't exist? No - we know that as humans we are capable of understanding things the animals can't understand, therefore why would we treat morality any differently? It is clear we have a knowledge of it, therefore it exists even if our moral compasses differ, for that is bound to happen if moral systems are unwittingly designed that the creator of them might sin and deem it moral.

 

We are so compelled by the conscience because we know right and wrong exists ERGO God must exist, for it is not possible that morality would exist in an atheist system and yet we are aware that it does exist, like we are aware that light and darkness exist.

 

So what is morality in an atheism system according to you?

- an illusion

- non existent

Those 2 options are not the same. I would add the following option:

- preferences for certain actions which help in sustaining the species, these preferences can be genetic or cultural.

 

Can we agree to have a different moral code? For example: I do not find putting a belief and worship of a deity before my family a moral thing to do, while you might. Can we both be moral while at the same time have different moral codes?

[mike the wiz 1,210]

Hi Fjuri.

 

My argument is that in an atheist universe, there is no ultimate morality. There is no "correct" set of morals.

 

To highlight my point, imagine three atheists read/quote-mined, the bible. The first atheist was vegetarian, and said the bible is morally wrong because of animal sacrifice. The second atheist says that the bible is NOT morally wrong for animal sacrifice because he is not vegetarian. The third atheist says that the bible is morally wrong because it of what it says about a G*y lifestyle, but the first two atheists don't think it is morally wrong about those parts.

 

So then, what can we deduce from this? Logically we can 100% deductively prove that it is totally irrelevant to judge the bible based on your own set of morals because why is your set the "correct" set, therefore logically you can never soundly come to the conclusion that the bible is morally wrong, if you are atheist, because the bible can't be, "wrong" if there is no such thing as "wrong". If morality is only opinion then I just have to say to all of your opinions about the bible, "I disagree". 

 

 

 

Fjuri: Can we both be moral while at the same time have different moral codes?

 

Yes we can be, "moral" but the problem is that your morality isn't in line with righteousness, which means your moral code can cater for sin.

 

If you are an atheist you don't really think it is wrong to murder someone because how can it be wrong, when there is no such thing in an atheist universe? If it really is wrong to murder then there will be justice after death, but atheism says there is no life after death, and since there is no justice while alive, then how can morality "matter"? It can't - under atheism when someone murders someone, it would just be two bodies of particles colliding, like if two rocks hit each other. Under atheism, because we are only evolved chemicals, one body of chemicals hitting another body of chemicals is not, "wrong" under that philosophy, but rather it just is.

 

How can you not see these are the obvious logical implications of atheism? So then, do you think murder is actually, TRULY wrong? If you do then you are not really an atheist because you are saying that it is objectively wrong. If you are atheist then you have to believe it is not objectively wrong, which means that deep down you don't believe murder is wrong, therefore your morality is a shambles and a falsehood which you don't really believe yourself.

 

Personally I think atheists do know that it really is genuinely wrong to murder, which means that atheism cannot be true.

[Fjuri 119]

My argument is that in an atheist universe, there is no ultimate morality. There is no "correct" set of morals.

 

I completely agree with you. There is no ultimate morality from an atheist perspective. There is subjective morality though.

 

To highlight my point, imagine three atheists read/quote-mined, the bible. The first atheist was vegetarian, and said the bible is morally wrong because of animal sacrifice. The second atheist says that the bible is NOT morally wrong for animal sacrifice because he is not vegetarian. The third atheist says that the bible is morally wrong because it of what it says about a G*y lifestyle, but the first two atheists don't think it is morally wrong about those parts.

 

So then, what can we deduce from this? Logically we can 100% deductively prove that it is totally irrelevant to judge the bible based on your own set of morals because why is your set the "correct" set, therefore logically you can never soundly come to the conclusion that the bible is morally wrong, if you are atheist, because the bible can't be, "wrong" if there is no such thing as "wrong". If morality is only opinion then I just have to say to all of your opinions about the bible, "I disagree". 

 

In agreement again. In order to judge characters from the bible, let us look for internal consistency. Since this topic isn't about the specifics, I'll not go into detail. 

To make myself more clearly without going into detail:

If, within the bible, a certain act is described as evil and God commits that act on another part, we can make a judgement with regard to His character.

 

Yes we can be, "moral" but the problem is that your morality isn't in line with righteousness, which means your moral code can cater for sin.

 

We can cater for sin, correct. The fact that people can be indoctrinated into a different moral code shows that our view on morality is correct.

I'd like to add that our morality is the same, either you are correct and our morality is created by God, or I am correct and it is a product of genetics and culture.

 

If you are an atheist you don't really think it is wrong to murder someone because how can it be wrong, when there is no such thing in an atheist universe? If it really is wrong to murder then there will be justice after death, but atheism says there is no life after death, and since there is no justice while alive, then how can morality "matter"? It can't - under atheism when someone murders someone, it would just be two bodies of particles colliding, like if two rocks hit each other. Under atheism, because we are only evolved chemicals, one body of chemicals hitting another body of chemicals is not, "wrong" under that philosophy, but rather it just is.

 

You're saying that because a materialist believe we are nothing but bodies of particles, it is impossible for him to have attachments to specific bodies of particles?

 

How can you not see these are the obvious logical implications of atheism? So then, do you think murder is actually, TRULY wrong? If you do then you are not really an atheist because you are saying that it is objectively wrong. If you are atheist then you have to believe it is not objectively wrong, which means that deep down you don't believe murder is wrong, therefore your morality is a shambles and a falsehood which you don't really believe yourself.

 

Nope, not at all.

First of all, you'll have to convince me of the existence of "TRULY wrong" and "TRULY right".

Secondly, my moral standard doesn't have to be the absolute objective moral standard. I readily accept other having a different moral standard as long as it doesn't interfere too much with my own.

 

Personally I think atheists do know that it really is genuinely wrong to murder, which means that atheism cannot be true.

 

As I've stated in my previous reply, the basis of our morality are preferences for certain actions which help in sustaining the species, these preferences can be genetic and/or cultural. 

[mike the wiz 1,210]

 

 

Fjuri: If, within the bible, a certain act is described as evil and God commits that act on another part, we can make a judgement with regard to His character.

 

This is not logically correct. The bible does not say that the rules that apply to men, apply to God. Moreover, that would be an absurd position to take. Nobody can possibly be serious when they say that God can't do something that men can't do.

 

It is impossible for God to sin, such as lying, but only God has the right to take life for example, because He is God and He created all life. To say the rule would apply to Him and He is a murderer, would be perhaps one of the silliest arguments EVER. It would be like saying that the judge can be in contempt of court if he speaks without permission. Without who's permission? Only His own.

 

God only has His own permission because He is the greatest authority, which is why the bible states; "for when God made a promise to Abraham, because He could swear by no-one greater, He swore by Himself".(paraphrase)

 

You are in the absurd position of believing that God answers to atheist morality, making the puny atheist "god". He is not - and you and everyone else will stand before God and be answerable to Him, and you will be silent.

[Fjuri 119]

This is not logically correct. The bible does not say that the rules that apply to men, apply to God. Moreover, that would be an absurd position to take. Nobody can possibly be serious when they say that God can't do something that men can't do.

 

There is something as leading by example. 

But I did not state that God should be judged by the same laws he supposedly has set for us. I stated that we can.

 

It is impossible for God to sin, such as lying, but only God has the right to take life for example, because He is God and He created all life. To say the rule would apply to Him and He is a murderer, would be perhaps one of the silliest arguments EVER. It would be like saying that the judge can be in contempt of court if he speaks without permission. Without who's permission? Only His own.

 

God only has His own permission because He is the greatest authority, which is why the bible states; "for when God made a promise to Abraham, because He could swear by no-one greater, He swore by Himself".(paraphrase)

 

I did not dispute any of this, did I?