Moral responsibility.

by nicolaou 168 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Sea Breeze

  @TonusOH

  I didn't replace my presuppositions when I stopped believing in god. I dropped them. That means I have to admit that I don't have some of the answers, and I can't allow myself to cheat by making them up. But it also means I am not satisfied with accepting a starting point that I cannot determine is true.

  There is no neutral ground here TonusOH. Face it or suppress it. So far on this thread, I have tried to establish that atheists take for granted a number of things that can only be attributed to the God of the Bible. Things like logic, compassion, reasoning, saving a child from being hit by a train etc. are reflections of God. We ONLY make sense in a biblical worldview....because:

  God is immutable

  God is Love

  God is a Savior

  God is the author of reason and logic ("God cannot deny himself")

  This makes sense. And if not 100% proof, it is massively obvious that it is consistent.

  You simply cannot function without utilizing some or all of these attributes. That is why I say there is no middle ground here. If you deny the God of the bible, you must utilize one or more of these qualities to form an excuse to do so. Like I said before: It is like a man arguing against the existence of air, all the while breathing air to form his aguments. It is self defeating, illogical, and this view blows itself up under its own weight.

  To sumarize:
  
  Laws of reason and logic - Atheists have no basis to assume that laws of reason and logic are the same everywhere in a chance universe. They have no explanation of why or who brought such laws into existence. Maybe in Africa contradictions exist.... its a chance universe. Anything could happen right? Wrong, atheists believe in their immutability anyway, in spite of their professed chaotic, happenstance worldview.

  Objective Morality - In an evolutionary world there is no sound reason to save a child from getting hit by a train. His death shouldn't cause the slightest blip of regret in our failure to save him. Animals don't care outside of their group. We're just animals right? Furthermore, his death is supposed to be a good thing according to evolutionists becasue it supposedly increases the gene pool of those not inclined to carelessly run into speeding trains. His death, increases the food supply for those not so foolishly inclined....or so the story goes.
  
  But conversely, atheists do employ reason, logic and compassion in spite of their claimed worldview. This is inconsistent and is a very strong indicator of falsehood.
  
  So far on this thread, atheists have only offered three explanations:

  * conventions

  This doesn't explain anything because like driving on the right side of the road, a different convention of people could all decide to drive on the left side of the road. There is no immutability or consistency there to account for the atheists' acceptance and reliance on his god given attributes such as reason and objective morality.

  * descriptions

  Cofty offered something along the lines that these are just names or descriptions of how people treat each other or think.

  This is close to the truth because reason is a description of how God thinks. It is not a description of a chance universe populated by chemical reactions and DNA copying mistakes and unguided explosions. People all think differently, so logic can't be describing that. Sometimes I don't think correctly. That is why I need the logic from God to correct my thinking.

  * physiology

  Immutable laws of logic, morality and logic can't be just functions of the brain, because we all have different brain chemistry. Yet, in spite of the vast differences of brain function, chemistry and electrical impulses, the God given attributes of reason, logic, compassion, objective morality ARE UNIVERSAL and atheists accept and use them as such even though their worldview cannot account for them.... breathing air while claiming it doesn't exist. It makes no sense.

  On a personal note: Why would you replace a worldview that you believe you cannot sufficiently prove for one that is demonstratably inconsistent, and hence more than likely false?
• 

  cofty

  Oh dear we are back to presupposition BS.

  Nobody is buying it. I sent you a sincere PM last night to appeal for a more useful conversation, I see it made no difference.
• 

  nicolaou

  Does anyone remember the 70's TV miniseries Roots? It told the story of Kunta Kinte, an African man captured and sold into slavery, and of his descendants and their subsequent mistreatment on the road to freedom.

  I remember one scene where the author ,who is trying to discover his roots, is confonted by a racist who trys to 'educate' him saying that the intelligence clearly shown by this black man can only be accounted for by the fact that some of his ancestors were white (the rapist plantation owners).

  Sea Breeze and others employ a similar scurrilous tactic. Apparently, the only reason atheists have any morality is because of our ancestor/creator. Our Heavenly Father. God.

  Couldn't be that we've arrived at an ethical and moral outlook on our own.

  Sea Breeze in my opinion doesn't represent most Christians. He's unashamedly condescending, blind to his own arrogance and dismissive of established scientific discoveries because he knows better.

  He's the equivalent of the offensive, racist, dinosaur who just cannot accept reality. I won't be wasting my time on him.
• 

  littlerockguy

  The book in which the miniseries Roots was based on was a fabricated pile of bullshit.

  https://nypost.com/2002/01/16/the-celebrated-roots-of-a-lie/

  LRG
• 

  nicolaou

  My point remains valid even if that's true.
• 

  Simon

  It told the story of Kunta Kinte

  Wasn't his name Toby? ;)
  
• 

  TonusOH

  Sea Breeze: So far on this thread, I have tried to establish that atheists take for granted a number of things that can only be attributed to the God of the Bible.

  The problem is, you haven't established them. You have asserted them. Or you have drawn inferences from a book that also only makes assertions. In every other facet of your life, you reject this approach as facile and dishonest. But on the most profound issue you can face, you fall back on presuppositions and false dichotomy.

  I have expressed before, that I do not deny the possibility of a god existing. I am certain it isn't the one you think it is, or any kind of being that would be concerned with our well being. The universe supports this approach quite nicely, aside from the usual problem that no one can seem to find this being, or even detect its influence.

  Your god is not the personification of love, at least not love as humans recognize it. He is not a consistent actor, to use your term. We can logically arrive at the conclusion that this being will eventually damn all of creation over the course of eternity. He is given to anger, jealousy, and brutal action taken precipitously. He acts, curiously enough, like a human being. And his rules and attitude reflect the people who existed when these books were written. Logic tells me that these men created god, and not the other way around.

  I know you can't demonstrate god without relying on presupposition and gap-filling. I did that myself for many years and ultimately found it unsatisfying. I'd rather accept that there are things I don't know (and probably won't know) than to try to defend something that I can't explain. I don't have to make a choice between your god and a "chance universe", because those aren't the only two choices. And while it's fairly straightforward to show how your god doesn't make sense, I cannot demonstrate how a "chance universe" does or does not produce creatures of reason. Why would I presume to defend either approach?
• 

  Jehalapeno

  When I see threads after they get to be more than a couple pages, I don’t have time to read every single response, but here’s my take on the original hypothetical scenario.

  If I was in that situation and had full control of my faculties, I would bear moral responsibility for that child’s death.

  I can conceive of an average human freezing and failing to act similarly to how we sometimes freeze as a knocked glass of water wobbles before it spills. Sometimes, we freeze at moments we should act.

  However, an omnipotent all-powerful being failing to prevent the child from dying would be evil.
• 

  lriddle80

  What's good about this conversation is that, as far as the ones who participated in this conversation, if any kid looks to be in danger, we will be on the case!

  Also, I have read articles that say there is most likely another tsunami coming to that same area so, going forward, how will we be a part of the solution for those poor babies? Legislation? Charity funds, relocation? Adoption? Make it illegal to go to the beach...