Monday, May 28, 2012

A Syllogistic Argument Against Abortion

I have stolen this article in its entirety from the blog, Scientiam Dei:
Here is Francis J. Beckwith's pro-life syllogism:

The unborn entity, from the moment of conception, is a full-fledged member of the human community*.

It is prima facie morally wrong to kill any member of that community.

Every successful abortion kills an unborn entity, a full-fledged member of the human community.

Therefore, every successful abortion is prima facie morally wrong.¹


*Support for Premise 1.



¹ Found in: Scott Klusendorf, The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2009) p. 29. Originally from: Francis J. Beckwith, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007).

To deny that every human - every human - went through the prenatal stages of human life including the division of cells and all embryo stages can be seen as nothing short of dishonest. To claim the moral authority to determine which stage of human life they think is acceptable to kill is an onerous claim. The idea that Atheism is more empathetic is absurd, unless the value of human life is discounted in advance, and the Atheist is elevated beyond his actual position as just another human, not a moral judge or determinor of life and death for other innocent humans.

No excuse can defeat the fact that human life always starts with cell division and that killing those cells kills a human life at that particular stage. This is not defeated by any appeal to the condition of the mother, the ability of the embryo to feel pain, or any other rationalized permission to kill the human at that stage, and only in a triage situation can such decisions be made which would kill the embryo or mother with moral impunity.

The much vaunted Atheist "empathy" has not been extended to the more than 50,000,000 humans killed by abortion in the United States.

45 comments:

++SloMo++ said...

On one hand I disagree with some of the premises but on the other hand it's good to see that you believe all war and capital punishments are morally wrong.

TKK said...

What about self-defense? Is it still prima facie morally wrong to kill any human being?

And although you have some people giving their opinion that a fertilized egg is a human, I don't think you've proven that.

Stan said...

sloMo and TKK
I do think that initiating murder and mayhem is wrong, and I long ago changed my stance on capital punishment. But if an embryo can fight back, I think it should, and hopefully win.

The opinions given are not proofs; but then I don't hear any counter proofs that embryos are not valid stages of human development.

Nor do I hear any defense for presuming the moral authority to declare death for another individual at any stage of human development.

M Andrews said...

It may be helpful to define prima facie for these folks: "A prima facie obligation is one that must be fulfilled unless it conflicts, on a particular occasion, with an equal or stronger obligation. This type of obligation is always binding unless a competing moral obligation outweighs it in a particular circumstance. Some acts are at once prima facie wrong and prima facie right, because two or more norms conflict in the circumstances. Agents must then determine what they ought to do by finding an actual or overriding (in contrast to prima facie) obligation. . . .What agents ought to do is, in the end, determined by what they ought to do all things considered" (Beauchamp, Tom L. and James F. Childress, Principles of Biomedical Ethics, Oxford University Press: New York, 2009; p. 15).

Unknown said...

Abortion is a really difficult one. I haven't ever really written upon it because I feel I have not read into it enough to form a proper opinion upon it.

Though I would dispute Mister Beckwith's syllogism because I feel he's being a little disingenuous.

An 'unborn entity', to use his term, is not a full-fledged member of the human race at conception. It has no mind, no nervous system, no properly-formed body. It is not aware, not conscious in the sense that you and I would understand the word to mean.

It has the capacity for all these things, however.

Does that mean that all life need be preserved? I don't know. Like I said this is a topic I am not familiar with enough in order to say which side of the fence I am on. However, I would also dispute Mister Beckwith's syllogism when he says "every successful abortion is prima facie morally wrong". What of instances such as rape? Or when an attempted child-birth will kill both the mother and child? What of the recent case of the nine year-old rape victim in Brazil, who would likely have died in labour were it not for the doctors who saved her life by performing an abortion?

Abortion is an intensely complex issue. The decisions that lead people to considering such an operation must be extremely painful and difficult to live through, and I can but sympathise with those who must face such a choice.

But I do feel that Mister Beckwith is letting his personal opinions blind him to scientific facts and to the complexity of such an issue. Whether that means he's wrong or not I am not able to say, though it does make me doubt some of his other assertions.

D. A. N. said...

Stan,

I am going to have to leapfrog this one. Too important not to.

Blessings,
Dan

Stan said...

Ockham's Razorboy
"An 'unborn entity', to use his term, is not a full-fledged member of the human race at conception. It has no mind, no nervous system, no properly-formed body. It is not aware, not conscious in the sense that you and I would understand the word to mean."

Under what universal law are you given the right to decide which characteristics define whether or not I am a human, worthy of not murdering?

"What of instances such as rape?"

Does rape make the new human (innocent, by the way) pay the price of death for the crime of his father?

"Or when an attempted child-birth will kill both the mother and child? What of the recent case of the nine year-old rape victim in Brazil, who would likely have died in labour were it not for the doctors who saved her life by performing an abortion?

This is triage, the unfortunate decision being forced to decide between two lives, and which to save. This is not voluntary, willfull killing.

"Abortion is an intensely complex issue. The decisions that lead people to considering such an operation must be extremely painful and difficult to live through, and I can but sympathise with those who must face such a choice."

It seems complex to those who presuppose the right to decide which other humans can be killed.

It is the right to kill that is the question here. Pro-death supporters presuppose that they have the right to kill, if they define other humans as subhuman. This goes back to the racist, sexist mindset which defines who is human and who is not.

ProLife declares that no one has the right to kill another human regardless of its status of race, sex, or position in the cycle of human development.

When that right is taken on, the slippery slope has been entered; there remains no limit to redefining people into subhuman categories, because it has become totally subjective and dictated by whim or prejudice.

Stan said...

D.A.N.
I'm not sure what you mean...

D. A. N. said...

>>I'm not sure what you mean...

I just mean't I am going to borrow this post also. Playing leapfrog to the post. Sorry if it was unclear, here I thought I was being witty. Silly me.

Anyway, I re-posted it: Pro-Life Syllogism

Stan said...

Oh, of course... It just whooshed right past me. Shoulda been obvious.

Reynold said...

The unborn entity, from the moment of conception, is a full-fledged member of the human community*.

It is prima facie morally wrong to kill any member of that community.

Unless god orders it, eh?

Then it's ok.

Right....

cyrus said...

Hello Stan , I think you should also check this article which is about after-birth abortion . Actually if we accept pro-choice arguments as valid this article makes sense in its own context.

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full

Stan said...

Reynold,
The most glaring non-coherence is the Atheist making a moral judgment. Atheism gives no moral guidance whatsoever. Under what system of morals is he judging God and using the term "obscenity"? What, in fact, constitutes "obscene" in the personal moral system of Thenderf00t? And further, who cares? Thunderf00t has zero moral authority. ZERO.

Further, he has actually zero evidence to demonstrate whether there actually is a creating deity or not: not a single piece of physical evidence. So as far as he actually knows, there might be such a deity. Thus the pretension of having moral authority to judge such a being is absurd and without any logical weight or truth value whatsoever.

Being without any value, yet being presented as having value, then the presentation is fraudulent, and Thunderf00t is a perpetrator of fraud.

Stan said...

Cyrus,
Thanks very much for the pointer.

godless said...

Stan, what is moral authority?

Stan said...

Arthur Leff wrote an outstanding description in a book review which is now published at yale.edu. Read that and then we can discuss it.

godless said...

Okay I read it. Feel free to discuss.

Stan said...

If you object to it, which part and why?

godless said...

I don't think it answers the question.

It seems like you equate no ultimate moral authority with no moral authority. That without grounding morality in god, the questions are just too complex. The answers too elusive. That there can be no possible morality.

But that seems ridiculous so I'll ask you to clarify.

Stan said...

I suspect that we have yet another definitional problem here. I suspect that the problem is in the definition of morality or morals.

Dictionary definition:

moral, a., Relating to, dealing with, or capable of making the distinction between right and wrong in conduct.

moral, n. , (pl) principles and practice regarding right, wrong and duty; etc.

Either right or wrong exist or they do not exist. Under Atheism there is no objective right or wrong; it is only subjective or non-existent. Who then has the authority to make the distinction between right and wrong? Atheists can’t under their own theory of rejection. In fact, many Atheists claim (a la’ Nietzsche) that right and wrong do not and cannot exist.

And Theists can’t under their understanding of deity. That leaves no human with the actual requisite components to assert moral authority.

The authority comes with the ability to enforce “moral” behaviors with consequences. The only way that an Atheist (or any human) can do that is with totalitarian power over all of the humans he wishes to make “moral”, under his personal, relativist declaration of morality/consequences. Even Atheists reject this orally while simultaneously making moral statements through such venues as Virtue Ethics, Desire Ethics, Utilitarianism in all its forms, Consequentialism, Humanism in all its forms, and other Atheist-related moral denominations which infest Atheists just outside of Atheism. These Atheo-moralists attempt to assert moral hegemony short of physical hegemony (except for the first Humanist Manifesto).

So Atheists cannot dictate any issue surrounding “right or wrong” since they do not recognize any such thing except as a subjective concept. And they cannot dictate in the sense of hegemony of consequences unless they assert physical dictatorship and totalitarianism.

Under Atheism, there is neither a non-subjective set of moral principles, nor is there the physical dictatorship to enforce behaviors with consequences.

This is the reason that an Atheist who is producing moral criticism of any human or any deity is producing an argument which is irrational and without force or merit of any kind: Atheism produces neither the moral component nor the authority component of “moral authority”.

Reynold said...

Stan
Reynold,
The most glaring non-coherence is the Atheist making a moral judgment. Atheism gives no moral guidance whatsoever.


Probably because atheism is not a religion?

All it means is that we are on our own to figure out a moral code that we can live by since we don't figure there's any "god" out there to tell us.


At least we're not trying to to be as contradictory as your system is. (ex. this "pro-life" position of yours)


Under what system of morals is he judging God and using the term "obscenity"?

How's about the the so-called "pro-life position that you people pretend to hold?

You know, the syllogism posted at the start of your post?

The unborn entity, from the moment of conception, is a full-fledged member of the human community*.

It is prima facie morally wrong to kill any member of that community.


Come on! If it's prima facie"morally wrong" to "kill ANY member of that community" then WHY IS IT OK for biblegod to do it?

And it's OUR view that you say is "non-coherent"?



Stan
What in fact, constitutes "obscene" in the personal moral system of Thenderf00t?
And further, who cares? Thunderf00t has zero moral authority. ZERO


The word of someone who actually cares about human life has "ZERO moral authority"?

Yet the being who acitvely orders babies and pregnant women killed has ALL the "moral authority"?

Yet another case I suspect, of a
person who only accepts what's right or wrong only by what his holy book tells him.


According to you then, any reason that atheists will give for acting moral (empathy, consequences for indiviuals and society, societal survival, wanting to see our family and friends be able to get along in a safe society, etc) will likely not be accepted.


If so, then we'll have another case of a xian who, in rambling about the atheists' supposed lack of "objective morality" while claiming that biblegod is the only "moral authority" has revealed that your so-called "morality" is that of a child who knows his parent is watching him, or perhaps that of a sociopath who knows that he'll be caught if he tries something.

Which is truly more moral?

Stan digs himself in further with this, referring to the Thunderfoot video I linked to:
Further, he has actually zero evidence to demonstrate whether there actually is a creating deity or not: not a single piece of physical evidence.

Uh...so doesn't that kind of give your side trouble here? Have you just said that you're actually "agnostic" as opposed to
an actual xian?

I doubt it. I guess Stan's not heard of hypothetical arguments.


Stan
So as far as he actually knows, there might be such a deity. Thus the pretension of having moral authority to judge such a being is
absurd and without any logical weight or truth value whatsoever.


So much for being able to follow Matthew 5:48 if we can't judge how "perfect" your god is. In fact, how can you people say that your god is "good" "perfect" or "holy" unless some kind of judgement IS made?


Besides, it's your side Stan, that's flying against logic here, specifically that syllogism at the top of your own post.

Plus, Pascal's Wager appears in there too.

Reynold said...

Stan says here:
(May 29, 2012 10:25 AM )

When that right is taken on, the slippery slope has been entered; there remains no limit to redefining people into subhuman categories, because it has become totally subjective and dictated by whim or prejudice.


You people have subjective morality. If your god says to kill babies, then it's OK. If he says not to, it's not ok.


If your so-called "pro-life' stance was truly based on "objective morality", then you'd say that killing babies is wrong, period. No matter who says it is.

And you complain about atheists having "subjective morality"?

Stan said...

”Probably because atheism is not a religion?

All it means is that we are on our own to figure out a moral code that we can live by since we don't figure there's any "god" out there to tell us.:


Atheism is exactly a stance taken on religious issues: it has nothing other than religious content. And it has all the characteristics associated with religions.



What you intend is to demonstrate that the rules God makes (assuming that there is a god, of course) must apply to God. The rules which parents make for their children do not apply to the parents, or the parents would be required to go to bed at 8 pm, to keep the TV off of certain channels, to stay in the back yard, etc.

There is no logic, no place in theism which makes the claim that rules made for man apply to the rule maker; that claim is made up by Atheists and is a Straw Man.

” How's about the the so-called "pro-life position that you people pretend to hold?”

No pretense.

You know, the syllogism posted at the start of your post?

The unborn entity, from the moment of conception, is a full-fledged member of the human community*.

It is prima facie morally wrong to kill any member of that community.

Come on! If it's prima facie"morally wrong" to "kill ANY member of that community" then WHY IS IT OK for biblegod to do it? “


The Atheist position is that we are accidental animals. With this understanding, killing is no problem; in fact is part of selection. But Atheists become absolutely incensed with a deity which performs selections on his own creations. Atheists have no grounds for moral complaints; their false moral-esque complaints are irrational because they try to compare the deity’s existence to human existence, but the comparison is impossible and yes, non-coherent: It does not follow that when A creates B, the rules for B must necessarily apply to A.

”And it's OUR view that you say is "non-coherent"?”

In the case of dictating the moral value of other human beings at any stage of their development, Atheists have no moral authority to do so; Atheists have no moral theory under Atheism so their moral theory is purely home-made, volatile and merely an opinion; Atheists express ageism prejudice and personhood prejudice against other humans; Atheists demonstrate their complete lack of empathy for certain humans at certain points in their development. Yet Atheists also claim moral superiority.

” The word of someone who actually cares about human life has "ZERO moral authority"? “

Bullshit. You and everyone started at the stages of human development that abortionists willingly kill, so “caring about human life” is highly selective for the Right To Kill folks. And moral authority is not from derived from “caring” about something. Especially when the “caring” is selective about who to care about.
(continued)

Stan said...

”Yet the being who acitvely orders babies and pregnant women killed has ALL the "moral authority"?”

Show otherwise. Demonstrate that you or any Atheist has the moral authority to kill whoever you decide to be less than a person, less than human, less than productive, or any other criteria which you choose. In fact, demonstrate that your non-existent Atheist morality actually cares about any of the things which you are so horrified about, much less qualifies you or any Atheist to dictate morality to anyone else. Then demonstrate how evolution would handle things in a moral fashion.

”Yet another case I suspect, of a
person who only accepts what's right or wrong only by what his holy book tells him.”


As opposed to having absolutely no morality via Atheism, and making up your faux morality to your taste, of course. Atheism has no principles against killing anyone, because it has no principles at all. So an Atheist complaining about the principles of others is an internal contradiction, being based on no principles. Atheists killed roughly 250,000,000 people in the last 100 years, including all ages, sexes, status of pregnancy, etc. Not even counting the 50,000,000 humans eradicated via abortion in the USA alone. Atheists not only have no moral basis from which to complain, they also have a moral history which negates their faux “moral” complaints.

” According to you then, any reason that atheists will give for acting moral (empathy, consequences for indiviuals and society, societal survival, wanting to see our family and friends be able to get along in a safe society, etc) will likely not be accepted.”

What is not accepted is the Atheist presupposition that they can dictate their opinions to anyone else. The item list you mention is not a list of moral behaviors, it is a list of situations and objectives which you deem to be ideal, perhaps utopian, and which are not the same as restricting one’s behaviors to traits which build character and avoid harm to others. Since they do not describe behaviors there is no reason to accept them under the mantle of “morals”.

” If so, then we'll have another case of a xian who, in rambling about the atheists' supposed lack of "objective morality" while claiming that biblegod is the only "moral authority" has revealed that your so-called "morality" is that of a child who knows his parent is watching him, or perhaps that of a sociopath who knows that he'll be caught if he tries something”

False. That fear is the fear which Atheists feel and reject as if the moral authority and consequences do not exist. There is nothing in Basic Theism which projects the need to fear the basic existence of a creating agent with the capability of interfacing with its creation. Further, there is nothing in Christianity which suggests that Christians should feel that fear. Atheists feel that fear because they know that it applies to them and only them. That in no way negates the non-physical existence in question; it merely makes it objectionable to those whom it affects negatively.

Attacking the morality of a deity from a position which contains no morality is non-coherent.

And attacking the morality of a deity from a position which recognizes any and all behaviors as moral (except deity morals) also is non-coherent.

Further, attacking an existing deity is pure folly, while attacking a non-existent, fictional deity is just literary criticism made in absence of literary knowledge. No Atheist attack on the morality of a deity has any grounding, merit or substance and is empty of meaning.

Stan said...

” Stan digs himself in further with this, referring to the Thunderfoot video I linked to:
Further, he has actually zero evidence to demonstrate whether there actually is a creating deity or not: not a single piece of physical evidence.

Uh...so doesn't that kind of give your side trouble here? Have you just said that you're actually "agnostic" as opposed to
an actual xian?

I doubt it. I guess Stan's not heard of hypothetical arguments.”


This is the standard Atheist default position of Philosophical Materialism and Scientism, which presumes that one cannot have any knowledge which is not physical, material and tangible, a presumption it cannot prove itself (internally contradictory). In fact the last comment seems to go counter to the assertion, if by “hypothetical arguments” it is meant deductive arguments, which provide knowledge outside of the realm of Scientism. Contradictory.

The requirement for physical evidence is an Atheist requirement: but thunderf00t cannot fulfill that basic requirement for knowledge under his own Atheism: rational, logical failure. It is not my requirement, it is the requirement of Atheist Philosophical Materialism/Scientism and it can’t be applied to any position other than Atheism.

” So much for being able to follow Matthew 5:48 if we can't judge how "perfect" your god is. In fact, how can you people say that your god is "good" "perfect" or "holy" unless some kind of judgement IS made?”

As with all Atheist attempts at biblical exegesis, the verse actually not only does not provide a case for the Atheist, it argues against his case. Matthew 5:48 is preceded with a discussion of love; the verse is referring to attempting to show perfect love. No judgment is necessary. What is necessary is to read the entire context for the appropriate meaning, rather than quote mining for the bumper sticker level of logic.

” Besides, it's your side Stan, that's flying against logic here, specifically that syllogism at the top of your own post.”

This merely demonstrates that you make no distinction between the reality which exists and applies to humans vs. the different reality which exists and applies to a deity. That is your error.

Stan said...

” You people have subjective morality. If your god says to kill babies, then it's OK. If he says not to, it's not ok.”

Assuming that it is truly immoral to do what an actual deity commands as you assert, it still is not subjective, contrary to your assertion. And the assertion that it is immoral to do what an actual deity commands is absurd.

If a deity exists and gives commands for specific actions, then obeying the commands would be a practical response. If specific commands are counter to moral commands for normal behavior, the moral commands would naturally be temporarily rescinded with the specific commands taking precedence. That hardly reflects on the original moral commands or on the morality of the moral authority which has the authority to do it.

However, to do what an actual deity commands is immoral only to those without a system of moral standards, who object on the basis of no moral standard system whatsoever; therein is the internal contradiction of Atheist moral complaints. Again, under Atheism there is no injunction against killing anyone, so the complaint is without merit under Atheism.

” If your so-called "pro-life' stance was truly based on "objective morality", then you'd say that killing babies is wrong, period. No matter who says it is.”

No one here claimed “objective morality”. What was claimed was actual moral authority vs. subjective morality without moral authority or moral standards. You have presumed an argument which is not present and so your complaint against it is without merit.

” And you complain about atheists having "subjective morality"?”

I point out the obvious “subjective morality” and “no morality” and subjective logic and other things which contribute to Atheism’s theft of rationality.

godless said...

"It seems like you equate no ultimate moral authority with no moral authority. "

I nailed it.

Try and wrap your head around this crazy concept.

People can be morally responsible without god. Acting morally responsible grants legitimacy as a moral authority.

Might does not make right. Just because "god" says it is okay to kill babies, does not make it right.

Placing all the moral responsibility and authority on god is an ABDICATION of morality.

"Further, there is nothing in Christianity which suggests that Christians should feel that fear. "

Read your bible.
http://www.feargod.net/verses.php
And spare me the inevitable out of context bullshit.

The rules which parents make for their children do not apply to the parents, or the parents would be required to go to bed at 8 pm, to keep the TV off of certain channels, to stay in the back yard, etc.

Staying up late is a moral action now? How about when parents tell their children not to fucking murder people, they should set a good example by not fucking murdering people.

And take an Ethics 101 class. I can't believe people actually think like this. It's terrifying. You really would murder your children if you thought god told you to. Wouldn't you?

If god himself appeared and commanded me with all the authority of heaven to murder my child I'd tell him to go fuck himself and happily rot in hell for eternity.

Oh and your objection that there is no morality under atheism is demented. There is no morality under mathematics either. Does this delegitimization mathematics? I can't believe I thought you were actually a reasonable person.

You've torn the skin off reason, tossed it from the window and pissed on its corpse. And now you are prancing around in its hide. Look at me, look at me, I embrace REASON.

Stan said...

"People can be morally responsible without god."

People cannot even define moral responsibility under Atheism. They have to make something up, or get a theory that someone else made up. They can co-opt Christianity or Buddhism, if that is their taste. Only then can they behave according to a system of behaviors. Atheism has no system of behaviors attached to it, so the Atheist is free to take on any so-called morality which is compatible with his desires, and then call himself "good", because his behaviors match his moral system which was chosen to match his behaviors; or, he can choose no morality at all (the Dahmer approach, based on evolution).

Moral authority includes the ability to enforce consequences for non-compliant behavior. Just behaving according to your personal code does not in any sense confer moral authority.

"Might does not make right. Just because "god" says it is okay to kill babies, does not make it right."

Your declarations have absolutely no authority to say otherwise.

"Placing all the moral responsibility and authority on god is an ABDICATION of morality."

Your definition of morality is outside the meaning. You think that what you decide is right is right because you think so. That's how you get the presumption that you can judge the morality of a deity: you are better than a deity yourself.

"And take an Ethics 101 class. I can't believe people actually think like this. It's terrifying."

Yes, an ethics class produces moral authority to decide who lives or dies, and presumes the eliteness and godlike capacity to decide the fates of other people.

"You really would murder your children if you thought god told you to. Wouldn't you?"

That's an odd concern from the rabid supporter of killing human progeny via abortion - which happens every second of every day.

My position here is the logical defense of a position which you abortionists attack despite your own blood drenched "ethical" theories. You have no idea of my personal ethics.
(continued)

Stan said...

"Acting morally responsible grants legitimacy as a moral authority."

(a) Atheism conveys no morals;

(b) Atheists have no definition of moral behavior;

(c) Atheists cannot demonstrate moral behavior because they have no definition of moral behavior.

(d) Atheists cannot claim moral authority based on moral behavior which they cannot demonstrate.

"If god himself appeared and commanded me with all the authority of heaven to murder my child I'd tell him to go fuck himself and happily rot in hell for eternity."

So now you are against abortion? What about Atheists who promote post-natal abortion? Your self-righteousness is highly selective and transparently false.

"Oh and your objection that there is no morality under atheism is demented. There is no morality under mathematics either. Does this delegitimization mathematics? I can't believe I thought you were actually a reasonable person."

Is Atheism comparable to mathematics now? If so, what are your axioms? And this is definitely a claim in support of Atheists not having morals produced by their Atheism.

And you seem to make a claim (in a backdoor sort of way) which you cannot support, scientifically, to wit: Atheism has a morality attached to it. In all our conversations you have never claimed a specific ethic or morality by name; now you appear to have the "Atheist Morality". How is morality derived from Atheism and what exactly does the Atheist Morality believe to be moral? Only scientific knowledge is acceptable here of course.
(continued)

Stan said...

"You've torn the skin off reason, tossed it from the window and pissed on its corpse. And now you are prancing around in its hide. Look at me, look at me, I embrace REASON."

Very emotionally stated, especially considering your failures to refute any of the logic failures of your own arguments. (Denying the errors is not the same as refuting them).

Actually, reason involves not using fallacies in your structured, valid deductions which are axiomatically grounded. This has been pointed out, and you ignore it. You consistently fail that.

You claim that only science produces knowldege. But you cannot prove that using science. So you then say that you only "care about" tangible results and nothing else. That is Scientism and it goes against reason. To top off the failure of your Scientism, you produce no science for support of your case, and most glaringly do not even argue the Atheist position which rejects god(s) outright. No science at all, no data, no experiments, no objective physical analysis.

You do not refute your fallacies, but you merely deny them. You ignore logic-based counter arguments and charge that they are "stonewalling", without addressing their substance.

You are not able to provide science for Henson's arguments, which are actually deductions made fallaciously and not science themselves. You ignore that Henson's moral argument is made without any reference to a moral theory as a foundation. And you think Henson's argument is "rock solid".

You have been provided a description of the deduced non-physical agent; you ignore that, over and over and over; you have no case against it, and you won't even acknowldge it.

No, you do not subscribe to reason; you subscribe to the dogma of Atheism, which is founded not on science but on rejectionist opinion, and false philosophical theories. Your opinion is not reason if it cannot withstand the rational analysis which reason demands. The philosophical theories do not withstand rational analysis, and that has been demonstrated and you have refused the rational analysis.

If you have a case which can withstand rational analysis, then you have not presented it here. Feel free to do so, but expect that it will be subjected to rational analysis under the known principles of logic and rational thought. If you want your case to be merely accepted without critical analysis, then you would be better off at a pro-Atheism site. You might try the humanists; they buy anything which goes against god(s).

Reynold said...

Stan
The word of someone who actually cares about human life has "ZERO moral authority"?
Bullshit. You and everyone started at the stages of human development that abortionists willingly kill, so “caring about human life” is highly selective for the Right To Kill folks.
Look who's talking: See below
And moral authority is not from derived from “caring” about something.
What is it derived from then? Some being who forces rules on us that he doesn't even bother to obey himsel?

Even when he does things that he commands us NOT to do? Ex) kill?

So you people get your moral authority from a essentially an amoral hypocrite?
Especially when the “caring” is selective about who to care about.
Sorry, you owe me for a new "Moral hypocrite" detector. All that talk about selective value yet it's people like you and William Craig who see no problem in babies being killed...it just depends on who's ordering it.

As I said: You people have Subjective morality. By the way, actual abortionists just don't believe that one is a full-fledged human being at conception. I mean, up to a point there's not even any blood or nervous system to feel pain. But when it comes to killing babies already born, even they will say "Hands off". Unlike theists like you and Craig.

Stan
Atheists have no moral theory under Atheism so their moral theory is purely home-made, volatile and merely an opinion;...
I said that humanity has to make up our own rules for getting along...what's wrong with that? As I said: We are not a religion. We don't have any dogma that we are bound to; no "holy book" to blindly follow, no unquestioned high priests, no rituals, etc. That link you gave...nothing but rants and strawmen.

It was interesting that you believe that people who are ordered by god to be "generous" and are promised rewards in heaven are more "moral" than those who give without such orders.

There, and here, once again a theist shows that his morality is that of a child who has to be told what to do; has to be told what's right or wrong as opposed to figuring it out himself out of respect for others as a functional adult would.

Atheists express ageism prejudice and personhood prejudice against other humans;
Like how xians and the bible treat women and gays when it comes to civil rights?

Atheists demonstrate their complete lack of empathy for certain humans at certain points in their development.

Yet Atheists also claim moral superiority.

Because even us atheists recognize that a baby born is a human, yet that didn't stop biblegod from killing babies and even pregnant women many times now, did it? By the way, since you were an atheist for 40 years (yeah, right!) you do know that there are such things as athiest pro-lifers, right?

Maybe you shouldn't generalize so much? Or throw out so many xian canards? You sound more like a 40-year fundy xian who has a religious hate-on for atheists as opposed to a person who WAS one for 40 years.

Reynold said...

cont'd
Stan
There is no logic, no place in theism which makes the claim that rules made for man apply to the rule maker; that claim is made up by Atheists and is a Straw Man.
So then what rules do apply to your god then? How can you tell what they are? How can you tell if he lives
up to them or not? Even more important: How can you claim that this being is the BASIS for morality
itself
?

Now to that bible verse I mentioned:
As with all Atheist attempts at biblical exegesis, the verse actually not only does not provide a case for the Atheist, it argues against his case.
Wow, you sure like to generalize about atheists a lot. Yeah, one can surely tell that you used to be one for fourty years..."snerk". Right....

Anwyay...
Matthew 5:48 is preceded with a discussion of love; the verse is referring to attempting to show perfect love. No judgment is necessary. What is necessary is to read the entire context for the appropriate meaning, rather than quote mining for the bumper sticker level of logic.
What is necessary is for the xian to read the context of that section himself. What do verses 21-26 imply if not some kind of "judgement"?

That entire passage is dealing with a set of rules that the alleged christ is laying out. Some of those rules that, has been pointed out, he doesn't bother to obey himself. So how can we then be "perfect" if he refuses to be himself? The only way the apologist has out of this is to really, really narrow down what biblegod is referring to by "perfection" here.

After all, look at verse 46 where biblegod is commanding people to love even those who hate one...just how is his killing of babies and pregnant women of those people who allegedly hated him then an example of this "perfect" love?

The Atheist position is that we are accidental animals.
Does that mean that we place no value on our own lives?

...With this understanding, killing is no problem; in fact is part of selection.
You know nothing about the evolution of social animals, do you? Go read a science textbook, not the creationist swill that you apparently have.


What you have describe is an amoral being. A being who does not have to follow any rules.. You have also shot down any rationale for why xians call biblegod "good" "righteous" or "holy". Think: If biblegod is NOT bound by any of the rules that he lays out for us, then how can you tell if he's "holy" or "good" or not?

Stan
But Atheists become absolutely incensed with a deity which performs selections on his own creations.
Why do you complain then when parents kill their own kids a la abortion?

Atheists have no grounds for moral complaints; their false moral-esque complaints are irrational because they try to compare the deity’s existence to human existence, but the comparison is impossible and yes, non-coherent: It does not follow that when A creates B, the rules for B must necessarily apply to A.
So much for moral consistency then, eh? All we're doing is pointing out how you god fails to even try to live up to his own so-called moral code.

Reynold said...

Stan quoting me:
You people have subjective morality. If your god says to kill babies, then it's OK. If he says not to, it's not ok

Assuming that it is truly immoral to do what an actual deity commands as you assert, it still is not subjective, contrary to your assertion. And the assertion that it is immoral to do what an actual deity commands is absurd.
So the xian morality is what then? Might makes right? Force makes right? You clown. You have just defined subjective morality! All you've added is that the one who sets up the rules has the actual power to enforce them.

It's all up to his whim, with no consideration of empathy or consequences for others.

The rest of your screed basically just fleshes this out. As I've said before: the xian morality is nothing more than the kind of morality that a child has, who does stuff only becuase the parents tells him to.

Only most children aren't so stupid and arrogant to go around asserting that they have the only real standard of "morality".

You also make the "mistake" that since atheists don't have a set of rules handed down from on high that we don't have morals period.

Yeah.

No way were you and atheist for forty years. I'm calling bullshit. When you say things like How is morality derived from Atheism and what exactly does the Atheist Morality believe to be moral? Only scientific knowledge is acceptable here of course.
"The" atheist morality? Huh? Do we have a moral code or not?

The only thing atheists have in common is a lack of god belief. Sure, we as a
society with other atheists and with various religions try to work out a moral code but that does not mean that
atheists have a code from on high.

And morality is not the realm of the physical sciences.

Stan said...

Reynold says
”As I said: You people have Subjective morality. By the way, actual abortionists just don't believe that one is a full-fledged human being at conception. I mean, up to a point there's not even any blood or nervous system to feel pain. But when it comes to killing babies already born, even they will say "Hands off". Unlike theists like you and Craig.”

You appear to be purposefully not understanding. I am not presenting my position, and you have no idea what my position is. What I am doing is defending the rationality of the decisions of the only one with moral authority. Because those decisions resemble evolution, for example, Atheists have no case against them. Because Atheists have no moral basis under Atheism, they have no case against them. Because Atheists have no moral authority, they have no moral case against them.

The only case Atheists have is that the deity has no obligation to obey the rules he makes for his creation, and that is termed hypocrisy. But it is not, because obeying the commands of the only one with moral authority is internally consistent. So the Atheist must return to objecting to the moral content, which position is internally inconsistent for Atheists since they have no moral content under Atheism from which to base moral decisions, much less judgments.

As for what actual abortionists do, it is documented that a live-born aborted baby will commonly be terminated outside the womb. This is defended by Atheist Peter Singer and these Atheists here.

And you appear not to grasp the meaning of “subjective”.

”I said that humanity has to make up our own rules for getting along...what's wrong with that? As I said: We are not a religion. We don't have any dogma that we are bound to; no "holy book" to blindly follow, no unquestioned high priests, no rituals, etc. That link you gave...nothing but rants and strawmen.”

Your comment here is not accepted; your assessment is broadbrush tarring without any specific refutation.

”It was interesting that you believe that people who are ordered by god to be "generous" and are promised rewards in heaven are more "moral" than those who give without such orders.

There, and here, once again a theist shows that his morality is that of a child who has to be told what to do; has to be told what's right or wrong as opposed to figuring it out himself out of respect for others as a functional adult would.”


The acceptance of Theism is voluntary, and adherence is not based on fear or stupidity as you assert. It is based on respect and love. The documented paucity of actual generosity and empathetic action on the part of Atheists demonstrates that their functioning as adults is quite low on average, and frequently absent. So Atheists have no basis for criticizing the generosity of Christians.
(continued)

Stan said...

”Like how xians and the bible treat women and gays when it comes to civil rights?”

Tu Quoque fallacy and ignores the pay discrepancy for women in the White House and Nancy Pelosi’s staff. When women come to power from the (presumed religious) Right, they are called cunts and whores. There is no morally superior leg to stand on here.

This Tu Quoque does nothing to refute the charge being made. Atheists practice discrimination, and are in no position to claim self-righteousness, especially in absence of an Atheist moral doctrine from which to base judgment.

”Because even us atheists recognize that a baby born is a human, yet that didn't stop biblegod from killing babies and even pregnant women many times now, did it? By the way, since you were an atheist for 40 years (yeah, right!) you do know that there are such things as athiest pro-lifers, right?”

I certainly do know that Atheists can adopt any moral position that is compatible with their own proclivities and that includes any and all moral positions, including co-opting Christianity, Satanism, Consequentialism, any of the Utilitarianisms, any of the (X) Ethics, Humanism per Manifestos I, II or III and any personal ethic du jour which they find congenial for the day’s activities.

Under which of these highly variable “moral” systems do you condemn god? What is your source of moral authority to condemn god? Why should anyone take your opinion as the true moral conclusion?

”Maybe you shouldn't generalize so much? Or throw out so many xian canards? You sound more like a 40-year fundy xian who has a religious hate-on for atheists as opposed to a person who WAS one for 40 years.”

What Atheists can’t do is to refute logical conclusions. They cannot provide proof of any type to support their rejectionism. They cannot produce arguments which are based in any grounded axiom. They cannot deduce their rejection using valid syllogistic structures. They cannot produce empirical scientific data that supports their position. They have no way to support their belief system.

So when they encounter the responsibility placed on them to produce actual reasons for their rejection of god(s), they frequently quickly charge that the person who wants such a rational discussion is using HATE. For those Atheists, it is hateful for someone to hold his assertions and presuppositions to the light of logical analysis. They want their opinions respected as truth without analysis. So they charge HATE, and usually disappear shortly after that.

The reason I left Atheism is that I respected rationality and logical process more than I needed to protect the Atheist dogma. That requires submission to the conclusion of a grounded, valid deductive process. For most Atheists it appears to be the other way around. They consistently refuse to accept their logical fallacies, and consistently look for premises to support their conclusions, which are held to be true merely by assertion. Their arguments are without structure, axiomatic grounding and are frequently emotionally held, resorting to charges like that of HATE.

The charge of HATE is not an argument.

Stan said...

”So then what rules do apply to your god then? How can you tell what they are?”

If there is only one such being, why would there be rules for that being?

” How can you tell if he lives
up to them or not?


If such a being exists, its moral authority derives from its existence, its ability to give rules for which it can declare and implement consequences. Moral authority does not derive from behavior, so the behavior of such a being is not pertinent, even if it were known.

”Even more important: How can you claim that this being is the BASIS for morality
itself?”


Answered in the previous statement, above.

”Wow, you sure like to generalize about atheists a lot. Yeah, one can surely tell that you used to be one for fourty years..."snerk". Right....”

I deal with Atheists here every day. I say what I see to be the case.

”What is necessary is for the xian to read the context of that section himself. What do verses 21-26 imply if not some kind of "judgement"?

You have mixed the subject; the original issue was you trying to judge god, not trying to judge human behavior.

”That entire passage is dealing with a set of rules that the alleged christ is laying out. Some of those rules that, has been pointed out, he doesn't bother to obey himself. So how can we then be "perfect" if he refuses to be himself? The only way the apologist has out of this is to really, really narrow down what biblegod is referring to by "perfection" here.”

Stan said...

”After all, look at verse 46 where biblegod is commanding people to love even those who hate one...just how is his killing of babies and pregnant women of those people who allegedly hated him then an example of this "perfect" love?”

Can you show (prove) that it was not done out of love? Or do you just presume that because to you it resembles human hate, it is therefore nessarily hate in the deity also? Does non-comprehension of the motives of a deity prove that the deity does not exist? Non-existence is what Atheism asserts, and needs to be proved.

And can you actually demonstrate how this is evidence for the non-existence of a non-physical agent capable of creating a universe? No one here has claimed that literal translations of the Bible are essential, necessary and sufficient to understanding the possibility of a creating agent. So picking at the Bible has no bearing on Atheism or the arguments against it.

IF [there actually IS a deity],
& IF [you don’t like it],
THEN [tough].

IF [there actually is NO deity] ,
& IF [you don’t like the fictional one],
THEN [who cares?].

There is little more to be said, other than it is up to you prove that there is no deity, because that is the actual issue: rejection of a proposition requires a reason for the rejection. Otherwise it is without any substance or force.

”Does that mean that we place no value on our own lives?”

Nihilism is common amongst Atheists.

”You know nothing about the evolution of social animals, do you? Go read a science textbook, not the creationist swill that you apparently have.”

EvoDevo and evolutionary anthropology are based on fabricated Just So Stories with no basis in scientific fact or data. I am not a creationist; but I do insist upon actual objective verifiable and falsifiable science, not the swill you apparently believe in without evidence.

”What you have describe is an amoral being. A being who does not have to follow any rules.. You have also shot down any rationale for why xians call biblegod "good" "righteous" or "holy". Think: If biblegod is NOT bound by any of the rules that he lays out for us, then how can you tell if he's "holy" or "good" or not?”

Explained above. Now how about some proof of the non-existence of a non-physical agent, etc? How about supporting Atheism and the Atheist rejection of the existence of a deity with an argument or some data?

”But Atheists become absolutely incensed with a deity which performs selections on his own creations.
Why do you complain then when parents kill their own kids a la abortion?”


I merely point out that they are killing without any moral authority to make such moral decisions. The presumption of moral authority to kill is both irrational and dangerous for other humans.

”So much for moral consistency then, eh? All we're doing is pointing out how you god fails to even try to live up to his own so-called moral code.”

You have not shown why such an entity should do so. Consistency is not an argument; it is a complaint, only. You must show why consistency is necessary for the creator of an object and the object which is created. You have not done so, so your comments are merely complaints, not arguments.

Stan said...

Reynold says,
”So the xian morality is what then? Might makes right? Force makes right? You clown. You have just defined subjective morality! All you've added is that the one who sets up the rules has the actual power to enforce them.”

Under your definition, all morality is subjective; this lacks the ability to differentiate and is therefore not a valid definition. Subjective means internal to a human mind.

subjective a. 1. of affected by, or produced by the mind or a particular state of mind; of or resulting from the fellings of temperament of the subject or person thinking, rather than the attributes of the object thought of.
2. determined by and emphasizing the ideas thoughts, feelings etc. of the artist, writer, or speaker.

Reference is to persons not to deities.

”It's all up to his whim, with no consideration of empathy or consequences for others.”

You cannot know that: empty charge.

”The rest of your screed basically just fleshes this out. As I've said before: the xian morality is nothing more than the kind of morality that a child has, who does stuff only becuase the parents tells him to.”

Refuted and refuse previously; this is continued as an Ad Hominem Abusive, not as evidence in any argument. It is merely an attack and is without substance.

”Only most children aren't so stupid and arrogant to go around asserting that they have the only real standard of "morality".”

Not an argument; continued Ad Hom Abusive.

”You also make the "mistake" that since atheists don't have a set of rules handed down from on high that we don't have morals period.”

You were asked to reveal your morals, since, if you have any, they are not produced by Atheism. As an Atheist, you have no morals revealed until you do so explicitly. You have not done so. So what are we to assume?

”No way were you and atheist for forty years. I'm calling bullshit. When you say things like How is morality derived from Atheism and what exactly does the Atheist Morality believe to be moral? Only scientific knowledge is acceptable here of course.
"The" atheist morality? Huh? Do we have a moral code or not?”


That is exactly the issue: you claim you are moral? Then what is your moral code? Is there some sort of secret Atheist Moral code that only New Atheists know about? What is your moral code? Your claim of Atheism reveals no information regarding your morals, including whether you have any or not. It becomes rational to assume that you have none, in the absence of any specific claim.

”The only thing atheists have in common is a lack of god belief. Sure, we as a
society with other atheists and with various religions try to work out a moral code but that does not mean that
atheists have a code from on high.

And morality is not the realm of the physical sciences.”


What Atheists have in common is the positive Rejection of Theism; the absolute LACK of a common moral code; the possible Jeffry Dahmer choice of no moral code; and the common belief in science as the source of valid knowledge (thereby requiring science to at least validate whatever moral code one makes up).

The lack of a common moral code and the possibility of not even having one is one of the things which make Atheists untrustworthy in the eyes of non-Atheists.

godless said...

You going to let my post go through or what?

Reynold said...

Stan
The only case Atheists have is that the deity has no obligation to obey the rules he makes for his creation, and that is termed hypocrisy. But it is not, because obeying the commands of the only one with moral authority is internally consistent. So the Atheist must return to objecting to the moral content, which position is internally inconsistent for Atheists since they have no moral content under Atheism from which to base moral decisions, much less judgment
In other words, god can do whatever he wants, and it'll always be called "good" by us xians, even though if a human did it, we'd call it evil. Example: having babies and pregnant women killed. Why? Because biblegod has "moral authority".

Oh yeah, and him doing things that he says are "sins" when people do them, such as killing babies is perfectly "internally consistent".

Yet there's supposed to be a reason why biblegod has those rules, isn't there? Isn't it because in places like Proverbs and such that biblegod actively hates things like lying, etc?

What IS "moral authority" then? Might makes right? A god who doesn't have to obey any rules?

How can you tell if such a being is "good" or "morally perfect" then?

Reynold said...

Stan
The acceptance of Theism is voluntary, and adherence is not based on fear or stupidity as you assert.
Bull.

Read your bible. You know, all those verses where jesus threatened hell for unbelievers?

What is that if not fear?

It is based on respect and love.
Right...the kind of love a psychotic abusive parent gives to their kid: Love me or I'll beat the hell out of you! He respects people so much that he has to threaten them with eternal torture in order to secure their love.

The documented paucity of actual generosity and empathetic action on the part of Atheists demonstrates that their functioning as adults is quite low on average, and frequently absent.
Sources? There are atheist and secular charities you know. Not that you, in your characteristic xian self-righteousness will give a damn...

So Atheists have no basis for criticizing the generosity of Christians.
You are not looking at the fact that the bible gives incentives to be "charitiable", or that your god has to tell you people that giving is good. In other words, you are ignoring the motives for xian "charity". The xian is promised rewards in heaven for acting good. The atheist is not.

Try thinking: Who is more moral? One who gets rewarded for it, or one who is not? While you're at it, at least secular and atheist charities don't have any strings attached.

Reynold said...

Stan quoting me:
Like how xians and the bible treat women and gays when it comes to civil rights?

Tu Quoque fallacy...
I'm pointing out how xians treat those they don't like by denying them civil rights. And NO, it's not "tu quoque" for this simple reason: Secularists are at least working for civil rights for women and gays, while misogyny and gay-bashing is enshrined in your bible.

...and ignores the pay discrepancy for women in the White House and Nancy Pelosi’s staff. When women come to power from the (presumed religious) Right, they are called cunts and whores. There is no morally superior leg to stand on here.
Wrong as usual. See above.

Under which of these highly variable “moral” systems do you condemn god? What is your source of moral authority to condemn god? Why should anyone take your opinion as the true moral conclusion?
All of them...all of those codes at least acknowledge the right to life, and human dignity. Your god, when he has babies and pregnant women killed, does not.

Seriously: Are you daft enough to say that until we come up with ONE unchanging moral code that we have no right to criticize the actions of a mass-murdering (alleged) deity?


EvoDevo and evolutionary anthropology are based on fabricated Just So Stories with no basis in scientific fact or data.
Oh really?

I am not a creationist;...
Oh? Then how do you propose that we all got here then? If you reject biological evolution then what is the alternative you believe in? By the way, how could you be an atheist for 40 years and be so ignorant of evolution, or science in general as you've shown yourself to be??

...but I do insist upon actual objective verifiable and falsifiable science, not the swill you apparently believe in without evidence.
Verfiable and falsifiable evidence? Here do at least a little reading. This might help a bit too.

By the way, the charge of "HATE" is an argument when the actions of your deity match those of hatred as opposed to "love".

Which brings us to your next statement:

Reynold said...

Stan, quoting me:
After all, look at verse 46 where biblegod is commanding people to love even those who hate one...just how is his killing of babies and pregnant women of those people who allegedly hated him then an example of this "perfect" love?

Can you show (prove) that it was not done out of love?
Uh, how can baby-killing possibly be an act of love? Would you accept any woman's argument for abortion if she claimed that it was done out of "love" for her baby (to prevent a life of poverty and disease or to send it right to heaven perhaps?)

And you whine about atheists being "nihilists"?

Or do you just presume that because to you it resembles human hate, it is therefore nessarily hate in the deity also?
How in hell could it not?

What would biblegod have to do before you'd say that it is not "good"? Or would you say that anything your god does is good by definition?

Does non-comprehension of the motives of a deity prove that the deity does not exist?
What makes you think that he has good motives?

Non-existence is what Atheism asserts, and needs to be proved.
You've shifted the burden of proof. It's those who assert the positive who have to "prove" their case...otherwise, you'd have to disprove zeus, allah, etc. before you could assert your god.

But: As for evidence of no god:
biblical mistakes, bible archeology problems for a start...

And can you actually demonstrate how this is evidence for the non-existence of a non-physical agent capable of creating a universe?
All such a thing (showing his moral failure to live up to any kind of a standard of "good") would do is refute one trait of this being. It would just mean that it'd be more unlikely that he existed.

By itself, it would not refute his or her existence. Hence, the links I gave.

No one here has claimed that literal translations of the Bible are essential, necessary and sufficient to understanding the possibility of a creating agent. So picking at the Bible has no bearing on Atheism or the arguments against it.
Sorry, but what use is the bible then, if it's god's word as you people claim then why can't it be tested?

If the bible can't be tested, then what can?


IF [there actually is NO deity]
& IF [you don’t like the fictional one]
THEN [who cares?]

We care because theists attack others civil liberties, abuse women in the name of religon, declare jihads, divert funding from actual education to faith-based bullshit, religious groups pay no taxes so the burden is shifted more onto the rest of us, taxpayer dollars go to faith-based institutions which are allowed to discriminate in who they hire, etc.

It's the consequences of the believers actions that we all have to deal with.

Reynold said...

Stan quoting me:
So much for moral consistency then, eh? All we're doing is pointing out how you god fails to even try to live up to his own so-called moral code.

You have not shown why such an entity should do so. Consistency is not an argument; it is a complaint, only.
To consistency then: if humans can't judge god's actions as evil even when the same actions if done by people ARE evil, (ex. the baby-killing example earlier) then how can you tell if your god is "good" or not by his or her actions? How can you call your god "good" if he is not bound by some code of morality that we can measure?

Stan
Under your definition, all morality is subjective; this lacks the ability to differentiate and is therefore not a valid definition. Subjective means internal to a human mind.
So to dodge this problem you're saying that god is not a person?

Read the dictionary excerpt you quoted to me: "Subject or person thinking"...doesn't say "human", it says "person".

Hey, you wanted to play, so let's play!

subjective a. 1. of affected by, or produced by the mind or a particular state of mind; of or resulting from the feelings of temperament of the subject or person thinking, rather than the attributes of the object thought of.
2. determined by and emphasizing the ideas thoughts, feelings etc. of the artist, writer, or speaker.

Reference is to persons not to deities.

So, deities are not people?
Anyway, thanks for acknowledging the double standard.


Stan, quoting me:
Only most children aren't so stupid and arrogant to go around asserting that they have the only real standard of "morality"

Not an argument; continued Ad Hom Abusive.
It's not meant to be an argument...are you that dense to think that I though it was? It was an observation of the xian "moral" mindset.

The xian only is moral because god tells them to, which you've confirmed. You have also said that since atheists don't have a moral code handed down from on high but instead have to hash one out ourselves as circumstances dictate, that we don't really have any true moral code as is evidence by your little screed here:
You were asked to reveal your morals, since, if you have any, they are not produced by Atheism. As an Atheist, you have no morals revealed until you do so explicitly. You have not done so. So what are we to assume?
What I've been saying all along: We have to hash out our own moral code...according to circumstances.

At least it's not based on the arbitrary whim of some "deity" but rather with the person affected in mind.

Maybe this would help?

Stan said...

The reply to Reynold was far too long to fit into a reasonable number of comment blocks, so it was placed as a post of its own.