Artful Dodger:

> If a claim has no basis other than the claim itself, then all claims would be equal.

"God exists" Isn't that an a-priori statement too? After all, there is no CONCRETE and SCIENTIFIC proof of the existence of God. Just because it says so in a book it does not make it true. Neither does a lot of people believing it. Faith is not proof, if anything, faith is belief in the ABSENCE of proof. Just as you can question the athiesist for believing things "a priori" so can all of religion be questioned, because other than your personal belief there is no proof of the existence of God.

> I'm actually saying that as an atheist, you have no grounds to argue against things
> you claim are "wrong."

How so? We get back to the original question: Does good and evil come only from God? What if God does not exist? You assume that God exists and that good and evil come from him. You assume that atheists have no moral grounds, because they have no God. However, human reality is different. Believer in God do wrong, and are full of contradictions. Atheists are no better.

> I say Al Qaeda is "wrong" because they kill people without justification. But when I
> say justification, I mean more than I just don't like it. I mean it's objectively wrong to kill
> another person without moral justification. For the atheist, it is only subjectively
> wrong. They don't like it. But beyond not liking it, they have no foundational argument.

And belief in God is not subjective? If anything, religion is the ultimate subjectivity. "I beleive in a being that I can never prove exists. I call my belief faith and that is the velief in something that has no concrete, scientific proof." The atheists makes his argument from the opposite poit: "I believe that God does not exists. Nobody can prove God's existence. I cannot prove God's nonexistence. However, all concrete and scientific evidence before leades me to believe that God does not exist. My concept of good and evil exists outside of religious arguments."

At some point people have forgotten that Atheism is as much a belief system as religions are. Interestingly, it is OK to discriminate atheists. If an atheists comes out and speaks against religion, he will be labelled a bigot. But not so when some preacher speaks against atheists. If I open a Christian school, it is OK. But if I were to open an atheist school that openly promotes atheism, I would probably be burned at the stake.

> Here's where you are wrong. You argue that simply because you say so, something
> is right or wrong. If something is truly wrong, it's wrong for both you and I. It's
> wrong independent of your feelings to the contrary. Otherwise it is benign.

But what is truth is not a personal assertion? You tell me God exists and he is the truth giver. Why should I believe that? Because you say so? Because the Bible says so? As an atheist I assert the following: "a human being killing another human being is wrong". Now, others can chose to believe it or they can ignore it. It is their right as free, thinking human beings. Now, if others refuse to believe it, it does not mean that they are right and I am wrong. Masses of people sometimes believe the wrong thing, and that does not make it right. There will also be many times when I am wrong because as a human being I am imperfect. However, I have conviction in my beliefs. Without conviction in our own beliefs we would immediately fold to anybody else's beliefs. I believe what I believe not because somebody told me so, or because a book told me so, but because after careful analysis and consideration, I have arrived at my convictions. Nobody else has any obligation to accept my analysis of things and my version of right and wrong. People can choose to agree, and one would hope they have the common sense to believe out of intelligence and not out of blindness.

> Consequences don't matter. They don't determine if something is right or wrong.
> Consequences are implemented by a society against a particular act it deems
> offensive. But for something to be objectively wrong, it would be wrong EVEN IF
> nobody believed it. (such as abortion).

There are many things that are wrong, and people do them for different reasons. The Law is society's attempt to stop people from tossing aside their values and imposing selfish wrongdoing on others. The law is imperfect, because human motivations are imperfect. It is not the consequences that make an act wrong, but rather it is the act itself. Killing is wrong, not because the law says so, or because the killer will go to prison or hell, but because killing in itself is wrong. That is the a priori statement. The act of killing might or might not have consequences. However, it is the act of destroying a human life that is wrong. Why should it be wrong? This is where personal belief comes in. Some people will cite God, others will cite science, or philosophy, or anything that satisfies their justification. A person could chose to believe that killing is not wrong (like psychopaths and politically motivated killers). However, that does not alter my own beliefs about killing because I have conviction in my beliefs.

> Abortion is either wrong or it is not wrong. It is not both. Same with stealing or lying
> or killing. They are either morally justified or they are not. It is not a personal choice
> that determines right or wrong.

That's right. It is a personal choice. Sometimes pro-life people think that the pro-abortion side thinks abortion is right. In reality, the pro-abortion side sees abortion as a terrible thing, but they justify abortion as a woman's right to chose what is right or wrong for herself and her unborn child. the ultimate choice lies in the woman's mind. A woman can choose an abortion, and those who support her in her choice don't do it callously or without regard to abortion being a terrible thing. However, they believe that the state has no business telling a woman what to do with her body. Well, we had the abortion discussion a long time ago. I think it is something that humanity will always struggle with because it faces off a woman's rights against something that everybody knows is wrong.


> Since something can be truly objectively wrong (killing babies for fun) then they are
> transcendent truths. Since objective truth exists, there must be an objective truth
> giver that transcends our human intellect.

Well, this is a matter of faith. The transcendent truth giver, the intelligent designer, the creator, God. The essence of faith is belief in this transendent being. As an athetist my faith is opposite of this: an atheist has faith that there is no transdent being outside the physical world. Some atheists lose sight of this and they forget that atheism is a belief system.

Atheists see objective truths as just being without the need for a creator or giver. The sun IS. Science can describe how a sun is formed, how it functions, etc. Science cannot prove whether God made the sun or not, because science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. Thus the atheists says: the SUN is and there is no need for any God to have created. Whether the atheist is right or wrong is a matter of faith.

Übergeek 바둑이: Artful Dodger:

Oi yoi yo... this seems a bit of a rabbit trail but I'll walk the path just a bit. It would actually be an interesting discussion between you as an atheist and me as a theist. But it's a huge topic to say the least so I won't tackle it here. But just a few comments.

"God exists" Isn't that an a-priori statement too?"

Yes

" After all, there is no CONCRETE and SCIENTIFIC proof of the existence of God."

But there are proofs. Atheists just reject them (not all atheists do however - as I know former atheists who no longer refused to accept the evidence presented to them).

" Just because it says so in a book it does not make it true."

Nor does it make it false.

"Neither does a lot of people believing it."

A fair point. The same can be said of many things. Believing something to be true doesn't make it true anymore than believing something false would make it so.

" Faith is not proof, if anything, faith is belief in the ABSENCE of proof."

Skepticism isn't proof either. So at best you can say you don't know if there is a God. An honest atheist should really loose the label and just call him/herself an agnostic. You don't know and you can't know. Not empirically.

"Just as you can question the atheist for believing things "a priori" so can all of religion be questioned, because other than your personal belief there is no proof of the existence of God."

Here's where you lose me. We are discussing the existence of an absolute standard. I say that if you think one exists, you have to have a basis for that belief. My claim is that an absolute standard of right and wrong exist apart from anything you or I think, feel, or believe. You likely agree with most of these absolute standards and my question is simple: for the atheist - based on what.

As you may have answered this further in your post (which I'll address later) there may be no need to readdress it here.

Übergeek 바둑이: " We get back to the original question: Does good and evil come only from God? What if God does not exist?"

I'm actually not saying this. I'm saying that if objective truths actually exist, there has to be an explanation for those truths beyond our human experience. Since if those truths actually exist as a part of reality, then the explanation for those truths must also exist beyond or outside human experience. An Objective Truth Giver then must necessarily exist.

"And belief in God is not subjective? If anything, religion is the ultimate subjectivity."

I don't believe it is entirely subjective. We can look at objective evidence and infer God from many things. If that is not possible, then how can science claim not to be subjective when it too requires a look at objective evidence in which (a subjective) inferences are then made.

"I believe in a being that I can never prove exists."

You can't "prove" anything in science really can you. Aren't all scientific claims really just the current accepted theories? Right now, Einstein's theory is being challenged. What science does is offer evidence for a idea (hypothesis) and then test that hypothesis over and over. It's hypothetical and will always remain so. It may be accepted as fact but in science, we know that "facts" often change.

" I call my belief faith and that is the belief in something that has no concrete, scientific proof.""

What's interesting to me about scientific "proof" is that science rejects that which cannot be tested empirically. Yet, even the rule that things must be tested empirically cannot itself be tested. It fails its own test.

Science makes up the rules for what's acceptable as "evidence" and then refuses to listen to any voice that doesn't "play by their rules." The game is rigged.

"The atheists makes his argument from the opposite poit: "I believe that God does not exists. Nobody can prove God's existence. I cannot prove God's nonexistence. However, all concrete and scientific evidence before leads me to believe that God does not exist. My concept of good and evil exists outside of religious arguments.""

What's so peculiar about this last statement is as a Christian I could (and have) just as easily say, "However, all concrete and scientific evidence before me leads me to believe that a God does exist." Not only do I say this and believe it, but so do MANY scientists, past and present, echo this same sentiment. What separates the scientific skeptic and the scientific believer?

I have a great book, I'll look up the title later, where the author argues the existence of God based on mathematical truths. I don't understand the book fully but that is a topic that deserves exploration. I'm not doing the premise of the book justice so I'll dig it up and you can read some reviews etc if that interests you.

Not being a huge fan of the deeper math concepts (because it's not a skill I possess) I still know enough to be fascinated with just how precise math can work and solve deep mysteries. I don't for a minute think we as a human species invented math but only that we developed a language (mathematical equations) to understand what already existed.

Music is must the same. How 7 basic notes in a scale together with sharps and flats can produce harmonies, mood, and a seemingly endless number of different songs (millions). We didn't invent music either. We developed a language where we can manipulate what's already there.

What's most interesting to me is how chords are ALL constructed in thirds. There are other rules of course, but just understanding that rule, I can construct any chord in any key using either my guitar or piano. I don't need a chord chart and I can play all available variations of that chord. One simple rule and I can play all chords in existence. (or at least figure them out). That's order. Where did that order come from? It's not invented. Musical notes are not an invention but a discovery.

nuff of that....