The Implications of Atheism
Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason answers the question, “What do you do with someone who has no problem accepting the implications of atheism (no morality, something from nothing, etc.)?”
#StandtoReason #Apologetics #Christianity
————— CONNECT —————
Website: https://www.str.org/
Stand to Reason University: https://training.str.org/
Stand to Reason Apps: https://www.str.org/apps
Twitter: https://twitter.com/STRtweets
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/standtoreason93
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/standtoreason
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/stand-to-reason/
Have a question or comment? Call Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason live Tuesdays 4-6pm Pacific Time – (855) 243-9975. If you’d like to submit your question ahead of time, fill out the online form here: https://www.str.org/broadcast.
————— GIVE —————
Support the work of Stand to Reason: https://str.org/donate
source
Good argument against people who claim to be nihilists. I don't actually know any atheist who would advance amorality as a justifiable lifestyle.
What a Christian must prove is that a murderous god is a better foundation for morality than my innate sense of empathy. A sense of empathy you must suspend when you look a kid in the eye and tell him that his parents are not married and that one of his dads or moms aren't really his mom or dad because you read something in a book and chose to believe that your god's raging homophobia is a-ok.
Why is it that theists always feel the need to put forth Intellectually dishonest arguments against atheism?
What makes god's morality objective, and how do you come to know of his thoughts on events like Katrina? Is it not reasonable to say that if god caused that storm, he thought it was the moral thing to do? Or does he act immorally at times? I think, dear Christian, it is your world view that is borrowing from secular morality. WE are the arbiters of what is right and wrong in the world, otherwise we can only watch events happen and say they were good, because they were god's will.
I can say things are wrong or right based on a careful consideration of the facts of an event and using empathy and compassion, determine if the event was good or bad. If no one was harmed by an action, it is not immoral. I can say Katrina was a tragedy, but not immoral as it wasn't caused by anyone. A Christian must believe it was god's will and therefore a moral act.
If you are citing the bible as a "good book" and god's will as moral perfection, you have given up your right to make determinations on morality, as your integrity and judgement are not worthy of consideration.
Atheist Alias, I hate to disagree with ya buddy. Atheists do have a hard time ( and almost everyone for that matter), excepting subjective morality. You wouldn't agree with someone who sees morality subjectively steal from you and you not be upset about it. You wouldn't say to yourself "that person sees morality differently than I do, so therefore I won't get upset or seek justoce."
We do not have a hard time taking exception with other people's subjective morality. Theists always get this wrong.
*facepalm*
(1) the video is terribly misleading. Atheism and materialism are not the same and materialism doesn't follow from atheism. This is assumed, and the whole video is about this false assumption. (2) "if morality is relative, then there is no evil." Yes there is, but it's relative lol. (3) I'd like Koukl to explain the difference between "ultimate meaning" and "meaning."
So you can prove that morality is not a subjective, personal reaction by pointing to a subjective, personal reaction and saying that its not the subjective, personal reaction that you personally expected from someone who believes that morality is subjective? Where does the objective part come in?
Dillahunty's Video on Superiority of Secular Morality. youtube. com/watch?v=cq2C7fyVTA4 Morality is not objective because WHICH god's rules should we follow? Is slavery still OK? How about women being treated as inferior?
When you read the bible, for example, how did you determine which characters were good and which were bad?
It's really not difficult to live without objective morality and purpose. We all decide what's right and wrong for us, we all change our minds about things, we all care about stuff and want stuff and we all disagree.
Even amongst those who claim to have objectivity in those subjects, there's disagreement, and no objective way to determine who's right. We're all subjective beings and we've been that way since we've had minds.
Greg, we appreciate you and how you are able to explain the foolish ways of some! Thanks for all your conversations and arguments!!!
MUCH LOVE. GOD BLESS YOU
Not to mention the complete confusion of his example regarding atheists who complain about evil when disasters/tragedies strike.
When an atheist says 'how could god allow evil', it's not because he secretly believes in objective morality or god….it's an informal reductio ad absurdum argument, implicitly in the form of 'if god exists then god would prevent evil, evil occurs, therefore god doesn't exist'.
Get a clue, Greg.
As usual, Greg puts forward an utterly foolish argument.
Whether or not a person is a hypocrite has no bearing on whether or not their personal philosophy is true. In this case, even if an atheist 'lives like' morality is objective or purpose is objective, that has absolutely no bearing on whether or not morality/purpose/etc ARE actually objective.
If that WERE true, it would also mean hypocritical Christians defeat the claims of Christianity…but I doubt Greg would stand by that entailment.