The Good Person Test. LOL

[TheGreekDollmaker]

The original sin apparently passes on to all humans that are ancestors of Adam and Eve.Some how we are all respondable for the fuck ups of 2 humans that had no idea what the fuck was going on, had no Free Will and knowlage and God putted them within Walking Distance of the one Fruit that will doom them all,and he forgot to put any obstacle to stop them, and he forgot to block his greatest enemy away from them.

And apparently he knew all about that.He knew about the Snake, he Knew about Adam and Eve and the Fruit, and he did nothing to stop them regardless how balevalent or loving he says he is.

Futhermore if the Original Sin passes on too all humans, than why dont other sins pass on.What makes the Original Sin so special that it must pass on too all of us and not other sins.What if all of sins pass on through genaration.Must i die for the actions of my father that i was tottaly unaware of 2 continents away?

Edit:Cannot Quote for some reason.

 

[borrofburi]

you're hilarious! you're an atheist and you're telling me that you're not in debt? you didnt do your responsibility as a creature of the creator, as a matter a fact, you refuse to do so.

So you're arguing that the very act of having been born puts me into debt? And you consider that to be the pinnacle of morality? That the cute little baby next door is already deserving of torture for eternity simply because it was born? I'm simply trying to understand.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

uuhhmmm if the Christian God exists, all atheists deserve judgement.

Non sequitur. This is exactly as ridiculous as saying that if Cthulhu exists, you deserve to be driven beyond the deepest madness and consumed; it may be what Cthulhu itself thinks, but it simply does not follow logically.

Laurens disagreed with that, and i disagreed with him.

Well at least you got this part right.

And yes you kept telling me to prove God's existence first.

Where? I only ask because I never once did.

 

[rounder421]

dammit I'm goin' to hell. I can already feel the flames tickling my toes. I pled guilty to everything. It's nice to know that God is just and merciful. How that is possible, I don't know..goddidit!!

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

Just to momentarily leave aside the absurdity of their being a single "Christian world view."

I think this would actually be pretty important. As a Christian I never believed in a fiery hell of torment and that anyone who doesn't believe gets to burn. First step would have to be to make his views internally consistent - then we can talk about good people,

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Just to momentarily leave aside the absurdity of their being a single "Christian world view."

I think this would actually be pretty important. As a Christian I never believed in a fiery hell of torment and that anyone who doesn't believe gets to burn. First step would have to be to make his views internally consistent - then we can talk about good people,

I've been saying this for awhile now: if someone's "Christian" views aren't enough to convince all the other Christians to agree with them, then why would an atheist like me want to hear about it? When one theist can't convince another theist to accept one apparently imaginary being over another, then how could they hope to convince me?

Let's let them all get their story straight first.

 

[Laurens]

Perhaps this will change your minds?

:lol:

 

[Krazyskooter]

LMAO at the video.

 

[Demojen]

1. "You shall have no other gods before me."
Does not translate to "put God first in your life"

Therefore the question is a trap. No person could answer this question honestly, because it is misleading.
This commandment is about worship. It is not about priorities.

2. "You shall not make for yourself any idol."
The entire Bible is predicated on idolatry.

3. "You shall not take the name of God in vain."
It is ironic that this question should be posed in a commandment that asking is, itself, a demonstration of vanity.

4. "Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy."
Depending on who you ask, the sabbath day differs. Certainly deciding not to work does not make it holy, or else I would be holy every day.

5. "Honor your father and your mother."
The sins of my youth? This question is posed in such a way as to suggest you're guilty whether or not you agree, based on some misdiagnoses of your childhood(likely before you were even capable of remembering finer details)

6. "You shall not murder."
Apparently hatred is murder, according to this question and there is equality in the church right? Even Jesus felt hatred, according to the biblical stories that surround his supposed life. Jesus never learned the lesson, that you can not fault a man for loving himself more than he loves you and so he bid unto God "They know not what they do" and he spread a message of hate across an entire nation, to kill people for the way they live their lives.

7. "You shall not commit adultery."
So you can not want to be with your wife(in any respect) until after you're married. So this is where arranged marriages started. Yet, the church endorses voluntary marriage and recognizes the legitimacy of forced marriages. Under the same banner a husband may not be charged with rape if he marries a minor and has sex with her. The church clearly believes children are able to make adult decisions and should be charged with adult charges.

8. "You shall not steal."
Or borrow, or be gifted, or be rewarded or find on the side of the road. Have you ever taken anything that belongs to someone else? While this commandment says BAD BOY, the bible says, "kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder Deuteronomy 20:10-14"

Because the Bible does not recognize the autonomy of anyone but men.

9. "You shall not lie."
Even if you don't know you're lieing, you're lieing. You are lieing to yourself! Though I'm starting to think that this test is poised to try and suggest all people are sinners and should seek redemption.

10. "You shall not covet."
Flies in the face of the commandments that say you shall not steal, commit adultery or murder. For if you should do none of those things, surely you can not be called on for coveting. For hatred, lust and theft are all guilty charges before coveting, that supersede this charge.

This charge appears to be an attempt to forge it a crime to even think about wanting what your enemies have, and not just your neighbor.

All in all, these questions do not open my eyes to anything I wasn't already aware of. I've read the bible. It does not follow its own rules. It is a story designed to show you how not to live your life and nothing in it is unique or original, rather it is a bastardization of philosophies of the middle east that promote slavery and control through worship and segregation.

 

[Devron]

I find this argument helpful: i've used it before when speaking about being a "good person".

"Why should I do good if there is no god?"

Because good acts are acts that benefit society and society is improved by good acts of individuals.

"Why should I want to improve society if there is no god?"

Because humans only survive, reproduce and evolve if they work together. If society falls, individuals are not sustained and we all eventually perish.

"Why should I care if humans perish if there is no god?"

For the same reason you care if you are a football fan and your college team loses. You are a member of the human team. This is the game of life and survival. We depend on you, you depend on us. If enough don't do their part, then the team loses and the game is over. Our species becomes extinct.

"Who says that humans have to be the dominant species forever if there is no god? Isn't it time to give the dolphins a shot?"

The only voice calling our for a human future is ours. If enough people stop singing, the choir grows silent and the song of humanity dies. The future, quite literally, is in your hands.

"Why should I care about the future of humans if there is no god?"

For the same reason you care about your own future. Part of "improving society" is ensuring that the society has a future.

"What if I can't care about the future of humans if there is no god?"

Because you don't need externally imagined altruism. There is a factory within you. Do some good for your fellow humans and watch it start coming to life.

"What if I can't be motivated to improve society, even after I have done many good acts for society?""

Have you really? You've gotten off of your tail and helped others and you haven't been fulfilled at all and you have no vested interest in society? Then you are either a liar, a psychopath by heredity or have become a sociopath because of your environment. Stop lying to yourself and seek treatment.

Therein lies the fundamental difference: It is better to work towards being good by helping society with its definable needs than to declare yourself good vis a vis some ambiguous code. One is a journey of a lifetime and can be verified by works, the other simply requires the meaningless label of "christian" and faith.

 

[Demojen]

But the argument is pointless.
You could get the same answers by putting "If there is a god" in place of "If there is no god".

You need to poise the questions such that "if there is no god" has a significant impact on the question, which requires making the proposition fundamental to a question of scripture where it violates human rights or the morals of society today.

Example:
Why should I let women vote if there is a God?

 

[TheDamnIrish]

LOL!
After answering the first five questions with "no", I get this message:

"Unfortunately, you don't see yourself as God sees you. The Bible says all men are sinners, until you're ready to admit that you can't continue this test."

Apparently you are literally damned if you do and damned if you don't.

 

[Laurens]

I think the most general misconception about the ten commandments is the 'Thou shall not take thy Lord's name in vain'

Most people think this is saying 'oh God!' when we are annoyed.

Firstly God is not his name, his name is Yahweh.

Secondly I believe it actually refers to making some kind of oath, like; 'In the name of God (Yahweh) I vow to...' without actually meaning it, or without actually being able to fulfil it. I might be wrong here though (but regardless of this nobody actually uses the Lord's name 'Yahweh' to express annoyance anyway)

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

Secondly I believe it actually refers to making some kind of oath, like; 'In the name of God (Yahweh) I vow to...' without actually meaning it, or without actually being able to fulfil it. I might be wrong here though (but regardless of this nobody actually uses the Lord's name 'Yahweh' to express annoyance anyway)

No, you are totally correct. It is about making a false oath. It annoys the hell out of me that Christians consistently get this wrong. When making an oath to someone else it was custom to put the hand on the genitalia of the person in question, but generic oaths were done in the name of Yahweh - abusing that name was mentioned in the ten commandments.

An extension to the point you made, we usually say stuff like "Goddammit", or "may god damn it". Remember that passage from 2 Kings 2:23-24, where kids were calling Elisha bald and Elisha "cursed them in the name of the LORD"? Yeah...

 

[Devron]

But the argument is pointless.
You could get the same answers by putting "If there is a god" in place of "If there is no god".

You need to poise the questions such that "if there is no god" has a significant impact on the question, which requires making the proposition fundamental to a question of scripture where it violates human rights or the morals of society today.

Example:
Why should I let women vote if there is a God?

But that's my point exactly, If you put in "if there is a god" then the primary answer becomes "because god says so" and the logical societal benefit is an ancillary one. What I am trying to show is that you can arrive at the same answer logically and make the "benefit to society" the primary answer without ever having to speak about god. In other words, we can be good without god.

 

[Laurens]

When making an oath to someone else it was custom to put the hand on the genitalia of the person in question

Oh, so that was what I caught the local priest doing...

 

[brewpanda]

"Justice" is the common answer to "Why can't god just send everyone to heaven if he's so kind and forgiving?"

Jesus dying for our sins is, as I said, a perverted mockery of justice. If your best friend killed someone and received a life sentence in prison, do you think "justice" would be carried out if you served the life sentence instead and your murdering friend went free? What garbage. Guilt isn't transferable. Person A suffering for person B's guilt is the opposite of justice.

And even if I did deserve it, (I defer to Laurens for one of many reasons why I don't) if god is so spectacularly merciful, why can't he grant me mercy no matter what? Why put some nagging little requirement for mercy, some minor roadblock I could pass over without effort that some poor Polynesian fisherman circa 200 AD had no hope whatsoever of passing. I've said it before and I'll say it again, salvation through Christ is a perverted mockery of justice. You are rewarded or punished based not on your actions, but on your thoughts; based not on how you lived your life, but on where and when you lived your life; based not on the people you helped or harmed, but on the one specific flavor of god among thousands whose very special ass you elected to kiss. A joke in poor taste. This and this alone, is enough to make me reject Christianity.

It isn't exactly a mockery of justice. You believe it is a mockery because you are holding it up to a different system of justice than one of broader application. And I understand why you are doing it, probably because most people here accept your vision of justice. But I think it is important to broadly and loosely define it. Let us then define it as the rightness or even moral rightness as based on objective morality, ethics, natural law, and rationality and that the violation of it requires satisfaction for the sake of rectitude, balance, utility, rightness, and essentialism.
The sort of justice you are looking to impose upon the deity and argument is very specific and I imagine born of a sort pragmatism. It is more. .. retributive in nature. Which isn't justice itself, but a species or instance of justice itself.

Suppose we could accept that a God, in the Christian sense, exists.
Now let us suppose He has all the attributes they suppose Him to have.
If one is to save mankind from the tendency towards sin, from broken will itself, no man can accomplish that of his own volition since it is inherent to him. Therefore, something outside of him but like him has to assume the responsibility.
While we could say that this deity did not have necessity to die by such means in order to purify a whole group, we could say that He chose to do so of His will. Because He possesses pure and absolute grace and grace is the key factor under this theistic system that absolves sin.

Now we could ask the question whether there was another means of salvation under this system other than the death of a God-become-man? We could say that it was possible, because alternatives can exist absolutely for the reason that we can conceptualize them. But, here we must remind ourselves- what the doctrine and what we for the sake of argument hold to be true- God Himself is omnipotent. Thus, He could have used another alternative, no? However, if we suppose that God knew always that this was the means by which man would be saved, and of course the way we use "always" is itself deceiving because it presupposes the existence of time for the deity when time does not in fact exist for the deity. But let us ignore this! Therefore, if the deity had ultimate knowledge and ultimate will, it would be contrary to this- omniscience and absolute will- for the deity to not suffer and die.

We could also ask since He is supposedly omnipotent, why He couldn't will to simply free man of sin without action? But of course this violates the tenet of absolute justice which He is Himself and which demands satsifaction.

Of course, the act itself also accomplishes something else in the theology. It both represents absolute justice and absolute love. Consider a man throwing himself on the grenade to save the dozens of strangers around him. Let us consider that they are all guilty of great transgression, but even if the man knows of this, he still acts and throws himself on the grenade out of some sort of notion of an absolute form of love. (Of course, the situation isn't parallel because it isn't a just action as you said, because the man himself isn't pure nor are the individuals themselves receiving grace by his action. In the case of Jesus dying, theoretically, His death and suffering generate necessarily by their occurence, grace for all.)

In essence, one could also look at it differently. As a blood bond. It is the ultimate sacrifice of love and compassion and humility to undergo transformation from a deity to a man, doing so not out of need but out of absolute devotion.

The mythos or system possesses concepts of the supposed existence of absolute forms and virtues and then through the lovely weaving of fiction, illustrates these concepts to the readers/listeners/believers.

It is most rational to suggest that there are of course numerous flaws and even contradictions within any religious system, and certainly the theology of Christianity is no different. Obviously, the most glaring problem with theologies is they tend to define themselves within a set of parameters they subjectively employ. Yet this quality makes it similar to other instances of belief or understanding. It can be likened to any alternate or conditional system that exists- political, economic, philosophical, ideological, medical, biological, chemical, astro-physical, astronomical, etc- there are kinks in the system because there are so many unknowns. But ideally, people within the systems try to work out these kinks. And we could reasonably conclude that perhaps most of the kinks in most of these systems exist because of our limitations, but this is not to say that these limitations will always exist. And certainly, we don't absolutely or completely expect most of them to.

Also! Not so long ago I had a fun exam at the following accredited uni:

"Hi! I would love to take your two question quiz! But first I need to ask, are there any prerequisites for taking this exam?"
"Hello there, no there aren't. Do you know Jesus?"
"Jesus? Is he like a superhero?"
"Yes he is. He washes away all your sins and gives you eternal life."
"Literally? How does he accomplish that? Is this a mineral wash, salt wash, river, lake, ocean? And please define what eternal life is? Because if its like Indiana Jones in the Last Crusade, that is awesome. Do I have to drink from a magic chalice?"
"You have to accept his blood, you drink the wine. It represents that, so yes but it isn't magic."
"Seemed pretty magic in the movie. I mean, the one guy died and then Harrison Ford didn't all because of a cup. Think that is the definition of magic."
"No that was about faith in that movie."
"But the bad guy had faith he would get eternal life, so I don't think it was faith. That was magic."
"No he had the wrong kind of faith."
"What is the right kind of faith?"
"Faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour."
"And the bad guy didn't have that kind of faith?"
"No he didn't."
"How do you know that? Did you write the movie?"
"No, but you can see he didn't because he died."
"Maybe that's Jesus being a dick. Or maybe he got the sweet deal because he got a different sort of an eternal life. I don't think you can judge his intentions."
"I can judge him because I know his faith was false."
"Well if you mean false as in not real, than you are right. Since it wasn't real."
"No I don't mean it like that, I mean he didn't have real faith."
"Define real faith!"
"Faith in Jesus Christ the Lord and Saviour, our shepherd and his Father."
"Oh, so I have to accept him like a leader?"
"Yes, leader of your soul."
"Yeah, so would that be in direct contention with Satan? Because I sort of already made a deal with him."
"That is very serious and you shouldn't joke about the devil."
"Maybe it isn't a joke! I could really be in a dilemma here. How do you suggest I get saved if I have already accepted Jesus' arch-nemesis?"
"You have to reject the devil in favour of Jesus. You should come to my bible study, I will help you find your way."
"Find my way where? To the bible study?"
"To Christ."
"Who is Christ?"
"Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour."
"Oh, is he your Lord and Saviour?"
"Yes he is. He will be yours too once you accept his way."
"So its an all or nothing sort of thing? Does he rule with an iron fist?"
"No he rules with love."
"That doesn't seem very efficient. I think ruling with fear is more efficient. Machiavelli said so!"
"Machiavelli was a sinner. Jesus rules with love and God rules with fear. and you should be afraid of the fires of hell."
"Ok, multiple part question, I thought Jesus is ruler, now there is another guy called God? Also! How can he rule with love and fear? I thought those concepts are in direct contention. Second, how do you know hell has fire? And how does a soul, an incorporeal thing, experience the physical sensation of burning?"
"I don't follow you."
"What part?"
"Please move on. You have wasted my time."
"I thought Christ had time for everyone, no matter how lost. Seems contrary to Jesus' message to turn me away because of some questions."
"We are now closed. I am going on break. Please leave."
"So I guess the answer is I am not going to heaven then? Well that's a downer. Is there another way I could pass the test? Extra credit? Maybe a bonus round of questions? Can the topic be literature? I am really good at literature. Or punk music? Potent potables? I am pretty good at that too!"
"Leave or I am calling security."
"Jesus didn't have security!!!"

 

[Deleted member 619]

Can't wait till you demonstrate that objective morality has any basis in reality.

3...2...1... You're on. Go.

 

[brewpanda]

I would never argue that one could prove objective morality. But to the same end, I would never argue that one could necessarily prove anything. For as been stated time and time again, nothing can be proven. Rather I would say, that all things, beliefs and positions, have varying degrees of rational probablities or plausabilities.

That said, if we can accept the basic premise that we can't prove anything and that everything we build upon is based upon a fundamental belief, then arguments from there can be developed. We can therefore suppose it is rational and reasonable to operate under the supposition that the phenomena we see represents to some unknown degree noumena that is actually there.

But we aren't talking about the phenomena we see are we? Rather, we are talking about the phenomena we don't see. Yet the phenomena we see plays a distinct role in that it can, if we accept its existence, demonstrate that something of positive existence does exist outside of ourselves. If we go that far, we would say there are two routes to take, correct? (Well, for the sake of this I will say two roads, when in reality there is also the pragmatist's road. But I will leave that out for now, though my neglect of it does not assume that it is implausible.)
So!
We either say, from the strict empirical perspective that all we see is phenomena. A string of objects, perhaps we see an object move. We see a ball fall, a tree bend. But we don't see what made the ball fall or the tree bend. So for the one road, the empiricist's road- any further conclusions drawn from the events or the objects and their interactions or relationships are completely formulated within the brain and not necessary to the world of phenomena or even noumena. Thus any conclusions drawn before the present or conclusions sought to be applied to the future are erroneous, because they assert what cannot be empirically known.

Then there is another road to follow. This road determines that it can in fact make conclusions about the world of phenomena. For the person on this road, they see the tree bend and the ball fall. They determine wind or gravity is the cause. They remake the occurence of this event again and again, the ball drops in similar fashion every time. So the conclusion is drawn that gravity does in fact exist and that it operates as, we will say Y. Then it is given to exist as necessary to the world we behold. That it is intrinsic to it. So here we see evidence of a concept necessary to the world of phenomena.

To the same end, the person concludes that causation must in fact exist because when X happens, Z happens. And it is determined that because we see ball, we see ball fall, Y must be the cause. Through numerous tests it is concluded that causation does exist as a concept but that this concept would exist without us observing it. In essence, for an example, gravity is there regardless of us. Thus causation is a concept that is rationally but not empirically known to exist.
(Certainly we could also say that gravity has a real force that absolutely operates within the physical world, therefore it is not simply a concept. But this does not change the position of causation for our purposes.)

But the person on this road, we will call them objective idealists! For this person, they say well I have a ball here that falls, I have a ball over there that falls. These are two distinct objects that are not reliant on the other. This ball is individual, with its own identity. That ball is individual, with its own identity. So concepts are drawn as to the laws of identity and the laws of non-contradiction. Of course, the development of these and the recognition of these concepts is entirely based on sentience. But would a thing have an identity if no one was present to observe the identity? We would suppose that if we accept the world of phenomena exists independent of us, that things in fact would have identity. An instance of a particular tree is distinct of other instances of tree. The same with the ball. The ball would not be another ball, it would be that ball. It would not be anything other than what it was until it no longer existed. But as it currently exists, it would not both be ball and not a ball. (Even if we accept there is a soup of matter with no distinguishment, if we ever suppose there is both a thing and than not a thing, instantly identity exists as an objective necessity. But onward!)

Our moral idealist then accepts the existence of other concepts necessary to the phenomenal world. For instance, triangle. The concept of which is expressed by a rational mind in complex notions but in itself exists in the observable world.
The objective idealist could take these particular instances of identity and geometry and then classify them as a categorical imperative to the observable world itself, for they are naturally apart of the world itself. We call this subject math.

So if the objective idealist accepts one instance of concepts that are imperative to the observable world and necessary to it, then we could suppose it possible for other instances of concepts to exist necessary to what is observed.

To that end, if we accept that it is possible for other concepts to exist, we must explore how they exist or what arguable evidence we have for their existence.
We will take objective morality, since that is the point of this possible exercise.
We will say that there are clearly many moral systems, be they expressed by theist or nontheist. A moral system can occur in many forms, no?
Before I go on I suppose we must first define morality. And here I will define it as simply a group of values that operate in a way as to gain or lose positive or negative effects and results. And values we can simply say are things that determine or express needs.

The objective idealist would say then, well, the individual is always given choices. Whether to eat or not eat, whether to go to work or not go to work, whether to cheat or not cheat, etc. (Obviously choices are more complex, but for simplicity sake, we will stick with such fundamentals.) Some of these choices, such as the latter, are of a more complex moral nature. This occurs in any moral system, the choice between moral possibilities. The actions of the choice exist within a particular milieu, no? So if we combine the particular context and the system of values we individually possess, we arrive at the decision of a particular action. The actions then of course, will ultimately affect the merit of those values.

What sorts of things then are values?

We have scientific values, certainly. Namely, that we need to eat, piss, sleep. Shelter, clothing, etc also is categorized here, we could call it material values.

We have social values, in that we need to interact with other individuals of our species. We accomplish this by ways of communication (which incidentally is also a concept we could argue to exist independent of ourselves).

We have spiritual values. Now here I must clarify what I mean. I use the word spiritual to signify needs in relation to the self and its consciousness. Knowledge itself would fall here, as well as issues of psychological development, apprectiations, self-awareness, rationality, etc.

We also have political needs and values. Namely, that we are distinct individuals with a desire for liberty, property, justice, order, etc.

If we were objective idealists, we can suppose all of these actually exist objectively. We can all attest to them being real needs within a human being. They are arrived at by causation, which we already accepted earlier as a necessary concept to the world of phenomena even though it cannot be empirical to the world, it can only be accepted by use of reason faculties. Anyway!

Since we seek values as an end to our actions, and that these values are representative of needs, we would say that the absolute and objective instances of these needs directly correspond to their objective values. The most absolute being, the value of life. All of these values listed, satisfy one's necessary survival. (And certainly anomalies exist wherein life is attributed to be less significant on a scale of values.) Of course, the implentation of values is entirely subjective. We can of course reason that life is a proper objective value for all individuals, but as stated, it may not be the highest or necessary in all instances. But the main maxim, is that these values exist without individuals expressing their existence.

Certainly, we could suppose as an objective idealist, that certain objective principles- rights to property and life lead to laws such as not murdering or stealing. We would suppose that this occurs as necessary to order and survival of a broader culture and species.

Now here in lies the main problem, if we accept that objective morality does in fact exist, we have yet to establish that an objective morality distinct from sentient species exist in and of itself as necessary to the phenomenal world or noumenal world. We certainly could demonstrate that many of the above values exist in some form within other lifeforms, perhaps suggesting that the values themselves do exist. Indeed I think we have established that it is certainly possible for concepts to exist necessary to the universe, but that of course cannot be proven to be necessary. And even should we demonstrate that they are necessary to the universe, this does not mean that they exist without the universe. Certainly, that would be a jump, though not an insurmountable one. I will allow the possiblity that there is a rational argument to be made that can logically or reasonably establish the existence of things exterior to the universe, or independent of the physical manifestations of the universe and what is perceived.

There are a few objections of course:

One being that this could be evolutionary. But the simple response to this, is that evolution doesn't give us morality, instead it explains why we adapted how we did. (Ha! Well, we will assume that it can explain adaptation for this argument. But that isn't necessarily true! All it can do is tell us that mutations, variations and adaptions did occur but not the why of which. Onward!) It can explain the reason objective morality and values exist, but not the indications or portents of actual reality of it. Adaptations in evolution are undirected and founded on fundamental and base existence from millions of years ago. Bare minimalist society would not determine complex technological society.
(Then the objection to this would be simply that as societies developed and specializations occurred beyond lead and group mentalities, more liberty lead to more brain use, which doesn't exactly though explain the sudden and seemingly random jump in actual brain size. . . this objection seems contentious with step evolution. But that is another rant! The retort to this would be can a concept or group of concepts reasonably affect physical evolution? Which has yet another response of yes, by way of natural selection or rather, natural destruction. Of course, natural selection/destruction isn't evolution. Anyway! This still does not account for severe and random changes in evolution. So claiming concepts as an absolute component to evolution is shakey! I would more or less distinguish them.)

One could also say that morality is subjective itself and doesn't exist. But even if there is no way to demonstrate objectively something exists, that doesn't prove its nonexistence. If something cannot objectively be known, then the default is neutrality, not opposition. Essentially, one doesn't have to demonstrate it exists. It can be reasonably supposed or believed to exist without want of devaluing and ridicule.
Honestly, it is absurd that we have arrived at such a place in our existence where because one thing cannot be proven to exist, it deserves the derision and scorn of the opposition and then by extension, necessarily doesn't exist. That isn't enlightenment, that is foolish arrogance and riddled with hypocrisy. Not to mention, it is the exact opposite of the scientific method and scientific reason.


Now! I do not hold any part of the argument to be essential or absolute. I hold it to be plausible, nothing more or less. Objective morality may or may not exist and the establishment of either isn't possible. However. It is of course relatively useful for the purposes of argument between individuals of opposition who hold subjective beliefs themselves. Therefore, between an atheist and theist, it is perhaps best employed for the basis of a reasonable discussion.

Haha! And I just remembered we swore each other off, objecting to any further interaction with the other in a previous thread. I am thoroughly amused now!

 

[RichardMNixon]

[A] If one is to save mankind from the tendency towards sin, from broken will itself, no man can accomplish that of his own volition since it is inherent to him. Therefore, something outside of him but like him has to assume the responsibility.

We could also ask since He is supposedly omnipotent, why He couldn't will to simply free man of sin without action? But of course this violates the tenet of absolute justice which He is Himself and which demands satsifaction.

[C] Consider a man throwing himself on the grenade to save the dozens of strangers around him. Let us consider that they are all guilty of great transgression, but even if the man knows of this, he still acts and throws himself on the grenade out of some sort of notion of an absolute form of love.

A - Jesus doesn't save man from sinful tendencies (see Ted Haggard), he saved man from death (supposedly).

B - Again, how do you define justice such that the primary goal is the suffering of someone unrelated to the transgression?

C - It's a lot less impressive when the man threw the grenade himself.