Post has attachment
"There are obvious parameters to life which we (Christians) are obliged to never cross under any circumstances, such as murder or adultery. But, merely avoiding to commit murder or to simply be careful of never committing adultery is not the point of our walk. Even an Old Testament scribe or Pharisee could handle that. "

https://theidolbabbler.com/2017/08/10/the-christian-walk-its-not-about-rules/

Post has attachment
"Let's face it. There is only one God, and everyone knows it…"

https://theidolbabbler.com/2017/07/24/how-to-identify-a-false-god/

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
"Fifty years ago, parents were more apt to having many children. Today, children are more apt to having many parents."

http://biblethumpingwingnut.com/2017/06/21/too-many-parents/

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
"As they trickled from the dugout, battle lines were ignored, tensions were ceased, unity existed where it hadn’t before, advisories now became comrades."

https://theidolbabbler.com/2017/06/03/a-picture-of-heaven-enemies-becoming-one/

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
"Jesus Christ uses this literary device in order to cause the Apostle John to better understand who He (Himself) is..."

http://theidolbabbler.com/2016/04/08/the-merism/

Post has attachment
"Jesus Christ uses this literary device in order to cause the Apostle John to better understand who He (Himself) is..."

http://theidolbabbler.com/2016/04/08/the-merism/

Moral Argument Against Atheism and for Objective Morality within Faith (Destroying the Atheist's Empathy Defense)

First off, I would define the Atheist's worldview as: The Universe and nature having no prior intent from or by God, gods or any other agent of prior intent. 

If you disagree with this worldview, I can't see how you wouldn't be at least a Deist, thus not and Athiest.

I would like to ask the Athiest this for a basic argument foundation.

Can you account for an objective moral truth that evil and suffering is inherently bad/wrong within your worldview? If so, how?

If you claim there is no objective moral truth this claim would be your founding principle in your philosophy about it, anything you said further in regard to good or bad would be only how you feel and your personal belief or faith.

Below I am not claiming science inept at helping us with a remedy of suffering and evil, I just show that science and other means of reasoning are the cart and some form of faith based thinking always the horse in the moral argument. To posit that morals are subjective but hold to any moral standard, belief or conviction at the same time requires a means of faith or belief. If there is any expectation for others to follow some moral code it is only out of mere trust of the agreed or by force. For one to posit morality as subjective but then be appalled when a law is violated is not logical to me. Where is the shock and surprise coming from? Is there a human expectation of faith that this should not happen, such as the SS Nazi concentration camps? Is one rational to posit that morality is subjective even when they posit some action as inhuman? Is it human to have subjective moral notions or is there an objective moral standard of humanity? Is there more validity in reasoning within emotions, such as empathy for discovering truth, than a logical statement and it's logical conclusion? Is it logical to state that morality is only subjective to one's concepts or beliefs?


Formal Moral Argument for Faith

Premise 1 Reasoning in Logic can not account for a needed remedy for suffering and evil because the Naturalistic Fallacy in Logic affirms suffering is normal and natural and evil does not exist.

Premise 2 Reasoning in Science can not account for a needed remedy for suffering and evil because the is-ought gap in Science affirms suffering is normal and natural and evil does not exist.

Premise 3 Reasoning within Faith can account for a needed remedy of suffering and evil in the world. Faith accepts suffering and evil as inherently wrong/bad and in need of cure and remedy.

Conclusion Reasoning in faith is the only sound means that can account for a needed remedy for suffering and evil in the world. Faith is thus, the only accountable means of remedy to suffering and evil.

And if your condemnation is from mere emotion, you are not reasoning at all. (Read below this argument)

No mater how morality is being defined or couched, this argument stands true. An Atheist's subjective notion that, "well being" is of vaule is no less subjective because it is merely the subjective result of their objective claim. If someone is truly logical and rational they would recognise their own subjective ideas shouldn't outweigh any objective truth of how that subjective idea arises. If morality is really subjective and they know this, why would they react to it as if it really objective in any sense? To be appalled or outraged when they see a stranger on TV in another country not treating another stranger within their notions of "well being" is a denial of the objective truth they hold in the matter. They are allowing their subjective notion to overrule their own objective truth and it's conclusion. If morality was merely subjective and this was an objective fact it would be illogical to be so bias or appalled by such an action within strangers that in no way affects themselves. Thier bias is in direct opposition to any acceptance that morality really subjective.

Athiests should actually be no more appalled or surprised when seeing a stranger wearing shoes they don't fancy than when hearing about stranger being beheaded for showing her face in public. This is what subjective morality should and would look like if really only subjective. To be appalled or shocked otherwise would be like claiming the world is round but holding a fear of traveling overseas in a ship because you are afraid of falling over the edge. This logic vs lack of rational emotions does not follow. An Atheist would have to claim that emotions and emotional reactions are non-rational responses to the moral argument. So why do Athiests instead praise empathy as a valid argument to defend their worldview? Would one praise the fear of falling off the edge of the earth by members of a round earth group?

If morals are subjective and no different than a concept such as aesthetics and both are just what is appealing to one's subjective senses, why do we have such outrage that we make laws and punish people for one but not the other? Why can an architect build a home with "no straight lines" or designer make a dress with no "symmetry" and they are praised as mavericks but if one deviates from a certain set meaning of "well being" or just flat out does not vaule any notion "well being" we want to label them objectively as a psychopathy lock them up or punish them? 

Why is there a seeming consensus of "moral well being" thoughout time and existence and not any one aspect of "good aesthetics"? If both morality and aesthetics are merely no more than what's appealing to an individual senses why are we not debating both of them evenly as so? What defeates evil regimes such as Hitler's is asserting that they are in fact objectively evil and objectively morality wrong, not by any proposal that they are merely subjective. Could all this be true because in fact morality is not subjective at all and these things are sufficient evidence for this case? Is the very trust of truthfulness an Atheist places on a mere emotional reaction such as empathy evidence for them as well? Is this what they are admitting?

In short, Athiests posit that morality is merely a personal preference and each have their own individual concepts. Their conclusion is that others will do things they don't agree with. So why and how can they be appalled at any action knowing they are only dealing with personal concepts? Are they so attached to their personal concept that the logic of their own premise and it's conclusion escapes them? If they are appalled only from emotions such as empathy, surely their logic in the true statement, that morality is only my concept, outweighs their emotions. Is there more truth or validity in reasoning within your emotions or reasoning within your logic when it comes to morality? Which is more rational, emotions or logic?

To reply of how I get my morals, it is same way all others do as well as you, we are born with this knowledge and they are not merely subjective. The source of the command being objective is not that is it from God or by God but actually of God. Thus, God's morality was not created but eternal and eternal with Him. The Christian view is God can't do evil because he is the Good. Being all power does not mean He is able do things that are not logical such as create a married bachelor or a round square. God is not the god of confusion but of Order. So being all Good, evil only exists in His absence, without Him. Such as darkness is only the absence of light. The Christian idea is God is the Good, the very nature of Good. God's nature, the Standard of Good and this standard has always been. The Good of God is the standard Good and does not simply define good, it is Good itself. The Nature of something doesn't create or recognize anything, it just is. We are made in His image but have freewill and live in a fallen world and within a fallen mankind, fallen from the pure Good of God. I do not claim any more special knowledge about good and evil than you have, I just accept the fact that there are true good and evil choices, not mere concepts. I am more accountable because I see these as actual truths. I do not see my morality as a personal concept I can accept when it's an advantage or selfishly deny on a whim to justify myself to anything at anytime. If morality is merely a personal concept or merely some personal preference or merely one's subjective notion to what one wishes or desires, it is meaningless in any real sense as the morality I know and try to follow. The fact that am unable to follow all of them all of the time, regardless of my valiant attempts, shows me the truth in the source and that I am of a fallen mankind.

Wg Williams 2016
Wait while more posts are being loaded