Christians take on the more nihilistic atheists

[brewer]

Rational, I'd say, would be coming to logical conclusions based on the knowledge or beliefs you have about our existence.

I'd say you just tied rationality to morals, not god.

[Brakeman]

WTF?? That's silly. Of course we make choices. You made a choice to respond to my text and you used your morality to temper your textural response. Morals do not have to be big issue like murder, theft, or adultery. It can be as small as agreeing on forum standards and abiding by forum rules.

   principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

A fun thing for me, is that I often have to pretend to believe in things I don't believe in just to engage in conversation.  So I'll waffle back and forth between what I believe and what most believe a bit in here.  Forgive me if my language gets mixed up.  It's not easy to keep track of.

Re: It's silly to suggest we don't choose:  

From your perspective it appears to be a choice.  But that could just be due to a lack of knowledge.  A rock rolls down the hill towards a tree, and we think "It might hit the tree."  With our understanding of the situation, both hitting the tree and not hitting the tree are a possibility.  But reality is that there is no uncertainty. (barring some quantum randomness).  With complete knowledge we would not see the possibility of two outcomes.

You believe I chose to respond to the text.  But we have no evidence that in our universe in that exact scenario I could have done anything else (again barring quantum randomness).  You and I just didn't know whether I would hit the tree or not, so it appears there was a choice made.

Re: Your definition of Morality.

I don't believe right/wrong or good/bad behavior.  Going back to our rock, I don't think you would attribute morality to the path the rock takes rolling down the hill.  You would never call it an evil rock, or a rock that did something morally wrong.  I assume you don't believe rocks can behave morally/immorally.  As someone who doesn't believe in free will, I can no more rationally view a human as evil than I could a rock, or the weather.  

Pretending I believe in free will:  I've chosen to be motivated by practicality.  I don't respond to you like a jerk, because I want the conversation to continue, as I receive positive feedback from talking about this stuff.  Quantifying it in terms of good or bad is trying to make it something it's not.  If you want to murder a bunch of people, that's no different than not wanting to murder a bunch of people.  Actions are just actions.  Some actions oppose my goals practically, but that doesn't make them wrong or immoral.  Instead, I favor laws.  We make practical rules to prevent unwanted behavior.  Our not wanting it doesn't make it wrong or immoral.  Just unwanted due to reality.  I don't want to die.  That is a fact.  So I will look to keep myself from being murdered.  I support laws that prevent murder in the same way I avoid crossing rickety bridges over large ravines.  Both help keep me alive.  I don't think you would call my decision not to cross the rickety bridge a moral decision?

You are obviously a philosophical nonsense lover who doesn't know shit about communication. The philosophical notion of destiny, predestination, and it's ilk are useless mental masturbations that have no practical value and the bulk of the human population eschews these dry mental morasses. Communication on the other hand is clear, you do your best to exchange ideas with the best fidelity as possible with the understanding of your audience's ability to decode. You've made several clearly stated claims but you contend that they have meanings way outside of the normal vernacular.

[henryp]

You are obviously a philosophical nonsense lover who doesn't know shit about communication. The philosophical notion of destiny, predestination, and it's ilk are useless mental masturbations that have no practical value and the bulk of the human population eschews these dry mental morasses. Communication on the other hand is clear, you do your best to exchange ideas with the best fidelity as possible with the understanding of your audience's ability to decode. You've made several clearly stated claims but you contend that they have meanings way outside of the normal vernacular.

I do put quite a burden on others to try and understand what I'm saying based on context.  I actually prefer that way of communication, because even if I were precise with my language, which I'm very much not, there is still so much semantics (mental masturbation in which nobody cums) involved that we could spend days quibbling over the definition of just about everything (see half the threads in the forums).  That's why I try to use a lot of examples so people acting in good faith have a good shot at getting the gist of what I'm saying.  

And the ideas are far from mental masturbation with no practical value.  They shape how I vote, how I interact with others, my own happiness and behavior.  

In the bigger picture, we've seen the understanding that sexual preference/sexual identity as a non-choice completely change how the LGBT community is thought of.  We see similar changes in how people dealing with addictions/mental health issues are treated.  There is a definite shift away from the notion that people are wholly responsible for their actions, and I suspect both science and public opinion will continue down that road together for a little longer. I think science will end up going much much further than public opinion will be willing to, at least for now.

As for the bulk of the human population, I'm posting this on an Atheist forum with subforums like Religion, Philosophy, and Atheism for a reason.  I don't discuss this with people I know, as I can't imagine any of them having any interest in it.  This group I would expect to have more takers than the general population.

[henryp]

Rational, I'd say, would be coming to logical conclusions based on the knowledge or beliefs you have about our existence.

I'd say you just tied rationality to morals, not god.

No religious people chimed in in the religious forum.  If I'd known I'd only be talking with atheists, I'd have left the entire moral argument portion of the original post out of this.  That was in there, because I was interested in what religious people thought from their perspective. 

The question I'd have asked from the start if I'd known that would be: "From your perspective, do you find having neither objective or subjective morals to be a rational option?"  Preferably with an explanation of your reasoning tacked on to the answer.

[Neo-Scholastic]

My...goal was to ask theists how they argued against atheists who embodied the alternative in the moral argument.  The one's who say "I agree, no God = no morals/meaning/purpose, and since there is no God, I have no morals/meaning/purpose."

As for me, I congratulate them for their intellectual honesty.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Rational, I'd say, would be coming to logical conclusions based on the knowledge or beliefs you have about our existence.

Holding the idea that existence is actually rational is an irrational leap of faith.

[dyresand]

Rational, I'd say, would be coming to logical conclusions based on the knowledge or beliefs you have about our existence.

Holding the idea that existence is actually rational is an irrational leap of faith.

Holding a belief in god is a irrational leap of faith. There is no evidence to support a god and the chances of one existing is very low. 
It's more rational to hold no religious belief than to hold one. At least with skepticism and atheism you have science and it's always changing.
Then you have theism which only changes due to the society  and laws but the texts still stay the same but it 
gets interpreted differently to suit the time.

[henryp]

Holding the idea that existence is actually rational is an irrational leap of faith.

Holding a belief in god is a irrational leap of faith. There is no evidence to support a god and the chances of one existing is very low. 
It's more rational to hold no religious belief than to hold one. At least with skepticism and atheism you have science and it's always changing.
Then you have theism which only changes due to the society  and laws but the texts still stay the same but it 
gets interpreted differently to suit the time.

Are there bots that follow Chad around and post this stuff?  Do you guys take shifts?  Hey Chad, people think you believing in God is irrational.  Just in case nobody's mentioned it on here yet.

[robvalue]

There is morality, and there is pragmatism. Often they overlap, which makes total sense, since we have evolved to generally be a cooperative species. Morality, I feel, ultimately comes down to emotion.

You could argue that even pragmatism is rooted in emotion. After all, the desire to do anything at all has to come from somewhere.

When it comes to morality, there are only so many questions you can answer before you are forced to admit that emotion is behind it. I'm not at all saying that is a bad thing, by the way.

Why do I morally object to people being killed for no reason? Because I want them to have an opportunity to live.

Why do I want that? Because it's the only chance they will have, and I value their experiences as well as my own.

Why do I value them? Because to me, ultimately life is all that is important in this reality.

Why is other life important? Because I feel that it is. I have a lot of empathy, and hurting someone else ultimately feels like hurting myself. So I don't want to do that. I don't want other people to do it. It's my nature.

Once I've established what is important to me, I use logic and reason to see how I can best achieve it. But I think it's pointless to deny that at the bottom of it all is emotion. That's why morality will always be subjective.

[henryp]

My...goal was to ask theists how they argued against atheists who embodied the alternative in the moral argument.  The one's who say "I agree, no God = no morals/meaning/purpose, and since there is no God, I have no morals/meaning/purpose."

As for me, I congratulate them for their intellectual honesty.

Do you view this as an either or situation, and decide to be optimistic and choose God?  Or do you believe in God, but as a mental exercise conclude this is what existence would be an an alternate reality without God?