How much pain can atheists withstand ?

[Kingpin]

Morality that comes from a being who has access to all the facts, is objective by definition. 

Another one that just doesn't know better.  Moralities that come from gods (or any other subject) are, by definition, subjective.  

Furthermore, having access to all facts would not by itself satisfy the criteria of a moral actor.  I could have access to all the facts about a poison and it's effect on people, and that wouldn't make my poisoning someone objectively moral.  For there to be an objective morality there must be moral facts.  For a competent actor to be deemed moral it must also adhere to whatever those facts are.

I will borrow from William Lane Craig on this morality from God being subjective because he puts it so eloquently.

"You argue that a God who possesses subjective feelings cannot be the foundation of objective moral values. But this is confused. I’ve argued that objective moral values are rooted in God's nature, not in His will, and that that nature expresses itself toward us in the form of divine commandments, which constitute our moral duties. God may have subjective feelings, but these are not the basis of moral value or obligation. Far from being incompatible with objective moral values and duties, subjective feelings like compassion, moral indignation, sympathy, and so on are actually part of being a perfectly good moral agent.

I suspect that the problem is that you don’t share some of the moral feelings ascribed to God and so reject His being the foundation of morality. But then you find yourself in a rather peculiar situation. For you’ve told us that you don’t think objective moral values and duties exist. So why the indignation about a jealous, vengeful, and self-absorbed God? On your view there’s nothing wrong with having such feelings! On your view the only objection to theistic morality must be a consistency objection, that theistic-based morality is somehow inconsistent. I can’t help but suspect that, in fact, you do believe in objective moral values after all."

[The Grand Nudger]

Another one that just doesn't know better.  Moralities that come from gods (or any other subject) are, by definition, subjective.  

Furthermore, having access to all facts would not by itself satisfy the criteria of a moral actor.  I could have access to all the facts about a poison and it's effect on people, and that wouldn't make my poisoning someone objectively moral.  For there to be an objective morality there must be moral facts.  For a competent actor to be deemed moral it must also adhere to whatever those facts are.

The word God generally entails other attributes such as omnibenevolence, so God isn't any subject. Morality coming from a worship-worthy God certainly amounts to objective morality. Put differently : it's indistiguinshable from objective morality. God prescribing X or X being objectively good is the same thing.

If morality were an issue of your god hereby decreeing this or that, then morality would, by definition, be subjective.

I think it's a simple issue of crossed wires. This is the type of morality that you believe exists. You think it's objectively true that morality is divinely subjective.

[Angrboda]

God.

Boru

By what definition of faith?  Blind faith or trust/evidence based faith as used in the greek, pistis.

You have evidence of God? If not, then it's the blind kind. If you have evidence, then let's see it.

[Kingpin]

By what definition of faith?  Blind faith or trust/evidence based faith as used in the greek, pistis.

You have evidence of God?  If not, then it's the blind kind.  If you have evidence, then let's see it.

I have evidence that I certainly believe points to God.  I'm sure they have all been espoused on here countless times over.  The Cosmological argument, Teleological argument and argument from Morality being the main three that point to a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, personal, moral being.

[Angrboda]

I suspect that the problem is that you don’t share some of the moral feelings ascribed to God and so reject His being the foundation of morality. But then you find yourself in a rather peculiar situation. For you’ve told us that you don’t think objective moral values and duties exist. So why the indignation about a jealous, vengeful, and self-absorbed God? On your view there’s nothing wrong with having such feelings! On your view the only objection to theistic morality must be a consistency objection, that theistic-based morality is somehow inconsistent. I can’t help but suspect that, in fact, you do believe in objective moral values after all."

I've known Rhythm a long time and everything you accuse him of here is wrong. Save your canned speeches for when they're warranted.

[The End of Atheism]

Wouldn't any God judge us based on what we do rather then what we believe.

I can't believe I'm reading this, atheists can get so dumb when trying to mock orthodox beliefs. 

What you believe is actually all that matters. If I believe I am saving a person's life by cutting off their infected leg, I'm being genuinely good. If it turns out that I misdiagnosed them, this still doesn't make me a bad person, even though, objectively speaking, I did something horrible : I cut off a person's leg for no valid reason, I caused unnecessary suffering.

If I go save 12 people but don't believe in a God does that then cancel out the 12 people I've saved?

Yes, it cancels out everything you ever did. It's like asking : If I go save 12 people and then ingest cyanide, would my good deeds prevent me from dying from cyanide poisoning ? of course not. Saving 12 people is good, perhaps excessively good, not believing in God is a fatal mistake which no amount of good deeds can rehabilitate. And... um.. you know, it's not that hard to avoid this mstake.

Why does a God need me to believe in him rather than just decide on my fate based on how many people I've helped?

God doesn't need you to believe in Him. You need to believe in God.

[Angrboda]

You have evidence of God?  If not, then it's the blind kind.  If you have evidence, then let's see it.

I have evidence that I certainly believe points to God.  I'm sure they have all been espoused on here countless times over.  The Cosmological argument, Teleological argument and argument from Morality being the main three that point to a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, personal, moral being.

So, then, no actual direct evidence of something proving itself reliable, just a bunch of weak inferences that you feel point toward something vaguely similar to your god.

[Kingpin]

I suspect that the problem is that you don’t share some of the moral feelings ascribed to God and so reject His being the foundation of morality. But then you find yourself in a rather peculiar situation. For you’ve told us that you don’t think objective moral values and duties exist. So why the indignation about a jealous, vengeful, and self-absorbed God? On your view there’s nothing wrong with having such feelings! On your view the only objection to theistic morality must be a consistency objection, that theistic-based morality is somehow inconsistent. I can’t help but suspect that, in fact, you do believe in objective moral values after all."

I've known Rhythm a long time and everything you accuse him of here is wrong.  Save your canned speeches for when they're warranted.

This was no accusation of Rhythm (and I remember him from when I was here a long time ago as well).  I said this was borrowed because of how the argument was framed and responded to.  I acknowledged it as not my own but in context of the argument of God morality being subjective.

[Kingpin]

I have evidence that I certainly believe points to God.  I'm sure they have all been espoused on here countless times over.  The Cosmological argument, Teleological argument and argument from Morality being the main three that point to a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, personal, moral being.

So, then, no actual direct evidence of something proving itself reliable, just a bunch of weak inferences that you feel point toward something vaguely similar to your god.

I believe them to be direct evidence proving it reliable and trustworthy, not weak inferences at all.  I take an objective look at all arguments and investigate what corresponds the most to truth.

[Angrboda]

I've known Rhythm a long time and everything you accuse him of here is wrong.  Save your canned speeches for when they're warranted.

This was no accusation of Rhythm (and I remember him from when I was here a long time ago as well).  I said this was borrowed because of how the argument was framed and responded to.  I acknowledged it as not my own but in context of the argument of God morality being subjective.

My mistake. However, given that, it's hard to see how this addresses Rhythm's complaint as Craig's argument doesn't address the argument that Rhythm would make.