Atheists are having it too easy.

[Half Nelson]

You are speaking too generally. Again if there is something you think someone on this thread believes that you want justification for then simply ask.

However if any old notion that pops into someone’s head is devoid of any evidence or arguments on which to lend it any credence, we merely dispose of that notion until such time as it does.

If for example the notion that a non-human creative intelligence exists that created the universe and now supervises and maintains it is one you hold, then so be it. However if you have nothing on which to lend any credence to that notion, I merely must proceed without it.

If however you DO have any such evidence or arguments, I would be agog to hear them. Quite simply: Agog.

You won't be allowed to turn this thread on its head. It's about atheism, gettit?

Christianity (I won't speak for any other) can justify its beliefs within the parameters of those beliefs. Those beliefs may not meet the criteria of other systems but there is no inherent contradiction.

The same cannot be said of atheism, which fails to argue its case to its own logical end. In fact, many atheists seem to have made self-delusion a way of life and are coat-tailing the work and beliefs of established religions, whilst thumbing their noses at the same religions, when a simple 'thank you' would suffice.

[Didimus]

One advantage of the awareness that one's own morality is not, in fact, an absolute truth, is a willingness to accommodate other people's moralities and to work within a jointly constructed moral system that is highly unlikely to match one's own at every point.

Mind you, that's exactly what moral absolutists would identify as being the problem with moral relativism...

The jointly constructed moral system is indeed the issue. How do we go about building it and developing support for it? And re the OP how do we do this in the context of a shift from a definite and generally agreed set of values to a more fluid situation.
And in this argument I think it is more helpful to talk about secularism rather than atheism.

[Cato]

It is atheists, like yourself, who make so much of their atheism, yet fail to justify their belief in non-belief with any sense of consistency. We only know what atheism is not; it is therefore a religion of negativity. To make it a positive requires sensible, reasonable and logical justification concerning life's big questions, without borrowing religious or spiritual terminology or ideas - something which is lacking.

In fact, you seem to imply that atheism is not an 'ism' at all, but a vacuum.
I agree with you there.

I think that atheist per se is a negative assertion, however, it is possible to express it positively as 'naturalism' (as opposed to the 'supernaturalism' of the theist).

Naturalism is the philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.

Finally, the non-belief of the atheist does not have to be justified, rather it is up to the theist to justify the god hypothesis.

[Almanac]

Sigh. This isn't even fun - it's like arguing about pointillism with a blind man. You can't accept that anything other than an absolute/objective morality is a morality, you can't prove it because you can't see that it needs to be proved, and worst of all you don't even know that you're doing it because you cannot see that anything else is even possible.

Well that's much easier than actually answering the points. Like other points you skipped earlier in this debate. Ibis, I wouldn't come to you and argue that you were wrong about marine science (is it?) or java script when I clearly do not understand those subjects. You apparently can't even see the arguments. That, though, has no impact on their validity. That is simply a deficiency in your understanding probably resulting from your having been trained (or conditioned) to think in a certain way.

That last bit, though, about "a hidden moral assumption in your argument"? That's so far off what I actually said that it's difficult to believe we're using the same language. I have never used the argument that what is evolutionarily successful is right, and I reject entirely even the concept of linking the two - and that's a measure of just how little attention you paid to what I actually said. A further measure will now be offered by your puzzlement at how I can say I reject linking the two, when as far as you can see I just did.

I suspected that you would focus on this point. You, or anyone who poses this argument, assumes that acting in a manner that conveys evolutionary success is right, that it is the correct course of action, that it ought to be done. But you are just dealing with a neutral body of facts. You are getting an "ought" from an "is". It's a logical fallacy whether you like it or not. Granted, it's not the easiest to see so ignore it if you like.

[Almanac]

No, its not!

Well then there's nothing to form moral opinions about, is there? There's no referent.

And even if it is, the suggestion that it is there yet we cant find it and therefore do not know what this objective morality is, reduces it of so much meaning that it is not objective in any real sense. And if it was put there by some entity who no choooses to punish us for not living by it even though after thousands of years we still havent been able to determine what it is....... then, well, then he is certainly nopt worth following.

But, anyway, its not there so there is no point in worrying about it. We make our own morals. Thankfully, through shared experiences, and mutual survival, many of our morals are similar. But we made them and we can break 'em. And you can be sure we will continue to do so.

Sure we do. Keep asserting it to yourself.

[Almanac]

What does it say ?

No idea. What do quarks say?

For that matter, what do trees say?

Do you only believe in things that speak?

[Half Nelson]

..Finally, the non-belief of the atheist does not have to be justified, rather it is up to the theist to justify the god hypothesis.

The atheist should be expected to justify his beliefs according to his own assertions of logic and reason as the only worthwhile yardsticks. If he can't he contradicts himself. He places the burden of proof and justification on his own shoulders.

Christianity can justify its beliefs according to its own yardsticks of logic, reason and faith. There is no inherent contradiction. It does not have to prove anything to the atheist other than that it does not contradict itself.

[markeys]

The atheist should be expected to justify his beliefs according to his own assertions of logic and reason as the only worthwhile yardsticks. If he can't he contradicts himself. He places the burden of proof and justification on his own shoulders.

Christianity can justify its beliefs according to its own yardsticks of logic, reason and faith. There is no inherent contradiction. It does not have to prove anything to the atheist other than that it does not contradict itself.

Atheists can't prove diddly squat. Their argument revolves around expecting others to jump to their standards and prove every single demand they make whilst having to do nothing themselves. They are composed of useless half wits with not a thought between them. Strangely, they believe in dreams, despite no scientific proof of dreams existing. Double standards is the standard for the atheist argument.

[nozzferrahhtoo]

You won't be allowed to turn this thread on its head. It's about atheism, gettit?

I am well aware of the topic of the thread. Atheism is nothing but a consequence of what I just described to you. If a notion is presented without anything to lend it credence then we dismiss it. If you want to suggest that makes us A- something then so be it. If the notion that there is a god entity and it is controlling the supervising the universe is “theism” then I dismiss this notion on the grounds that you have offered nothing upon which to lend in any credence. If that makes “A-“ “-Theism” then so be it.

However this tells you nothing about me, any more than the fact you are likely an A-astrologer or an A-racist or an A-evolutionist would be likely to tell me anything about you.

[nozzferrahhtoo]

Well then there's nothing to form moral opinions about, is there? There's no referent.

There is. The common generally shared human condition, human solidarity, and the fact that we want to construct a society to live in together and the best source of finding out the best way to live with each other IS each other.