On whether the idiocy of atheism speaks for itself

[Credo in Deum]

2 hours ago, Anomaly said:

My answer is all morals are philosophical constructs.    Mine and yours.  
What is an example of an Objective Moral, valid in all circumstances, only communicated from God belief? 

KoC understands you believe, as an atheist, that all morals are philosophical constructs.  What he’s asking is what, therefor, determines which actions/behaviors/beliefs are moral or immoral, and why is that thing, whatever it maybe, the source of authority?

 It seems that if all morals are philosophical constructs made by mankind then morality is relative and there is no real right and wrong.  Any right or wrong, good or evil, would be determined by a collectives goals; but that type of reasoning isn’t accepted by even atheists as being correct since you wouldn’t recognize it’s authority in in a majority Christian society so….what….is….the…atheists…source….of…authority…for…objective….morality?  
 

I’ll come back to your responses to my questions later. Darn lunch breaks. 

[Anomaly]

I’m not sure what you’re saying is not acceptable to an atheist.

It’s not a leap to discern fundamental principles on recognizing individuals share identity with others.   God isn’t necessary to arrive at loving your neighbors as you love yourself.  Shared identity is the foundation of morality.  

Why would I be upset about Christian morality, unless I believe it’s harmful to myself or others?

[Credo in Deum]

5 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

I’m not sure what you’re saying is not acceptable to an atheist.

It’s not a leap to discern fundamental principles on recognizing individuals share identity with others.   God isn’t necessary to arrive at loving your neighbors as you love yourself.  Shared identity is the foundation of morality.  

Why would I be upset about Christian morality, unless I believe it’s harmful to myself or others?

How is morality not relative if all morality is from made-up human philosophical constructs?  
 

Let’s use abortion as an example.

Atheist Society A says it’s evil.

Atheist Society B says it’s good.

Which atheistic society is correct? 
 

A?

B?

[Anomaly]

53 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

How is morality not relative if all morality is from made-up human philosophical constructs?  
 

Let’s use abortion as an example.

Atheist Society A says it’s evil.

Atheist Society B says it’s good.

Which atheistic society is correct? 
 

A?

B?

Considering that there are Catholics that see nothing wrong with abortion under various circumstances and for certain people , it’s a great example.   
I’m in the A group.  

[Credo in Deum]

6 hours ago, Anomaly said:

Considering that there are Catholics that see nothing wrong with abortion under various circumstances and for certain people , it’s a great example.   
I’m in the A group.  

Any Catholic that sees nothing wrong with abortion under various circumstances is a Catholic who’s wrong.   You even bringing that up is pointless. 

As an atheist you align yourself with group A.  Since God is not the source of your moral authority, please provide your source of moral authority.  Please demonstrate how that source makes your decision good and the atheists decision in society B evil.

[Anomaly]

6 hours ago, Credo in Deum said:

Any Catholic that sees nothing wrong with abortion under various circumstances is a Catholic who’s wrong.   You even bringing that up is pointless. 

As an atheist you align yourself with group A.  Since God is not the source of your moral authority, please provide your source of moral authority.  Please demonstrate how that source makes your decision good and the atheists decision in society B evil.

Calling out Catholics was clumsy.   Many Christians will defend abortion, with God as their moral authority.   Why are they wrong?
What commandment says thou shall not abortion?

Why do you say abortion is wrong?    There appears to be more required than an unequivocal objective statement. 
 

I’m working up to answering your direct question.  I don’t believe we are too far apart.  

[Credo in Deum]

1 hour ago, Anomaly said:

Calling out Catholics was clumsy.   Many Christians will defend abortion, with God as their moral authority.   Why are they wrong?
What commandment says thou shall not abortion?

Why do you say abortion is wrong?    There appears to be more required than an unequivocal objective statement. 
 

I’m working up to answering your direct question.  I don’t believe we are too far apart.  

I know what you’re doing but it’s not relevant to the question for one key reason and that is the discussion between Christians will ultimately be decided by an authority outside of themselves which transcends their humanity.

 

Atheists believe there is no God.  The claim is made that without a God there can be no morality.  Atheists claim their can be.  
 

My original question in regards to abortion therefor is based on the acceptance that there is no God and never was one, and that no one that exists has or ever did believe in a God.

With that understanding, the question is posed.  

Atheist Society A believes abortion is evil.

 Atheist Society B believes abortion is good.

Now just so we’re clear because I know how much you like to deflect.  These questions are being posed to you under the hypothetical situation that there is and always has been an world with no God, no concept of God, and no point in history when humans believed in a God. 
 

Within such a world, which society is correct? Why are they correct? What source do you use as being the authority for your decision?

 

 

 

PS. Clearly I’m having to say “atheist society” because of limitations in trying to convey hypothetical situations (if there was no God and no belief in a God at any point then there would be nothing to define an atheist, which is funny how even your title is dependent on the God you don’t acknowledge exists, but I digress)

Edited January 6, 2022 by Credo in Deum

[Credo in Deum]

And I just want to apologize for saying “deflect” since that is a judgment on you.  I’m sorry.  Since I cannot edit it, I want to amend it by replacing deflect with be distracted.

[Anomaly]

It doesn’t matter if a society ever believed in a God.  
 

Do monkeys randomly eat each other’s or their own babies because they’re available and delicious?   Do elephants grieve over the loss of an infant.    Creatures with higher cognition develop empathy.   They don’t have to be told.  
Humans are much more cognitively developed.   You can call it a gift from God, I can call it evolutionary development of sentience.   Either way, empathy exists.  
 

You’re looking for authority to force empathetic behavior.   That’s just obedience.  
My argument against abortion is showing it is killing an inconvenient person.   The second argument would be defining what is a person.  

At one time, a pregnancy wasn’t a pregnancy until “quickening”, and abortive action was okay as fetus wasn’t a person yet.   We know better now.  
 

Humans build on generational knowledge.   We use the sense God have you, or I got from evolution, and work with societal knowledge and culture to guide our actions with basic empathy, founded on shared identity.  
 

We may disagree, but atheists aren’t necessarily idiots, nor are believers in God, until either of us ignore our shared identity, and act less intelligently than a herd of elephants or pack of wolves.   

[Peace]

On 1/6/2022 at 9:14 AM, Credo in Deum said:

I know what you’re doing but it’s not relevant to the question for one key reason and that is the discussion between Christians will ultimately be decided by an authority outside of themselves which transcends their humanity.

 

Atheists believe there is no God.  The claim is made that without a God there can be no morality.  Atheists claim their can be.  
 

My original question in regards to abortion therefor is based on the acceptance that there is no God and never was one, and that no one that exists has or ever did believe in a God.

With that understanding, the question is posed.  

Atheist Society A believes abortion is evil.

 Atheist Society B believes abortion is good.

Now just so we’re clear because I know how much you like to deflect.  These questions are being posed to you under the hypothetical situation that there is and always has been an world with no God, no concept of God, and no point in history when humans believed in a God. 
 

Within such a world, which society is correct? Why are they correct? What source do you use as being the authority for your decision?

 

 

 

PS. Clearly I’m having to say “atheist society” because of limitations in trying to convey hypothetical situations (if there was no God and no belief in a God at any point then there would be nothing to define an atheist, which is funny how even your title is dependent on the God you don’t acknowledge exists, but I digress)

Hmm. I think you look at Vatican 2 and other documents that the Church has promulgated, you'll see that She takes the view that the prohibition on abortion can be deduced from natural reason (although it is also divine law). I don't think the Church has ever taken the position that abortion is evil merely because "God says it is evil" or because "God is omnipotent and says it is evil".

[Peace]

 

On 1/3/2022 at 1:22 PM, Credo in Deum said:

Well the position is morality cannot exist without a God.  This is based on the claim that because morality deals with what is good and evil then it must be objective because subjective good and evil is a contradiction since something cannot be good and evil. It’s either one or the other.  In order for morality to be objective it needs a source of authority.

OK. But I don't see how this proves the existence of God.

Let's replace God with the Emperor from Star Wars at the height of his power. He's got complete rule over the entire universe and the ability to enforce his will on anyone that he wants.

Let's say that the Emperor or some ruler of a totalitarian regime declares "Killing every infant born in an odd numbered year" to be "good" and uses the death star, the dark side of the force, etc. to wipe them all out with impunity. So we have the Emperor as the source of authority, and thus an objective morality. The existence of God, is not proven, however.

Moreover, would killing every infant born in an odd numbered year then become "good" simply because there is someone who has declared it "good" and has the authority to enforce it?

It seems that you are making the argument that one can only objectively call something "Good" or "Evil" because God defines it as such? That principles themselves do not define what are "good" and "evil" but only the existence of a powerful being who can zap people can say that something is "good" or "evil"?

That cannot be.

What if God were a tyrant or indifferent to everyday human affairs? If God permitted abortion would that make it "Good" merely because God said so?

Look, killing infants is not evil merely because God prohibits it and because God is powerful. It is evil because it is wrong to intentionally cause unnecessary harm to innocent human beings. The violation of the principle itself is why we call it evil, not because of the existence of any particular lawgiver.

So yeah, I don't see how you get from a recognition that moral principles exist, to "therefore, God exists". I think you are making an unfounded leap of logic there. Has there ever been a Catholic theologian who has offered a formal proof of the existence of God, based on the rationale that you are using here? Maybe so but I have not seen it. I suspect that it would not hold.

I mean, it seems like you are taking a view that certain moral principles cannot be deduced from natural law or reason, no?

[Credo in Deum]

2 hours ago, Peace said:

 

OK. But I don't see how this proves the existence of God.

Let's replace God with the Emperor from Star Wars at the height of his power. He's got complete rule over the entire universe and the ability to enforce his will on anyone that he wants.

Let's say that the Emperor or some ruler of a totalitarian regime declares "Killing every infant born in an odd numbered year" to be "good" and uses the death star, the dark side of the force, etc. to wipe them all out with impunity. So we have the Emperor as the source of authority, and thus an objective morality. The existence of God, is not proven, however.

Moreover, would killing every infant born in an odd numbered year then become "good" simply because there is someone who has declared it "good" and has the authority to enforce it?

It seems that you are making the argument that one can only objectively call something "Good" or "Evil" because God defines it as such? That principles themselves do not define what are "good" and "evil" but only the existence of a powerful being who can zap people can say that something is "good" or "evil"?

That cannot be.

What if God were a tyrant or indifferent to everyday human affairs? If God permitted abortion would that make it "Good" merely because God said so?

Look, killing infants is not evil merely because God prohibits it and because God is powerful. It is evil because it is wrong to intentionally cause unnecessary harm to innocent human beings. The violation of the principle itself is why we call it evil, not because of the existence of any particular lawgiver.

So yeah, I don't see how you get from a recognition that moral principles exist, to "therefore, God exists". I think you are making an unfounded leap of logic there. Has there ever been a Catholic theologian who has offered a formal proof of the existence of God, based on the rationale that you are using here? Maybe so but I have not seen it. I suspect that it would not hold.

I mean, it seems like you are taking a view that certain moral principles cannot be deduced from natural law or reason, no?

The problem with talking about this is there are two opposing views that believe in two completely opposite realities and you’re sadly talking as if these two realities could possibly share anything in common, for what is the source of Natural Law, Peace? I’m pretty sure the source would be God since God is the source of all creation. Heck, order in the world is considered evidence of an intelligent being, that’s a natural law, and one which atheists agree on until it comes to accepting a being that will be able to tell them if they’re moral or immoral. 
 

Now an atheist will say the source for morality is evolution, however, evolution can’t explain why certain behaviors are good or evil or why the moral law dictates this or that behavior.  For example, Anomaly says evolution has allowed us to be empathetic, which he claims is how we can be moral; but Anomaly hasn’t shown why empathy is moral or if it’s always moral.   Anomaly incorrectly says I’m looking for an authority to force empathetic behavior, when what I’m looking for is an authority for WHY empathetic behavior is always moral!
 

Also, yes, an action would always be correct if God said so. That’s just common sense.  If God is the source of all existence then how could the source of all existence be incorrect when it acts?  Your reality is dictated by  the source, God.   Killing infants is evil precisely because there is a God. No other living animal killing an infant is  viewed as an act that has a moral value!  We don’t call tigers that eat their young, evil!  We don’t call quokkas evil for throwing their young towards a charging predator just so they can escape.  In a godless world you can’t, with authority, call any human action as being good or evil.  Godless people know this which is why whenever they want to justify their behaviors they point to animals and say “look, animals do it”. 
 

 

Edited January 8, 2022 by Credo in Deum

[Credo in Deum]

Another fun scenario:

There is no God. 
 

A pregnant woman has the choice of either killing her unborn child or dying to save her child. She chooses to kill her child.
 

Explain how evolution or empathy is going to provide an authoritative moral determination on her actions. 
 

Edited January 8, 2022 by Credo in Deum

[Anomaly]

Your whole supposition falls apart unless you can show where God clearly communicates His authority and informs.   
 

Humanity knows killing an infant is not good and can communicate that because of our intelligence.  A tiger that randomly attacks a cub would be attacked, the coin defended.  That’s observable natural law.  
 

Humans have more intelligence and reason.  Call it a gift from God, or lucky evolution.   

You claim natural law is only possible by aGod.   That’s incorrect.   Even Thomas would disagree.  Natural Law is an indication of God, but not complete proof. 

[Credo in Deum]

9 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

Your whole supposition falls apart unless you can show where God clearly communicates His authority and informs.   
 

Humanity knows killing an infant is not good and can communicate that because of our intelligence.  A tiger that randomly attacks a cub would be attacked, the coin defended.  That’s observable natural law.  
 

Humans have more intelligence and reason.  Call it a gift from God, or lucky evolution.   

You claim natural law is only possible by aGod.   That’s incorrect.   Even Thomas would disagree.  Natural Law is an indication of God, but not complete proof. 

Naturals Law is evidence of a God.  Of course it’s not measurable proof of a Spirit.  You know spirits aren’t capable of physical measurement, right? It’s that whole immaterial nature thing.
 

You claim humans know instinctively that killing an infants is wrong, but you haven’t shown that!  All through history there are infants being killed by society, the unborn are being killed now! 

My point doesn’t fall apart simply because I haven’t revealed God to you.  It’s still solid in showing the necessity of a God in order for morality to exist.

 

Edited January 8, 2022 by Credo in Deum