On whether the idiocy of atheism speaks for itself

[Anomaly]

1 minute ago, Credo in Deum said:

Naturals Law is evidence of a God.  Of course it’s not measurable proof of a Spirit.  You claim humans know instinctively that killing an infant is wrong, but you haven’t shown that!  All through history there are infants being killed by society, the unborn are being killed now! 

Even the Bible talks about God killing children as he lays waste to Sodom and Gamorah.   Solomon demonstrates the existence of Natural Law when he resolves the issue between two mothers claim the same baby. 
God, through intentional evolution, or simply natural evolution, has produced rational, reasonable, sentient creatures.  
Natural law knowable by observation and reason. You may ascribe that to God writing it in your heart.    I may ascribe that to the fruit of evolution and generations of society. 
 

 

[Credo in Deum]

16 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

Even the Bible talks about God killing children as he lays waste to Sodom and Gamorah.   Solomon demonstrates the existence of Natural Law when he resolves the issue between two mothers claim the same baby. 
God, through intentional evolution, or simply natural evolution, has produced rational, reasonable, sentient creatures.  
Natural law knowable by observation and reason. You may ascribe that to God writing it in your heart.    I may ascribe that to the fruit of evolution and generations of society. 
 

 

You pointing out God killing children isn’t some “ah ha” thing. I’ve already said anything God does is right/good.  God is the source of all created things and therefor can do whatever it wants with them.  The existence of all things is dependent on God so it’s always a gift. Gifts can be taken away or withheld. They’re not something you’re entitled to! 
 

Solomon was able to show a natural law because God exists not because of some evolutionary process which neither shows, proves, or is capable of dictating if an action is good or evil.   If there was no God then neither woman’s answer would have been correct or incorrect nor would Solomons actions.   Evolution isn't some intelligent force that cares about the outcome of things.  It has no justice because it has no revealed end goal for humanity’s future.  No one can be said to be opposing evolution. 

 

Ha “Lucky evolution”, man that’s rich. How would the humans evolving into beings of indifference be “unlucky evolution”?  How are you going to answer that when evolution has no revealed goals? 

Edited January 8, 2022 by Credo in Deum

[Peace]

57 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

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,

Not sure what you mean. What are your "two opposing views" and your "two opposite realities"?

57 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

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. 

Well this is an entirely different argument you are making now I think. You can say "what is the source of Natural Law"? You could say "what is the source of an apple"? You could say "what is the source of the sun"? You could say "what is the source for morality"? Obviously both you and I believe that it is God. But you are attempting to prove as much through logical inference, and here I think you have failed.

I mean if the crux of your argument is essentially "If X exists, then it is because God created it" why not just stick with Aquinas's five ways? I think you could make a better argument with respect to an apple, since everyone agrees that an apple exists objectively.

57 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

Also, yes, an action would always be correct if God said so. That’s just common sense.  

It is common sense to a Catholic Christian assuming the specific attributes that we believe God possesses (complete knowledge, omnipotence, goodness, unchanging, etc). It's not common sense to an atheist, the person whom you are trying to convince, I think.

But as a general principle, I think the idea is ridiculous. If God said "Peace. I want you to rape an kill and infant" that would not be a "good" action. How can you say that morality must be objective, and have a result like this, when both you and I know plenty well that it is evil to rape and kill an infant? It would make a mockery of the whole idea of morality would it not?

The question here is this, does an action become "good" or "evil" merely because God says "This is good" and "This is evil"? Or does God exercise intelligence and declare that things are "good" or "evil" according to certain criteria? Does God prohibit fornication just on an arbitrary whim? Or does prohibit fornication because it splits families apart, leads to a proliferation of diseases, children born out of wedlock without two parents, men and women objectifying each other as sexual objects, and so forth?

The latter view seems a lot more reasonable to me than the arbitrary "God just declares some things good and other things bad, and therefore it is" view you seem to be advocating.

So, if God classifies certain activities as good or bad according to criteria, are rational human beings naturally capable of developing the same criteria and reaching the same conclusion that fornication (or murder, rape, or whatever) is evil? I think for your argument to work you need to demonstrate that people are incapable of doing that, and I don't think you can, which makes your reasoning pretty flawed in my opinion (nothing personal).

57 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

If God is the source of all existence then how could the source of all existence be incorrect when it acts?

Dude I have some clay on my desk. I can mold the clay into a bowl. If the bowl I molded has a hole in the bottom, when I pour soup into the bowl it will leak out and the food will be wasted.

I don't think you are stating a valid principle here. You seem to want to state that he/it that creates must create perfectly. I don't think there's any logical reason for that conclusion.

57 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

Your reality is dictated by  the source, God.   Killing infants is evil precisely because there is a God.

You keep saying this but this is what you need to prove, no?

Dude. I mean, obviously I believe that God exists. I just don't find the proof here to be a very good one.

57 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

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.

Well the reason why we don't call animals "good" and "evil" is because we recognize that they are not capable of the type of higher order thinking that only humans possess, and which enables us to contemplate morality and make moral choices.

57 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

In a godless world you can’t, with authority, call any human action as being good or evil.  

Why not? Again, you keep saying it but I don't think you have proven it. If God can say "fornication is wrong because it splits families apart" why can't I say "fornication is wrong because it splits families apart"? The logic is the same, no?

Now, the "with authority" part of it I will grant you, but who cares? Tribe A concludes that fornication is evil and Tribe B concludes that fornication is good. Call my morality "subjective" because I am not omnipotent and can't send people to hell for fornicating against my wishes. How in the world does that lead to a logical conclusion that God exists?

 

[KnightofChrist]

On 1/5/2022 at 12:03 PM, Anomaly said:

My answer is all morals are philosophical constructs.    

These constructs attempt to give meaning to an meaningless existence. Purpose where there is no purpose. Why should one reject imaginary beings but believe in imaginary morals?

On 1/5/2022 at 12:03 PM, Anomaly said:

Mine and yours.  

What is an example of an Objective Moral, valid in all circumstances, only communicated from God belief? 

The original topic of the thread puts atheism on the defense. Are you able to defend atheistic morals without needing to question theism? I've stated repeatedly my purpose in this thread is not defending theism. Others can do so if they wish of course. But I'm here to play devil's advocate, to argue against the existence of morals for a godless reality. Atheists it seems cannot defend their belief systems without questioning theism. 

[Anomaly]

@KnightofChrist

The atheist/secular/non-diest defense for morality is natural law, discernible through observation and reason.

[Credo in Deum]

5 hours ago, Anomaly said:

@KnightofChrist

The atheist/secular/non-diest defense for morality is natural law, discernible through observation and reason.

What’s the source of natural law? What is the law giver? Evolution? If so then this would mean behaviors which are in opposition to evolution would be immoral, correct?  Provide an example of a behavior which is in opposition to evolution.  Demonstrate how it’s contrary to evolution and therefor immoral.

 

Edited January 8, 2022 by Credo in Deum

[Peace]

31 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

What’s the source of natural law? What is the law giver? Evolution? If so then this would mean behaviors which are in opposition to evolution would be immoral, correct?  Provide an example of a behavior which is in opposition to evolution.  Demonstrate how it’s contrary to evolution and therefor immoral.

Homosexuality. If every person decided to be a homosexual the entire species would die off within a few generations.

The same can be said for abortion.

[Credo in Deum]

33 minutes ago, Peace said:

Homosexuality. If every person decided to be a homosexual the entire species would die off within a few generations.

The same can be said for abortion.

Demonstrate why the continuation  of a species is always a moral good or why the extinction of a species is always a moral evil. How is it opposed to evolution? 
 

——————

The role of mass extinction in evolution

At the most basic level, mass extinctions reduce diversity by killing off specific lineages, and with them, any descendent species they might have given rise to. In this way, mass extinction prunes whole branches off the tree of life. But mass extinction can also play a creative role in evolution, stimulating the growth of other branches.

Tree adapted from Upham, N.S., Esselstyn, J.A., Jetz, W., 2019. Inferring the mammal tree: Species-level sets of phylogenies for questions in ecology, evolution, and conservation. PLoS Biol 17, e3000494. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000494

The sudden disappearance of plants and animals that occupy a specific habitat creates new opportunities for surviving species. Over many generations of natural selection, these lineages and their descendent lineages may evolve specializations suited to the newly freed up resources and may take over ecological roles previously held by other species, or may evolve brand new ecological strategies. In this way, mass extinction can level the evolutionary playing field for a brief time, allowing lineages that were formerly minor players to diversify and become more prevalent. By removing so many species from their ecosystems in a short period of time, mass extinctions reduce competition for resources and leave behind many vacant niches, which surviving lineages can evolve into. For example, mammals have been around for more than 200 million years — but for most of that time, they’ve remained a small group of rodent-like organisms. It was only when the non-avian dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago in the end-Cretaceous mass extinction, that mammals really diversified. In less than 20 million years, they evolved into the great variety of mammals we know today — forms that play many of the same roles in terrestrial ecosystems that their dinosaur predecessors had.

 

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/mass-extinction/the-role-of-mass-extinction-in-evolution/

35 minutes ago, Peace said:

Homosexuality. If every person decided to be a homosexual the entire species would die off within a few generations.

The same can be said for abortion.

If “every person”, lol.  Come back down to reality, Peace.  Prove your point based on actual behaviors and phenomenon. 

Clearly, your example would lead to the conclusion that  “every” is the qualifier for the action being immoral since some homosexuality and some abortion wouldn’t lead to the extinction of the species (something you still have to prove is a moral evil).

 

Edited January 8, 2022 by Credo in Deum

[Peace]

22 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

Demonstrate why the continuation  of a species is always a moral good or why the extinction of a species is always a moral evil.

I never said that the continuation of a species is always a moral good.

I define the continuation of the human species to be morally good. As for the dinosaurs, I'm quite happy to be without them.

22 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

How is it opposed to evolution?

If humans go extinct, then they cease to evolve. That is rather obvious.

But let's say we are not just talking about the human species. Let's say that I define "the continuation of life" or "the flourishing of various life forms" as a moral good. The same principle applies I think. If every member of every species on the planet earth went homosexual, procured abortions, or whatever the plant equivalent of self-extinction is, then all known life in the universe would go extinct. We'd be precipitating the eventual heat-death of the universe, in a sense. I don't see how any of that is consistent with evolution, and it generally something that all species view as "a bad thing" (to the extent that they are rational beings, of course).

Edited January 8, 2022 by Peace

[Anomaly]

@Credo in Deum  Read up a bit on Natural Law, including Aquainis.   The difference between a secularist and a Christian theologian is initiator of Natural Law.   A secularist ascribes developed evolution.  A Theologian would ascribe God’s Plan.    We aren’t arguing who is right.  Not all atheists deny natural law, nor all Christians or even believers in other Gods, agree on the morality in natural law.   
We’re only discussing possibly someone who disagrees with you is idiotic.   I’m not proving atheism as a requirement.   

[Credo in Deum]

2 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

@Credo in Deum  Read up a bit on Natural Law, including Aquainis.   The difference between a secularist and a Christian theologian is initiator of Natural Law.   A secularist ascribes developed evolution.  A Theologian would ascribe God’s Plan.    We aren’t arguing who is right.  Not all atheists deny natural law, nor all Christians or even believers in other Gods, agree on the morality in natural law.   
We’re only discussing possibly someone who disagrees with you is idiotic.   I’m not proving atheism as a requirement.   

Maybe you should read up on Aquinas since our ability to reason is a characteristic of our human nature, which is body and soul. This means Aquinas attributes the light of reason in our nature as coming from God since evolution doesn’t create immaterial souls, according to atheists. 

The difference between a Christian and a secularist is like the difference between the Catholic and Protestant.  The former uses something while giving credit to its source, while the latter uses something while giving no credit to its source.  Evolution cannot produce objective morality.  
 

Aquinas would call atheism absolute foolishness. 

3 hours ago, Peace said:

I never said that the continuation of a species is always a moral good.

I define the continuation of the human species to be morally good. As for the dinosaurs, I'm quite happy to be without them.

Great.  Your opinion holds no authority to dictate that those with opposing opinions and behaviors are evil or wrong.   

 

3 hours ago, Peace said:

3 hours ago, Peace said:

But let's say we are not just talking about the human species. Let's say that I define "the continuation of life" or "the flourishing of various life forms" as a moral good. The same principle applies I think. If every member of every species on the planet earth went homosexual, procured abortions, or whatever the plant equivalent of self-extinction is, then all known life in the universe would go extinct. We'd be precipitating the eventual heat-death of the universe, in a sense. I don't see how any of that is consistent with evolution, and it generally something that all species view as "a bad thing" (to the extent that they are rational beings, of course).

If evolution dictated that the entire planet commit self extinction then what is that other than a natural process?  How could such a process be defined as evil? 

[Peace]

3 hours ago, Credo in Deum said:

Great.  Your opinion holds no authority to dictate that those with opposing opinions and behaviors are evil or wrong.   

No, I have authority to dictate to those with opposing opinions that they are wrong. God exercises his authority by not allowing them to enter Heaven. I exercise my authority by not allowing them to enter my home for a nice cup of tea.

You are simply making the same argument again aren’t you? That “there can be no morality without God (as Catholics understand him in particular)”.

But again you are simply assuming as fact what you need to prove. And you still have yet to offer any proof for that assertion whatsoever.

3 hours ago, Credo in Deum said:

If evolution dictated that the entire planet commit self extinction then what is that other than a natural process?  How could such a process be defined as evil? 

Because I define the continuation of the human species to be morally good, just as I wrote previously.

[Credo in Deum]

6 minutes ago, Peace said:

No, I have authority to dictate to those with opposing opinions that they are wrong. God exercises his authority by not allowing them to enter Heaven. I exercise my authority by not allowing them to enter my home for a nice cup of tea.

You are simply making the same argument again aren’t you? That “there can be no morality without God (as Catholics understand him in particular)”.

But again you are simply assuming as fact what you need to prove. And you still have yet to offer any proof for that assertion whatsoever.

An atheist started the thread that there can be morality without a God.  They have yet to show how that’s possible without an authority for the morality.  

Just like how you couldn’t show why you’re an authority to be listened to when you claim someone’s opinion is wrong or evil.  You’re welcome to be delusional and claim yourself an authority but that doesn’t make it so, and sure you can claim another person is wrong but that’s not proof of an objective moral law which actually shows them to be wrong. 

Atheists here can make-up imaginary morals all they want.  Without an authority to back them up, they’re nothing more than opinions masquerading as facts.

At the end of the day atheism is really just a sad attempt to usurp God’s authority aka non serviam as their muse would say.  

[Anomaly]

You’ve been shown.   You’re welcome to disagree as to the the source of natural law, but at this point, you’re just being obtuse.
 

sorry, but believing or not believing in a God is a matter of faith. 

[Peace]

21 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

An atheist started the thread that there can be morality without a God.  They have yet to show how that’s possible without an authority for the morality.  
 

Well since you won’t allow me to be an authority (and presumably all other people) then you must think that God is the only authority, no?

How about the state legislature, judges, prosecutors, and police, who enforce the criminal code that reflects our cultural standards of morality? You can get thrown in jail for murder but the judge who does it is not an authority?

Let’s take a look at what the word “morality” means.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

Morality (from Latin: moralitas, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper (right) and those that are improper (wrong), and it’s a construct of justice.[1]Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2] Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".

Now, let me give you a quick example of something that meets the above definition of morality, without God (given that God is the only authority you recognize) or religion.

In American culture, we believe that people who have been born have a general right to live. Thus, here in America homicide is viewed as morally wrong, and is criminalized as such.

As another example, I, my atheist friend @Anomaly and many others believe that abortion should be prohibited. This is a “a standard that a person believes should be universal”.

So I just gave you two examples that fit the definition of “morality” without any reliance upon or appeal to the only authority that you recognize (as silly as it is not to recognize men as authorities).

21 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

Just like how you couldn’t show why you’re an authority to be listened to when you claim someone’s opinion is wrong or evil.  You’re welcome to be delusional and claim yourself an authority but that doesn’t make it so, and sure you can claim another person is wrong but that’s not proof of an objective moral law which actually shows them to be wrong. 

Well it’s no more “delusional” than claiming that God is the only authority to be listened to.

And I already admitted that morality without God (as we understand him) is subjective, so I don’t know why you keep harping on and on about it not being objective.

You may think the Mona Lisa is the most beautiful woman to have ever walked the Earth. I may think she looks like a troll. Because it is subjective, are you also going to argue that beauty does not exist?

21 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

Atheists here can make-up imaginary morals all they want.  Without an authority to back them up, they’re nothing more than opinions masquerading as facts.

Well. Ask the murderer who gets life imprisonment or the death penalty whether our societal morals imposed on him through the penal system are “imaginary”.

21 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

At the end of the day atheism is really just a sad attempt to usurp God’s authority aka non serviam as their muse would say.  

Well I’m the reason this whole thread exists considering that I’m the one who wrote that the idiocy of atheism is self-apparent. And yes, for the most part I agree that they want to ursurp God’s authority (naturally idiotic).

The OP essentially wrote that the “there can be no morality without God, therefore God exists” argument is flawed. Here, I actually agree with him, for the reasons outlined above, even though I still maintain that atheism is only for idiots.