On whether the idiocy of atheism speaks for itself

[Credo in Deum]

57 minutes ago, Peace said:

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?

God is the only authority and those who act in opposition to God abuse their authority.   A judge may be given authority to execute their office and to enforce the law but this doesn’t mean the laws they enforce are moral, simply because they have the authority to enforce them.  With that logic abortion isn’t a moral evil because the Supreme Court by way of judicial authority legalized abortions. 
 

57 minutes ago, Peace said:

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?

I’m not claiming that God is the only authority we should listen too.  We should also listen to any authority who does not oppose God.  
 

A subjective moral law is an oxymoron.  

58 minutes ago, Peace said:

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".

You actually haven’t shown how Anomaly is able to take a moral stance for or against a behavior.  Morality, as the definition states, deals with justice, yet Anomaly cannot demonstrate how their source for morality, Evolution, dictates what is just or what unjust.  A person who believes in God can make the case that murder is an injustice to the dignity humans have as being creatures made in the image of God.  This truth is so self-evident that even the Founding Fathers of the USA stated that it was God who was the source of our inalienable rights.

 Yet, without a God we’re all just animals living amongst each other, in societies we’ve created and governed by laws on what the majority of animals have dictated is right and wrong; without demonstrating why this is a fact, other than it being because it goes against their made-up collective vision for what they want us to be. 
 

[Peace]

20 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

A subjective moral law is an oxymoron.  

No, that is obviously wrong. The definition states that “Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture”. Not all religions and cultures and philosophies are the same, so different moral standards will be derived from the different religions and cultures and philosophies.

Like @Anomaly wrote I think you are just being obtuse at this point.

20 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

You actually haven’t shown how Anomaly is able to take a moral stance for or against a behavior.  Morality, as the definition states, deals with justice, yet Anomaly cannot demonstrate how their source for morality, Evolution, dictates what is just or what unjust.  A person who believes in God can make the case that murder is an injustice to the dignity humans have as being creatures made in the image of God.  This truth is so self-evident that even the Founding Fathers of the USA stated that it was God who was the source of our inalienable rights.

 Yet, without a God we’re all just animals living amongst each other, in societies we’ve created and governed by laws on what the majority of animals have dictated is right and wrong; without demonstrating why this is a fact, other than it being because it goes against their made-up collective vision for what they want us to be. 
 

@Anomalydoesn’t need me to argue his position.

I am arguing my own position in which I defined an act as moral if it furthers the flourishing of humanity.

On the other hand, you  have made the most circular argument in the history of the world. You argue “Without God there can be no morality”. Then you support this argument by asserting that “Morality requires an authority (God being the only “authority” that counts of course).” Then when I give you a literal definition of morality that indicates that it can be based on culture, and give you specific examples that meet the definition of morality and that do not rely on God or religion, you simply reply with “That is not morality because morality requires  God.”

Your entire argument is ridiculous. It is smoke and mirrors. It is no argument at all. In substance it amounts to nothing other than assuming as a fact the very thing that you need to prove and cannot prove, and then repeating it ad nauseam with no support whatsoever.

[Credo in Deum]

5 hours ago, Peace said:

No, that is obviously wrong. The definition states that “Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture”. Not all religions and cultures and philosophies are the same, so different moral standards will be derived from the different religions and cultures and philosophies.

Like @Anomaly wrote I think you are just being obtuse at this point.

According to the definition, Nazi’s we’re moral.  According to the definition the  USSR was moral.  According to the definition the CCP is moral.

 

5 hours ago, Peace said:

I am arguing my own position in which I defined an act as moral if it furthers the flourishing of humanity.

On the other hand, you  have made the most circular argument in the history of the world. You argue “Without God there can be no morality”. Then you support this argument by asserting that “Morality requires an authority (God being the only “authority” that counts of course).” Then when I give you a literal definition of morality that indicates that it can be based on culture, and give you specific examples that meet the definition of morality and that do not rely on God or religion, you simply reply with “That is not morality because morality requires  God.”

Your entire argument is ridiculous. It is smoke and mirrors. It is no argument at all. In substance it amounts to nothing other than assuming as a fact the very thing that you need to prove and cannot prove, and then repeating it ad nauseam with no support whatsoever

My argument isn’t circular it’s pretty logical.  If good and evil exists then there must be an authoritative source for it that applies to all mankind. 
 

Does Good and Evil exist, Peace? 

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Credo in Deum said:

According to the definition, Nazi’s we’re moral.  According to the definition the  USSR was moral.  According to the definition the CCP is moral.

No, according to their own definition of  morality, they were moral.

According to my definition of morality, they were immoral.

According to the definition of morality of practically the other 6 billion people on the planet Earth, including the tribunals who put them to death for their crimes (also known by everyone on the planet Earth as “authorities”, except for you), they were immoral.

I don’t think you understand what the word “subjective” means. Why are you trying to make this silly point when I already told you that Godless morality is subjective?

I suppose that Wikipedia was not enough for you. Let’s have a look at the dictionary.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morality

beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior

1) the changing cultural morality

2) The group is calling for a return to traditional morality.

Do you see the word “changing” in the first example sentence?

Do you see the words “return” and “traditional” in the second example sentence?

Look pal, morality is defined as subjective. Get over it. If you don’t like that blame Wikipedia, blame the dictionary, blame the English language, blame thousands of philosophers throughout history and 99% of the people who have ever walked the face of the Earth.

Your entire argument is “Without God morality is subjective, and subjective morality does not exist”. Your only problem is that the very definition of morality itself indicates that it is subjective. You don’t like that but you’ve done nothing to disprove it, other than to repeat the assertion over, and over, and over as if somehow that will persuade someone.

1 hour ago, Credo in Deum said:

My argument isn’t circular it’s pretty logical.  

It seems pretty circular to me.

1 hour ago, Credo in Deum said:

If good and evil exists then there must be an authoritative source for it that applies to all mankind. 

You are simply repeating the same thing again, except that you changed “morality” to “good and evil”.

You need to prove this, but you have done no such thing. You simply repeat it over and over and expect everyone to accept it as the truth merely because you said it.

But I already gave you the definition of morality, which refutes your view. I suggest that you go back and read it again.

1 hour ago, Credo in Deum said:

Does Good and Evil exist, Peace? 

Does beauty exist, Credo?

Edited January 9, 2022 by Peace

[Credo in Deum]

4 hours ago, Peace said:

No, according to their own definition of  morality, they were moral.

According to my definition of morality, they were immoral.

According to the definition of morality of practically the other 6 billion people on the planet Earth, including the tribunals who put them to death for their crimes (also known by everyone on the planet Earth as “authorities”, except for you), they were immoral.

I don’t think you understand what the word “subjective” means. Why are you trying to make this silly point when I already told you that Godless morality is subjective?

I suppose that Wikipedia was not enough for you. Let’s have a look at the dictionary.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morality

beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior

1) the changing cultural morality

2) The group is calling for a return to traditional morality.

Do you see the word “changing” in the first example sentence?

Do you see the words “return” and “traditional” in the second example sentence?

Look pal, morality is defined as subjective. Get over it. If you don’t like that blame Wikipedia, blame the dictionary, blame the English language, blame thousands of philosophers throughout history and 99% of the people who have ever walked the face of the Earth.

Your entire argument is “Without God morality is subjective, and subjective morality does not exist”. Your only problem is that the very definition of morality itself indicates that it is subjective. You don’t like that but you’ve done nothing to disprove it, other than to repeat the assertion over, and over, and over as if somehow that will persuade someone.

Maybe you should look-up the definition of subjective.

Essential Meaning of subjective

1philosophy : relating to the way a person experiences things in his or her own mind.

2: based on feelings or opinions rather than facts.

Morality deals with what is good and what is evil.  If good and evil are not rooted in fact then they’re meaningless. 

If what is good is “A” in one culture and what is evil is “A” in another culture, then you have only three logical options:

1. That A is in fact good. 
2. That A is in fact evil. 
3. Good and evil don’t exist.

Clearly “A” cannot be both since that would be a contradiction and do you know what the reality of a contraction is, Peace?  It’s NOTHING, that’s what. 
 

Morality is either objective, therefor factual, and therefor has its source in something authoritative to make it so OR it’s subjective, not based on fact, and therefor imaginary.  Last time I checked, imaginary things don’t exist, right?  

You see the majority of human cultures, pretty much all of them, understood the need for a moral authority which is why the majority fell back on a God or gods as being the source of what is right and wrong, good and evil. They did this because it’s a logically sound principle and stance to take since created things are fallible. You see even primitive people had the common sense to know that a majority opinion can be wrong and a minority opinion can be right, and vice versa. They likewise understood that they themselves are fallible since their feelings and opinions weren’t always correct and rooted in reality.  Thank God they had enough common sense to understand this or else we might be in a culture that views the truth as evil simply because it hurts their feelings.  Oh, wait, we are. My bad. 

The atheist, however, does not fall back on a God or gods as their moral authority. No, they do what no culture has done and claim the source for morality is Evolution. Ah, the problem with this is they can’t demonstrate how evolution (a theory) dictated the morals they’re currently holding, how evolution came up with morals, or how evolution can determine what’s good and what’s evil.

This is an old article but it shows the problem atheists have with evil.  

https://slate.com/technology/2011/09/does-evil-exist-neuroscientists-say-no.html

 These actual atheists see the issue with evil but also acknowledge the issue with removing evil.  To remove evil is to remove free-will and to do that would be to remove responsibility.  The neuroscientist who claims they can do away with evil by replacing it with empathy as the standard bearer seems to have found a solution to their God problem, until you realize you can’t prove why or how empathy is always the best behavior or how a being that lacks it is bad. 

 

4 hours ago, Peace said:

Does beauty exist, Credo?

It does and it’s source is also God. 

Edited January 9, 2022 by Credo in Deum

[Credo in Deum]

14 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

Thank God they had enough common sense to understand this or else we might be in a culture that views the truth as evil simply because it hurts their feelings.  Oh, wait, we are. My bad. 

Also forgot to add, notice how we’re in that culture as a result of the population becoming more and more secular/atheistic. 

[Credo in Deum]

14 hours ago, Anomaly said:

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

Sorry but matters of faith are not contrary to reason, unlike a “moral atheist”. 

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Credo in Deum said:

Morality deals with what is good and what is evil.  If good and evil are not rooted in fact then they’re meaningless. 

Nonsense. This is what you need to prove. You have not proven it.

I believe that the color brown is evil. Therefore, anyone wearing a brown shirt is not allowed to enter my home, and people wearing any other color are allowed to enter my home. Also, I refuse to hire anyone who wears a brown shirt. My subjective belief that the color brown is evil has an impact on brown-shirt-loving people's ability to enter my home and to work at my company. My definition of "evil" is completely subjective and has an impact on other people's lives. Thus, it has meaning.

I could come up with a million other (and much more serious and consequential examples). But you can do that for yourself.

1 hour ago, Credo in Deum said:

If what is good is “A” in one culture and what is evil is “A” in another culture, then you have only three logical options:

1. That A is in fact good. 
2. That A is in fact evil. 
3. Good and evil don’t exist.

Clearly “A” cannot be both since that would be a contradiction and do you know what the reality of a contraction is, Peace?  It’s NOTHING, that’s what. 

If what is beautiful is “A” in one culture and what is ugly is “A” in another culture, then you have only three logical options:

1. That A is in fact beautiful. 
2. That A is in fact ugly. 
3. Beauty and ugliness don’t exist.

Clearly “A” cannot be both since that would be a contradiction and do you know what the reality of a contraction is, Credo?  It’s NOTHING, that’s what. 

Do you see how silly your logic is?

1 hour ago, Credo in Deum said:

Morality is either objective, therefor factual, and therefor has its source in something authoritative to make it so OR it’s subjective, not based on fact, and therefor imaginary.  Last time I checked, imaginary things don’t exist, right?  

First, let me give you the definition of "morality" again:

beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior

1) the changing cultural morality

2) The group is calling for a return to traditional morality.

Both me and my atheist friend Anamoly have a belief that abortion is "wrong behavior". This is our morality.

Nancy Pelosi has a belief that "abortion" is "right behavior". This is her morality.

And our moralities differ, thus they are subjective. I do not accept your definition that "morality must be objective." I reject that. Get over it. Again, if you don't like that, please write Merriam Webster and ask them to change the definition of "morality" to whatever you think it should be. Until that happens, you have no argument.

Second, I already gave you plenty of authorities. Myself, the legislature, judges, police, etc. But according to  you none of these is "authorities" because they are not omnipotent beings. This is also ridiculous and why I call your argument circular. At every point of your argument you assume as true each and every thing that you need for your argument to hold. You prove none of them. You are just preaching to the choir again.

But you can have the last word on all of this. I am tired of this conversation. Have a nice day.

Edited January 9, 2022 by Peace

[Credo in Deum]

2 hours ago, Peace said:

If what is beautiful is “A” in one culture and what is ugly is “A” in another culture, then you have only three logical options:

1. That A is in fact beautiful. 
2. That A is in fact ugly. 
3. Beauty and ugliness don’t exist.

Clearly “A” cannot be both since that would be a contradiction and do you know what the reality of a contraction is, Credo?  It’s NOTHING, that’s what. 

Do you see how silly your logic is?

It’s not silly at all because I recognize my opinion doesn’t constitute a fact about beauty, since I could be wrong; which is why I can’t force this opinion on others since I have no authority to do so.  

Yet this doesn’t change the logical conclusions that “A” is either in fact beautiful or that “A” is in fact ugly.  It can’t be both since that would make it meaningless. 

A complication emerges with a purely subjective account of beauty, because the idea of beauty becomes meaningless if everything is merely a matter of taste or personal preference. If beauty is purely in the eye of the beholder, the idea of beauty has no value as an ideal comparable to truth or goodness. Controversies arise over matters of taste; people can have strong opinions regarding whether or not beauty is present, suggesting that perhaps there are some standards.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/atd-pima-philosophy/chapter/8-1-what-is-beauty-what-is-art/

 

I guess my logic isn’t that silly.  Subjective morality is silly and still very meaningless. 

[Credo in Deum]

@Peace

Here it is in video format for you, lol.

 

[Peace]

50 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

@Peace

Here it is in video format for you, lol.

 

[Credo in Deum]

12 hours ago, Peace said:

 

In the video he states that all morality is subjective because it’s based on the individuals perspective, so that even if there was a God, to choose God as your objective point would be because you perceived God to be good.  His example for how a God chosen morality would still be subjective is his claim that there is no absolute up or down.   
 

To sum up his position he’s saying all morality is subjective because there is no absolute objective truth.   Yet, what he seems to miss is you can’t say there isn’t an absolute truth without introducing an absolute truth. 

So either all things are subjective and therefor meaningless because there is no absolute objective standard -A position that can’t be said without introducing an objective standard.

Or there is an absolute objective standard with which all perceptions ought to use in order for there to be meaning and truth.  
 

Hmmm I wonder what qualities such an objective standard would need to have in order for it to be the source of all things? 
 

I wonder what someone would call such a thing? 
 

PS. Let’s not forget the mental gymnastics needed to claim and demonstrate how free-will could possibly exist in physicalism.

Edited January 10, 2022 by Credo in Deum

[Credo in Deum]

This likewise shows the reasonableness of faith and how a lack of faith is unreasonable.
 

Atheist - there  is no absolute objective standard. 

Theist - there needs to be an absolute objective standard in order to say there isn’t one.

Atheist -prove to me this objective standard!

Thesit - I’ve already proven it’s necessity, which is why I have faith it exists. 

Atheist - I won’t believe in the necessity of an absolute objective standard even though I need one in order to propose my disbelief in an absolute objective standard. 

Theist - that sounds unreasonable. 

[Peace]

3 hours ago, Credo in Deum said:

This likewise shows the reasonableness of faith and how a lack of faith is unreasonable.
 

Atheist - there  is no absolute objective standard. 

Theist - there needs to be an absolute objective standard in order to say there isn’t one.

Atheist -prove to me this objective standard!

Thesit - I’ve already proven it’s necessity, which is why I have faith it exists. 

Atheist - I won’t believe in the necessity of an absolute objective standard even though I need one in order to propose my disbelief in an absolute objective standard. 

Theist - that sounds unreasonable. 

Well like I said I think it’s plainly idiotic.

The fool says in his heart “There is no God”.

When someone tells me they are an atheist I know they are an idiot. I’m not really gonna get into a huge debate with them, anymore so than I would debate a two year old or a dog.

But yeah I think some of the “logical proofs” for the existence of God are lacking. We don’t need math to know that God exists. He makes his existence known to all of us. The atheists just refuse to admit it, which makes them foolish.

I mean, Jesus performed plenty of miracles right before people’s eyes and still they refused to believe. It’s not a matter of logic, or reason, or proof. It’s simply a matter of rejecting God, the most asinine thing a person can do.

[Peace]

On 1/10/2022 at 8:53 AM, Credo in Deum said:

This likewise shows the reasonableness of faith and how a lack of faith is unreasonable.
 

Atheist - there  is no absolute objective standard. 

Theist - there needs to be an absolute objective standard in order to say there isn’t one.

Atheist -prove to me this objective standard!

Thesit - I’ve already proven it’s necessity, which is why I have faith it exists. 

Atheist - I won’t believe in the necessity of an absolute objective standard even though I need one in order to propose my disbelief in an absolute objective standard. 

Theist - that sounds unreasonable. 

Basically my view is the same as that expressed here:

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/is-unbelief-culpable

Which is basically that atheists do not really exist:

Now we can agree that a person cannot be held morally responsible for failing to discharge a duty of which he is uninformed. So the entire question is: are people sufficiently informed to be held morally responsible for failing to believe in God? The biblical answer to that question is unequivocal. First, God has provided a revelation of Himself in nature that is sufficiently clear for all cognitively normal persons to know that God exists. Paul writes to the Roman church:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened (Rom. 1. 18-21).

In Paul’s view God’s properties, His eternal power and deity, are clearly revealed in creation, so that people who fail to believe in an eternal, powerful Creator of the world are without excuse. Indeed, Paul says that they actually do know that God exists, but they suppress this truth because of their unrighteousness. As result they become so clouded in their thinking that they may actually deceive themselves into thinking that they are open-minded inquirers honestly pursuing the truth. The human capacity for rationalization and self-deception, I’m sure we’ve all observed, is very great, indeed, and in the biblical view atheists are prey to it.

Second, wholly apart from God’s revelation in nature is the inner witness which the Holy Spirit bears to the great truths of the Gospel, including, I should say, the fact that God exists. Anyone who fails to believe in God by the end of his lifetime does so only by a stubborn resistance to the work of the Holy Spirit in drawing that person to a knowledge of God. On the biblical view people are not like innocent, lost lambs wandering helplessly without a guide. Rather they are determined rebels whose wills are set against God and who must be subdued by God’s Spirit.

Edited January 25, 2022 by Peace