On whether the idiocy of atheism speaks for itself

[Anomaly]

10 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

Rather no evidence morals objectively exist without God. Which the op claimed to be able to prove. He did not. He could only argue against Christianity, or theism, rather than defending his position.

 

And morality doesn't need God, without God morals exist as subjective, imaginary, human constructs. 

So, not an actual or objective existance. But as mere opinions. 

I’m not the original poster.   You’re howling that op cannot disprove that your claim morality exists solely because of God.  
 

I only ask for some sort of proof or even a definition of objective morality.   I’m not intending to prove or disprove anything, just stating my thoughts and asking questions.

[KnightofChrist]

24 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

I’m not the original poster.   You’re howling that op cannot disprove that your claim morality exists solely because of God.  
 

I only ask for some sort of proof or even a definition of objective morality.   I’m not intending to prove or disprove anything, just stating my thoughts and asking questions.

An old question and a discussion had so very many times on PM. At least the idea of the existence of objective morality without God was a new one. 

[Credo in Deum]

4 hours ago, Anomaly said:

I’m not the original poster.   You’re howling that op cannot disprove that your claim morality exists solely because of God.  
 

I only ask for some sort of proof or even a definition of objective morality.   I’m not intending to prove or disprove anything, just stating my thoughts and asking questions.

It would be impossible for objective morality to exist without a God because no other being would be said to have the authority to dictate the laws of morality.   This is why we can’t say society is the source of objective morality because we know what society deems legal doesn’t mean it’s moral.  We do not see in other humans the authority to dictate or pass judgment since we don’t recognize in another human the authority to deem us either good or evil.  We likewise can’t think of ourselves as being the moral law giver to judgement whether we’re good or evil since we tend to justify our own actions.

The only way there could be an objective moral law would be if there was a being with authority above created things, which beings us to the only logical conclusion, God.

 

Edited January 3, 2022 by Credo in Deum

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Credo in Deum said:

It would be impossible for objective morality to exist without a God because no other being would be said to have the authority to dictate the laws of morality.   This is why we can’t say society is the source of objective morality because we know what society deems legal doesn’t mean it’s moral.  We do not see in other humans the authority to dictate or pass judgment since we don’t recognize in another human the authority to deem us either good or evil.  We likewise can’t think of ourselves as being the moral law giver to judgement whether we’re good or evil since we tend to justify our own actions.

The only way there could be an objective moral law would be if there was a being with authority above created things, which beings us to the only logical conclusion, God.

 

Why does this whole line of argument even matter though? Can't the atheist simply say "OK. Objective morality does not exist"? Many atheists believe that.

The requirement of God for there to be an objective morality is not a proof of his existence, it seems to me.

[Credo in Deum]

20 minutes ago, Peace said:

Why does this whole line of argument even matter though? Can't the atheist simply say "OK. Objective morality does not exist"? Many atheists believe that.

The requirement of God for there to be an objective morality is not a proof of his existence, it seems to me.

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.

It can be said that humans could create laws without a God since what’s lawful or unlawful doesn’t always correspond to what’s good and what’s evil.

But to acknowledge good and evil as a reality would be to acknowledge morality itself, which wound be to acknowledge it’s objectivity, and therefor God. 

Edited January 3, 2022 by Credo in Deum

[Credo in Deum]

2 hours ago, 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.

It can be said that humans could create laws without a God since what’s lawful or unlawful doesn’t always correspond to what’s good and what’s evil.

But to acknowledge good and evil as a reality would be to acknowledge morality itself, which wound be to acknowledge it’s objectivity, and therefor God. 

Forgot to mention that while humans could create laws without God these laws wouldn’t be based on Justice since Justice comes from morality. Any laws created under a godless realty would therefor have to be based on something else like a common goal or a majority held goal. 

[Anomaly]

Can you give me a simple example of an application of justice in a moral issue?

[Credo in Deum]

1 hour ago, Anomaly said:

Can you give me a simple example of an application of justice in a moral issue?

Thou Shalt Not Steal.  Theft is sinful.

Person A steals from Person B.

Person A gets caught.

Person A is punished and makes restitution to person B. 
 

 

[Anomaly]

3 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

Thou Shalt Not Steal.  Theft is sinful.

Person A steals from Person B.

Person A gets caught.

Person A is punished and makes restitution to person B. 
 

 

Where is objective guidance from God involved in this example.   Logically, one could argue that no stealing is a way to have a cooperative and tolerable society.   We are like bees, inasmuch that we’re social creatures that can work well together.   

[Credo in Deum]

56 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

Where is objective guidance from God involved in this example.   Logically, one could argue that no stealing is a way to have a cooperative and tolerable society.   We are like bees, inasmuch that we’re social creatures that can work well together.   

Why must we work together? 

[Anomaly]

56 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

Why must we work together? 

It’s how we evolved and developed as a society.    Even with less cognitive abilities, monkeys cooperate and work together.   
I’m not arguing to prove you wrong, these are my questions that lead to my conclusions.    I’m open to different conclusions, reasonably founded.  

[Credo in Deum]

5 hours ago, Anomaly said:

It’s how we evolved and developed as a society.    Even with less cognitive abilities, monkeys cooperate and work together.   
 

But why?

What decided that what humans have become is what humans were suppose to be? Why didn’t humans evolve under “survival of the fittest and might is right”?   What dictated that humans have to create societies?  Furthermore what if evolution took us in an opposite direction as being feral societal-less beings which roam and just take what we want; would that have been bad or wrong?  If I’m just another animal and I can over power another human and take their stuff then why can’t I do that? Why am I bound to follow a system no other animal is subject to? 

Are monkeys that don’t cooperate and work together bad monkeys?  Are monkeys that take from other monkeys bad? 

Also no worries, I know you’re not arguing. 

Edited January 5, 2022 by Credo in Deum

[Anomaly]

There is no need for a master operator.   It’s not really relevant.   Organisms developed.   Humans did evolve  and various traits gave advantage to survival.   Groups survived better than individuals.   There are advantages to cooperation.   Anti-cooperation May have short term benefits, but also negatives.   Yes, monkeys can be bad with antisocial behavior and they get ostracized.  
 

Do monkeys have the cognitive ability to discuss it as morality?    Or are thoughts of morals an effect of higher intelligence?

Buddhists have morals, principles to live by.  They don’t believe in God.  
 

Like an antisocial monkey, you could choose to take my stuff.  Consequences could be solely from my actions, or I could appeal to society to intervene.  

As a society of intelligent creatures that can communicate, we’re able to share knowledge and experience and develop concepts of principles and morals.   

[KnightofChrist]

1 hour ago, Anomaly said:

There is no need for a master operator.   It’s not really relevant.   Organisms developed.   Humans did evolve  and various traits gave advantage to survival.   Groups survived better than individuals.   There are advantages to cooperation.   Anti-cooperation May have short term benefits, but also negatives.   Yes, monkeys can be bad with antisocial behavior and they get ostracized.  
 

Do monkeys have the cognitive ability to discuss it as morality?    Or are thoughts of morals an effect of higher intelligence?

Buddhists have morals, principles to live by.  They don’t believe in God.  
 

Like an antisocial monkey, you could choose to take my stuff.  Consequences could be solely from my actions, or I could appeal to society to intervene.  

As a society of intelligent creatures that can communicate, we’re able to share knowledge and experience and develop concepts of principles and morals.   

You don't really answer the questions asked of you. The answers you give are rather weak. I know you'll say the same of us, but you don't really seem to object that morals in an atheistic world are nothing more than nice human constructs. Sure morals in your opinion are "good for the collective. But good for the collective wouldn't be an acceptable reason to believe in imaginary beings, and it's not a good reason to believe in imaginary morals. 

[Anomaly]

2 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

You don't really answer the questions asked of you. The answers you give are rather weak. I know you'll say the same of us, but you don't really seem to object that morals in an atheistic world are nothing more than nice human constructs. Sure morals in your opinion are "good for the collective. But good for the collective wouldn't be an acceptable reason to believe in imaginary beings, and it's not a good reason to believe in imaginary morals. 

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? 

[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.