On whether the idiocy of atheism speaks for itself

[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

[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.