Any suggestions to refute atheism

[reggieM]

StAnastasia:

Campaign for the Separation of Church and Hate

Separating the Church from hatred of … racism, poverty, rape, antiSemitism, murder, Satan …

Apparently, this Campaign will teach us how to truly love such things, because we’re not supposed to “hate” anymore. Interesting.

 

[buffalo]

Separating the Church from hatred of … racism, poverty, rape, antiSemitism, murder, Satan …

Apparently, this Campaign will teach us how to truly love such things, because we’re not supposed to “hate” anymore. Interesting.

That is the great fallacy, we are no longer to hate evil or sin. Does this make sense to anyone at all? It is very subtle and cunning, Satan himself asking us to eat the fruit all over again. And we are buying into it all over again.

How does Satan manage this great caper? By convincing us that he does not exist.

 

[reggieM]

It is a fantastic argument. The argument succeeds because of the value human life has for Catholics. To atheist regimes human lives are utilitarian.

Here is the point - Catholics though not perfect often fail, but they get up over and over again to try to meet the proposition.

That is correct. Catholics have the obligation to preserve and value human life, not commit sins of violence or murder against other people. Catholics have a defined moral standard that they must live up to.

Atheism provides no such obligation or moral standard to atheists.

As just mentioned, the natural world (materialism) does not produce moral obligations or permissions.

 

[Sideline]

One of the best arguments…

It’s been my experience that explaining anything to anyone on this thread is a waste of time, so I’m not going to bother pointing out all of the problems.

If you are interested in learning why belief in God doesn’t give you a basis for morality, then read Euthyphro by Plato and learn how the idea that morality comes from God was destroyed before Christianity was a religion.

If you are interested in how cooperation can come about it a society without a centralized behaviour, you can read The Evolution of Cooperation by Robert Axelrod, who developed computer scenario in which programs began to cooperate without any outside authority.

You can also google phrases such as “moral psychology” and “moral philosophy” to read what people who study these things, and test their predictions have to say about the subject.

 

[spectrm]

By God’s very nature, He cannot be subject to empirical evidence, since He cannot be observed.

There are, however, very good reasons for believing in God, principally:

• the [kalām (The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe) cosmological argument;
• the teleological argument, based on the fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the Universe;
• and the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth from the dead.

It is most enlightening, in this regard, to listen to actual debates between theists and atheists. I am eager to obtain the recording of the William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens debate which took place just a few days ago.

1. I’ll have to read through the ‘kalam’ argument before I can comment
2. the teleological argument is refuted in Philo102 at any university I’ve ever attended - it doesn’t hold water as the teleological argument in support of faith is largely inductive in reasoning, very little if any deduction
3. many atheists (and non-christians) disbelieve that Jesus even existed, let alone was the son of God who was resurrected. While I know he was real (Roman Archives are useful), it would be just as hard to convince me he was the son of God as it would to convince me my own son is the son of God - the convincing would need to be done outside of scripture, as the validity of scripture is one of the leading contentions of all non-christians

I’ll give those other debates a read.

 

[buffalo]

It’s been my experience that explaining anything to anyone on this thread is a waste of time, so I’m not going to bother pointing out all of the problems.

If you are interested in learning why belief in God doesn’t give you a basis for morality, then read Euthyphro by Plato and learn how the idea that morality comes from God was destroyed before Christianity was a religion.

If you are interested in how cooperation can come about it a society without a centralized behaviour, you can read The Evolution of Cooperation by Robert Axelrod, who developed computer scenario in which programs began to cooperate without any outside authority.

You can also google phrases such as “moral psychology” and “moral philosophy” to read what people who study these things, and test their predictions have to say about the subject.

We definitely have a failure to communicate.

 

[spectrm]

That is correct. Catholics have the obligation to preserve and value human life, not commit sins of violence or murder against other people. Catholics have a defined moral standard that they must live up to.

So you are ‘holier than thou’?

Atheism provides no such obligation or moral standard to atheists.

ouch. That’s a gross blanket-statement which I’m sure you have no support for. As an atheist I find that remarkably offensive. I invite you to ask me about my moral standard and where it comes from instead of assuming that, because I don’t adhere to the same source as you, that I have no moral foundation.

As just mentioned, the natural world (materialism) does not produce moral obligations or permissions.

It most certainly does for those trained in seeing it. Also - merely because someone is atheist or an evolutionist doesn’t mean they only see a materialism to the world - from personal experience.

 

[StAnastasia]

If you are interested in learning why belief in God doesn’t give you a basis for morality, then read Euthyphro by Plato and learn how the idea that morality comes from God was destroyed before Christianity was a religion.

Sideline, does God oppose murder because it is wrong, or is it wrong because God has decreed it to be so?

 

[reggieM]

If you are interested in how cooperation can come about it a society without a centralized behaviour, you can read The Evolution of Cooperation by Robert Axelrod, who developed computer scenario in which programs began to cooperate without any outside authority.

You’re claiming to answer the question by answering different questions. The logical problem was quite simple. The natural world cannot create or impose moral obligations on anyone.

Again, one can’t infer an “ought” from an “is.”

If materialist-atheism is true, then there is no “ought”.

You’re recommending that I should read some books in order to see how this logical theorem has been disproved. You referenced Plato who did not argue that moral obligations emerge from the material world.

Moral responsiblities, obligations and permissions must have a source.

You point to “cooperation” which is not an “ought”.

Again, no human action can be forbidden by the natural-material world.
The point stands, if atheism is true, everything is permitted.

 

[StAnastasia]

Atheism provides no such obligation or moral standard to atheists.

Of course it does. Morality is an extension of enlightened self interest: none of us wants to live in a society characterized by arson, rape, murder, etc., so we decree those behaviors to be immoral.

 

[Sideline]

You’re claiming to answer the question by answering different questions. The logical problem was quite simple. The natural world cannot create or impose moral obligations on anyone.

Again, one can’t infer an “ought” from an “is.”

If materialist-atheism is true, then there is no “ought”.

You’re recommending that I should read some books in order to see how this logical theorem has been disproved. You referenced Plato who did not argue that moral obligations emerge from the material world.

Moral responsiblities, obligations and permissions must have a source.

You point to “cooperation” which is not an “ought”.

Again, no human action can be forbidden by the natural-material world.
The point stands, if atheism is true, everything is permitted.

You have demonstrated time and again an unwillingness to consider any but your own point of view. I have provided resources in case you change your mind and want to learn something about morality. If you don’t chose to learn about it, don’t blame me.

 

[reggieM]

So you are ‘holier than thou’?

My religion posits the idea of holiness. The natural-material world does not. The natural world does not provide “oughts” by which the moral life is commanded. Material-nature does not command moral teachings. It permits any and all actions.

As an atheist I find that remarkably offensive.

I can understand and appreciate it. The logical conclusions of atheism are frightening and offensive. This is a pretty good help in refuting atheism itself.

I invite you to ask me about my moral standard and where it comes from instead of assuming that, because I don’t adhere to the same source as you, that I have no moral foundation.

I invite you to engage the logical position I already posted. But you’re talking about different things now.

Also - merely because someone is atheist or an evolutionist doesn’t mean they only see a materialism to the world - from personal experience.

Materalist-atheists, by far the most common kind of atheists, do see only materialism in the world. If an atheist sees something other than materialism – then that is a major problem for that person’s atheistic theory itself (as well as for atheistic-evolution and most of the other supports that people use for atheism).

Where did these “non-material” things come from? How do they impose moral obligations on people? How do they comman an “ought” in any human action?

Those atheists who posit spiritual, non-material (or even supernatural) values would have many problems in arguing against theism in that case.

But if you’re agreeing (by pointing to non-materialist atheists) that the logical proposal I put forward is irrefutable (and therefore we must talk about non-materialist atheism), then that is very good and I would agree with you.

 

[CWBetts]

Fine, so don’t learn about evolution. There are plenty of subjects I don’t care enough about to get a degree in. Of course, I don’t claim I understand them either. I guess I just have a problem with claiming knowledge that I don’t have.

However, you should be aware that if you claim that evolution is a myth, and you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding, you are going to have people point out to you that you don’t understand it. It just makes sense.

If I go around this site saying Catholicism is wrong because Catholics worship Mary, then I should expect to be told I’m wrong. My desire to remain ignorant about what Catholics teach doesn’t give me an excuse to lie about what they teach. If I say gravity is bunk because balloons float, and gravity says everything drops, then I should expect people to tell me that I don’t understand gravity.

However, you don’t need to take a degree to figure out why you are wrong on this point. An excellent website has been posted, and there books written for students at the grade ten level that will clear up the errors that you are making.

If you have no desire to learn what Catholics believe then why are you here? That is the whole point of this site. I know enough about evolution to see it has fatal flaws and should not be elevated to the level of “thoery” It is hypothesis at best. And the origin of life is pure conjecture, is untestable, so science can make no difinitive statements.

 

[buffalo]

Of course it does. Morality is an extension of enlightened self interest: none of us wants to live in a society characterized by arson, rape, murder, etc., so we decree those behaviors to be immoral.

That is because we are all born into history, even atheists. No one is born in a vacuum. Why should anyone be surprised that we can recognize the good of Christianity and/or the 10 Commandments? Even atheists can use reason to see good. It is the source they contend.

 

[reggieM]

Of course it does. Morality is an extension of enlightened self interest: none of us wants to live in a society characterized by arson, rape, murder, etc., so we decree those behaviors to be immoral.

The natural, material world does not decree behaviors to be immoral. It does not command or make obligatory moral behavior at all. The natural, material world merely “is” – it doesn’t provide an “ought” or “ought not”. All actions by any material objects are permitted. They simply “happen” through the processes of the laws of nature acting on material substances.

Actually, if “enlightened self-interest” is the foundation of the moral law, then it remains true that everything is permitted. The acting agent can do any action whatsoever as long as it supports his self-interest.

Thus, the Holocaust is an expression of Nazi self-interest and is thus permitted.

 

[CWBetts]

That is because we are all born into history, even atheists. No one is born in a vacuum. Why should anyone be surprised that we can recognize the good of Christianity and/or the 10 Commandments? Even atheists can use reason to see good. It is the source they contend.

With atheists, it is not an issue of morality, but authority. Protestents do not want to be subject to the Pope. Non-denominationals don’t want to be subject to a denominational governing body (convention, synod, or whatever). Atheists don’t want to be subject to God. They want the so called “freddom” from the edicts of God because they dont recognize it at what it is–slavery.

 

[Sideline]

Of course it does. Morality is an extension of enlightened self interest: none of us wants to live in a society characterized by arson, rape, murder, etc., so we decree those behaviors to be immoral.

An interesting thing that few people seem to consider is that all of the things on your list are by definition wrong.

When we think that killing is wrong, we call it murder.

When we think that sex is wrong, we call it rape (or adultery, or some other word for bad sexual activity).

When we think burning something is wrong, we call it arson.

When we think we have the right to take something, we don’t call it stealing.

 

[StAnastasia]

If you have no desire to learn what Catholics believe then why are you here? That is the whole point of this site. I know enough about evolution to see it has fatal flaws and should not be elevated to the level of “thoery” It is hypothesis at best. And the origin of life is pure conjecture, is untestable, so science can make no difinitive statements.

You will have to show what the fatal flaws are, and why they don’t prevent 100,000 biologists (including Catholic priests) from working as if the theory is true. What you think about evolution matters not one whit to the scientists who work with it.

 

[Thing]

No, I find nothing unusual about shrubs that are useful for countering altitude sickenss growing at high altitude. But what precisely is your point?

I find nothing unusual about thyme, oregano and rosemary growing in Italy where coincidentally, these spices are used in spaghetti sauce. I find nothing unusual in sharks – who rely on saltwater – living in the sea. I find nothing unusual about ski resorts being located on mountains where there is snow.

StAnastasia

Originally Posted by StAnastasia
More arguments for design are that giraffes live where there are tall trees, and arctic hares change their fur colour from white to brown when the snow disappears. But most mindboggling of all is that fish live in the water!

I am touched, - truly -, that you immediately saw design in these things I mentioned. I, on the other hand did not see design in them as I posted them, nor did I mention design. Still, that you saw design, proves my point, that they are very odd things, indeed.

What is the difference you say, between Coca plants growing at altitude and Rosemary growing in Italy.
The difference is this; why don’t Coca plants naturally grow in lowland areas instead of mountains. Is there something in the altitude that changes the chemicals in the Coca plant? No. There is just that annoying thing, that a high altitude country has indiginous plants to help people recover from altitude sickness, which is a serious thing, not like forgetting the Rosemary in Mamas’ spaggetti sauce.
(Rosemary, incidentally, helps kill intestinal worms…)

 

[CWBetts]

You will have to show what the fatal flaws are, and why they don’t prevent 100,000 biologists (including Catholic priests) from working as if the theory is true. What you think about evolution matters not one whit to the scientists who work with it.

The real deteriniation of what a species is is its numbers of Chromosomes. In hhumans there are 23 pairs. In some instances there is too much genetic information due to an extra chromosome in one pair. This is almost always fatal. Even when not fatal, it can result in sever menatl and physical disability, as in the case of Trisomy-21. The fatal flaw in evolution is this: what exactly is the mechanic that allows for the changing of number of chrmosome pairs without destroying said organism? THis is why I accept natural selection within a species, but not the kind of changes that would allow a single-celled organism to eventually evolve into us. Small changes over time are acceptible. I can deal with evoution if you use the definition of “changes in allele frequency in a population over time.” This definition does not allow for evolution from amoeba to me.