Atheist moral arguments

  • Thread starter Thread starter Link0126
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Link0126 said:
A learned behavior. Our behavior would have “evolved” b/c we learned that we have a better chance of survival when we do or don’t do certain things. It wouldn’t have just evolved on it’s own. It evolved b/c either consciously or unconsciously we figured out what to do.

But this whole notion undermines the idea that we are to love b/c God is Love or not to lie b/c God is truth. So while physical evolution may be consistent with Christianity I cannot see how “moral” evolution would be.

Considering that moral evolution relies also on macro evolution I don’t see it as a slam dunk at all.
Click to expand...
Evolutionary lessons are learned in a sense. We can read them. But they don’t require consciousness for apprehension, just heredity. We don’t learn that a particular moral compact was to our advantage as a species, we have more offspring that survive to reproduce. Portions of our species working with different compacts have less. These relative advantages don’t occur at random. They must conform to the landscape of our environmental niche, and be within the range of diversity within our species.

The standard apologetic answering this challenge to divine sovereignty claims God sculpted that landscape, and created the means for diversification.

I understand from your posting that you’re a special creationist. You might wish to consider that your position in opposition to the theory of evolution is a minority view within Christianity. Outside of Christianity and Islam, it is nearly non-existent. Evolutionary theory is more widely accepted inside the field of biology than gravitational theory within the field of physics. For the vast majority of the world, and even the majority of Christianity, a successful argument that God could not be responsible for the evolution of morality would be a slam dunk for God’s irrelevance to morality.

I understand Augustine had some things to say about the dangers of making claims contrary to well known natural law and attributing the inaccuracies to Genesis. As he was opposed, I guess I should support you, because, you know, atheists are evil like that.

But not so evil that I can’t do the math, and see your arguments against God won’t work.

I do wish you luck, though.

As ever, Jesse
 
Link0126 said:
He has a right to post them and I have a right to dismiss them outright without any consideration what so ever. I have gotten to the point of being disgusted when I see stubborn atheists denying and generally blaspheming God.
Click to expand...
Agree, you absolutely have the right to dismiss their posts, but the problem was not about dismissing them, it was about being disgusted or sickened, don’t you think they have the right to deny or blaspheme “God” in whatever form they like? 🤷
 
CountrySteve said:
hey you throw faith into evolution happening same concept as us Christians throwing faith into the living God
Click to expand...
Except evolution has real evidence, thus faith is not necessary for a belief in evolution. Just like faith is not necessary in believing in gravity.
 
Link0126 said:
He has a right to post them and I have a right to dismiss them outright without any consideration what so ever. I have gotten to the point of being disgusted when I see stubborn atheists denying and generally blaspheming God.
Click to expand...
I just don’t even know how to respond to this. There is no real evidence for God’s existence. If there were, faith would be unnecessary. So how can you be disgusted for denying something that you can’t prove?
 
RainbowNight said:
Agree, you absolutely have the right to dismiss their posts, but the problem was not about dismissing them, it was about being disgusted or sickened, don’t you think they have the right to deny or blaspheme “God” in whatever form they like? 🤷
Click to expand...
Nobody has the right to blaspheme God.
 
if_youCthispray said:
Nobody has the right to blaspheme God.
Click to expand...
Do you have a problem if I blaspheme Zeus or Thor? These people have come to the logical conclusion that God does not exist. There is just as much evidence for Zeus and Thor than there is for Jesus and the Christian God…which is basically none. You have faith, many don’t. Why believe in something that is completely unprovable.
 
RainbowNight said:
Your opinion and I respect it, but I think I have the right at least to deny the existence of gods and disprove religious claims (my opinion)
Click to expand...
I have the right to be disgusted by something as vile as blasphemy. Even seeing atheists on here is gross…
 
jimjack said:
Do you have a problem if I blaspheme Zeus or Thor? These people have come to the logical conclusion that God does not exist. There is just as much evidence for Zeus and Thor than there is for Jesus and the Christian God…which is basically none. You have faith, many don’t. Why believe in something that is completely unprovable.
Click to expand...
Hi jimjack

I am curious:
  1. Proof of God - What would constitute sufficient evidence TO YOU that God exists?
  2. Scientific Proof?
    Thermodynamic (and scientifically provable) laws state that the sum total of matter and energy stays constant. It is impossible to create matter without expending energy or matter; it is similarly impossible to create energy without expending either matter or energy. Note again - that is scientifically provable - agree?
At some point somehow, somewhere in history, energy/matter “came to be”. Some being, particle, entity, or force is responsible for creating all matter and energy. Please explain to me how this can be, given that science proves that the sum total of matter and energy stays constant?

Peace to you.

Patrick
 
Patrick_Cox said:
Hi jimjack

I am curious:
  1. Proof of God - What would constitute sufficient evidence TO YOU that God exists?
  2. Scientific Proof?
    Thermodynamic (and scientifically provable) laws state that the sum total of matter and energy stays constant. It is impossible to create matter without expending energy or matter; it is similarly impossible to create energy without expending either matter or energy. Note again - that is scientifically provable - agree?
At some point somehow, somewhere in history, energy/matter “came to be”. Some being, particle, entity, or force is responsible for creating all matter and energy. Please explain to me how this can be, given that science proves that the sum total of matter and energy stays constant?

Peace to you.

Patrick
Click to expand...
If there was actual scientific proof of God wouldn’t scientists be overwhelmingly believers instead of overwhelmingly non believers? And according to Stephen Hawking there is no need for God in the creation of the universe.
 
Link0126 said:
Are you kidding? it absolutely supports atheism 100%. If our sense of morality is simply a learned behavior based on our interests it completely undermines God’s inherent value and his revelation to us.
Click to expand...
No, I’m not kidding. I did not say that our sense of morality is simply a learned behavior. I only said that the presence of morality in a society is an advantage for the society’s survival and prosperity, and therefore favors societies that adopt such behaviors. How could God want it to be otherwise? Do you think God has given morality to us so that we might have a poorer life and suffer for it as a society? There is plenty of evidence in scripture and in the teachings of the Church that God gives us His laws that we might have life and have it more abundantly. The difference between us and the atheists is that atheists would say that prosperity and success is the only reason for morality, whereas we as Catholics would say that there is another reason - that God has given us these moral laws so that we might draw closer to Him and ultimately be united with Him in heaven. Don’t worry. The idea that some moral behavior might have developed out of necessity is not a threat to our faith.

The Church speaks of Natural Law as the basis of much of our morality. This Natural Law is, as St. Paul says, “written in the human heart”. That is, it is accessible without revelation. That is why isolated primitive societies who have never heard of Christ or the Church, nevertheless have universally developed many of the same moral codes that we have. It is pointless and hurtful to the faith to deny that some forms of moral behavior can develop by ostensibly natural processes.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The Church speaks of Natural Law as the basis of much of our morality. This Natural Law is, as St. Paul says, “written in the human heart”. That is, it is accessible without revelation…It is pointless and hurtful to the faith to deny that some forms of moral behavior can develop by ostensibly natural processes.
Click to expand...
Written in the hearts of men by God is not the same thing as developing through natural processes. To say our sense of morality is simply due to evolution is to completely side with the atheists, it sounds now, that you aren’t saying that, but that you are saying morality developed over time b/c of the natural law instilled in us by God. That seems analogous to the argument for theistic evolution since God created everything to begin with, including this natural law. That would be congruent with our faith. To say “morality” developed completely on it’s own is entirely different.

Thanks for clarifying.
 
jimjack said:
If there was actual scientific proof of God wouldn’t scientists be overwhelmingly believers instead of overwhelmingly non believers?
Click to expand...
There is no shortage of theistic scientists. Indeed, theistic scientists are the ones who developed the scientific method in the first place.
And according to Stephen Hawking there is no need for God in the creation of the universe.
Click to expand...
There is no empirical evidence to support this assertion.
 
jimjack said:
If there was actual scientific proof of God wouldn’t scientists be overwhelmingly believers instead of overwhelmingly non believers? And according to Stephen Hawking there is no need for God in the creation of the universe.
Click to expand...
Hi Jimjack

In all sincerity, you haven’t answered my questions.

There is a question that I have posed which has no answer in science, or in the rational (at least, I have not seen it answered through a conclusive scientific explanation). On the contrary, science itself actually points to something supra-rational or above science, for the very reason that science itself can not explain where everything started. Is it really sufficient to just say: “We don’t know” , when the laws of science are clear as stated in my previous post?

Soncatcher has correctly stated in response to your question that there are many scientists who were theists - not least of them Charles Darwin himself. Science does not ever contradict God or the existence of God. The two go hand in hand. Evolution is nothing less than a product of a starting point. The world / universe is indeed evolving. But how did it begin?? For the Big Bang to take place, energy must have come from somewhere… Where? There is ALWAYS that question which science can not answer…
 
Hello Patrick,

In all sincerity, we really don’t know there was a beginning. Adding your chosen deity into the mix simply emphasizes that. In any universe that includes an uncreated deity, there can be no beginning.

Something came before the big bang, but what? We know very little. It was, after all, nearly 14 billion years ago. We know a great deal about the origins of the Abrahamic deity, however. Its origins are very clearly located in the ancient near east, sometime within the latter half of the second millennium BCE. The biblical texts that describe this putative universe creator were authored much later, by writers who were unable to describe even so much as what had been created, let alone how it was done.

Ironically, while Genesis lays claim for the Israeli god’s creation of a universe, he’s given credit for creating the wrong one.

Certainly there are plenty of theistic scientists, but Soncatcher is incorrect when he says there’s no shortage. The fact is that in science, when it comes to theists, the rule is “the higher, the fewer.” The National Academy here in the US more than reverses the national figures. Where the general population is less than 90 percent theistic, the academy is more than 90 percent atheistic.

Maybe there is a god, and maybe it did create the universe. But it doesn’t make much sense to think any human could know enough about it to write anything authoritative about it. Certainly we’ve no reasonable examples. And, honestly, it makes even less sense to think a universe creator would have any special interest in humans. That’s hubris, I think.

As ever, Jesse
 
lao tzu

**Something came before the big bang, but what? **

Nothing came before the Big Bang, because there was no before. Time was created along with the Big Bang, so it was a “day” without a “yesterday.” 🙂
 
lao_tzu said:
Hello Patrick,

In all sincerity, we really don’t know there was a beginning. Adding your chosen deity into the mix simply emphasizes that. In any universe that includes an uncreated deity, there can be no beginning.

Something came before the big bang, but what? We know very little. It was, after all, nearly 14 billion years ago. We know a great deal about the origins of the Abrahamic deity, however. Its origins are very clearly located in the ancient near east, sometime within the latter half of the second millennium BCE. The biblical texts that describe this putative universe creator were authored much later, by writers who were unable to describe even so much as what had been created, let alone how it was done.

Ironically, while Genesis lays claim for the Israeli god’s creation of a universe, he’s given credit for creating the wrong one.

Certainly there are plenty of theistic scientists, but Soncatcher is incorrect when he says there’s no shortage. The fact is that in science, when it comes to theists, the rule is “the higher, the fewer.” The National Academy here in the US more than reverses the national figures. Where the general population is less than 90 percent theistic, the academy is more than 90 percent atheistic.

Maybe there is a god, and maybe it did create the universe. But it doesn’t make much sense to think any human could know enough about it to write anything authoritative about it. Certainly we’ve no reasonable examples. And, honestly, it makes even less sense to think a universe creator would have any special interest in humans. That’s hubris, I think.

As ever, Jesse
Click to expand...
Lao Tzu,

Unfortunately, there have been many reports of atheistic scientists ejecting theistic ones from the higher ranks merely because they were theistic (and not for any of the science they were conducting).

A truly scientific community does not cleanse itself in a way that resembles religious fanaticism.
 
SonCatcher

Unfortunately, there have been many reports of atheistic scientists ejecting theistic ones from the higher ranks merely because they were theistic (and not for any of the science they were conducting).

Einstein tried to discredit Le Maitre’s (a Catholic priest’s) theory of the Big Bang because it implied something too close to Genesis … the Creation. He did not succeed because Le Maitre stuck to his guns and eventually it was Einstein who had to admit to the Big Bang.

Eventually Einstein and Le Maitre became friends, but Einstein continued to hate the idea of a personal God and spewed his venom against the Judeo-Christian God in several essays written in the 1930-1940s.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
lao tzu

**Something came before the big bang, but what? **

Nothing came before the Big Bang, because there was no before. Time was created along with the Big Bang, so it was a “day” without a “yesterday.” 🙂
Click to expand...
Right. From the missing chapters of Genesis? How silly I forgot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top