The atheists best argument?

[Aloysium]

How dramatic!

Really?

This is the level of argument you offer, Pumpkin?

Let’s look at motivation:
Used commonly, it’s a theoretical concept within the field of psychology regarding behaviour. Its study involves understandings of who we are instinctually and cognitively, what motivates us and how it does so. There are internal and external motivators, whose interplay manifests as curiosity, pleasure, mastery, anxiety, competitiveness and responses to reward systems. The latter factor, as every Psychology 101 student is aware, is an area described by classical and operant conditioning. The reality of the human rational mind has broadened this area away from merely bells and salivation. Let’s say a government that runs the nation’s health system, wants their doctors to do more. They may increase the fees to those who treat more difficult patients; but that is less effective than decreasing the fees for simpler cases. Doctors’ issues may be quality of life and not insufficient funds. You move them in your direction by applying a hurt. The doctors are not going to be happy with this; and that is because a pull feels better than a push. It is better if people can talk and work things out. The area of motivation is filled with words such as needs, hierarchy of needs, drives, impulses, self-control, self-determination, growth and development, cognitive dissonance, expectations, goal setting, education, etc, etc, etc.What motivates monstrous behaviour has to do with genetics and brain anatomy and physiology, the structure of societal systems, legal, economic and personally interactional, family and psychological dynamics and ultimately one’s relationship with God, who is love.

No doubt you agree that things are more complex than the distorted, irritating nonsense you present above. I am sure you will slough it off as having been an attempt at a joke. You know what? When secular society is heading for a fall, carrying with it tens of millions of unborn children, as it loses touch with the truth and what is most important in life, it is actually a very damaging lie.

I see that you have added more since the initial garbage you presented, to which this was in response. I will leave this as I wrote it initially.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Memes always fall short, I’m just so tired of discussing the whole Stalin/Hitler/Mao were atheists therefore atheism is just as bad as Wahabism or Torquemada-ism.

Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, George Kluclinsky weren’t motivated to kill simply because they didn’t have beliefs. In fact, I think several were Christians. On the contrary, they killed for other reasons.

Which people in the world have been known to say something like “I’m skeptical about the existence of God, so I will kill people in a glorious mission to get others to share my skepticism?” I’m not aware of any.

Now, you have a good point: how many people commit crimes and live totally selfishly because they have a sneaking suspicion that morality is a fantasy? I’m not sure. It could be a lot. Also, how many people are depressed and on drugs because they have lost the belief that God loves them and cares for them? Probably a lot! Think of the tremendous waste of human potential, all because people are depressed.

Leaving aside for the time being the fact that most of the genocidal dictators of the past century were avowed atheists who were, in fact, motivated to do what they did because they believed they could do so with impunity since they thought of themselves, absent God, as the highest moral authority; your little chart only presents the negative case of holding beliefs; one side of the coin, so to speak. It completely ignores that religious beliefs have far more often been positive motivators for great good. You completely leave out the great good done by the great Catholic saints throughout history, and the accomplishments of people like WIlberforce, Gandhi, Bonhoeffer, and others who did what they did as a result of their religious beliefs.

There is no possibility for good to come about as the result of an absence of belief since all actions are undertaken when human moral agents have positive reasons or motives for doing what they do. Atheism, then, unlike religious belief, is pretty much a non-factor when it comes to the positive good which is and has been done in the world, since non-belief or lack of belief results in no action.

Even if we grant that atheism does not directly bring about great evil – which is a dubious claim, in any case – it is pretty clear that atheism is completely useless and inert as a catalyst or driver for any good either.

You would be just as well-off being a rock holding no beliefs as you would be being an atheist if your analysis holds.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Which people in the world have been known to say something like “I’m skeptical about the existence of God, so I will kill people in a glorious mission to get others to share my skepticism?” I’m not aware of any.

This is rather simplistic. Perhaps no one kills to “share their skepticism.” However atheists are not skeptics – skeptics would be agnostic. Atheists claim to know something: that God does not exist and therefore there is no higher moral authority as far as atheists are concerned to rule over them.

The genocidal atheist dictators were not motivated by a desire to share their skepticism, they were motivated by their desire to lord it over others and “make the rules” with regard to what others would do or believe. Their conviction that no one but they themselves held the authority to impose rules on others led to their conviction that no restrictions existed to stop them from exerting absolute dictatorship over others.

There is a direct line of reasoning from “No higher power or purpose exists,” to: “Therefore, I, if I can exert sufficient control over others, can impose my will upon them with impunity.” No God exists to stop me or hold me accountable.

You are right that there was no attempt to share skepticism (which might come about from a kind of benign agnosticism,) but there have been frequent attempts to impose atheistic control to fill the ostensible vacuum (left by the absolute atheistic conviction that no God exists) with regard to the imposition of will, power and moral authority.

 

[LethalMouse]

Also I would note in non ideological killers it is only a tinge of religion that runs a risk of them stopping or “holding back”

For example the Mafia was never exactly following Catholicism, but where they did draw lines and not go any further it was then seeking some chance at redemption.

Find criminals or organizations thereof lacking that and you get those who have no lines of criminal morality.

And you can actually see the societal degradation of religion has led to the sane criminals crossing lines they once did not.

 

[Cheiron]

There is a direct line of reasoning from “No higher power or purpose exists,” to: “Therefore, I, if I can exert sufficient control over others, can impose my will upon them with impunity.”

That line of reasoning is a complete non-sequitur. In fact, it’s often completely the other way around. People like Tomas Torquemada or Lenin imposed their will on other people precisely because they thought a higher power or purpose existed that validated their crimes.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

This is rather simplistic. Perhaps no one kills to “share their skepticism.” However atheists are not skeptics – skeptics would be agnostic. Atheists claim to know something: that God does not exist and therefore there is no higher moral authority as far as atheists are concerned to rule over them.

The genocidal atheist dictators were not motivated by a desire to share their skepticism, they were motivated by their desire to lord it over others and “make the rules” with regard to what others would do or believe. Their conviction that no one but they themselves held the authority to impose rules on others led to their conviction that no restrictions existed to stop them from exerting absolute dictatorship over others.

Yes, authoritarianism mixed with Gnosticism (whether religious or atheistic) is toxic! I do tend to agree that some atheistic positions are just as ill-conceived as fundamentalist forms of religion. Most of my heroes (and I’d include Socrates) were agnostics or possibly agnostic theists, depending upon how you define the terms.

There is a direct line of reasoning from “No higher power or purpose exists,” to: “Therefore, I, if I can exert sufficient control over others, can impose my will upon them with impunity.” No God exists to stop me or hold me accountable.

I disagree that there is a “direct line of reasoning” here. I do agree that a lack of belief in a punishing/rewarding God can be demoralizing for some people. However, many people believe virtue is its own reward, and vice its own punishment in the here and now. I personally DO believe this doesn’t solve the problem of morality on a universal scale (evil people still get away with a lot, good people get punished). However, if I were convinced tomorrow that there is no God and no ultimate punishment/reward, I would live precisely the same way.

You are right that there was no attempt to share skepticism (which might come about from a kind of benign agnosticism,) but there have been frequent attempts to impose atheistic control to fill the ostensible vacuum (left by the absolute atheistic conviction that no God exists) with regard to the imposition of will, power and moral authority.

I agree. Authoritarianism is ugly. Don’t get me started!!

 

[LethalMouse]

. Most of my heroes (and I’d include Socrates) were agnostics or possibly agnostic theists, depending upon how you define the terms.

!

Isnt agnostic theism still theism??

You post in some ways like an athesit but you seem generally less concerned about actual GOD and instead people.

I am Catholic, for what it is I read the teachings and find I agree with them.

I am all over this forum disagreeing with Catholics.

I can sometimes be undoubtably right or we can mince disagreement about the same passage of the Catechism.

So what does this mean? Relgious belief in the sense of believng of God has little to do with the things you associate them with.

The details as decided upon by people is your issue.

I probably wholeheartedly disagree with a near majority of Catholics and a larger majority of other christians about alot.

Yet you would lump us all together.

If you are even a partial theist many atheists could choose to view you as no different from a Catholic or Muslim.

To some athesits even the “I believe in God but I don’t think any current religions are right” puts you squarely in the same group as the other religions.

So your tone of posts is partially commical as you make it a bit iof “us” vs them when talking to people with a “religion”…

Yet to others you are part of them as much as they are

 

[PumpkinCookie]

How dramatic!

Really?

This is the level of argument you offer, Pumpkin?

Let’s look at motivation:
Used commonly, it’s a theoretical concept within the field of psychology regarding behaviour. Its study involves understandings of who we are instinctually and cognitively, what motivates us and how it does so. There are internal and external motivators, whose interplay manifests as curiosity, pleasure, mastery, anxiety, competitiveness and responses to reward systems. The latter factor, as every Psychology 101 student is aware, is an area described by classical and operant conditioning. The reality of the human rational mind has broadened this area away from merely bells and salivation. Let’s say a government that runs the nation’s health system, wants their doctors to do more. They may increase the fees to those who treat more difficult patients; but that is less effective than decreasing the fees for simpler cases. Doctors’ issues may be quality of life and not insufficient funds. You move them in your direction by applying a hurt. The doctors are not going to be happy with this; and that is because a pull feels better than a push. It is better if people can talk and work things out. The area of motivation is filled with words such as needs, hierarchy of needs, drives, impulses, self-control, self-determination, growth and development, cognitive dissonance, expectations, goal setting, education, etc, etc, etc.What motivates monstrous behaviour has to do with genetics and brain anatomy and physiology, the structure of societal systems, legal, economic and personally interactional, family and psychological dynamics and ultimately one’s relationship with God, who is love.

No doubt you agree that things are more complex than the distorted, irritating nonsense you present above. I am sure you will slough it off as having been an attempt at a joke. You know what?

Thanks for your thoughts. You’re right: it’s much more complicated than an annoying meme.

When secular society is heading for a fall, carrying with it tens of millions of unborn children, as it loses touch with the truth and what is most important in life, it is actually a very damaging lie.

I see that you have added more since the initial garbage you presented, to which this was in response. I will leave this as I wrote it initially.

You know, it has occurred to me that “the world” or “secular society” is the object of blame and finger-pointing for many Christians the way “God” is blamed by many atheists.

For instance: why don’t you blame women for abortion? They have free will right? Aren’t they the guilty parties? Isn’t an abortion essentially a contract-killing of a baby? What could be more heinous than that? Why is it society’s fault?

Like: child abuse can’t be blamed on God because “free will,” so abortion can’t be blamed on society because “free will.” Women and doctors are guilty! They should go to prison, or even get the death penalty, right?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . “the world” or “secular society” is the object of blame and finger-pointing for many Christians the way “God” is blamed by many atheists.

For instance: why don’t you blame women for abortion? They have free will right? Aren’t they the guilty parties? Isn’t an abortion essentially a contract-killing of a baby? What could be more heinous than that? Why is it society’s fault?

Like: child abuse can’t be blamed on God because “free will,” so abortion can’t be blamed on society because “free will.” Women and doctors are guilty! They should go to prison, or even get the death penalty, right?

Atheists don’t believe in God, so if they blame God, they are possibly:

1. revealing an underlying truth that their act of a-theism is in reality a disowning of God as a consequence of the evil for which they feel He is responsible, thinking that He would have directly caused it in His omnipotence and omniscience, or indirectly, through neglect as a deadbeat dad.
2. blaming the belief in God, imagining it to be a manifestation of mankind’s tendency towards ignorance, prejudice and intolerance, which should be abolished.
3. trying to point out inconsistencies in the belief systems of theists to justify their own vision of reality.

All of us will have to answer to love itself, for how we have treated our neighbour. Those involved with abortion do so within a given a social economic, moral, legal and intellectual context, all of which is considered when our hearts are opened and their true nature revealed in the light of love.

I’m not one to blame anyone.
If I speak of consumerist society I am addressing the manner in which the bounty of this planet is divided and its moral underpinnings which see the person as a thing to be used and manipulated ultimately for the benefit of a system on which we are all dependent for most social connections and to survive and prosper; a system which is dysfunctional in its capacity to serve our needs and results in much, much human suffering.
Intellectually speaking, western society is heavily influenced by a secular vision of creation. It has moral repercussions, especially seen in the huge growth in rates if abortion in recent decades, to be followed by a similar pattern with “euthanasia”. It is good that we study the building blocks of what constitutes our physical nature, but with it, again under the influence of atheism, we see the disappearance of the person, along with objective morality, meaning and value that characterize our relationship with each other and with God.
Tolerance is not love. It is under the influence of indifferent tolerance that what is termed violent religious fanaticism festers as people have no ground in the true meaning of life or objective moral truth, see power and lies as the only means of interacting and settling disputes.
It is my obligation to give people the heads-up; they are the ones who will choose their own fate. The fate of this and subsequent generations will unfold as it will according to the Law, the Darma which address the realities of judgement and/or karma. Fear not, mercy is greater than judgement. That said some of us may choose to deplete ourselves of our humanity. (Not to cause more anxiety for the scrupulous or depressed, I’m not talking about you.) Just as we become more Christ-like, we can transform ourselves into the demonic.

 

[goout]

https://i.imgsafe.org/d9d3db5799.png

This is silly.
Atheist and other anti-religion (Stalin, PolPot, Hitler) regimes are the most efficient mass murderers in history. That’s undisputed documented history.
This pictograph is ignorant of that history.

And that shouldn’t diminish the cruelty religious people have perpetrated.
Evil people are evil whether they do it in the name of a particular God or in the name of No-god.

At the end of the day, belief in God is a hindrance to evil. And so those who want to mold society to their individual preferences need to stamp out religion to get it done.

As demonstrated on this thread and others, atheism has no objective moral compass.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

This is silly.
Atheist and other anti-religion (Stalin, PolPot, Hitler) regimes are the most efficient mass murderers in history. That’s undisputed documented history.
This pictograph is ignorant of that history.

And that shouldn’t diminish the cruelty religious people have perpetrated.
Evil people are evil whether they do it in the name of a particular God or in the name of No-god.

At the end of the day, belief in God is a hindrance to evil. And so those who want to mold society to their individual preferences need to stamp out religion to get it done.

As demonstrated on this thread and others, atheism has no objective moral compass.

Ugh, I am so tired of this discussion about “atheistic regimes.”

1. Hitler was not an atheist. Just google it.

Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.

Who said that?..yup…:sad_yes:…Adolf Hitler. Guess he agrees with you guys about morality being “in the air” without being based on faith.

1. Stalin: yep, you’re right! However, I’d argue that the communists killed millions not specifically because they did not believe in God, but because they were blinded by ideology (Marxism, authoritarianism). Jihadists and crusaders are the same.
2. Pol Pot: yep, definitely atheist. Again, blinded by ideology and totalitarianism.

Also, they were more efficient killers because they had better technology and there were far more people to kill. God forbid if ISIS had access to nuclear weapons, billions would die!

 

[tonyrey]

Thanks for your thoughts. You’re right: it’s much more complicated than an annoying meme.

You know, it has occurred to me that “the world” or “secular society” is the object of blame and finger-pointing for many Christians the way “God” is blamed by many atheists.

For instance: why don’t you blame women for abortion? They have free will right? Aren’t they the guilty parties? Isn’t an abortion essentially a contract-killing of a baby? What could be more heinous than that? Why is it society’s fault?

Like: child abuse can’t be blamed on God because “free will,” so abortion can’t be blamed on society because “free will.” Women and doctors are guilty! They should go to prison, or even get the death penalty, right?

1. There is a difference between ultimate and direct responsibility.
2. The principle of choosing the lesser evil should be taken into account.

 

[Peter_Plato]

1. Stalin: yep, you’re right! However, I’d argue that the communists killed millions not specifically because they did not believe in God, but because they were blinded by ideology (Marxism, authoritarianism). Jihadists and crusaders are the same.
2. Pol Pot: yep, definitely atheist. Again, blinded by ideology and totalitarianism.

Interesting that you slough-off these two as “blinded by ideology” loosely identified as authoritarianism and totalitarianism without deconstructing the implications of those “ideologies” or what the grounds were for these two dictators to adopt them.

 

[goout]

Ugh, I am so tired of this discussion about “atheistic regimes.”

1. Hitler was not an atheist. Just google it.

Who said that?..yup…:sad_yes:…Adolf Hitler. Guess he agrees with you guys about morality being “in the air” without being based on faith.

1. Stalin: yep, you’re right! However, I’d argue that the communists killed millions not specifically because they did not believe in God, but because they were blinded by ideology (Marxism, authoritarianism). Jihadists and crusaders are the same.
2. Pol Pot: yep, definitely atheist. Again, blinded by ideology and totalitarianism.

Also, they were more efficient killers because they had better technology and there were far more people to kill. God forbid if ISIS had access to nuclear weapons, billions would die!

The fact remains, atheism the belief system has no moral checks whatsoever.
Atheists are asked for their moral value system repeatedly and come up with vague things like popular opinion and “what makes people happy”.

The fact is, all three of these anti-religion dictators were pushed into the ashcan of history by cultures with moral underpinnings.
The great anti-religion society envisioned by Stalin is gone, collapsing of it’s own weight after being called out by a Polish bishop who never wielded a sword.

 

[Cheiron]

AND it’s a case of the ‘is-ought fallacy’ or ‘fact-value distinction.’

You can’t base your “evaluation” on facts, you have to base it on values, which presuppose that there is a way that things ought to be as distinct from the way things are. Now it may be that, like a broken clock, the way things are aligns with the way things ought to be, but you can’t merely assert that the way things are are the way they ought to be MERELY because they are.

Which is why G.E. Moore called the failure to make the distinction between “is” and “ought” an instance of the naturalistic fallacy.

In your case, you claim that “it’s a fact” amounts to sufficient grounds for the conclusion that because it is a fact it must be the “objective moral standard,” that it is, and ought to be, the 'objective moral standard MERELY because it is a fact. :nope:

In essence, you are collapsing the difference between is and ought by simply asserting that no difference exists and, thereafter, pretending they are the same as a matter of fact.

As an aside, where did you “rational rats” get your training in logic?

As a main point: where did you learn to read?

Behaviour that leads to well-being = morally good and behaviour that causes misery = morally bad.

We know for a fact that religious freedom leads to greater happiness and prosperity than theocracies and the brutal suppresion of other religions. Think of the religious wars in Europe for example. It doesn’t matter whether you agree with it or not, it’s a fact that religious freedom leads to more peace and prosperity. That’s why religious freedom is the more moral than a theocracy.

I did not say thats facts equals morality. Facts that lead to well-being are the moral standard. How do we know which facts lead to well-being? Statistics, polling, there is a wide variety of methods.

 

[Peter_Plato]

As a main point: where did you learn to read?

We know for a fact that religious freedom leads to greater happiness and prosperity than theocracies and the brutal suppresion of other religions. Think of the religious wars in Europe for example. It doesn’t matter whether you agree with it or not, it’s a fact that religious freedom leads to more peace and prosperity. That’s why religious freedom is the more moral than a theocracy.

I did not say thats facts equals morality. Facts that lead to well-being are the moral standard. How do we know which facts lead to well-being? Statistics, polling, there is a wide variety of methods.

“Well-being” defined as what precisely? In addition, whose well-being is to be counted?

Before you can claim that any particular facts can possibly “lead to well-being” you need to explicate or define what you mean by “well-being” and provide a way to measure it, in addition to explaining the mechanism by which mere “facts” can “lead” to well-being – as if that were a commonly experienced phenomenon – and beyond that to how a “moral standard” is to be derived from “facts leading to well-being.”.

It would appear that statistics, polling and the wide variety of methods don’t necessarily tell us anything about the nature of well-being or how to achieve it. Are you proposing that to determine which facts are actually the “truth about things” (one definition of the word “facts”) we ought to use polling, statistics and the like? There’s a fallacy for that.

Religious freedom is only “more moral” than theocracy if it reliably leads people to their final and legitimate good. Freedom by itself doesn’t guarantee that. I know a number of people who are quite adamant about expressing their liberties. They don’t seem very happy, but rather appear to be continually moving from one “fix” to another. More freedom doesn’t translate to greater possibility of well-being, however you define it.

Freedoms, religious or otherwise, will always be curtailed to some degree or other because permitting everyone to express their freedoms without limit will lead to all manner of conflicts. The question of limiting freedom will still come down to determining how that limiting is to be done.

And it still isn’t at all clear how we get “moral standards” by simply filtering well-being through a mess of facts.

What you’ve done is presented a host of vague generalities propped up by ambiguous rhetoric incorporating indefinite words like “freedom,” “well-being” and “moral” which mean different things to different people and pretended you have actually said something meaningful.

By the way, the crucial question isn’t “Where did I learn to read?” The more important question is whether I CAN read and make sense of what you wrote. Read it I can. The semantics part of the question, however, isn’t necessarily my problem.

 

[tonyrey]

If “He will be what he will be, and so everything is what it is” we can make moral judgments but they have no **rational **

Reasonable and logical. It is not self-evident that what happens by necessity is valuable.

Why is “dignity” not a moral criterion?

It means “being worthy of honour or respect” without explaining why…

Personally, I believe morality emerges from nature…

From the law of the jungle!

… and I waffle between appealing to virtue ethics and the categorical imperative to explain our moral intuitions

In an amoral universe morality is simply a human convention

. I think virtually everyone would agree that plowing into dozens of people and murdering them in cold blood is wrong. Ironically, it takes a religious belief in the divine command theory of ethics to convince us otherwise, in this case at least! I cannot believe the man in that truck felt that it was natural, good, and virtuous to mow down random strangers. He had to convince himself that it was God’s will and that he would be infinitely compensated for the suffering he caused/endured in pursuit of jihad.

Skepticism of “God’s will” doesn’t seem to motivate similar acts of outrageous barbarism does it? When was the last time someone blew themselves up while screaming “I’m not so sure what God requires of us, and I have a suspicion that he cannot be evaluated and that words like “good” and “evil” have no meaning when applied to him!!!” LOL. Rather, this skepticism motivated the creation of secularism and modern religious freedom, which put an end to the centuries of religious conflict in the west.

Atheists are still committing atrocities on a far larger scale in Communist nations like China and in secular societies like the UK Moslems and Christians cannot even express their faith in public!

 

[PumpkinCookie]

1. There is a difference between ultimate and direct responsibility.
2. The principle of choosing the lesser evil should be taken into account.

1. So God is not ultimately responsible for evil…or good, right?
2. If abortion is a contract-killing of a baby, the mother and doctor deserve to be punished. If God would send the woman and doctor to hell and the Catholic Church would impose excommunication, why would secular law let them get off “scot-free?” It would be a greater evil to let such a crime go unpunished.

NOTE: I do not believe the above two statements. I am reflecting on the implications of the positions presented by tonyrey and others.

 

[Aloysium]

1. So God is not ultimately responsible for evil…or good, right?
2. If abortion is a contract-killing of a baby, the mother and doctor deserve to be punished. If God would send the woman and doctor to hell and the Catholic Church would impose excommunication, why would secular law let them get off “scot-free?” It would be a greater evil to let such a crime go unpunished.

NOTE: I do not believe the above two statements. I am reflecting on the implications of the positions presented by tonyrey and others.

I don’t think this follows from what Tony has posted. Not at all actually. But, it may follow from a misunderstanding of who God is, the nature of love and the purpose of our existence. I don’t have an idea of what you are getting at but here are some thoughts on the points above:

1. When you get to this sort of conclusion, the word responsibility has lost its meaning. In giving us life and the ability to become the person we wish, God has not given us something evil. What we do with it may be evil. The desire to do what we want with impunity is the desire to be gods. But in reality to be a god means to be loving. Love includes justice since we cannot love what hates love. We can only mourn at that point.
2. Secular law is about power and maintaining the social hierarchy in some sort of harmony. It has evolved to include certain rights and responsibilities for the individual on the one hand and society, through its government on the other. An embryo, fetus and fetus are not considered persons and do not share the same rights as you and I. This is a lie in some cases and in others a reflection of the person’s own sense of worthlessness and the pointlessness of existence. These are poisons within the person and society. The information is out there that situation is otherwise, but people have to work it out within themselves. Their heart has to change. All we can do is love them, as heinous as might be their actions. At a certain point we can do so much evil, that we become evil itself. There is no one left to care about, no one to love, just greed, hate, envy, and the like, feeding on death. At that point the person becomes hell, fixed and unchanging, a place we dread to visit in life, but can give over to our saviour, who gladly takes it from us on the cross, that we might be reborn.

 

[tonyrey]

1. There is a difference between ultimate and direct responsibility.
2. The principle of choosing the lesser evil should be taken into account.

False. God is ultimately responsible for everything.

1. If abortion is a contract-killing of a baby, the mother and doctor deserve to be punished. If God would send the woman and doctor to hell and the Catholic Church would impose excommunication, why would secular law let them get off “scot-free?” It would be a greater evil to let such a crime go unpunished.

Both are guilty because they consented to the crime. God doesn’t consent to any form of evil. He gives us the power to choose what to believe, how to live and who to love. It would be a greater evil not to create us with that power because we wouldn’t be persons but zombies…

What role does God play in your scheme of things?