Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh, sweetie... when I look at the God question rationally, I see absolutely no room for God. It is clear to me that we evolved and morality is a function of our inherent nature as primates who live in troupes.

OK, let's assume you are correct. There is a high price to pay for that position. If morality is just something that emanates from the mishmash of atoms that comprise a particular human being's perspective, then nothing is actually wrong. Child rape, genocide, wife beating...not actually wrong. Sure, you personally may find those things wrong, and you might even get a coercive power to say they are wrong, but they are not wrong independent of you and your henchmen. Another powerful group comes along who disagrees with you, and they will then have their list of things that are wrong, like women having the right to vote and black people having equal rights to white people. And so on and so on.

Morality means nothing if it is dependent on human perspective and power. Without an Absolute Authority, it's all the same, from Gandhi to ripping hearts out of living children.

Of course, they are wrong. They harm people and cause suffering.

People like you terrify me. You are basically saying that if you didn't believe in God, you would run amok and cause great harm and suffering to other people. You project your lack of control onto atheists.

No, you are constructing a straw man. Obviously, atheists can be good without a BELIEF in God. But there can be no such thing as good or bad without God. God is the ultimate GOOD, the real Truth, the complete perfect standard.

Your standard of "wrong" is harming people, causing them suffering. That's to be commended--you are not a sadist. Unfortunately, a great deal of humanity would disagree with your standard of "wrong." Indeed, some of the happiest and most successful humans got to where they are/were by harming other people. But they don't care. They do not see humans as anything special. And after all, if we are just another primate, the result of a mindless evolutionary chain, with a life that ends with the destruction of our bodies, we are nothing special.

And if preventing suffering is a standard, then I assume mercy killing of human beings would fit? If the person did not know it was coming, and was emancipated from a painful or unhappy state, what's the harm? There are too many old people in the world right now--soon, it will be a crisis. Why not terminate every old person who has no one who cares about him/her? Or maybe just the ones who are alone and out of their minds?

Hmmm...some people would think that was an excellent idea. Other people would think it was barbaric. Who is right? Who is wrong? Why do we have a notion of justice when there is nothing but injustice all around us?

We all violate the moral law. But there is, in fact, violation.

The "of course" at the start of your post is your acknowledgement of that reality.

If you are a good Catholic, you know that God reveals himself in Natural Law, which means that we can observe the truth about right and wrong from the nature of the universe itself. If good is observable through nature, then the atheist has a plausible argument for a priori good without God.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have asked so many questions on this thread in the past year. I think OP has responded to one or two.

Why do you choose not to answer, OP?

I truly wonder if there aren't answers and you choose to overlook glaring irregularities in order to hold fast to your perfect creator idea.

Yoy, 63 pages of responses and we don't know which ones you wrote. I'm sure the OP has moved on with his/her life by now.

My first question was on page 3. I asked many more, only for almost all to be ignored. OP is selective and she (or someone who writes/believes almost identically to her) was still responding the other day.

Aren't most wars and mass genocides due to arguments over ideals of God and what voodoo rites you are supposed to perform in to please him? E.g: 9/11, Belfast, the crusades, Israel/Palestine, etc etc etc.

God has killed more people than he has saved.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the primary reasons why I do not believe is that I cannot wrap my head around the idea of a deity who takes an active role in individuals' lives. I once heard a woman, who after receiving a compliment on her new pants, explain that she had "prayed on them." The pants went on sale and the store still had her size; she apparently thought this was the result of her prayer or some measure of divine intervention. Frankly, if God is delivering nice sale pants to people who ask for such things instead of preventing children from getting sick or being abused, then I don't want anything to do with God.

Totally agree.

King of Queens...Carrie prayed, while at Mass, for a pair of pants she desired to go on sale (she never we. The very next day, the pants were on sale 40% off. Your story sucks.

Anonymous wrote:I have asked so many questions on this thread in the past year. I think OP has responded to one or two.

Why do you choose not to answer, OP?

I truly wonder if there aren't answers and you choose to overlook glaring irregularities in order to hold fast to your perfect creator idea.

Yoy, 63 pages of responses and we don't know which ones you wrote. I'm sure the OP has moved on with his/her life by now.

I have asked so many questions on this thread in the past year. I think OP has responded to one or two.

Why do you choose not to answer, OP?

I truly wonder if there aren't answers and you choose to overlook glaring irregularities in order to hold fast to your perfect creator idea.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh, sweetie... when I look at the God question rationally, I see absolutely no room for God. It is clear to me that we evolved and morality is a function of our inherent nature as primates who live in troupes.

OK, let's assume you are correct. There is a high price to pay for that position. If morality is just something that emanates from the mishmash of atoms that comprise a particular human being's perspective, then nothing is actually wrong. Child rape, genocide, wife beating...not actually wrong. Sure, you personally may find those things wrong, and you might even get a coercive power to say they are wrong, but they are not wrong independent of you and your henchmen. Another powerful group comes along who disagrees with you, and they will then have their list of things that are wrong, like women having the right to vote and black people having equal rights to white people. And so on and so on.

Morality means nothing if it is dependent on human perspective and power. Without an Absolute Authority, it's all the same, from Gandhi to ripping hearts out of living children.

Of course, they are wrong. They harm people and cause suffering.

People like you terrify me. You are basically saying that if you didn't believe in God, you would run amok and cause great harm and suffering to other people. You project your lack of control onto atheists.

No, you are constructing a straw man. Obviously, atheists can be good without a BELIEF in God. But there can be no such thing as good or bad without God. God is the ultimate GOOD, the real Truth, the complete perfect standard.

Your standard of "wrong" is harming people, causing them suffering. That's to be commended--you are not a sadist. Unfortunately, a great deal of humanity would disagree with your standard of "wrong." Indeed, some of the happiest and most successful humans got to where they are/were by harming other people. But they don't care. They do not see humans as anything special. And after all, if we are just another primate, the result of a mindless evolutionary chain, with a life that ends with the destruction of our bodies, we are nothing special.

And if preventing suffering is a standard, then I assume mercy killing of human beings would fit? If the person did not know it was coming, and was emancipated from a painful or unhappy state, what's the harm? There are too many old people in the world right now--soon, it will be a crisis. Why not terminate every old person who has no one who cares about him/her? Or maybe just the ones who are alone and out of their minds?

Hmmm...some people would think that was an excellent idea. Other people would think it was barbaric. Who is right? Who is wrong? Why do we have a notion of justice when there is nothing but injustice all around us?

We all violate the moral law. But there is, in fact, violation.

The "of course" at the start of your post is your acknowledgement of that reality.

Most humans are damaged psychologically if they harm others. Sociopaths are the only ones who are not. I think a lot of religious people are natural sociopaths. If they don't have an external locus of control through their belief in divine punishment, they would run amok. I guess religion is good for something.

Anonymous wrote:

God created evolution and psychology and the laws of physics and free will and the moral law. The moral law is something we can violate, with different consequences from a violation of the law of gravity, but the consequences are just as inescapable.

If you're going to base your argument on this, then you have to provide hard concrete evidence for God and there isn't any. "God" explains nothing that science doesn't explain better. There is evidence to back up the idea of evolution. There is evidence to back up the idea of the Big Bang. There is evidence to back up the biological basis for human behavior (good and bad). There is evidence to back up why humans are capable of analyzing their behavior and making rational though about it.

The fact that I'm capable of weighing what human behaviors are "good" and "bad" shows that I am a human with an enormous brain. It can be used to analyze things.

There is no evidence for God. There is certainly no evidence that God is the author of the Big Bang or evolution.

That gets us back to faith and feeling it, and I'm not feeling it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh, sweetie... when I look at the God question rationally, I see absolutely no room for God. It is clear to me that we evolved and morality is a function of our inherent nature as primates who live in troupes.

OK, let's assume you are correct. There is a high price to pay for that position. If morality is just something that emanates from the mishmash of atoms that comprise a particular human being's perspective, then nothing is actually wrong. Child rape, genocide, wife beating...not actually wrong. Sure, you personally may find those things wrong, and you might even get a coercive power to say they are wrong, but they are not wrong independent of you and your henchmen. Another powerful group comes along who disagrees with you, and they will then have their list of things that are wrong, like women having the right to vote and black people having equal rights to white people. And so on and so on.

Morality means nothing if it is dependent on human perspective and power. Without an Absolute Authority, it's all the same, from Gandhi to ripping hearts out of living children.

Of course, they are wrong. They harm people and cause suffering.

People like you terrify me. You are basically saying that if you didn't believe in God, you would run amok and cause great harm and suffering to other people. You project your lack of control onto atheists.

No, you are constructing a straw man. Obviously, atheists can be good without a BELIEF in God. But there can be no such thing as good or bad without God. God is the ultimate GOOD, the real Truth, the complete perfect standard.

Your standard of "wrong" is harming people, causing them suffering. That's to be commended--you are not a sadist. Unfortunately, a great deal of humanity would disagree with your standard of "wrong." Indeed, some of the happiest and most successful humans got to where they are/were by harming other people. But they don't care. They do not see humans as anything special. And after all, if we are just another primate, the result of a mindless evolutionary chain, with a life that ends with the destruction of our bodies, we are nothing special.

And if preventing suffering is a standard, then I assume mercy killing of human beings would fit? If the person did not know it was coming, and was emancipated from a painful or unhappy state, what's the harm? There are too many old people in the world right now--soon, it will be a crisis. Why not terminate every old person who has no one who cares about him/her? Or maybe just the ones who are alone and out of their minds?

Hmmm...some people would think that was an excellent idea. Other people would think it was barbaric. Who is right? Who is wrong? Why do we have a notion of justice when there is nothing but injustice all around us?

We all violate the moral law. But there is, in fact, violation.

The "of course" at the start of your post is your acknowledgement of that reality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In the same way, an atheist can sense the moral law, understand it, live by it, all while denying its Author. But the moral law could not exist without its Author. The atheist is benefiting from the truth while refusing to acknowledge its source.

Humans are primates. Morality derives from the evolution of primates. "Morality" is a group of behaviors that make it possible to live in a group -- cooperation, kindness, empathy are all required for primates to live in a group. Humans have big brains and can extend those behaviors to larger groups through reason. It has nothing to do with God.

You can deny evolution and psychology, shake your fist at it, but still understand it and live by it.

OK, put aside the question of whether God exists for a moment, and just think about the prima facie absurdity of this idea, that human beings need cooperation, kindness, and empathy to live in a group.

Think communist China. Think Stalinist Russia. Think the Roman Empire. Think the US South before the Civil War. Think of every example of genocide, slavery, oppression. Think dictators, sociopaths, drug cartels, Sandusky, any example you wish.

Now think of natural selection, survival of the fittest, which is the supposed mechanism for the evolution of human morality. Think of a few common expressions, like "good guys finish last," "all's fair in love and war," and such.

Bad human behavior is REWARDED, while good human behavior is the EXCEPTION. If there is a natural, animalistic human moral code, then it is Machiavellian, or Lord of the Flies, or schoolyardish, or similarly brutal. I can see horrible dictators throughout the world laughing at your statement as they eat the finest foods and indulge in the best pleasures this world has to offer while their subjects starve to death, are shot in the back of the head, or watch their children be taken away to sexual slavery.

Now back to the question of whether God exists. The very fact that you can ponder which human behaviors are "right" and which are "wrong" points to the existence of an absolute standard, something beyond any one human, any one culture, any one human power.

God created evolution and psychology and the laws of physics and free will and the moral law. The moral law is something we can violate, with different consequences from a violation of the law of gravity, but the consequences are just as inescapable.

If God created morality, he should have done a better job. He's not even moral himself, in my opinion, according to the bible. Why kill people with a flood because they didn't love you? That's wrong. It's not a story of obedience and faith, it's a story of genocide....at the hands of your "morality" author.

Anonymous wrote:

In the same way, an atheist can sense the moral law, understand it, live by it, all while denying its Author. But the moral law could not exist without its Author. The atheist is benefiting from the truth while refusing to acknowledge its source.

Humans are primates. Morality derives from the evolution of primates. "Morality" is a group of behaviors that make it possible to live in a group -- cooperation, kindness, empathy are all required for primates to live in a group. Humans have big brains and can extend those behaviors to larger groups through reason. It has nothing to do with God.

You can deny evolution and psychology, shake your fist at it, but still understand it and live by it.

Anonymous wrote:

Oh, sweetie... when I look at the God question rationally, I see absolutely no room for God. It is clear to me that we evolved and morality is a function of our inherent nature as primates who live in troupes.

OK, let's assume you are correct. There is a high price to pay for that position. If morality is just something that emanates from the mishmash of atoms that comprise a particular human being's perspective, then nothing is actually wrong. Child rape, genocide, wife beating...not actually wrong. Sure, you personally may find those things wrong, and you might even get a coercive power to say they are wrong, but they are not wrong independent of you and your henchmen. Another powerful group comes along who disagrees with you, and they will then have their list of things that are wrong, like women having the right to vote and black people having equal rights to white people. And so on and so on.

Morality means nothing if it is dependent on human perspective and power. Without an Absolute Authority, it's all the same, from Gandhi to ripping hearts out of living children.

Of course, they are wrong. They harm people and cause suffering.

People like you terrify me. You are basically saying that if you didn't believe in God, you would run amok and cause great harm and suffering to other people. You project your lack of control onto atheists.

Tha hypocrites in church are why I don't believe in organized religion. There's an awful lot of moral law breakers sitting in the pews with no real plans for changing their behavior.

You can believe in God but not go to church or have fish emblems on your car or proseletize on DCUM.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh, sweetie... when I look at the God question rationally, I see absolutely no room for God. It is clear to me that we evolved and morality is a function of our inherent nature as primates who live in troupes.

OK, let's assume you are correct. There is a high price to pay for that position. If morality is just something that emanates from the mishmash of atoms that comprise a particular human being's perspective, then nothing is actually wrong. Child rape, genocide, wife beating...not actually wrong. Sure, you personally may find those things wrong, and you might even get a coercive power to say they are wrong, but they are not wrong independent of you and your henchmen. Another powerful group comes along who disagrees with you, and they will then have their list of things that are wrong, like women having the right to vote and black people having equal rights to white people. And so on and so on.

Morality means nothing if it is dependent on human perspective and power. Without an Absolute Authority, it's all the same, from Gandhi to ripping hearts out of living children.

Not that PP here. This is part of why we fight wars. As much as we believe in our culture's standard of morality, there is another group of people who believe they are right and we are completely wrong. Talibans, for example. Each side sees the other side as the devil.

Indeed. And under the materialist version, everyone is right unto themselves and nothing is actually wrong. We are just collections of cosmic dust, which come together and fall apart; higher order animals in a natural selection struggle, somehow needing to delude ourselves with fairy tales to rationalize our choices.

But there IS a law of human nature, just as there are laws of the physical world, all of which we simply observe and discover--we do not create.

Ok but is there a requirement that you have to believe in God to understand and abide by these laws? Can an atheist not be good and morale without needing a God?

Of course an atheist can be good and moral without believing in God, in the same way that someone who does not believe the sun exists can still feel its warmth and see its light and benefit from its placement in the universe, which makes life on Earth possible. A sun denier can close her eyes, turn her back, shake her fist at the sun, and swear it is not real, it does not exist, but that has no effect on its reality. Its reality is independent of the sun denier's perspective. And the sun denier would still benefit from the sun's existence. Indeed, the sun denier could not live without the sun.

In the same way, an atheist can sense the moral law, understand it, live by it, all while denying its Author. But the moral law could not exist without its Author. The atheist is benefiting from the truth while refusing to acknowledge its source.