Why does science always upstage God?

[ayost]

Anecdotally, the first time I heard that argument my immediate response was

“So you think homosexuality is immoral?”

To which he replied “Well it depends on what brings the most well being to the most humans.”

And I said “So the order of the “is it moral?” checklist is:
1) It brings the most well being to the most people
2) It doesn’t annihilate humanity
That’s the order? Seems backwards

He said “Well it depends on what your goal is.”

And I said “Shouldn’t not annihilating humanity kind of always be one of your goals?”

“Not always”, he said.

🤷🏻‍♂️

And this is how it goes. Round and round and where it stops nobody knows.

It also could just be that people do what they evolved to do. Some people evolved to terrorize other people. You don’t chastise a lion for terrorizing the plains of Africa.

---

You’re being way to flippant and not truly looking at the depth of the world’s depravity. Obviously, there’s the atrocities in China and North Korea. There’s genital mutilation in the Middle East. Cannibals in India. Sex trafficking in America. Slavery in Africa. There’s a tribe in Papua New Guinea where boys are required to perform oral sex on the elders until the boys are old enough ejaculate. Trust me, the world is not full of people who all agree on what’s right and what’s wrong. That’s not true in any sense.

---

I already granted that there’s not God to start this conversation so that we could fully explore the inconsistency in the atheist moral worldview.

---

That’s been happening since you started talking. You’ll never admit it, but your worldview is bankrupt.

---

I just made a compelling argument, using your worldview, that killing foster kids reduces suffering. All you did is arbitrarily assume that suffering increases to a point my example fails without actually addressing the foundation of the argument, which is that moral system is bankrupt and it doesn’t work. Its arbitrary and inconsistent and it only works when people do what you already agree with.

It’s actually an argument that abortion advocates use to defend abortion. As a side note, she’s not a potential mother, she’s a mother and if she gets and abortion she’s just the mother of a dead baby.

---

In my opinion, a more compelling argument than the “arbitrary levels of unmeasurable suffering” is the idea that an immoral action is any action that, should everyone do that action all of the time, would bring an end to humanity.

Of course, the person who says that has to admit homosexuality, transgenderism, and abortion are immoral. Obviously, since no one is a neutral truth seeker, their political views will override their need for consistency and they will violate their own moral system.

But, should that person be consistent, I would be compelled by that argument.

I know no one’s talking to me, but I’d like to interject just for a moment and point out that a foetus is not a baby.

You may now return to your previously scheduled screeching.

Boru

I, and all of biology, respectfully say that is 100% untrue.