A Quick Guide for the Atheist for the Necessity of a Good God

There is no legitimate moral claim without an acknowledgment of God. Here is a proof.

Do you believe that there is any act which is wrong? Wrong or evil without any doubt? Objectively wrong?

If no, then you can never, ever object to any act no matter how heinous, inhumane, or cruel. For all our sakes, I hope you didn’t say no.

If your answer is yes, you have confirmed the objective existence of a moral law, a full code of right and wrong, good and evil.

A moral law requires that there is a moral law-giver.

Yes, it does. Here’s why:

The moral law at no point seems as though it evolved from a random or amoral process.

When we examine the moral law at any point, we find that it has certain characteristics and lacks others. It is purposeful or systematic, not random. It pushes us toward self sacrifice and interest in others well-being. Morally, it compels us to choose the more selfless and less safe options.

It derives from a mind rather than from a mindless process.

The mind it derives from has clear preferences. It loves love and hates hate. It strongly prefers that we behave toward other human beings with things like kindness, love, mercy, and justice.

How do I justify that claim?

Let’s  go back to your agreement that there are some things that are just wrong. When we look inside ourselves for that sense of right and wrong, we find that there are innate, intrinsic convictions. Those convictions tell us to be kind, not cruel. To be fair, not unjust. To respect other people, not victimize or dismiss them.

It’s  not that we succeed in behaving according to those convictions, but that we all know they are there, that they do not change, and that we ought to obey them.

So where are we? We believe that there is an objective moral code. We find it inside ourselves and we hold everyone else accountable to it as well. We see that the moral code necessarily has a source which is a mind with sentience and preferences.

That code of preferences about our behavior, or its source, seems even to hold some authority over our moral choices.

We are now talking about a personal being with a mind and perfect, consistent moral goodness.




Pro-Choice is Not The Virtuous Choice

OK, so let’s get down to fundamentals. If you are pro-choice, your argument is founded on an assumption of higher moral standing. You are fighting for rights, you are taking the high road, you aren’t one of those who want to control women, etc. You are more virtuous, and you signal that fact all you can.

But you are not more virtuous. In fact, your position has no virtue at all.

The prochoice position depends on dehumanizing or otherwise negating the worth of other human beings. Those human beings are the most helpless and innocent there are.

The pro-choice position depends on then advocating for their deaths!

It is all about death. Destruction. Hopelessness. Victimization. Elitism. The advocacy of privilege. The strong imposing their power over the weak. Manipulation. Disenfranchisement. Injustice.

That is my premise, as it ought to be the pro-life movement’s premise. Before you pivot/deflect to: “What about the women’s rights?” please deal with this fundamental question first.

Now please defend your pro-death position.

Mary Had a Baby

This advent season, I am noticing my attention being drawn again and again, to this aspect of the Incarnation: Mary had a baby.

On Christmas Day, we are actually celebrating a birth, and someone giving birth.

Without enshrining the birth-giver in some sort of semi-deification, we can appreciate her amazing gift, her faithful will; but we should also note the physical sacrifice. Many factions of our socio-political advisors would like to dismiss that notice. Giving birth is default for the hopelessly un-elite. Childbearing is not for the elite, unless it be once or twice, and the offspring be carefully planned and artfully curated.

All the Christian world, those faithful and still those antagonistic, when they celebrate the holiday,  are celebrating a woman giving life to her child. And I admit I am enjoying that.

But for Mary it was a gritty, painful night of anguish just preceded by ninety miles travel on a donkey. Birthing a baby with only a husband for help. In a stable. In an unfamiliar town far from home.

Her location and travel compelled by the iron will of a government for the purpose of reducing her, her husband, and her infant to three numbers in a mass of subjects. In this, that government failed.