Why Atheists cannot account for Objective Moral Truths

[HeirofSalvation]

"Morality" means "Good and Evil." "Good" means that which is beneficial to the fulfillment of a purpose. "Objective good" means that which is beneficial to the fulfillment of THE purpose for which a thing exists. A "purpose" is a type of desire or goal. We can locate a purpose for humanity in the desires of God,

I think I'm with you so far..

OR we can locate a purpose for humanity in a universal human nature, and it's universal, bedrock desires.

I don't think I'm with you here. (You don't have to bold everything...we'll still see it)

Among these are survival, long life, and long term holistic pleasure (happiness) for all human beings

.
An atheist can easily ground morality upon this....but, the question would arise, Why should the long term holistic pleasure of human beings be sought after?

So what have I misdefined here? You said this was problematic but I didn't see a reason why. You restated that an "ought" can't be derived from an "is",

The Universe (in an atheistic and unguided paradigm) is a rote set of purposeless and unguided incidences.
There is no "purpose" in an atheistic framework.....
Thus, whatever drives or desires a human might have are mere rote facts of a purposeless and unguided Universe:
They are a state of affairs...nothing more:
They are an "is" they are not an "ought to be".

but my response here is that "ought", or objective purpose, is derived from universal desire.

No.
That Universal desire, can be a mere result of unguided and un-purposed chance....that's just a statement about how people are.
There is no reason that even if all humans share that desire, that they ought to pursue it or even have it...
You've merely asserted that they DO have it.
Cock-roaches have (or at least exhibit) what might be called a desire...

Universal desires can be located in the desires of God, AND/OR the universal, bedrock desires of human nature.

Universal desires could be no more significant than the desires/drives of cock-roaches.
Cock-roaches have a Universal drive/tendency to do what best serves their species.
I consider nothing that a roach does to be moral in nature.

You are smuggling God into this: (as I would)
I agree that without God, there are no objective moral facts.

I think you understand naturally that human desires are what they are because they are what God designed them to be.

The universal desires of human beings (life and happiness) cannot be ignored in the objective conception of the good,

No one is "ignoring" or even disputing that humans have what these desires/drives......
What I am disputing is that while they exist, there is no moral truth behind them (given an atheistic framework)

Why should or ought humanity achieve their desires?
Cock-roaches have drives and desires too.
Given atheism....what is strictly "moral" about either creatures innate drive to realize it?

Thank you for your engagement brother!

 

[HeirofSalvation]

It is an absurd if.
As genuine Christians we actually know God, John 17:3.

thanks.
God exists.
Not a topic for debate on this thread. This is a thread for adults, who already know this.

 

[Arthur King]

It is an absurd if.
As genuine Christians we actually know God, John 17:3.

Ultimately we are exploring the Creator / Creation relationship. This is why we entertain the (yes, ridiculous) hypothetical, if "if God does not exist"

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I think these questions I've raised earlier have not been sufficiently answered, and they drive at the heart of my argument:

In case anyone thinks it is "cheap" to bring up the notion of a psycopath..."counter-examples" to a problem are absolutely a Universally utilized and profitable way of exploring an idea: Professional philosophers utilize this tactic regularly....I do not consider it dishonest or cheap to utilize them in order to function as a reductio ad absurdum to the conversation.
No one has complained thus far:

Why do we despise and take umbrage at a genuine Psychopath who feels no sense of guilt or shame?

How does the atheist insist that others should embrace the morality they personally adhere to?
How do they impose their "own morality" on others?

A theist can insist that there is an authority who has a right to be obeyed and can require moral values and duties of others.
All an atheist can really do is act upon or prefer an unguided evolutionary tendency of some kind.
Psychopaths are a minority and abnormal.
Ditto a dwarf or a giant. What makes the latter two acceptable and the former unacceptable?
Majority preference?

Who is to say that the psychopath isn't an exemplar of an emerging evolutionary change within human neuro-psychology which will one day result in even greater survival and possibly holistic thriving of the human species?

"Why should human society thrive?"


My conclusion:
At this point, they can only appeal to something like a general survival instinct...which, if true, is not an ought but an is.
Thus, it is no longer a moral fact, but a scientific one.

 

[Arthur King]

I think I'm with you so far..

I don't think I'm with you here. (You don't have to bold everything...we'll still see it)
.
An atheist can easily ground morality upon this....but, the question would arise, Why should the long term holistic pleasure of human beings be sought after?

The Universe (in an atheistic and unguided paradigm) is a rote set of purposeless and unguided incidences.
There is no "purpose" in an atheistic framework.....
Thus, whatever drives or desires a human might have are mere rote facts of a purposeless and unguided Universe:
They are a state of affairs...nothing more:
They are an "is" they are not an "ought to be".

No.
That Universal desire, can be a mere result of unguided and un-purposed chance....that's just a statement about how people are.
There is no reason that even if all humans share that desire, that they ought to pursue it or even have it...
You've merely asserted that they DO have it.
Cock-roaches have (or at least exhibit) what might be called a desire...

Universal desires could be no more significant than the desires/drives of cock-roaches.
Cock-roaches have a Universal drive/tendency to do what best serves their species.
I consider nothing that a roach does to be moral in nature.

You are smuggling God into this: (as I would)
I agree that without God, there are no objective moral facts.

I think you understand naturally that human desires are what they are because they are what God designed them to be.

No one is "ignoring" or even disputing that humans have what these desires/drives......
What I am disputing is that while they exist, there is no moral truth behind them (given an atheistic framework)

Why should or ought humanity achieve their desires?
Cock-roaches have drives and desires too.
Given atheism....what is strictly "moral" about either creatures innate drive to realize it?

Thank you for your engagement brother!

"Why should the long term holistic pleasure of human beings be sought after?"

It is what is called a "bedrock desire" or "bedrock purpose." Meaning it doesn't really make sense to ask "why?" as there is no purpose beyond it.

That is like asking "why should the glory of God be sought after?" Any 3 year old can keep asking "why, why, why" into infinity, but at some point we have to land on bedrock desires beyond which that question is no longer meaningful.

One reason that human happiness is a bedrock desire is that humans cannot NOT seek it. Your own happiness is something you seek all the time no matter what. And so the goal is to align your pursuit of happiness with what objectively will make you happy.

Another reason that human happiness is a bedrock desire is that, even if we include the glory of God as the highest end, human happiness cannot be ignored. We cannot imagine a scenario that we would call "good" in which God is glorified but all human beings everywhere for all time are being tortured and in misery forever.

Cockroaches do not have the capacity for rationality or happiness that we do, and so they have far less capacity for purpose.

 

[Arthur King]

I think these questions I've raised earlier have not been sufficiently answered, and they drive at the heart of my argument:

In case anyone thinks it is "cheap" to bring up the notion of a psycopath..."counter-examples" to a problem are absolutely a Universally utilized and profitable way of exploring an idea: Professional philosophers utilize this tactic regularly....I do not consider it dishonest or cheap to utilize them in order to function as a reductio ad absurdum to the conversation.
No one has complained thus far:

Why do we despise and take umbrage at a genuine Psychopath who feels no sense of guilt or shame?

How does the atheist insist that others should embrace the morality they personally adhere to?
How do they impose their "own morality" on others?

A theist can insist that there is an authority who has a right to be obeyed and can require moral values and duties of others.
All an atheist can really do is act upon or prefer an unguided evolutionary tendency of some kind.
Psychopaths are a minority and abnormal.
Ditto a dwarf or a giant. What makes the latter two acceptable and the former unacceptable?
Majority preference?

Who is to say that the psychopath isn't an exemplar of an emerging evolutionary change within human neuro-psychology which will one day result in even greater survival and possibly holistic thriving of the human species?

"Why should human society thrive?"


My conclusion:
At this point, they can only appeal to something like a general survival instinct...which, if true, is not an ought but an is.
Thus, it is no longer a moral fact, but a scientific one.

Why do we despise and take umbrage at a genuine Psychopath who feels no sense of guilt or shame?

Not sure what the objection here is. Because he is doing evil things?

How does the atheist insist that others should embrace the morality they personally adhere to?
How do they impose their "own morality" on others?

They need to make arguments that they are objectively correct that their vision of morality will lead to life and happiness for all human beings.

It is not their "own morality." It is the morality given by human nature.

A theist can insist that there is an authority who has a right to be obeyed and can require moral values and duties of others.
All an atheist can really do is act upon or prefer an unguided evolutionary tendency of some kind.

Both are seeking the same end: human life and happiness. So what is your point?

Psychopaths are a minority and abnormal.
Ditto a dwarf or a giant. What makes the latter two acceptable and the former unacceptable?
Majority preference?

Size is an accident of human nature. Not essential to human nature. Psychopathic tendencies actually violate the essence and the goods of human nature.

Who is to say that the psychopath isn't an exemplar of an emerging evolutionary change within human neuro-psychology which will one day result in even greater survival and possibly holistic thriving of the human species?

Again, we can judge his actions according to the goods of human nature (life and happiness for all) as the standard.

 

[JonC]

I'm not sure what you mean by "framework"...but, I suppose we'll deal with it later.

Yes, and as such, God has the authority to require all humans to adhere to the moral standard he insists upon.

I think we might be arriving at the crux of the matter:
Whether a person individually accepts God's prerogative to command moral values and duties is not at issue....

Understand this:
A genuine moral truth (like it is not acceptable to torture babies for fun) has as much force as a non-moral truth...they are, or must be considered to be objective facts which carry with them the requirement that all persons adhere to them, whether they like it or not.


Yes.

I suppose, but, speed limits exist for very reasonable reasons....i.e....It is not acceptable to endanger the life or health of either oneself or others (something like that). Speed limits only exist because they assume an objective moral standard. They aren't mere revenue generators... (unless you are in Waldo Florida). There exists a moral absolute which undergirds the idea of a speed limit.
Both the Atheist and the Christian agree on it for practical purposes.

If the atheist does anything due to his/her own personal predilections....it is no longer "objective"...but, subjective, by definition.

"The atheist"...renders any moral adherence subjective by definition..."The atheist" is the subject, of your sentence...he does things...subjectively.


He most likely does...(and is correct, and he most likely believes in objective moral truth)...but he cannot ground it upon anything:

WHY DO HUMANS OBJECTIVELY HAVE INNATE RIGHTS??

(I don't wish to "yell"...but, I think that is the crux of our disagreement) So, I do want some emphasis on that point, sorry if it's a little loud.
Obeying speed limits is a matter of applying a pre-concieved larger moral issue.
"Speed limits" are not either moral or immoral.
They exist because they appeal to an objective moral truth:
Something like: No person should endanger themselves or others (at least without justification)...
But: WHY can't they? An atheist, can, (IMO) appeal to nothing other than an innate normative drive in humans to desire the general thriving of their own species...
But, why should the species thrive?
Why is it not o.k. to endanger oneself or others?
What if, whoever is endangered, is a lesser and more genetically inferior specimen....A stronger and more intelligent specimen would reproduce better and more capable humans. (Thus, presumably strengthening the species as a whole).
Therefore, humanity, as a whole would thrive more if only the best genetic specimens survived.

The speed limit is itself a subjective standard:
It can be changed. I is subject to a legislature (or most likely a bloated bureaucracy) which sets the speed limit according to whatever measures they see fit.

Maybe...
But, this conversation is really about a classic (and very hotly debated) argument for theism which is used by some of the best Philosophers of Religion in the world....literally.
They do not use it because it has no merit.
It's a very worthy discussion to have.

Again, thanks for your willingness to engage in this topic

I borrowed "framework" from your post. I mean a moral basis.

I agree that atheists can't appeal to anything beyond the natural world (whether humanity, human society, or the environment-Earth as a whole).

I am not saying that atheists are correct, but the reason is that their moral base stops short.

Where they may view crimes against another as morally wrong based on humanity (an objective moral standard) they do not go to the proper extent of understanding why humanity is important (that God loves man, that men are made in God's image).

I'd still argue that they have an objective moral standard, just that it is incorrect because it is incomplete.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

"Why should the long term holistic pleasure of human beings be sought after?"

It is what is called a "bedrock desire" or "bedrock purpose." Meaning it doesn't really make sense to ask "why?" as there is no purpose beyond it.

There is a "purpose" behind it considering Theism:
"Purpose" requires an intelligent mind to give a thing "purpose".
Given Theism...there is "purpose" to human thriving...
Given a-theism...there is no "purpose" at all.

"Purpose" means a desire of an intelligent mind to achieve an end:
Atheism cannot account for "purpose" in the Universe and rarely pretends to.

That is like asking "why should the glory of God be sought after?" Any 3 year old can keep asking "why, why, why" into infinity, but at some point we have to land on bedrock desires beyond which that question is no longer meaningful.

It is actually o.k. to arrive at an end-point where something is proposed as the end-all-be-all of questions.....
Theism does exactly that:
We end our "why" "why" "why" somewhere.....
Everyone has too.
It is absolutely no insult or failure of Theism that we have to ultimately arrive at SOME end-point somewhere...
So do Atheists....

We end at an intelligent and "purposed" creator with intelligence and reason:
They end at...."The Universe started doing things....because, it did them".
You argue as though Atheism doesn't have that same problem:
But, I know it absolutely does:
Atheism must then, answer the "why" "why" "why" as well:
Atheism ends in unguided and purposeless rote facts: It arrives at no moral facts.

That is why ending the three-year-olds "why" "why" "why" (given atheism) doesn't provide moral facts...but, only obvious observations about what already IS.

One reason that human happiness is a bedrock desire is that humans cannot NOT seek it.

Fine...
I have bedrock human desires.
That is true of both my selfish and very unselfish desires.
Somewhere in me....is the desire I win the lottery tommorrow. (I totally wish that, even though I don't play).
Elsewhere in me is some "bedrock" desire for Universal human thriving and happiness (I guess).
So what?

I suppose I want all people to thrive....(actually me more than everyone else truth be told).

Your own happiness is something you seek all the time no matter what. And so the goal is to align your pursuit of happiness with what objectively will make you happy.

Says who?

Another reason that human happiness is a bedrock desire is that, even if we include the glory of God as the highest end, human happiness cannot be ignored.

Why not?
Why can we not ignore human happiness?
Who says humans should be happy?
I get that we (as humans) may have an innate drive to wish for human thiving generally, but so do cock-roaches have an innate drive for the thriving of cock-roaches generally.
Presumably, we are more "highly evolved"...but, so what?
Those aren't moral facts, either for us or the roaches.

We cannot imagine a scenario that we would call "good" in which God is glorified but all human beings everywhere for all time are being tortured and in misery forever.

I agree with you one hundred quad-zillion percent here....but, I don't think that is the question at issue:

Calvinists believe that accepting human suffering and lack of well-being is a measure of piety....which is why I am in the unenviable position of debating someone who wants me to accept that God tortures babies....(that is happening) Yeah, it sux, but, it's life post the murderer and all-purpose piece of human trash known as John Calvin.
In their minds: The more human suffering you can countenance, the more righteous you are:
That's a deranged and sad peculiarity of their particular Theological outlook, but, I do not countenance it, and do not agree with it.

Cockroaches do not have the capacity for rationality or happiness that we do, and so they have far less capacity for purpose.

Who's purpose?
Who had a "purpose" for the cock-roach?

 

[JonC]

There is a "purpose" behind it considering Theism:
"Purpose" requires an intelligent mind to give a thing "purpose".
Given Theism...there is "purpose" to human thriving...
Given a-theism...there is no "purpose" at all.

"Purpose" means a desire of an intelligent mind to achieve an end:
Atheism cannot account for "purpose" in the Universe and rarely pretends to.


It is actually o.k. to arrive at an end-point where something is proposed as the end-all-be-all of questions.....
Theism does exactly that:
We end our "why" "why" "why" somewhere.....
Everyone has too.
It is absolutely no insult or failure of Theism that we have to ultimately arrive at SOME end-point somewhere...
So do Atheists....

We end at an intelligent and "purposed" creator with intelligence and reason:
They end at...."The Universe started doing things....because, it did them".
You argue as though Atheism doesn't have that same problem:
But, I know it absolutely does:
Atheism must then, answer the "why" "why" "why" as well:
Atheism ends in unguided and purposeless rote facts: It arrives at no moral facts.

That is why ending the three-year-olds "why" "why" "why" (given atheism) doesn't provide moral facts...but, only obvious observations about what already IS.

Fine...
I have bedrock human desires.
That is true of both my selfish and very unselfish desires.
Somewhere in me....is the desire I win the lottery tommorrow. (I totally wish that, even though I don't play).
Elsewhere in me is some "bedrock" desire for Universal human thriving and happiness (I guess).
So what?

I suppose I want all people to thrive....(actually me more than everyone else truth be told).

Says who?

Why not?
Why can we not ignore human happiness?
Who says humans should be happy?
I get that we (as humans) may have an innate drive to wish for human thiving generally, but so do cock-roaches have an innate drive for the thriving of cock-roaches generally.
Presumably, we are more "highly evolved"...but, so what?
Those aren't moral facts, either for us or the roaches.

I agree with you one hundred quad-zllion percent here....but, I don't think that is the question at issue:

Calvinists believe that accepting human suffering and lack of well-being is a measure of piety....which is why I am in the unenviable position of debating someone who wants me to accept that God tortures babies.... Yeah, it sux, but, it's life post the murderer and all-purpose piece of human trash known as John Calvin.
In their minds: The more human suffering you can countenance, the more righteous you are:
That's a deranged and sad peculiarity of their particular Theological outlook, but, I do not countenance it, and do not agree with it.


Who's purpose?
Who had a "purpose" for the cock-roach?

I think that there is another thing to consider when atheists are involved.

Ultimately atheists put man in the place of God. But this is still an objective standard.

Consider your comment:

Purpose" requires an intelligent mind to give a thing "purpose".
Given Theism...there is "purpose" to human thriving...
Given a-theism...there is no "purpose" at all.

The issue is that this idea means God has no purpose at all as there isn't an intelligent mind to give God purpose.

The atheist argument here is often exactly the same as the Christian argument, only replacing God with man.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I borrowed "framework" from your post. I mean a moral basis.

o.k... I know you don't tend to dicker with terms, so....fair enough, That partucular sentence confused me, not your fault.

I agree that atheists can't appeal to anything beyond the natural world (whether humanity, human society, or the environment-Earth as a whole).

Well, I would argue that since they are restricted to the natural world, they can't properly define any moral mores as properly "moral" because they are naturalistically defined and derived....
They are mere states of affairs, not oughts.

I am not saying that atheists are correct, but the reason is that their moral base stops short.

Sure.

Where they may view crimes against another as morally wrong based on humanity (an objective moral standard)

"Humanity" is an IS of the Universe....humanity, or its well-being or its thriving is not an OUGHT of the Universe.

they do not go to the proper extent of understanding why humanity is important (that God loves man, that men are made in God's image).

Correct, therefore..::
Atheism does not account for objective moral truths.

I'd still argue that they have an objective moral standard,

They inherently know in their heart of hearts there is one..
They assume there is one.
They absolutely do not wish to live in a Universe where there are no moral truths.

But, that's what this argument is:

This argument is not constructed because its framers think Atheists don't believe in absolute moral truths.
Its constructed because we absolutely know they believe in absolute moral truths.
Human life can't continue in the absence of it.
The argument is designed to take what we already know about the atheist (namely, that they believe inn absolute moral truths) and therefore force them to either accept that God is the source of them, or that they don't exist at all.

An atheist could deny the reality of absolute moral truths (they'd be more intellectually consistent if they did)...some do.....but, it tends to be catastrophic. (and they know that).

Thanks for engaging!

 

[HeirofSalvation]

John, I'm deleting everything else in this post to hone in on one point....
Tell me if that is unfair:

The issue is that this idea means God has no purpose at all as there isn't an intelligent mind to give God purpose.

God is an intelligent mind. He doesn't rely on anything to give him purpose, you and I rely on him to grant us purpose.
That is what he is...(among other things) he has purpose, intelligence, will (and as a Trinity can only be truly defined as "love")
God needs nothing to grant him purpose.
We do.

 

[JonC]

o.k... I know you don't tend to dicker with terms, so....fair enough, That partucular sentence confused me, not your fault.

Well, I would argue that since they are restricted to the natural world, they can't properly define any moral mores as properly "moral" because they are naturalistically defined and derived....
They are mere states of affairs, not oughts.

Sure.

"Humanity" is an IS of the Universe....humanity, or its well-being or its thriving is not an OUGHT of the Universe.

Correct, therefore..::
Atheism does not account for objective moral truths.

They inherently know in their heart of hearts there is one..
They assume there is one.
They absolutely do not wish to live in a Universe where there are no moral truths.

But, that's what this argument is:

This argument is not constructed because its framers think Atheists don't believe in absolute moral truths.
Its constructed because we absolutely know they believe in absolute moral truths.
Human life can't continue in the absence of it.
The argument is designed to take what we already know about the atheist (namely, that they believe inn absolute moral truths) and therefore force them to either accept that God is the source of them, or that they don't exist at all.

An atheist could deny the reality of absolute moral truths (they'd be more intellectually consistent if they did)...some do.....but, it tends to be catastrophic. (and they know that).

Thanks for engaging!

I agree that they are restricted to the natural world.

Many have denied the reality of any absolute moral truth. So I agree with you here also.

I suspect that most atheists have not worked out the reason for ethics or moral truths but simply accept what is to them self evident. I'd argue that those things which are self evident are so because nature reveals God.

But I do not agree that atheists cannot hold absolute moral truths without being inconsistent.

My argument is that they simply do not understand the absolute, objective moral truths that they hold.

 

[JonC]

God needs nothing to grant him purpose.
We do.

Exactly. And the atheist typically holds that man has an intelligent mind and needs nothing to give us purpose.

I'm not saying they are right, but that they put man in the place of God.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Here are excerpts from an article that offers some clarity on the matter:

For the sake of further clarity, I’ve divided this article on ethics into two parts. In the first part, using the metaphor of a house, I offer a brief overview of the categorical differences between behavior, ethics, and meta-ethics. The second half of the article explains the implications of this metaphor for the ‘New Atheist’ worldview, as exemplified by Richard Dawkins.
…
Here’s the point: If Dawkins is correct on these matters, then Dawkins is denying that the house has a foundation. Without a foundation, the main floor and the roof collapse into the resulting hole. In other words, if Dawkins meta-ethical theory is correct, then none of his ethical statements are particularly meaningful or true. All human behavior would exist in an amoral vacuum.​

https://reasonsforgod.org/moral-clarity-and-richard-dawkins/

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Exactly. And the atheist typically holds that man has an intelligent mind and needs nothing to give us purpose.

I'm not saying they are right, but that they put man in the place of God.

Of course atheism is wrong and puts man in the place of God.

But that missing purpose or missing basis for purpose is also the missing basis for morality that the atheist needs in order to claim objectivity.

See this link (and post #34 above) for more explanation: https://reasonsforgod.org/moral-clarity-and-richard-dawkins/

 

[kyredneck]

But I don't think the Bible teaches Divine Command Morality. The Bible teaches morality grounded in Creation, which gives us a Natural Law Morality that even an atheist could recognize.

'I think' I'm in agreement with you, have been for many years.

 

[Arthur King]

There is a "purpose" behind it considering Theism:
"Purpose" requires an intelligent mind to give a thing "purpose".
Given Theism...there is "purpose" to human thriving...
Given a-theism...there is no "purpose" at all.

"Purpose" means a desire of an intelligent mind to achieve an end:
Atheism cannot account for "purpose" in the Universe and rarely pretends to.


It is actually o.k. to arrive at an end-point where something is proposed as the end-all-be-all of questions.....
Theism does exactly that:
We end our "why" "why" "why" somewhere.....
Everyone has too.
It is absolutely no insult or failure of Theism that we have to ultimately arrive at SOME end-point somewhere...
So do Atheists....

We end at an intelligent and "purposed" creator with intelligence and reason:
They end at...."The Universe started doing things....because, it did them".
You argue as though Atheism doesn't have that same problem:
But, I know it absolutely does:
Atheism must then, answer the "why" "why" "why" as well:
Atheism ends in unguided and purposeless rote facts: It arrives at no moral facts.

That is why ending the three-year-olds "why" "why" "why" (given atheism) doesn't provide moral facts...but, only obvious observations about what already IS.

Fine...
I have bedrock human desires.
That is true of both my selfish and very unselfish desires.
Somewhere in me....is the desire I win the lottery tommorrow. (I totally wish that, even though I don't play).
Elsewhere in me is some "bedrock" desire for Universal human thriving and happiness (I guess).
So what?

I suppose I want all people to thrive....(actually me more than everyone else truth be told).

Says who?

Why not?
Why can we not ignore human happiness?
Who says humans should be happy?
I get that we (as humans) may have an innate drive to wish for human thiving generally, but so do cock-roaches have an innate drive for the thriving of cock-roaches generally.
Presumably, we are more "highly evolved"...but, so what?
Those aren't moral facts, either for us or the roaches.

I agree with you one hundred quad-zillion percent here....but, I don't think that is the question at issue:

Calvinists believe that accepting human suffering and lack of well-being is a measure of piety....which is why I am in the unenviable position of debating someone who wants me to accept that God tortures babies....(that is happening) Yeah, it sux, but, it's life post the murderer and all-purpose piece of human trash known as John Calvin.
In their minds: The more human suffering you can countenance, the more righteous you are:
That's a deranged and sad peculiarity of their particular Theological outlook, but, I do not countenance it, and do not agree with it.


Who's purpose?
Who had a "purpose" for the cock-roach?

One tip: in a conversation about proving the objectivity of something, you don't want to ask the question "says who?" That question shows that you are presupposing a morally subjective and relativistic framework. The objective framework asks "what is" not "who says."

"Purpose" requires an intelligent mind to give a thing "purpose".

This isn't true, but even if it was, then human beings would qualify. Human beings have intelligent minds. So thanks for giving validity to human nature being a basis for objective purpose!

Atheism ends in unguided and purposeless rote facts: It arrives at no moral facts.

You are arguing in a circle...circling back and repeating points already responded to. Your definition of "moral facts" is incorrect, and you have to give a reason why my definition of "moral facts" is insufficient.

Why can we not ignore human happiness?

Read this from Pascal: “All men seek happiness. This is without exception. Whatever different means they employ, they all tend to this end. The cause of some going to war, and of others avoiding it, is the same desire in both, attended with different views. The will never takes the least step but to this object. This is the motive of every action of every man, even of those who hang themselves.”

Who says humans should be happy?

Again, you committed the mistake of asking "who says." And again, can you imagine a world in which all human beings everywhere are experiencing everlasting joy and call it "evil"?

 

[Van]

Of course we know that Atheists are guided by "objective morality" based on the natural order of creation.
1) Political power flows from the barrel of a gun.
2) You cannot debate with a tiger when your head is in its mouth.
3) “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
4) “All thinking men are atheists.”
5) “To terrify children with the image of hell, to consider women an inferior creation—is that good for the world?”
6) “belief is the death of intelligence.”

Everybody lies, Two wrongs make a right. Might makes right. Do others before they do you. Nothing more natural than an apex predator.

 

[kyredneck]

their vision of morality will lead to life and happiness

Paul sums the gist of the law:

7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Howbeit, I had not known sin, except through the law: for I had not known coveting, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet: Ro 7

From the eastern philosophy of Taoism:

"There is no greater sin than desire,
No greater curse than discontent,
No greater misfortune than wanting something for oneself.
Therefore he that knows that enough is enough will always have enough."

Would you say this is an atheistic recognition of natural law, or objective morality? I would.

 

[Alan Gross]

From the perspective of Paul's quote and the one where Taoism says;

Therefore he that knows that enough is enough will always have enough."

by seeing contentment as a virtue, like where the Bible says, in I Timothy 6:6;
"But godliness with contentment is great gain.

7 "For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.

8 "And having food and raiment let us be therewith content",

then I can see where the natural man might be able to reevaluate their inclination to lust and gain more and more than enough, etc., as frivolous, after sowing to gain more and always seeming to reap less than the effort it was taking and in that way, making a life decision to 'be content with enough', so that may be an example of what you say it is here:

an atheistic recognition of natural law, or objective morality?

I still don't believe they could ultimately make a valid claim of them accounting fully for that moral value, honestly, as if it wasn't really generated by the law of a Law-giver, Who gave them their ability to reason at all and Who upholds the continuing operation of the aspects of 'cause and effect', 'what goes around comes around', and 'you reap what you sow', etc., that the uninitiated kids these days call, 'Karma', per the OP.

They may have learned to eskew coveting, in the natural realm, but it would have also been by one of the proofs of the existence of God, in the Spiritual Realm. Because, He makes, the, 'you reap what you sow' mechanism function.

However, from the perspective of the law as you say;

Paul sums the gist of the law:

7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Howbeit, I had not known sin, except through the law: for I had not known coveting, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet: Ro 7

I'm guessing that his recognition of the Spirituality of the law and the revelation from God that he had broken it, happened to Paul's soul, when God showed him that he had been inordinately desiring and coveting things and aspirations that to God was sin. The sin of coveting.

So, as opposed to 'finding the route of least resistance', psychologically, as the atheist may recognize and say they are establishing as their own impartial morality, to 'not covet', from which to adjust their behavior, I see the schoolmaster driving Paul to find satisfaction for this infraction he was no by apparently surprised and convicted that he was quilty of, when he was shown in his heart he had been violating a law which was given by God in His Ten Commandments, making him a law-breaker of that God.

There is more that I think Paul esteemed from having learned he was coveting, directly in his conscience and soul and that is that he was a guilty sinner who then was assuming his newly found position of being a law-breaker, against his Creator.

That is more than him just arriving at a normal knowledge of the reality of coveting in his life, naturally, as unnecessary that prompted him to make an adjustment in his goal setting, or something.