5 Faulty Arguments Religious People Use Against Atheists

[_Some Schmo]

So where do these laws exist?

In the Mind of God, and moral beings which are his creation.

So in other words, no universal laws exist. An assertion does not make a fact. You’re presuming to know the mind of god (who hasn’t even been proven to exist in the first place, let alone what he/she/it thinks).

You state that, "certain things cause suffering" and your previous statement is that Harm or suffering wrong or bad, and I'm thinking you are implying it is universally wrong? Yes?

Once you call something wrong or bad, that is a moral judgement. A moral judgement cannot be made without reference to a moral code/law that is violated, which then gives you justification to claim it's wrong or bad. Without such a moral code or law, you cannot judge anything wrong or bad. The best you can do is describe how you feel.

I already mentioned I have a moral code, which certainly does come down to how I feel about things. And so do you.

If we distill this conversation down to its basic elements, all we're really debating is the existence of a morality determining god. You think there is one, I don't. And no matter who is right about that question, both of us, being human, have to determine for ourselves what we think is right and wrong (I'm assuming this god hasn't had a personal chat with you where he outlined all his thoughts on morality). The only real difference between us is that you want to assert a divine source for your personal decisions about what's moral and what isn't.

Can you see why I might think that's suspicious?

[_Hughes]

So in other words, no universal laws exist. An assertion does not make a fact. You’re presuming to know the mind of god (who hasn’t even been proven to exist in the first place, let alone what he/she/it thinks).

You state that, "certain things cause suffering" and your previous statement is that Harm or suffering wrong or bad, and I'm thinking you are implying it is universally wrong? Yes?

Once you call something wrong or bad, that is a moral judgement. A moral judgement cannot be made without reference to a moral code/law that is violated, which then gives you justification to claim it's wrong or bad. Without such a moral code or law, you cannot judge anything wrong or bad. The best you can do is describe how you feel.

I already mentioned I have a moral code, which certainly does come down to how I feel about things. And so do you.

If we distill this conversation down to its basic elements, all we're really debating is the existence of a morality determining god. You think there is one, I don't. And no matter who is right about that question, both of us, being human, have to determine for ourselves what we think is right and wrong (I'm assuming this god hasn't had a personal chat with you where he outlined all his thoughts on morality). The only real difference between us is that you want to assert a divine source for your personal decisions about what's moral and what isn't.

Can you see why I might think that's suspicious?

The start of this thread was your posting an article written by an atheist who is claiming that religion is harmful.

My point is that as an atheist, one can't make a universal moral statement of good or bad because it implies a universal moral law or set of rules. Which atheists deny exist.

Then you said you were justified in saying, that those things you listed which caused other people harm, that they are bad. Also implying a universal moral.

Now, if you wish to change the claim, and say, "I'm only saying I feel justified in myself alone, in condemning my own actions if I were to do that... " Then I'd agree that you are now being consistent in your view. Otherwise by condemning other religions or "harmful" actions indicates you are claiming one thing as an atheist but then borrowing a universal code from some other philosophy to allow you to make that universal condemnation.

[_Buffalo]

The start of this thread was your posting an article written by an atheist who is claiming that religion is harmful.

My point is that as an atheist, one can't make a universal moral statement of good or bad because it implies a universal moral law or set of rules. Which atheists deny exist.

Then you said you were justified in saying, that those things you listed which caused other people harm, that they are bad. Also implying a universal moral.

Now, if you wish to change the claim, and say, "I'm only saying I feel justified in myself alone, in condemning my own actions if I were to do that... " Then I'd agree that you are now being consistent in your view. Otherwise by condemning other religions or "harmful" actions indicates you are claiming one thing as an atheist but then borrowing a universal code from some other philosophy to allow you to make that universal condemnation.

"Harm" is a perfectly good basis for condemning anything as an atheist. It works for all organisms, regardless of whether there is a god or not. It's something we all strive to avoid, for good reason.

In reality, our sense of morality comes from a mixture of our evolved sense of empathy and our written moral codes, which are in general based on that empathy. It doesn't get any more objective for us, as a species, than something that is inborn in all of us (sans the few with empathy defects). Certainly inborn instinct is a stronger basis for a moral code than the subjective opinion of a third party (ie the bronze age tribal war god known as Yawheh).

[_Some Schmo]

The start of this thread was your posting an article written by an atheist who is claiming that religion is harmful.

My point is that as an atheist, one can't make a universal moral statement of good or bad because it implies a universal moral law or set of rules. Which atheists deny exist.

Then you said you were justified in saying, that those things you listed which caused other people harm, that they are bad. Also implying a universal moral.

Now, if you wish to change the claim, and say, "I'm only saying I feel justified in myself alone, in condemning my own actions if I were to do that... " Then I'd agree that you are now being consistent in your view. Otherwise by condemning other religions or "harmful" actions indicates you are claiming one thing as an atheist but then borrowing a universal code from some other philosophy to allow you to make that universal condemnation.

The bolded part is where you went wrong. You may have inferred a universal moral law (which is not surprising since you think in those terms), but I certainly didn't imply it (because I don't think in those terms).

I've noticed many people who are completely fine with causing harm. Clearly, it's not universal.

[_Hughes]

The start of this thread was your posting an article written by an atheist who is claiming that religion is harmful.

My point is that as an atheist, one can't make a universal moral statement of good or bad because it implies a universal moral law or set of rules. Which atheists deny exist.

Then you said you were justified in saying, that those things you listed which caused other people harm, that they are bad. Also implying a universal moral.

Now, if you wish to change the claim, and say, "I'm only saying I feel justified in myself alone, in condemning my own actions if I were to do that... " Then I'd agree that you are now being consistent in your view. Otherwise by condemning other religions or "harmful" actions indicates you are claiming one thing as an atheist but then borrowing a universal code from some other philosophy to allow you to make that universal condemnation.

"Harm" is a perfectly good basis for condemning anything as an atheist. It works for all organisms, regardless of whether there is a god or not. It's something we all strive to avoid, for good reason.

In reality, our sense of morality comes from a mixture of our evolved sense of empathy and our written moral codes, which are in general based on that empathy. It doesn't get any more objective for us, as a species, than something that is inborn in all of us (sans the few with empathy defects). Certainly inborn instinct is a stronger basis for a moral code than the subjective opinion of a third party (ie the bronze age tribal war god known as Yawheh).

Certainly the moral code you claim, isn't derived from Atheism. That's my point.

[_Hughes]

The bolded part is where you went wrong. You may have inferred a universal moral law (which is not surprising since you think in those terms), but I certainly didn't imply it (because I don't think in those terms).

I've noticed many people who are completely fine with causing harm. Clearly, it's not universal.

At which point the article writer is in error, or he's not writing from an atheistic viewpoint.

[_plunderpunk]

Everyone is a humanist. Some of us attach religious dogma to that humanism. Some don't.

[_Buffalo]

Certainly the moral code you claim, isn't derived from Atheism. That's my point.

The moral code we both claim has the same ultimate origins - our evolved empathy response.

[_asbestosman]

The moral code we both claim has the same ultimate origins - our evolved empathy response.

Hey, this is fun. Our moral code is indeed derived from the same origins--the Light of Christ!

See how easy it is to simply assert something? To back up my assertion, I'll just point to the D&C. Huh? You don't accept that? Well . . .