5 Faulty Arguments Religious People Use Against Atheists

[_Some Schmo]

So, then when your universal rule is applied to your own view that there is no universal standard it defeats it own purpose of trying to tell the Theist there is no universal standard.

In other words, by making the universal claim, that there are no universally applied standards, you've defeated your own argument. Which proves that there is in fact a universal standard, according to you, at least one.

Oh, I see what you're doing here. You're equivocating between a universal rule about human nature with universal rules about morality.

But making the point "everyone is different" isn't really declaring a universal rule, is it? It's certainly not earth shattering; on the contrary, it's a pretty mundane point. To attempt to equate that with "everyone follows the same moral laws" is, well, crazy talk.

But that just isn't true (well... depending on exactly what you mean by "absolute" in this context). As an atheist, I view the chopping off of others' heads to be harmful. Absolutely harmful, in fact. I don't need an external source to tell me it’s harmful. I just consider causing someone else's death harmful. I've seen how death causes family members grief, so I think I'm justified in saying, "The decapitator caused the family harm." Does anyone need a god to tell them that?

I could name hundreds of other acts that I consider harmful, and I think I'd be justified in calling them absolutely harmful.

After thinking about this for a while. I think I can shorten my reply with one question.

On what basis are you justified?

I'm justified on the basis that we have empirical evidence that certain things (like murder, theft, deceit, etc) cause suffering.

[_Mad Viking]

It seems to me that your point is simply that theists believe that their morals from outside their own reasoning and judgement (pre-programmed if you will) and atheists rely upon their own judgement and reasoning to establish their moral code. Is it your position that the atheist methodology of compiling a moral code is inferior?

[_Mad Viking]

After thinking about this for a while. I think I can shorten my reply with one question.

On what basis are you justified?

If ones justification for a moral precept is "Because God Said So" they are puting themselves in the position of blindly submitting to the arbitrary moral code of someone else.

[_Some Schmo]

If ones justification for a moral precept is "Because God Said So" they are puting themselves in the position of blindly submitting to the arbitrary moral code of someone else.

Yes, and that's assuming we actually know, word for word, what that someone else's moral code is beyond dispute.

[_madeleine]

I don't know if the intent of this article was to paint all atheists as anti-religion, but that is how it comes across. Having been an atheist, still being married to an atheist, and still having many atheists friends, I don't find their views, or my once-atheist views, align to what this person is proposing about atheist belief. Not being religion-loving, being, religiously indifferent, even apathetic, or as one fellow former Mormon has put it: apatheist. (I really enjoyed that label!)

The real issue for me, comes from trying to interject govt. as the religion of the people. Which, is happening more and more. From a strictly societal and freedom perspective, this is far more undesirable than religion. That is when eradication of the religious is heightened to a moral necessity.

[_moksha]

It was about Atheism and Sexuality, not my cup of tea, but everyone who went thought it was awesome.

Makes sense. They were able to share their general disbelief in sex.

[_Hughes]

Hughes, if two gods give you different moral standards (let's call them Jehovah and Lucifer just for fun) , how would you discriminate between which should be adhered to? If you view one as intrinsically more moral than the other, you must be supplying some secular standard to evaluate.

So, if I were to answer your question (just for fun), I would say that my search initially would be to discover which was the true creator god and follow him.

[_Hughes]

Oh, I see what you're doing here. You're equivocating between a universal rule about human nature with universal rules about morality.

But making the point "everyone is different" isn't really declaring a universal rule, is it? It's certainly not earth shattering; on the contrary, it's a pretty mundane point. To attempt to equate that with "everyone follows the same moral laws" is, well, crazy talk.

I didn't say everyone follows the same moral laws. My point was that as an Atheist, your moral laws are arbitrarily made up by you, and you alone. But, for the Theist, they are made up by another outside source. IF all Theists don't follow the laws, that doesn't negate their existence.

After thinking about this for a while. I think I can shorten my reply with one question.

On what basis are you justified?

I'm justified on the basis that we have empirical evidence that certain things (like murder, theft, deceit, etc) cause suffering.

Justification implies a moral law. What empirical moral law are you justified by?

[_Hughes]

It seems to me that your point is simply that theists believe that their morals from outside their own reasoning and judgement (pre-programmed if you will) and atheists rely upon their own judgement and reasoning to establish their moral code. Is it your position that the atheist methodology of compiling a moral code is inferior?

The article linked in the OP says (paraphrasing here) that religion is "bad" and does "horrible" things to people... etc etc...

The problem is that this comes from Atheists, who have as their starting point, themselves. They define and judge everything based on their own selves. Morality then and this certainly can be classified as a moral judgement, since they are saying that religion causes these "bad" things. Their morality then is completely arbitrary. Meaning it based solely on what they wish it to mean. There is no absolute standard for morality as a reference. Thus making their judgement of religion simply an arbitrary one.

In other words, saying something is "bad" is implying a moral law, which things are judged good or bad. But, it's only bad if that moral law is established first, otherwise it's just an arbitrary opinion of that person.

Now, does this make the Atheists moral code inferior?

Let's say we take a group who think that killing and eating their neighbor is good and compare them with a group who feed and clothe their neighbors.

The atheistic moral code can't condemn either over the other, because it denies any absolute moral code that applies to all people.

I see this as an inferior and lacking correspondence to reality, verses the Theistic view that says that it's the creator who sets up a universal standard and moral code of right and wrong, and that's why we "feel" certain things are right and wrong. His code is written in our hearts.

[_Hughes]

After thinking about this for a while. I think I can shorten my reply with one question.

On what basis are you justified?

If ones justification for a moral precept is "Because God Said So" they are puting themselves in the position of blindly submitting to the arbitrary moral code of someone else.

I'm using arbitrary as opposed to universal.

The moral code that comes from the creator of all is universal. As in, it applies to all. And this corresponds to reality as well. How? Well... We understand and can observe that the laws of physics are universal, from gravity to magnetism, etc. etc... so it makes logical sense that moral laws would also be universal.